Moth-balled speed cameras to be re-activated

[robinessex]

Front page of the Observer. Lots of moth balled speed cameras to be re-activated. Not to 'prevent accidents'. No. It's because the funds to run them are now viable!! Sod all to do with accident prevention, as long as they can show a profit !!!

[Mr2Mike]

Thus has it always been

[singlecoil]

robinessex said:

Front page of the Observer. Lots of moth balled speed cameras to be re-activated. Not to 'prevent accidents'. No. It's because the funds to run them are now viable!! Sod all to do with accident prevention, as long as they can show a profit !!!

Your post doesn't make sense.

If it's a question of making money, why would they mothball them in the first place?

[J3PTF]

singlecoil said:

Your post doesn't make sense.

If it's a question of making money, why would they mothball them in the first place?

Because 'they' stopped being able to keep the revenue

[singlecoil]

J3PTF said:

singlecoil said:

Your post doesn't make sense.

If it's a question of making money, why would they mothball them in the first place?

Because 'they' stopped being able to keep the revenue

Did you mean to say that that has now changed?


But in any case, you don't have to pay the fines if you don't want to.

[anonymous-user]

J3PTF said:

singlecoil said:

Your post doesn't make sense.

If it's a question of making money, why would they mothball them in the first place?

Because 'they' stopped being able to keep the revenue

Has the funding structure changed?

Is it not possible to link to the article?

[J3PTF]

singlecoil said:

J3PTF said:

singlecoil said:

Your post doesn't make sense.

If it's a question of making money, why would they mothball them in the first place?

Because 'they' stopped being able to keep the revenue

Did you mean to say that that has now changed?


But in any case, you don't have to pay the fines if you don't want to.

I assume that was what the OP was referring to, though I must admit I haven't read the article in question.

I don't have to pay because my license is squeaky clean thank you very much...

[sim72]

Um, I've got a copy of yesterday's Observer here in front of me, and there's no mention of this story on the front page. Nor can I find it inside anywhere.

[Johnnytheboy]

In the case of Somerset (one of the counties affected) they are being run directly by the police rather than by a "Safety camera partnership".

[Tribal Chestnut]

sim72 said:

Um, I've got a copy of yesterday's Observer here in front of me, and there's no mention of this story on the front page. Nor can I find it inside anywhere.

Probably some regional paper, i.e. 'The Northern Observer' or something.

[emmaT2014]

singlecoil said:

robinessex said:

Front page of the Observer. Lots of moth balled speed cameras to be re-activated. Not to 'prevent accidents'. No. It's because the funds to run them are now viable!! Sod all to do with accident prevention, as long as they can show a profit !!!

Your post doesn't make sense.

If it's a question of making money, why would they mothball them in the first place?

Exactly! They cost money to run.

So come on robinessex let's have your business plan laid out to justify your senseless post.

[sim72]

J3PTF said:

singlecoil said:

Your post doesn't make sense.
If it's a question of making money, why would they mothball them in the first place?

Because 'they' stopped being able to keep the revenue

Somewhat more complex than that, though.

First of all with fixed cameras there was the problem of diminishing returns; the longer the cameras are there, the more people know where they are and automatically slow down for them (and of course for those that don't, they're often behind someone who does).

Secondly, many authorities found that even when the cameras were switched off, people still slowed down for them. Obvious really - do you have an up-to-date accurate list of all the authorities who switched their cameras off? Not to mention that some authorities switched some off and left some on. I still find myself slowing down for cameras that I know aren't working because ... well you never know, do you?

Given that, I'd suggest the number of authorities who could make a case for re-activating them (i.e. cost vs reduction in speed vs revenue) is somewhat small...

[emmaT2014]

sim72 said:

Somewhat more complex than that, though.

First of all with fixed cameras there was the problem of diminishing returns; the longer the cameras are there, the more people know where they are and automatically slow down for them (and of course for those that don't, they're often behind someone who does).

Secondly, many authorities found that even when the cameras were switched off, people still slowed down for them. Obvious really - do you have an up-to-date accurate list of all the authorities who switched their cameras off? Not to mention that some authorities switched some off and left some on. I still find myself slowing down for cameras that I know aren't working because ... well you never know, do you?

Given that, I'd suggest the number of authorities who could make a case for re-activating them (i.e. cost vs reduction in speed vs revenue) is somewhat small...

Perhaps those who bother to learn where cameras are and which ones are active so that enforcement can be avoided present the greatest danger. Hence the justification for turning them back on.

[Johnnytheboy]

emmaT2014 said:

Perhaps those who bother to learn where cameras are and which ones are active so that enforcement can be avoided present the greatest danger. Hence the justification for turning them back on.

So just to be clear: the justification for turning cameras on is because people who know where the cameras are already are the greatest danger?

[Einion Yrth]

Johnnytheboy said:

emmaT2014 said:

Perhaps those who bother to learn where cameras are and which ones are active so that enforcement can be avoided present the greatest danger. Hence the justification for turning them back on.

So just to be clear: the justification for turning cameras on is because people who know where the cameras are already are the greatest danger?

Don't bother mate, the emmabot doesn't do logic.

[blueg33]

emmaT2014 said:

sim72 said:

Somewhat more complex than that, though.

First of all with fixed cameras there was the problem of diminishing returns; the longer the cameras are there, the more people know where they are and automatically slow down for them (and of course for those that don't, they're often behind someone who does).

Secondly, many authorities found that even when the cameras were switched off, people still slowed down for them. Obvious really - do you have an up-to-date accurate list of all the authorities who switched their cameras off? Not to mention that some authorities switched some off and left some on. I still find myself slowing down for cameras that I know aren't working because ... well you never know, do you?

Given that, I'd suggest the number of authorities who could make a case for re-activating them (i.e. cost vs reduction in speed vs revenue) is somewhat small...

Perhaps those who bother to learn where cameras are and which ones are active so that enforcement can be avoided present the greatest danger. Hence the justification for turning them back on.

yawn......you were certainly first in the line when the brainwashing started

[singlecoil]

sim72 said:

J3PTF said:

singlecoil said:

Your post doesn't make sense.
If it's a question of making money, why would they mothball them in the first place?

Because 'they' stopped being able to keep the revenue

Somewhat more complex than that, though.

First of all with fixed cameras there was the problem of diminishing returns; the longer the cameras are there, the more people know where they are and automatically slow down for them (and of course for those that don't, they're often behind someone who does).

Secondly, many authorities found that even when the cameras were switched off, people still slowed down for them. Obvious really - do you have an up-to-date accurate list of all the authorities who switched their cameras off? Not to mention that some authorities switched some off and left some on. I still find myself slowing down for cameras that I know aren't working because ... well you never know, do you?

Given that, I'd suggest the number of authorities who could make a case for re-activating them (i.e. cost vs reduction in speed vs revenue) is somewhat small...

Pretty much scotches the "it's all about the money" nonsense that people keep peddling.

[ging84]

Some people will turn absolutely anything into an anti speed camera argument.

The speed cameras are put up for safety, that is the reason for it on paper, you don't have to believe it, agree with it or like it.

A speed camera which was put up for safety, removed due to budget cuts, then put back up later when the cost come down or the budget come back up doesn't prove anything at all, it's possible that reviewing the statistics on speed, speeding and road accident during the periods, before the speed camera, after the removal, and after the replacement that you could get some really useful inside into the effect of speed cameras, but because there are so many people on both sides of the argument which are so keen to push their point home, that any conclusions based on the data would be dismissed as more hot air by most people who have simply stopped listening to the pointless argument

[blueg33]

sim72 said:

Somewhat more complex than that, though.

First of all with fixed cameras there was the problem of diminishing returns; the longer the cameras are there, the more people know where they are and automatically slow down for them (and of course for those that don't, they're often behind someone who does).

Secondly, many authorities found that even when the cameras were switched off, people still slowed down for them. Obvious really - do you have an up-to-date accurate list of all the authorities who switched their cameras off? Not to mention that some authorities switched some off and left some on. I still find myself slowing down for cameras that I know aren't working because ... well you never know, do you?

Given that, I'd suggest the number of authorities who could make a case for re-activating them (i.e. cost vs reduction in speed vs revenue) is somewhat small...

So if the cameras have slowed people down they have fulfilled their purpose whether on or off. Switching them back on just demonstrates that its about revenue.

[rs1952]

singlecoil said:

Pretty much scotches the "it's all about the money" nonsense that people keep peddling.

Well... not quite.

The changes to the funding arrangements some time ago meant that SCPs no longer kept the revenue they generated. As a result many cameras around he country got switched off. The result in terms of "carnage" on the roads? Bugger all.

Then came the era of Speed Awareness Courses, where the operators of the cameras (the organisations, not the individuals ) got to keep the proceeds of them.

Meanwhile, BRAKE and various other mouthy locals with an axe to grind in various parts of the country have been bleating on and bending Councillor's ears about perceived speeding problems in their neck of the woods. The fact that no cameras have had no noticeable effect on KSIs is of no consequence to these people - they are on a mission to cut car speeds - think of the children etc...

Councils take the path of least resistance - switch the cameras back on, and get some revenue in from SACs that will pay for their provision.