Thursday 13th October 2005

Gatsos are cash cows: survey

Most motorists reject Government line on scameras

---

Cash cow

The Government's bid to persuade us that speed cameras are road safety enhancers rather than revenue raisers is failing, if the latest survey is to be believed, as most drivers still believe that speed cameras are cash cows. That’s the view of most UK motorists, according to a new survey from breakdown service Autonational Rescue.

The survey of British motorists across the UK asked drivers exactly what they thought about speed cameras. Most (52 per cent) agreed that they are effectively “another stealth tax” to raise money for the police/treasury.

Thirty six per cent believed that speed cameras are sometimes hidden to catch motorists out, and nearly a third (30 per cent) agreed that they are “just another way to bash the motorist”.

Said Ronan Hart, Autonational’s marketing manager: “Thirty six per cent of motorists in our new survey also agreed that speed cameras are often used away from accident black spots where there isn’t necessarily a speeding problem at all.

“So, in total, 79 per cent of the reactions we received about speed cameras from UK motorists were wholly negative.”

However, many drivers did concede that speed cameras do their main job well and also perform an important safety service, by limiting speeding vehicles day and night.

“It’s just that the majority believe that there are far too many of them and that they’re being used unnecessarily in places where cameras are simply not needed,” said Hart.

The survey was undertaken across Great Britain by RSGB Omnibus, part of the TNS Group.

[nelly1]

Ho hum!

Another day, another survey.
Is it going to change anything?
Is it going to take all the cameras away?

Is it f:censored:k!!

What do the public know anyway?

[james_j]

Survey after survey proves the vast majority have sussed that the speed control thing is complete balls, but that's of no interest to zealots and those whose income depends on it.

[Peter Ward]

james_j said:

Survey after survey proves the vast majority have sussed that the speed control thing is complete balls, but that's of no interest to zealots and those whose income depends on it.

I think it is of interest, but in the way the politicians generally consider things. The position they take is not, "oh, we're wrong then" but, "oh, we haven't got our message over sufficiently then". But at least it gives the partnerships the justification to increase their "awareness" budget.

[trax]

There will always be people, and I bet there is a high percentage of them, that believe the 'safety' cameras are good and work.

The problem though, is that the people that have this opinion, do not know the facts, and usually see misleading and incorrect statistics that make them feel this way.

I am sure 'safety' camera surveys go, 'hello Mr/Mrs, since camera introduction, we have saved 50 lives in this area. Do you think they are a good thing?'

Now if they were given the correct statistics, say for example, 'hello Mr/Mrs, deaths in most camera partnership areas have increased, usually by over 30% in 2004 compared with 2003, but the two areas who dont have 'safety' partnerships, have seen well over 30% reduction in deaths for the same period, do you think they are a good thing? (Note to say, I could search for the exact figures but this is only an example)

How do you think this would reflect the results? Statistics mean nothing, a question can usually be worded to get whatever answer you want.

[johnsam]

Of far more use than cameras to keep speeds in check are those bright flashing roadside reminders. I don't know anyone who objects to these. But of course they don't raise revenue or penalise motorists, do they?

[apache]

To be honest do you really think this is news to the government? They couldn't give a rolling donut about the public perception of scameras, it's not as if we can do anything about em even if we did manage to get off our sofas for a minute is it

[WWESTY]

apache said:

To be honest do you really think this is news to the government? They couldn't give a rolling donut about the public perception of

.........................anything!

[WildCat]

apache said:

To be honest do you really think this is news to the government? They couldn't give a rolling donut about the public perception of scameras, it's not as if we can do anything about em even if we did manage to get off our sofas for a minute is it

They know a good many choose not to go to court or even challenge when the NIP ist incorrect. Ist part of the general apathy which prevails come voting time when no one bothers to go to vote. If they had voted - perhaps someone else would be in No 10 ?

If only people would argue more und clog up court system.... Either that or underpay the council tax by say 10p each. Ist guaranteed to create chaos

[squirrelz]

trax said:

Statistics mean nothing, a question can usually be worded to get whatever answer you want.

Sir Humphrey Appleby demonstrates this point most aptly to Bernard in Yes Prime Minister ...

The PM has just gotten the results of an opinion poll. It says that 67% people would be in favor of reintroducing conscription. Sir Humphrey asks Bernard to get another opinion poll done in which the results are the opposite. Bernard can't understand how people can be both for and against conscription. So, Sir Humphrey demonstrates by quizzing him...

"Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
"Yes"
"Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?"
"Yes"
"Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?"
"Yes"
"Do they respond to a challenge?"
"Yes"
"Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
"Yes"

Now onto Survey 2

"Mr. Woolley are you worried about the danger of war?"
"Yes"
"Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?"
"Yes"
"Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
"Yes"
"Do you think its wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
"Yes"
"Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
"Yes"

(ripped from here: www.workinghumor.com/ad_humor.shtml)

[jas16]

these cameras are everywhere! I do support the idea of using cameras as public safety devices, but thats it! Public safety, not money raising. Cameras should be limited in their use and only put where it needs to be.

[apache]

WildCat said:

perhaps someone else would be in No 10 ?

And that would help?

[aston67]

yes if it was Alan Duncan, absolutely

A67

[antispeed]

apache said:

To be honest do you really think this is news to the government? They couldn't give a rolling donut about the public perception of scameras, it's not as if we can do anything about em even if we did manage to get off our sofas for a minute is it

If you are a law abiding citizen (like most of us on this forum) all you can do is plead NOT GUILTY and go to court ,even if you are guilty as hell, find something to argue with, the more who do , the more the courts get clogged up ,the quicker the law lords will change it,

I'm not preaching here, honest, I am at this moment, doing just this, no brief or lawyer, just ask for the duty solicitor on TRIAL DAY,

ALL THIS WILL BE ON MY WEBSITE WHEN FINISHED

[icamm]

Hah, and I bet those "many drivers" who "did concede that speed cameras do their main job well and also perform an important safety service, by limiting speeding vehicles day and night." only said that 'cos they were worried about being thought uncaring and anti-safety.

[woof]

i don't know if anyone else has noticed this ...

Hands in the air - i drive quickly (within my limits and the road - and I'm not going to even start to justify that)
But more and more often, I'll come up behind a driver that's driving well below the limit (and the conditions), I'll go to overtake them, to be greeted by a barrage of flashing lights and various gestures..

Like Drink Driving (and rightly so) it is becoming socially unacceptable to even consider driving quickly by the average joe public ?

[Vipers]

The only place cameras slow drivers to the set speed limits is just before, and just after the camera, so how do they conclude it helps anything.

I personally am in favour of curtailing excessive speed, lets set realistic limits, for starters, some are already realistic, but I'l be one of many to argue that 70 is not realistic on todays motorways given the right conditions, OK you cant do 70 through Birmingham, but north of Carlisle for example, clear road you could quite safely exceed 70, as indeed many do.

We still need set limits though, otherwise you will allways have the one who wants to 150 odd screaming up you.....what those limis are, I dont know? bout time the government listened to the road organisations on this subject.

[alaws]

Everybody in the country should "adopt a Gatso".

How this works:
1. Find the closest Speed Camera to you that is utterly pointless. A quick look in the 2006 AA Road Atlas should do the trick!
2. Obtain an old tyre and a suitable flammable liquid.
3. Take a step ladder to your "adopted Gatso".
4. Pour flammable liquid on old rags and place in tyre.
5. Arrange tyre on top of Gatso.
6. Apply ignition source to rag.

If everybody does this, then the Government/Scamera Partnerships might get the message.

[stenniso]

In the Daily Mail the other day, statistics were published showing how many cameras boxes did not have cameras and/or film in them, and how it varied between regions.

One of the safety camera partnerships stated that it would be unfair to motorists if all of the cameras in a region were active. If it is dangerous to exceed the posted speed limit anywhere, let alone at a speed camera "blackspot", why do they consider it unfair for all to be active? I thought their message was "speed kills". Surely speed must also kill at inactive cameras, just as much as active cameras. If it is right for a camera to nick you at one location, why is it "unfair" for a camera to nick you at another. Are the inactive cameras located at areas which aren't blackspots? If so why are they there?

I suppose they think they appear thoughtful to the feelings of the motorist if the say they think blanket camera coverage is unfair. To me it just proves that the thinking behind camera enforcement is flawed. The most likely reason for some cameras not to be active is that they haven't been able to save enough of the huge income to employ more people/buy more film or cameras.....yet.

Interestingly, North Wales camera partnership stated they would not give figures to the survey, as they believed it would encourage motorists to speed. Other camera partnerships didn't hold the same view. Surely the policy on speed enforcement should be universal!

[MR2Mike]

woof said:

Like Drink Driving (and rightly so) it is becoming socially unacceptable to even consider driving quickly by the average joe public ?

No, I don't think so. The sheer number if speeding offences seem to prove that anyway. You encountered an idiot/cretin/numpty, simple as that. I will admit that there seem to be a lot more around these days, especialy the ones that are content to do 35-40mph on an unrestricted road oblivious to the 30 cars queued up behind them.

I think I may have mentioned it before but a while back some stupid woman was concetrating so hard on waving her fist at me as I overtook (at perfectly legal speeds) she veered into the hedgerow!

[jasandjules]

MR2Mike said:

I think I may have mentioned it before but a while back some stupid woman was concetrating so hard on waving her fist at me as I overtook (at perfectly legal speeds) she veered into the hedgerow!

You should have called the police and insisted they prosecute her for reckless driving.....