New type of speed camera possibly coming our way?

Jono · 30 Aug 2007 at 10:06

Link

Now, that image was in the Daily Mail yesterday... so make of that what you will.
Just wondering what peoples' thoughts are should this camera be introduced into Britain at some point in the future.
Personally, I think all "saftey" cameras

should be highly visible and have lots of warning before you get to them.
It's bad enough when people don't notice the current crop of yellow/grey cameras until the last second... practically invisible cameras will just cause more people to stamp on the brakes suddenly once they learn what the cameras actually look like.

Have we had a proper review yet, of the actual effectiveness of the current cameras?

jaykay · 30 Aug 2007 at 10:08

Its a good idea, but it depends where they place them.
aka schools,hospitals, areas of high crash rate.

Firestar_3x · 30 Aug 2007 at 10:10

the Dutch authorities are apparently fed up with having their lucrative speed cameras vandalized. So they went and created one that could be shot, fire bombed or pulled over, but will continue to work.

Yet if you spray paint the glass or even stick a bit of paper over it you won't set off any of the units sensors and it won't take any photos

knowlesy · 30 Aug 2007 at 10:10

HIDEOUS!!!!!!

Solari · 30 Aug 2007 at 10:55

Firestar_3x said:
Yet if you spray paint the glass or even stick a bit of paper over it you won't set off any of the units sensors and it won't take any photos

I heard on LBC this morning that they would have cameras watching the cameras.... anyone coming near the camera will cause all data to be sent back to the central office immediately and will cause the camera to go into "defensive mode" or something....

Why don't they just spend the extra money on putting traffic cops out, seeing as these cameras don't stop dangerous, drunk, or drugged up drivers? :rolleyes:

Firestar_3x · 30 Aug 2007 at 10:56

50k per camera, thats two cops wages paid for for a year...

Thats whats needed not more cameras.

Booner! · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:01

It's an eyesore and how will this stop people speeding if they can't see it? they would continue to speed past it, then this justt means people will loose licenses quicker

meh

Dogbreath · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:04

Vandal proof? In their dreams maybe. Being 13ft high just means you need two people, and I'm sure they still aren't paint gun resistant.

Also I'm pretty sure new "street furniture" in the UK has to snap off at the base if hit by a car in order to try and prevent it causing any serious injuries.

All speed cameras need to be placed onto a large bonfire, and replaced with coppers who can actualy improve safety on the roads rather than simply generate a revenue stream.

Mr_White · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:05

jaykay said:
Its a good idea, but it depends where they place them.

They're not a good idea.

Safety cameras just become revenue generators the second they start trying to make them blend in to catch motorists unaware.

If they're highly visible with warning signs, people will slow down, if they have no idea where they may or may not be, odds are more people are going to speed than not.

You either have to make the cameras that are out there highly visible, or you have to cover every single road with them so no one could ever speed, which won't happen.

Corasik · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:21

Speed cameras all need to be scrapped, except possibly when located near schools etc where they could protect the kids etc... But how often are speed cameras placed somewhere where improved safety is needed. They are just another road tax.

To be honest im surprised the government havent dropped the 'points' for speeding cameras, just point click and a fine... They could get a lot more revenue that way. (Ok people doing sick speeds should get points, but some of the cameras are pretty marginal).

Cameras dont detect bad tyres, bad drivers, drink drivers, defective vehicles, untaxed uninsured drivers etc etc etc... A complete waste of money.

As already said thats the annual pay for 2 police officers, and the officers would be able to do a lot more usefull work... But it seems that our government doesnt care about that. Where I live (and I guess most of the UK) there are no longer any 'beat' officers. Just an occasional (once or twice a week!

) drive through by a traffic officer. So at night there are drunks on the streets causing disturbances for residents etc etc etc etc... Yada ya moan moan...

Ok I hate cameras

MTA99 · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:23

Read about this in AutoExpress this morning.

Infra-red flashes are not seen by motorists

How do you justify that? Surely seeing the flash sets the old brown star twitching in not only the driver caught but those around them hopefully making everyone think more carefully about how the speed limit in that area is wholly appropriate for the road type :rolleyes:

Flashing cameras improve safety so much that the stats are so compelling that no one could ever argue that the "safety" camera is the most effective method of reducing deaths and policing our roads :rolleyes:

PiKe · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:25

Spray paint would still work.

MTA99 · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:26

Corasik said:
To be honest im surprised the government havent dropped the 'points' for speeding cameras, just point click and a fine... They could get a lot more revenue that way. (Ok people doing sick speeds should get points, but some of the cameras are pretty marginal).

Wasn't there a suggestion that for "minor" speeding infringements the points would be reduced from 3 to 2 points. If "speed kills" then surely this is sending out the wrong message but if you do the maths........revenue on a banned driver would go up 20% :rolleyes:

Corasik · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:27

Jono;9997961 practically invisible cameras will just cause more people to stamp on the brakes suddenly once they learn what the cameras actually look like. Have we had a proper review yet said:
Hardly invisible, or even practically invisible, 13 feet tall, and at least as wide as an average male (18 inches+?) Ok the example painted green, but no doubt in the UK it would be painted up in reflective yellow and probably blue.

Total waste of money though imho. As you might have guessed from my opinions in the previous post hehe .

As for a proper review.. Last I heard less than 40% of pic's end up convictions, as there are way to many people driving around with illegal 'foreign import' plates, or are otherwise unidentifyable. Ok depends on the region, where I live there are probably a lot less unidentifyable cars (small rural community), not to mention our local area only has 2 camera pods, and I believe that there is only 1 camera, which is rotated between the two housings.

Firestar_3x · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:29

Corasik said:
Hardly invisible, or even practically invisible, 13 feet tall, and at least as wide as an average male (18 inches+?) Ok the example painted green, but no doubt in the UK it would be painted up in reflective yellow and probably blue.

Why would they be painted this colour, they can hide the cameras again and paint them whatever colour they want!

Corasik · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:30

Yeah, I too thought the flash was to 'scare' the average driver to slow down. Dont most Gatso's flash pretty much right at the speed limit, but only take pictures at limit +10%?. Even fake Gatso's flash... The flash is a bigger 'safety' feature than the camera itself. A flashed 'average' driver will probably drive carefully for a few days afterwards.. Certainly for the rest of his/her journey.

Jono · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:30

From the DM article:

Changes to the rules mean speed cameras in the UK no longer have to be bright yellow, but can be painted to blend in with their surroundings at the discretion of the local authority.

Corasik · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:39

Seems is depends if its part of the National Safety Camera partnership, which uses part of the fines to fund the national operation, or a local government funded project.

Only the NSCP need to put up warning signs, or paint their cameras yellow. Unless there are even more recent changes so that even NSCP dont need to put up warnings.

Even so, Officers are still a lot more usefull than cameras, hidden or otherwise.

PiKe · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:43

There doesn't need to be signs warning of mobile vans though does there?

Rilot · 30 Aug 2007 at 11:44

We now have more cameras than any other country in Europe and yet our road safty record has fallen.
We used to be ranked #1 for safety but we're now 6th, behind Malta, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.
I'd say it's pretty obvious why this is. Lack of traffic police who can catch drivers doing things other than speeding.

Example:

Last night I was driving along between Twyford and Bracknell when I came upon a car doing 20mph in a NSL zone. Every time a car came the other way, the driver would brake down to 5mph. Every left hand bend we drove round, the car would veer over on to the other side of the road. On striahgt parts of the road the driver would weave left and right, frequently nearly putting the car in the hedge.
It was quite obvious that the driver was drunk as a skunk but because he was doing just 20mph there was absolutely no chance of him being caught.
I noted the registration number and called the police, only to be told that unless he was observed by a traffic officer behaving in the same manner, there was nothing they could do.