Renaming speed cameras
Discussion
"The Government has demanded that cameras are visible and conspicuous to motorists and placed only in areas with high level of casualties."
From many posts on here, that is clearly not the case for many scamera vans.
"We expect local camera partnerships [the bodies responsible for administering cameras] to be upfront and transparent in their efforts to curb speeds and save lives."
Well, 'transparency' for some has been translated into illegal positioning, dangerous positioning, hidden positioning, and blatent revenue-grabbing positioning.
Streaky
From many posts on here, that is clearly not the case for many scamera vans.
"We expect local camera partnerships [the bodies responsible for administering cameras] to be upfront and transparent in their efforts to curb speeds and save lives."
Well, 'transparency' for some has been translated into illegal positioning, dangerous positioning, hidden positioning, and blatent revenue-grabbing positioning.
Streaky
streaky said:Never mind here. From some rather good investigative reporting in local and national press as well (okay the national press was The Sun quoting one of the local rags but......)
"The Government has demanded that cameras are visible and conspicuous to motorists and placed only in areas with high level of casualties."
From many posts on here, that is clearly not the case for many scamera vans.
I think the last paragraph of this article is very accurate. Speeding and cameras really has become the UK's "right to bear arms" in a lot of ways.
A lot of people see the camera not as a safety device, not even as just a revenue collector but, as a physical manifestation of a big brother state culture and a threat to their civil liberties.
Cars and driving is a very a emotive subject and a large element of the driving experience is the (perceived) freedom that it offers. Psychologically, controls on this are taken far less willingly by people than controls on many other aspects of their lives.
This is why I think the speed camera issue could bring about the highest level of anti-government/authority resentment since the poll tax and will become one of the biggest debating points for the next general election.
Hmmm...sorry, that was a bit intense wasn't it? I think I should go home and rest!
A lot of people see the camera not as a safety device, not even as just a revenue collector but, as a physical manifestation of a big brother state culture and a threat to their civil liberties.
Cars and driving is a very a emotive subject and a large element of the driving experience is the (perceived) freedom that it offers. Psychologically, controls on this are taken far less willingly by people than controls on many other aspects of their lives.
This is why I think the speed camera issue could bring about the highest level of anti-government/authority resentment since the poll tax and will become one of the biggest debating points for the next general election.
Hmmm...sorry, that was a bit intense wasn't it? I think I should go home and rest!
I like Q1 in the Q&A section:
[quote]Q1 What is hypothecation / netting off ?
It allows money received by magistrates’ courts’ from fixed penalties for speeding, or jumping red traffic lights, to be used to meet the costs of operating speed and traffic signal cameras, instead of being paid into the Treasury's Consolidated Fund. So these funds will be ploughed directly back into the fight against road crime and the wider objective of improving road safety.[/quote]
Two things:
1) "...money received by magistrates’ courts ... to be used to meet the costs of operating speed and traffic signal cameras, instead of being paid into the Treasury's Consolidated Fund..." I thought the money went to the Treasury first then Mr Brown decided how much to pay back?
2) "...these funds will be ploughed directly back into the fight against road crime..." So now speeding is referred to as "road crime", is it? That really is turning 3m drivers a year into criminals!
PC gone mad -- that's both Political Correctness and Police Constable. Sorry, but I'm not a road criminal.
[quote]Q1 What is hypothecation / netting off ?
It allows money received by magistrates’ courts’ from fixed penalties for speeding, or jumping red traffic lights, to be used to meet the costs of operating speed and traffic signal cameras, instead of being paid into the Treasury's Consolidated Fund. So these funds will be ploughed directly back into the fight against road crime and the wider objective of improving road safety.[/quote]
Two things:
1) "...money received by magistrates’ courts ... to be used to meet the costs of operating speed and traffic signal cameras, instead of being paid into the Treasury's Consolidated Fund..." I thought the money went to the Treasury first then Mr Brown decided how much to pay back?
2) "...these funds will be ploughed directly back into the fight against road crime..." So now speeding is referred to as "road crime", is it? That really is turning 3m drivers a year into criminals!
PC gone mad -- that's both Political Correctness and Police Constable. Sorry, but I'm not a road criminal.
Gavyn - I really like what you said and I think it's very true. Even my parents turned "to the dark side" this weekend. Normally they'd talk about sticking to the speed limits, slow driving equals safe driving, if you don't speed you don't get caught etc etc.
Even they now have a hatred for driving in Britain. They said "it's all to make money!"
Driving does represent a lot to a lot of people. Their first paycheck. The first time they got off with a girl! The first time they didn't have to get a lift or get the bus. The freedom to go where you want to. As the situation progresses driving is getting less and less enjoyable for drivers in Britain.
What happened to teaching people about safety? What happened to Common Sense? We don't need machines breathing down our necks the whole time. It's like Terminator 3!
Even they now have a hatred for driving in Britain. They said "it's all to make money!"
Driving does represent a lot to a lot of people. Their first paycheck. The first time they got off with a girl! The first time they didn't have to get a lift or get the bus. The freedom to go where you want to. As the situation progresses driving is getting less and less enjoyable for drivers in Britain.
What happened to teaching people about safety? What happened to Common Sense? We don't need machines breathing down our necks the whole time. It's like Terminator 3!
Yes that was a good un Gavyn and goes a long way to explaining why some of us feel so angry when we are told to grow up and take it on the chin, you've only yourself to blame, ad f**king nausium.
There is ashitload more to this than road safety and the insidious creeping feeling I get is of being criminalised without fair representation.
>> Edited by Apache on Tuesday 11th November 01:24
There is ashitload more to this than road safety and the insidious creeping feeling I get is of being criminalised without fair representation.
>> Edited by Apache on Tuesday 11th November 01:24
This is all down to what looks like marketing, having an what I'd call an image and then a reality 
:-
image:-
The government makes efficient use of available resources, helping make our roads a better place with it's "safety cameras" and freeing the police to deal with real crime.
reality:-
The government and people running the partnerships want to justify their own existance / re-election by twisting and manipulating the truth as much as what they can get away with. "Safety" doesn't do what it says on the tin since it doesn't cover drink / drugs / no insurance / no license / bad / dangerous driving / unroadworthy cars.
Unfortuntely there will be a few people out there who buy the spin (bullsh!t more like) and are also allowed to vote.
I find cameras disturbing, but what seems to be happening with the vans truly scary.
It is up to us people who understand the reality to deal with the problem.
:- image:-
The government makes efficient use of available resources, helping make our roads a better place with it's "safety cameras" and freeing the police to deal with real crime.
reality:-
The government and people running the partnerships want to justify their own existance / re-election by twisting and manipulating the truth as much as what they can get away with. "Safety" doesn't do what it says on the tin since it doesn't cover drink / drugs / no insurance / no license / bad / dangerous driving / unroadworthy cars.
Unfortuntely there will be a few people out there who buy the spin (bullsh!t more like) and are also allowed to vote.
I find cameras disturbing, but what seems to be happening with the vans truly scary.
It is up to us people who understand the reality to deal with the problem.
An example of why Safety Cameras arent...
Coming into work this morning, nice wide road, on the outskirts of a residential area, with a limit of 30 (it should really be 40 or 50, but thats for another day). It has "Safety Cameras"
on both sides of the road, at regular intervals (like almost every hlaf mile or so)... Here's me pottering along ina line of traffic at about 25 (yes, I can go slow) and the traffic ahead comes to a stop.
There is some water main work going on in the area, and the roadsweeper is trundling along at 2 mph, just doing what needs to be done, there is a lorry behind him , about 5 cars, then me, then half a dozen or so more cars behind me .... (typical commuter traffic really) There is a "Safety Camera" on the other side of the road just ahead (about 50 yds from the sweeper), and one just behind me - I'm on the "dragons teeth" . The sweeper is just passing a traffic island and there is a car coming the other way (doing about 25 I reckon), the lorry behind the sweeper starts to pull out once he is past the island and overtake the sweeper.. Nothing wrong with any of this at all really, no danger, nice n slow maneovers.
HOWEVER, from behind me comes whitevan man, down the centre of the road ... I thought he was going to turn off into the builders compound, but noooooooo, he shot straight round the island (wrong side of the road), past the lorry (now alongside the sweeper) and cut right across the oncoming car, causing him to brake hard to avoid a collision. All of this right in front of a SAFETY CAMERA. Now why didn't it go off to catch this blatant peice of dangerous driving??
Oh, I forgot, anything other than speeding isn't deemed to be dangerous anymore ...
And no, I didn't get his number plate ..
Coming into work this morning, nice wide road, on the outskirts of a residential area, with a limit of 30 (it should really be 40 or 50, but thats for another day). It has "Safety Cameras"
on both sides of the road, at regular intervals (like almost every hlaf mile or so)... Here's me pottering along ina line of traffic at about 25 (yes, I can go slow) and the traffic ahead comes to a stop. There is some water main work going on in the area, and the roadsweeper is trundling along at 2 mph, just doing what needs to be done, there is a lorry behind him , about 5 cars, then me, then half a dozen or so more cars behind me .... (typical commuter traffic really) There is a "Safety Camera" on the other side of the road just ahead (about 50 yds from the sweeper), and one just behind me - I'm on the "dragons teeth" . The sweeper is just passing a traffic island and there is a car coming the other way (doing about 25 I reckon), the lorry behind the sweeper starts to pull out once he is past the island and overtake the sweeper.. Nothing wrong with any of this at all really, no danger, nice n slow maneovers.
HOWEVER, from behind me comes whitevan man, down the centre of the road ... I thought he was going to turn off into the builders compound, but noooooooo, he shot straight round the island (wrong side of the road), past the lorry (now alongside the sweeper) and cut right across the oncoming car, causing him to brake hard to avoid a collision. All of this right in front of a SAFETY CAMERA. Now why didn't it go off to catch this blatant peice of dangerous driving??
Oh, I forgot, anything other than speeding isn't deemed to be dangerous anymore ...
And no, I didn't get his number plate ..
mondeoman said:
An example of why Safety Cameras arent...
Coming into work this morning, nice wide road, on the outskirts of a residential area, with a limit of 30 (it should really be 40 or 50, but thats for another day). It has "Safety Cameras"
There is some water main work going on in the area, and the roadsweeper is trundling along at 2 mph, just doing what needs to be done, there is a lorry behind him , about 5 cars, then me, then half a dozen or so more cars behind me .... (typical commuter traffic really) There is a "Safety Camera" on the other side of the road just ahead (about 50 yds from the sweeper), and one just behind me - I'm on the "dragons teeth" . The sweeper is just passing a traffic island and there is a car coming the other way (doing about 25 I reckon), the lorry behind the sweeper starts to pull out once he is past the island and overtake the sweeper.. Nothing wrong with any of this at all really, no danger, nice n slow maneovers.
HOWEVER, from behind me comes whitevan man, down the centre of the road ... I thought he was going to turn off into the builders compound, but noooooooo, he shot straight round the island (wrong side of the road), past the lorry (now alongside the sweeper) and cut right across the oncoming car, causing him to brake hard to avoid a collision. All of this right in front of a SAFETY CAMERA. Now why didn't it go off to catch this blatant peice of dangerous driving??
Oh, I forgot, anything other than speeding isn't deemed to be dangerous anymore ...
And no, I didn't get his number plate ..
Clearly a talivan late for work. Time is money......
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff