The £800,000 UK Speed Camera Stuff Up!
 |
High-tech new speed cameras on one of the country’s most popular bike routes are useless due to an apparent oversight. The new cameras are aimed at catching motorcyclists on the A537 Cat and Fiddle road from Macclesfield to Buxton, Derbyshire.
They have been installed at five points along the road and riders are timed between them to calculate their average speed. But camera bosses have apparently failed to take into account that between two of the sites there is a shortcut with a higher speed limit. |
The cameras depend on a distance-over-time calculation to determine speed. But the shortcut shaves a third of a mile off the distance, rendering the calculation inaccurate.The shortcut also has a 60mph speed limit whereas the A537 is a 50mph zone.
The Cheshire Safer Roads Partnership has spent £800,000 installing the cameras. Partnership manager Lee Murphy said the cameras were functioning but no-one had yet been prosecuted. He acknowledged the flaw but denied it was an oversight. “We’re looking at that now as an issue for us,” he said. “There are a couple of calculations to be made and we’re just testing it out now and we’ll have a view on it.”
The Ultimate Big Brother Speed Cameras on trial in UK - Tracking Drivers from Space
The Home of Big Brother - (United Kingdom) Tests are taking place in the UK of new speed cameras that combine number plate recognition and satellite technology. The Spike Spike devices from US firm PIPS Technology are among the latest examples of average speed cameras. They work out how fast a vehicle is going after capturing an image of its licence plate at two locations. The cameras are being trialed in Southwark, south London, and on the A374 in Cornwall, MPs on the Commons transport select committee were told. To date, average speed cameras in the UK have been used on single stretches of main roads.
PIPS Technology says the SpeedSpike devices could be placed on motorways, A roads, rat-runsand in areas surrounding schools. The Tennessee-based firm, which has offices in Eastleigh, Hampshire, also created the Spike Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera used in London'scongestion charging zone.
In its product description, PIPS Technology says the average speed data calculated by its cameras always errs "on the side of the driver", with precise clock timingsset by using the Global Positioning System (GPS). In a written answer to the select committee, the company said its test sites were in Salter Road in Southwark and the A374 from Torpoint to Antony.
Paul Watters, AA head of public affairs, said while it supported speed cameras, there were worries over calculating average speeds over longer distances.
"We have some concerns about how far these systems extend along roads with many different speed limits impacting on a driver's journey, how well drivers understand them and how well the zones are signed," he said. "Camera enforcement is now high profile with conspicuous cameras and signing - we hope that continues. "With new complex technology comes the risk of errors and so the government must issue clear guidance on how these systems should be used." The Home Office has declined to comment on the trials.
The speed camera trap on the M6 that's racing towards record £3m haul in fines
For such an innocuous stretch of motorway, it is fast gaining a fearsome reputation.
In little more than five weeks, this three-mile length of road cutting through the scenic borderlands of North-West England has smashed the British record for speed camera victims.
An astonishing 5,569 motorists have been caught breaking the 50mph. With each motorist set to receive a minimum fixed penalty fine of £60, the cameras have already raked in more than £334,000. And with three weeks of work to go, they are set to bring in fines of more than £500,000 in just two months - the equivalent of £3million a year.
The previous record was held by a camera on the M11, which raked in £1million a year. Angry motoring groups say the huge number of victims is proof that speed cameras - which earn more than £100million in fines a year - are being used as a 'cash cow' by the Government. Nigel Humphries, of the Association of British Drivers, said: 'This has to be the worst case we have heard of. 'There is a bad one on the M11 but it is nothing like this - this is appalling and the speed cameras must be sited wrongly to have clocked so many speeding drivers.' Claire Armstrong, of Safespeed, said: 'This is absolutely disgusting. This puts all the others in the shade. The cameras on the M11, which are questionable, were raising around £1million a year but this one would substantially beat that.
'This has nothing to do with road safety and everything to do with raising money.'
Mr Humphries added: 'Cameras on motorways are the biggest revenue-raisers because often people using the roads are not local and not aware of the roadworks or speed limits. It's pretty shocking that so many people have been caught and many will be furious when they get a nasty little surprise in the post.'
The roadworks between Junctions 43 and 44 of the M6 near Carlisle began on January 29 and will continue until April. Kevin Tea, from Cumbrian Road Safety Partnership, admitted the figures were high but said the cameras were in the standard yellow boxes and were highly visible - as were the speed limit signs.
A Highways Agency spokesman said: 'We are concerned about the number of drivers who appear to be ignoring the speed limit, putting themselves and our workforce in danger. 'Driving through half a mile of roadworks at 70mph takes just ten seconds fewer than driving at 50mph - a ten-second saving that can put lives at risk.'
Last year the Daily Mail revealed that the number of crashes on the M11 at its junction with the North Circular A406 near Woodford, Essex, had increased by 25 per cent since a speed camera was installed.
UK Statistics Authority Blasts Bogus Speed Camera Data
UK Statistics Authority Blasts Bogus Speed Camera Data
Government agency orders reforms to UK statistics improperly used to justify the use of speed cameras.
Statistics report coverAn independent statistics watchdog agency that reports directly to the UK parliament issued a report yesterday criticizing a key element of the government's road casualty figures. The UK Statistics Authority praised the general credibility of numbers generated by the Department for Transport (DfT), but the agency threatened to withhold the designation of "national statistics" from DfT reports if the department failed by November to reform the system of serious injury data collection known as STATS19.
"The major unmet user need is for statistical information about road casualties that reflect the well-documented fact that the STATS19 system under-records the numbers of those injured in road accidents and the severity of injuries," the Statistics Authority report explained.
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) documented the problem in a 2006 report (view study View this study in a 79k PDF file ). While government statements lauded the benefits of speed cameras based on a claimed road injury rate that had fallen from 85.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (before cameras) to 59.4 in 2004 (after cameras), hospital admission records showed that the road injury rate actually increased slightly from 90.0 in 1996 to 91.1 in 2004. The BMJ attributed the discrepancy to the police undercounting the number of injury accidents that take place. The House of Commons Transport Committee earlier this month insisted that something be done to force DfT to produce more reliable reports.
"We were disappointed that although the government's response acknowledged that there might be a problem, they did not propose any steps that we thought would deal with it," Transport Committee Chairman Louise Ellman said. "I am thinking particularly of the discrepancies between some of the reporting of serious accidents and data received by hospitals. We want the government to do more on that issue, as we are not satisfied that the information that we are getting is accurate."
The Statistics Authority laid mandatory changes that it believes will address the core problem. DfT must publish estimates of uncounted injury accidents so that readers of official publications will be informed of the scale of the undercounting problem. The department must also develop a plan to remedy the undercounting and more accurately label data and their sources. Because STATS19 data collection is currently overseen by a board comprised exclusively of government and police officials, the authority recommended that "broader membership of the Standing Committee on Road Accident Statistics might make user input more effective."
A copy of the Statistics Authority report is available in an 80k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: PDF File Road Casualty Statistics (UK Statistics Authority, 7/27/2009)
Swindon branded 'Heroes' for speed camera ban
 |
The Conservative-run council voted unanimously to withdraw funding from fixed-point speed cameras last night claiming that the money would be spent on alternative speed-calming measures. |
Councils are obliged to pay for camera upkeep but the money from the fines goes to the Government
Road safety groups have accused Swindon council of experimenting with people’s lives today after the town became the first in the UK to abolish speed cameras.
The Conservative-run council voted unanimously to withdraw funding from fixed-point speed cameras last night claiming that the money would be spent on alternative speed-calming measures. Safety campaigners, academics, politicians and the local police raised concerns over the move today.
Jane Whitham, a spokeswoman for Brake, the national road safety charity, said that the controversial choice could result in more deaths in the area.
“Brake wholeheartedly opposes this reckless decision,” she said. “In removing its speed cameras, Swindon Borough Council is entering into a very dangerous experiment with people’s lives.”
The council said that they wanted to scrap the unpopular cameras because they were forced to pay for their upkeep while the Government collected the revenue from speeding fines.
The Department for Transport receives £104 million per year from the fines and gives councils £110 million to pay for their own road safety measures. That money is allocated according to traffic accident statistics leaving some councils with bigger handouts than others.
Peter Greenhalgh, councillor for highways in Swindon, had led the campaign to remove speed cameras after branding them a “blatant tax on motorists”. After hiis populist rallying-cry he was hailed as a hero on Top Gear, the BBC motoring programme.
“We will be working very closely with our partners, including police in the road safety partnership to deliver a plan that reduced the number of people being killed on the roads in Swindon,” he said last night.
The councillor claimed that 70 people were killed in 2007/08 on the streets of Swindon, which proved that speed cameras were not making roads safer.
There are currently eight fixed-point cameras in Swindon — six speed cameras and two red light cameras. The speed cameras are expected to be taken down in six months' time when the Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership deal ends.
David Ainsworth, Wiltshire’s deputy chief constable, said that police were urging the council to hold further consultation with them before they “physically remove any camera”.
“Police will not compromise on public safety. Together with other partners in the road safety partnership Wiltshire Police remain committed to the support of a variety of methods, including the use of cameras in speed enforcement.”
New road safety measures being considered by the council include education and training for motorists, better street lighting and reduced speed limits in problem areas.
Despite the end of speed traps in the town, police will continue to use mobile speed-measuring devices.
Neil Greig, research and policy director at the Institute of Advanced Motorists, claimed that Swindon’s decision could diminish the reputation of speed cameras.
“This move by one local authority smacks of tokenism, and may fuel public cynicism that the priority is saving cash rather than saving lives. To describe revenue from safety cameras as a ’tax’ is emotive, but not true,” he said.
“Properly placed fixed safety cameras are just one road safety tool, not a substitute for active road policing or long-term engineering improvements. They should be in addition to cops in cars, not scrapped.”
Some motorists have welcomed the abolition of speed cameras but Edmund King, the AA president, reacted with caution.
He said: “It is fine to remove cameras if they are replaced by cops in cars and interactive slow down signs. However, we do not want to see a road safety void in Swindon. Saving lives on the road is more important than party political wrangles over camera funding.”
Money Central: the 10 craziest parking tickets of all time
THREE police workers are to be hauled before a disciplinary hearing after a probe revealed Blackpool motorists were caught out by a dodgy speed camera.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) found two roadside cameras in the county had been wrongly calibrated.
More than 500 speeding convictions were declared "unsafe", resulting in £35,000 in fines being refunded.
Police today confirmed the cameras were sited in Blackpool and Penwortham, near Preston. The exact locations have not been revealed.
An IPCC investigation was ordered following allegations a staff member had failed to correctly calibrate - or set up - the cameras.
A second inquiry examined allegations staff had incorrectly processed paperwork. This resulted in 2,115 speeding tickets being ripped up.
The investigation determined the camera operative and two members of staff at Lancashire Police's Central Processing Unit should face
disciplinary charges relating to misconduct.
This hearing is expected to be held later this year.
Two other members of CPU staff who were under investigation have been cleared of any wrongdoing.
Naseem Malik, IPCC Commissioner for the North West, said: "The investigations have identified matters that must now be presented before a disciplinary panel and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to go into full details at this stage.
"However, it is correct to say that concerns over the work of these individuals has resulted in a number of convictions having to be overturned.
"Once the disciplinary panels have been held, the IPCC will issue further details about the findings of the investigations."
Mr Malik confirmed the inquiry relating to the speed camera operative resulted in the identification of 545 unsafe convictions, the refund of £35,000 in fines and the rescinding of 1,500 penalty points.
The investigation into the processing of paperwork has resulted in the cancellation of 2,115 tickets.
Inquiries are ongoing to determine whether any convictions might have resulted from the processing of incorrect paperwork.
The matters were voluntarily referred to the IPCC as a result of concerns at Lancashire Police. The IPCC managed the investigation conducted by the force's professional standards department.
A spokesman for Lancashire Police said it would be "inapproriate" to comment on the matter until after the disciplinary process was complete.
The staff in question - who are not police officers but civilian staff -were transferred to other posts when the investigation began.
Have you been affected by the blunder and had your ticket scrapped?
If so please contact The Gazette newsdesk on (01253) 361 715.
New research has highlighted that speed cameras could actually be making Britons into worse drivers.
A study conducted by RoadPilot showed that 53 per cent of motorists, including van drivers and those providing courier services, think that roadside speed cameras have a detrimental impact on their driving.
It was claimed that the main reason for this is that they are distraction, with many drivers claiming that they are keeping an eye out for the tell-tale yellow boxes rather than hazards on the road.
James Flynn, chief executive of RoadPilot, said the poll's results are "worrying", especially as the devices are supposed to increase road safety.
The research also emphasised that many road users do not feel that they are given enough information about speed limits, with 52 per cent of participants claiming they are often unaware how fast they are allowed to drive.
In particular this could have an impact on couriers who may often find themselves in areas they are not familiar with as part of their job.
Meanwhile, it was recently reported that a new speed camera which detects if drivers are using mobile phones behind the wheel is being introduced in Lincolnshire
