Speed camera direct action
Discussion
Interesting the story about another speed camera being destroyed.
On Saturday I was going down the A5 and saw a speed camera that had been "cut off" at the bottom, so I decided to stop and take some pictures.
Here's the first one showing the camera "down"...
Now - before people start clapping and rejoicing, look at the next picture of where the camera is pointing at...
Notice the bloddy big camera sign, the fact that it was painted yellow, and that it is just before a major junction with traffic crossing over the direction of flow.
Hhere is one of the junction (with gratuitus Noble shot
) closer up
Question is - what will this do to the "cause"?
You could argue that the camera was "hidden" behind the tree and the camera sign, but 200 yards before the camera there was a sign (I couldn't stop safely to take a picture of it) that had a camera with "200 yds" underneath it - hardly hiding the camera was it.
You could argue that there wasn't a particular issue with the junction - but just after the camera on the other side there were skid marks where a car had cross the road and mounted the grass (it was flattened towards the camera - indicating the car had ground to a stop towards it)
I'm not convinced that this was a good idea. If we are to get cameras removed from inappropiate places - this sort of action where there are plenty of dangers that mean enforcement of the 50 mph limit was probably pretty sensible seems hardly sensible.
What do other's think?
For those gory detail people, the camera had been hacked off with an angle grinder
and was looking a bit battered up
Thoughts?
J
On Saturday I was going down the A5 and saw a speed camera that had been "cut off" at the bottom, so I decided to stop and take some pictures.
Here's the first one showing the camera "down"...
Now - before people start clapping and rejoicing, look at the next picture of where the camera is pointing at...
Notice the bloddy big camera sign, the fact that it was painted yellow, and that it is just before a major junction with traffic crossing over the direction of flow.
Hhere is one of the junction (with gratuitus Noble shot
) closer up Question is - what will this do to the "cause"?
You could argue that the camera was "hidden" behind the tree and the camera sign, but 200 yards before the camera there was a sign (I couldn't stop safely to take a picture of it) that had a camera with "200 yds" underneath it - hardly hiding the camera was it.
You could argue that there wasn't a particular issue with the junction - but just after the camera on the other side there were skid marks where a car had cross the road and mounted the grass (it was flattened towards the camera - indicating the car had ground to a stop towards it)
I'm not convinced that this was a good idea. If we are to get cameras removed from inappropiate places - this sort of action where there are plenty of dangers that mean enforcement of the 50 mph limit was probably pretty sensible seems hardly sensible.
What do other's think?
For those gory detail people, the camera had been hacked off with an angle grinder
and was looking a bit battered up
Thoughts?
J
FWIW I don't think there is a distinction to be drawn. All cameras should come down - they are unjust and counterproductive.
All power to anyone prepared to take action against them - let's face it, we can't expect these 'vigilantes' to conduct feasibility studies on each site, can we?
All power to anyone prepared to take action against them - let's face it, we can't expect these 'vigilantes' to conduct feasibility studies on each site, can we?
I don't think a feasibility study was needed to show that this wasn't a "bad" camera (from what I can see in the pics, but somehow I don't think that joust has doctored them to look worse!)
Anyway even if you think all cameras should be removed, its not going to happen with thousands of people taking to the streets with angle grinders, things like this only fuel the fire of the people who see anti-scamera supporters as mad thugs.
Anyway even if you think all cameras should be removed, its not going to happen with thousands of people taking to the streets with angle grinders, things like this only fuel the fire of the people who see anti-scamera supporters as mad thugs.
well, we'll agree to differ, but doing nothing is not an option, even if direct action is not the most morally acceptable option. As a public we're being treated with shocking disregard by the government and their burocratic toadies - is it any surprise people are prepared to go to these lengths.
Change doesn't appear to follow the writing of a strong letter.
Change doesn't appear to follow the writing of a strong letter.
I'm not against all direct action (just read what I wrote and see the lack of sleep catching up on me, I'm incoherent!)
I just think that if someone cuts down a gatso thats in an obviously taxing place it makes a good point, when someone does the same in a place thats clearly dangerous then it just helps back up the safety nazi's comdemnation of us.
I just think that if someone cuts down a gatso thats in an obviously taxing place it makes a good point, when someone does the same in a place thats clearly dangerous then it just helps back up the safety nazi's comdemnation of us.
Trouble is that you can't chop them all down, and whilst there can be action after direct action (remember the poll tax) - it's pretty obvious that the civil service (who include transport4london that are doing the current radio ads) want to keep them.
deltaf said: I agree with Carzee, they should all be chopped off.
We got by before without them, we can well do withoit them now.
Saw em all down, i wont shed one tear.
The step of getting them painted yellow and the other sensible suggestions that came out of the select committe shows that effective lobbying can work at the political stage - however, the civil service is a law to itself in some cases (note that transport for london is currently running radio ads that extol the virtues of cameras by saying "they are all painted yellow in London" - well, no they aren't, and it was T4L that just won the case to get that decision reversed!).
Certainly a series of well thought out direct action on cameras that don't follow the guidelines would demonstrate that the guidelines aren't being followed, and may actually force the government to actually make the rules law - but if direct action is taken against cameras that do follow the guidelines, then my fear is that the resolve of the civil service will become even greater.
What amazes me most about this is that before this camera there were at least 4 or 5 "camera ahead" signs, and then a bloddy large one with the camera logo and "200 yds" underneath it and large number of 50 repeater signs all over the place on both sides of the road - if people can't see that lot then perhaps they actually derserve to have a fine in the post for being just plain stupid.
I can only imagine that whoever has to now pay to have this stuck back together will be even more resolved to get the money back - probably resulting in cameras sprouting up on the A5 willy nilly (as if there isn't enough of them on there anyway).
It's a difficult one, but in this specific case I can't see that whoever did this has done the people that drive in that area any favours if they have actually made the civil servants in that area even more committed to operating these things...?
J
Thank You!
A5/A444 near Nuneaton. M.I.R.A. test track just up the hill. Well known dodgey junction from every direction. Full of warnings, markings, bollards, etc. Still get crashes there regularly.
If a scamera has to be put anywhere, this is the right place.
Next time you're there Joust, head north up the 444 and I'll put the kettle on.
If a scamera has to be put anywhere, this is the right place.
Next time you're there Joust, head north up the 444 and I'll put the kettle on.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff