Speed cameras 2.0

As if speed cameras weren't widespread enough, motorists will soon have to contend with a new generation of roadside snooping devices surveying their every movement.

At a cost of £1.7 million, a fleet of 'ASSET' (Advances Safety and Driver Support for Essential Road Transport) speed cameras which are able to ascertain whether or not drivers are wearing seat belts, the status of their tax disc and insurance coverage and the speed they are travelling are set to be installed in many areas across Britain.  The manufacturers hope that the cameras will ultimately be able to identify lorries carrying excessive loads, assess poor road surfaces and automatically inspect the quality of motorists' brakes and tyres.

The quality of the technology aside, there is little evidence to suggest that speed cameras actually improve road safety - but rather that they serve as significant income-generators for local councils.

Of course, a large part of the reason for introducing such technology is to replace the function of existing Police road patrols - just as the expansion of CCTV coverage in urban areas has been concurrent with a reduction in effective community policing. 

By Daniel Hamilton

Comments

[Andrew Ampers Taylor]

I gave up driving five years ago. I was paying £60 an hour to run my car (Scorpio which was only used an hour a week) as I walked a lot. It was a relief in the end, and I feel so sorry for the younger generation.

Now at 71 I am healthier as I walk everywhere or use public transport.

The downside is that I will live longer and see this country decline even more :-(

Ampers

[Simon]

Yet another aspect of Cameron's "end to the war on the motorist". Has he kept any promises which he made at election time? I don't think so, he seems to default to doing the exact opposite of what he said he would.

[Purlieu]

I'd love to hear _exactly_ how a roadside camera can inspect the quality of my brakes.
Actually, as I'm here in Swindon, as you know the council here have abandoned "safety" cameras because they are too expensive to run, not as the article says "significant income-generators for local councils" ok there are some that make a lot of money, but the vasy majority simply do not.