Safe Speed Forums

I just got flashed in France for 45EURO [£41] for doing 99kph in a 90kph limit. Like one motorist in three in France each year. In France the Government abolished what in Britain is called is called the Tax Disc, and introduced fixed speed cameras. The way that police
with cameras hide behind autoroute crash barriers and install fixed cameras that seem unrelated to accident black-spots has led people to
feel that the police have ever-rising quotas for fines. You may be surprised to hear this is denied by the authorities.

A bit of research revealed the kind of camera that did for me, installed a little beyond a known fixed camera[!]
http://www.radars-mobiles.fr/connaitre/radar-mesta-1000-1200-2000.php
As a warning to anyone driving in France, here's a picture of a French policemen hidden in the back of a motorway maintenance transit van,
operating a speed camera in some road works in the fast lane of a dual carriageway. The picture might have been altered on a computer or it
might have been of a surveyor in a policeman's uniform but no safety jacket using a theodolite. What do you think?
http://www.controleradar.org/radar-ddea

But more interestingly the margin of error built into the camera readings has recently been reduced. Previously the first 5kmh of speeding was ignored [5% above 100kmh.] Now the first 3kmh [3% above 100kmh] is ignored. This means people can now get caught for going two and a half mph over the limit in a built-up area. The Government has kindly confirmed this has nothing to do with raising Government income, it's
just that the camera are getting more accurate. My comment: So that's all right then.
http://www.controleradar.org/tolerance-radars-automatiqueshttp://www.controleradar.org/tolerance-radars-automatiques

and "In 2009, income from speed cameras will rise to 550 millions euros", said Hervé Mariton, in a report to Government on transport financing. "A rise is anticipated", he said, "of 23% compared to 2008 because of the increasing number of installations, which should rise from 2.300 last year to 4.500 by 2012."

He revealed another significant point: "each camera produces less". In other words on average each camera produces less money each year. So the loss per camera is compensated for by the increase in their numbers.

"Since 2007, the reduction per installation has fallen by 17%", he confirmed. "If this reduction continues, from 2017 the income from fines will no longer cover the continually increasing cost of maintaining them." he said.

"If the financial implications of this can be considered a worry for the state, it's also a good way to show the effectiveness of reducing speeds on our roads. It would be unnecessary, having made us more respectful of the speed limits, to cover the costs of installing cameras at any price, by bludgeoning road users with fines." etc
http://www.controleradar.org/revenus-radars-2009

The translations are my own and should be fairly accurate.

You never know what the [French]* may do in the future when they get fed up with the ruddy things. You know what they're like for strikes etc.