RE: Cash cameras to fund victim charities?
Monday 5th March 2007
Will cash from speed cameras be used to help crash victims? That's the plan being mooted by ministers, according to a story in yesterday's Sunday Mirror.
Cash cameras to fund victim charities?
'A cynical ploy' says road safety campaign
They reckon that it's a neat idea to use the £115 million that's raked in from speed cameras each year to help fund charities working with victims of road crashes -- which clearly equates speed with crashes.
However, Road safety campaign Safe Speed described the idea as a cynical ploy and pointed out that only five per cent of injury crashes involve any speeding vehicle, according to Department for Transport statistics.
One government source said that, while it was early days and was only an idea at this stage, drivers might not resent paying the fines if they thought that the money would go to help crash victims.
Safe Speed said that:
- Helping road crash victims is a worthy idea, but the best way to help them is by preventing road crashes in the first place.
- 'Money from speed camera fines' is just sloshing around at the treasury rolled up with all the other public money.
- Treasury money can be used to help road crash victims with or without referring to speed cameras.
- Claiming that money from speed cameras might be used for road crash victims is just a cynical ploy attempting to bolster the awful reputation of speed cameras.
The campaign said that, if ministers want to spend more on road safety, then they should consider:
- Effective policing of the growing rogue driver problem.
- Much better road safety information, without the spin intended to justify failed speed cameras.
- Scientific research to quantify the vast range of speed camera side effects.
- Promoting and developing road user skills and attitudes.
- Telling the truth about speed camera statistics.
Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "This suggestion is an ugly and cynical ploy attempting bolster the fading reputation of speed cameras in the minds of the public. The public has lost faith in speed cameras because they don't save lives and we know it.
"Only five per cent of injury crashes involve any speeding vehicle according to Department for Transport, and most of that five per cent probably involves unusual 'rogue' driver behaviour. The proportion of crashes caused or contributed to by otherwise responsible motorists exceeding a speed limit is tiny. Speed cameras are chasing a problem we don't have with a solution that doesn't work."
"The Department for Transport's road safety spin costs lives because it causes real life saving resources to be misallocated at every level in our road safety system."
Picture by Manek Dubash
Discussion
I reckon Goebels would have been proud of the lies and propaganda put out by the scamera lobby.
Last week's local paper carried job ad for 'driver education administrator' and proclaimed 'excessive speed killed or injured more than 350 people in Warwickshire last year'.
Need a job at the moment but couldn't see me getting this one somehow.
Last week's local paper carried job ad for 'driver education administrator' and proclaimed 'excessive speed killed or injured more than 350 people in Warwickshire last year'.
Need a job at the moment but couldn't see me getting this one somehow.
This is just the politicians and spin doctors dredging for any sort of justification for the income from cameras
Its an "after the event" attempt to try to gain public backing. Just another - "well you public have agreed to it" type move.
With so few injuries actually caused purely by speed then surely its a way of diverting money from non accident catches of speeding motorists to cover a lack of a compensation fund anyway.
We are already being taxed excessively and surely the wasted spending of our taxes should be the FIRST target to be attacked.
BUT then..... that would mean politiicians and beaurocrats having to say " enough is enough" to the political correctness police.
They won't do that. It would make them targets for these gestapo organisations who would try to make them feel bad and uncaring.
So..... no action by frightened power hungry "i dont want to be thrown off the gravy train" politicians and beaurocrats.
Britain is degenerationg into a USSR post WW1 with excessive State control.
Its an "after the event" attempt to try to gain public backing. Just another - "well you public have agreed to it" type move.
With so few injuries actually caused purely by speed then surely its a way of diverting money from non accident catches of speeding motorists to cover a lack of a compensation fund anyway.
We are already being taxed excessively and surely the wasted spending of our taxes should be the FIRST target to be attacked.
BUT then..... that would mean politiicians and beaurocrats having to say " enough is enough" to the political correctness police.
They won't do that. It would make them targets for these gestapo organisations who would try to make them feel bad and uncaring.
So..... no action by frightened power hungry "i dont want to be thrown off the gravy train" politicians and beaurocrats.
Britain is degenerationg into a USSR post WW1 with excessive State control.
This is unbelievably clever and I reckon will cause even more people to resent those opposed to speed cameras. It puts honourable campaigns like SafeSpeed in the awkward position of needing to oppose it because it's just spin, but somehow needing to get across to the public that they don't NOT want people to be saved... very cunning and sneaky, and if it came in I could see a lot of moron's believing it's just a wonderful example of a caring government.
the job "title" says it all though doesnt it ADMINISTRATOR or in other words yet one more petty middle level bureaucrat to run yet another government civil service cash drain that is a complete non job hmmmmmmm thirty grand and full index linked pension where do i sign .............no we CANT spend the money on road improvement there ISNT any available how many more times do we have to tell you people for gods sake.........of COURSE must be seen to doing our bit so we HAVE to pump xxx millions into a government praising scheme to benefit crash victims of all those nasty crashes speeders have all the time even though scamera collections are just general revenue to the treasury and not a seperate issue (but shhhhhhhhhh the sheep errrm sorry electorate dont know that so mums the word and who knows come election time we will be seen as the good guys again ) dream on stony the publics rumbled you son
SO not only do we pay a % of our anual insurance premium to the MIB to help inocent victims for uninsured drivers but we honest (meaning registered insured etc) motorist have to pay again, why not get cops out there getting the uninsured motorists off the road as camaeras don't stop this as they proabblky haven't even registered the vehicles!!!!!!
mmltonge said:
This is unbelievably clever and I reckon will cause even more people to resent those opposed to speed cameras. It puts honourable campaigns like SafeSpeed in the awkward position of needing to oppose it because it's just spin, but somehow needing to get across to the public that they don't NOT want people to be saved... very cunning and sneaky, and if it came in I could see a lot of moron's believing it's just a wonderful example of a caring government.
It's not that clever really. We've laid down a marker that will make it permanently difficult for them to go ahead.
They can't afford to be accused of 'cynical ploys' right now. But I've been able to keep the best powder dry just in case.
I've been hearing today that they were trying hard to kill off the story. Looks like that worked and it isn't in Tuesday's papers. The proposed tactic is absolutely desperate and extremely risky. They are REALLY on the back foot.
So it's a great time to sign the 'scrap speed cameras' petition if you haven't already: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scrapcam
Denn1s said:
SO not only do we pay a % of our anual insurance premium to the MIB to help inocent victims for uninsured drivers but we honest (meaning registered insured etc) motorist have to pay again, why not get cops out there getting the uninsured motorists off the road as camaeras don't stop this as they proabblky haven't even registered the vehicles!!!!!!
No the "honest" law abiding motorist doesn't have to pay again. If you aren't breaking the law, you don't pay. Those who can't stop themselves from exceeding the limit (particularly in areas that are signed as camera enforcement areas) do have to pay.
vonhosen said:
Denn1s said:
SO not only do we pay a % of our anual insurance premium to the MIB to help inocent victims for uninsured drivers but we honest (meaning registered insured etc) motorist have to pay again, why not get cops out there getting the uninsured motorists off the road as camaeras don't stop this as they proabblky haven't even registered the vehicles!!!!!!
No the "honest" law abiding motorist doesn't have to pay again. If you aren't breaking the law, you don't pay. Those who can't stop themselves from exceeding the limit (particularly in areas that are signed as camera enforcement areas) do have to pay.
Couple of years or so ago .. these idiots "courted the idea" of adding an extra fiver to all motoring fines to pay into the "Victims of Crime Fund". Reaction was one of great fury und the idea was quietly dropped as some politico und others on R4's "Today" und "You und Yours" at the time pointed out that road accident victims were covered by driver's insurance paying compo und the MIB funds also paid into by all drivers who respect their legality in this respect
NHS do apply to recoup costs of treatment from insurers und I do know a sizebable chunk was repaid to NHS for my own treatment all those years ago. Und just recently a motor biker who suffered brain damage which caused him to have insatiable desires ..( und his poor wife had to leave the country - ist what it said in the "waily" 
) - but he received record damages as "unable to look after himself responsibly" only last week.. PAID FOR BY THE INSURERS. But a true road safety policy would not be planning to fund charities und so on via fines. If I wish to donate cash to any charity or raise cash for any charity.. then I am the one who should choose this und how much. Giving such money to this "charity" does confirm that the "charity" ist not a "charity" but being used as another "government puppet" 
Cash would be better spent by improving all road safety education for all. Funding sensible und memorable driver safety infor/good practice adverts for inclusion in rotation in each advertising break.. engineering out the blackspots und planning roads properly. Investing in ensuring road surfaces are repaired properly instead of the half done job .. which lead to wobbly ruts for those on two wheels und eroding potholes for the rest
und some well planned cycle lanes instead of the token pepperming tarmac which lead to a clash with the bus or pedestrian und places all in danger.
Ach.. but that actually costs cash und does not raise cash to fund a government division posing as a "charity" (Because to fund a "charity" in this way by a government ruling.. makes this "charity" into a government funded organisation like the existing pratnerships )
If they really want to fund something official und pretend they are "doing something here" .. how about giving all this cash to the NHS who would really be able to save lives with it
Cash would be better spent by improving all road safety education for all. Funding sensible und memorable driver safety infor/good practice adverts for inclusion in rotation in each advertising break.. engineering out the blackspots und planning roads properly. Investing in ensuring road surfaces are repaired properly instead of the half done job .. which lead to wobbly ruts for those on two wheels und eroding potholes for the rest
und some well planned cycle lanes instead of the token pepperming tarmac which lead to a clash with the bus or pedestrian und places all in danger. Ach.. but that actually costs cash und does not raise cash to fund a government division posing as a "charity"
(Because to fund a "charity" in this way by a government ruling.. makes this "charity" into a government funded organisation like the existing pratnerships ) If they really want to fund something official und pretend they are "doing something here" .. how about giving all this cash to the NHS who would really be able to save lives with it WildCat said:
Cash would be better spent by improving all road safety education for all. Funding sensible und memorable driver safety infor/good practice adverts for inclusion in rotation in each advertising break.. engineering out the blackspots und planning roads properly. Investing in ensuring road surfaces are repaired properly instead of the half done job .. which lead to wobbly ruts for those on two wheels und eroding potholes for the rest und some well planned cycle lanes instead of the token pepperming tarmac which lead to a clash with the bus or pedestrian und places all in danger.
und some well planned cycle lanes instead of the token pepperming tarmac which lead to a clash with the bus or pedestrian und places all in danger. Hey that bit about road surfaces sounds as if you've been to Scarborough fairly recently! Hard luck!!
Any minute now I expect we shall be receiving our Council Tax Bill for the year ahead, but the way they are functioning at the moment they don't deserve a bean. Important assets like the road system are going to rack and ruin in Scarborough, and the whole thing is a disgrace.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff