Too good to be true? - London Cameras relocated
Discussion
This raises several interesting questions:
1) If they move the cameras, according to their spin, surely fatal accidents will occur at this location
2) All cameras, at some point, will be relocated beacuse they do save lives don't they.
3) Fatal accidents occur randomly which cannot be mitigated through the use of camera's
or they could just be moving them coz they dont raise enough cash anymore
1) If they move the cameras, according to their spin, surely fatal accidents will occur at this location
2) All cameras, at some point, will be relocated beacuse they do save lives don't they.
3) Fatal accidents occur randomly which cannot be mitigated through the use of camera's
or they could just be moving them coz they dont raise enough cash anymore
Why would they keep secret the locations where the cameras are being taken away? This seems incredibly childish.
Now if London has spare cameras it can sell them on to other counties where they need them. This will reduce the cost of each camera below the £100k/year and allow Partnerships to contribute more to the Treasury. Everyone wins....
PS. I presume there's some media spin here about "If there have been fewer than four serious injuries or fatal accidents in the past three years near the site of a camera, the partnership is banned from taking any of the money the device makes through fines"? Otherwise there's another interesting loophole to investigate, assuming the Partnerships publish the information, of course. And if this is really the case, what would be the situation of someone prosecuted for speeding by one of the "London 80" cameras between now and April?
Now if London has spare cameras it can sell them on to other counties where they need them. This will reduce the cost of each camera below the £100k/year and allow Partnerships to contribute more to the Treasury. Everyone wins....
PS. I presume there's some media spin here about "If there have been fewer than four serious injuries or fatal accidents in the past three years near the site of a camera, the partnership is banned from taking any of the money the device makes through fines"? Otherwise there's another interesting loophole to investigate, assuming the Partnerships publish the information, of course. And if this is really the case, what would be the situation of someone prosecuted for speeding by one of the "London 80" cameras between now and April?
people over. A disgrace! The move implies that the authorities are beginning to see sense.
But, of course they're not.
The cameras they are removing are not catching anyone.
The other (majority of) cameras are not contributing to road safety (as is the case with any speed camera), but they are getting more revenue. I think I can work out their motives.
But, of course they're not.
The cameras they are removing are not catching anyone.
The other (majority of) cameras are not contributing to road safety (as is the case with any speed camera), but they are getting more revenue. I think I can work out their motives.
Evening Standard said:
A survey of the 400 cameras in Greater London revealed that 80 are sited on roads where speeding and accident rates are so low that their presence cannot be justified.
(my emphasis)
So this says they'll remove the cameras where nobody speeds and there are no accidents. That just leaves the cameras where people DO speed and there are no accidents to raise them cash then.
Surely they should be removing all the cameras where there are no accidents, not just the ones that don't make money?
>> Edited by d-man on Wednesday 14th January 16:28
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff