Hidden Speed traps

[Filterlab]

NFN

Yep. There's a lot of NFN here! 😃

[Argee1977]

Around here i do tend to go a bit above in certain areas, as the limits set for those are silly, such as going through an area that used to be 50, went down to 40 and now is 30, but part of that 30 includes about half a mile of two lane overtaking layout on one side, no accidents i've known off have occurred here either in the 5 years i've been in the area. But as others say, if i get caught it's my fault and i accept that.

What i do find dangerous in my daily trips on the same roads are seeing people on mobiles, you have the van man who seems to not care and holds it to their ear, and the other i see is women who seem to think that if they have their mobile in their lap or next to the door will mean nobody will notice, except for everyone seeing them staring at the footwell for most of their journey!

The other thing that annoys me is joining the M4 with people thinking that joining at 30 or 40 MPH is a good idea, countless times you see lorries having to dive into the middle lane to avoid these idiots, every day this happens but i bet not a single one of these people have seen a ticket, as for the middle lane hoggers, that new law really worked didn't it!

[cinnabull]

With regard to 'hidden' cameras, or mobiles, I have downloaded a sat nav app called Waze. It has warned me of a mobile trap local to me on 2 occasions up to now.

It relies on other 'Wazers' updating, but its done live and as soon as someone spots a mobile or hidden cam they can then warn others. It deffo works.

Stuart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobbyf]

I live in North West Essex, On Wednesday at 7.30am there was a policeman hiding in the bushes by Leaden Roding village hall, I was lucky there was a car in front of me, he got done, then today at 12.30 there is a police woman hiding in the bushes at White Roding, in both cases there was no doubt that they were hiding and there were places they could have stood and parked there cars and been seen. Other than raising cash what were they trying to achieve? If as they claim they are so short of personnel how is this a priority? This has probably been discussed loads of time before, I really wanted to warn people

Not trying to take one side or the other but when you say the car in front of you got caught, what did you see happen? Did you see the car actually getting stopped by the Police?
I only ask because usually if a driver is registered as exceeding the speed limit on a hand held device then the normal procedure would be to stop the driver and deal with the issue at the time.
This allows the Police to achieve best evidence i.e. They can identify the driver and interview them at the roadside if necessary. It also allows the driver to see for themselves the device and recording of the speed they were allegedly doing and build a fair defence should they wish to do so.
I only ask because recently my local police have been carrying out surveys on roads where local residents have been complaining of speeding traffic. They have not been standing in plain sight as this would affect the results of the survey. The results they have been collecting are not evidential, and no records of the vehicles are kept. The results will determine whether a speed camera van actually needs to be deployed to the roads in the future.
My local Force advertise all their speed camera van deployments a week in advance. The vans are fluorescent green and always parked in plain sight. The point is they want drivers to slow down, not catch them speeding. If you still don't see the van after all this, and choose to speed, then I can't see why people complain?
It may well be that what you have seen was similar to the above hence the 'hiding'? Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule and as I said, I'm not taking sides.

[KavKav]

I don't tend to pop to the Sainsbury's in Madagascar.

...........!

[Glamdring]

They're trying to catch offenders.

Entrapment. I don't understand how it can't be. If they laid a loaded wallet on a cafe table and then arrested whoever took it it would be thrown out. How is this different?

[Backward point]

Perhaps Menno or Daddel can answer this, but I read somewhere that the Dutch police used to hide cameras in wheelie bins or hedgerows, and site them on the way out of restricted areas, to catch people accelerating out of them or failing to slow down as they entered a restricted area.

When I was on the road for work, usually in areas that I didn't know, I used a Road Angel Professional Connected, which had a SIM card, and was automatically updated, using GPS to warn of fixed cameras and also the regular haunts of camera vans. It was a worthwhile investment, because I could trust it, and it didn't give me false alarms. It wasn't any use against mobile ad-hoc "cops with hairdryers" traps, though.

[Tooks]

Entrapment. I don't understand how it can't be. If they laid a loaded wallet on a cafe table and then arrested whoever took it it would be thrown out. How is this different?

So how are the police entrapping you by recording your speed from behind some bushes?

[Kingstepper]

Entrapment. I don't understand how it can't be. If they laid a loaded wallet on a cafe table and then arrested whoever took it it would be thrown out. How is this different?

The wallet puts temptation in front of whoever. The road is just there (obviously), there's no encouragement to speed.

[chrisparker]

Entrapment. I don't understand how it can't be. If they laid a loaded wallet on a cafe table and then arrested whoever took it it would be thrown out. How is this different?

Entrapment would be to some how encourage people to speed, then catching them. What are they doing to entice a motorist to exceed the limit?

[Tooks]

Most mornings on my drive to work i follow a woman in a Fiat 500 (seems we are on the same time set), she does 40, everywhere, no matter what the limit, so 40 in a 30 , 40 in a 50. She really is bloody annoying.
Last time we had plod with his hairdrier round here they got lot of speeders...............................90% locals so don't go on about people who speed through your village.

Did the police supply you with the list of those caught speeding then? Bit naughty of them if so.

We have an A road going through our village, for about half a mile and past several side roads, a school, a shop, a pub and a chapel. The narrow pavements are fairly busy at certain times, and there are speed notification flashing signs on both entrances and half way through the village.

Every time they have the handheld detectors out, or the camera van (which lets be honest, if you don't see you either shouldn't be driving or you were distracted) they do a good trade and I don't hear of any locals complaining they got done.

It works for a while, speeds are noticeably slower as Mr and Mrs commuter and lorry driver remember seeing police in the village, and think about what they're doing for a bit. I even feel safe walking my daughter to school on the pavement on those days.

Alas, it doesn't seem to last long. Still always a lot of fresh meat for the safety camera van it seems....

[oldoakknives]

I live in North West Essex, On Wednesday at 7.30am there was a policeman hiding in the bushes by Leaden Roding village hall, I was lucky there was a car in front of me, he got done, then today at 12.30 there is a police woman hiding in the bushes at White Roding, in both cases there was no doubt that they were hiding and there were places they could have stood and parked there cars and been seen. Other than raising cash what were they trying to achieve? If as they claim they are so short of personnel how is this a priority? This has probably been discussed loads of time before, I really wanted to warn people

They're trying to get people to obey the speed limits. Which are normally set to try to make the roads and our towns and villages safer. Why is it unfair if they hide? Grow up it's not a game on your xbox to get away with speeding.

[ralphy]

Perhaps Menno or Daddel can answer this, but I read somewhere that the Dutch police used to hide cameras in wheelie bins or hedgerows, and site them on the way out of restricted areas, to catch people accelerating out of them or failing to slow down as they entered a restricted area.

Which reminds me of this: a while ago the Egyptian government invested in some hand-held speed cameras to catch drivers outside of the cities. The problem was that a lot of those roads (which are straight for many miles) run across desert land and so the camera operators could be seen from a long distance away by approaching traffic. So the government decided to place numerous oil-drums at the sides of the road to enable the camera operators to hide inside random ones.

This didn't go down too well with the operators as the truck drivers took to hitting the oil drums like skittles as they drove along the highways...

R

[adrianw]

They're trying to get people to obey the speed limits. Which are normally set to try to make the roads and our towns and villages safer. Why is it unfair if they hide? Grow up it's not a game on your xbox to get away with speeding.

Quite clearly they are trying to make money out of the easy target motorist, this has nothing to do with safety or growing up

[Analogue]

Which reminds me of this: a while ago the Egyptian government invested in some hand-held speed cameras to catch drivers outside of the cities. The problem was that a lot of those roads (which are straight for many miles) run across desert land and so the camera operators could be seen from a long distance away by approaching traffic. So the government decided to place numerous oil-drums at the sides of the road to enable the camera operators to hide inside random ones.

This didn't go down too well with the operators as the truck drivers took to hitting the oil drums like skittles as they drove along the highways...

R

Blimey, Ralphy, don't mention Egyptians or you'll start them off again!

[Glamdring]

They'd slow traffic down just by being visible and not using any camera, fining anyone or creating this nonsense where the holier than thou feel superior to the everyday motorist.

[aldfort]

They'd slow traffic down just by being visible and not using any camera, fining anyone or creating this nonsense where the holier than thou feel superior to the everyday motorist.

As I mentioned previously "visible policing" does not always work. It's the first thing that our local team try. The road through our village has become a rat run in recent years. Our local chaps use a tiered approach with warnings being in the next tier, but it seem that only a few speeding tickets gets the massage across.

BTW - the stuff about chief constables guidelines went out years ago. There is a policy of anywhere between zero tolerance up to 10% +2mph depending on where you live.

[oldoakknives]

Quite clearly they are trying to make money out of the easy target motorist, this has nothing to do with safety or growing up

I don't think it's clear they are just trying to make money.
And if you're not speeding and breaking the law you're not an easy target.
You make yourself an easy target by speeding so not much point whining about the police not playing fair.
Some people seem to think getting away with speeding is a game. It isn't it's stupid.

[afcneal]

Speeding fine money goes to the Government.

'Speeding' which is actually exceeding the limit might be more 'acceptable' and adhered to if the limits were:

a) Consistent
b) Always properly and correctly signed
c) Realistic

(...and let's be honest, if 'the authorities' were REALLY interested in road safety, there'd be pothole repairs, lighting that works, removal of unnecessary street furniture etc etc)

I've driven roads where the limit is 30 mph and 50 would be sensible and 60 where 30 would be sensible - we all have.

[Bobbyf]

They'd slow traffic down just by being visible and not using any camera, fining anyone or creating this nonsense where the holier than thou feel superior to the everyday motorist.

That's why the camera van positions are published in advance, they are highly visible, parked in plain view and have speed camera signs all over them.
They don't want to catch you, they want you to slow down. If a driver fails to see them after all this, then how can they argue that they are a safe, competent and observant driver who should be allowed to drive a few mph above the limit?
I remember when Gatso cameras were first introduced on UK roads. They were painted grey and hidden behind signs and walls to catch speeding drivers.
It was realised that catching speeders with hidden cameras had less impact on road safety than putting them in plain sight and getting everyone to slow down. Hence the reason they were all painted bright yellow and moved so drivers can see them with plenty of signs etc.

Back to the op's original post- did they actually see the police stop any of the drivers? How do we know that they were not conducting a speed survey in advance of sending a camera van?
I don't know about anyone else, but I can't remember when I last saw a police officer hiding in a bush/bus shelter/wheelie bin with a speed gun then jump out and stop a driver?


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[r1ch]

I've found that what works for me is this:
- Obey 30 / 40 / 50 mph restrictions.
- NSL - What feels appropriate to me taking road conditions/weather/traffic into consideration.
- Motorway - Obey gantry/camera limits. Otherwise keep it under 95.

I've done circa 450,000 miles over the last 20 years and haven't fallen foul using this approach along with decent observation.
With practice, it's fairly easy to develop a sense of speed such that it's not necessary to stare at the speedo constantly.

That said, I think some speed limits are stupidly low, (perfectly decent NSL roads being reduced to 40 for example), and entice drivers to break the law and collect a fine/points. Although I may disagree with them, I nevertheless comply as I'm never in so much of a hurry that a few mph here or there is going to make a difference to the course of my day.

Rich.

[adrianw]

Speeding fine money goes to the Government.

'Speeding' which is actually exceeding the limit might be more 'acceptable' and adhered to if the limits were:

a) Consistent
b) Always properly and correctly signed
c) Realistic

(...and let's be honest, if 'the authorities' were REALLY interested in road safety, there'd be pothole repairs, lighting that works, removal of unnecessary street furniture etc etc)

I've driven roads where the limit is 30 mph and 50 would be sensible and 60 where 30 would be sensible - we all have.

I couldn't argue with any of that, in the area I was talking about I don't think there has ever been any serious accidents, about 20 years ago the Hare in Roxwell was a Wednesday night bike meet, a motorcyclist was killed in Margaret Roding six miles away whilst having a race, they took the pubs license away.

Yet near where I live, over the years there have been several fatal accidents, on two occasions young people have ended up in the river and died, there is never any policing, speed cameras or any other restrictions, there is even a pressure group to get something done, on some days they stand there in hi-vis coats, but can't get any action.

[Tooks]

Speeding fine money goes to the Government.

As ever, it's not quite that simple.

It used to be the case that all revenue from fixed camera sites went to a consolidated central government fund, but even then it was redistributed back to forces to be spent on road safety. Or more cameras if you like...

Since the advent of Policing and Crime Commissioners, along with Safety Camera Partnerships, the money from speeding fines is split between Government, Local Authority and the Police Force.

I agree re inappropriate limits on some roads, but they are what they are whether anybody thinks they're right or not. The way to change them is to engage with your police force and local authority, either up or down. In my experience though, it's rare to see a speed limit increased...

[adrianw]

That's why the camera van positions are published in advance, they are highly visible, parked in plain view and have speed camera signs all over them.
They don't want to catch you, they want you to slow down. If a driver fails to see them after all this, then how can they argue that they are a safe, competent and observant driver who should be allowed to drive a few mph above the limit?
I remember when Gatso cameras were first introduced on UK roads. They were painted grey and hidden behind signs and walls to catch speeding drivers.
It was realised that catching speeders with hidden cameras had less impact on road safety than putting them in plain sight and getting everyone to slow down. Hence the reason they were all painted bright yellow and moved so drivers can see them with plenty of signs etc.

Back to the op's original post- did they actually see the police stop any of the drivers? How do we know that they were not conducting a speed survey in advance of sending a camera van?
I don't know about anyone else, but I can't remember when I last saw a police officer hiding in a bush/bus shelter/wheelie bin with a speed gun then jump out and stop a driver?


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

Yes, they had pulled over a car about 200 metres further on after the White Roding trap and were giving him a form, they are in both of the positions mentioned about every six weeks, but not usually hiding, this is new.

[afcneal]

As ever, it's not quite that simple.

It used to be the case that all revenue from fixed camera sites went to a consolidated central government fund, but even then it was redistributed back to forces to be spent on road safety. Or more cameras if you like...

Since the advent of Policing and Crime Commissioners, along with Safety Camera Partnerships, the money from speeding fines is split between Government, Local Authority and the Police Force.

I agree re inappropriate limits on some roads, but they are what they are whether anybody thinks they're right or not. The way to change them is to engage with your police force and local authority, either up or down. In my experience though, it's rare to see a speed limit increased...

I'll stand corrected, but understood the current approach was that the 'safety partnership' kept the operating cost and the rest went to Central Government...............but they keep changing it, so could have fallen off the pace!

You are right of course about the change 'process' but the chances of success (upwards) are such that'd I'd not bother! The very fact that prosecution seldom begins below 10% + 2 speaks volumes for the 'necessity' of posted limits.

[Tooks]

I'll stand corrected, but understood the current approach was that the 'safety partnership' kept the operating cost and the rest went to Central Government...............but they keep changing it, so could have fallen off the pace!

You are right of course about the change 'process' but the chances of success (upwards) are such that'd I'd not bother! The very fact that prosecution seldom begins below 10% + 2 speaks volumes for the 'necessity' of posted limits.

It does keep changing, and may have changed again recently to be fair.

I read that the Bedfordshire PCC was looking at 'zero tolerance' for speed limits on the M1 which he reckoned could have netted the force £1m pa, enough for 25 police officers.

[afcneal]

I read that the Bedfordshire PCC was looking at 'zero tolerance' for speed limits on the M1 which he reckoned could have netted the force £1m pa, enough for 25 police officers.

Dianne Abbott told me it's enough for many more than that!

[sestrel]

Seems to be a 'justify your job' role for the cops up here. Not much crime, the odd domestic/fight/drug bust in scummy Rhyl. Always hand held lurking on the bridges and 3 unmarked cars that I know of. The usual 'motorist as a nice easy cash cow'.

[Filterlab]

- Motorway - Obey gantry/camera limits. Otherwise keep it under 95.
Rich.

LOL!

[r1ch]

LOL!

I did say it was my opinion, and not necessarily for all :) :)

Done with care and consideration for the overall conditions - an indicated 95mph is circa 91-92mph true road speed(ish) and isn't hugely out of bounds.
It's all about judgement in my opinion - I did my Class 1 many years ago in the military and my view is that observation, awareness and planning are the three things that make the difference.

Rich.

[vulcangascompany]

I did say it was my opinion, and not necessarily for all :) :)

Done with care and consideration for the overall conditions - an indicated 95mph is circa 91-92mph true road speed(ish) and isn't hugely out of bounds.
It's all about judgement in my opinion - I did my Class 1 many years ago in the military and my view is that observation, awareness and planning are the three things that make the difference.

Rich.

What a complete load of cobblers - unless you live in Germany?

[r1ch]

What a complete load of cobblers - unless you live in Germany?

With my previous post as some context:
I've found that what works for me is this:
- Obey 30 / 40 / 50 mph restrictions.
- NSL - What feels appropriate to me taking road conditions/weather/traffic into consideration.
- Motorway - Obey gantry/camera limits. Otherwise keep it under 95.

WRT Germany: I have done. But don't currently.
Like I said - it's worked for me over the last 450,000 miles or so, but I'm in no way saying it's a definitive strategy or behaviour.
You do whatever you think is best for you. It's your licence and drive however you see fit.

[oldoakknives]

Dianne Abbott told me it's enough for many more than that!

Abbotthematics would mean 30mph = 35-45ish mph depending on her information at the time of course.

[ralphy]

Blimey, Ralphy, don't mention Egyptians or you'll start them off again!

LOL. ;-)

R

[mondie]

- Motorway - Obey gantry/camera limits. Otherwise keep it under 95.

Really, can you get away with 95 before expecting to be caught? I have always worked on the 10% + 2 rule.

[r1ch]

Really, can you get away with 95 before expecting to be caught? I have always worked on the 10% + 2 rule.

To quote myself: "Done with care and consideration for the overall conditions"

An indicated 95mph in your car is around 90mph(ish) true road speed.
The key is judging when you feel this speed is appropriate, both for the actual road conditions and the balance of probability. It's not a case of charging around everywhere, all the time at that speed.
Very often, I'll be doing considerably less when I consider road/weather/traffic conditions to be poor.

But your implication is correct - a badly judged decision could indeed see me being 'caught' for these speeds.

There is risk in everything.

[afcneal]

Really, can you get away with 95 before expecting to be caught? I have always worked on the 10% + 2 rule.

10% +2 is the usually applied level for prosecution, however cars speedos overread so - if you're feeling lucky- a further might be OK. 80 in a 70 is pretty sure toi be OK, much more is a gamble and depends on the type of device.

[afcneal]

Great example yesterday of why limits are ignored:

Came out of the Holmsdale Tunnel on the M25 NB - traffic fairly heavy, but moving OK. All of a sudden everyone brake light come on, major bunching.....40 has appeared on the gantry. Maybe 600m further the NSL sign is on and there's zero going in in between.

Highways England - complete morons.

[trident-7]

Such things happen when you're not concentrating, over the years I've had a ticket or two for being not much over the speed limit, do I think its fair, not once, but I'm a more thoughtful driver because of it, humans are far more fragile than cars, I just wish catching the dicks using mobile phones whilst driving was so straight forward.

We were very nearly hit head on by a man driving a Mercedes yesterday. The road was curving around to the right for us & to the left for him. He drifted about 5 feet onto our side of the road & it was only the fast reactions of my wife that avoided a catastrophic collision. We were able to see him look up from his phone a split second before he corrected his trajectory. Texting & driving is an epidemic & worse than drink driving imo

[Seamaster73]

We were very nearly hit head on by a man driving a Mercedes yesterday. The road was curving around to the right for us & to the left for him. He drifted about 5 feet onto our side of the road & it was only the fast reactions of my wife that avoided a catastrophic collision. We were able to see him look up from his phone a split second before he corrected his trajectory. Texting & driving is an epidemic & worse than drink driving imo

I've been trialling iOS11 and its new "Do Not Disturb While Driving" feature. While the implementation is not perfect, there's a very good idea there. I can see something like that becoming a mandatory feature on mobile phones in due course. And so it should.

[blackal]

We were very nearly hit head on by a man driving a Mercedes yesterday. The road was curving around to the right for us & to the left for him. He drifted about 5 feet onto our side of the road & it was only the fast reactions of my wife that avoided a catastrophic collision. We were able to see him look up from his phone a split second before he corrected his trajectory. Texting & driving is an epidemic & worse than drink driving imo

I think you are correct. You can spot them from behind - just by the movement of the car. I drew alongside a girl on the motorway (as I drifted by with my trailer in tow) - head down, texting........

gave a blast on the horn that almost had her off the motorway................

[Mick P]

When you get into your car, you know the rules. The car must be taxed, insured and if applicable, MOT'ed. Also you have to drive on the correct side of the road and observe speed limits. If you break just one of these rules, you will be punished if caught, so if you take a chance and get caught, it's entirely your fault and your wallet that's going to be hit.

[adrianw]

Great example yesterday of why limits are ignored:

Came out of the Holmsdale Tunnel on the M25 NB - traffic fairly heavy, but moving OK. All of a sudden everyone brake light come on, major bunching.....40 has appeared on the gantry. Maybe 600m further the NSL sign is on and there's zero going in in between.

Highways England - complete morons.

I live fairly near the M25, I cant remember the last time I saw the reason for a man made traffic jam or the gantry speed limits.

[Rod]

Quite clearly they are trying to make money out of the easy target motorist, this has nothing to do with safety or growing up

What a load of rubbish! The easy target motorist is the one that is speeding. Speed limits are there for a purpose and that's not to make money. It is to do with safety and survivable impacts on people in villages and built up areas.
Join the Police and see what they have to put up with as regards dealing with accidents. I did and it's not easy dealing with families involved... informing them that their loved ones are dead or seriously injured. So yes grow up.
Driving standards today are absolutely atrocious, speeding, distraction driving, & contempt for laws.

[afcneal]

What a load of rubbish! The easy target motorist is the one that is speeding. Speed limits are there for a purpose and that's not to make money. It is to do with safety and survivable impacts on people in villages and built up areas.
Join the Police and see what they have to put up with as regards dealing with accidents. I did and it's not easy dealing with families involved... informing them that their loved ones are dead or seriously injured. So yes grow up.
Driving standards today are absolutely atrocious, speeding, distraction driving, & contempt for laws.

Whilst I wouldn't disagree to an extent - the Police and the 'authorities' need to to think/examine WHY there is such contempt for the law (in this case let's stick to traffic law only). As per my example above - a completely unnecessary speed limit, 'cry wolf' springs to mind. Likewise 'Fog' warning signs on clear days, then we hear the Police saying 'motorists continue to ignore warning signs'! No wonder really.

Last stats I saw were that excessive speed (not exceeding the posted limit) contributed to about 12% of collisions - why don't 'the authorities' have a look at the 88% and the Police actually do something about those?

Speed limits are not only there for road safety - I refer you to around Sheffield where it is or will be 60 mph on the motorways for 'fuel consumption' and other green bollox. Ditto M1 at Luton where the 60 gantry signs are permanent due to 'noise concerns' - again, no wonder the laws are held is such contempt.

Don't get me wrong - I have absolute respect for police officers as they're following instruction, but they need to understand and try to influence the other parties who are involved.

[solwisesteve]

Ditto M1 at Luton where the 60 gantry signs are permanent due to 'noise concerns' - again, no wonder the laws are held is such contempt.

Don't get me wrong - I have absolute respect for police officers as they're following instruction, but they need to understand and try to influence the other parties who are involved.

Or all of the new 4 lane sections on the M1 which are permanently 60mph despite everything being clear with no issues (well all of the miles I drove on it last week anyway).

[Seamaster73]

Driving standards today are absolutely atrocious, speeding, distraction driving, & contempt for laws.

You could always go back to policing by copper, rather than camera.

Just a thought.

[David_D]

When you get into your car, you know the rules. The car must be taxed, insured and if applicable, MOT'ed. Also you have to drive on the correct side of the road and observe speed limits. If you break just one of these rules, you will be punished if caught, so if you take a chance and get caught, it's entirely your fault and your wallet that's going to be hit.

Yes. The point is that speed limits are enforced to the almost complete exclusion of all other road traffic offences (driving without due care/recklessly/dangerously, for example). As Government statistics show speeding contributes to a fairly small proportion of accidents that is illogical if the objective is indeed to reduce accidents. In order to reduce accidents, the authorities should look at the causes of accidents and have strategies to deal with all of them in some kind of proportion to the relative risks.

Of all the people who you know have been caught speeding, how many have had an accident where speed was a factor? For me, it's zero.

Speeding isn't big, clever or legal but it's not a major cause of accidents. That's based on Government statistics compiled from Police reports so presumably reflects the facts.

[Kingstepper]

Yes. The point is that speed limits are enforced to the almost complete exclusion of all other road traffic offences (driving without due care/recklessly/dangerously, for example). As Government statistics show speeding contributes to a fairly small proportion of accidents that is illogical if the objective is indeed to reduce accidents. In order to reduce accidents, the authorities should look at the causes of accidents and have strategies to deal with all of them in some kind of proportion to the relative risks.

Of all the people who you know have been caught speeding, how many have had an accident where speed was a factor? For me, it's zero.

Speeding isn't big, clever or legal but it's not a major cause of accidents. That's based on Government statistics compiled from Police reports so presumably reflects the facts.

The enforcement of speeding is largely automated so easy and cheap to do, not so with the other offences.

Speed may not have been a factor in an accident but the outcome will be less favourable if speeds are higher.

[solwisesteve]

You could always go back to policing by copper, rather than camera.

Just a thought.

Ouch ;-)