Angry drivers torching traffic cameras in England

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]

[Graham Cooper @ Jan 24th 2008 4:07AM]

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.

[Graham Cooper @ Mar 25th 2008 7:26PM]

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.

[Dean Brewis @ Mar 25th 2008 7:39PM]

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.

[Richard Lai @ Dec 27th 2007 10:42AM]

Say chee... aww...

[James @ Dec 31st 2007 4:05PM]

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

[Brian Tiemann @ Jan 3rd 2008 1:44AM]

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".

[chrisaroz @ Dec 27th 2007 10:42AM]

You know guys, you could always just slow down.

[Warhorse @ Dec 27th 2007 10:51AM]

The faster they drive, the faster they get to more cameras, silly.

[starkruzr @ Dec 27th 2007 11:17AM]

Don't fool yourself. This isn't about getting people to slow down, it's about making more money for the state.

[m-p{3} @ Dec 27th 2007 11:45AM]

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 ?

[ScareyJ @ Dec 27th 2007 12:05PM]

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.

[Robotochan @ Dec 27th 2007 12:36PM]

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

[Jim @ Dec 27th 2007 12:47PM]

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.

[ScareyJ @ Dec 28th 2007 12:44AM]

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)

[James @ Dec 29th 2007 5:09PM]

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.

[Johnny @ Dec 27th 2007 10:45AM]

I had no idea that the UK was such a police state.

[jroc @ Dec 27th 2007 11:42AM]

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.

[Good_Bytes @ Dec 27th 2007 12:57PM]

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

[3rdsun @ Dec 27th 2007 2:00PM]

V for Vendetta, also V for vigilante.

The revolution will not be televised. We will break all the cameras

[vert @ Dec 27th 2007 10:53AM]

Shtupid, the gov will just going to be using more tax payers' money to
fix the goddam thing.

[computer.dude.28 @ Dec 27th 2007 11:09AM]

Coming up next: England Replaces all Speed Cameras With Fire- and bullet-proof ones.

[Wwhat @ Dec 27th 2007 11:32AM]

Then it's time for the spraypaint :)

[Paul @ Dec 27th 2007 11:40AM]

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.

[William @ Dec 27th 2007 3:38PM]

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.

[Jake @ Dec 27th 2007 4:02PM]

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

[BigBirdUK @ Dec 27th 2007 5:03PM]

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.

[Phil Perman @ Dec 27th 2007 10:54AM]

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.

[r3loaded @ Dec 27th 2007 10:59AM]

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

[mo @ Dec 27th 2007 1:17PM]

ROFL!! and im an arab muslim!!

[Anthony @ Dec 27th 2007 10:55AM]

Interesting, instead of deterring people from breaking the traffic laws these cameras are causing them to go up a few pegs into arson.

[Wwhat @ Dec 27th 2007 11:35AM]

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.

[Paul @ Dec 27th 2007 11:42AM]

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"

[thethirdmoose @ Dec 27th 2007 11:43AM]

...but it intentionally endangers property. Which means it is arson.

[Wwhat @ Dec 27th 2007 11:47AM]

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.

[LC @ Dec 27th 2007 12:23PM]

"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.

[LC @ Dec 27th 2007 12:28PM]

Meant to say deliberate destruction of public or private property with fire

[Wwhat @ Dec 27th 2007 5:22PM]

Hehe, you must be a lawyer then eh.

[LC @ Dec 27th 2007 10:04PM]

No, but I play one on TV.

[MashupMark.com @ Dec 27th 2007 10:59AM]

Wow, they've been doing this for the last five years. How is this news now?

[daedalus @ Dec 27th 2007 11:00AM]

OH MY GOD!!! IT'S 2005 AGAIN!?!

[ToonPac @ Dec 27th 2007 11:16AM]

Because Americans are slow to find out and post?

[Ghen @ Dec 28th 2007 1:01PM]

2005??!! THIS. IS. MADness!!!!

[Kibi @ Dec 27th 2007 10:58AM]

They've announced a "summer of MADness" in December?

That's forward thinking...or just plain old fashioned madness

[david_topping @ Dec 27th 2007 11:08AM]

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.

[starkruzr @ Dec 27th 2007 11:18AM]

I would imagine these steps are being taken after several legislative failures to get rid of the things.

[Azureice @ Dec 27th 2007 12:46PM]

To insure the safe performance of all authorized activity, do not destroy vital testing aparatus.

[Asha @ Dec 27th 2007 1:10PM]

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.

[MikeG @ Dec 28th 2007 7:51AM]

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!

[Nick @ Dec 28th 2007 12:43PM]

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.

[Ma2T @ Dec 27th 2007 11:09AM]

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.