Hull speed cameras sites 'picked to make most money'

[tapereel]

Audidodat said:

I tend not to pay too much attention to propaganda of any colour.

What I do know is that (especially when driving in unfamiliar areas), the threat of speed cameras contributes to me moderating my speed. I doubt I'm alone in that.

My beef with speed cameras is that they're a jolly good excuse for police forces to reduce spend on traffic officers. Mind you, if Pistonheads had existed in the 80s, no doubt this section would be full of people complaining about coppers behind hedges or in unmarked Granadas, and how it was all unfair and about generating cash for the government.

Some things never change!

I don't think you are alone in that. It makes perfect sense.

It makes no sense to place speed cameras where excess speed is not commonly used. I don't understand why anyone feels surprised by that. If a councillor says he is surprised then that needs examining not the use of the speed camera.

[Pete317]

tapereel said:

It makes no sense to place speed cameras where excess speed is not commonly used.

Of course not. They wouldn't generate much revenue, would they?

Edited by Pete317 on Sunday 14th February 21:56

[vonhosen]

Jasandjules said:

Audidodat said:

I'd expect speed cameras are not just designed to alter behaviour at the sites they're situated, but also more generally across the road network.

Your expectation is sadly wide of the mark. They are, and always have been, designed to generate revenue.

Putting up signs warning people of their presence & allowing their locations to used & distributed by Sat Nav developers etc seriously undermines that belief.

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

Putting up signs warning people of their presence

There have been numerous cases of them omitting/forgetting to do so.

vonhosen said:

allowing their locations to used & distributed by Sat Nav developers etc seriously undermines that belief.

I wasn't aware they had any right to prevent it. Not doing what they can't do is hardly an altruistic act.

[vonhosen]

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

Putting up signs warning people of their presence

There have been numerous cases of them omitting/forgetting to do so.

They would never be there if the intent was that stated. The exception of a few cases doesn't change that.

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

allowing their locations to used & distributed by Sat Nav developers etc seriously undermines that belief.

I wasn't aware they had any right to prevent it. Not doing what they can't do is hardly an altruistic act.

If that was their intent they could easily have sought to legislate it (& it would have been a sensible step if that were truly the intent), but they didn't.

[Rovinghawk]

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

There have been numerous cases of them omitting/forgetting to do so.

They would never be there if the intent was that stated. The exception of a few cases doesn't change that.

Say what?

vonhosen said:

Rovinghawk said:

I wasn't aware they had any right to prevent it. Not doing what they can't do is hardly an altruistic act.

If that was their intent they could easily have sought to legislate it (& it would have been a sensible step if that were truly the intent), but they didn't.

Seeking & getting are two different things- sometimes the voters won't go for stuff.
My point stands- they can't do it, so not doing it is hardly an act of generosity.

[wc98]

photosnob said:

Repeatedly speed and you will lose your ability to legally drive for a bit.

really ?

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Putting up signs warning people of their presence & allowing their locations to used & distributed by Sat Nav developers etc seriously undermines that belief.

They're required to do so.

In any case, warning signs are so ubiquitous that they don't make much difference - it's a case of 'cry wolf'

[rewc]

vonhosen said:

Putting up signs warning people of their presence & allowing their locations to used & distributed by Sat Nav developers etc seriously undermines that belief.

They Police course claimed that speed cameras were only located at collision black spots. They were put under pressure to disclose where these black spots were and publish the statistics for the chosen camera sites. The police never wanted to publish the details they were forced to by Government intervention which was driven by public opinion that they were a money making scam.

[Audidodat]

It's a very inefficient scam if its primary purpose is to raise revenue.

The fact the government includes profit making organisations to run SACs, when it was under no obligation to offer them in the first place, further undermines the allegation; if revenue generation was the aim, the FP could have been raises further still and surcharges specific to speeding inteoduxes, without all the expensive infrastructure of SACs.

A question: had the number of traffic officers on the road today remained the same or increased from the time prior to speed cameras, alongside the proliferation of speed cameras we've had, on what basis would people object to speed cameras?

[tankplanker]

I greatly prefer traffic police because they can enforce far more than just fines for speeding in a fixed position with a preset approach, its like comparing 111 with a visit to a fully qualified Doctor.

[tapereel]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Putting up signs warning people of their presence & allowing their locations to used & distributed by Sat Nav developers etc seriously undermines that belief.

They're required to do so.

Says who?

There has never been a legal requirement to put up signs to warn of speed enforcement or any type of police enforcement.

There is also no requirement for the police to supply SatNav developers with locations of speed cameras. The FoI Act exempts the police from supplying that information.

It would make no sense to legislate for the police to forewarn enforcement.

Pete317 said:

In any case, warning signs are so ubiquitous that they don't make much difference - it's a case of 'cry wolf'

Some "cry wolf" signs are effective, especially in deterring those who chose to manipulate the speed enforcement efforts of the police. Quite why the "cry wolf" signage has a negative effect is a mystery; maybe you would like to tell us why it would.

[RobinOakapple]

I frequently see warning signs on my travels. They have a number, and I know if I exceed that number it's possible I might get a ticket.

[vonhosen]

tankplanker said:

I greatly prefer traffic police because they can enforce far more than just fines for speeding in a fixed position with a preset approach, its like comparing 111 with a visit to a fully qualified Doctor.

Using other methods/resources to enforce speeding just gives the traffic Police more time to do the other things as it's one less thing for them to do.

[Digby]

Audidodat said:

It's a very inefficient scam if its primary purpose is to raise revenue.

Most of the cameras were sold as "blank cheque books" with "bucketfuls of cash" and "So many cheques coming in, you won't know what to do with them all"

I don't think those involved in this money-making shambles care what you or I think so long as profit is made.

One of the first officers involved in speed camera use even agrees they have become all about money (not that anyone needed convincing) He quite rightly suggested that they were only ever supposed to be used to catch the absolute worst drivers in accident black spots.

Still, it always amuses me that in the face of damning evidence (there's lots of it) those trying to defend this scam keep on plugging away with the same old dribble. A certain someone on here who was also faced with evidence to show how sordid this affair had become simply gave up and suggested it doesn't matter if they are only in it for the money. It seems it matters not to some why certain limits were lowered in the name of profit, how the cameras were sold, how much data is hidden away and how many stats are doctored etc, these parasites can do no wrong and the answer is......."dont' speed".

Brilliant

Keep it up, though! It's fascinating to watch.

[Pete317]

tapereel said:

There has never been a legal requirement to put up signs to warn of speed enforcement or any type of police enforcement.

Perhaps not a legal requirement as such, but, as you may remember:

pitmansboots said:

DfT rules used to state up to 31 Mar 2007; they also said quite clearly in the Preface and on page 22 of the 2006 version that nothing in the rules precludes or prevents a prosecution for speeding; funny how that part of the rules was always missed by those who attempted to use them in their defence.

The rules were for the application of Safety Camera Partnerships to claim their expenses, NOT a series of get out clauses.

Hardly an altruistic motivation then

[Vroom101]

All that jazz said:

Willy Nilly said:

20 mph limit on Southend sea front with lovely specs camera to enforce it http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/local_news/1427085...Road_closed_after_accident_outside_Adventure_IslandSouthend/ and someone crashes quite well. I use that all of the time as a runner and driver and the piece of road was fine as it was, all they have done is make it worse, much like the did at all of the other sites in town.

Good use of police resources in that video.

Don't want to throw this thread off topic too much, but the elderly lady in that crash died on Friday, so clearly the accident was serious enough to warrant all those police.

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/14277963.Southend_...

[rewc]

vonhosen said:

Using other methods/resources to enforce speeding just gives the traffic Police more time to do the other things as it's one less thing for them to do.

It certainly did in Dorset where Traffic Officer numbers were reduced by a third and sent off on general duties.

[vonhosen]

rewc said:

vonhosen said:

Using other methods/resources to enforce speeding just gives the traffic Police more time to do the other things as it's one less thing for them to do.

It certainly did in Dorset where Traffic Officer numbers were reduced by a third and sent off on general duties.

That's not because of speed cameras though, that's because of budget cuts & priorities.

[Trax]

tapereel said:

Some "cry wolf" signs are effective, especially in deterring those who chose to manipulate the speed enforcement efforts of the police. Quite why the "cry wolf" signage has a negative effect is a mystery; maybe you would like to tell us why it would.

Effective in what? What we need is to reduce deaths on our roads, perhaps if these scum bags with vested interests in speed enforcement cared about our children, they would come up with a method to save lives, that's what they are paid for. Speed enforcemet is not about saving lives, why doesn't someone care about safety?

If these scum in the 'safety camera partnerships' actually cared, they could have saved lives, instead, many people are now dead because of their inactions, and couldnt give a toss attitude. They are up their with peodophiles in my mind. Why don't they car about reducing lives, instead of speed enforcement?