Confirmation of what many of us have long suspected?
Discussion
I see a report commissioned by the Department of Transport - and compiled by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Police - is due to be published tomorrow. Initial snippets suggest there's concern over the number of drivers getting away with things like drink-driving and using their mobile phone when behind the wheel and the lack of resource dedicated to road policing is apparently being cited as one of the main reasons why.
No great surprise there but, according to The Daily Telegraph, the report "will also question whether some speed cameras are being used to raise revenue and compensate for cuts in roads policing rather than improve road safety". That won't come as a great surprise to many of us either but, if it turns out to be the case, I wonder whether those who have consistently denied that revenue raising was a factor behind the choice of some "safety" camera locations will have the good grace to admit they were wrong? Doubt it somehow but let's see....
No great surprise there but, according to The Daily Telegraph, the report "will also question whether some speed cameras are being used to raise revenue and compensate for cuts in roads policing rather than improve road safety". That won't come as a great surprise to many of us either but, if it turns out to be the case, I wonder whether those who have consistently denied that revenue raising was a factor behind the choice of some "safety" camera locations will have the good grace to admit they were wrong? Doubt it somehow but let's see....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/15/speed-...
if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
pavarotti1980 said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/15/speed-...
if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
That is only true if after a while the camera hardly ever catches anyone (as it's working at stopping people speeding).if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
If a camera is a "good hunting ground", therefore it's NOT working if trying to reduce speeding.
If it's there for revenue then it IS working
pavarotti1980 said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/15/speed-...
if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
It could also stand to reason that the speed limit for the road is inappropriate and unnatural - some councils/forces like Derbyshire and Suffolk seem to have a habit of putting a 50 limit on all stretches of road that would be an NSL anywhere else in the country.if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
I have no problem with speed enforcement if the speed limit being enforced is appropriate. Just like drivers sometimes need to show restraint with their speed, councils also need to show restraint with slapping arbitrary speed limits on roads if they want speed limits to be respected and observed.
pavarotti1980 said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/15/speed-...
if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
But if they are for safety surely they should be installed where the accidents are happening? Or is that drivers aren't exceeding the limit when they have the accidents.........?if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
Dracoro said:
pavarotti1980 said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/15/speed-...
if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
That is only true if after a while the camera hardly ever catches anyone (as it's working at stopping people speeding).if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
If a camera is a "good hunting ground", therefore it's NOT working if trying to reduce speeding.
If it's there for revenue then it IS working
The camera is to catch those that don't heed the threat.
vonhosen said:
Dracoro said:
pavarotti1980 said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/15/speed-...
if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
That is only true if after a while the camera hardly ever catches anyone (as it's working at stopping people speeding).if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
If a camera is a "good hunting ground", therefore it's NOT working if trying to reduce speeding.
If it's there for revenue then it IS working
That's on the basis that the intention of the threat is to reduce speeding.
If the intention is to catch as many people as possible then it's working.
If I put a dog in the garden to stop loads of cats getting in and loads of cats still get in, then the dog threat is simply not working.
Here we go again. . . .
If the cameras were not raising revenue they would not be there, how else would a publicly funded body justify (internally) the cost?
Too many of you are idiots and keep paying and while you do the cameras will remain. I have not contributed since 2011 so I am doing my bit to get them removed, what about the rest of you?.
If the cameras were not raising revenue they would not be there, how else would a publicly funded body justify (internally) the cost?
Too many of you are idiots and keep paying and while you do the cameras will remain. I have not contributed since 2011 so I am doing my bit to get them removed, what about the rest of you?.
Dracoro said:
That is only true if after a while the camera hardly ever catches anyone (as it's working at stopping people speeding).
If a camera is a "good hunting ground", therefore it's NOT working if trying to reduce speeding.
If it's there for revenue then it IS working
Chicken and egg situation really.If a camera is a "good hunting ground", therefore it's NOT working if trying to reduce speeding.
If it's there for revenue then it IS working
Without people speeding they wouldnt put a camera there.
Dr Jekyll said:
But if they are for safety surely they should be installed where the accidents are happening? Or is that drivers aren't exceeding the limit when they have the accidents.........?
The problem is that in a lot of cases "good hunting ground" and "where accidents happen" are two completely different places. This is what pisses people off.pavarotti1980 said:
Dracoro said:
That is only true if after a while the camera hardly ever catches anyone (as it's working at stopping people speeding).
If a camera is a "good hunting ground", therefore it's NOT working if trying to reduce speeding.
If it's there for revenue then it IS working
Chicken and egg situation really.If a camera is a "good hunting ground", therefore it's NOT working if trying to reduce speeding.
If it's there for revenue then it IS working
Without people speeding they wouldnt put a camera there.
IJWS15 said:
Here we go again. . . .
If the cameras were not raising revenue they would not be there, how else would a publicly funded body justify (internally) the cost?
Too many of you are idiots and keep paying and while you do the cameras will remain. I have not contributed since 2011 so I am doing my bit to get them removed, what about the rest of you?.
This is the right answer. If it's a money making scheme, it doesn't bother me because I'm not one of those paying. If the cameras were not raising revenue they would not be there, how else would a publicly funded body justify (internally) the cost?
Too many of you are idiots and keep paying and while you do the cameras will remain. I have not contributed since 2011 so I am doing my bit to get them removed, what about the rest of you?.
Dracoro said:
vonhosen said:
Dracoro said:
pavarotti1980 said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/15/speed-...
if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
That is only true if after a while the camera hardly ever catches anyone (as it's working at stopping people speeding).if a camera site is a "good hunting ground" it stands to reason that there is a large number of people driving at excess speed, therefore it is a correct site for them situated?
If a camera is a "good hunting ground", therefore it's NOT working if trying to reduce speeding.
If it's there for revenue then it IS working
That's on the basis that the intention of the threat is to reduce speeding.
If the intention is to catch as many people as possible then it's working.
If I put a dog in the garden to stop loads of cats getting in and loads of cats still get in, then the dog threat is simply not working.
But that situation is the same with careless/inconsiderate driving, mobile phone offences etc etc.
It's not working if the intention is to catch as many people as possible either (in respect of any of the above offences), because only a small fraction of offenders are caught/prosecuted. Only about 6% of drivers have penalty points from any offences, not just speeding. It's a drop in the ocean so the chance of getting points is not something I worry about much at all in the grand scheme of things.
It's a sticking plaster.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
This is the right answer. If it's a money making scheme, it doesn't bother me because I'm not one of those paying.
Well given your car I can see why speed limits won't be too much of an issue for you! FFS try to live a little - we only get one go at this so why not enjoy it while you are here?
tomj_ said:
It could also stand to reason that the speed limit for the road is inappropriate and unnatural - some councils/forces like Derbyshire and Suffolk seem to have a habit of putting a 50 limit on all stretches of road that would be an NSL anywhere else in the country.
I have no problem with speed enforcement if the speed limit being enforced is appropriate. Just like drivers sometimes need to show restraint with their speed, councils also need to show restraint with slapping arbitrary speed limits on roads if they want speed limits to be respected and observed.
Welcome to south warwickshire. Blanket 50mph on all country roads except one (afaik the Fosse Way). It's totally arbitary and the only really dangerous road is the Fosse way, which is still NSL on most areas. I have no problem with speed enforcement if the speed limit being enforced is appropriate. Just like drivers sometimes need to show restraint with their speed, councils also need to show restraint with slapping arbitrary speed limits on roads if they want speed limits to be respected and observed.
TheDrownedApe said:
Welcome to south warwickshire. Blanket 50mph on all country roads except one (afaik the Fosse Way). It's totally arbitary and the only really dangerous road is the Fosse way, which is still NSL on most areas.
From what I was told, there was an investigation into Fosse Way safety going on at the same time that Warwickshire was having it's speed limit 'review', so the Fosse way wasn't included. The Fosse Way investigation was technical not political and didn't recommend changing the speed limit.No doubt the council will reduce the Fosse Way limit shortly.
On a Speeding course a couple of years back and the ex copper said the place I got caught, the camera was there as too many pedestrians were crossing a dual carriageway at an inappropriate spot, rather than walking 100 yds to a pelican crossing.
I mentioned, if it would not be better to install fences along side the pavement to prevent this occurance and protect pedestrians.
I was told that fences cost money and this camera was making several £100K a year.
Proves that money is more important than safety.
I mentioned, if it would not be better to install fences along side the pavement to prevent this occurance and protect pedestrians.
I was told that fences cost money and this camera was making several £100K a year.
Proves that money is more important than safety.
Mr Tidy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
This is the right answer. If it's a money making scheme, it doesn't bother me because I'm not one of those paying.
Well given your car I can see why speed limits won't be too much of an issue for you! FFS try to live a little - we only get one go at this so why not enjoy it while you are here?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff