1,500 caught in speeding swoop

Clarissa Satchell

July 14, 2004

| Submit Comments | Comments (56) | Previous | Next

ON ALERT: A policeman waits for a speeder

HUNDREDS of drivers can expect speeding tickets to drop through their letterboxes in the next few days after mobile cameras were set up at new spots in a two-week sweep.

Police used them all over Greater Manchester to target 49 roads and, out of 27,946 drivers checked, 1,566 were speeding.

If each is fined the minimum '30, the campaign should bring in '46,980 to the Greater Manchester Speed Camera Partnership.

The partnership chose the spots for checks after hearing complaints from residents about speeding on roads which do not qualify for full-time cameras. It says the results prove drivers are putting lives at risk by breaking the speed limits there.

But the Association of British Drivers claims cameras do not lead to a fall in deaths - and that the operation will only generate extra cash to buy more cameras.

The Speed Camera Partnership, which includes members of the police and local authority, issued a list of where the mobile cameras would be to warn motorists before the two-week project.

Danger

Road Safety Officer Brian Wood said: "Excess speed does affect people's lives and many are fearful of leading their children out into the roads because of this. There is danger to all road users and our campaign has been necessary because of this genuine concern in the communities of Greater Manchester."

To qualify for a permanent camera, a road has to have had a minimum number of deaths and serious injury accidents in the past two years.

Cash raised by speed cameras is used to pay for the running costs and staffing of the partnerships and to install further cameras.

Tony Vickers from the Association of British Drivers, said: "We disapprove of these cameras. A lot of people call for them because they think they will reduce speeding but that is not the case unfortunately.

"People tend to concentrate less on driving well and more on slowing down near cameras to avoid getting a ticket. We believe interactive signs flashing up your speed and police patrols are far more effective.

"Putting a camera somewhere over two weeks will never reduce deaths or accidents. It will not stop the joy-riders and the drunk drivers. All it will do is annoy responsible drivers."

Emma Reynolds, from Drivesafe, the official name for the Greater Manchester Speed Camera Partnership, said: "I think the message is getting through because out of the number of vehicles checked, a relatively small number were over the speed limit.

"We have to operate within very strict government guidelines."

Should we have more speed cameras on our roads?

| Submit Comments | Comments (56) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All

T. Aston, Manchester (14/07/2004 at 11:47)

Got nothing better to do. How about getting out there and catching some real crims, and leave the motorists alone.

Manchester Ex-Pat, Hertfordshire (14/07/2004 at 16:52)

If as Emma Reynolds from Drivesafe says " a relatively small number were over the speed limit" what was the point of the exercise, apart from trying to raise speeding ticket revenue. I would think that any pedestrian hit by a modern car or commercial vehicle even at less than 30 miles per hour would suffer serious injuries.
Why don`t we have as much effort in trying to improve the woefully low crime clear up rate. Importantly why do we need a speed camera partnership presumably funded by fines and taxes.

ken marrion, burnage (14/07/2004 at 18:20)

get camera on every road hidden if possible very easy not to get caught obey our laws too many cars on our roads lets skim off the mad ones

Ian, Stockport (14/07/2004 at 20:57)

Number of speed cameras increasing. Quality of driving decreasing. Number of road deaths increasing. Somebody needs to rethink the policing of our roads. Punishing responsible drivers and ignoring the lunatics I see every single day is not the way forward.

Tony, Stockport (14/07/2004 at 22:49)

Lets adopt the previous authors policy - leave the motorists alone and chase real criminals. Speeding will go uncontrolled, drink driving will increase, as will tax evaision and driving without insurance. Then you go and tell the parents that their child has been killed by a speeding motorist because the police have adopted your policy and left motorists to their own devices. I am sure those parents will not take any heart from the fact that the police were now concentrating their attentions on shoplifters and burglars etc. A life is more valuble than an item of property. I do not intend to disagree with you but when making statements like yours, you must consider the consequences of such actions. In an ideal world we would have enough Police Officers to crack down on all law breaking activities, but how do we finance the resources that would be necessary? I am sure you would agree that we all feel we pay to much taxation already.

Phil, Kingston,Ontario,Canada (15/07/2004 at 00:35)

As a visitor & ex pat, having rented a car, I have just received a letter from Greater Manchester Police informing me that the car I rented was caught in a speed camera when I was watching European football on TV at the time. My son had just (that afternoon) got insurance to drive in the UK, and was being shown how to drive in the rush hour! He was traveling at the same speed as the other "rush hour" drivers at 5.21pm when "caught" on Camera. To travel at a lesser speed would have been dangerous to other road users, so I hope that the GM police are happy to finance themselves this way. When I have asked them to assist when my elderly parents who were having problems in Sale, with vandalisam late night I was told at that time(10.45pm) to call another agency as it was not the police's responsibility!!

Then they expect the public to respond when they ask for help!!!
No wonder people are afraid to help them when they are treated this way.

Keith Jones, Epsom Surrey (15/07/2004 at 08:44)

I believe that all available evidence suggests that speed is a comparatively small contributory factor in accidents. Department for Transport figures rank speed at number seven in a list of causation factors with, inattention, Failure to judge other person's path or speed and Looked but did not see, as the top three. Avon and Somerset police have publicly stated that 75% of all accidents which they investigated occurred within the posted speed limit. It would therefore seem that slowing traffic down is a red herring in the quest for increased road safety.
With regard to traffic calming measures, a recent Auto glass report has found that after being forced to slow down by traffic-calming schemes, 72% drive aggressively, 71% jump amber lights (71%) and two in three cut up another motorist or use rat runs.

As a result, one in 12 said they had had an accident of some sort and 25% had had a near-miss.
Strict enforcement of speed limits and the placing of obstructions in roads has been local and national policy for over a decade with a significant increase in the use of such measures since the general election of 1997. Over this period I am sure Mr The 3508 people killed in 2003, was the highest death toll since 1997 when Labour gained power.
Yours truly,
Keith Jones

Enrico Vanni, M6 User (15/07/2004 at 11:03)

The speed camera debate has been done to death - the people for it (and the people earning a living from it) putting forward emotive and unsubtantiated claims, the people against often ranting, but some putting scientific arguments across that a disproportiante attention to speeding is actually making roads more dangerous as other more serious factors get ignored. The last point is the most important and is backed up by the INCREASE in road deaths since the 'Speed Kills' campaigns started. The medicine isn't working so more doses aren't going to help.

Sandra, Gt Manchester (15/07/2004 at 15:00)

As per usual, Tony Vickers from the Association of Barmy Drivers paints a false picture. He says that "people tend to concentrate less on driving well...." etc, etc, implying of course that motorists who are exceeding the limit are driving well (or would be, if only they weren't having to spend all their time looking out for cameras!). What piffle, Mr Vickers. He then as good as says this again when he says: "Bla, bla, bla bla....All it will do is annoy responsible drivers". I would suggest to him that it is the complete opposite, and it is the irresponsible drivers who are getting annoyed, precisely because they are getting flashed and fined.

Judy, Newcastle (15/07/2004 at 15:42)

The faster the speed a driver is travelling at, the less likely they are to be involved in a collision. And the faster the speed, the less likely the injuries are to be fatal or serious in the event of a collision. Isn't that right lads?!

Mike, Manchester (15/07/2004 at 16:41)

Always true to form, as they are, it is the anti-camera clowns - in this instance Enrico - who state the exact opposite of the truth. And the truth is of course that it's the anti-camera brigade who continually put forward "emotive and unsubstantiated claims", plus distortions and falsehoods and half-truths etc, and it's those who want to see the carnage reduced who use common sense and rational debate.

Andy, Wythenshawe (15/07/2004 at 21:45)

Yeah, speed cam debates have been done to death.

We still get the whinging half-wit comments "How about getting out there and catching some real crims, and leave the motorists alone"

People like that ARE the real criminals, not only when its concerned with motoring, but when its concerned with a civilised law abiding society.

FF Mitchell, Crewe (15/07/2004 at 22:21)

Clearly Torqemada is still alive judging from some of your pro-camera correspondents. I wonder what more exquisite tortures they would like to impose on us motorists !

The fact is none of us are infallible; there is no driver anywhere that can guarantee total adherence to the speed limits every second of every journey; it is impossible unless the speedometer is looked at continuously and not the road ahead, yet perfection is apparently expected from these malign cash camera partnerships.

10 million people a year, ( and rising exponentially), are now being fined for minor parking and speeding offences whilst the serious criminals get away; just look at crime in Manchester - too difficult for the police, obviously.

Yet the people being fined and banned from driving under 'totting-up' are those who this government expect to serve on juries and assist the police ! So many are now being fined that the government are having difficulties finding new magistrates - obviously they cannot have any convictions to be appointed.

What is happening is grotesque and totally contrary to British common sense, fairness and sense of proportion. Even though I have a clean licence, I am incandescent with rage. Don't vote for the smug bastards !

I suppose they'll learn eventually, and lay off the motorist. Don't hold your breath though, the money is too good to miss - over one thousand million last year, think about it.

Eamon, Cheshire (16/07/2004 at 09:19)

Get more cameras by all means - and watch the death rate rise even faster. They're a serious distraction from the main problem of drink driving, careless driving etc, all of which are at record levels. I wonder why that is?

Malc, Manchester (16/07/2004 at 10:26)

Yes please to more cameras - that means less police so I can cut people up drive like a loony and general drive badly and not get caught by the kodak cops and the scamera vans.

Mark, Teeside (16/07/2004 at 10:55)

Pathetic, the message seems to be you can drive drunk, drugged, uninsured, untaxed etc etc as long as you keep your eyes glued to the speedo to avoid being the latest contributor to the scam of the century. This has NOTHING to do with road safety & everything to do with money! Note I have a clean license so am not just venting off at being caught myself!

Peter Ward, Close to M6 (16/07/2004 at 13:19)

Speed is not the only issue, and it's a minor one relating to accidents. Much more important are dangerous driving (perfectly possible below the speed limit), drunk driving, uninsured/unregistered cars, and the like.

I wish the police would focus on these rather than the relatively minor issue of speed.

Oscar, Manchester (16/07/2004 at 13:35)

Enrico, either you are being economical with the truth, or you are inadvertently repeating disinformation. Perhaps you could tell us when the "Speed Kills" campaign started and give us some stats to substantiate your claim. As for the DfT Keith, "accidents" are one thing, and fatalities entirely another. Excessive speed, whether within a given limit or above it, is responsible for the vast majority of deaths and serious injuries in road crashes. As for your absurd story Phil, why would it have been dangerous to other road users for your son to drive at a "lesser speed" - ie within the limit? You are talking bollards, and I don't believe a word you say in your post. And what evidence do you have Ian to support your statement that the quality of driving is decreasing? And how do you know, and how can you prove, that the number of road deaths wouldn't have been significantly higher if the cameras hadn't been there? As for Ex-Pat, you too are talking complete twaddle. Could it be that the reason the number caught speeding was relatively small is because most drivers knew there would be mobile camera units in the area, and so therefore drove within the limits. In other words, they were a deterrent. It's not exactly rocket science to work it out! Yeah, yeah, T Aston, you just go right ahead and keep repeating the same old, tired, road lobby anti-camera platitudes, cos no one but a few morons are listening to your nonsense, as with the latest bunch of claptrap from the barmy brigade.

Keith, Epsom, Surrey (16/07/2004 at 18:40)

I have often noticed that there is a lack of reasoned argument from camera supporters. Oscar, however, is so sure us that he is right that he doesn't even bother to put forward an argument. When he says that 'Excessive speed whether within a given limit or above it, is responsible for the vast majority of deaths and serious injuries in road crashes.' Is he seriously suggesting that the vast majority of deaths are caused by 3% of drivers? And if he really believes that this excessive speed can a speed below the posted limit what is the point of speed cameras?

The governments own figures show that over half of all the UK's 28 million licence holders exceed the speed limit perfectly safely every day, that B#68 million is raised in speeding fines annually and that accident casualties have increased at 743 camera locations. These are facts Oscar not opinion.

B J Mann, Nottingham (16/07/2004 at 21:03)

You report: mobile cameras were set up at new spots in a two-week sweep ... after hearing complaints from residents about speeding.

The result: out of 27,946 drivers checked, 1,566 were "speeding". That's less than 6%.

Just goes to show that when there are reports that "traffic" is speeding it is doing no such thing. Only every 20th car was "speeding", and for all we know at 31mph.

As for the claim that "the results prove drivers are putting lives at risk by breaking the speed limits there": so how many lives were lost as a result of those 1,566 "speeders"? Surely 1,566? At least 1? 1 injured? 1 accident even?

What's the betting that there wasn't even a single accident.

So, this little excercise has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only DOESN'T "Speed Kill". It doesn't even cause accidents!

Peter, Stockport (16/07/2004 at 23:43)

The more that can be done to make life uncomfortable for the motorist the better. It has been done with smokers and there are far worse deaths and injuries from motorists than from passive smoking. Not only that, motorists are damaging the environment for future generations. Residential streets are littered with vehicles and in some areas it is impossible to walk any distance on footpaths for parked cars. Building more roads only encourages more of this anti-social behaviour. Every day I see drivers with mobile phones in their hands - and they expect others to have sympathy when they unintentionally exceed speed limits! It is time motorists stopped behaving like spoilt children and started having more consideration for others.

Peter, Stockport (16/07/2004 at 23:50)

The more that can be done to make life uncomfortable for motorists the better. It has been done with smokers and far worse deaths and injuries are caused by motorists than from passive smoking. Not only that, motorists are causing damage to the environment for future generations. Building more roads only encourages more of this anti-social behaviour. Every day I see drivers with mobile phones in their hands - and they expect sympathy when they are caught unintentionally breaking speed limits? It is time motorists etopped behaving like spoilt children and started having consideration for others.

Andy, Tameside, Manchester (17/07/2004 at 09:42)

And how many people were killed or injured by these 'speeding' drivers? None! Speed does not kill, stupid driving kills. The fact that so many deivers were exceeding the (recently lowered) limits proves just one thing: the limits are set too low!

Stella, Manchester (17/07/2004 at 15:49)

What is happening is indeed grotesque FF. Thousands are being killed each year on the roads, thousands more are being crippled or/and braindamaged, and tens of thousands of others are being otherwise seriously injured. Thousands upon thousands of families are being devastated and their lives changed forever by the loss of a loved one each year, year after year after year, or by having them permanently crippled or braindamaged. Think about it. Sorry to hear about your incandescent rage. Poor you! It's awful what some people have to endure, isn't it?

Brian, Stockport (17/07/2004 at 16:50)

People who drive at excessive speed and have no regard for other road users - whether pedestrians, cyclists, or other motorists - are either morons or maniacs, or a combination of both, and should be regarded as such and barred from driving for life. Why should anyone have to die, or any family have to suffer as a consequence, on account of such scumbags.

()

Report

News