Apparently, the Luddite tradition of machine breaking is alive and well in its country of origin. According to a report, a group calling itself MAD -- or Motorists Against Detection -- have taken to setting
autonomous traffic cameras ablaze across the United Kingdom, and are detailing their exploits on a website (of course). The group's "PR" claims they have been active since 2000, and have destroyed over 1000 roadside cameras. Says the group's leader, Capt. Gatso, "The vigilante anti-speed camera group have announced a summer of MADness which will see them target for destruction all speed cameras in the UK. It's now going to be a period of zero tolerance against all speed cameras." The gang of disgruntled drivers also plans a day of action called "National Cover-Up Your Number Plates Day." Guy Fawkes would be proud.
[Thanks, Anand]
posted Dec 27th 2007 10:37AM
I work for the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership and would like to make a few salient points.
Firstly, for those who say 'Don't fool yourself. This isn't about getting people to slow down, it's about making more money for the state.' - this is totally incorrect. Not a penny piece would be made if people simply observed the rules of the road, you are not forced to drive faster than the limit set for a particular section of road.
When you take control of a vehicle on the public highway you have agreed to abide by The Road Traffic Act and all encumbant legislation - those who complain about speed cameras would be the first to complain if they get rear-ended at a junction, so they want other drivers to at least have insurance.
There are also those who say that cameras are 'hidden', which is quite false - all Gatso's must be clearly visible and there are dedicated teams who ensure this remains so by cutting back growing foliage.
As for burning cameras, all you are doing is draining funding acquired originally from your own pockets.
The bottom line is this; drive within set limits = no fine/no points, it isn't rocket science. People only complain because they are fiddling with the CD player or chatting on the phone and miss the approaching camera and feel idiotic.
I would add that virtually all road traffic accidents are the result of;
1) Speed (going faster than you can safely stop in the distance you can see, which includes failing to keep sufficient distance between you and the vehicle in front).
2) Driving without due care and attention. In other words, doing someone other than keeping both hands on the wheel and watching the road ahead - combined with point one.
In theory, there would be no 'accidents' whatsoever if we gave the road our total focus and didn't give in to highlighting our egos via a heavy right foot. There are a percentage of drivers who completely ignore speed restrictions (motorcyclists being right up there in this regard) and I will go so far as to say the word 'accident' is completely misleading, for although it was not the original intention to generate a collision, bad/selfish driving is usually the cause and not factors outside human control.
Speed is unquestionably the number one contributing factor for the majority of road traffic collisions. The question of motorways/autobahns being examples of where this is not the case is a good one;
Fast straight roads with no junctions or crossing hazards are bound to be relatively accident-free due to the nature of the environment. It is when you combine speed with a rapidly changing set of variables such as an urban landscape of cyclists, pedestrians, animals and other close proximity vehicles. Add modern high-performance engines to the mix, the human ego, mobile phones, women + makeup + the rearview mirror and whatever else makes drivers go too fast for the conditions without paying proper attention to the road ahead, and that is why collisions take place.
Speed and red light cameras are a fabulous thing - anything that reduces collisions has to be beneficial.
Say chee... aww...
At the top of my list of things I like to do is run red lights at intersections equipped with cameras. I especially enjoy doing this while not wearing a seat belt.
The entire intersection camera scam wreaks of conservatism.
1. Like many conservative ideas, the main idea is one of control.
2. The policy embodies something very dear to conservatives...greed.
3. The law is ultimately enforced with gunpowder which implies deadly force...something also very dear to conservatives.
4. It is a high tech invention. Most conservative high tech inventions are either used for killing people or keeping people in line. This one, by God, can also be used to generate revenue.
5. The cameras are strategically placed in middle class income areas where people have the means to pay the fine but not so much income that they would go out of their way to fight the injustice. Conservatives relish "sheep" mentality.
6. You won't find these cameras in inner city neighborhoods where the tickets would just be ignored. Afterall, putting people in jail is a burden on conservatives also.
I, of course, don't run red lights without a fresh coat of Photo Blocker sprayed on my plates.
James
Uh, do you even have any idea what "conservative" means?
Go read up on Stalinism and Maoism sometime—not to mention Jefferson—before you ascribe classic big-state totalitarian tendencies to some high-school newspaper caricature of "conservatism".
You know guys, you could always just slow down.
The faster they drive, the faster they get to more cameras, silly.
Don't fool yourself. This isn't about getting people to slow down, it's about making more money for the state.
How do you want to force people to slow down ? Losing money is a persuasive way to slow down, especially after a couple of time.
If you don't want them to make money, why not go to jail instead ?
I'd much rather the state fund itself from fining people breaking the law than higher taxes. I'd even support letting people work off the fines ... either way, because a punishment is a postive for the tax payers and community doesn't mean its wrong. Conspiracy theorists will always be there until its a lose-lose situation for everyone ... then they'll invent a 3rd party that is winning from it.
The result of destroying cameras will likely result in two things: more cameras and hidden cameras. Don't like the cameras now, wait until they're covertly disguised and placed ... then you'll really feel like you're in 1984.
Of course the government will need more bloody money if a bunch of idiots can't figure out how to slow done and take their anger out on expensive equipment used to make sure that there isn't some ned/chav driving 150mph through a village.
These guys should grow up and learn to take their time... or crash into a tree, either is good for me
ScareyJ,
That THEORY of yours is indeed just that, a theory. Most cities have a private company administer the ticket issuance process for them. In other words, when a speeder goes through one of these, a company picks up the photo, issues a ticket with the blessing of a sworn police officer and bills the city for the work. This is hardly an income generator, it's more of a no bid contract Halliburton type income generator.
Jim, I was responding to a previous post saying speeding tickets were only about money and not about slowing people down. What you think is my "theory" on generating revenue isn't a theory ... governments DO make big revenue from speeding tickets. The dialog was about the purpose of speeding tickets (not just tickets from speed cameras). On a bright note, two morons from Virginia (from both parties) sponsored and passed a bill that increased fines ONLY for state residents and exempted out of state persons (to increase revenue another $65M-$120M). An $80 fine for a broken tail light would then add $900 for a "civil remediation fee" for state residents only.
But specific to speed cameras: According to the numbers I found for California, they were pulling in over 70% of the revenue while the controversial contractor Lockheed pulled in about 25-28% (Motorists.org). (Australia seems to be raking in big revenue on a daily basis)
Here in Maryland, they just passed a law to allow slots. As I understand it, the operators have to fork over like 70% of their gross proceeds as taxes -- basically, it's protection money to the mafia in Annapolis. This is a lot like that: the state passes a law where some company agrees to do all the work and collect some tiny fraction of the gross revenue, then pass the rest on to the fat cats downtown.
It makes me sick, and I'm glad to see somebody doing something about it. Somebody posted above that they'd rather see government funded by fines than taxes... well, that just encourages the scoundrels to pass more preposterous laws (see the comment about the "$900 administrative fee" for the broken tail light) to get fines from more and more otherwise-honest people. They might start out setting these cameras to only catch people going 15 over, but soon they'll get greedy(er) and set them down to 12, then 10, then 8, then 5... then maybe they'll decide that that particular stretch of highway needs a speed limit 5 miles lower "for safety".
I'd rather just pay my taxes and know what I'm paying for.
I had no idea that the UK was such a police state.
You should read the other articles on engadget about big brother and flying drones in the UK it is going full blown police state and people are sick of it.
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
V for Vendetta, also V for vigilante.
The revolution will not be televised. We will break all the cameras
Shtupid, the gov will just going to be using more tax payers' money to
fix the goddam thing.
Coming up next: England Replaces all Speed Cameras With Fire- and bullet-proof ones.
Then it's time for the spraypaint :)
There was an article a while ago about how to combat this they had started to install cameras to watch the cameras to catch the people destroying the cameras.
I want to know when they start to install cameras to watch the cameras that are watching the cameras.
I hate to say, but pretty soon it will be like that here in the States. I am just happy, unlike England we do not have cameras at every intersection, or throughout the city.
Speak for yourself. Redflex traffic systems (and others) have cameras installed at intersections all over the U.S. - I'm in Toledo and we have over 20 of them at various locations.
The real problem is that people accustomed to a 4 second yellow, now screech to a sudden stop when they realize the revenue generating (for Redflex) cameras have also opted to modify the yellow times to the state/city minimum time.
I believe we (Toledo) only get about 10% of the revenue. The cameras end up being fodder used to promote someone for relection. IMHO
All, most of the vandalised cameras are the first generation "film" based cameras, which require maintenance access and are thus about 8ft off the ground. The current generation, being rolled out pretty vigorously, are digital/3G based and can (and are from the examples I've seen) be mounted much much higher. That is the Home Office "answer" to the vandalisation issue.
I remember going down a road in Holland I think it was. There was about a dozen speed cameras along its length, and every single one was either burnt out or littered with pick-axe holes.
It seems us Brits aren't the only people with a thing against those cameras.
Good, because the company that makes the majority of our speed cameras (Gatsometer BV) is from holland!
Tip for y'all today - try making thermite with iron oxide (rust flakes will do) and aluminium filings. Make sure the mixture is well-powdered, pour it onto a camera, use magnesium ribbon as the fuse, light it and enjoy the fireworks! :D
ROFL!! and im an arab muslim!!
Interesting, instead of deterring people from breaking the traffic laws these cameras are causing them to go up a few pegs into arson.
Is it arson really? it's a local fire of an object outside, is a campfire arson? I mean it's well contained and doesn't endanger man or beast.
Its arson because you are destroying property delibrately with fire.
According to the online Princeton dictionary: Arson - malicious burning to destroy property; "the British term for arson is fire-raising"
...but it intentionally endangers property. Which means it is arson.
Oxford's dictionary says:
The malicious setting on fire of a house, ship, forest, etc.; an instance of this
Then of course the q. is, what do your consider malice.
"The malicious setting on fire of a house, ship, forest, etc.; an instance of thiscC
Then of course the q. is, what do your consider malice."
Ummm. No. You posted the answer to your own question. the "etc" covers just about anything. Whether it is well contained is irrelevant. Using your logic, if I torched your car in a vacant parking lot it wouldn't be arson. It is. Deliberate destruction of public or private property is arson.
Meant to say deliberate destruction of public or private property with fire
Hehe, you must be a lawyer then eh.
No, but I play one on TV.
Wow, they've been doing this for the last five years. How is this news now?
OH MY GOD!!! IT'S 2005 AGAIN!?!
Because Americans are slow to find out and post?
2005??!! THIS. IS. MADness!!!!
They've announced a "summer of MADness" in December?
That's forward thinking...or just plain old fashioned madness
I agree that there are way too many speed (not safety) cameras in the UK and a lot are used solely to generate revenue. That being said some local councils have taken to only using them at known accident blackspots and have even put up radar speed “advisers” about 100m before the cameras to warn drivers that they are a) speeding and b) about to pass a camera which could cause a prosecution.
When faced with this, at a known blackspot, it’s really stupid to see these cameras getting a rubber necklace (a burning tyre draped over them). MAD should spend the effort in getting councils to place the cameras where they’re actually needed and remove the ones that aren’t.
I would imagine these steps are being taken after several legislative failures to get rid of the things.
To insure the safe performance of all authorized activity, do not destroy vital testing aparatus.
the trick is, going after the local councils wouldn't be as cool or as news worthy, plus they get to ruin property and be an 'Anarchist'.
Basically, they are just a group of people who feel they should have the right to speed and they don't feel like taking responsibility for the fines that their behaviour results in.
This isn't news, this happens all the time. Boo.
The Governement makes next to no money from catching you on police cameras, apparantley even Simon Cowell makes more money a year than the government does from speed cameras (Source: Top Gear). More speed cameras are not put in place to generate revenue, speed cameras are only used as a last resort after everything else has been ruled out.
Honestly I don't see how you can complain about them anymore, there are plenty of warnings on the actual road, most Sat Navs show you when you're coming up to a speed camera, the AA has published where all the speed cameras are on their maps, not only that, but the government it self puts up the locations of the cameras for all to see!
I agree with MikeG - the problem is with the stupid drivers who are so unaware of their surroundings or incapable of controlling their vehicles that they end up speeding through the cameras. Surely the answer is to pay attention and learn how to use the middle pedal!
Most people don't want to be involved in an accident with an irresponsible speeding driver and are quite happy for the speed limit to be enforced. The only people who object are the juvenile speed-junkies who mistakenly see the whole road network as a racetrack that's only there so that they can get their adrenalin fix from driving at excessive speeds.
When they eventually grow up they will recognise that in fact the road network is there to enable people to travel from one place to another, and it would be rather better if that journey could be completed in safety and without intimidation. One key contributor to that is people driving in a responsible fashion in all respects, particularly keeping to the speed limits.
It is incredibly selfish to speed and people who do so are basically lacking in consideration for others. Speeding affects and destroys people's lives in many ways - it causes fear, noise pollution (particularly with the excessively loud exhaust systems that many of these people have fitted to their cars), scares pedestrians, cyclists and other non-vehicle users off the roads, and can cause accidents through people travelling too fast to avoid unexpected hazards.
For people to obey speed limits is the only way to avoid these problems, and safety cameras are one effective way of assisting in this aim.
They proudly say they have burn over 1000 cameras, which is of course very illegal.
Interesting how a simple Whois on the domain shows a name and address, I would have assumed it would at least be private lol.
The Brits burning their cameras. It's no wonder global warming is melting the glaciers.
I was a part of Luddites in London in 90s. Oh, that was fun: Days of Pedestrians Against Traffic, road parties, burning cars... Oh, sweet college years...
Yes, lets destroy property because we don't want to follow the law. You don't like the law? MOVE.
If you don't like the law, illegally immigrate here to America. Apparently our leaders here have no problem with that particular law being broken.
Bad laws deserve to be broken.
@Richard. You are an imbecile. Firstly, what you are suggesting is only one step away from anarchy, and I sincerely doubt that you would like to live in that type of environment. I assume that you approve of democracy and the rule of law? If so, abide by the laws. If you don't approve of a law, then use the democratic process to get it changed. I doubt, however, that you'll get any significant support for a puerile attempt to abolish speed limits.
Secondly, are you really suggesting that speed limits are an example of bad law? There is no argument that will convince me of that.
Seriously, we are developing a big problem in our society with stupid childish people who just want to be able to do whatever they want to do, irrespective of its effect on other people. Luckily most people grow out of this selfish mentality at some stage - unfortunately the age at which they do seems to be getting older. It used to be that "boy-racers" grew up at some point in their twenties. Nowadays it can be much older.
Come on, the roads are not built as your personal race track. Don't treat them as if they are. There are other decent, law-abiding people with families using them who don't want to be involved in an accident with you or terrorised off the road. If you want to race around in your cars then fine, but do it on a proper racetrack. There are plenty available for the purpose - use them.
One other point I will make is that ultimately, like all actions of this type, the end effect of pursuing the freedom to speed so aggressively will be that society will act, through the government, to limit your opportunities to misbehave. This will be done through more and more effective curbs on your freedoms.
Safety cameras are only the start - I am sure that ultimately cars will be fitted with some sort of black box that directly restricts your freedom in this respect. Learn from history and curb your attacks on the commonsense rules of society. If you don't, you will ultimately have the effect of further curbing everyone's freedom of action.
It should have been quite clear that I was using speed limits as an example of bad laws. You claim dogmatic acceptance of them, but let me raise a few points to dissuade you of that position.
1. They are set artificially low in order to provide government revenue without increasing taxes. At any given time, the overwhelming majority of people on the road are exceeding posted limits. (National Cooperative Highway Research Program; Report 504: Design Speed, Operating Speed, and Posted Speed Practices p.88, "Operating Speed and Posted Speed Relationships"; http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_504.pdf)
2. Because of this, police have free reign to detain anyone they please, citing "speeding" as the reason. Once stopped, the person loses at least $50-$300 and a significant amount of time, more if they decide to fight it or if the officer feels like being particularly ugly.
3. Only a small percentage of the population actually suffers such treatment in any given time period. If speed limits were really intended to keep people safe, then universal enforcement schemes (cameras, black boxes, etc.) would work. Instead you see incredible outrage and blowback like this vandalism. And if people actually gave up and submitted to speed limits, the economic damage would reach trillions of dollars... ask any professional driver if you don't believe me.
4. Most embarrassingly of all, traffic laws make people LESS safe. You might want to look up Hans Monderman—or the towns of Christianfield [Denmark], Drachten, Oosterwolde, Makkinga [the Netherlands], Latton, and Suffolk [England], among others (Hans' ideas are spreading rapidly due to effectiveness). The short version is that accidents DECREASE when traffic signs and signals are eliminated. Conversely, it is also well-known that accidents INCREASE wherever red light cameras are installed. As for speed limits in particular, changing them has no significant effect on speed or crashes. (U.S. Department of Transportation Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center; Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Limits; http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm) (United Kingdom Department for Transport; Circular Roads 1/80, Annex E; http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_limits_85th.htm#appendix_a) Why would eliminating them be any different?
I am offended by your insinuation that a person cannot oppose speed limits without being a stupid "boy-racer", and appalled at your views on freedom. I suppose speech, religion, and privacy should also be limited if people support them too "aggressively"? And don't even think about rebutting that last one by referencing the danger of speeding; I can bring up countless instances where violence could have been averted by restriction of those freedoms.
Finally, your first assumption is incorrect. I support the rule of law only insofar as the law in question punishes people for actually threatening others. Laws requiring fugitive slaves to be turned in or sending Asian-Americans to concentration camps were bad. Laws prohibiting alcohol or speeding, although less severe, are bad FOR THE SAME REASON. And as for democracy, you can keep that nonsense. I want to live in an environment where rights are _never_ up for voting. A large mob has no more authority than one lone man; democracy just pretends otherwise.
Roads are not made safer by speed limits; they are made safer by keeping people liable for the damage they cause while on them. We have the former instead of the latter because it is profitable for driver-ticketing governments.
That will show the ministry of peace!
wow
I guess the problem for me is that speed cameras don't catch dangerous speeders, they just catch ordinary Joe who forgets it's there. The loonies have the cameras down to a tee and slam on for them.
You can (and many people have) lose your licence/job/house/family in one day, something they wouldn't do a to hardened criminal without them getting 10' thousands spent on counselling.
They set the mobile one's in a stupidly 30mph 4 lane road that goes through an industrial area near where I work and catch poor sods going home at 35mph, meanwhile pedestrians are running for their lives in side streets...it really, really stinks and their website totally nails the problem on the head.
The selling/buying of speeding points is big business in the UK so people can keep their livelyhoods, so now they are upgrading to the US system that photographs the driver as well..my reaction? That could be anyone's ass!
Oh, I forgot to mention the camera at the end of the M11 near Woodford in Essex. I was coming in at 77mph on a saturday evening. Next thing I know, I see a 50mph sign and a yellow camera right ahead of it. I braked so hard that I ended up leaving very distinct marks on the road as I skidded into the next lane (my old car didn't have ABS). Just imagine how dangerous this could have been at a busier time.
The word "safety" in safety camera is an oxymoron to say the least in this case.
what you probably failed to mention is the sign that read:
reduced speed ahead
Another question is why you were doing 77 near the end of an expressway in the first place. That's not to say that your concern isn't valid, but to me that speed sounds questionable from the start.
@Justin.
No, 77 is not a crazy speed. In fact you could not be done for that.
70 Mph Motorway limit + 10% (to account for speed counter accuracy) + 2 Mph (Goodwill / frustration from the police).
So providing his dashboard speedo was correct he was under the 80mph needed by the police/camera, however he could have actually been doing around 84mph if his speedo was out!
Well, I hadn't been there for many years, and from the new 50mph zone to the actual end of the M11 is another mile or so. I did see the reduce speed ahead sign, and I thought it referred to slowing down for the end of the M11, not for the new zone. Hence, I wound up braking much earlier than I had anticipated.
I think such cameras are probably designed to catch the outsiders of a town. Similar thing can be seen in Blackpool and other touristy areas, place is crawling with cameras.
So... should I turn left?
I have an idea! Let's just FOLLOW THE LAW, which was set in place to protect other people by making it punishable to go through red lights, and to speed. I have an idea, if they want to go and run lights, lets put them on a desert island and let them crash into each other all they want. The rest of us, who like to keep ourselves safe (and our insurance premiums low), shall continue to drive normally.
They don't realize that the only reason to be mad at these cameras is because they are the ones that would run red lights and speed.
And don't bring "privacy" into this. If you want to be private about speeding, go to a race track. Don't kill the rest of us.
I would agree except that it's well known and understood that 99.9% of the people break the speedlimit, including you no doubt.
Not that I advocate doing such, but there's no reason to pretend really.
@ Wwhat
Some people actively DO obey the speed limit, but bravo for pulling a completely fictitious statistic out of your @$$ like that.
Obeying the set speed limit reduces wear on your vehicle, decreases the chance of a high-speed accident, and increases fuel-efficiency. The semi-intelligent drivers (of which you are clearly not a member of) who realize this CHOOSE to obey the speed limit.
This is a law that the politicians put into play, not the citizens. This is not a tool not used for safety but for revenue generation. I think our forefathers would approve to the small "tea parties" these people choose to use to fight what they believe to be an over-powering government. Voting obviously does very little these days. Just can't beat the donations of the corporations.
I think what is really needed is a system of speed-limiters that simply prevents people from going fast than they ought to.
These cameras are fine, but they really only catch a small percentage of bad guys. I see so much bad driving here in Germany, people overtaking on a 100kph road when I'm alredy going 110 (the "legal limit" because you get those 10% extra)even when there is a lot of traffic coming the other way and stuff like that.
One should think that laws and some simple method of enforcing them (those cameras for example)would be enough to stop people from behaving like savages...but apparently it is not.
These guys should not be burning cameras, they should be burning the guys who don't stick to speed limits!!! I don't know how difficult it would be to make all roads speed-sensitive or (even better) to give every speed-limiting sign a little transmitter that tells cars (all new cars would have to be equipped with this) how fast it's allowed to go. I know this is something that would cause a huge outcry of "It's a free country..." and so on, but if you don't draw the line somewhere, then where will you draw it? If I choose to earn my money by robbing banks then I'm pretty sure people would also object, and I would not even be endangering any lives by doing so...
There ya go, hook the cameras up to some road spikes and just pop some tires. That way backed up traffic will remind the speeder causing the traffic jam to slow down.
Yeah but if we start to tag you and have a guard follow you around to make sure you don't rob banks you would surely be a bit miffed.
And it would be unsafe if a person can't speed up a sec to overtake or avoid a sticky situation.
Of course you could put a timer on it and allow people to go over for 15 secs or something I guess.
But I fear that if you proposed such a system the damn EU governments would immediately want to add a personal ID and tracking of who's in the car to it, they could never be reasonable and make it passive/annonymous.
Also it would require (even more) DRM-style crap in cars that you are not allowed to touch, and I think a car is your property not the government's
What a bunch of idiots.
They break the road laws and don't expect to be punished? The horror stories I get from my father after cleaning up bits of people's heads from the motorway because they think they're a better driver than they are says it all really.
Speed laws have existed for such a long time they can't use ignorance to their favour. They are breaking the laws if the cameras are flashing them, what leg do they have to stand on?
And national cover your license plates up day? Yeah, good luck with that one. It's not like police cars automatically pull you over for it or anything.
Please don't destroy the cameras, remember the promise of cake.
They need no leg, except a leg up.
And we all break the law every damn day, there are so many laws that even if you are a monk sitting in reclusion praying all day you'll end up breaking 7 laws at least.
Not that I see a need for people to speed so much, perhaps they should make offramps on the speedway to public racing tracks instead of public resting places, so people can get it out of their system.
Wait a second. I though people were just complaining about loosing money due to tickets, now national cover up your plate day? Ok, this isn't Dukes of Hazard or GTA, you don't win if you get away with it. I understand frustration but find a way to act out constructively. Just my two cents.
silly brits, speeding are for americans
With all respect to you and your father, speed cameras are not really about reckless or negligent drivers. (Red light cameras generally are about reckless or negligent drivers). Frequently, drivers who end up in a ditch or stopped in front of a tree or an immovable object do not have to drive unusually fast to end up in that situation. Simply failing to pay attention or being under the influence of drugs or alcohol will put a person in that predicament.
Speed cameras are allegedly about safety though the traffic camera companies, such as ATS, are in it for money and the local governments are looking to provide less expensive traffic enforcement AND generate additional revenue from the increased traffic enforcement.
The issue that I think most people should have with the cameras relate to the placement of the cameras (which has been discussed already), and the basis for the speed limit on the road. Most states (U.S. and I would expect this happens in the U.K. and other places) conduct traffic studies to measure the appropriate or safe speed for a roadway. They record the traffic speeds on a roadway and then calculate the average speed for vechicle traveling on that roadway.
The problem that arises is that governments will ignore the data and adopt a speed for the purpose of generating revenue rather than to ensure traffic and pedestrian safety. For instance, a road may be designed to safely support vehicles traveling 50 m.p.h. (This is determined by specific engineering principals and the traffic studies.) The government will adopt 40 m.p.h. as the speed limit knowing that drivers are inclined to drive near 50 m.p.h. As a result, a motorist will be driving in a non-residential location with few access roads and few red lights or stop signs will find him or herself "struggling" to stay at or below the speed limit because the roadway safely supports a higher speed. These areas are commonly known as speed traps and local governments like them. This is especially true in states where there is no state income tax. As a result, while I agree that people should follow the law, I do think that efforts to induce noncompliance, for revenue purposes, should be used by state or local governments.
Coming up next on Engadget Editors Training: The difference between England and the United Kingdom. A program designed for all writers, young and old!
A) This is old news, really old news. This guy was interview on Top Gear, what, 2 years ago now?
B) The people that are speeding are breaking
C) The people that are daming the cameras are breaking the law AND wasting my tax money
D) How is any of this gadget ralated?
E) Guy Fawkes was an assasin and terrorist, not an arsonist
F) What is this doing on Engadget?
If these people think it's ok for them to speed, can I break another law and have all the cash from their bank accounts please? Only seems fair!
Cameras are gadgets.
It's simple, really.
The interview featuring the stat was in Nov 2007.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1140803/
I AGREE WITH starkruzr!
I'm constantly amazed at the lengths people will go to avoid acting as responsible adults.
Oh The irony! Next thing you know, the Brits will be dumping the cameras in the Thames (see Boston Harbor).
You mean 'harbour' ;]
Burning them still are we?
MAD should try filling the cameras with expanding insulation foam! that stuff kills them completly!
I hate the damn things here in the UK. Not for the speeding issue but becuase everyone slows down far too much when they are within a few hundred meters of one. People are desperatly staring at their spedo to make sure they don't speed! Take them away and let people concentrate on tuning in the radio when driving.......
Why don´t they have cameras at each crosswalk to catch people that go across before the green light says cross?
Why don´t they have cameras in all parks to catch people who let their dogs doo-doo illegally in the grass?
Why don´t they have cameras in all homes to catch parents using too much force in their discipline?
Why don´t they have cameras in all classrooms to catch kids blurting out the answer when not raising their hand first?
Why don´t they have cameras on every street and sidewalk to catch litterbugs?
Why don´t they have cameras at restaurants to catch people that don´t tip the waitress enough or take too many packs of sugar or napkins?
Hmmmm...soon they will....
You're really over-reacting.
@Zack Johnston: Typical of the illogical and childish response of the puerile simple-minded speed addicted. FYI, the reason is that everything you have quoted is petty and does not risk anyone's life. Speeding is not petty and the majority of sensible grown-up people support speed limits and their enforcement. As you get older you will begin to understand this when you have friends needlessly killed, like me, by someone else who thought it was OK to speed. When you are young you have not experienced this and just think it's fun to use the road as a racetrack. If you want to race - go to a proper racetrack and do it. that way you will only kill yourself.
Sorry Nick that your friends were killed.
But people will drive fast or reckless or drunk no matter how many cameras are out on the roads. The camera just proves that the camera does not stop speeders; it just records them.
The police love the speed trap cameras because it is a great source of revenue at a low expense.
If they really wanted to stop speeders the penalty would be license removal on the first offense, not a fine.
And driving fast in itself does not kill people - Germany has autobahns with unlimited speed limits and very, very low accident rates.
Driving fast and reckless is dangerous.
Why don´t they just put up cameras every 100 feet on every stretch of road - that would stop speeders?
And don´t they have cameras in banks - there are still many bank robberies every day. If they didn´t have cameras in banks would you rob one?
CommanderROR,I would like to chat with someone in Berlin,as I lived there for some years.can you help?
Well, I don't actually live in Berlin, so I don't see how...and even if I did, how large are the chance of me knowing the person you want?
Maybe you should be trying www.telefonbuch.de?
I meant like a german chatroom,or something.I would just like some info about some firms where i used to work.I have looked and looked on the internet,and come up with nichts.Thanks,though.
I fully support these guys and this action. Safety in the name of profit is no different than war or peace or government in the name of profit, which you all almost certainly would be against. Rise up! Throw off the shackles our governments have placed on the backs of the common worker, striving to make his home and community and world a better place to live in!
I loved it when they tried their re-branding episode. "Ooh, ooh, they're not speed cameras, they're SAFETY cameras. It's YOU we really love!"
I suppose we'd call TASERs "tickly giggle guns".
i bet they could just blend it
I an an owner of a Classic 240Z and I was a fast driver, resentful of traffic tickets and the Nazi style cops I encountered in states such as Ohio, Delaware, and Virginia. (I have received at least 20 tickets).
What cured me? See this pic of what happens to drivers in a crash. Did you know that it is the job of some people to go around with a bucket and a sponge to find missing pieces after you get torn apart?
So, you lead footed rebels, I say unto you: Quit burning up cameras and take a good, long look. If it and other similar pics doesn't cure you of your lead foot, nothing will:
http://memelo.org/girl-lost-control-porsche-hits-toll-booth-gory-pics-6.jpg
http://memelo.org/girl-lost-control-porsche-hits-toll-booth-gory-pics-7.jpg
Well? Have any of you privacy fanatics looked at the pics and still feel the same way? Your treasured speedy driving?
If so, there is no hope for you. God be with you.