| The government is to ban the use of speed camera jammers and detectors, but
GPS-based in-car technology, which advises drivers of camera sites and speed limits, is to remain legal. Here, we outline the government’s stance and discover if risk management experts think the technology is useful or a distraction, while Nigel Carter, sales and marketing director of Talex, puts forward the case for GPS systems |
Companies claim your licence will be safe if you fit an in-car “speed assessment equipment detection” device |
 |
| “Just as fast as a new camera site is revealed, another company launches an
in-car device that will, it is claimed, make you safer” |
|
Safety cameras form an integral part of the government’s road safety strategy and strict rules govern the positioning of cameras to ensure that they are sited only where there is a demonstrable risk and danger to road users. In republishing the Road Safety Bill following May’s general election, the government says that there was “overwhelming evidence from both UK and international literature that speeding results in more collisions and more severe casualties”.
Furthermore, the government says, the evidence from an independent review of the UK’s safety camera programme by University College London and PA Consulting found that cameras significantly reduced the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites. But, it seems, just as fast as a new camera site is revealed, another company launches an in-car device that will, it is claimed, make you safer. Fit such devices to your car – typically the dashboard or windscreen – and your licence will be safe, it is claimed.
But, it is important to realise that amid the plethora of speed camera jammers and detectors on the market there are essentially two very different types. Under the proposed Road Safety Bill making its way through Parliament and due to become law next year, one type of technology will be outlawed, while the other will remain legal.
The government says in the Road Safety Bill: “Devices which interfere with or detect the proper functioning of such cameras have only one purpose: to tell drivers when they can break speed limits and get away with it. This is unacceptable, it prevents the police from carrying out their duties, and is a danger to other law-abiding road users.”
Therefore, under the provisions of the Bill, the government will ban a vehicle from being fitted with, or a person using a vehicle carrying “speed assessment equipment detection devices” under the Construction and Use Regulations. However, the government adds in the proposed legislation: “The government will not be prohibiting those devices that rely on Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to warn drivers of published camera sites or posted speed limits, as these complement the government’s policy to ensure that camera sites are visible and conspicuous to drivers, and so help deter excessive and inappropriate speeds on the roads.”
Put simply, the GPS-based technology advises drivers of the imminence of speed cameras, speed limits and other danger locations, for example schools. If the information given is ignored and the driver exceeds the speed limit in the vicinity they run the risk of being caught. However, other detectors interfere with the working of a camera and they can also inform the driver about whether a roadside camera is “live”. These devices, it is claimed, encourage speeding and will become illegal next year.
Clearing the confusion
Nigel Carter |
|
| “Drivers who have had clean licences for many years are regularly getting speeding endorsements” |
|
If there’s one subject in the transport sphere that arouses passionate opinions, both for and against, it has to be safety cameras. Where on the one hand safety cameras are criticised by some as being a back door means of generating additional revenue from motorists, on the other they are hailed as an effective way of reducing unnecessary deaths on our roads.
Safety camera detectors, in all their forms, fall into the centre of this debate, with particular concerns about their legality being raised through the proposed Road Safety Bill. Understandably, this has led to confusion in some quarters about which systems will be banned and which will remain legal. In order to clarify any confusion about the legality of specific systems, it is important to state that laser and radar-based systems are likely to be outlawed, whereas devices that use the Global Positioning System (GPS) to pinpoint the location, direction and speed of a vehicle in relation to a fixed or mobile safety camera are set to remain 100% legal.
In addition, the Department for Transport has clearly stated that GPS-based systems “ . . . complement the Government’s policy to ensure camera sites are visible and conspicuous to drivers, and so help deter excessive and inappropriate speeds on the roads.” It is arguable that by making drivers aware of an on-coming safety camera, GPS-based systems, such as Talex, actually make drivers safer behind the wheel, due to a heightened level of awareness of their immediate driving environment and the speed limit they should be adhering to. Add features such as clear voice announcements of the speed limit and the vehicle’s proximity to schools and accident blackspots, and safety camera detector systems that feature this technology become an aid to safer driving. They help motorists to concentrate on their immediate surroundings and the road ahead, rather than staring at the speedometer.
Compared to private motorists, business drivers are perhaps more at risk from fines and licence penalty points resulting from safety cameras, as they tend to cover higher mileages and may often be required to drive in unfamiliar areas. As a result, drivers who have had clean driving licences for many years are regularly getting speeding endorsements and fines that put their licence, car insurance premium and ultimately their livelihood at risk.
Research gathered by Talex has found that just three penalty points on a previously clean licence can be enough to generate an increase in a driver’s insurance premium, and that with six points the premium could increase by up to 44%. As a result, the accumulated additional cost over five years for a six-point increase could be as much as £1,500 on an insurance policy for a typical driver.
By Nigel Carter, sales and marketing director, Talex
For more information, visit: Website: www.talex.co.uk |
Experts divided on use of in-car devices
Experts see pros and cons in in-car GPS-based systems, such as that by TALEX |
|
| “Most people would have to be myopic to miss a Gatso or a Truvelo” |
|
Risk management experts are divided on the value of GPS-based, in-car devices that warn drivers of fixed and mobile camera sites and speed limits. For some companies the devices, which can cost up to £500, are a waste of money, while for others they are a safety aid. The starkest assessment of their worth comes from Jim Kirkwood, managing director of DriveTech (UK), who says: “A fully trained and competent driver has no need for this technology as they can develop driving skills and adopt the right attitude to determine the appropriate speed to drive – and the speed limit – and the road signs and markings to identify and deal with blackspots.
”There is a danger that this equipment will enable rogue drivers to use this technology, not as a way of reducing road risk, but simply a way of avoiding detection by road enforcement authorities.” Meanwhile, Steve Johnson, of Drive & Survive, has “tested” most of the main products on the market over the past 18-24 months and says that providing such devices offer accurate safety-related information, other than the position of fixed safety cameras, they might have some merit. He says: “Several now give information about the location of schools and known accident blackspots, which is sensible, but the problem then becomes the sheer volume of that information and the huge potential for driver distraction.
“If you then add the inevitable annoyance factor generated by the automatic voice, bleeps and flashes, and the inevitable disinformation many of these units churn out (a school in the middle of the M6 toll road, for example), then there is very little net gain for the driver.” With camera sites in the public domain – published in this year’s AA road atlas and also identified on numerous websites – Mr Johnson says: “Who needs a device in the car? If a driver plans their journey properly the information should already be to hand and in any case most people would have to be myopic to miss a Gatso or a Truvelo.” But, he adds: “What would be a very useful in-car aid would be an authoritative voice reminding drivers of the speed limit, both upon entry and then a repeat every 30 seconds whilst in that zone.
“Even as experienced drivers, it is often quite difficult to work out what speed limit is in force, particularly in suburban areas, and this would be a pro-active, pro-safety device of real value.” James Sutherland, managing director of Peak Performance, says: “Being a good driver isn’t just about car control – it’s about driving well and taking into account the road conditions at the time. Increasingly, that means being aware of the hazards and perils faced in today’s modern motoring environment.
“The latest satellite navigation-aided driver safety systems can play a part in helping to identify those hazards.” Linda Morrison-Allsopp, road safety project manager, RoSPA, says: “We view the GPS-based systems as a safety aid because they highlight accident blackspots and encourage drivers to slow down and take care. “Even before the Road Safety Bill was published we had doubts about the other systems because they were encouraging drivers to speed.”
In the future, it is understood, the GPS-based systems will be updated with additional road safety-related information. This could include, for example, information from EuroRAP (European Road Assessment Programme), which encourages engineering improvements at crash sites. Drivers could be advised that they are approaching a site where care should be taken even though road safety improvements have been made. |
|
