On the other hand..............

On the other hand..............

Author
Discussion

towman

Original Poster:

14,938 posts

240 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
Fair play to Sussex scamera pratnership..

www.sussexsafetycameras.gov.uk/mobile.htm

If you still get caught, more fool you.

safespeed

2,983 posts

275 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
That's not 'fair play'.

Ask youself what percentage of drivers passing camera locations have had any realistic opportunity at all to see the list and to know the location before passing the camera. It's got to be way under 10% - probably under 1%.

Therefore it's not genuine openness, it's an ugly and cynical ploy to appear to be open.

towman

Original Poster:

14,938 posts

240 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
safespeed said:

Therefore it's not genuine openness, it's an ugly and cynical ploy to appear to be open.


Good point.

BigBob

1,471 posts

226 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
Also intersting to note - everyone must be driving safely on weekends.

Well they must be or they would have the 'safety' cameras out Saturday and Sunday as well



BB

justinp1

13,330 posts

231 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
BigBob said:
Also intersting to note - everyone must be driving safely on weekends.

Well they must be or they would have the 'safety' cameras out Saturday and Sunday as well



BB


Or probably because they dont have the traffic throughput and thus income stream to make it financially viable.

justinp1

13,330 posts

231 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
towman said:
safespeed said:

Therefore it's not genuine openness, it's an ugly and cynical ploy to appear to be open.


Good point.



I agree. If they genuinely wanted to reduce peoples speed, and thus save peoples lives the best thing they could do would be simply set up a warning sign half a mile up from the mobile speed trap area warning them where the trap it set. That way 99.99% of people would go through the area underneath the said limit.

Isnt it strange when complete compliance with a speed limit could be attained, but this can be compromised by policy in order to catch some people breaking it!?

mattley

3,024 posts

223 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
He he, I was jsut about start new thread on this subject.

It's kinda fair play as

Sussex said:

Friday 24:
Hove - Shirley Drive and New Church Road;
Hangleton - A2038 nr Neville Rd junction;
Brighton - Carden Avenue and A259 Black Rock;
Saltdean - A259 Marine Drive;
Woodingdean - Falmer Road;
Eastbourne - Lottbridge Drove;
Hastings - The Ridge;
Willingdon - A2270 Eastbourne Road;
Battle - A271 NorthTrade Road;
Herstmonceux - A271 Hailsham Road



And I was thinking


Hertfordshire said:

Friday 3 March
Royston
Watford
Baldock



And frankly I think that really isn't good enough.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

256 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
South Yorkshire has been doing that since the scheme started.

Might be something to do with the fact that the then Chief Con was anti camera, unlike his successor Med Hughes, who's just taken over Brunstrom's throne at ACPO.

It's worth noting that North Wales Arrive Alive (deprived) pratnership publishes ambush sites in advance, but has been known to 'forget' locations on occasions....

bga

8,134 posts

252 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
The scameras I've seen in Sussex have always been very visible, the unmarked Ovlov S80 prowling around the A roads is a far less conspicuous

>> Edited by bga on Monday 27th February 21:57

puggit

48,471 posts

249 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
If I visited Hove I wouldn't have a clue where "Shirley Drive and New Church Road" are.

And note the small print at the end:

scammers said:

Please note: This list contains the maximum number and location of sites which an Officer could visit on one day. If attending, the site must be manned for a minimum of half-an-hour. The Officer may wish to work at additional sites, if operational commitment allows, though only those shown on the website map.

monkeyhanger

9,198 posts

243 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
If memory serves, they have to make the locations public in order to get their filthy hands on the proceeds from their dubious behaviour.

oldie

187 posts

228 months

Monday 27th February 2006
quotequote all
And at the bottom of the page "disclaimer" - in small print --overleaf it reads as good as " don't believe all you read"

cptsideways

13,551 posts

253 months

Tuesday 28th February 2006
quotequote all
Errr thats most of the roads in Sussex, and how vague are the locations???

Oh I know what I'll do, I'll stick a copy in the car & then I can refer to it whilst driving along - great. Oh and while I'm at it I'll go & check Hampshires, Surrey, Kent, Dorset, Somerset, Bristol & Cornwall too.


Safety my ass

chrisgr31

13,485 posts

256 months

Tuesday 28th February 2006
quotequote all
cptsideways said:
Errr thats most of the roads in Sussex, and how vague are the locations???

Oh I know what I'll do, I'll stick a copy in the car & then I can refer to it whilst driving along - great. Oh and while I'm at it I'll go & check Hampshires, Surrey, Kent, Dorset, Somerset, Bristol & Cornwall too.


Safety my ass


All the Sussex Mobile Camera sites have signs warning that they are mobile camera sites, and unlike many such sites the signs are within a 100 yards or so of the site, so its easy to know where they are.

Kent on the other hand merely say their camera vans will be in a particular borough and the warning signs appear on half the roads in the County!

The site on Crowborough Hill is in fact immediately outside the Community College and the van is usually found to be there at about 9am!

As I have posted on another thread about the Sussex Camera Partnership whilst I disagree with cameras they are at least reasonable in their sites, publicity of where they will be, and marking of them.

polus

4,343 posts

226 months

Tuesday 28th February 2006
quotequote all
scameraweb said:
to educate the public about how dangerous and anti-social it is to speed and jump red lights


How exactly are they educating people?

scameraweb said:

FACT:
Money from the fines DOES NOT line the
Partnership pockets - it is used solely to
fund the cameras and any left over will
be returned to the Treasury.


Ahhhh so its not a scam after all!

>> Edited by polus on Tuesday 28th February 18:42

xxplod

2,269 posts

245 months

Tuesday 28th February 2006
quotequote all
Two points - don't need cameras at weekends in Sussex. The roads are full of coffin dodging, flat cap wearing old farts that slow all traffic to 25 mph regardless of the speedlimit or conditions.

"The cameras are MANNED!" MANNED! Good gracious! Has Sussex Police's Equality Unit seen this blatant sexism? I'm sure they mean the cameras are "staffed."

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

256 months

Tuesday 28th February 2006
quotequote all
STUFFED would be better....