Angry drivers torching traffic cameras in England
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted December 27th 2007 10:37AM
posted December 27th 2007 10:37AM
[Thanks, Anand]
posted December 27th 2007 10:37AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
@Daniel. I can only assume that you're not from the UK. Can you see the white lines at the bottom of the picture - one perpendicular to the road an one at a 45 degree angle? Those markings are placed on the road where there is a pedestrian crossing, and show what is called the "safety zone" where no passing or stopping at the side of the road, even for a second, is permitted. When you take the pedestrian crossing together with the bend it is not that surprising that the limit here is 30mph.
Furthermore the picture does not show what other hazards might be present, or the accident record at this point. There may be many reasons why a safety camera is appropriate here. Bear in mind that what we should all be aiming for is maximum safety on the roads - someone's life is always more important than whether you can play at being a F1 driver.
To be honest, I actually didn't see the lines, but I am from the UK and I know a road with a pelican crossing on it like that which has a 50mph limit. I've both crossed there and been in the passenger seat of a car when someone was crossing there. It's not unreasonable for that road to be a 50 or 40 limit. Also, why is the camera sign placed far away from the crossing, and after it? Surely if it is a 'safety' camera it would be targeting drivers who are supposed to be slowing down for the crossing.
Those signs are placed regularly along roads which have safety cameras on them. They are to help you to restrain yourself and so avoid being caught. The location of them is not significant except that they do generally try and put one shortly before a speed camera. But the existence of one does not mean that there definitely is a speed camera there.
So 1000 speed cameras so far, minimum cost of each camera = £20,000 (sometimes £40,000 in rural areas), that's £20,000,000 worth of damage!! Who do these guys think is gonna have to pay to repair them?? Taxpayers anyone?
Great job guys! Thankfully we don't have these where I live because I would be out there destroying them too.
Light 'em up!
The government sets the speed limits rediculously slow, the sets up an automated system that is the equivalent of having a police officer radaring every 20ft... what did the government expect?
Speed limits are rediculously slow in my city (Overland Park [Kansas City], Kansas) If they setup speed cameras in my area, I'd be burning them down, too.
Last year our local government tried to pass a law allowing police to place speed cameras in neighborhoods, regardless of consent of the neighborhood containing said unit. I've never seen such the public so riled up over personal rights. It's too bad those feelings vanished, after the bill was defeated. We could have gotten somewhere with our already rediculous whittling of personal rights.
It's amazing how uptight everyone gets about this. Everyone projects all sorts of patriotism / libertarian / anarchist issues onto a really small, unimportant issue.
I live in the UK, and drive past these things all the time. You have to be a pretty bad driver to get caught on camera. Any good driver is aware of the speed limits, the cameras, the road conditions, and goes at the appropriate speed. #
If you decide you want to speed, then you need to look out for cameras.
If you want to speed, and aren't aware enough to look out for cameras, then you really ain't such a good driver.
It's like anything in life - you should obey the law. If you don't want to obey the law, that's fine, but be careful not to get caught. If you decide to break the law, and aren't bright enough to not get caught, sorry, but take it like a man. Don't come snivelling "s'not fair" and go sneaking round, burning stuff.
Has to be Capt Gatso has to be J, Clarkson.
Just to add fuel to the fire. Please follow link.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/08/double-dipping-nhtsa-providing-prizes-for-police-to-write-ticke
awesome =) mofo cameras
In the UK, every so often there's a story about CCTV/speed cameras, and they show pictures of these banks of 6 or so cameras at junctions in London. What they don't mention is that those cameras are what power the Congestion Charge Zone and soon the Low Emissions Zone (for vans, buses and lorries). The British press spurts out alot of rubbish.
if you dont like a law dont run from it dont hide from it sart massed based movements and instatutionaly change the laws
change the politicians you so ignorantly put in place with out much foresite or even knowledge of what there true intentions are research people know thy enemy is not some ignorant piece of pop culture but a modus operandi that should be strictly adhered to
with that said "GOD MAIM THE QUEEN"
I'm not sure that speed alone causes accidents( viz. autobahn) but running red lights and booze or drugs clearly do-especially when the drug( legal or not) impairs judgment and makes the user feel 'speedy' or sleepy.
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.
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 are 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
Cameras are more effective, less controversial, and safer for drivers than human enforcement. However, I agree that all monies collected by such enforcement should go to a charity or some other beneficial fund. What's your argument now?
You make such wonderful sense, especially in #4. However, I disagree with your implication that keeping a low speed provides police for a reason to stop you. There are numerous other infractions that are held up in courts as justification for stopping drivers. Speeding is the least used law for finding a reason to stop someone. Most traffic enforcement officers, after a few years, actually detest writing citations for that. Yes, running red lights is more harmful, but I see that automation in enforcement for traffic offenses that contribute to accidents (running redlights, failure to yield, etc) is more efficient than human enforcement. If you use this enforcement coupled with making governments use the revenues for philanthropic reasons instead of bolstering their funds, you create a compromise of "somewhat safety" + no more "fine-hungry government entities".
As far as I know, the most common reason for traffic stops are speed violations, followed closely by running a sign or light (and—at least in Michigan—entering an intersection on a yellow light is a primary and ticketable offense!). It is well-documented that 50% to 70% of all cars on the road at any given time are exceeding posted limits. If you're going to make a claim like "speeding is the least used law", you had better back it up with some evidence.
Now, onto your idea of automated enforcement "coupled with making governments use the revenues for philanthropic reasons instead of bolstering their funds"...
1. What incentive would governments have to give up their free supply of non-tax revenue?
2. Even if they did, who gets to decide which charities receive the money? That's right, the politicians, who _of course_ would never pick their friends' organizations in exchange for under-the-table kickbacks. Ah, sweet justice.
3. Explicit traffic controls in general, and red light cameras in particular, make crashes more likely and people less safe. Heavy-handed attempts at enforcement will not change this, they will only waste money and anger people into fighting back (reference: THIS STORY).