Speed camera mega-thread Read first post before posting

Shane732 wrote: »

This is a UK report, right? Have you posted any evidence in relation to Ireland?

[...]

Didn't some of the local authorities in the UK actually stop using cameras because they were of the opinion that they were of little of no benefit?

The international evidence for speed/safety cameras is sound. "There are no reasons to doubt the effectiveness of speed cameras as a road safety measure."

We don't have such data in Ireland, AFAIK, presumably because the speed/safety camera programme has only just been rolled out.

No, local authorities in the UK did not terminate speed surveillance because of lack of benefit. AFAIK it was a cost-saving exercise, probably made easier to implement by populism. Here's a pro-camera opinion piece on the topic: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/may/20/speed-cameras-switch-off

Anan1

Shane732 wrote: »

Didn't some of the local authorities in the UK actually stop using cameras because they were of the opinion that they were of little of no benefit?

Again, I thought that they stopped using cameras to save money?

Anan1 wrote: »

Again, I thought that they stopped using cameras to save money?

The cameras were not taking in enough dosh so they started to lose money on them.

Anan1

Our man in Havana wrote: »

The cameras were not taking in enough dosh so they started to lose money on them.

Were they ever covering costs? I'm questioning whether the argument that speed cameras were a money-making device ever stood up?

Our man in Havana wrote: »

The cameras were not taking in enough dosh so they started to lose money on them.

Yadda yadda etc.

Grants to local authority road safety programmes were cut by central government as a cost-saving measure. Oxfordshire County Council was one of the first to switch off its speed cameras, and they were offline for around eight months.

Speeding, and road casualties, increased as a result, according to Thames Valley Police. The cameras were switched back on at the beginning of April 2011.

"The cameras are now paid for by speed awareness courses and backroom savings, police said."

Source: BBC News.

EDIT: See also http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8934576.COMMENT__Dereliction_of_duty/

speed awareness courses

Otherwise known as a bribe in the UK.

michael999999

The kerryman newspaper reported today that all cases involving the speed camera vans were thrown out of listowel district court,with the judge refering to them as a waste of time. Cant post a link but im sure someone can find it online!

http://www.kerryman.ie/news/speed-cameras-a-waste-of-time-2669152.html

Speed cameras 'a waste of time'

By DÓNAL NOLAN dnolan@kerryman.ie
Wednesday June 08 2011

PROSECUTING drivers for alleged speeding offences, solely on the basis of evidence produced by mobile speed cameras, does not work, wastes court time and generates 'zilch' in revenue.

That was the view put forward by Judge Mary O'Halloran after a long list of speeding prosecutions failed at Listowel District Court last Wednesday.

Nine of the 19 speeding cases listed at the court were withdrawn by the State at the outset and most of the remaining cases were thrown out.

Almost all of the cases arose from a speed trap at Billeragh, on the Six Crosses on the Listowel/ Tralee road over several months late last year.

Most of the difficulties arose from unclear legislation surrounding summonses as well as difficulties in the postage of initial notifications. "We seem to have a great knack in this country of inventing systems that don't work," Judge O'Halloran said on learning that gardaí had no files with which to prosecute at least two cases at the end of the list of alleged speeding offences.

" All these are doing is clogging up the court's time and the revenue generated is zilch. The foolproof system was the old way when gardaí wrote out tickets on the side of the road and kept their own copy, you had your evidence there and then," she said.

The comments came also after the judge had dismissed a number of other speeding cases for lack of sufficient evidence and the apparent non-postage of speeding offence notifications.

One female driver had her case dismissed after her solicitor, Louis McDonough, successfully argued that she had not been driving on the day.

Solicitor Helena O'Carroll succeeded in having another case dismissed due to an evidently anomalous legal clause on the summons. One client of Ms O'Carroll's had allegedly been clocked driving at 73km/h in a 60km/h zone at Billeragh on November 30 last, according to speed van operator Dermot Hughes.

Ms O'Carroll, however, pointed to text on the photograph of the vehicle in the summons. The text seemed to suggest that certain vehicles were exempt from the 60km/ h speed limit and could travel at up to 80km/h in the area. Mr Hughes was unable to say if her client's car was one of those exempt and the case was dismissed.

Another female motorist's case was dismissed when she told the court that she had received no notification of the offence and only, learned of her alleged speeding last week by way of a court summons. At least three-quarters of cases were withdrawn or dismissed.

- DÓNAL NOLAN dnolan@kerryman.ie

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Otherwise known as a bribe in the UK.

Shouldn't that be called a "stealth bribe" or some such for maximum rhetorical effect?

BTW, is there some generalisable conclusion to be drawn from the Kerry Cases?

The camera partnerships in the UK now get most of their money from Speed awareness courses as they are allowed to keep that money for themselves, whereas any fines paid were paid over to the exchequer. They have recently increased the thresholds for qualifying for SACs so more people can avail of them. The upside for the offender is there are no points put on their licences for doing a SAC. So the incentive is massive to simply do the SAC rather than fight on.

Anan1

Our man in Havana wrote: »

The camera partnerships in the UK now get most of their money from Speed awareness courses as they are allowed to keep that money for themselves, whereas any fines paid were paid over to the exchequer. They have recently increased the thresholds for qualifying for SACs so more people can avail of them. The upside for the offender is there are no points put on their licences for doing a SAC. So the incentive is massive to simply do the SAC rather than fight on.

If the government's motive is purely financial then why

do the courses cost much the same as a ticket?

can a motorist only do one every three years?

is the option to do the course not available to people exceeding the limit by more than a set margin?

bbam

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Which would be most roads.

Never mind nit picking what was said. The most important thing is to catch these law breakers before they progress to causing serious harm. Drivers who deliberately break safety laws are demonstrating an unacceptable attitude towards the safety and wellbeing of others. Early intervention and correction is essential.

I'll have to say that's just a "pedantic pat" type post.. My wife was caught recently doing 5pkh over the limit and an €80+2 points penalty is crazy..

If I choose to break the speed limit by 10/20kph on 80kph limits if I feel the road quality, weather and my driving ability still leave it safe to do so.. The post above makes it sound that I might immediately progress to robbing old lady's or something if I'm left un-punished...
It's not the same as an 18 year old jamming 6 friends into a matchbox car at 3am and roaring round the roads at 140kph racing his mates who are all jammed into some other piece of crap...
There are two idiots on motorbikes up and down our road at 150+kph for the last 2 months, I know who they are, we've reported it but no... chasing down school run mums is easier and generates more cash and so is an absolute priority

Our man in Havana wrote: »

The camera partnerships in the UK now get most of their money from Speed awareness courses as they are allowed to keep that money for themselves, whereas any fines paid were paid over to the exchequer. They have recently increased the thresholds for qualifying for SACs so more people can avail of them. The upside for the offender is there are no points put on their licences for doing a SAC. So the incentive is massive to simply do the SAC rather than fight on.

So whatever happened to the "stealth tax" and "goverment coffers" rhetoric there then?

As for SACs, IIRC several posters in this forum are of the view that driver education is as good as if not better than law enforcement.

Sounds like a win-win to me...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpZRxo3EWAc

bbam wrote: »

I'll have to say that's just a "pedantic pat" type post.. My wife was caught recently doing 5pkh over the limit and an €80+2 points penalty is crazy..

If I choose to break the speed limit by 10/20kph on 80kph limits if I feel the road quality, weather and my driving ability still leave it safe to do so.. The post above makes it sound that I might immediately progress to robbing old lady's or something if I'm left un-punished...
It's not the same as an 18 year old jamming 6 friends into a matchbox car at 3am and roaring round the roads at 140kph racing his mates who are all jammed into some other piece of crap...
There are two idiots on motorbikes up and down our road at 150+kph for the last 2 months, I know who they are, we've reported it but no... chasing down school run mums is easier and generates more cash and so is an absolute priority

Was that 5 kph excess actually stated on the ticket/notice?

"School-run mums" by definition have children in the car, so speeding is a total no-no IMO.

As for the motorbike idiots, stick a video of them on YouTube, and report the lazy Garda officers to their superiors.

-Chris-

bbam wrote: »

My wife was caught recently doing 5pkh over the limit and an €80+2 points penalty is crazy..

Any chance of an anonymised scan of the ticket? I've heard of these "barely over" speeding fines loads of time, but have never actually seen any evidence.

You could be an (urban)Mythbuster!

bbam

-Chris- wrote: »

Any chance of an anonymised scan of the ticket? I've heard of these "barely over" speeding fines loads of time, but have never actually seen any evidence.

Afraid not... paid up and gone..
It's not like you don't believe me, right

next time for sure..;)

This van was on the M50 from finglas onwards towards bray staying at a steady 80km/ph the box on top left was moving from left to right all the time
TAX COLLECTING?
its a 100kph limit and all cars wer flying by i stuck behind him to piss him off he kept looking in his mirror

langdang

I reckon the box was shaking it's head at you. I doubt those vans are set up for relative speed calculations!

They are not set up for use whilst in motion.

langdang

Our man in Havana wrote: »

They are not set up for use whilst in motion.

still tho - BOOOO HISSSSS;)

cyclopath2001

jimmynokia wrote: »

This van was on the M50 from finglas onwards towards bray staying at a steady 80km/ph the box on top left was moving from left to right all the time
TAX COLLECTING?
its a 100kph limit and all cars wer flying by i stuck behind him to piss him off he kept looking in his mirror

I've looked at the photo, that's rather close to be driving behind another vehicle at 80, looks like barely a car length? I presume whoever took the photo was not driving too?

If he was looking in his mirror more than usual, i'd say he was concerned about what you were doing.

Driving behind other people to 'piss them off' is not good driving.

bbam wrote: »

Afraid not... paid up and gone..
It's not like you don't believe me, right

next time for sure..;)

Is the nabee left with no written record at all of the alleged offence, even after paying the fine? And was the alleged excess speed actually cited on the original ticket/notice?

There won't be a next time, though, will there?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

I've looked at the photo, that's rather close to be driving behind another vehicle at 80, looks like barely a car length? I presume whoever took the photo was not driving too?

If he was looking in his mirror more than usual, i'd say he was concerned about what you were doing.

Driving behind other people to 'piss them off' is not good driving.

believe it or not my camera has a zoom

cyclopath2001

jimmynokia wrote: »

believe it or not my camera has a zoom

Is that the dashboard i see in the bottom of the pic?

So, what distance were you driving behind him when you took the pic?

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Is that the dashboard i see in the bottom of the pic?

So, what distance were you driving behind him when you took the pic?

AH here did you want me to ask the driver to hold the other end of the tape when i was behind him,i dont know,what difference does that make anyway?

jimmynokia wrote: »

AH here did you want me to ask the driver to hold the other end of the tape when i was behind him,i dont know,what difference does that make anyway?

I can see where Cyclopath is going with this one, but all the same the bit in bold above did make me LOL.