Town stated as Radcliffe. Incorrect. Its Prestwich

Isn't this page a little out of date? Its now well into 2004 and the page is dated 2003. Fat lot of good information on mobile cameras this would be.

Dont foget the one on the A56 about 200 meters east of the Tesco entrance. Both of the ones on this road, the one travelling to the East as well as the one to the west are permantly working. Some others that I know are sometimes switched off

Peel Way is on a dual carriageway with no pedestrians - why is the speed limit only 30mph?

Hass. Why don't you phone the camera partnership and ask them?

the speed cameras on the a56 are useless as they are both situated after the pedestrian crossings. how can this make it any safer for pedestrians? and these cameras are constantley on as i have a radar detector!

I have just received (2/02/07)a speeding ticket on Peel Road, Bury visiting from York travelling to Tottington. I saw the camera but maintained my speed at 40 and discovered only afterwards the speed limit is 30! I did not see or notice any speed limit signs. Does anyone know if the signage conforms with UK standards and / or any defense action that has been succesful against speeding on this strectch of road?

Hi Andrew, i'm sorry about your ticket-especially as you were not aware of the limit. I can asure you that all cameras in Grtr Manchester now conform to the new signage criteria which means that all cameras must have the speed limit displayed in the same viewpoint. ie you should be able to see both the camera housing and the sign at the same time as you aproach. The sign will display the 30 roundel plus the box-brownie camera symbol on a blue background. All local authorities have updated their signing to ensure they conform. The difficulty of course is that although local councils erect road signs where required and necessary, it is still up to the driver to notice them. What else can they do except get scantily clad models to hold up the speed limit sign whilst jumping up and down at the roadside!!?

To the Road Safety Officer,

I appreciate your response. The thought of a scantily clad girl waving a speed sign cheered me up! On a serious note would it not be sensible to paint white 30 mph on the road surface approaching speed camers or even the yellow lines which are used to slow cars approaching traffic roundabouts - the ones that make you and the car shake (scantily clad girl in my mind here) - or is it not in the authorities interest as it would reduce the revenue generated?

Hi Andrew. Your suggestions are certainly sensible however we have certain constraints placed upon us by the DfT regarding the 30 roundel. The Traffic Signs and General Directions manual prohibits the use of a painted 30 road marking and indeed 30 mph repeater signs, except in certain circumstances such where there is a change in speed limit although 20mph markings can be used in 20mph zones. The Dft will argue that The Highway Code which refers to the presence of street lighting in a built up area as the indication of a 30 limit and drivers should be aware of this. I'm not sure as to why they will not permit us to use the road marking, but it frustrates me too. I think that it is better to assume that the limit is 30 unless repeater signs signs tell you otherwise. As to the rumble strips- these are quite effective in making drivers aware of a hazard as well as slowing them down however, we try not to use them in residential areas as residents complain about vibration and noise. Although I'm sure they could be permitted in certain circumstances on approach to cameras. But I think most local authorities will just stick to having a bright yellow box, check marks on the road and the advance "same view" road sign as suitable warning.

Andrew. I forgot to address your comment regarding revenue generation. I can hand on heart say that I have no pressure on me to submit sites for cameras from the "powers that be" due to income generation. Our only reward is to see the number of killed or seriuosly injured (KSI) at the location. Local authorities have not seen a penny of the income boosing their coffers, however from april we will recieve a small slice to put towards road safety projects such as publicity or teaching more children to use the roads safely. But we will never use cameras except to reduce KSI at problem hotspots.

One of the arguments used to criticise safety cameras is that drivers just slow down and then speed up again. Some people do of course, but not all, and so what anyway. Fixed cameras are situated at accident black spots, so the cameras serve their purpose even if some do then speed up again. But then again, the anti-camsters do have a point, and a much better idea would be to have a national force of civilian Speed Wardens who could be anywhere, anytime. If people never know where they are likely to get snapped, they are much more likely to stay within the speed limits at all times. And personally, I would give anyone who was more than 10mph over the posted limit an automatic one-year ban. Deterrents are only deterrents if they deter, and a lot of people are being killed and very seriously injured in the meantime.

Hi Roy. You have raised an interesting argument however, a covert method of speed enforcement as you suggest has already been tried when the speed cameras were first launched. They were grey boxes- often, but not deliberately hidden and with no advanced signage to act as a warning to drivers of their presence. This method came under-fire from the anti-camera lobby who argued that this was an underhanded way of enforcement and that revenue generation must be the only motive for their presence. Since then cameras have become conspicuous and highly visible in an attempt to dispel the "cash cow" myth and yet the anti-camsters still maintain their original argument. My wish is for people to realise that there is nothing underhand about camera enforcement and openness and transparency together with real evidence of their effectiveness is the key.

Hi RSO. Yes, I am familiar with the background, and in that respect I would say that the 'anti-camera lobby' (which is in fact the road lobby) are responsible for hundreds of road deaths and thousands of very serious injury collisions as a consequence. Painting the boxes yellow and giving advanced warning is tantamount to putting a sign up saying (to drink-drivers): DRINK-DRIVERS BEWARE! THERE IS A POLICE PATROL CAR AHEAD CARRYING OUT RANDOM CHECKS. The anti-camsters are in the main a few black propagandists churning out their odious lies and falsehoods wherever and whenever they can, and the profits of the road lobby are their raison d'etre (their profits would be severely affected if there were a relatively safe street/road environment in which people could walk and cycle safely), and the preventable and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people mean nothing what-so-ever to them. A national force of speed wardens combined with safe speed limits and deterrents that really DO deter could and undoubtedly would reduce the carnage - and the suffering that goes with it - by 80/90%.

Totally agree with you Roy. If people never know where they are likely to get 'flashed', then the vast majority will drive within the posted limits most of the time. And if it prevents thousands of fatal and serious injury collisions from happening every year, who's going to complain about it except the anal-retentive self-centred bully-boy speedfreaks.