By Dan Ilett, 30 August 2005 16:35
NEWS Drivers caught speeding are now able to see picture evidence of their offences on the internet.
The Wiltshire and Swindon Safety Camera Partnership has rolled out a system that allows the public to view the photos that prove they have broken the speed limit.
David Frampton, manager of the Safety Camera Unit in Wiltshire, said in a statement: "[T]his system demonstrates our policy of honesty, openness and accountability. We trust that by providing access to this information, we can help change people's perceptions of safety cameras. They are not a revenue-raising exercise, and are there for the safety of all road users."
The constabulary has been piloting the speed camera scheme with 6,000 offending motorists since April this year but launched it today with a new website.
Under the scheme, those who have been caught driving too fast are given a PIN (personal identification number) that they type into the website to access their personal records. Documents include photographs of the vehicle, site maps and camera calibration certificates.
The system is only available to motorists eligible for a fixed penalty of £60 and three points off their licences. It has yet to be offered to people who exceed the limit for a fixed penalty but the next phase will incorporate this, the constabulary said.
The constabulary added that staff at the Safety Camera Unit have noticed a reduction in telephone enquiries.
Software manufacturer Northgate Information Solutions built the speed-camera system.
Comments
There are 11 comments. Join the discussion
1. Pete
Offering the service of allowing the motorist to view the speeding "offence" on line has nothing to do with increasing road safety, but instead reduces calls therefore cutting their costs even further. To me it appears a way of ensuring even greater revenue is returned by requiring less staff to handle incoming queries.
2. Roger Boylett
Do they have a page showing the mug shots of burgulars and muggers? It would be so much more useful for the local community and a far better use of our taxes.
3. Steve Berry
This just about sums up all the political bull**** going on in the World. The fact that it comes from the Police just shows what a bunch of twits they really are.
"This is not a money making exercise."
Well if it isn't, stop charging people when they offend.
Pete - you're spot on m8.
4. Mike
Publishing means making available to more than one person (usually a large number of people). Since a PIN is required, this is not "publishing".
Why should we be against a public body saving (our) money?
I don't get the anti speed camera lobby; when you join a club, you agree to abide by the rules - when you apply for a driving licence, you are joining a club. If you don't like it - sell the car and go by public transport!
5. Adrian Carey
Another example of a complete non-sequitor. Allowing people to see their pictures does not, in any way, demonstrate that speed cameras are not about revenue generation.
I would be more inclined to believe Mr Frampton, and the rest of the publically unaccocuntable speed partnership brigade, if he (they) were to publish:
* accident rates for the camera sites, showing the effects of the cameras over a sufficient period of time to take account of abnormal spikes and troughs;
* reasons for the particular speed limit in a particlar location, (i.e. why a 40 mph in that location when similar roads elsewhere have a 50 mph or a 60 mph;
* numbers of persecutions for tailgaters, people turning without signalling, undertaking, using mobile phones when driving, etc, etc.
6. Bryan Scott
Isn't it curious how any aspect of tracking and punishing motoring offences always produces the idea that somehow it is an acceptable "crime". If there is a law that proscribes any action it is a crime. Fines and publication are intended as a deterant and there is ample evidence that speed kills, how many pedestrians / cyclists et al have been injured by non moving vehicles? and yes I have been fined for speeding and, as a cyclist I have also been the victim of speeding / careless driving.
As to the comment about burglars, doubtless if householders installed CCTV cameras in thier houses the pictures could and would be published, ever watched Crimewatch UK ?.
No speeding equals no fines
7. Simon
Mike and Bryan both trot out the same old argument - don't break the speed limit and you won't get fined. Well fine, but what really gets people 'wound up' (trying to be polite here !) is the absolute bull spouted by the pro camera lobby.
When a speed limit is mysteriously lowered and cameras introduced, especially where there is no hazzard to justify the reduced limit, then it's right that people should be suspicious of the motives. Since we KNOW that some speed limits are applied for non-safety reasons, we are right to criticise the pro-camera lobby with their "puleese, think about the childrun" soundbite.
When someone invents a camera that detects "excess speed for the situation" then there'll be SOME justification for calling it a safety camera. When it detects all the far more serious safety issues that are being ignored because they are not easy (ie automated and cheap) to detect then there will be every justification for it's name.
At the present, they are not SAFETY cameras, they are "excess of some arbitrary number that may or may not be appropriate" cameras - and when the pro-camera lobby wake up to the FACTS (not the political spin) then they might start to regain some respect ! Until then, this whole sharade is building up to a HUGE increase in casualty figures as all respect for the law is eliminated, and all concepts of thinking and looking out for other users is actively expunged.
8. Bryan Scott
and what Simon trots out is the same old anti camera aurguments.
What the antis really want is a situation that allows each individual to decide what speed is appropriate for them in any given circumstance. This then raises the simple question, how many drivers are to be given this privilege, all all or just a select few?. Would the vehicles be colour coded / special plates so that the other drivers and cameras can allow them free passage.
Speed limits are not arbetrary and are clearly set out in both law and the Highway Code, but we would not want to be caught reading that would we.
9. David
"What the antis really want is a situation that allows each individual to decide what speed is appropriate for them in any given circumstance"
Of course ! isn't this the essence of good driving ? Or do YOU drive past schools in the wet and dark at 29mph because its legal ? No. instead you swallow the mush that speeding of itself kills. It doesn't.
All speed limits between 31 and 69 are by definition arbitrary (sic). Last time I read the Highway Code (recently) there were no rules stating how a speed limit would be fixed.
sheeesh.
And please don't get me started on stopping distances last measured against a Ford Anglia in the 60s.
10. Ken Sayer
This site simply allows those members of the public that break the law by speeding, see the evidence of their own offence.
This is nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of speed cameras or the Police making money ( which they do not, only the stupid think they do ).
It is simple - speed and you break the law, this site is fabulous and allows offendors to see the evidence, which many forces even today will not make available until you go to court.
Fabulous use of technology!!
11. Stephen
It's a wonderful thing. Statistics I mean. Our motorways are the safest of any (a statistic), speeding kills (another statistic), "Safety" Camera's reduce deaths (yet another), but another statisic is that the number of accidents at or near "speed cameras" has gone up by at least 50% and as much as 100%. What it does not say is that the "killing" part is in "30 MPH" areas. So why are they hitting the motorways?