[Archived] Speed Camera's Again

[colin]

Speed is only one factor in accidents. Although as I've mentioned earlier, it's not just about speed (in fact it's usually careless driving), and my problem is with the cynical way speed cameras are used in order to maximise revenue - not the hardware itself.

I'm going to have to chew my knee caps off in frustration at these two spurious points

(1) Speed cameras are there to capture drivers who are driving above the speed limit. They are not there to capture drunken drivers; old farts driving too slowly; & people driving while on their mobiles or any other driving misdemeanour. You might as well complain that Paul Robinson is pretty rubbish as a striker. Well yes he is actually, but that's not what he's there for. Bennie MacCarthy has done sod-all as a goal keeper too.

(2) This "maximise revenue" thing. Please will you explain. With figures. I keep hearing this point & I've no idea what it means. Thanks.

[jim mk2]

Surely your average PC can't be happy sat in a van pointing a camera at passing cars. Is that really why he/she got into policing?

No and no.

Which is why we have fixed speed cameras and why average speed cameras should be installed on all major trunk roads.

It's called efficiency.

[ABBEY]

jim you really are boring the arse off everyone now

[yoda]

No and no.

Which is why we have fixed speed cameras and why average speed cameras should be installed on all major trunk roads.

It's called efficiency.

The most efficient way is to control speed using satnav technology

[jim mk2]

jim you really are boring the arse off everyone now

Maybe, but the idiots who think it's OK to drive at 90mph in the fast lane still don't get the message.

Driving should be boring. If you want excitement go to the race track.

The most efficient way is to control speed using satnav technology

Agree : the sooner it is introduced the better.

[thenodrog]

Maybe, but the idiots who think it's OK to drive at 90mph in the fast lane still don't get the message.

I agree. Those dozy gits who hog the outside lane p1ss me off too. The middle lane is quite acceptable for speeds of 90mph or so. The outside lane should be for overtaking only.

[yoda]

Agree : the sooner it is introduced the better.

Don't ever do that to me again

[ABBEY]

Maybe, but the idiots who think it's OK to drive at 90mph in the fast lane still don't get the message............ MUCH RATHER TON IT AND ID MACHINE GUN CARS DOING 50 MPH ON THE MOTORWAYS

Driving should be boring. If you want excitement go to the race track....BORING ? THATS GOOD FALL ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL,KOOL.

Agree : the sooner it is introduced the better......SATNAV? WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE FOR THE TRAFFIC JAMS ON SLIP ROADS AND JUNCTIONS WHEN EVERYONE ARRIVES AT THE SAME TIME

[Stuart]

I'm going to have to chew my knee caps off in frustration at these two spurious points

(1) Speed cameras are there to capture drivers who are driving above the speed limit. They are not there to capture drunken drivers; old farts driving too slowly; & people driving while on their mobiles or any other driving misdemeanour. You might as well complain that Paul Robinson is pretty rubbish as a striker. Well yes he is actually, but that's not what he's there for. Bennie MacCarthy has done sod-all as a goal keeper too.

Not sure I've ever said otherwise. But the other things you mention are just as likely to cause accidents and aren't policed nearly as (what's the word) efficiently. Why's that I wonder...? Oh yes, it's a bit difficult. A bit like catching burglars and the like. Still at least the conviction rates look good though don't they.

(2) This "maximise revenue" thing. Please will you explain. With figures. I keep hearing this point & I've no idea what it means. Thanks.

Okay, let me explain, slowly. Maximise revenue means 'make as much money as possible'. It does not mean 'make enough money to cover your costs' nor does it mean 'make a profit' (by the way, profit is that stuff left over after all of your costs have been paid). Neither does it mean make enough money to send all the chief constables and their families on nice holidays to Barbados'.

Good luck with those knees though.

Driving should be boring.

Driving should be boring? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are referring only to speed and not being a passenger in your car, or the kind of boredom that has people's minds drifting off onto other things. Because 'safety cameras' won't catch that either.

It'd be nice though if the pair of you could stop being so obtuse and accept that the current regime of speed cameras places focus on revenue (income, Colin) and not necessarily reduction of accidents.

[den]

Oi Jisty, why have I been ignored?

So apart from making the public aware of the "5 or 10 worst areas for accidents", you have no other suggestions of how to slow down traffic? Or don't you believe that speed is a problem?

Oh - and I think Colin might want some kind of "evidence" that these camera's aren't really there to dissuade drivers from killing people, but are only there for revenue.

[Stuart]

Oi Jisty, why have I been ignored?

Sorry fella. Do you want some of my distain too?

To be honest I think I've already answered that in my earlier posts. But I'll expand.

Speed is one factor in accidents, of course. And someone said that speeding is careless driving; I would say it can be. A very aware driver doing 33mph in a 30 zone - which is marked up incorrectly/inconsistently (based on other roads in the area) is less likely to cause an accident than someone doing 28mph whilst texting on their mobile.

Also it's not just highlighting the 5 or 10 worst areas, it's raising the profile of them, manning them, making them known to ALL drivers, educating drivers who are driving at less than the required standard (not just speeding) and then going on to the 5 or 10 areas. I imagine this would be rotated.

This is just my idea as a response to the question posed 'what else could be done'. My point remains though that speed cameras are first and foremost a form of stealth tax used by police forces, councils and the government to raise money. Reduction of accidents, in this context, is the guilt trip used to justify it. I'm sure there are better ways and suspect they actually involve reducing the number of cars on the road. Easier said than done.

[den]

My point remains though that speed cameras are first and foremost a form of stealth tax used by police forces, councils and the government to raise money. Reduction of accidents, in this context, is the guilt trip used to justify it. I'm sure there are better ways and suspect they actually involve reducing the number of cars on the road. Easier said than done.

Where does the money generated from speed camera's go?

Sorry fella. Do you want some of my distain too?

A very aware driver doing 33mph in a 30 zone - which is marked up incorrectly/inconsistently (based on other roads in the area) is less likely to cause an accident than someone doing 28mph whilst texting on their mobile.

I would prefer you to back up this claim that they're really about raising money.

One more question - what about the very aware driver doing 60 in a 30mph zone? Is he not dangerous?

[Stuart]

1) Where does the money generated from speed camera's go?

2) I would prefer you to back up this claim that they're really about raising money.

3) One more question - what about the very aware driver doing 60 in a 30mph zone? Is he not dangerous?

1) Wherever our other taxes go, to the treasury.

2) Google speed camera photos or look at some of the links I posted the other day. You only have to look at where they set up. Also, have you never remarked about a fixed camera being being in a completely inappropriate place. Incidentally, there's a speed camera around the corner from the police HQ in Blackburn which I pass every day. 'Someone' has turned the camera so that it is at about a 45 degree angle away from the road. It's been like that for about 8 months. Odd that it hasn't been fixed. Yet, considering the people who travel that way to work in a morning, perhaps not.

3) You are taking my point to extremes. Neither you or I believe that doing 60mph in a built up area (at least that's what I assume you are referring to) could be considered 'very aware'. Reaction times would be extremely low. I certainly wouldn't defend that driver.

Are you going to make a point on this subject or just dissect my posts and argue the extremes? (You're not on your own by the way).

Edit: this is an interesting read, Den

http://www.ukmotorists.com/speeding%20fines.asp

[den]

Are you going to make a point on this subject or just dissect my posts and argue the extremes? (You're not on your own by the way).

I've made points Jisty, as have others. You aren't listening to them.

Speed kills the innocent and the guilty. Speed camera's slow down traffic. They make the roads safer - not only where they are situated - but where they aren't situated. They are the best thing we have to combat the drivers who see no real danger in driving fast. They are the only thing we have to combat those people who think they can drive safely at any speed.

I think, if you were honest, you would agree with that, but for some reason, you continue to argue that it's all a political ploy and they're not really there to improve safety. Something you can't demonstrate as being the case.

Anyway - ho hum.

[colin]

Not sure I've ever said otherwise. But the other things you mention are just as likely to cause accidents and aren't policed nearly as (what's the word) efficiently.

Speed is one factor in accidents, of course. And someone said that speeding is careless driving; I would say it can be. A very aware driver doing 33mph in a 30 zone - which is marked up incorrectly/inconsistently (based on other roads in the area) is less likely to cause an accident than someone doing 28mph whilst texting on their mobile.

That's one knee cap off and devoured. You've just mentioned driving whilst texting. What has that got to do with speed cameras?

There is no such thing as a "30mph zone." It is a 30mph speed limit. "Zones" are 20 mph and restricted to built up residential areas .

Give your incorrect terminology can you describe how a 30mph limit can be " marked up incorrectly/inconsistently" given that as long as there is a system of street lighting and no other indications of a speed limit, then the limit is 30 mph? I thought everyone who passed their driving test knew about this.

Keep going with the "maximising revenue" stuff. I'm still no the wiser what it means. Can you put some monetary figures on this? I suspect it's just an anti-speed camera mantra without any substance, but I'll be happy to be stand corrected.

Just as a coda. The only time you'll see a speed camera on a motorway is where there are roadworks. They are there to protect the lives of the people working there.

[ABBEY]

motorway bridges are on motorways ? surely?

[Paul]

motorway bridges are on motorways ? surely?

No the bridge is the road which goes over the motorway.........but I know what you mean

[Paul]

A very aware driver doing 33mph in a 30 zone - which is marked up incorrectly/inconsistently (based on other roads in the area) is less likely to cause an accident than someone doing 28mph whilst texting on their mobile.

While I can understand your view that cameras create revenue there is nothing to prove this is the reason for their sighting. I've little doubt once they authorities realised they control speed AND raise revenue the numbers multiplied rapidly. Sadly all your arguements fall down as you continue to endorse breaking the law.

In your example both drivers are driving illegaly and unsafely. You cannot defend 33mph in a 30 because it is illegal and much more likely to kill another road user. The same applies to texting at 28mph. Simple. There is no "less likely", they are both likely to cause an accident.

BTW there is no such thing as inconsistent road signage. Agreed 30 / 40 changes can be tough to spot every time but one should be aware of these changes. If unsure of the limit in a built up area it will be 30mph - check the lamp posts.

[1864roverite]

In relation to the "fines" or "generated revenue", the money does NOT go to the government.

Some of the revenue goes to the Police authority "operating" the cameras.

Some of the money goes to the local authority for managing and maintaining the cameras.

Some of the money goes into the judicial system that will go towards staff costs.

Some of the money will be put into advertising road safety issues.

A point to note, that when speeding operations are conducted by the Police or indeed road safety enforcers (yellow vans) and there is an element of overtime involved, the money is claimed back to pay the "officers". I am pesonally aware of Officers being paid double time just to operate mobile cameras and that just sticks in ones stomach big time.

[Flopsy]

In relation to the "fines" or "generated revenue", the money does NOT go to the government.

Some of the revenue goes to the Police authority "operating" the cameras.

Some of the money goes to the local authority for managing and maintaining the cameras.

Some of the money goes into the judicial system that will go towards staff costs.

Some of the money will be put into advertising road safety issues.

A point to note, that when speeding operations are conducted by the Police or indeed road safety enforcers (yellow vans) and there is an element of overtime involved, the money is claimed back to pay the "officers". I am pesonally aware of Officers being paid double time just to operate mobile cameras and that just sticks in ones stomach big time.

What cads, its almost as if you werent speeding you wouldnt be fined.

Theno, how goes your Physics course?

[yoda]

What cads, its almost as if you werent speeding you wouldnt be fined.

Theno, how goes your Physics course?

I will say it again, safety has everything to do with control

[American]

In relation to the "fines" or "generated revenue", the money does NOT go to the government.

Some of the revenue goes to the Police authority "operating" the cameras.

Some of the money goes to the local authority for managing and maintaining the cameras.

Some of the money goes into the judicial system that will go towards staff costs.

Tell me how those things aren't the government?

[colin]

Fining people for relatively minor dismeanours has been a long-established method of punishing people.

Dropping litter, fly tipping, drunk & disorderly, offensive behavouir.

The list goes on.............. Too many to mention.

No one has ever championed these crimes as being mere revenue collection devices. No one has ever decried these fines as

being some kind of government scheme to raise money.

Why is there this big hoo-ha about speed & safety cameras being different?

[yoda]

Fining people for relatively minor dismeanours has been a long-established method of punishing people.

Dropping litter, fly tipping, drunk & disorderly, offensive behavouir.

The list goes on.............. Too many to mention.

No one has ever championed these crimes as being mere revenue collection devices. No one has ever decried these fines as

being some kind of government scheme to raise money.

Why is there this big hoo-ha about speed & safety cameras being different?

The cameras didn't stop Lord Ahmed!

[dave birch]

According to the reports, he wasn't speeding.

You can work it out using the times given versus the distance travelled.