Technological Environment  Back to Main Page

“We want people to slow down. If we don’t catch anyone speeding, by publicising where our speed cameras will be, then we will have succeeded.” Superintendent Stuart Chapman, Head of the Traffic Department.

 
‘In the UK there is an average of one automatic speed camera for every 30 miles of road all across the country … with 1 in 8 of them being live, that means that an average 62 of those cameras had the potential to remove your license if you’d not been paying attention.’ Chris Longhurst, The Speedtrap Bible, 23 March 2000.

 
No one-speed detection device can possibly detect all these devices with their emerging technologies. GEODESY is so technologically new that it would have not been possible a year ago. ‘Unfortunately, radar detectors rarely work, and they are not suited to bikes anyway. They don’t like water and don’t respond well to vibration, either. Another con is anti-flash number plates, which again have proven to not work time and time again.’ Motorcycle News, December 1999.

 
Currently vehicle manufacturers are producing more powerful cars with increasing levels of safety, encouraging drivers to speed in safety. The advent of busier roads, in-car mobile telephones and entertainment/ navigation systems, provides numerous visual and aural distractions to the motorist. This makes it difficult to keep an eye on the speedometer.

 

The implementation of Government policy has covered a wide spectrum of measures from low-technology solutions such as signs and speed bumps aka ‘sleeping policemen’ to high technology speed cameras, aka GATSO cameras. It is these speed cameras that account for 95% of speed convictions.

 
TheHighway Agency, which is responsible for the UK motorways and trunk network, isfirmly in favour of cameras.   Theirown figures reveal that cameras in London cut fatal accidents by 70% and savedsome £20 million a year in accident costs after their introduction in 1992.

 
‘Government isbecoming increasingly aware of this phenomenon and police forces have beentasked with reducing speeding motorists. The increasing use of technology has enabled various Police forces to enforce speedlimits with great effect. In 1995 685,000 motorists were prosecuted for speeding. In 1997 this rose to 891,000 an increase of 30% over twoyears’ (Source: ITN, 1999.)

 
‘Known officially in the UK as ‘EXCEEDING SPEED LIMIT’, this table shows baseline penalties you can expect. It’s correct as of 10 th March 1999.   Each case will be looked at individually, to assess factors such as time of day, road type, and condition, weather conditions etc. The fine is now also based upon the financial circumstances of the offender, leading to payment within 12 months’.
Offence Fine Costs Penalty Points
Up to 15mph over the posted limit £44 £30 3
16mph to 25mph over posted speed limit £45 to £100 £30 4
26mph to 35mph over posted speed limit £45 to £200 £30 5 to 6
36mph or more over posted speed limit £67 to £300 £30 Disqualification 1 month to 12 months
 

 

The Association of Chief Police Officers have an official formula for calculating a speeding offence. It allows a leeway of 10% plus 2mph. One of the little known facts about camera enforcement units is that they have almost seasonal variations. If the number of cameras in an area have netted their council-appointed target figure for vehicles exceeding the speed limit, the enforcement unit will go out and increase the threshold in the cameras so only the fastest speeders get caught.

 

Currently the penalties for speeding are: -
  • Fixed penalty for speeding up to £60 deterrent to speeding drivers.
  • Penalties are at the discretion of the officer.
  • 'Avoiding detection with radar jammers and the like incur fixed penalty points and fines.'  The Speed trap Bible, Chris Longhurst, 23 March 2000
Senior police officers are campaigning for the introduction of zero tolerance for speeding: 1 mile too fast, earn a fine . Tests on speedometers suggest that proposed zero tolerance of speeding drivers would be unworkable. Police currently allow a small margin of error before prosecuting drivers.

 
In a news release dated the 27 th October 1999 the Institute of Advanced Motorists is quoted as follows: "As the country’s leading organisation dedicated to road safety through improving driving standards, it takes something for the IAM to object to measures that are allegedly meant to reduce road casualties. Instead of imposing further blanket curbs on all, it is time to make a step change in increasing driver education”.