Labour plan to replace humps with cameras + VOTE!
Discussion
www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/10253167?source=Evening%
Drivers are facing an explosion of speed cameras in London, a leaked Labour document reveals today.
Secret plans would see hundreds of cameras fitted in quiet streets around the capital.
They would replace speed humps, which are seen as an inconvenience for law-abiding motorists, and would be used to enforce a new lower speed limit of 20mph for all London residential zones. Extra cameras could also be installed along main roads.
The measures would raise thousands of pounds in extra fines. But motoring groups warned that cameras on side streets could be opposed by residents.
The proposals are set to form a central plank of Ken Livingstone's mayoral re-election manifesto after they were included in a policy paper prepared in private by Labour members of the London Assembly.
They fly in the face of government pol icy, which restricts cameras to proven accident blackspots.
However, there were separate reports this week that ministers may water down the rules by allowing some cameras to be installed on roads where there have been no serious accidents.
London already has 400 speed cameras, with more than 6,000 across Britain. Mr Livingstone called this year for more cameras "in every residential neighbourhood" to enforce speed limits.
The inclusion of the idea in the Labour Assembly group paper means it is almost certain to become party policy.
The document, Labour's Agenda 2004-2008, states: "The use of well designed and placed road humps remains a useful tool in improving road safety, but in the long term we support a move towards camera-based enforcement of speed limits.
"We will investigate the feasibility of introducing additional speed cameras on main roads and at junctions. Labour will support a reduction of the speed limit in residential areas, and around schools and hospitals, to 20mph."
Emergency services would welcome the removal of speed humps. However, motorists may feel the new cameras are a money-making scheme not linked to road safety.
Other proposals likely to feature in the Mayor's manifesto include free bus travel for under-18s and cheap bus fares for jobseekers.
The congestion charge would be expanded westwards, but only "after full public consultation".
------------------------
Vote link is in "Look here too" box near top. I tried to vote for neither and it threw an error!
Remove Ken!
No Mary, wasn't a real death threat
Drivers are facing an explosion of speed cameras in London, a leaked Labour document reveals today.
Secret plans would see hundreds of cameras fitted in quiet streets around the capital.
They would replace speed humps, which are seen as an inconvenience for law-abiding motorists, and would be used to enforce a new lower speed limit of 20mph for all London residential zones. Extra cameras could also be installed along main roads.
The measures would raise thousands of pounds in extra fines. But motoring groups warned that cameras on side streets could be opposed by residents.
The proposals are set to form a central plank of Ken Livingstone's mayoral re-election manifesto after they were included in a policy paper prepared in private by Labour members of the London Assembly.
They fly in the face of government pol icy, which restricts cameras to proven accident blackspots.
However, there were separate reports this week that ministers may water down the rules by allowing some cameras to be installed on roads where there have been no serious accidents.
London already has 400 speed cameras, with more than 6,000 across Britain. Mr Livingstone called this year for more cameras "in every residential neighbourhood" to enforce speed limits.
The inclusion of the idea in the Labour Assembly group paper means it is almost certain to become party policy.
The document, Labour's Agenda 2004-2008, states: "The use of well designed and placed road humps remains a useful tool in improving road safety, but in the long term we support a move towards camera-based enforcement of speed limits.
"We will investigate the feasibility of introducing additional speed cameras on main roads and at junctions. Labour will support a reduction of the speed limit in residential areas, and around schools and hospitals, to 20mph."
Emergency services would welcome the removal of speed humps. However, motorists may feel the new cameras are a money-making scheme not linked to road safety.
Other proposals likely to feature in the Mayor's manifesto include free bus travel for under-18s and cheap bus fares for jobseekers.
The congestion charge would be expanded westwards, but only "after full public consultation".
------------------------
Vote link is in "Look here too" box near top. I tried to vote for neither and it threw an error!
Remove Ken!
No Mary, wasn't a real death threat
I can't say I disagree totally with the idea except for two points:
- my car doesn't run awfully well at 20mph and below (transmission shunt being the main problem) so 20mph limits aren't my cup of tea. That said, I very rarely use the sort of roads that I would expect to see such a limit on;
- I don't like cameras because they cannot show any discretion and I'm concerned that they distract drivers from genuine hazards around them.
On the few occasions that I have posted on the subject of speed cameras it has always been negatively for the usual reasons, particularly that it has led to less officers on the streets therefore less convictions/warnings for those motoring offences that speed cameras cannot detect.
However, just recently I've started to think along more aesthetic lines - these cameras are so damn ugly littered everywhere and with this proposal for them to be in the middle of residential neighbourhoods this will get worse. Driving along Pall Mall every morning I notice many cars and bikes exceeding the limits by huge margins but they would never dream of putting cameras along this stretch for the very reason that they are unsightly. For the same reasons, you do not see many around the nicer touristy places of London nor in those leafy streets of Kensington & Chelsea.
This is what really pi55es me off - they think it's fine for them to slap these yellow monstrosities in the middle of where you and I live. It's not - nor would it appease me if they were camouflaged for obvious reasons.
However, just recently I've started to think along more aesthetic lines - these cameras are so damn ugly littered everywhere and with this proposal for them to be in the middle of residential neighbourhoods this will get worse. Driving along Pall Mall every morning I notice many cars and bikes exceeding the limits by huge margins but they would never dream of putting cameras along this stretch for the very reason that they are unsightly. For the same reasons, you do not see many around the nicer touristy places of London nor in those leafy streets of Kensington & Chelsea.
This is what really pi55es me off - they think it's fine for them to slap these yellow monstrosities in the middle of where you and I live. It's not - nor would it appease me if they were camouflaged for obvious reasons.
give me a camera over an exhaust ripping speed ramp any day. I literally have to plan routes to avoid teh bumps.
And no-one has yet given me a good reason for not expanding teh congestion charge to one of the most congested areas ( ever tried driving along brompton road, or worse, paying for a cab to sit still?
Go ken
(brace myself)
And no-one has yet given me a good reason for not expanding teh congestion charge to one of the most congested areas ( ever tried driving along brompton road, or worse, paying for a cab to sit still?
Go ken
(brace myself)
walsingham said:
give me a camera over an exhaust ripping speed ramp any day. I literally have to plan routes to avoid teh bumps.
And no-one has yet given me a good reason for not expanding teh congestion charge to one of the most congested areas ( ever tried driving along brompton road, or worse, paying for a cab to sit still?
Go ken
(brace myself)
Selfish burk.
"They fly in the face of government policy, which restricts cameras to proven accident blackspots.
However, there were separate reports this week that ministers may water down the rules by allowing some cameras to be installed on roads where there have been no serious accidents."
I assume this will be retrospective and is probably because the Scamera Partnerships have belatedly discovered that they lied to Jameison when they said (allegedly) that all their scameras complied with guidelines. Alternatively, it could be so that Jameison can say he didn't even "unintentionally mislead" Parliament and the public. But then, a government minister wouldn't lie ... would he?
[Ha, ha. Saw his lips move!]
Streaky?
However, there were separate reports this week that ministers may water down the rules by allowing some cameras to be installed on roads where there have been no serious accidents."
I assume this will be retrospective and is probably because the Scamera Partnerships have belatedly discovered that they lied to Jameison when they said (allegedly) that all their scameras complied with guidelines. Alternatively, it could be so that Jameison can say he didn't even "unintentionally mislead" Parliament and the public. But then, a government minister wouldn't lie ... would he?
[Ha, ha. Saw his lips move!]
Streaky?
Question: Why do they need speed cameras on roads where no accidents have occurred?
Whats the point exactly? If theres no accidents happening then why do they need to be sited?
The cynic in me believes that its just more of the same "cos cameras stop crashes" nonsense and allows them to make yet more money.
Nobbers.
Whats the point exactly? If theres no accidents happening then why do they need to be sited?
The cynic in me believes that its just more of the same "cos cameras stop crashes" nonsense and allows them to make yet more money.
Nobbers.
We've all complained in the past that cameras are on nice straight safe roads and not round schools, in council estates where boy-racers drive, etc.
Well it looks like Ken now wants to put them there as well. If cameras make sense at all (big IF of course) then these are the places they should be. Suburban residential streets, not motorways.
The worry is that there will be more cameras in places that they shouldn't be. But realistically, while the government remains anti-car and has numpty support, we can anticipate them eventually being extended across all roads. I always used to say the early 90s were the new golden age of motoring. I think I may have been right.
Well it looks like Ken now wants to put them there as well. If cameras make sense at all (big IF of course) then these are the places they should be. Suburban residential streets, not motorways.
The worry is that there will be more cameras in places that they shouldn't be. But realistically, while the government remains anti-car and has numpty support, we can anticipate them eventually being extended across all roads. I always used to say the early 90s were the new golden age of motoring. I think I may have been right.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff