[jasonfields007]

Speed camera detectors to be banned
Devices which detect speed cameras are to be banned, the Government has revealed.

The Department for Transport said it would seek to ban the dashboard devices as soon as possible because of fears motorists were using them to break speed limits without being caught.

Thousands of drivers have installed the detectors after a huge rise in the number of speed camera penalties.

They have already been banned in many European countries including France and Ireland.

A Department for Transport spokeswoman said: "We are aware of the problem and as soon as a legislative opportunity becomes available we will seek to make these devices illegal."

Road safety groups welcomed the announcement. Rob Gifford of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety told The Times: "This is a long overdue closing of a legal loophole.

"Speed camera detectors should not be needed by law-abiding drivers."

Transport minister David Jamieson yesterday said he was happy for people to know where the cameras were. But he did not want information to be passed on revealing whether or not they were switched on.

He told a Commons committee: "If there is a map showing where they are, then I think that's a good idea, because people will then be very careful in that area."

He also ruled out random breath-testing and said there were no plans to lower the legal drink-drive limit.

(YAHOO! UK)

[AidenL]

Quote: Originally Posted by jasonfields007

They have already been banned in many European countries including France and Ireland.

I think our people are talking to your people.............

[dinger]

Whos been pulling your leg Jason.


dinger.

[KPKalle]

I just read about this too on http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/traffi...source=Evening Standard

Seems to affect those devices which can detect whether or not the camera is loaded rather than the GPS ones.

[TT_Convert]

There's something of a conflict in the statements here, although, granted, they are from two different people. How can someone be happy to allow motorists to know where all the cameras are (which would then allow them a simple Tom Tom Navigator and Speed Camera overlay to warn them of cameras), but not be happy with detectors? Apart from knowing which are active and which are not, there's very little difference, isn't there?

Anyway, I am generally in favour of the use of cameras as speed deterrents dangerous location or times, but not simply as a means to generate revenue. Generally, they don't catch the worst motorists - those who tailgate, for example.

I would say that drink driving is a far worse offence, and random breath tests would be a very good idea.

Pete

[cozzers]

Nah. It's true I think. A google news search on 'Speed Camera' will supply a wealth of news sources on this.

It appears the GPS systems will still be legal though?!?

"In effect, the new rules mean that GPS- based systems which alert drivers to the presence of cameras will remain legal but those which distinguish between sites that are active and those without film are outlawed. " - From the Evening Standard.

[northandy]

Quote: Originally Posted by cozzers

Nah. It's true I think. A google news search on 'Speed Camera' will supply a wealth of news sources on this.

It appears the GPS systems will still be legal though?!?

"In effect, the new rules mean that GPS- based systems which alert drivers to the presence of cameras will remain legal but those which distinguish between sites that are active and those without film are outlawed. " - From the Evening Standard.

I wondered why I had seen some special offers on Snoopers !....

I have no problem with cameras at accident blackspots and near schools, residential areas.... but not on motorways (or revenue related areas !).....

[fergusor]

I heard it on the news this morning, Radio 1, so it's definitely true I heard it on the Chris Moyles show so you can imagine how he reacted!!

Richard.

[jasonfields007]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040716/344/ey55n.html

there's the article on yahoo! i was just going to buy one aswell as i've run out of places to put chrome

[SoggyCornFlakes]

Typical of this government ........ random breath testing - no, random speed testing - yes Why, one generates lots of revenue and one saves lives

[MrMini748]

Quote:

He also ruled out random breath-testing and said there were no plans to lower the legal drink-drive limit.

So I can drink and drive but can't be aware of money making speed cameras who would snap me for going 33MPH in a 30MPH zone.

Wow what an intelligent government we have.

Pat

[Shamster]

AFAIK it's the laser detectors or the laser detecting elements of the GPS devices which are expected to be banned on the basis that they are interfering with police business.

The GPS based systems will continue to be legal so long as they don't have a laser detector.

[Shamster]

Max beat me to it!

[Goonery]

So if everyone drives at the legal limit what happens to the revenue generation machines, thats what I'd like to know, and what happens to all the services that are funded by them?

Oh don't worry too much about the existing govenment, they'll be history soon .

Tooting Popular Liberation Front is rising again

[ROOBRYJ]

Yet another way the government is reacting to the fact that speed cameras have NOT reduced casualties on the roads...

I know what, lets ban every speed camera detection owner and maybe that will reduce them some more....ER...get a grip.

[NightFox]

Don’t know about the rest of the world, but in the UK there are now far more serious accidents and fatalities as a result of speeding than drunk driving.

While the placing of many speed cameras may be inappropriate, you can’t really expect to leave speed in these areas to the discretion of drivers. That 17 year old who hares past the school at 50mph in his Nova is probably as confident that what he is doing is “ok” as you are when you take it upon yourself “use your discretion”

And let’s be really honest – how many motorists who were involved in an accident who were driving over the speed limit wouldn’t still have claimed they were driving “at a responsible speed” if you had asked them just before the accident. And whether they were “at fault” is beside the point – a fractured skull is still a fractured skull irrespective of who was to blame. Besides, defensive driving (i.e. genuinely good driving) is about mitigating for other people’s mistakes. Any fool can drive fast

I’ll get off my soapbox now, and I’ll admit will probably be driving down the motorway in a few hours at 85mph.

[randap]

A recent article in BIKE magazine analysed some government statistics......you know the "35% of accidents are caused by excess speed".

In actual fact, something like only 4% of accidents involved drivers above the speed limits.........a lot of accidents involved speed as a factor, but the speed was "inappropriate" but not above the limit.

Cameras therefore only address 4% of accidents, hence the huge increase in actual accidents due in part to the reduction of traffic officers. And yet, more than 4% of accidents are from bad driving, so why don't we have bad driving "cameras"??

[NightFox]

I know that this issue is one of those to everyone will never come to agree on, but I think you have to be careful looking at “lies, damn lies, and statistics”, as you can manipulate statistics to prove or disprove just about anything. The fact is the government will always massage the figures to justify speed cameras, whereas those who don’t like cameras will always find a way to discredit them.

I think really that whilst everyone’s views will differ, the best thing is to ignore the subjective stats and use your own judgement to decide whether they are a good or a bad thing (and just because you hate them doesn’t make them bad!)

[digitaldave]

I'd be interested to see if the government actually go through with this one. IIRC, didn't they use the same reasoning with respect to the original radar detectors? Which are now legal.

My personal thoughts on the whole speed camera issue are:

1) I have no objection to them being used in accident balckspots, or outside schools or at other genuine high risk areas. However, I resent the fact that they are more often than not being used as revenue generators, despite what they claim.

2) I think it is a good idea to allow drivers to have detectors/GPS devices to alert them to speed cameras. If I'm driving along and I have a detector that alerts me to an upcoming camera, I will stick to the limit - job done, surely?

3) Warning times should be long enough that a driver can **safely** slow to under the speed limit before the camera. Braking sharply because you've just noticed the camera (or sign etc.) could just end up contributing to the speed related accident statistics .

Finally, a question... why do drivers often slow to well below the posted limit when going past a speed camera? For example, there's a camera in Stevenage near the school where my wife works. It's a dual carriageway, and the posted limit is 40. But for some reason, many drivers slow to 30 when passing the cameras . GET ON WITH IT!!! I think it would be a good idea if the cameras actually had the speed limit posted on them too, just in case people aren't sure.

Cheers,

Dave.

[scooperman_uk]

looks like to me that the government want to stamp down on laser / radar detector units to protect their income stream for mobile camera units it me..... barstewards, that what i say.