`
| Politics | In the News |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Many motorists question the way in which speed cameras are used. Are they there to improve road safety or just a way of imposing a stealth tax on motorists? |
||||||||||||
|
Scamexposed voices the opinions of motorists who regularly run the gauntlet of speed traps that seem to have more to do with making money than road safety. We do not oppose the appropriate and proportionate use of speed cameras in a way that does not detract from sensible traffic policing. We do condemn concealed cameras that do not encourage motorists to slow down well ahead of sites claimed to be accident hot spots. We believe poor speed camera visibility and signage causes erratic driving and sudden braking. This is an unnecessary hazard to law abiding road users. Scamexposed is run on a totally voluntary basis. Our livelihood is not dependent upon any money generated from the mistakes and misfortunes of honest motorists. We are based in Dorset and most of the website's content relates to the activities of Dorset Safety Camera Partnership. Scamexposed focuses on issues relating to hidden speed traps and the relationship of speed camera visibility to safety. Speed camera proponents often make wild claims about the benefits that speed cameras are having but do the figures really support the claims? They cite numerous reports suggesting that cameras massively reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured. Typically they claim reductions of 35%. It is remarkable that few if any of these reports reach this conclusion without providing any supporting data or making any adjustment for other beneficial factors such as road improvements that have made dangerous sites safer. It is shameful that they dismiss out of hand any studies that do not support their line. We do not ask you to take our word for it but suggest you check the figures out for yourself and ultimately believe what you see with your own eyes. Of
course people are entitled to express opinions and Scamexposed are
no different in that respect. However, unlike many pro-camera
organisations, we aim to present arguments based on common sense, real
observations and data that is
relevant, official, and freely available. We invite
anyone, regardless of their point of view, to contribute to the debate
on
this website. Just click on the link that appears on every
page to send comments, questions or links you would like to see
included. Andy
Ledger |
||||||||||||
|
Camera
partnerships are funded from fines paid by motorists under the netting off
scheme. The scheme was announced in December 2001 and rules on how
it would operate were set out by the Transport Minister.
The public were led to believe the rules would prevent speed
cameras being used for raising revenue rather than improving road safety. |
||||||||||||
|
There
are numerous camera sites that do not seem to meet the rules.
In particular we believe many fail to comply with the following
three:
Scamexposed
question why Dorset Safety Camera Partnership seem to be ignoring the
rules and in July 2003 a complaint was sent to their project manager. The reply was wholly unsatisfactory and he refused to respond
to many of the points made. They
continued to ignore the rules and further complaints followed. Correspondence with Dorset Safety Camera Partnership is available on this website so that readers may form their own opinion on whether the Partnership's activities have more to do with making money than road safety. |
||||||||||||
|
A
government paper "Speed Cameras" (SN/BT/350) dated 5 March 2003
says revised guidance is expected "shortly" but that
the new guidance is unlikely to be published before a judicial review. This begs the question, are camera partnerships operating
under different rules to those announced in the December 2001 press
release? If so why are the public being kept in the dark? The
executive summary of a report
"The effects of speed cameras: how drivers respond (No.11)", commissioned
by the government throws some light on this. Recommendations 6(f) and 6(g)
say camera visibility should be reduced and even encourages the police
to use publicity which misleads drivers about the extent of mobile speed camera
enforcement. This report appears to predate December 2001
strongly suggesting that the government has deceived the public
about their true intentions from the outset. This was put to Jim Knight, MP
for Dorset South who in turn wrote to David Jamieson at the
Department for Transport. On 12 May 2004 the Minister replied
confirming that key elements of these recommendations were indeed in
place. |
||||||||||||
| HAS THERE BEEN A COVER UP? | ||||||||||||
|
The Assistant Chief Constable for Dorset advises that since being established in 2002 the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership has never worked to the rules laid out in December 2001. He explains that the camera partnership has complied with the guidance issued to them and current at the time. He adds that the Department for Transport would not permit publication of that guidance in full but infers they relaxed the original rules. With the Freedom of Information Act coming into force on 1 January 2005 the Department for Transport were obliged to reconsider their position and in November 2004 published the guidance that would come into effect in January 2005. However they continue to withhold the guidance previously issued to camera partnerships. Read the new Rules and Guidance for 2005/2006 Although there are some provisions not originally included, the signing, visibility and conspicuity rules seem fairly similar to those announced in December 2001. So have these rules been changed back to avoid government embarrassment or is the Assistant Chief Constable's inference of a relaxation in the rules just a smoke screen? If the rules have been changed for the convenience of the government or the camera partnerships we must remember that they could just as easily be changed again! |
