Weather
Top cop's view of Chideock speed camera loophole (From Dorset Echo)
When news happens get involved. Send your pictures, views and video to us by email
Top cop's view of Chideock speed camera loophole
8:38am Thursday 2nd July 2009
A TOP police officer today insisted ‘you were still breaking the limit’ as motorists challenged speed camera convictions at Chideock.
Bridport section commander Alan Jenkins stressed the importance of speed limits after a traffic order regulating a safety camera at Chideock was found to be wrongly worded – opening the floodgates for some 24,000 motorists to claim their money back on a legal technicality.
But he also pointed out that none of the drivers protesting about the fines had denied they were exceeding the village’s 30mph speed limit.
In a statement, he said: “While it is entirely understandable why people will seek to have their penalties overturned it may also be appropriate to look at the primary reason the cameras are sited there in the first place.
“As local Section Commander it is not appropriate for me to comment on the moral and ethical aspects of this issue.”
He added: “The speed limit of 30mph is entirely correct and necessary to provide protection to all road users.
“In blunt terms, inappropriate speed kills people.
“From the press coverage that I have seen, none of the people penalised by the Chideock camera have denied that they were driving faster than 30mph.”
Motorists are seeking money back and points wiped out after a Government review found a traffic regulation order was worded with a wrong street name.
One of the motorists to have been caught in the legal loophole, Weymouth-based shipwright Nicholas Hoare, said Alan Jenkins was ‘clearly not happy’ about the situation.
Mr Hoare, 58, of Greenhill, added: “I’m not a fast driver and I was only going a couple of miles over the limit when I was caught anyway.
“From that point of view I think the speed camera in Chideock is rotten because it’s right at the bottom of a hill.
“If the boot was on the other foot and I owed the police money, technicality or not, they would be pursuing me.”
Mr Hoare added: “You could also argue that everyone who signed to say they were speeding has been duped into doing so. In a way, we’ve all been fooled and I’m sure there are thousands of people nationally, who were just driving through Chideock while on holiday, who are still none the wiser.”
More News stories
- Successful double transplant for Portland dad
- Second World War mine found in Portland Harbour
- It's well done Wellworths - the first birthday
- 100 firefighters battle Bovington heath blaze
- Two more jailed after Weymouth drug crackdown
- Trophy for Weymouth College engineering students
- New dimension to Dorchester cinema battle
- 90 jobs face axe at Pork Farms
- Weymouth's Syd Evans is on song at 100
- Heroes Welcome scheme launched in Dorchester
Your Say YourEcho
Insight, says...
9:46am Thu 2 Jul 09
"He also pointed out that none of the drivers protesting about the fines had denied they were exceeding the village’s 30mph speed limit."
That's an assumption, not a fact, the majority of people wouldn't know where to start to challenge a speed camera conviction and even fewer could afford to contest it financially.
Although his point about speed limits is well taken, the methodology behind enforcing them is strewn with inaccuracy and incompetence and does litterally nothing to improve relations between public and police.
The fact that this 'argument' exists, proves the strategy is wrong and that won't change until the job is done properly again.
Insight, says...
9:54am Thu 2 Jul 09
Speeding is wrong, but speed camera are worse and as we all know, two wrongs do not make a right!
wyke resident, weymouth says...
11:02am Thu 2 Jul 09
Genghis, Portland says...
12:55pm Thu 2 Jul 09
wyke resident wrote:No he's basing this claim on the fact that the drivers interviewed in the OHEC admitted they were speeding.
"But he also pointed out that none of the drivers protesting about the fines had denied they were exceeding the village’s 30mph speed limit." If he is basing this claim on the fact that the drivers paid the fine he is wrong. Most people pay up to avoid the hassle. It looks to me that he is trying to deflect the attention away from his own incompetence. How many speed cameras does he have on his patch, 2 ? We taxpayers pay him a lot of money to enforce the law lawfully not spout morals.
From the earlier OHEC reports on this story:
(1) Mr Cogan, 65, of Gatcombe Close, Dorchester, was caught driving in excess of 30mph along the village’s main road in July 2001.
He said: “I hold my hands up to the offence but all I had done was let my car coast downhill without applying the brakes in an effort to drive economically." So an admission of speeding and also driving without due care and attention by coasting down a hill.
(2) "Also seeking a refund is Verne Prison officer Paul Allington.
Mr Allington, 55, was driving a prisoner from the Portland prison to another establishment for medical treatment when he was caught driving at over 30mph through Chideock.
He said: “After I got the fine, I tried to plead my case that I was working and in a hurry to get this prisoner to where he needed to be." An admission of breaking the speed limit or because he was in a hurry does that not count?
(3) Today's OHEC: "Mr Hoare, 58, of Greenhill, added: “I’m not a fast driver and I was only going a couple of miles over the limit when I was caught anyway." An admission of breaking the speed limit.
It's not a technicality if you've only broke the speed by a couple of mph. It's not a technicality that the speed limit through Chideock is 30mph. The technicality was the wrongly worded piece of paper used to set up the speed cameras. That does not however give people carte blanche to ignore the speed limit.
whathealthandsafety, Weymouth says...
1:09pm Thu 2 Jul 09
I travel every day between Weymouth & Wool and I actually do stick to the speed limit posted. I can guarantee that every day when I leave home that by the time I get to Preston I have a queue of cars behind me that are frustated by my driving and want to pass.
I was in the fire service for many years and cannot remember the amount times I was called to RTC's Road Traffic Collisions thatinvolved picking young kids (sometimes bits of young kids) out off or from under vehicles that had clearly exceeded the speed limits. In fact if any of the so called drivers who have to speed in restricted limit areas want to contact me I can show them some lovely pictures of these type of horrendous injuries that some of the kids got. who knows they may have kids of their own.
I am not a saint when it comes to driving and openly admit that on Motorways I will do 80-90Mph but I strictly keep to the limits in built up areas. If you are caught speeding in these areas I hope they throw the book at you and ban you from driving.
585, Weymouth says...
1:50pm Thu 2 Jul 09
How do you know what speed you are travelling at, have you ever checked your speed over the ground with a sat-nav? If you do, you may realise that practically all manufacturers calibrate the speedometer to read approximately 10% fast and so when you are doing 59 on your speedo you actually may only be doing 53 which may suit you (and I have no quarrel with that) but it may explain the queues behind you. I recently did a refresher course with a qualified driving instructor who suggested that if you have vehicles behind you, should allow them to overtake when it is safe to do so by keeping to the left of your lane.
siratb, Preston says...
2:08pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Fixed penalty tickets are fatastic for the police. The reason they are so good is that 90% of people just pay them regardless of whether they are breaking the law. The reason they do this is because if one does indeed go to court and lose, the fine imposed by the magistrate is typically a weeks wages - so if you earn £1000 per week, you're far better of just paying £60 and getting on with life.
What should really happen is that in the first instance is drivers should go to "traffic school" and spend a day (paid for by them) of driver training.
If they do this, then all fines an penalty points should be waived and that should be the end of the matter.
The idea is to re-educate drivers and not raise money - or is it, I fear that fixed penalty tickets are a great way to raise revenue which is why we see them introducted for all sorts of things now, from mobile phones to no insurance.
I do suspect that sometimes cameras are sighted to deliberately catch drivers out - round a bend, bottom of a hill, at the end of a varying speed limit section etc....
Insight, says...
2:09pm Thu 2 Jul 09
You're being deliberatly difficult and misleading in your comment.
The vast majority of road users do stay within the speed limit, but that isn't always a gurantee that they won't be prosecuted for speeding as nearly a million overturned improper convictions last year alone clearly demonstrates.
Your comment is from an ideal world where everything works all of the time and there's no such thing as faulty equipment and incompetent operators and has no real bearing on the reality of many complaints about the speed camera regime.
Genghis, Portland says...
2:16pm Thu 2 Jul 09
585 wrote:So is whathealthandsafety'
whathealthandsafety, Weymouth How do you know what speed you are travelling at, have you ever checked your speed over the ground with a sat-nav? If you do, you may realise that practically all manufacturers calibrate the speedometer to read approximately 10% fast and so when you are doing 59 on your speedo you actually may only be doing 53 which may suit you (and I have no quarrel with that) but it may explain the queues behind you. I recently did a refresher course with a qualified driving instructor who suggested that if you have vehicles behind you, should allow them to overtake when it is safe to do so by keeping to the left of your lane.
s car the only one to have this 10% calibration factor or perhaps is it applicable to all cars? If this factored in to all cars then surely the drivers following whathealthandsafety should be taking note of the speed limit and the reading on their own speedometer rather than using their laptops to calculate how much faster they decide they can drive due to manufacturers' calibration, wind speed, curvature of the earth, solar spot activity, migratory habits of European and non-European swallows etc.
Insight, says...
2:18pm Thu 2 Jul 09
You can argue all you like about people breaking an arbitrary limit, but unlike you, I'm not prepared to ignore the bigger danger on our streets just to further the wishful thinking ideology of the pro camera camp.
photoradarscam, peoria says...
3:40pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Genghis, Portland says...
4:31pm Thu 2 Jul 09
photoradarscam wrote:Inappropriate speed kills but inappropriate speed doesn't necessarily cause accidents. The cause of accidents is usually driver error, mechanical faults or whatever. But in an accident you're more likely to be killed when a car is doing 60mph than if it's doing 30mph.
Inappropriate speed kills? Maybe a small portion of accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit. 80% of accidents occur below the PSL, and only a fraction above the PSL are actually caused by exceeding the limit. PhotoRadarScam.com
The Old Rec, Weymouth says...
9:45pm Thu 2 Jul 09
Genghis, Portland says...
10:55pm Thu 2 Jul 09
The Old Rec wrote:It is quite staggering. It's even more staggering that the vast majority of them believe that they've done nothing wrong. Driving within the speed limits is for inept drivers after all.
If we put all of the technical issues to one side for a moment am I the only one who finds it staggering that there are 'some 24,000' alleged speeders passing this one camera. Over what period of time would this be? Educating the motorist seems to need a boost.
Insight, says...
11:02am Fri 3 Jul 09
So if speed cameras aren't slowing drivers down, I really don't think ignoring the increase in drink and drug drive casualtys is a price worth paying as our traffic police disappear to be replaced by these obviously impotent polaroids on poles.
Genghis, Portland says...
8:20pm Fri 3 Jul 09
Insight wrote:In 2007 there were around 250,000 casualties (ranging from minor injuries to deaths) on this country's roads. 14,480 casualties (6%) were caused by drivers under the influence of drink/drugs. Does that make a case for the Police to concentrate on the 94% that weren't drink related? That people are still being arrested for drink driving would seem to indicate that that strategy isn't working either. Should we let them get away with it as well as the speeders? Sorry you can't pick and choose which laws you obey and which ones you feel are all right to ignore. You either have to enforce all laws or have a free for all.
The staggering part is that there are 24,000 people speeding inspite of the presence of cameras. To a rational mind that means the strategy isn't working. So if speed cameras aren't slowing drivers down, I really don't think ignoring the increase in drink and drug drive casualtys is a price worth paying as our traffic police disappear to be replaced by these obviously impotent polaroids on poles.
Insight, says...
9:50pm Fri 3 Jul 09
I'm assuming you didn't read my post properly, or made an assumption, because in relation to my post your response made no sense at all.
Insight, says...
10:02pm Fri 3 Jul 09
I couldn't agree more and that's more or less what I said had you read it properly before jumping to a conclusion.
The cameras aren't working "obviously" and at the same time we're losing 20% of our traffic police and the incidents of drink/drug drive are on the increase.
I do believe we need our roads policed properly again and not by some easily avoided photobooth which ignores anything that isn't traveling above a set limit.
Now I think that's a pretty reasonable thing to say as I'd rather have the wasted money being spent on quangoes and partnerships diverted back to front line police who can and do deal with all of the problems on the road and are without doubt cheaper in the long run to the tax payer.
Insight, says...
10:18pm Fri 3 Jul 09
In comparison, the concept of stationary GATSO style speed cameras and van mounted stationary cameras is blatantly ridiculous.
In this day of miniture technology, why the hell are we paying partnership spokespeople to spin up speed camera figures for devices that are virtually 20th century antiques.
It's absurd and a waste of money to cling on to the out dated notion of speed cameras.
Genghis, Portland says...
4:50am Sat 4 Jul 09
Insight wrote:Well if I misinterpreted your first post then I do apologise. However your second post did clarify your opinion.
Judging by the line where you say "You either have to enforce all laws or have a free for all" you didn't read my post properly. I couldn't agree more and that's more or less what I said had you read it properly before jumping to a conclusion. The cameras aren't working "obviously" and at the same time we're losing 20% of our traffic police and the incidents of drink/drug drive are on the increase. I do believe we need our roads policed properly again and not by some easily avoided photobooth which ignores anything that isn't traveling above a set limit. Now I think that's a pretty reasonable thing to say as I'd rather have the wasted money being spent on quangoes and partnerships diverted back to front line police who can and do deal with all of the problems on the road and are without doubt cheaper in the long run to the tax payer.
I do agree with you that we do need more Police patrols but there is still a need for the cameras. The important question that needs answering though is what happens to the money raised by the fines. From the only complete set of figures I could find in 2004 120 million pounds was raised by speeding motorists nationally. Of that 20 million went to the Treasury the rest was shared between the Police, the Courts and the Councils. The money for the Quango I would assume comes out of the Police's cut. What I can't find is how that money is spent. Does it go on improving Police patrols and if not, why not?
The cameras are here to stay no matter how unpopular they are with the speed freaks. 24,000 offences in one Dorset village (although the OHEC doesn't specify a time span for those figures). I would think the cost to supply the number of Police Officers required to get those results over the whole of Dorset would be prohibitive. Should operating the cameras be a Quango's or the Police's responsibility, I would say the Police.
Insight, says...
9:27am Sat 4 Jul 09
That statement is an urban myth perpetuated by the partnerships.
The 'speed freaks' as you call them, know where the cameras are and treat them with the contempt they deserve.
The cameras aren't unpopular with these so called 'speeders' they're unpopular because they don't work.
Insight, says...
9:47am Sat 4 Jul 09
In any county across the country with a proliferation of speed cameras, whenever there is a one month long police operation to tackle road safety there is a shockingly high number of convictions for all sorts of illegal vehicle use, from speeding to banned drivers and from no insurance to unroadworthy vehicles.
The partnerhips may protest the only opposition to speed cameras is the 'speed freak', but the truth is, we all know what goes on the other eleven months of the year when all that's on the road is redundant speed cameras.
An FOI request in the house of commons revealed that nationally we've lost 20% of our traffic police, with some areas seeing a reduction of patrols of 80% to rely on speed cameras.
Genghis, Portland says...
1:33pm Sat 4 Jul 09
Insight wrote:But that's not down to the speed cameras not doing the job they were intended for, catching speeders. It's down to those in charge trying to use them for things they have no capability of detecting - drunk drivers, no road tax or insurance. So yes I do agree with you that we need more Police Officers but they'll still need to use all the means available to them which includes speed cameras. As I said I'd rather have the cameras being used by the Police in conjunction with more patrols than cameras only controlled by "Safety" Partnerships.
There are no if's, but's or maybe's about it. In any county across the country with a proliferation of speed cameras, whenever there is a one month long police operation to tackle road safety there is a shockingly high number of convictions for all sorts of illegal vehicle use, from speeding to banned drivers and from no insurance to unroadworthy vehicles. The partnerhips may protest the only opposition to speed cameras is the 'speed freak', but the truth is, we all know what goes on the other eleven months of the year when all that's on the road is redundant speed cameras. An FOI request in the house of commons revealed that nationally we've lost 20% of our traffic police, with some areas seeing a reduction of patrols of 80% to rely on speed cameras.
Genghis, Portland says...
1:49pm Sat 4 Jul 09
24,000 people caught speeding in Chideock proves they do work for the purpose that they were intended for - catching drivers breaking the speed limit. The urban myth of the situation is the claim that they improve road safety. The only thing that will improve road safety is better trained drivers and ones that comply with the law.
Insight, says...
2:10pm Sat 4 Jul 09
This hasn't happened and 24,000 convictions at a limited number of sites and a much higher and indeed frightening number of convictions when there is an active police operation proves the camera concept simply does not work.
The camera operation has been a ludicrous waste of money which would have served the public better had it been spent bringing our road going police force into the 21st century.
I know it's difficult for the camera fans to grasp and admit their failure, but now that fourteen states in America have admitted cameras do not work and outlawed their use, what is it going to take to make the government give up and perform yet another 'u-turn' on failed policy?
Insight, says...
2:18pm Sat 4 Jul 09
Insight, says...
2:22pm Sat 4 Jul 09
"A successful camera is one that doesn't catch anyone speeding."
It is only logical to conclude that the concept of cameras after all these years is 'not' one of success.
Genghis, Portland says...
3:15pm Sat 4 Jul 09
Insight wrote:You actually belief their hype? I think not. You know that's just them trying to justify their claims of promoting safety. If they were in charge of the Army they would no doubt claim that a successful weapon is one that does not injure the enemy.
All over the country the partnerships own mantra has been.. "A successful camera is one that doesn't catch anyone speeding." It is only logical to conclude that the concept of cameras after all these years is 'not' one of success.
A successful camera is one that does the job it was made for. A successful Safety Partnership is one that improves safety which quite clearly they haven't done. Let the Police enforce the laws and if the Safety Partnerships have any purpose it should be in improving the standard of driving.
Johnnytheboy, Wimborne says...
8:47am Wed 8 Jul 09
A precise technical offence (e.g. driving faster than a precise numerical speed) requires precise technical enforcement procedure.
If this procedure is not carried out correctly then no offence is committed.
In this case, the motorists were not exceeding a properly legally drawn up speed limit, so they just weren't breaking the law.
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
jlseagull, Weymouth says...
9:42am Thu 2 Jul 09