Speed camera jammers face ban

Yakub Qureshi

March 08, 2005

| Submit Comments | Comments (13) | Previous | Next

DETECTION devices which can jam speed cameras will be outlawed as part of a Bill which is expected to be passed in the House of Commons.

But those devices which contain information about camera site locations, and do not interfere with their mechanism, are not included in the ban.

A Department of Transport spokeswoman said: "At the end of the day, our message is don't speed."

The proposal to ban jammers is included in the government's Road Safety Bill which returns to the Commons for its report stage and third reading.

The official view is that jamming devices could seriously affect police road patrols for example when they are trying to deal with boy racers.

The explanatory notes for the Bill say: "It is not intended to include in the prohibition those devices that only contain information about camera site locations."

Commenting on the Bill, Michael Fabricant, the Conservative MP for Lichfield, said: "It is one thing to detect the presence of speed cameras, but it is another completely to jam cameras and to break the law, speeding through areas where there are schools at 90mph."
He added: "Personally, I am surprised these devices were not made illegal years ago."

What do you think of speed cameras? Have your say.

| Submit Comments | Comments (13) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 13 and replies | View All

passed my test, manchester (08/03/2005 at 17:44)

great, put more in double the amount you have now if people have mony to burn great if not don't speed.

MikeMape, Pennsylvania USA (08/03/2005 at 18:02)

The two faced British government insist that speed cameras are for safety and not a cash cow to milk to the max. How ever the same government cheaps out to the max when it comes to constructing new and safer roads, the purchase of salting trucks for motorways and mountain passes during snow and ice storms. and the guard rails are just a joke in the hill and mountain areas of the UK. The plain fact is this new gismo rakes massive amounts of money in with little or no effort on the governments part. Safety? its a moot point if it does not get the cash for the Man.

carl, Bristol (29/08/2005 at 20:04)

Everyone is aware that speed cameras are there to generate revenue for the government and the police, thy try to mislead us by telling us that they are there to protect us but if that is the case then why are most of these cameras in places where they know that motorists may stray over the limit by 1-5 mph instead of being sited in know accident blackspots such as very sudden sharp bends etc?
The mobile cameras wielded by the police are even worse, these cameras are mostly used covertly! They don't want you to see them until they have your B#60! Just another way to milk the motorist dry in this country instead of catching real criminals, we should sack this corrupt government and the police and start again!

Sparky, Buckinghamshire (08/02/2006 at 10:05)

Here we go again. The government Nanny state doing what it thinks is best for us. Banning speed camera detectors is just going to create more mistrust and misgivings toward an already incompetent government. These little devices help motorists reduce speed in the most needed areas. We do not need more excuses from the government just better methods of speed reduction.

Andy, Wythenshawe (08/02/2006 at 17:34)

" Everyone is aware that speed cameras are there to generate revenue for the government and the police " NUTTER .
" The government Nanny state doing what it thinks is best for us " COMPLETE NUTTER .
No really , we all know what sort of people you are , the scum of the roads .. simple as that.

Jim, Liverpool (09/02/2006 at 20:55)

Can anyone answer the following question: Do people have a choice about whether they speed or not? If the answer is Yes - which it is - could Carl and Co explain why they think the purpose of cameras is to generat revenue.

Chris, Nottingham (11/02/2006 at 12:10)

As I understand it, the Government is only intending to ban jammers and those devices which can detect whether a camera is active or not, so what is wrong with that. The following is an extract from the Department for Transport website: 'The Government will not be prohibiting those devices that rely on Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to warn drivers of published camera sites or posted speed limits, as these compliment the Government's policy to ensure that camera sites are visible and conspicuous to drivers, and so help deter excessive and inappropriate speeds on the roads.' I personally think that a national force of (civilian) Speed Wardens who could be anywhere, anytime, would be much more effective at deterring speeders and speedfreaks and, as such, prevent far more fatal and serious injury collisions. If the speeders and speedfreaks never know when or where they may get caught, they are much more likely to drive within the speed limits at all times. Unfortunately, a small but vocal minority, and the vested interests of the motoring lobby, will do all in their power to make sure this never happens, because the last thing they want to see is a relatively safe road environment in which people can walk and cycle in relative safety.

Phil, Dewsbury (14/02/2006 at 15:36)

On his website, Paul Smith, the founder of the anti-camera group Safe Speed, says the following: "With unexplained road deaths running at some 1,200 per annum - one third of the total - we now feel fully justified in the claim: one third of road fatalities are due to speed cameras." Unexplained road deaths.......speed cameras? Oh I see, they were so busy looking for cameras whilst they were speeding.....! There are no "unexplained" road deaths and the guy is completely bonkers of course, and since the safety camera programme really started to expand in 2001/2002, road fatalities have started to fall dramatically. In 2004 there were some 300 less fatalities, and the figures for 2005 look set to show a similar fall in the number of fatalities, but Smith omits to mention this as it doesn't fit in with his agenda of course. Smith also says on his website that "Despite official claims that there's huge public support for speed cameras, we simply don't believe it..... Such public support as still exists is largely built on lies and misinformation." They are NOT "official claims", they are polls conducted by reputable polling organisations, and I think most people can see just who is spreading the lies and disinformation Mr Smith! "One third of road fatalities due to camers"! Who on earth does Smith think would swallow such nonsense!!!

Angie, Leicester (16/02/2006 at 14:13)

On his website Paul Smith asks the following questions (and I have given my own answers in brackets): "Why do drivers speed? Is it the height of arrogance - they think they know better than the experts? (Yes, in many cases) Is it utter contempt for life and property? (Yes, in some cases) Are they just selfish, irresponsible and self-important? (Yes, in many cases) Or is there something much more subtle and important going on? (No)." I would also add that in the majority of cases it is just plain thoughtlessness and ignorance.

Chris, Nottingham (17/02/2006 at 00:55)

Paul Smith also says the following on his website: "Inattention is one of the most common real failings, and may well lie at the root cause of 70 to 90% of all road accidents." Well if that is the case, how does Smith explain the fact that 94 per cent of driving offences causing death and serious injury are committed by males? Do they just happen to be less attentive than women, or could it be that many males - but by no means all - just happen to drive faster and more aggressively than women. I think most people with eyes in their head know the answer! Even allowing for the fact that there are 33 per cent more male drivers than there are female drivers, and also that males clock up a third more mileage each year than female drivers, that still means that males are about twelve times more likely to kill or seriously injure someone. "Inattention", just one more of the Big Lies concocted and perpetuated by propaganda organisations such as Safe Speed. His motto should be: The Boy-racers Friend!

Veronica, Harrogate (20/02/2006 at 15:15)

STUPIDITY is the "root cause" of 70 to 90% of fatal and serious collisions!

Chris, Nottingham (22/02/2006 at 13:44)

At the top of the main page on Safe Speed's website, next to the SS road sign symbol, it says: "If vehicle activated signs are three times more effective, why do we need any speed cameras?". There are no statistics to support this claim precisely because it isn't happening, and it is just another one of the Big Lies concocted and perpetuated by anti-camera groups such as Safe Speed. The underlying message of this particular Big Lie is that the real purpose of speed cameras is to fleece motorists and raise revenue. If vehicle activated signs were even as effective as speed cameras - let alone three times more effective - the media - and especially the anti-camera tabloids - would have been on to it long before now. Paul Smith really IS the 'Boy-racers Friend'!

Jim, Liverpool (24/02/2006 at 15:00)

Carl. As I'm sure you know, the DfT criteria for the placement of a camera is that there must have been four (or more) fatal and serious injury collisions in the three year period before, and your 1-5mph scenario is just complete rubbish of course. And as I'm sure you also know, cameras are set to trigger at 10%+ 2mph above the stated limit, so in other words someone would have to doing at least 35mph in a 30mph limit and 46mph in a 40mph limit and so on, and most of those who get flashed and fined are travelling some-what faster than that. Your comments are completely bogus, and you are just spreading disinformation, or trying to. And I suppose the guy who stole the car and drove at 48mph in a 30mph limit and killed a three year old little girl and devastated her family ISN'T a 'real criminal'! Why don't you just crawl back under your rock.

()

Report

News