Following
this article in the Blackmore Vale Magazine....
Quote:
Cameras are focused on the wrong targets
SPEED cameras have become one of those taboos that must not be criticised in these days of Political Correctness.
Breathe a word of faint criticism about the siting of speed cameras and the road safety enforcement brigade (motto: all speeders should be locked up and the keys thrown away) will go into meltdown.
They'll squawk about mad-eyed drivers ploughing into terrified old people trying to cross from their homes to the post office, or innocent children being squashed on their way to school. But, of course, they're deliberately missing the point; no-one wants to show the green light to irresponsible drivers tearing around the place willy-nilly.
The point that the growing army of speed camera critics is making is that, in true 21st century spirit of the age, so many camera sites are being selected purely and simply to be sure of raking in as much money as possible. Road safety needs are, all too often, a long way down the list of criteria when locations are chosen.
How many times have you driven along a road with absolutely no housing or shops on either side only to suddenly encounter a speed limit sign? Why is it there? Mrs Mouth and I, in our witty way, say that somebody of influence in the right places must live nearby; the reality is more likely that it is to enable motorists to be snared with fines.
A pressure group called Dorset Speed was established a few years ago to fight such underhand, disingenuous tactics and they set off a small bomb last week when they revealed their findings about the 30mph limit on the A350 Holes Bay Road in Poole.
They had to appeal to the Information Commissioner to get the figures after the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership refused their request under the Freedom of Information Act. The campaign group found that on average 1,843 motorists a month get a £60 ticket for exceeding the 30 limit on that stretch of main road – more than 60 every single day. Campaign founder Ian Belchamber said fines totalled £108,000 a month, equating to an annual figure of £1.3m – or £3,600 per day.
He says: "Quite obviously, speed cameras are being deliberately used where they are going to get the maximum amount of funds and not where there's a safety problem. I have nothing against cameras and speed limits. They play a big part in the overall strategy to look after the roads. The problem here is limits which are being made much too low."
A Dorset Safety Camera Partnership spokesman said: "The road is very busy as it caters for pedestrians and cyclists as well as motorised vehicles, and as a result has been designated a 30mph speed limit."
The last word goes to Dorset Speed: "Enforcements are most likely to be installed to catch large numbers of safe motorists, while ignoring the seriously incompetent and dangerous drivers who actually cause the carnage on our roads."
Couldn't have put it better myself. If the authorities want motorists to drive more responsibly, then they have a responsibility themselves to come clean and place their speed traps, of whatever variety, where they'll do most good – for road safety rather than public coffers.
... a really ranty letter by someone called Stephen Marquiss has been published, crammed full of stats and links (it's like a Spinny rant) and positively livid that Dorset Speed were allowed "the last word". I'm replying:
Johnny wrote:
Sir
For a concerned member of the public, Stephen Marquiss is obviously on top of his brief (letters, 22 July) on speed cameras. However, the level of his fury at Dorset Speed’s “getting the last word” on the Holes Bay camera scandal makes me think he’s got more of an axe to grind than he lets on.
Exceeding the speed limit – by the government’s own admission – only actually causes about 5% of accidents, so it is (a) odd that preventing it attracts so much attention, and (b) sad that the more significant causes of accidents don’t. So why the obsession by some with speed? I suspect that deep down, some killjoys just don’t like the freedom other people enjoy behind the wheel of a car.
Now, some detail about the Holes Bay camera, which Mr Marquiss and other readers may not be very familiar with. Few would argue with a speed camera outside a primary school, or at a noted accident black spot. However:
1. This camera is on a three lane dual carriageway with no dwellings on either side. Less than a decade ago it was a 70mph road, then the limit became 50, now it is 30mph. That’s right, on a three lane dual carriageway designed for 70.
2. More to the point, this speed camera looks just like a red light camera, which is what it used to be. There are no specific warning signs to say it is a speed camera; if you’re local (or you have a GPS camera warning device) you’ll know the sneaky trick that has been played. If you’re not then you’re fair game it seems.
3. There’s only been serious accident there in the last eight years (and we don’t know how caused), so hardly a black spot, is it?
4. Finally - and damningly - Dorset Police have said themselves that the Holes Bay camera “was not about accident reduction but was installed because of community concerns”, which is lucky when there’s no real scope for reduction. Small comfort for the thousands of people in the community who have been handed a £60 fine and three points, most of them while driving perfectly safely. At least the rest of the community can see that “something has been done”, even though it’s addressing a very minor cause of accidents, in a place with next to none anyway.
However, there is hope. In these recessionary times, many local councils are dropping their financial input to the ‘safety camera partnerships’ faster than a speeding car. So far Swindon has done so (Guess what? There has been no increase in accidents), now Dorset County Council are planning to cut their £346,000 contribution. Maybe Dorset’s highwaymen have seen the way the wind is blowing and are using the Holes Bay camera to feather their nests in advance?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
, where there is a pelicon crossing, does seem greedy to me too, especially as there is a location slightly further up where pedestrians have to cross without the aid of a pelicon crossing - where the limit is higher at 
