Talk:Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom

Creation by split

This article was created by a split of the Enforcement section of the Road speed limits in the United Kingdom article. PeterEastern (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

History section

Can I suggest that we now extract a lot of the history content into a separate history section which showing how enforcement has evolved in 100 years from guys hiding in hedges to automatic number plate recognition which all the key arguments and changes of regulations along the way! Can I also suggest that the 'methods' section limits itself to how enforcement is currently carried out and refrains from giving a historical background and that the content for each method in this article limits itself to the specifics of the UK situation; more general information about the means of enforcement should be detailed in the linked article for the then technique or in the main speed limit enforcement article - this might mean more work on the linked articles than in the 'means' section of this article. PeterEastern (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

UK history in Gato article

There is what appears to be a bunch of early UK history re speed cameras in the Gato article. Should be move that here and then try and source it? PeterEastern (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated road casualty figures

Note to readers: This section relates to inclusion of the following text in the article. PeterEastern (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In 2000 the UK government's Road Safety Strategy sought to achieve was to reduce fatalities and serious injuries by 40%, and by 60% for children by 2010 (compared to the average of 1994-8) It is not possible to demonstrate causal relationship between this policy and actual casualty rates, however the target was exceeded in 2009 when figures showed a 44% reduction and 61% for children.

I've removed from the 'history' section a statement which asserts that a certain government target on road casualty reduction had been met by 2009. The reason for its removal was that no supported rationale was provided to relate the statement to the subject of the article. If the reason for adding that statement was to imply that speed limit enforcement played a significant part in achieving it, then that is original research without a cited source making that particular claim. -- de Facto (talk). 07:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I dispute that this text is not appropriate. There are clear linkages demonstrated throughout the article from reliable 3rd parties that there is a strong correlation between the use of speed cameras and other speed limit enforcement measures and reductions in casualty levels. The following caveat was included to ensure that readers don't believe that there is a 100% correlation: "It is not possible to demonstrate causal relationship between this policy and the actual casualty rates, however the target was exceeded in 2009 ". As such I think your edit is not justified.

I have issues with the other edits you have made in the past 24 hours which seem to have a pattern of removing information relating to the connection between speed limits/speed limit enforcement and casuality levels. I note that in the past you have also made similar edits to Speed limits, Reported Road Casualties Great Britain and others. Your edits on Speed Limit produced vigorous discussion, This particular discussion from April is relevant, DeFacto's new sentence in lead - speed limits ineffective where another editor complained "DeFacto is determined to tell the world that speed limits are ineffective. On their own, they would never work. They need enforcement. That is unarguable. But good enforcement can change a culture, as I believe it has where I live, in Victoria, Australia. To make blanket statements to the effect that speed limits are ineffective is very POV. I'm not happy with DeFacto's recent changes saying this. Nor am I happy about his aggressive posting of this material". The article's talk page is littered with similar arguments. I only mention this to avoid a long and unproductive repeat. I am also concerned about your use of wikipedia rules to justify edits which are always 'pro-motorist'. I have challenged you in Splitting_hairs on this and am waiting for a response from you to justify the rules you invoked.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Addressing just your first paragraph above: I agree that it may be appropriate to include it, but it's only appropriate if there is an accompanying discussion about how it is appropriate. That may simply be that [some person or organisation] claim that the reaching of the target (or the casualty reduction) is wholly or partially attributable to the camerqa enforcement of speed limits. It will of course need a reliable source too. However, if that claim is included (and supported) then the NPOV policy requires that the alternate views are also represented; and they incled: 1)that the casualty drop during the speed camera years was much less than in the years before or since and that had cameras not been used the casualty count may well have been much lower now, 2)that the STAT19 data no longer represents an accurate casualty count and that hospital data shows that the casualty count hasn't dropped by that much (if at all) during the camera years. -- de Facto (talk). 09:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above I have issues generally with your interpretation of Wikipedia rules to support a pattern of 'pro-motorist' edits. I challenged you in Splitting_hairs on this. I think it is important to bottom that one out before addressing the issues raised by your recent edits to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That discussion is not related - please keep that to its correct article (I thought we had already resolved the issue there, if we haven't please raise the outstanding point(s) - but there not here). -- de Facto (talk). 09:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to continue that discussion elsewhere PeterEastern (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have added a quote box for the content we are discussing to the start of this section. PeterEastern (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the second paragraph above: I challenge content which is apparent OR or which is unsupported by reliable references. If the unsupported material is about apparently inflated or false claims about the effectiveness of speed cameras (or speed limits), then one may, dependent on one's prejudices, jump to the conclusion that my edit was pro-motorist rather that pro-Wikipedia policy, however if you look at my edits history in the round, you will see "anti-motorist" pro-Wikipedia policy edits there too. The easiest way to ensure that content stays unchallenged is to add it in an NPOV and reliably sourced fashion - as indeed Wiki policy insists. -- de Facto (talk). 09:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the protracted discussions we have had on this and similar subjects for well over a year I would like to get some other parties involved in resolving the wider issues we have over neutrality and policies across a number of articles. Any suggestions on how we could best do this? PeterEastern (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, what is the outstanding issue or issues here? -- de Facto (talk). 15:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

To quote: A pattern of removing information relating to the connection between speed limits/speed limit enforcement and casuality levels in the past 24 hours and over a much longer period. This section does not relate to any particular current content PeterEastern (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the one or two edits in which I removed sentences of arbitrary road casualty numbers, which had no added context to link them with anything about enforcement within the article, then I think that speaks for itself. You can't just intersperse such figures throughout the article, and expect them to be left there, unless you can support the reason for their inclusion with some reliably sourced opinion or finding relating them to something relevent to the article. The fact that casualties rise or drop one year is not notable in the context of this article unless you can provide a reliably sourced opinion saying that it is. The fact that a government set a target, and that that target was met, cannot be assumed to imply that speed limit enforcement had anything significant to do with that achievement - unless someone notable, in a reliably sourced reference, makes that connection, especially if the "target" was, as in this case, for a reduction similar to what had been happening for many years before. -- de Facto (talk). 16:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed reversion

I suggest that we revert these changes back to this version as the changes made since then have chopped out lots of material that I believe is relevant, notable and referenced. I also find the changes to the headings odd and unconvincing. Clearly someone disagrees and they will do doubt argue their case in this section. I am however interested to hear from other people. My particular issues are:

1. The heading 'Early years' and '1934 - 1980s' have been merged into 'Early years'. The seems to long
2. The heading '1980s - 2010' has been changed to 'Electronic aids' and 'Speed camera era' - not very information, and implies that we are no longer in a 'speed camera era'. For sure, the current government has expressed opposition to 'Fixed Speed Cameras' but there are still many many in use and more average and mobile speed cameras are promised.
3. The heading '2010 - present' has been changed to 'Post speed camera era' - see above for my objection. There is no evidence for this will be 'post' speed cameras, despite what some may wish
4. The paragraph about 'self limiting' speed limits set by the red flag acts' 'ridden furiously' (corrected - see below) has been removed - I see no reason for that.
5. Details about the reintroduction of urban speed limit and the reasons in 1934 have been removed
6. Details about the reintroduction of speed limits outside urban areas in the late 1960s and the reasons for it have been removed, as have has peak casualty figure for 1966.
7. Details for a casualty increase for single year figure for 1999 when casualties unusually went up - probably not statistically meaningful
8. The 44% and 61% decrease in casualties between 2000 and 2009 has been removed. This is certainly statistically meaningful

-- PeterEastern (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggested mass-reversion for the reasons given in each of my edit summaries. We can discuss each of your points individually if you like, and see if we can reach a relevent, NPOV and supported non-OR compromise.

• Stuff about speed limit changes, with no discussion about their enforcement, does not belong here and is already covered in the road speed limits in the United Kingdom article.
• The detail about the red flag self-enforcement is still there - and so it should be as does discuss enforcement.
• Casualty figures are irrelevent unless there is discussion implicating enforcement as contributory.
• The 1999 increase is significant as it highlights the 10-year loss of improvement trend which coincides with increased speed camera activity.
• The 2009 10-year reductions were not discussed as being related to enforcement, so were not relevent.

-- de Facto (talk). 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to agree ;) I assume that you have seen my comments on your talk page about requesting arbitration? Re the Red Flag Acts - my mistake,it was the section about horses being 'ridden furiously' that I meant to flag up. However... I am not discussing the issue further. I have made my point, you have made yours and now we seek outside input, if you agree? PeterEastern (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The horse paragraph doesn't address enforcement - so why keep it? Why will you not discuss each of the individual issues rather than suggesting blanket reversions? Let's discuss just one at a time and try to understand each other's reasons for wanting it one way or the other. -- de Facto (talk). 16:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To repeat my earlier comment: 'I am not discussing the issue further. I have made my point, you have made yours and now we seek outside input'. PeterEastern (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You won't discuss it further? How can we resolve it then? Have you sought "outside input"? I think you need to better summarise the issue that remains here - list each of the remaining problems - so that I, or a third-party, can understand it. -- de Facto (talk). 14:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we need this?

Following on from our discussion above, I propose discussing each point in turn. Let's start with this edit. I removed those two paragraph becasue neither of them addresses enforcement and because both of them should be covered in the road speed limits in the United Kingdom article - the subject of which they do address. In what way do you believe that either, or both, belong here too? -- de Facto (talk). 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not discussing individual edits with you. I have done that before and we ended up disagreeing about the rules which didn't get us anywhere! Given the two versions available, the one before your edits and the other afterwards I still think the first one is clearer and more balanced and more usable. You may like to make further edits to balance it out and respond to my issues or not - that's your choice. More on your talk page. PeterEastern (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Feelings run deep on this topic, so cool outside heads would be useful to us all. If I might offer an observation: the removal of some of the material about the setting and changing of speed limits seems less controversial than the changes to the later material. Perhaps it would help to try Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal about the setting and changing of speed limits material, just to see if one bit of this problem can be chipped away. That might lead to a more positive and collaborative approach which could allow further progress on the thornier issues? Springnuts (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Springnuts. I have been waiting for some advise from a specific contributor how has unfortunately not edited for the past week. If he doesn't show up soon I will follow your advice. PeterEastern (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, you assert on my talk page that there in an outstanding issue in this topic, what is that outstanding issue or issues? -- de Facto (talk). 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The points are numbered 1-8 above. If you wish to discuss the issue then please respond to them. PeterEastern (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that all of your problems with this article - on my talk page you suggest three separate topics are in dispute. -- de Facto (talk). 16:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Peter, you said previously (here and here) that you were not prepared to discuss these issues further, but if you've now changed your mind, that's fine by me - I'll address them each in turn, in separate topics... -- de Facto (talk). 17:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Point 1

"The heading 'Early years' and '1934 - 1980s' have been merged into 'Early years'. The seems to long"
Take a look at the article - there is actually nothing now in that section that happened after 1937. The title seems appropriate for now. If more content gets added, then we can, of course, review how the section is divided. -- de Facto (talk). 17:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Point 2

"The heading '1980s - 2010' has been changed to 'Electronic aids' and 'Speed camera era'..."
I think that the introduction of electronic aids (or whatever we may call the section) marks a significant evolution in speed limit enforcement - so is a valid section title. Speed cameras hold a special place in UK traffic enforcement history so that too is, I believe, a reasonable section heading. -- de Facto (talk). 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Point 3

"The heading '2010 - present' has been changed to 'Post speed camera era'..."
This one, I'll grant you, may be a little premature, but almost everyday we see more news about speed cameras being turned off. Era names though, I think, are more informative than year numbers. -- de Facto (talk). 17:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Point 4

"The paragraph about 'ridden furiously' ... has been removed..."
As I implied in the edit comment, I removed that because it is not relevent to this article; it adds nothing of note to the discussion of speed limit enforcement. -- de Facto (talk). 17:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Point 5

"Details about the reintroduction of urban speed limit and the reasons in 1934 have been removed"
As I implied in the edit comment, I removed that because it is not relevent to this article; it adds nothing of note to the discussion of speed limit enforcement. -- de Facto (talk). 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Point 6

"Details about the reintroduction of speed limits outside urban areas in the late 1960s and the reasons for it have been removed, as have has peak casualty figure for 1966"
As I implied in the edit comment, I removed them because they are not relevent to this article; they add nothing of note to the discussion of speed limit enforcement. -- de Facto (talk). 21:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Point 7

"[Added] Details for a casualty increase for single year figure for 1999 when casualties unusually went up - probably not statistically meaningful"
In an article littered with arbitrary casualty statistics it was an unusual event in recent years, which occurred around the time that speed camera enforcement was becoming common, so it seemed appropriate to add it. -- de Facto (talk). 21:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Point 8

"The 44% and 61% decrease in casualties between 2000 and 2009 has been removed..."
As I implied in the edit comment, I removed it because it was not made relevent to this article. There was no context to show if that was typical or not, or resulting from discussed enforcement policy - and it is in the appropriate linked article: Reported Road Casualties Great Britain. -- de Facto (talk). 22:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you also removed all reference to Reported Road Casualties Great Britain from the article by one of these edits. Also that you removed the casualties by speed limit table from Road speed limits in the United Kingdom with this edit.PeterEastern (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Not adding a relevent link to RRCGB was an oversight which I have now fixed (thanks for pointing it out). The speed limit/casualty data in that other article was for one arbitrary year - with no context or explanation as to what its relevence was to the article.

-- de Facto (talk). 16:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

--Thank you for your responses. I will review these and also the existing text and make some edits to the article over the next 2 days. PeterEastern (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made some edits to the earlier part of the article now. There seems to be a tussle with the opening sentence of 'Rationale'. When that has settled down I will do work on the history section in light of your responses above. PeterEastern (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the relevance of these locations

In this article about speed limit enforcement and in the section on rationale, I wondered what the relevance of the sentence: "Parliament notes that most deaths of car occupants take place on rural roads and that crashes and pedestrian deaths in urban areas" was, so I have flagged it for discussion.

Can the original author perhaps explain why it was added. Do parliament suggest that those types of fatalities in those locations are directly related to speed limit enforcement (too much, or lack of)?

-- de Facto (talk). 11:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the reference to the page that discusses the phrase in relation to casualty rates. The inference in the source is that pedestrians are mainly killed in urban areas where most speed limits mainly 30mph (some 20mph and some 40mph) and that therefore keeping drivers to those speed limits is important. The issue about drivers in rural areas is that there are generally in 60mph areas. I will look for a clearer reference for that one. PeterEastern (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Make the relevance clear in the article text too then. Currently it appears as an arbitrary and unrelated factoid. -- de Facto (talk). 21:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that it is very clear as long as it is kept with the rest of the content about the relationship between speed and death particularly the 20-40mph fatality rate range. I have removed the reference to car drivers and rural roads as that doesn't directly relate. It now reads 'Parliament noted that most deaths of pedestrian occurred in urban areas (where the speed limit ranges from 20-40mph)'.PeterEastern (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't relate to enforcement though. Did they suggest that non-compliance with current speed limits was a significant cause? Did most of those deaths have "breaking the speed limit" as a factor? -- de Facto (talk). 11:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect I don't think you want to see the connection. Lets wait and we see what feedback we get from other contributors to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If there is a connection with enforcement, please state it. I cannot see it, and I would dearly like too! -- de Facto (talk). 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Added effectiveness section

I just added the section to give us room to discuss the effectiveness of each method. We can now begin to add a balanced cross-section of findings, views and opinions. There is no "right" answer, but there are many notable contributions to the discussion - let's see if we can do it justice. -- de Facto (talk). 18:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Half of England and Wales fixed speed cameras 'working'

Useful stats and details in this article that should be integrated into the article. [Half of England and Wales fixed speed cameras 'working'http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12290530] PeterEastern (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Key speed camera dates

The following text has been moved here from the 'Please correct speed camera labels' section of File talk:Killed on British Roads.png.

The dates on the graph for cameras are wrong. The Gatso was Type Approved in 1989 but the first one was not installed until 1992. The first LTI 20.20 'Laser Gun' was not Type Approved until October 1993. This makes the graph quite misleading as the Speed Camera era, when they were deployed in numbers, really started from about 1994/5, and coincides with the flat section with little improvement in safety, from 1995 to 2007, at which point the financial link was broken and ticket numbers fell dramatically. Please update your graph. Mike163 (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Happy to update the chart but can you first provide a reference for these claims. I would like to get to the point where every mark on the chart has a reference in the description text for verification. I agree with you about the date for the speed camera being 1992. Here is my reference for 'laser guns' from The Times "By the late 1980s, however, technology had been supplying the traffic police with new tools. Laser guns enabled them to measure the speed of a vehicle more precisely."[1] PeterEastern (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Home Office lists the Approval notices here [2]. I got the Gatso BV Type 24 wrong, that was not approved till 1992. I've seen 1989 somewhere, maybe prescribed then in the SI. LTI 20.20 TS/M was 1993, both p1 of the index. p.s. what email address is used by Wiki to inform me of page updates? I don't get any. Thx. Mike163 (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you appear to know more about this stuff than I do. Any idea which document has the relevant details? Re email alerts, I am not aware that that is possible. What you need to do is add the page to your watch list and then from time to time display it. To add something to a watch list you click the big star to the right of the history tab for the article of interest to you. To see your watchlist you click on watchlist at the top of the page on the right. To remove an article you click it again. PeterEastern (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Doh! I wrote a response but guess I hit preview not save. The Gatso approval is here [3] and the LTI 20.20 TS/M approval is here [4]. Mike163 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, however we are well short of clarity on the matter. I am still not clear if the Gatso you refer to was the first such device or that the LTI 20.20 was to first laser gun, certainly not enough to overrule The Times. I note that that article gives a date of 1991 for the first use of a speed camera. I also note that in the states they were using radar speed detectors back in the 1950s[5] Can I suggest that we work on getting Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom to our satisfaction first and then reflect those changes here. PeterEastern (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Times? What no! Telegraph, case proven :p I see the uncertainty. Hand held radar devices were around and even approved in the UK from 1986. However, these corroborated the evidence of a Police Officer. The legislation to allow unattended use was not brought in till 1991: section 20 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 was ammended by s23 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. After the legislation allowed unattended use, the type of devices had to be prescribed by Parliament. This occurred in SI 1992/1209 [6]. Then the device had to be Type Approved by the Secretary of State. This occurred in 1992, as per my link. The same process occurred for laser speedmeters, with approval of the first device in 1993. The original page to which I linked [7]has an index page of approved devices with nothing earlier than 1992. I'd link to think that UK Legislation is better proof than a newspaper article. Mike163 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just copied the above to this article from File talk:Killed on British Roads.png. The reference I was referring to was indeed for The Telegraph not the The Times; I have now corrected the reference in this article which had incorrectly assigned it to The Times. I am happy to try rolling the above claims into the article where they are supported by references (but some are not supported). However.. I don't have time to do it very soon. Feel tree to do so yourself. The best way will be to keep the claims in chronological order and ensure that there is a reference for each one. Trying to nail down the date for 'later guns', to quote The Telegraph article referred to above By the late 1980s, however, technology had been supplying the traffic police with new tools. Laser guns enabled them to measure the speed of a vehicle more precisely. This seems to be referring to hand held laser speed detectors, not the 'unattended use' you refer to that was allowed from 1991. I guess the M40 trial in 1991 took place on approval? PeterEastern (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have created an article for LIDAR speed gun and updated the radar speed gun article in preparation for adding the content and references highlighted above. When that content is added I will review the dates as discussed on File talk:Killed on British Roads.png. PeterEastern (talk)

I have integrated the links and content as identified by Mike163 into the article. It seems likely that the 1991 trial of a fixed speed camera occurred before the legislation allowing evidence from unattended cameras to be used for prosecution. Indeed, the trial may have been part of a process to inform legislators. I have reviewed the other information it does seem likely that The Telegraph's article 'the twisted truth' did itself 'twist the truth' with their reference to hand-held devices being available from 1989, or possibly the devices were available to the police but could not be used as evidence until the relevant legislation was passed. I suggest the later explanation is likely to be the case. If so it should be reflected in the article. Can anyone find the relevant sources to clear this up? PeterEastern (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060213234036/http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_507640.hcsp to http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_507640.hcsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Road speed limit enforcement in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810224449/http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/releases/pressarchive/cameras/pressreleasespeedcamerafundi5811 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/press/releases/pressarchive/cameras/pressreleasespeedcamerafundi5811
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629165804/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmtran/memo_roads/memo1.pdf to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmtran/memo_roads/memo1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Earlyswerver UK Speed Camera Sign.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Spreading

Can the police hide when using a camera 2A02:C7F:8E75:C000:A418:F180:9D43:3369 (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)