Safe Speed Forums

I've often read the forums and seen your representatives fighting the corner of common sense in the media. I have never had the time/felt inclined to get involved (I'm lazy/busy - lethal combination) but I couldn't resist after the other day. I nearly witnessed two accidents due to people braking when a camera van came into view on the A24 south of Dorking. I could not believe that the powers that be think it promotes road safety or bears any relation to common sense to have a camera van out in adverse conditions. The first thing people do is brake wich could have disasterous results.

I wrote an email to the 'Safety' Camera Partnership concerned but what else can be done?

Dear Sir/Madam,


I would like to complain about the irresponsible and dangerous deployment of your safety camera van twice recently on the A24 at Beare Green in some of the worst conditions we have seen this year.

It would seem to me that the only thing you are ensuring the safety of is your coffers. To put a safety camera van into operation during such adverse weather surely defies common sense and actually poses a far greater danger than speeding motorists and the increases the potential of a serious accident

Twice I witnessed drivers slamming on their brakes the instant the camera van came into view with nearly disastrous results. You must be aware that the first thing a driver will do upon noticing your van is to slam on their brakes. In such weather, when stopping distances are greatly increased, the tarmac is slippery and drivers still insist upon following each other too closely, to have a van out there causing them to brake sharply is simply madness.

I cannot for the life of me understand why in such conditions you would not abort your deployment of the camera van. It certainly poses far more of a danger than the speeding motorists you are trying to catch and seems to me to have little to do with promoting road safety.

Would not your time, effort, knowledge and budget be better spent on educating motorists about the dangers such conditions pose? Teaching motorists of the required stopping distances wet weather dictate, leaving a good gap from the car in front, reiterating the dangers of such conditions, and encouraging and reinforcing good driving practises and standards rather than simply putting yourselves in a position where you are potentially going to cause a serious accident rather than prevent one.

It really to me seems highly dangerous and irresponsible. These people are far more likely to cause an accident than prevent one.

Welcome and that was a good email, if I may say so. Unfortunately it's nothing to do with road safety, it's a business and it's all about making money and money has to be made whatever the weather....

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Welcome! Do please post their reply (if you get one)!

I imagine it will be full of the usual drivel about law abiding motorists having nothing to fear. They completely fail to understand (or maybe they just fail to WANT to understand ) that the braking is usually an instinctive reaction because most motorists (especially in these days of "random" speed limit selection) will automatically assume that whatever speed they're doing, if they see a camera van, the limit is going to be less than that.

graball - I think unfortunately that's been evident for years. It's not about road safety, which, as most intelligent non-halfwitted people realise comes down to more than just the speed at which a given vehicle was travelling, but rather targeting the most lucrative and easily prosecutable element. The joke is, I could drive down that stretch of road past the camera van chatting away on my phone, enjoying the scenery, smoking, eating a bag of crisps or being pleasured by lady friend (things that would all effect my ability to concentrate and hinder my control of the vehicle - particularly the latter ) and as long as I was travelling within the speed limit I'd be fine. Where as I could be travelling at above the speed limit but with complete concentration and awareness, forward thought, anticipation and planning, and end up with a letter through the door. Madness.

Mole - thanks for the welcome. I did indeed get a reply. I will post it below. I agree, the natural, conditioned response to a camera van, no matter what your speed, is to hit the brakes and divert your attention from the road to your speedo. Obviously, such action makes us all good, safe drivers/riders. Causing motorists to suddenly slow down, drive with our faces buried in our speedos and creating a culture of paranoia where part of my attention and awareness is constantly scanning for cameras, vans or police certainly contributes to greater road safety.

The reply...


If there are adverse weather conditions then there are even more reasons to drive carefully and within the speed limit especially on the approach to a roundabout junction next to a school where there has been a record of collisions in the past. We provide advance signing to warn drivers of the enforcement and to remind them of the speed limit and position our vehicles to be as visible as possible. We also have vehicle activated signs elsewhere on the route to remind drivers to drive carefully and within the speed limit. As well as a history of collisions local residents have also raised concerns over speeding on this stretch of road. Do you propose that despite the collisions and public concerns over speeds that we just let errant drivers drive whatever speeds they like and allow a far greater risk of collision!?

With regard to education we very much agree with you. That is why we offer speed awareness courses to low end speeders instead of issuing the usual penalty. These courses highlight the danger of excess speed, and provide education on speed limits and improved driving skills to those who need it the most.


I am obviously considering a reply, so Safe Speed members' thoughts welcome

They have not addressed the issue of people who are within the speed limit braking suddenly "just in case". This is human nature.

Nowhere in your original letter do you mention anything about the speed of the two drivers which you observed.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

No I deliberately omitted any mention of speed. For me it is not a question of speed, but negligent enforcement practise. As far as I am aware, regardless of whether one is breaking the law or not (and in many cases, in my experience, you do not know until you you see a camera van, slam on the brakes and look at the speedo - I do not drive or ride with my head buried in the speedo - I am constantly looking ahead) the natural reaction is to jump on your brakes. To me the argument here is not whether in the two near-collisions I witnessed the vehicles were travelling over the limit but why the van was deployed at all in such dreadful conditions.

The only conclusions I can possibly draw are either that the people who operate them are so totally oblivious to the immediate effects of spotting a camera van that they are not aware the natural reaction is to brake and the danger this poses, especially in wet weather, not only as the driver/rider is being forced to take some unexpected action but also the fact that their concentration is now less forced on what is going on around them. Something I refuse to believe. That they are motivated by profit and that their continued existence is measured in revenue and somehow this translates, in their minds, into safer roads - X number of drivers prosecuted equals X number of motorists less likely to speed, ergo safer roads. Which is fallacy and defies common sense for reasons to simple to warrant advancing here. Or they are so fanatical that they believe speeding poses more of a danger than they do themselves. I know for a fact there are instances of people being killed by suddenly braking when they see a camera van. Now, irrespective of whether they were speeding or not, speed here was not the issue or killer but rather the fact they were forced to make an evasive manoeuvre in which they felt they had no option but to brake. So, yes, for me the argument has nothing to do with speed but dangerous and negligent enforcement practises that defy common sense. No matter how dangerous that junction is (and I wasn't even aware there was a school there - I have never seen any school children running across or near the dual carriage way - however this seems to be a common argument clung to by such people) you will never convince me that it poses a greater threat than having a speed camera van there in wet weather.

Does anyone know of the local papers in the area that have a letters section? Might be worth getting in touch. I am under no illusions that it will do any good, I just remember reading the words on the main site by Paul Smith, words to the effect of, whatever you do, do something.

My reply (I haven't sent it yet, so open to suggestions)



Thank you very much for taking the time to get back to me.

You and I may fully realise, as I would hope a great many others do, that adverse weather conditions call for greater awareness, care and a different set of skills than fair weather dictates, but unfortunately not everyone on our roads today seems to understand this fundamental principle and that is where the danger lies.

My contention is that to deploy a van in such conditions is negligent and dangerous and poses a far greater risk than the junction in question (which, I agree, is a nasty one with a history of incidents) or any threat to local school children. I am aware that your main concern purports to be road safety and I would hope that this includes all road users, including motorists themselves. With that in mind, I cannot see how enforcing the speed limit with such a method when the conditions are so treacherous can be countenanced in any way by common sense or be conceived of as anything other than at odds with your mandate of road safety.

I do not propose that despite residents' concerns you let errant drivers drive at whatever speeds they like. That is not what I am suggesting at all. I am calling for responsible enforcement and a recognition of the effect you yourselves have on motorists' behaviour and the potentially dire consequences of those effects in the wet. My point is that by being seemingly oblivious to the potential danger you yourselves constitute in wet weather, using such enforcement tactics as were practised recently, that you are far more likely cause a serious accident than prevent one. What you have to understand is that irrespective of whether someone is breaking the legal limit or not, the natural reaction when a camera van comes into view is to brake and divert your attention from the road and surroundings to your speedo. In the dry the risk involved I would imagine to be far less than when the conditions so crucially demand all our attention. I do not believe in the two instances I mentioned that the drivers involved were exceeding the limit. If they were it was not by any great margin and certainly was not as risky as what occurred when suddenly confronted by your safety camera van. I would strongly urge you to tailor your approach to the weather - just as we, as drivers, should tailor ours. I would suggest that you reconsider deploying your camera van in such adverse conditions.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but it seems your educational programs focus primarily on the speed at which offenders were travelling and not, in fact, so much on what really counts - how they were driving. Would less of an obsession with speed and greater attention given to improving the skills of all drivers - not just those unlucky enough to have been caught a few miles per hour over the limit - be a more effective way of promoting road safety? Also, it seems illogical that low-end speeders who are offered the chance to participate in a Speed Awareness course as an alternative to prosecution (something I fully support, seeing, as I do, education as the only real way to improve our roads and make them safer for all users) would need to be educated on the dangers of excessive speed? Surely it would be more pertinent to educate high-end speeders on those dangers?

Just out of interest what was the speed limit on that stretch of road? My guess is that it is no longer 70MPH.

If it was still 70MPH (assuming that it was once) I would ask how many drivers they actually caught exceeding the limit that day. (doubt if you would get an answer though). My guess is, that is probably now an artificially low 40/50MPH limit, on a straight stretch of road, that is probably safe at 55MPH or more even in the rain.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

It was once 70mph. After a few accidents, including one quite nasty one, they lowered it to 60. I am not sure whether you could argue that speed was the cause and if the limit had been lower that the accident would not have happened. I do not believe that to be the case. Obviously to appease locals and be seen to be doing something they lowered the limit and over the years there has been visible forms of enforcement.

The problem with this stretch of road and in particular the junction which the speed camera van covers is that it in effects artificially bisects what was once a village. So there are turnings on and off the dual carriage way, crossroads and junctions. The junction the van covers runs in between the lanes. From part of a village on one side to a petrol station on the other. So traffic coming from the west either heads into the northerly flow, or, where problems are more likely to occur is when they wish to join south-bound traffic. They must first cross the northern lane and then wait in the middle of both carriageways before joining the southerly flow. There are no slip roads so you are pulling out into fast moving traffic. If that makes any sense. To be honest, I have been known to, ahem, get a bit of a lick on along that stretch but I know when to slow and where to be cautious and especially in places like I mention above, if I see cars waiting in the middle when I come over the hill I automatically slow as I know they can get impatient, pull out and then infuriatingly proceed to crawl along as a lot of people seem to believe to be good practise when they pull out onto a fast road.

I wouldn't say it's artificially low, necessarily. It depends on the conditions. Thankfully it's not a 40 or 50. It's not too bad in the wet either if you drive with common sense, co-operation and concentration. That said, it's so arbitrary. It's not about speed - that junction is dangerous regardless at what speed you are travelling (unless we're talking about implementing a limit that's impractically low for the road like 30mph) if the people using it are not focused on the task in hand (pulling from stand still onto a duel carriageway). It's not the speed at which people are travelling that causes the accidents. Rather it is impatience, lack of concentration, lack of common sense when pulling out and incorrect estimation of speed of other road users that are far more likely to cause problems - amongst other considerations that all point to a lack of education and defective driving rather than speed. Like I said, I slow for certain stretches of that road. I wouldn't say it was a dangerous road but it has a few areas where caution must be exercised. Sticking a camera van there will not necessarily reduce accidents and in the wet it won't be long before it causes one. For a start, it is not a permanent presence, so the reality for many locals is to speed (depending on conditions) but to be aware of where the van may be lurking. To my mind that hardly constitutes effective enforcement. Although is probably nice and healthy for bank balances of the Safety Camera Partnerships.

I'd just like to say a quick big
Oh, and I admire your pro-activeness DoktorMandrake. There was no doubt it would fall on deaf and ignorant ears, sadly, but for having a go.

Together we can show these blinkered fools up for what they are...

Add: There was once a video of a crash which was broadcast to show how speed had created an accident as you describe could so easily happen. But the ‘body’ pushing the speed kills message f—ked up because it instead showed how the speed camera in fact made them slam the breaks on causing the accident.

They quickly pulled the commercial before we could save and file it for future reference. It was mentioned here on SS but I never got to see it before they covered up their embarrassment. (No surprise there).

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Their response is, I have to admit, better than I thought it would have been. That said, you need to try and read between the lines as they're very good at appearing reasonable! For example, their claim to provide "advance warning" of their enforcement activities and vehicle activated signs, is all very well, but what does it REALLY mean? Is this "advance warning" an overgrown fixed camera sign 5 miles before the site? The problem (I feel) is especially bad with dual carriageways. There was once a time when motorists knew where they stood and what to expect - a 70MPH limit. Nowadays many roads (and especially certain stretches of dual carriageway!) can be absolutely anything between 40 and 70 - sometimes even changing within a few hundred yards! That being the case, any kind of warning sign that is much more than out of sight of the camera van will be useless. Drivers unfamiliar with the area could (quite reasonably, in my view) (a) not know its accident history and (b) not know whether the limit in which the camera van is parked is the same as the limit when they last saw the sign. In fact, from what I've seen, they LOVE carrying out enforcement just after a speed limit change! So basically, their signs are all very well, but they can't reasonably expect anyone, on seeing the camera van, not to suddenly panic and assume the limit is 10MPH lower than it was half a mile ago. We've all seen it, I'm sure. Last time I saw it was on the A66, Eastboaund near Penrith. It's a dual carriageway, 70 limit (for cars) and over the brow of a hill, there was a camera van lurking in a lay-by. Two trucks (one overtaking the other) occupied both lanes and the overtaking truck slammed on its brakes as the driver saw the camera. This caused a chain reaction of other follwoing vehicles (who, it has to be said, were all driving a bot too close to each other)! That being the case, there can be no denying that the incident would not have arisen had the van not been there (or been better signed).

As a general observation, they seem to be of the mindset that if you are exceeding the speed limit, you are causing a danger. There are various corolaries of this, like "if you don't know your speed and the speed limit at any moment in time, you're not safe to be on the road" (etc). These a red herrings. As most experienced drivers will know, the speedometer is a "compliance aid" but has nothing much to do with safety. Racing cars aren't usually fitted with speedometers because the set of judgements that any driver (not just racing drivers!) continuously have to make in order to determine the speed at which they can safely negotiate a particular stretch of road, do not include a "number on a dial". It's FAR more instinctive than that (or should be)! In my view, in fact, it's completely the opposite way round. Anyone who needs a speedometer to determine the speed at which they can travel whilst still being able to stop on their side of the road in the distance they can see to be clear (or half that distance on a single track road!) shouldn't be driving in the first place!

Wonderful phrase, If I had thought of it, I would use it as a signature......

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Well, I got a reply... What do you lot think? I am assuming this is the end of the correspondence with my new best pal.

Thanks for your comments. You are right we have to balance the possible increase in risk of driving too fast in the wet with the possible risk of braking too hard in the wet should someone be driving too fast and then see the camera van. I will feed this back to our police colleagues so that they can consider this issue, however we do try to do everything we can to persuade drivers to slow down in advance of the van through the provision of signing. Over time as drivers become more aware of the presence of the enforcement we find that speeds do reduce.

The speed awareness courses offered by the police do indeed focus on speed as this is tailored to speeding offenders. It is not offered to high end speeders as they are wilfully negligent and research has shown that they are not likely to respond to the education option and puntitive measures are the only option. There is also the national driver alertness course offered instead of penalties for other offences such as driving without due care and attention. The point is that the courses need to be tailored to the type of offence in order to be effective.

Thank you for raising your concerns over this stretch of road - if only everyone was as concerned over road safety as you and I, then there would be far fewer collisions I am sure.





Big Tone - thanks for the welcome, mate.

Interesting that they don't hold themselves accountable for consequences of their own actions. Wonder if the driver who they caused to crash knew it was being used for a film? Surely the video must be available under the freedom of information act or whatever?

I am always astounded by the attitudes of people who engage in this type of enforcement. The zealots anyway. I remember seeing a programme where a copper was stopping and fining people in a newly-classified 20 zone (it had previously been 30) and how he compared drivers exceeding the limit (usually by 10mph - most seemed to be driving at about 30/31) to a biker who had been decapitated whilst getting his knee down at over 100mph. I failed to see the correlation or how anyone with a full grasp on reality could draw one. These people seem to love citing an extreme example as justification for a heavy handed, fanatical, speed-obsessed approach to road safety.


Mole - I agree. Speed is really an irrelevant or trivial element in road safety, if used properly. It's a co-operation between the senses. These people do not seem to recognise this - or maybe it doesn't make sound financial sense for them to do so? To believe that merely by exceeding a posted limit (which is usually tailored to the abilities of the lowest common denominator anyway) you are a danger or more likely to have an accident is ridiculous. There are many more factors that have to be present to cause an accident - certainly inattention, lack of concentration, distraction, exhaustion, tailgating, lack of/poor judgement etc. are all far more likely, in my opinion, to result in an accident. Yet they are harder and costlier to prove and presumably not as lucrative. Whereas exceeding the limit, which most people do everyday, is far easier to prosecute and because we all do it, it's a nice little earner.

To be fair, Mole, the piece of road I am talking of does have constant camera signs, and is one limit all the way along the stretch I am talking about. It goes from 70mph dual carriage way to 60mph and then to a 50 mph (camera vans pop up all along it) but there are considerable distances between limit changes. However, I do know of stretches of road, like that of which you cited as an example, where at any given point to be 100% sure of what the limit is you'd need a co-driver constantly on the look out for changes. Some of these changes can be quite dramatic - so 70mph to a 40 and without any apparent cause, so I am sure people have lost their licences or had hefty point/fines for a genuine human error - probably due to being too busy concentrating on actually driving. Interesting thing about local knowledge, you really have to be superhuman driving in some places for the first time to not avoid innocently getting into trouble.

It's very true. We are taught to rely far too much on the speedo as a safety device or a measure of safety - when, in reality, experience and judgement are paramount.

Are you talking about this speed camera van site : http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/database/SES/ses040.htm
Speed Camera Details: White marked van situated at the central reservation on Northbound carriageway between Dorking and Leatherhead (A24). The mobile van is positioned on the bend, after the Gatso camera, so little or no advance warning.
or this one : http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/database/SES/ses041.htm
Speed Camera Details: Gatso located on A24 between Dorking and Leatherhead, at Mickleham Bends. Just after the bend where the speed limit drops to 50mph. Easily visible.


Writing to your MP is helpful as they have a need to please their constituents and have the authority to potentially influence the decision-making process.
Joining Safe Speed of course !

But I would bring up a number of issues from this reply ...
1) Operation of vans in bad weather often render images useless as number-plates are obscured so their operational effectiveness of obtaining tickets is limited
2) Nothing about their speed camera van aids, trains or guides motorists into taking more care on the road
3) the presence of their vehicles to report vehicles for speeds in access of the posted limit (whether valid or not - as in have the right part of the right section of the Road Traffic Act Orders sought through the local Council), is only for a very short section of roadway so how can that assist in road safety - please send a copy of the Road Traffic Order for this location please.
4) It is widely known and a quick check on You Tube will help anyone locate many videos provided by the Police to show motorists who brake (as their only line of defense), upon sight of a speed camera van (or the potential thereof), to help preserve their licences and their livelihoods
5) It is widely known that when changing the speed limit on a road it will ONLY have a 1mph effect on the Free Travelling Speed therefor most people are prosecuted for travelling around the 85th percentile speed which we know to be safest group of motorists, so why criminalise the otherwise normal actions of a contentious and careful motorist?
6) As there are Gatso's VAS signs and also a Speed Camera Van one might consider that the poor motorist is in fact under attack not being educated at all !
7) the Speed camera vans provide a grave distraction from the road ahead along with 38 other negative effects too - see Http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
Considering that during wet conditions the braking distance can be increased by 4 times it seems utterly pointless booking people for a specific speed when it is the distance that they are following another vehicle and their attention paid to the road ahead that will provide a genuine assistance if any additional danger threatens and they need to adjust their speed, or position.
8) The free travelling speed fails to alter the speed of a vehicle prior to an accident and therefor it is good observation and anticipation (all COAST attributes - state & explain) that in fact help to prevent incidences to other people and their property.
9) This leads us to the crucial few seconds prior to an incident (see http://www.safespeed.org.uk/ten.html ) and it surely not of great concern to improve ALL motorists abilities, skills, and knowledge to help prevent all incidents, than to only ever 'educate' (from varied and unreliable sources, who run the courses for profit), those 'few' who choose to attend a course than increase points on licenses (once in 3 yr 'allowance'). Ignoring those who are at a higher rate and completely ignoring those who are driving under the influence, or stolen vehicles or TWOC (Taken without consent), those travelling recklessly or 'paperless trail' vehicles.
10) Since there is never a time to travel at an inappropriate speed, in bad weather were they deciding to ticket people whom in their eyes were indeed travelling in such a manner ? Or are they purely relying on a speed limit entirely ?
11) Clearly you (SCP) do not understand RTTM (Regression to the Mean (see : http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html ) as quoting 'accidents' as a reason to locate a van is pointless and useless and serves no benefit. However if you really want to help road safety then you would provide good scientific reports and provide sound engineering long term solutions the road's problems, unless the accidents were such random chance occurrences that it proves that nothing could have been done to prevent further injuries or loss of life. If the area has a consistently high accident rate then drivers need signs to warn of the 'Black Spot', not a speed camera van that purely ID's those who exceed an arbitrary numeric value.
12) with regard to the speed limit setting then setting road speed to 'an average mean' is of no use whatsoever however set at the 85th percentile is shown to benefit road safety.
13) We had the safest roads in the World for decade after decade, without a single speed camera van, and now due to a continuing drop in the volume of traffic - (2% in the last year), that during a recession, people travel less far, less often and are therefor exposed to less danger, therefore we know (Globally) that whenever there is a recession that fatalities go down. Couple this with the fact that people choose routes that have no camera locations and improvements too to the speed of medical care, improvements to medical care
and better and improved vehicle design (esp safety features) all these factors add up to help reduce road injuries and deaths and must be allowed for when considering the Stats.
14) School areas are in fact one of the safest areas of road and there is not only little requirement to be there but to deliberately locate a speed camera van in that vicinity is more likely to cause and accident due to the major distraction element that their van commands to all motorists.
15) If you wish to obtain any respect then only ever man your vehicles with Police persons and stop vehicles immediately.
16) Since 'speeding' (and please do specify what you understand this to be as there is no legal president for this term in Law) is NEVER to CAUSE of an accident, but frustration and inattention are the prime caused of accidents, please tell me how ticketing people within 2 wks of the alleged offence, how this speed camera van is meant to help road safety, in any way whatsoever.

(Incidentally they can and will, now ticket for; being on the phone, eating etc., etc., etc., if they think that they can get a conviction (i.e people pay up and don't take too many to Court!). There are now additional courses for mobile, dangerous and (ah I forget the 3rd ? - riding badly I think it is)....

Local Papers : http://www.mediauk.com/newspapers/13937 ... advertiser
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/
http://www.surreyherald.co.uk/sitemap/n ... r-history/
http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/
List of South of England Newspapers : http://www.wrx.zen.co.uk/soupress.htm
and online : http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/politics

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

If you follow this link : http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/arti ... meras.html
and then got a few lines down to their video link - that shows Police supplied video of crashes upon speed camera van sightings ....

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.