# Disguised speed cameras!



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

See here: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.htm ... page_id=34

There's also one disguised as a builder's van.

All in contravention of ACPO guidelines.

Apparently the police van in the Manchester area, which was sprayed a battered blue colour and given a tow bar now risks a Â£1,000 fine as they failed to inform DVLA of the colour change :lol:

But this is no laughing matter. I thought they were supposed to be "safety cameras" and painted bright yellow to make you slow down! It seems not and they are more interested in revenue :? .


----------



## Andy_E (Apr 10, 2008)

The hi-vis requirement was dispensed with in April last year


----------



## edp33 (Jul 24, 2007)

From an email going round our office atm!

Motoring News April 2008

A new zero tolerance speed camera developed and manufactured in Germany could appear on British roads by the end of the year.

Designated the Maschinekameragewehr 42 or MKG42, the camera is front-facing and has no film to replace. It utilises the latest targeting and speed detection technology, mainly derived from military and space research programmes.

A major advantage of the MKG42 over other front-facing speed cameras is that it does not depend on photo-images or ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition). The camera can therefore target speeding motorcycles as well as cars (motorcycles do not have front number plates).

In recent tests, the MKG42 achieved a 99.9% accuracy rate. The manufacturers claim that if the camera flashes as a speeding vehicle approaches, the driver will be brought to justice.

A spokesman for the Department for Transport (DfT) said, "We are very enthusiastic about this new camera and expect it to have a huge impact on speeding motorists. Drivers caught by this camera will be unable to claim that someone else was driving and we consider it highly unlikely that they will re-offend."

Many Safety Camera Partnerships have stated their intention to replace old style Gatso cameras with the new MKG42 zero tolerance camera.

You have been warned!

See attached image of the new camera, which is quite distinctive.

http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn94 ... Camera.jpg


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

John-H said:


> See here: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.htm ... page_id=34
> 
> There's also one disguised as a builder's van.
> 
> ...


I was done by an unmarked van travelling towards it coming out of a 60mph area into a 30mph area on a straight main road. This road I know as had few accident on it. As for safety cameras John ... your avin a larf :evil: They should be renamed revenue collecting cameras


----------



## terryjacobs (Feb 28, 2008)

Why does everyone have such a thing against speed cameras? There is a speed limit and we all know what it is. If you're speeding, you're speeding whether it's caught by a marked vehicle or unmarked.

Surely part of the road policing strategy involved catching those driving below the standard rather than making them behave for a minute and then carry on like twats?


----------



## KentishTT (Jun 28, 2007)

terryjacobs said:


> Why does everyone have such a thing against speed cameras? There is a speed limit and we all know what it is. If you're speeding, you're speeding whether it's caught by a marked vehicle or unmarked.
> 
> Surely part of the road policing strategy involved catching those driving below the standard rather than making them behave for a minute and then carry on like twats?


bcause they are often in stupid places and with the sole intent to catch people out - I'm talking about mobile units mainly.

example - 60 limits down to 30, my ex got done in my car for 34 mph, the scamera van was behind the bush next to the 30mph sign. we all know how difficult it is to get your speed down quickly when you're on a big wide road like the one she was on.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

The ACPO guidelines were there for a reason - which is now being contravened by the police. Things seem to have started to go wrong since they were allowed to keep the revenue collected from cameras rather than have it go into general coffers. You can imagine the empire building going on behind the scenes.

As for saying if you're speeding it's a fair cop - would you like to have a device fitted to your car that automatically fined you every time you exceeded a limit? I presume not - unless you are saying you never ever break the limit - even briefly whilst slowing down for example.

I think you need to have a sense of proportion. Whilst most people would not condone speeding when it is dangerous to do so, I don't think most people would have a moral problem when it was safe and perhaps necessary for safety reasons. e.g. briskly overtaking in order not to spend a long time on the oposite side of the road.

It happened to me some time ago whilst going past a speed camera  - so obviously I had no intention to speed. The car in front indicated left and started slowing down for an entrance, I pulled out and overtook but then the driver changed his mind and drove on. Faced with an oncoming car I had no choice but to put my foot down to gain clearance for my rear end and pull back in safely. The camera flashed and I wasn't sure exactly what speed I had done at that moment. Not much above the 40mph limit, if at all, but I was worried about it for weeks. Perhaps it was a false trigger as no ticket arrived thankfully - If a ticket had arrived; would you say that was still a fair cop? :roll:


----------



## terryjacobs (Feb 28, 2008)

John you do make a fair argument about occasions where it is necessary and practical to speed for a while i.e to engage a hazard or maneuver safely.

I don't think what you say about permanantly monitoring speed say with a device in my car is comparable to speed cameras. I base it on this...

When I live, I know that camera enforcement vehicles are placed only at designated locations which have a specific KSI count (killed/seriously injured collisions). I can't quote the figure off the top of my head but something like 9 in the last 5 years would seem to be around the figure I recall.

Therefore (at least in my county). Cameras are only placed on the most dangerous roads where it is more likely that you will be involved in an RTC.

As far as I am aware revenue is being put back into other frontline road policing strategies such as ANPR teams.

Edit - reference you last paragraph... I agree what you are saying, however expect you'd be more than reasonable in contesting your ticket and electing to go to court to explain what happened.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

John, while much of what you are saying is perfect sense I just wanted to clarify what you said about the police 'being allowed to keep the revenue' - which could be misleading.

The police are merely allowed to keep a sum equal to the cost of installing, maintaining and operating the cameras - which is only a fraction of the actual fines. The policy is quite carefully constructed and managed to ensure the police cannot use speed cameras as a way to raise money for themselves.

That said there is a financial incentive to install cameras - but only because some forces will use it as an excuse to cut back in other areas of road policing and so divert money to other functions. But that shouldn't be cause for complaint as the money goes into dealing with crime instead of motorists - and isn't that what everybody is always asking for?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well, I've got no problems with putting them in accident black spots as long as they make them obvious so people see them and slow down for the danger zone. It seems wrong to me to disguise them and just take the money.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

edp33 said:


> From an email going round our office ATM!
> 
> Motoring News April 2008
> 
> ...


I thought that MG42 sounded familiar


----------



## CristalTips (Apr 30, 2008)

North Wales Police are using a horse box on the back of a Land Rover!!


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Thanks for the clarification over revenue Mark. I can't help thinking there are some empires being made in some departments over cameras. I thought some local authorities were promoting them for their own reasons.

Interestingly about black spots I remember hearing about many of these spots being statistical quirks i.e. regrettably there are some accidents and it's marked as a black spot and a camera is installed. No more accidents occur and it goes down as a result for safety cameras. BUT nobody is certain that no more accidents would have happened anyway even with out a camera being installed. It's called regression to the mean.

This makes interesting reading on the reasons why things are not improving despite the huge increase in cameras. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/mai ... peed23.xml

It argues that driver quality should be improved for adoption of risk aversion techniques rather than simple use of speed camera conviction targets. I agree. I see so much bad driving, with failure to keep left on motorways causing lane hogging and conjested tailgating in the third lane and aggressive blocking. If you did that in Germany the police would pull you over but I see no attempt in this country to encourage correct lane discipline etc. I think we've got our priorities wrong :?


----------



## qooqiiu (Oct 12, 2007)

The problem is they are..."*guidelines*".

Guidelines dont have to be followed. :?


----------



## westty (Jan 3, 2004)

Only fixed cameras should be used at accident black spots not mobile cameras. Whats the point of catching someone speeding at an ABS with a mobile camera? The mobile hasn't stopped them speeding or the possibility of an accident, all its done is caught them and fined them!

Surely the whole idea especially at ABS is for the drivers to KNOW the cameras are there! and of course they should be highly visible therefore SLOWING motorists down.

Of course it is also blindingly obvious that no one would object to road safety measures at ABS!

I wonder what proportion of safety cameras are deemed to be positioned at ABS? Oh of course - all of them! :lol: :lol:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

They'll be using Ice Cream vans before long. That'll have the speeding motorists licked :roll:

I'll get me coat.

Joe


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

TTCool said:


> They'll be using Ice Cream vans before long. That'll have the speeding motorists licked :roll:
> 
> I'll get me coat.
> 
> Joe


You need to slow down in the *coned* sections!  ... :roll: ... you've got me at it now - pass me my coat too  .


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

John-H said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > They'll be using Ice Cream vans before long. That'll have the speeding motorists licked :roll:
> ...


You two at the back be sensible :wink:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

wallsendmag said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > TTCool said:
> ...


I think we need separating Miss :wink:


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

John-H said:


> wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > John-H said:
> ...


Just think of all the lolly that could raise.

I bet this gets a cold or even frosty reception....

<Coat on and leaving>


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

John-H said:


> wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > John-H said:
> ...


You both need a bloody good leathering boys. Harr corporal punishment I remember the days well  See me after class and no excerise books down your shorts either you hear. [smiley=whip.gif]


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

I believe the exit is in Dover and can the last person close the door behind them please??????????


----------



## redsi72 (Nov 13, 2006)

westty said:


> Only fixed cameras should be used at accident black spots not mobile cameras. Whats the point of catching someone speeding at an ABS with a mobile camera? The mobile hasn't stopped them speeding or the possibility of an accident, all its done is caught them and fined them!
> 
> Surely the whole idea especially at ABS is for the drivers to KNOW the cameras are there! and of course they should be highly visible therefore SLOWING motorists down.
> 
> ...


nail on head!


----------



## skydiver (Oct 12, 2006)

KentishTT said:


> terryjacobs said:
> 
> 
> > Why does everyone have such a thing against speed cameras? There is a speed limit and we all know what it is. If you're speeding, you're speeding whether it's caught by a marked vehicle or unmarked.
> ...


I am not being funny here mate but on most cars you have a pedal that activates the brake. I would imagine that would have the desired effect when exiting a 60 limit and entering a 30 
:wink:


----------



## les (Jul 24, 2006)

skydiver said:


> KentishTT said:
> 
> 
> > terryjacobs said:
> ...


I agree your not being funny at all [smiley=end.gif]


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

So what if the goverment tells you tomorrow that the speed limit is 60mph in front of a school and 120mph on a motorway will you do it?

Do you need laws to tell you what is sensible speed according to road conditions and traffic? Don't you have eyes and brains of your own????????????

Why the Germans dont need speed limits on MOST of their motoways and still drive sensibly and have the same rate of accidents as we have?

SPEED DOESNT KILL BAD DRIVING DOES..........


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

slineTT said:


> So what if the goverment tells you tomorrow that the speed limit is 60mph in front of a school and 120mph on a motorway will you do it?
> 
> Do you need laws to tell you what is sensible speed according to road conditions and traffic? Don't you have eyes and brains of your own????????????
> 
> ...


That is an extremely good point about the German motorways. They seem to have a better standard of driving. They keep left (or is it right :roll: ) when not overtaking and therefore use their mirrors :wink: - rather than the blinkered "why should I move over" British way :evil: :roll:

Speed limits are obviously an arbitary figure and in reality should vary with conditions for the same risk level.

Talking of risk - if you drive twice the number of miles then on average you are twice as likely to have an accident - and yet nobody seems to appreciate this :roll:


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

The German chancellor refused to follow the EU guideline and impose speed limits on the unrestricted autobahns. The EU argument that polution is higher during high speeds, was rebuffed with the argument that polution comes from traffic jams.

As i have said the last one please close the door and drop the keys in the ocean.......


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

slineTT said:


> Why the Germans dont need speed limits on MOST of their motoways and still drive sensibly and have the same rate of accidents as we have?
> 
> SPEED DOESNT KILL BAD DRIVING DOES..........


Just where do you get your info from 

*MOST* German motorways have speed limits since 1990. They were introduced after the wall came down in 1989 because the ex East Germans, having had loads of money to spend, bought fast West German cars, could not controll them propperly which led to a series of big accidents. Those speed limits were introduced against the big spokes lobby of the ADAC, the equivalent of the AA.
The speed limit on German motorways is *always* 120kmh around petrol stations, motrway entries and exits and genarally the recommended speed limit is 130kmh on all motorways.
There are a few de-restricted stretches of motorways, but not many.
Areas where you can still put your foot down are:
some parts of the A9 (Berlin - Munich), short stretches of the A8 (Karlsruhe - Munich) and parts of the A7 (NÃ¼rnberg - Stuttgart)


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

I think the point still stands that speed doesn't kill but bad driving does. If the unskilled drivers suddenly getting hold of fast cars caused the limits to be reduced in Germany then previously the skilled drivers didn't need limits - and it was their own eduction and risk management skills that kept things safe. I know which I would rather have.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

John-H said:


> I think the point still stands that speed doesn't kill but bad driving does. If the unskilled drivers suddenly getting hold of fast cars caused the limits to be reduced in Germany then previously the skilled drivers didn't need limits - and it was their own eduction and risk management skills that kept things safe. I know which I would rather have.


Agreed on all accounts [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------

