Speed Cameras And Surveillance

Original posting, October 2006


PATRIOT Act

If the claim that speed cameras are positioned to reduce speed and accidents and NOT for revenue is to be taken seriously, then action resulting from the following article, and the many that have preceded it, would be a police presence to attempt to slow traffic. Such presence is absent as the money rolls in so it makes it very difficult to accept government claims. I support the ethic of ‘speed cameras’ if that’s all they are and not a surveillance eye on public movements around Britain of drivers, generally, or targeted vehicles, specifically.

If drivers cannot keep their speed legal then they should be treated accordingly. However, my distrust of government does lead me towards the inevitable conclusion: Speed and safety is only the justification, the smokescreen, for these bright yellow eyes watching over us. Not for safety, but for control. Cynical isn't it? The bright yellow eyes among us and yet almost totally ignored. People are so used to them. And watching only cars? It would seem so as we have the CCTV cameras everywhere else in urban areas to watch over pedestrians.


The following Guardian article has recently appeared: motorway roadworks speed camera nets £1.2m in 7 months. Steven Morris and Helen Carter Thursday September 7, 2006 The Guardian 

Britain's most lucrative motorway roadworks speed camera netted more than £1m in just seven months, it was revealed yesterday. More than 20,000 motorists were caught out by the camera on the M5 near Bristol, costing them £1.2m in fines and more than 60,000 penalty points.


[Speed awareness courses cost £100 (no points) as an alternative to £60 + 3 points. Potentially, that's £2,000,000 depending on the option taken. From one camera.]

Campaigners against speed cameras, who claim the machines cause more accidents than they prevent, were furious at the statistics, released under the Freedom of Information Act. The revelations came as a man who blew up a speed camera in a futile effort to destroy evidence of him breaking the speed limit was jailed for four months. Craig Moore, 28, from Doncaster, said he had taken an explosive substance from his workplace at Vital Rail to sabotage the camera. The blast caused £11,700 damage to the camera in Hyde, Greater Manchester, which captured him speeding in August last year. The court heard that his plan backfired because the photographs of his speeding and footage of him damaging the camera were stored in recording equipment in the machine's base, which was undamaged. He admitted damaging property.

More than 100 motorists were caught by the camera in Bristol every day between junctions 18 and 25, bringing in £260 an hour. Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership said it was disappointed, but not surprised so many people exceeded the 40mph limit.


When in a flow of traffic of hundreds of cars travelling at a consistent speed, it is understandable that to keep the flow going, then speed is adjusted to maintain the flow. Even if it is too fast to be legal. It would take an unusual individual to 'hold up' the flow by maintaining the speed limit when everyone else seems to want to go faster.

I know of someone who was berated by a traffic patrolman for going too slow. For not breaking the law.

That's incitement to break the law by a law enforcement officer

Paul Smith, the founder of anti-speed camera group Safe Speed, said the haul was the latest example of "innocent" drivers being targeted. "I'm so angry to hear about this camera raking in so much money for the government, when scientific evidence shows us that fixed cameras like this one can increase accidents by up to 55%."

Nigel Humphries, of the Association of British Drivers, said fixed cameras forced drivers to concentrate on their speed limit, rather than the road ahead. "Cameras at roadworks force drivers to look down at the speedometers and not at their surroundings, which, it has now been proven, causes accidents."


I must say that I regard that a totally specious argument. If you don't know what speed you're doing you shouldn't be on the road. Unless it's totally silent, the sound of the engine should be your guide. Even in the wrong gear, the sound can only indicate a higher speed.


"This whole mess is made by the Safety Camera Partnership, which is ripping off people in the name of safety." Dave Gollicker, spokesman for the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership, said the number of motorists caught was a fraction of the hundreds of thousands who used the motorway while the work was being done. He denied speed cameras were simply a way of making money: "They are there to protect the workforce and the motorist."


The whole issue is being reduced to farce. Comments like "innocent" drivers being targeted are absurd. They are not innocent. But, if after 7 MONTHS action hasn't been attempted to enforce reduced speed, the only reasonable conclusion is that it is too profitable.


All that rhetoric about safety makes it all very hard to swallow. Cameras are mostly for surveillance, but have the bonus of making a shedload of money in the process.