Speed ​​cameras – Speed ​​camera warnings in the government’s sights –

Posted on by admin

Radar warnings in the government’s sights

Speed ​​cameras - Speed ​​camera warnings in the government's sights -

Thwarted by the development of user communities using radar warnings, the government is threatening to make their use reprehensible. By refraining, of course, from questioning the origin of this craze !

Despite a satisfactory month of February with 255 road deaths (-15% compared to February 2009, the least lethal month ever recorded on French roads), the ultra-security French government continues to point the finger at bad road habits which, as everyone knows, can only be eradicated with great repression…

However, despite the proliferation of automatic radars and the establishment of real "mousetraps" along roads, highways, villages and down to the smallest small French lane, accident statistics remain far removed from the results required by Nicolas Sarkozy (3000 deaths / year 2012).

But if road users, unlike "associations of victims", see the limits of the all-repressive and continue to advocate the development of preventive and educational measures, the government persists and signs: its strategy would not lend itself to to no criticism and its failures would henceforth be explained by the marked craze for speed camera warnings.

Unlike radar detectors (the possession, use and sale of which are prohibited and punishable by a 5th class fine according to article R 413-15 of the highway code), speed camera warnings do not not detect the presence of binoculars or the infamous gray boxes: based on user solidarity, systems such as Coyote, Inforad, Snooper, Avertinoo, Wikango and many others benefit from the development of new technologies (including on the iPhone) to warn their owners in real time when approaching a "risk" area.

This process is perfectly legal: drivers report the presence of a speed camera to a server, which then communicates its position to all people using the same type of device. It is neither more nor less than the technological equivalent of the good old call of lighthouses (read in particular).

Except that the growing efficiency of such community systems (the efficiency of which is directly based on the number of users) annoys the public authorities who see in these warnings a threat to repression at all costs: "it is a means that , for the moment, is legal. If it were to hamper the fight for road safety, we would naturally have to study this case, "recently warned the Secretary of State for Transport, Dominique Bussereau, at microphone from Europe1.

In reality, this supposed "embarrassment in the fight for road safety" also and above all results in a significant loss of income for the State on the financial level! To try to curb this craze (on March 1, Coyote thus claimed 360,000 subscribers and 513,945 mobile radars reported) the cabinet of Dominique Bussereau has already received Fabien Pierlot, founder of Coyote, to ask him to ensure that the campaigns advertisements of his company "are not perceived as so much encouragement to overcome the speed limits". While waiting to convene the manufacturers to engrave "Driving kills" on the windshields of the cars and the tachometers of the motorcycles ?

Coyote has therefore not hesitated to highlight the positive effect of its system on accidentology: beyond the presence of speed cameras, members of the Coyote community can indeed warn of disturbances encountered on their routes. (slowdowns, accidents, roadworks, etc.). According to the manufacturer, no less than "84,817 road disturbances" would have been reported in February, that is to say as many drivers potentially more attentive and reactive in front of a delicate situation.

The legality of speed camera warnings is therefore likely to be called into question in the future: authorized in most European countries, Coyote and its competitors are already prohibited in Switzerland, Austria and Germany. In France, they have already aroused the indignation of the much listened to League against road violence, whose president, the inescapable Chantal Perrichon, calls for the outright ban of this device: "all the tools to thwart the controls of speed, including headlights calls, must be prohibited ", she affirmed without batting an eyelid to our colleagues from Figaro !

Same story with Guy-Patrick Fontenaille, head of the road safety office of the gendarmerie: "most people who invest in such equipment do so in particular to defeat our road checks".

Obviously, circumventing road surveillance is certainly not an ideal solution, especially as it engenders or will engender inevitable abuses. But the rate at which points are withdrawn from French drivers sometimes leaves little choice: will it be necessary that all road users lose their licenses for the State to finally agree to review some of its measures among the most abusive ?

Related articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *