Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Camera-free zone a haven for speeding

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 February 2008
By ANDREW PICKEN
THEY are a pet hate for most drivers but large swathes of the Lothians are proving to be a safe haven for motorists looking to avoid speed cameras.

East Lothian and Midlothian are the only councils on the Scottish mainland yet to sign up to the police scheme which operates the speed traps.

Safety experts today said the number of road casualties in the region could be cut if the local authorit
ies were to join Edinburgh and West Lothian in the Lothian and Borders Safety Camera Partnership.

There are a handful of speed cameras on the A1 in East Lothian and A68 in Midlothian, but only because they are trunk roads operated by Transport Scotland. Other major roads in the two counties, including the A702 to Biggar, the A703 to Peebles, the A7 to Galashiels and the A198 coast road to North Berwick, do not have cameras.

Figures published last year showed speed cameras have halved the number of serious collisions on the Capital's most dangerous roads. The figures released in May 2007 revealed accidents where people were killed or seriously injured on roads with speed cameras dropped from 62 in 2000 to 31 in 2005.

Midlothian Council today said none of its roads met the partnership's criteria for the introduction of speed cameras.

But Colin McNeill, Lothian and Borders Safety Camera Partnership manager, argued: "We have shown over time that safety cameras can have a positive road safety benefit."

Across Edinburgh, West Lothian and the Borders there are 72 fixed safety cameras, 47 mobile safety camera sites and 23 red light cameras.

Lothians SNP MSP Shirley-Anne Somerville said: "The partnership is well established and it would be good if East Lothian and Midlothian could join to have a Lothians-wide approach to this."

A Midlothian Council spokesperson confirmed it was not currently a member of the partnership. They added: "We have regularly surveyed our roads against the criteria set by the Camera Safety Partnership, and this indicates t there are no sites which would qualify for the introduction of cameras."

Nobody from East Lothian Council was available to provide a response to the News.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 01 February 2008 11:00 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Transport
 
1

mrmoneypenny,

01/02/2008 12:11:10
"We have regularly surveyed our roads against the criteria set by the Camera Safety Partnership, and this indicates t there are no sites which would qualify for the introduction of cameras."

Why, is there a corner every 3 feet. Stop these speeding scum,
2

,

01/02/2008 12:25:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Calum Crubag,

01/02/2008 12:54:11
#2 Duuhhhh!

We need more cameras and police to enforce them. Or maybe we should just do away with all law-enforcement? That would be progress?
4

an interested party,

01/02/2008 12:54:50
when they changed the law to allow the revenue collected to be spend by the safety camera partnerships. is there not a moratorium on new cameras until the govt get some report or other, i cant recall
5

an interested party,

01/02/2008 12:55:56
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2007/11/10/mfspeed10.xml&page=1

thats an interesting read,
6

an interested party,

01/02/2008 12:57:09
cameras dont save lifes btw, thats paramedics nurses and doctors
7

stellarossa,

Cincinnati, OH, USA 01/02/2008 13:04:36
Im my previous life I worked for Midlothian cooncil roads. I recall spending a day with some road safety experts walkig the A68 looking at where we should put speed cameras. The A68 is one lane each way and quite often you'll find an HGV on it that you want to overtake. The fools wanted to place cameras on every straight telling me that it would make things safer.

What they failed to see was that drivers would still pass the HGV's except this time they'd pass on more difficult stretches (ie where there were no cameras) and, basically, increase the risk of an accident. Fools, the lot of 'em.
8

Anonym,

somewhere 01/02/2008 13:04:56
I wasn't aware that large swathes of the Lothians are a pet hate for most drivers.

What a load of nonsense.
9

,

01/02/2008 13:15:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

11+failed,

the pans 01/02/2008 13:31:26
If we get more speed cameras in East Lothian we might catch more of these 130mph Edinburgh policemen driving police vehicles to bring their drunk colleagues back from boozy evenings in Dunbar.
11

Alexander,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 13:37:13
"Safety experts today said the number of road casualties in the region could be cut if the local authorities were to join Edinburgh and West Lothian in the Lothian and Borders Safety Camera Partnership"
With a 5% increase in cameras and a 10% increase in fatalities on Scotlands roads last year that sounds like a sick joke.
What is needed is more police presence on the roads and less revenue raising quangos with their fat cat administrators.
12

NorT,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 13:38:37
Well done to Midlothian and East Lothian Councils for their stance. Colin McNeill has a vested interest as the fines pay his wages even although he is on a large police pension having previously been in charge of the L & B Police's Traffic Dept. Also do not believe the facts that he sprouts as they are twisted to suit the situation as has previously been proved.
13

Alexander,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 13:45:12
#10
Agreed!The facts are that a higher proportion of older drivers are caught by speed cameras while a higher proportion of road "accidents" involve younger drivers.
Generally, speed cameras catch strangers and tourists. Perhaps drivers caught by fixed speed cameras ought to be charged with driving without due care and attention or be forced to have an eye test.
14

Pond Hall,

01/02/2008 13:48:04
come down to Port Seton Prom any morning and watch CAR drivers failing to observe the 30mph speed limit.

The local council have installed a "30 mph" warning sign, the Sign must be worn out with the number of drivers totally ignoring the 30mph speed limit.

They have a total disregard for the pedestrians safety, including many school kids waiting for the High school bus.
15

Bill MacD,

01/02/2008 13:54:42
Anyone arguing against speed cameras is tacitly admitting to being a dangerous lunatic. All their shallow arguments about "it's not speed that kills" etc. is self-serving tripe, simply designed to justify their selfish arrogance putting 'fun' and a wish to arrive 30 seconds sooner ahead of other people's lives. As for complaining about them being used for revenue raising... great!!! Let's tax moronic dangerous driving, and so reduce taxes in non-pernicious areas like employment. Ignore the selfish loudmouths.
16

LDP,

edinburgh 01/02/2008 13:55:10
number 10 - speed camera's can catch people who have no licence or insurance. when the fixed penalty is sent out the person has to write back to say who was driving, if they have no licnece or insurc=ance that will be flagged and they will be charged with that offence too. if the driver doesn't respond the case will go to the district court.
17

GraemeH,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 14:10:37
#17 - Except if (as in many cases with no licence or insurance) the car is not registered in their name.

Speed scameras are lazy policing and can even be dangerous - many people instinctively brake when they see one, even if travelling at or below the limit which can lead to accidents behind them.
18

an interested party,

01/02/2008 14:20:37
Bill MacD, whats the view up there on the moral high ground like today?

there are many arguments surrounding speed cameras and there effectiveness. they are not a sure thing, in the 15 years or so since they have been introduced there has not been a significant reduction in rta's or killed and seriously injured, the causal factor in the vast majority of accidents still remains the 'sorry mate i didnt see you' excuse

you have to ask why they only use the figures from 2000 to 2006 as there have been cameras in ediburgh since 1993, perhaps those figures dont show what they want
19

Gopher,

edinburgh 01/02/2008 14:22:30
But Colin McNeill, Lothian and Borders Safety Camera Partnership manager, argued: "We have shown over time that safety cameras can have a positive road safety benefit

Why is there a speed camera on the 50mph limit under the Newbridge roundabout? I'm not aware of any fatal accidents in that area.
20

Alexander,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 14:24:00
6
Bill MacD
You would benefit from reading what has actually been posted before making your inane knee jerk pathetic responses. Nowhere above has anyone tried to justify "speeders". Indeed the thrust of comments is towards better enforcement of speed limits.
21

drew 33,

01/02/2008 14:39:02
19 an interested party
"Bill MacD, whats the view up there on the moral high ground like today?"
It must be altitude sickness judging from his asinine comments on this and other threads.
22

Miss Jean Brodie,

01/02/2008 15:18:19
Anybody ever played that game of whirlin a can on a piece of string around yer heid under a gatso camera just to see if ye can get it goin’ like a strobe light ?

Great !
23

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 01/02/2008 15:32:55
I can sympathise with Anne Robinson's lack of sympathy with the Welsh, since I have now had 3 notices of intention to prosecute from speed cameras in the Swansea area. What the plod fail to notice every time is that the car with plates that are a clone of my number is completely different from the one on the DVLA database. Otherwise and presumably in the Edinburgh and Lothians areas, you'll no doubt find that all cameras do is slow the speeders down for about 200 yards, then off they go again. So I agree with the comments about marked or unmarked police cars likely having much more effect and if the polis are sufficiently observant they will be able to apprehend dangerous and speeding drivers too.
24

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 15:41:23
So if the cameras only cause people to slow down briefly before speeding up again, and unmarked police cars would be a good idea, what about hidden cameras?
25

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 15:47:23
For a start, they are NOT "safety cameras". They are money-grabbing, ripping off SPEED CAMERAS. The title "Scamera" would be more appropriate.

The roads mentioned as being speed camera free must REMAIN speed camera free. All those who want to put those infernal machines along them are only interested in making money.

Lets face it, if you are capable of maintaining a speed above 60mph along some parts of the A7 then you are doing very well and are in all likelihood a pretty competent driver who can handle their car safely.

However, in other parts which have been re-aligned and are straight, wide and with a good surface and visibility, it is safe to do an easy 80mph. What is the betting that these stretches are where they will install their stupid, rip-off devices or park their vans containing two low-life scum with a camera and laser gun?

The roads in question do not have an abnormally high crash rate so leave them alone.
26

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 15:50:05
#23:

Not done it myself yet but next time I see the kids in our area looking bored, they are going to get a can of coke each, plus some string and some instructions as to what to do with it once they have drunk the coke.
27

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 15:54:48
#2:

Seing as #2 wants to take the p1ss, I'll have a go at answering you.

A speed camera becomes a safety camera when it is referred to by someone who's living depends on the revenue made by the thing.
28

SPG,

edinburgh 01/02/2008 16:41:17
Abroad they've devices that clock you speeding and trigger a set of lights 50 yards further on that turn to red. People soon get the message. Of course it wouldn't work here. The police, councils ect couldn't rape your wallet!
29

,

01/02/2008 16:49:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 01/02/2008 17:10:31
#25

Yes, hidden cameras would be fair. Average speed cameras observably work. But they still don't actively police bad driving including selfish overtaking, tailgating and other dangerous habits, for which a human is better.
31

Iain fae Elgin,

London 01/02/2008 17:13:02
#30, tired of discussion and counter argument?

No, not really.


32

Iain fae Elgin,

London 01/02/2008 17:14:16
Oh, and 'the fetid corpse of Augusto Pinochet'? What's that all about?

Not cretinous at all.
33

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 17:19:18
#31:

Hidden cameras would not be fair. No speed cameras are fair. They are all money making machines that contribute nothing whatsoever to road safety and arguably may actually compromise it.

For those who think otherwise, and that the money doesn't matter, how about supporting a campaign to force the authorites to donate ALL revenue raised by speed cameras directly to charity? We'd soon see how long speed cameras would last then!

They put these things where they are most likely to catch people out. If they are going to install them at all, they should use them at GENUINE black spots and they should be backed up by large, clear signage making it obvious that a speed camera is there, re-iterating the speed limit and describing the reason why it is there.

The simplest thing would be to do away with them entirely and go back to traditional methods of policing the roads with an emphasis on driver skill and hazard perception.
34

SlyFifer,

California 01/02/2008 18:15:56
Here in California they have just begun to introduce cameras at dangerous junctions in cities. Not a bad thing from a safety point of view. They are primarily not revenue raising but safety initiatives. Our town has several located on major junctions on arterial routes.
Speed cameras, if not placed at accident blackspots are nothing more than revenue raising devices and should be treated by everyone as such.
Scotland from memory has just about the highest motoring costs in the world coupled with, in the main, the poorest roads I have seen anywhere.
When the road speeds were set a century ago a car could barely do 70. Now most can achieve that speed in 3rd gear. If a car needing to pass a slow lumbering truck happened to reach 75 to safely pass on a clear stretch of road what harm is there in that ????.
To wait until there is no camera sited and then risk life and limb to execute the manouver, please what does that achieve - certainly not- safety.
35

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

01/02/2008 18:50:12
1)Here a multiple choice question for you, there is only one correct choice, and only you know it
Are you
a) a hypocrit
b) a Liar
c) a troll
d) an Idiot

This in reference to yor first posting on the TV licience thread yesterday
36

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

01/02/2008 18:57:55
25) The cameras are not hidden and are clearly marked so that the operators can maintain the illusion that they are not money making scams, but safety devices. It is a condition of use that they are clearly visible. As to unmarked cars these would be better employed in the prevention, detection, and arrest of scum who intend to
comit real ceime such as murder, rape, theft, fraud,
people trafficking, drug dealing, and pimping. Far to many of these go undetected whilst the police go for the easy targets, who will come quitely.
37

Euan,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 19:29:41
TOTALLY agree with post #26

These 'safety' cameras are simply another way to rob good common motorists of yet more money.

Not only this, but thousands upon thousands of perfectly good, law abiding motorists have their licences needlessly endorsed with penalty points every year as a result of these cameras. This not only helps fill the coffers of the local councils, but hikes-up insurance premiums to ridiculous levels for no reason at all.

I for one applaud the spokesperson from Midlothian Council who said 'none of its roads met the partnership's criteria for the introduction of speed cameras'.

This proves that at least some people are doing their jobs correctly and don't want to meddle with the roads in their area for no good reason - and in the process take money from others which is not theirs to take.
38

Aslan,

Edinburgh 01/02/2008 19:53:09
#26 - 'two low-life scum'. Classy, very classy. As long as said van occupants continue to p*ss off career car drivers, they get my vote.

Are you Jim Dunn in disguise, by any chance?
39

Charles Linskaill,

.Edinburgh 01/02/2008 20:31:00
If you don't break the law by 'speeding' why worry.?
Simple isn't it.!
40

john z,

edinburgh 02/02/2008 06:04:03
Do not believe the accident reduction stats shown in the story above. This is typical of the way stats are abused by the speed camera groups. The effect is a well known statistical phenomenon, and is not a genuine reduction in accident rates. This has been pointed out to the camera groups many times by statistical experts, but they always seem to conveniently forget.

Well done to midlothian and East lothian for showing some common sense. Why the operators of these cameras (whose entire knowledge of road safety could be written on the back of a postage stamp) feel the need to 'pressure' people to adopt these silly speed trap cameras is beyond me.

All of the stats showing reduced accidents have been shown to be pure bunkum.

No, Scotland needs more fully qualified REAL traffic police patrols, not some joe with a camera, sitting catching little old ladies going 2mph over the speed limit day in day out.

Speed cameras do not catch drug or drink drivers, dangerous drivers, inconsiderate drivers, careleless drivers, bad drivers....and so on. Drug and drink driving is the biggest problem on scottish roads, not speeding.

The only reason speed cameras are used, is because they MAKE MONEY, yet they do b*gger all for road safety. Meanwhile the number of full REAL traffic patrol police have been massively cut.
41

an interested party,

02/02/2008 07:53:03
'Drug and drink driving is the biggest problem on scottish roads, not speeding.'

where did you get that from?
drug and drunk drivers are represented in less that 5% of
road traffic accidents.

42

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 02/02/2008 07:59:27
You don't speed, you don't get a ticket. It's as simple as that. Why do most people think it's somehow acceptable to break this particuar law without consequences? I've had one myself but I've no-one else to blame. Having said that, there's a sneaky wee camera between Riccarton and Dalmahoy on the A71. Deliberately situated a few metres before the National Spped Limit sign. There's obviously no other point to it other than make money.
43

Euan,

Edinburgh 02/02/2008 09:04:37
#46

That camera you mention is so selfishly and stupidly placed it's beyond belief.

It resides in an acceleration zone where there is no need whatsoever to have a 'safety camera' other than the sole purpose of gathering revenue.

It is probably one of the worst examples of a deliberate money-making scam on Scotland's roads and should be taken down with immediate effect.
44

Bruce Young, Association of British Drivers,

02/02/2008 14:29:35
I am sorry that I have come to this piece so late. The "statistics" the speed camera partnership relies on rely on ignoring regression to the mean - when there are two or three accidents in an area, this doesn't continue in the future but justifies placing the camera there. The number of accidents there would probably not be repeated whether or not the camera had been placed there. That is "regression to the mean" or return to normal. A good example was an article in the News last Spring reporting a huge fall in accidents at speed camera sites, despite that not being borne out by Road Accidents Scotland, an annual publication by the Scottish Government which identifies accidents in each area of each Scottish police force. I questioned the data from the "safety camera partnership" and found that the figures relied heavily on the speed camera on the Gorgie Road dual carriageway where for some reason there had been a spate of accidents. Figures (showing no accidents)from that location were used to demonstrate the fall claimed - despite the fact that that camera was reported in the News ages ago as having been taken out of use because the staff found it too dangerous to replace the film in the middle of the dual carriageway! Yet they included this site which the public knew had no working camera because its very helpful figures supported the desired "data".

Ignore speed camera partnerships' spin - it is aimed at saving their useless jobs! And generous pensions.
45

Bruce Young, Association of British Drivers,

02/02/2008 14:39:32
On the question of why they are called "safety camera partnerships" the reason given to me by the police Inspector responsible for their application is that the cameras include red light cameras, which are not "speed"!

Paul Smith, who was mentioned in the Telegraph article mentioned in comment (5) above, calculated that the rules for placement permitted cameras to be placed only where it is safe to exceed the posted speed limit and prevented them being placed where it is dangerous to speed!

His reason was that to place them at a location, a measurement of traffic speed had to show that more than 50% of the traffic exceeded the limit, even by one mph. Because almost all drivers try to drive carefully, if so many estimated that their speed was safe, it probably was. So for a camera to be placed there, it was probably safe to exceed the posted limit.

Conversely, where it IS dangerous to exceed the posted limit such as through a narrow residential street, no one exceeds the limit so a camera cannot be placed there.

Of course, if the camera partnership wanted to place its cameras where they would get most revenue, the number of vehicles exceeding the limit is what matters - they know that most accidents (34%) are caused by inattention or inappropriate reaction to events, which speed cameras do not address.
46

Bill Whitehead,

02/02/2008 16:10:08
It's only a matter of time till some calous moron in the U.K. attempts to sue the parents of a child pedestrian killed in an RTA because the speed camera nearby proved he was within the law. It's already happened in South Africa and considering there are people willing to fake their own deaths to avoid paying a speeding ticket, I see no reason to assume there aren't people willing to take said childs parents to court because they were irresponsible enough to let their child out on the street unsupervised.

It's not about the safety, it's about the revenue, it's about a fiscal saving on the police force and it's about looking like you're doing something for the easily lead simple people who probably can't afford their own car.
47

an interested party,

02/02/2008 19:39:33
lol speed cameras have there uses

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=511670&in_page_id=1770

48

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

02/02/2008 22:37:14
52) I have not seen any responses on here suggest that there is such a thing as a perfect driver, only you.
Does that mean that you believe yourself to be one.
Is there any need to repeat yourself it does not make your point twice as valid, and to suggest that someone who disagrees with you about one aspect of driving should not be driving is arrogance beyond belief, in any case speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden stopping which does the damage.
49

an interested party,

02/02/2008 23:26:01
it seems once you think you are on the moral high ground you can disengaged your brain.

speed cameras only take a picture of someone above a certain speed
speed is not a measure of driving ability

over a 1/3 off accidents recorded proffer the 'sorry mate i didnt see you' and are clearly from people that though they knew how to drive ,notably with in the speed limit.

its not the guy overtaking the line of traffic thats not paying attention its the driver in the que that is moaning to their passenger.

comments on driving are also not a measure of ability

where do you rate your own abilty?
is there room for improvment?
or are you just perfect and its everybody else that's at fault?
ever AVOIDED an accident? would you know how ?

or is it drive about like a sheep and hope to blame someone else for your inattention?
50

Pond Hall,

04/03/2008 20:14:18
Bill

you'll be glad to hear that the first speed camera is going up

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More News

More News >>

More Transport

More Transport >>

Features

Scottish Business Briefing Stay informed
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.