Tragic - two M4 deaths today
Discussion
Tragically a man and a women travelling in a silver BMW were killed this afternoon in a crash on the M4.
From reports I've heard, it was near junction 18 Bath, on the westbound carriageway.
Coincidently, that's also where the infamous "£1.2 million gatso" is sited. As reported recently, the gatso brings in that amount every two months?
From reports I've heard, it was near junction 18 Bath, on the westbound carriageway.
Coincidently, that's also where the infamous "£1.2 million gatso" is sited. As reported recently, the gatso brings in that amount every two months?
Speed-related. Bound to be. 
I mean, look at this little gem from Wilts and Swindon Camera Partnership:
“The reviewing panel were of the opinion that after studying the reports, together with the locations of the remaining 51 collisions and there being no other evidence of, or suggestion by the motorist of a causation such as fatigue, illness, vehicle or road defect, adverse road, visibility or weather conditions etc reported, the most likely cause of these 51 collisions was either excess or inappropriate speed.”
In other words, where we can't take a guess at anything else, it'll be speed to blame.
I mean, look at this little gem from Wilts and Swindon Camera Partnership: “The reviewing panel were of the opinion that after studying the reports, together with the locations of the remaining 51 collisions and there being no other evidence of, or suggestion by the motorist of a causation such as fatigue, illness, vehicle or road defect, adverse road, visibility or weather conditions etc reported, the most likely cause of these 51 collisions was either excess or inappropriate speed.”
In other words, where we can't take a guess at anything else, it'll be speed to blame.
Tragic. Evidently these folk weren't helped by the scumera pratnership's megabucks gatso. Can't imagine why not.
The scumprats' reasoning as revealed by ABD/MMC is priceless. Can't think of any other cause so gotta be speed, oh yes by the way we can put more cash cameras up if we say that, so shhhh nobody will notice ... ooops.
Einsteins need not apply.
Same twisted logic is used by the sharpest green minds the country can find. Each year approx 24000 seriously ill people shuttle off a few hours or days before their medical team anticipated, not that such predictions are accurate but anyway. Then when no other reason can be found the cause is vehicle pollution. Obvious really. In spite of the fact that these folk will have been inside a building for ages where the air is more polluted than city smog. The spin machine lets you think healthy people are keeling over on the streets by the thousand "24000 premature deaths annually due to vehicle pollution". Lying b@st@rds.
Wonder if another 24000 live longer than expected but we never hear?
Wonder if the pinko-greens use the same recruitment agency as the scumprats?
>> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 13th August 09:24
The scumprats' reasoning as revealed by ABD/MMC is priceless. Can't think of any other cause so gotta be speed, oh yes by the way we can put more cash cameras up if we say that, so shhhh nobody will notice ... ooops.
Einsteins need not apply.
Same twisted logic is used by the sharpest green minds the country can find. Each year approx 24000 seriously ill people shuttle off a few hours or days before their medical team anticipated, not that such predictions are accurate but anyway. Then when no other reason can be found the cause is vehicle pollution. Obvious really. In spite of the fact that these folk will have been inside a building for ages where the air is more polluted than city smog. The spin machine lets you think healthy people are keeling over on the streets by the thousand "24000 premature deaths annually due to vehicle pollution". Lying b@st@rds.
Wonder if another 24000 live longer than expected but we never hear?
Wonder if the pinko-greens use the same recruitment agency as the scumprats?
>> Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 13th August 09:24
MMC said:You would have thought that these so called experts of speed management would have been able to tell the difference between 'inappropriate speed' and 'excess speed' by now.
“The reviewing panel were of the opinion that ................ the most likely cause of these 51 collisions was either excess or inappropriate speed.”
smeggy said:
You would have thought that these so called experts of speed management would have been able to tell the difference between 'inappropriate speed' and 'excess speed' by now.
Devil's advocate mode.
Have you considred the possibility that each of these speed partnerships employ quite a few people, so claiming speeding as a problem keeps these folks in paid work putting up cameras, dealing with the fines etc ?
Not many folks will volunteer to give up their jobs.
dcb said:This is not mere Devil's advocacy - you're correct beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Devil's advocate mode.
Have you considred the possibility that each of these speed partnerships employ quite a few people, so claiming speeding as a problem keeps these folks in paid work putting up cameras, dealing with the fines etc ?
Not many folks will volunteer to give up their jobs.
The frequency of people's saying that what they do for a living is unnecessary is very rare indeed.
dcb said:
You would have thought that these so called experts of speed management would have been able to tell the difference between 'inappropriate speed' and 'excess speed' by now.
Devil's advocate mode.
Have you considred the possibility that each of these speed partnerships employ quite a few people, so claiming speeding as a problem keeps these folks in paid work putting up cameras, dealing with the fines etc ?
Not many folks will volunteer to give up their jobs.
I think you've got something there.
james_j said:I agree with flemke, that’s not quite a case of Devil’s advocate, more like an observation of a conflict of interest.
You would have thought that these so called experts of speed management would have been able to tell the difference between 'inappropriate speed' and 'excess speed' by now.
Devil's advocate mode.
Have you considred the possibility that each of these speed partnerships employ quite a few people, so claiming speeding as a problem keeps these folks in paid work putting up cameras, dealing with the fines etc ?
Not many folks will volunteer to give up their jobs.
I think you've got something there.
They are abusing the system safe in the knowledge that they won’t be held to account, thanks largely to various secrecy acts (from the people who financially gain from the partnerships efforts).
Imagine a world where these secrecy acts are not permitted (within reason) and results from lie detectors can be used as evidence; crimes would be solved reliably and quickly (this itself acting as a great deterrent) - but this is not the case, do you ever wonder why?
dcb said:
Have you considred the possibility that each of these speed partnerships employ quite a few people, so claiming speeding as a problem keeps these folks in paid work putting up cameras, dealing with the fines etc ?
Not many folks will volunteer to give up their jobs.
Hardly a revelation
, but yes self preservation is obviously their top priority. Last time I checked (six months ago), the Avon and Somerset partnership employed over 100 staff.
They have six mobile enforcement teams, the rest being office staff, including the Project Manager, Data Analysis Manager, Communications and Marketing Manager, Freedom of Information Disclosure Officer, Office Manager and many Clerical Assistants.
Multiply that by the number of partnerships through out the UK and you can see a substantial pay roll!
Hmmm, just a calculated guess, but about £1.5 million per week minimum?
deeps said:
Last time I checked (six months ago), the Avon and Somerset partnership employed over 100 staff.
SERIOUSLY? deeps said:
Multiply that by the number of partnerships through out the UK and you can see a substantial pay roll!
42 at my last count
guessing £25k per year per person = £480 per week, x 100 staff (per partnership) = £48k, x 42 (partnerships) =
£2M per week payroll for UK partnerships.
That's the equivalent of 115 fines per partnership every day just for paying the wages!
smeggy said:
Sadly - yes!
smeggy said:
guessing £25k per year per person = £480 per week, x 100 staff (per partnership) = £48k, x 42 (partnerships) =
£2M per week payroll for UK partnerships.
That's the equivalent of 115 fines per partnership every day just for paying the wages!
So assuming we're roughly correct, that's £104 Million per annum, just to cover the wages (not taking into account the handsome overtime rate paid to the camera operators).
Ofcourse there are many other overheads too - premises, vehicles, camera equipment, office equipment etc.
Does anyone know the figure released for the total amount of revenue raised from speeding offences last year? I'm very suspicious that it's a manipulated figure.
It's a dodgy area because I don't think they include offences dealt with by the courts in the figures they release.
Last time I checked (six months ago), the Avon and Somerset partnership employed over 100 staff.
They have six mobile enforcement teams, the rest being office staff, including the Project Manager, Data Analysis Manager, Communications and Marketing Manager, Freedom of Information Disclosure Officer, Office Manager and many Clerical Assistants.
Multiply that by the number of partnerships through out the UK and you can see a substantial pay roll!
Hmmm, just a calculated guess, but about £1.5 million per week minimum?
[/quote]
I wonder how many traffic cops could be put on the road instead of camera vans. With the funding that is poured into this scheme I would presume that there could be a few.
I wonder if a marked cop car with a cop inside parked on the M4 (or any other road for that matter) might just have modified the driving that caused this accident. Just a thought eh!!
bluejj said:
I wonder how many traffic cops could be put on the road instead of camera vans. With the funding that is poured into this scheme I would presume that there could be a few.
You're missing the point (I think). The Partnerships are run like business's - there isn't any 'funding' - they generate their own income from fines. Before a Partnership is started they have to put a business case together to show that they will make money, so, as others have alluded, they're nothing more than job creation / tax collecting schemes.
bluejj said:
I wonder how many traffic cops could be put on the road instead of camera vans. With the funding that is poured into this scheme I would presume that there could be a few.
To elaborate on Diva links point, it's a bit of a catch 22.
The funding only comes from the revenue they raise. If and when they are scrapped and we have a return to traffic police policing the roads, no where near as much revenue could be raised and they wouldn't even cover their costs.
That is the reason for the camera partnerships existence - they are self financing by focusing all their activities on the one thing that's easily measured but largely insignificant in terms of road safety. Any revenue left over after their running costs is kept by central government.
The fact that camera partnerships largely only photograph safe driving slightly above a posted limit and cannot actually police the roads at all, is not of concern to Alistair Darling & co because he's getting their service for free.
I guess he's not going to pay to have the roads policed properly untill about five years time, when he ponders why the fatality rate hasn't dropped like he predicted and the penny drops!
>> Edited by deeps on Saturday 13th August 20:16
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff