Safe Speed Forums

mega link

CRUSADE AGAINST ROAD CAMERAS PICKS UP SPEED

SUE RESTAN

08:50 - 10 January 2007

Support is growing for a Highland motorist's crusade against speed cameras.

Membership of the Safe Speed road safety campaign has gone up by almost 50% in the last year and an increasing number of worried drivers are calling Paul Smith, of Fearn, near Tain, in Easter Ross, each week to express their concerns about the cameras.

He said: "There's very, very substantial growth going on. We're growing at about 40% to 50% per annum and now have about 400 members.

"I get an average of about 10 calls from members of the public every day, many of whom have received a speed camera ticket and want to know their rights.

"Some are saying 'Someone has just got to do something about this because I know it just isn't right'. Drivers know by instinct that it's the wrong safety policy.

"The rest are ringing to congratulate us, saying they're pleased somebody is fighting speed cameras and asking what they can do. Every time the phone rings, it's positive. I don't get anybody ringing up to complain."

Mr Smith, 51, an advanced motorist, road safety enthusiast and a professional engineer of 25 years' UK experience, said most of the crashes on the roads were directly or indirectly related to driver quality, rather than to speed. "They're either caused by rogue drivers - people who are uninsured, unlicensed or in stolen vehicles - or by ordinary, responsible motorists, who make a simple mistake.

"We need to police the roads properly for rogue drivers and provide information and education for everyone else," he said.

And he said the number of motorists fighting speed camera tickets and winning was increasing.

"In 1997, 9% of the cases that went to court were found not guilty but by 2004 the figure had risen to 20%.

"I think motorists are getting legally smarter and angrier - they're much more up for a fight. It could also be that the administration is getting sloppier," he said.

Mr Smith said he started studying the effects of cameras on road safety as a hobby in 2001 and initially funded his activities from earnings as a computer engineer.

But the campaign grew and, in 2003, he gave up his job to concentrate on his mission against the indiscriminate use of speed cameras.

He has now devoted more that 20,000 hours to the campaign, for which he travels over 20,000 miles a year, and has personally funded it to the tune of £10,000.

"We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything carried out by any other organisation," said Mr Smith.

He claims to have discovered that speed cameras make our roads more dangerous.

And he says he has identified and reported a number of major flaws and false assumptions in the claims made for speed cameras, and the "speed kills" system of road safety.

"The inescapable conclusion is that we should urgently return to the excellent road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the world in the first place. Far from saving lives, speed cameras are a dangerous distraction," said Mr Smith.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

To: The Editor, This is North of Scotland

In response to the article, “Crusade Against Road Cameras Picks Up Speed”, by Sue Restan, 10 January 2007, I would like to add the following comments.

I was very grateful for the help given to me by Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, when I received a speeding ticket, 47mph in a 40mph limit, from the notorious LTI 20-20 laser speed camera van, when I did not believe I was speeding.

It seemed to me that the police used every dirty trick they could to try to get a conviction and that included refusing to provide a copy of the video I was entitled to under the Data Protection Act. Then when forced to do so by the Information Commissioner's Office they provided a doctored copy. After three court hearings, in which I repeatedly asked for a proper copy of the video and my MP wrote to the Chief constable, I then got a true copy. The case was then dropped after six months of anguish, substantial unrecoverable costs and a huge amount of time and effort. The police has since admitted to mal-practice in the copying of the video tape and I am now appealing for further investigation through the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

When travelling back from a visit to London, Paul even stopped off at my house to help me with some test on an LTI 20-20 I was able to borrow.

I am now trying to help other motorists who have similarly been wrongly accused of speeding due to the unreliable and inaccurate LTI 20-20 speed guns.

In one case I am currently working on the motorist is accused of 91mph on a 60mph rural road. This was supposedly measured at a distance of 165m and the motorist was then stopped by the pc concerned and managed to stop within a few metres of the pc. This is a nonsensical situation, since even before the police officer could give the stop signal the car would have been on top of, or even past, the pc, let alone the time it would have taken to stop.

As a well qualified engineer, (CEng, MIMechE, BSc(1st hons), PhD), my calculations have shown that one end the speed gun only needed to move by the thickness of two sheets of 80gram paper to produce an erroneous speed reading of 92mph, yet tests I have carried out with a telephoto camera, with a shutter time of 0.3sec, same time it take for an LTI 20-20 to take its reading, show it is simply not possible to hold such a handheld speed-gun with the degree of stability required to obtain reliable speed measurements.

The police and Safety Camera Partnership are just using there speed cameras to get money from perfectly safe motorists who are going about their business as lawfully as they reasonably can. The speed cameras are doing nothing the improve road safety and are just keeping the Safety Camera Partnerships in their well paid secure jobs at the expense of motorists.

I am really grateful there is someone like Paul Smith to fight against this iniquitous speed camera system. I am more than happy to pay my subscription to support him in that role. It would seem he is rapidly gaining the support he deserves and I wish him every success in his quest.

Dr L

Excellent stuff, nice bit of free advertising there Paul.
And a good bit of support Dr L.

Must agree, something seemingly dodgy there. My calculations, based on the Highway Code (granted it is old), put the emergency stopping distance at 153 meters from 91mph – unless the driver was already hard on the brakes when pinged (this would still put the car within the +/- 40cm acceptance window throughout the measurement period). Examination of the video should easily show when the emergency braking commenced.

Let us know how that one progresses.

Smeggy there was no video evidence in this case, just the number displayed on the back of the handheld LTI 20-20.

There is a suspicion that it was a reading from a previous vehicle which he could not stop. It was too good to waste such a reading, so use it on the next sucker who happens along.

When the driver repeated the stop from 60mph in my presence, the braking efficency was only 50%, not the 67% assumed in the Highway Code.

That would put total distance, including 0.67s thinking time, at 196m (from 91). Crucially, without thinking time is 169m - which fits the model I'm afraid (braking while pinged). I fear the case could fail being as there is (conveniently!) no video showing when the braking started (or alignment, or aim.....)

On a side note, could that not be classed as an MOT failure?

Smeggy the drive said that for safety reasons he did not want to make an emergency stop. Apparently the PC walked out in the road, so the driver swerved around him, more the pity.

Understandable. However, it could be argued that drivers doing well over the limit will tend to slam the anchors full on when they notice they are about to be pinged.

From what you've described so far I think you have an uphill battle. Good luck!