Individuals Fight Back Against UK Speed Camera Use
If you live in the UK, you’re probably one of the people caught up in the issue of speed cameras. I hate to generalise on this, but its probably the truth. These cameras are alleged to protect people, although they are most commonly known as a revenue generator for local authorities and government. The measurable results of their benefits are less than desirable, and in fact, aren’t known. The police allege that as they are producing more tickets for offenders, then they have increased safety. However, this is not necessarily the case as the correlation between speeding and accidents is not fully known. Its understandable that individuals take hidden speeding cameras as invasion of their privacy.
UK Speed Camera Promises
The original objective of deploying speed cameras in the UK was to reduce accidents and improve the safety of individuals. The requirement was to slow the speed of vehicles down overall, and thus provide a safer environment. In theory this would be beneficial to everyone, although the implementation is far different. Although many speed cameras are in view, a lot are hidden – or mobile cameras are used in dubious places, where the legitimacy of their use is questionable
The UK speed camera works by capturing an image of the speeding motorist. Some are set up alongside the roadside. Others are mobile units or even units within Police vehicles. They work to capture images of any vehicle that passes them, noting the speed at which the vehicle is traveling. Many of them make it very difficult to slow down in time to avoid being detected and most often, they are difficult to spot, although law clearly states that the vehicles and UK speed camera must be clearly located to give motorists a warning.
Following the media you will soon realise that the general consensus is that speed cameras o not do what they are supposed to do, which was improve safety and reduce accidents. The result is that the public are incensed with the belief that speed cameras primary function is to raise revenue, argued and portrayed as indirect taxation.
Motorists – Challenge With Dignity
In the UK, there appears to be two groups intent on bringing the use of speed cameras to an end. On one hand, you have the formal demonstrators arguing their use in the courts and law houses, as dictated by the law, and obviously operating inside this frame work. On the other side, you have hardcore activists who think nothing about blowing up or tearing down a speed camera.
if you follow the news in the UK, and listen to the arguments that people make about the use of speed cameras, its easy to see why people are so emotional about them. Many people feel that for breaking the posted speed limits by just a few miles, they are treated in the same broad classification as a criminal, charged a fine and incur penalty points. The question seems to be, is this black and white approach too draconian for this day and age?
If a speed camera is unlikely to improve public safety, is it really needed? The rationale is that if safety isn’t changed, then the only reason for having it in operation is to generate revenue. Therefore it should be removed. On the same token, the public cries out for more traffic calming and controlling measures in very public areas, such as at schools, crossings and other similar type locations.
The bottom line of why many do not believe the use of UK speed cameras is effective is their inability to reduce accidents and to improve the safety of roadways in the country. There is no evidence, in most areas, that the number of casualties and deaths on the roads in the UK have dropped since the use of the UK speed camera was first needed. They do believe that the cameras are used mainly to increase revenue rather than to improve safety. Some are setting out to make a statement in a way that could be legally worrisome for themselves in the hopes of making that statement loud enough to be heard by those who can improve the situation.
