Burning "GATSOs" (traffic cameras) in Britain......

[tkrandall]

Apparantly some Brits don't take to kindly to these traffic enforcement cameras.......

 

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

[Francois_Dumas]

Not only in Britain, but they were the first to have an entire site dedicated to it

[Tank]

Apparantly some Brits don't take to kindly to these traffic enforcement cameras.......

 

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Now that rather reminds me of a team of insurgents dumping tea off a ship in a colony harbor.

[Mister Tee]

Good for them! If people don't fight back, we'll all live in a George Orwell society.

 

Stick it to the MAN!

[exwingnut]

Now I know what to do with all my take off 'tyers', I am sending them over the pond to help fight the good fight!

 

Power to the people, death to the Gatsos!

[keithb]

Looks like the Brits don't like Big Brother looking over their shoulder or taking their picture.

[Gregori]

Sounds like they're giving a whole new meaning to the saying, "Smoke 'em if you got 'em."

[motorman587]

And I bet that this posters would be the frist to blame the government for "not" doing enough on speed enforcement if one of there loved ones were killed in a speed related crash. Probably sue them too.

 

We have these "Smart Trailers", that we set up which display a speed when you drive by it. Those things get abused too. Thet do not take pictures, just kindly remind you of your speed. They have broken out the lens a couple of times, hit the thing with beer bottles. Just abuse the crap out of it. But neighborhoods with speed related problems love the machine.

[Boffin]

John,

the big issue here with the Gatso cameras is that they are set up in the wrong places. The rules for placing the camera is that they must be a rolling average of 3 KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) accidents within five miles of the site (Seriously injured is defined as spending one or more nights in hospital, so includes mild concussion).

The 80th percentile speed of traffic (shown by studies to be the safest seed to travel) must be above the enforcement speed (Speed limit +10%)

The camera must be visible for 60 metres (200ft)

 

In other words, the cameras must by law be placed where the road is safest...

 

To me however, the biggest issue is that the tickets issued are being used as an excuse to pull traffic officers off the roads. The Home Office (the govt department responsible for the police) has placed a limit of 5% of officers on traffic duty. In the past the average was 12-15%, who were responsible for 30% of criminal (not motoring) arrests.

The number of deaths from drink/driving is going up again. The number of deaths overall is going up again. The number of accidents at the camera sites has gone down, so the other accidents must be rising much faster.

 

These cameras have been touted as safety devices, which used properly they could be. They have however, been used to save money on police officers whilst raising money for the exchequer. Last year one camera alone netted £80,000 in fines - that's about $150,000 at current rates.

One in three UK drivers now have convictions on their license. Disclosure - this includes me.

 

Andy

[smiller]

One in three UK drivers now have convictions on their license.

Thus I'm guessing that insurance companies are rather fond of these cameras as well...

[KLC]

Not necessarily . So many people are being convicted that insurers are not always loading the premiums.Personally my view is that more of the "taxes" that these things raise should be spent on improving road safety and not just funding government overspending.

rant over

[upflying]

There is a difference in culture and customs between the Brits and Yanks when it comes to vandalizing these speed cameras. Here in the USA, we shoot at them.

[BeamieToo]

These cameras have been touted as safety devices, which used properly they could be. They have however, been used to save money on police officers whilst raising money for the exchequer. Last year one camera alone netted £80,000 in fines - that's about $150,000 at current rates.

One in three UK drivers now have convictions on their license. Disclosure - this includes me.

 

RIGHT ON BROTHER !

If we believed that saftey was the real issue there would be a whole lot less of these vandalized. Just my .02

[smiller]

There is a difference in culture and customs between the Brits and Yanks when it comes to vandalizing these speed cameras. Here in the USA, we shoot at them.

Yes, they would no doubt quickly overtake "No Shooting" signs as a favorite target...

[Boffin]

A friend just pointed me at this analysis of a UK government sponsored report that has (suppressed) evidence that cameras have lead to an increase in the number and severity of accidents on motorways, whilst the police patrols they are replacing led to a decrease in accidents.

 

Link to copy of full report - I couldn't link to the govt site as that requires you to pay £40 ($80) to see this taxpayer-funded report.

 

Andy

[Pilgrim]

There is a difference in culture and customs between the Brits and Yanks when it comes to vandalizing these speed cameras. Here in the USA, we shoot at them.

 

Which is absolutely the right thing to do! But only because high explosive is so indiscriminate.

 

Pilgrim

[Baba_ORiley]

It might be that at least one police officer in the UK is not so fond of the cameras after this:

 

• 'Thumbs Up' Cop Loses His Licence
  Updated:13:34, Friday February 01, 2008
  
  A policeman who made 'thumbs up' gestures to speed cameras while racing to emergencies has been banned from driving...

Full article complete with incriminating photo below

 

news store here

 

 

.

[MotorinLA]

It might be that at least one police officer in the UK is not so fond of the cameras after this:

 

• 'Thumbs Up' Cop Loses His Licence
  Updated:13:34, Friday February 01, 2008
  
  A policeman who made 'thumbs up' gestures to speed cameras while racing to emergencies has been banned from driving...

Full article complete with incriminating photo below

 

news store here

 

What happened to that world-renown British sense of humor??

 

I think the deputy that gave our red light camera 'the bird' only got a slap on the wrist.

[Mark P]

So many people are being convicted that insurers are not always loading the premiums.

 

I'd put the emphasis here on "Not always", some are.

 

Andy has got it right in that many of the cameras are not in any way serving the purpose that they were supposed to and there has been a huge reduction in active traffic policing in many, if not most areas.

 

Even where a while back I would have said cameras are having some positive effects in reducing average traffic sppeds, I have noticed recently that a lot of drivers now travel at whatever speed they choose and then simply slow down for the camera that they know is there!

[Mark P]

What happened to that world-renown British sense of humor??

 

I think the deputy that gave our red light camera 'the bird' only got a slap on the wrist.

 

Police Forces here, along with most other public bodies have become far too Politically Correct to handle things that way!

[motorman587]

These are one of those threads, were motorcyclist believe their right to speed and speed limits are stupid, are in the wrong places, are just there to make money for governments.

 

LEO are here saying that speed limits and any speed traffic calming device is to save lives. And they claim to to issue citation not for money but for public safety.

 

Right??? Sounds like I have read this some where before.

[Boffin]

These are one of those threads, were motorcyclist believe their right to speed and speed limits are stupid, are in the wrong places, are just there to make money for governments.

 

LEO are here saying that speed limits and any speed traffic calming device is to save lives. And they claim to to issue citation not for money but for public safety.

 

Right??? Sounds like I have read this some where before.

 

John, did you look at the UK government sponsored report, made with full UK police support that I linked to? The one that showed these (unmanned automatic) cameras increase personal injury accidents. The one that showed police enforcement reduced accidents. One automatic camera on the M5 motorway increased accidents by 55% whilst earning 1.2 million pounds - that is 2.4 million dollars.

 

Police enforcement saves lives. Cameras earn money at the cost of lives.

 

Andy

[motorman587]

These are one of those threads, were motorcyclist believe their right to speed and speed limits are stupid, are in the wrong places, are just there to make money for governments.

 

LEO are here saying that speed limits and any speed traffic calming device is to save lives. And they claim to to issue citation not for money but for public safety.

 

Right??? Sounds like I have read this some where before.

 

John, did you look at the UK government sponsored report, made with full UK police support that I linked to? The one that showed these (unmanned automatic) cameras increase personal injury accidents. The one that showed police enforcement reduced accidents. One automatic camera on the M5 motorway increased accidents by 55% whilst earning 1.2 million pounds - that is 2.4 million dollars.

 

Police enforcement saves lives. Cameras earn money at the cost of lives.

 

Andy

 

 

Did not click on the link, but just did. I remember once we put our speed trailer on the side of road. The trailer tells you how fast you are going, by flashing the speed as you pass by. People would slam on the brakes when they saw their speed. I remember it caused one crash, or they attempted to blame the trailer. If you going the speed limit you would not have to worry. Speeders blame everthing, except their lead foot.

[Boffin]

So are you saying you support thr replacing of traffic officers with cameras? That is what is happening in the UK. Police officers who make a real and effective difference to road safety - including but, crucially, not limited to speed enforcement - are being taken off the roads, justified by the numbers of prosecutions generated by cameras that cannot detect dangerous driving, defective vehicles, drunken driving or any other traffic violation.

 

The issue I have is NOT with the enforcement of speed limits, not even the ones that have been lowered to permit the continued use of cameras, it is do do with the removal of police officers who have a proven track record of making our roads safer, whilst also making more criminal arrrests per officer than any other police branch.

 

Cameras in the UK are not a safety tool, they are a means of generating money. Scrap them and bring back police patrols.

 

Andy

[motorman587]

Of course I would take a cop over a camera, but a camera is cheaper than a cop, doesn't call in sick, does not need retirement etc...........

 

My point was that it is not the camera's causing the problem, but the car drivers. Like my post about speed kills. Not the speed but the driver.

[deaks]

Hmmm.. my 2c..

 

I agree with John in that to put the blame on the cameras for an increase in traffic accidents is just passing the buck. The only people who have a problem (or cause a problem) with cameras are those that don't like to stick to the limits - usually because they think they can drive/ride better than the average person, so it doesn't really apply to them anyway. What really gets me annoyed is the fact that they are replacing proper coppers with these things and thinking it's all ok. Well, as Andy quite rightly pointed out - it's not. If, as we are led to believe, they generate plenty of £'s for the government, we should see them increasing the traffic force, not reducing it.... unfortunately our government doesn't seem to understand hypothecation... In all honesty, I don't always stick to the limits; but if I ever get caught I'm not going to whine on about how cameras are about revenue and not safety - I'll just bitch about how the money is spent....

[smiller]

but a camera is cheaper than a cop, doesn't call in sick, does not need retirement

Does not make rational judgments...

[motorman587]

but a camera is cheaper than a cop, doesn't call in sick, does not need retirement

Does not make rational judgments...

 

or talk "it" out of ticket..............

[smiller]

I just meant that if I was going 10 over I'd rather have you make a judgment based on weather, traffic conditions, my driving demeanor, etc. and use all those factors to decide whether I should be cited or not vs. a machine clicking a picture based on a numerical speed value alone.

 

But you are the expert... if you think a machine can do just as good a job as you can then who are we to argue...

[motorman587]

I just meant that if I was going 10 over I'd rather have you make a judgment based on weather, traffic conditions, my driving demeanor, etc. and use all those factors to decide whether I should be cited or not vs. a machine clicking a picture based on a numerical speed value alone.

 

But you are the expert... if you think a machine can do just as good a job as you can then who are we to argue...

 

No, you missed my point or as usual I probably was not clear and missed your point. Have let many folks go, ie........taking a sick child to the hospital etc.........

[David]

The problem can be boiled down to this, quite simply: it's a dangerous combination of money and power. I have no problem with speeding laws--I'd just like the money aspect unwound from the penalty. Make it points on a license, period.

[Boffin]

John, I have no issue with getting ticketed. My fault, no argument. I have an issue with the UK replacing cops with cameras, because they ONLY get speeders, not tailgaiters or bad lane changers, who cause most motorway accidents.

 

The UK govt figures show that over here 9% of accidents are due wholly to excessive speed, and speed is a contributaory factor to a further 25%. So 34% of accidents are being addressed and 66% ignored. That is why I say that the way cameras are being used here is about money not safety. If the revenue generated fed back into better driver ed, better road layouts, more traffic police, etc. I would say put a camera on every corner. As it is, they are put on every long, clear straightaway where speeds above the 60/70 mph limits are not dangerous. BTW, those speed limits were introduced in the 70's as a temporary measure because of the fuel crisis.

 

ANdy

[Mark P]

BTW, those speed limits were introduced in the 70's as a temporary measure because of the fuel crisis.

 

Not strictly true the 70 mph motorway limit predates the 70s fuel crisis and was introduced in 1965 in response to what the Government saw as a danger when there were reports of people driving E Type Jaguars at speeds like 125 mph on the M1 and others.

 

Having said that I support your view on cameras - we need far less reliance on them and much more active Police patrolling dealing with bad driving, bald tyres, lights not working etc.

[bimmers]

looks like the tax payers (employers) are not happy with the decisions of the politicians and gov't workers(employees). So vote them out is one first remedy after the protests are understood. There are other ways to raise the samefunds, taxes. So get gov't to work for the people and not for themselves. Put a 4 way stop sign at every intersection and you are done. Increase speed limits on Interstates (Motorways??) and patrol them.

 

MHO

[MotorinLA]

Automated enforcement is always going to be controversial, as it is by default a revenue maker for municipalities that use it. Our city has seen a rise in the use of red light cameras and even I can't say with a straight face that they are there simply to increase safety.

Does it reduce red light violations? Yes.

Does it cause an increase in rear-end collisions? Yes.

Does the city make money on it? Of course.

 

However, these cameras do reduce traffic collisions caused by persons running red lights. Compared to the rear-end collisions, the red light violation collisions tend to cause much greater injuries to the involved parties. The cameras are placed based on surveys, which show that the target intersections do in fact have a problem with red light violations.

 

As Andy has stated several times already, it is the fact that the GATSOs are replacing uniformed personnel that is the real issue.

Based on a number of TV shows I have seen lately from the UK, it seems that CCTV surveillance is also being used to take over the job of officers walking/driving on the streets in some areas. It is great that the chance of catching the criminals is increased by use of surveillance cameras, but wouldn’t be better to deter the criminals from committing the crime in the first place by having a visible Police presence?

 

As John said earlier, it isn’t just about the revenue, it’s also about cutting cost. I guess only time will tell what the real ‘cost’ of taking police officers off the streets will bring in these areas.

[chrisd]

or talk "it" out of ticket..............

And therein lies my problem with all of this. You want to talk a cop out of a ticket---show him you're a cop. Cops don't ticket cops. If it were about safety, they would. And please don't tell me I'm wrong. My father, uncle and three cousins were NYC cops. I know how it works. My brothers and I got out of tickets by telling the officer our father is a cop.

[NoHeat]

So in England radar is something to burn. Here it is something to detect.

 

I wonder if those radar cameras would be vandalized if drivers could legally operate radar detectors instead.

 

Not saying I think either country is better. Just thinking about the consequences of laws like banning the detectors.

 

In Iowa red-light cameras (not radar cameras) were tried in one city, and somebody sued when they got a ticket, claiming that getting a conviction due to automated cameras violated some obscure state laws, and he won.

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles...26e004f492c.txt

I'm not sure, but I think that was the end of the cameras here.

[Boffin]

Radar detectors are legal here - at the moment. Plus locations of cameras and approved mobile camera sites are available as GPS POI's.

 

BTW, I do not condone the vandalising of these cameras, especially when explosives are used.

 

Andy

[motorman587]

or talk "it" out of ticket..............

And therein lies my problem with all of this. You want to talk a cop out of a ticket---show him you're a cop. Cops don't ticket cops. If it were about safety, they would. And please don't tell me I'm wrong. My father, uncle and three cousins were NYC cops. I know how it works. My brothers and I got out of tickets by telling the officer our father is a cop.

 

 

Where did this come from???? I believe the word is discretion. I can tell you I have let more none LEOs off with just a warning, then LEOs. And if we did not have discretion, I would be written folks for everything I pulled them over for, DL, seatbelts, insurance and registration. But because I have discretion, I usually just write the worst one. And my "it" statement had nothing to do with LEOs, but for the mother taking her kid to the hospital. I work at in a city with two University and community college. We get a lot of sutdents that claim to have parents to be in law enforcement. Our traffic unit write those too. So just because you got out of citation there are LEO that write citations. I got a ticket in Nebraska, going to Alaska for speeding. Not a big deal, just paid it. So what is your point?? Cops giving cops breaks. Who did not know that?? Thanks for someone always trying to stir the pot. I remember that when I stop that 70 year old vitnam vet.

[tkrandall]

John - I think what bothers a lot of us is that catching speeders often appears to those of us not in law enforcement as more like an easy way to generate revenue than it is about safety. Granted, speeding can sometimes be a reckless act and I have no problem at all with cracking down on those offenses. But what's really is frustrating is to see cops camped out (or a camera) on a benign stretch of roadway where average cruising speed may indeed be a bit (10 or 15 mph) over the posted limit (and chances are the posted limit is realistically too slow for the design of the road), yet there are many other places along our daily commutes where we see reckless behaviour at intersections, abrupt lane changes, running red lights, etc that makes your blood boils as you wonder "why is there never a cop around to see things like that?" We've all seen those acts that seem heinous enough to make you want to see the guy's license pulled for a year and a $500 fee asessed right there on the spot.

[motorman587]

John - I think what bothers a lot of us is that catching speeders often appears to those of us not in law enforcement as more like an easy way to generate revenue than it is about safety. Granted, speeding can sometimes be a reckless act and I have no problem at all with cracking down on those offenses. But what's really is frustrating is to see cops camped out (or a camera) on a benign stretch of roadway where average cruising speed may indeed be a bit (10 or 15 mph) over the posted limit (and chances are the posted limit is realistically too slow for the design of the road), yet there are many other places along our daily commutes where we see reckless behaviour at intersections, abrupt lane changes, running red lights, etc that makes your blood boils as you wonder "why is there never a cop around to see things like that?" We've all seen those acts that seem heinous enough to make you want to see the guy's license pulled for a year and a $500 fee asessed right there on the spot.

 

And I do not have a problem with that. The problem that I had was that discretion is taken out by the camera system. The discretion is not cause of pulling over fellow LEOs.

 

I also understand about traffic enforcement here in the us. It really made realize that on my Alaska trip. Where enforcement is needed, the cops are to busy answering calls, and when you believe there are no cops, not traffic you get hammered. Been there got a t-shirt.

[Dave McReynolds]

Really, you've got two kinds of drivers.

 

One kind views a car solely as a means to get from here to there. They don't care if a highway with a 70 mph speed limit could be safely driven by most people at 80. They begin to care when they can't get from here to there in any reasonable amount of time because of traffic congestion, and care a lot about other drivers who they perceive to be driving recklessly and who might get them into a collision.

 

The other kind views a car/motorcycle as an experience in itself, and is disappointed or frustrated when that experience can't be maximized because of arbitrary or irrational restrictions.

 

Which kind of driver do you think is in the majority, and does that answer everyone's question about how likely we are to be able to legally do away with GATSO's, or whatever their equivalents might be here in the US?

[NoHeat]

Radar detectors are legal here - at the moment.

 

I did not know they were legal in England. Thanks for correcting me, Andy. I must have been thinking of a country across the channel.