PistonHeads.com Forum

RE: £1m Scamera 'Not For Casualty Reduction'

RE: £1m Scamera 'Not For Casualty Reduction'

Thursday 2nd December 2010

£1m Scamera 'Not For Casualty Reduction'

Council refuses to raise speed limit at lucrative camera site



As the 'will they, won't they' scamera switch-off debate rumbles tiresomely on, we'd like to award a virtual gong on behalf of motorists everywhere to Councillor Phil Eades, who's been trying to do his bit for common sense in the Borough of Poole, in (not so) far-flung Dorset.

According to local newshounds, Cllr Eades has been trying to get a speed limit raised to 40mph at a spot on a dual carriageway where a 30mph scamera is set to rake in £1million in fines, even though the limit is 40mph in the other direction (where there's no camera), and police say the limit is nothing to do with casualty reduction.

Guess what? The local council has rejected the plea on the advice of its Transport Services Department, which is reported to have said a move to 40mph would cost £24,000 in new signs, advertising(?), modifications to the junction and an anti-skid surface. Oh, and one (yes, just one!) pedestrian apparently expressed concerns about 'near misses' with vehicles.

Cllr Eades concludes the camera is for 'revenue generation, not road safety', and he's not been afraid to speak up: "To me that's daft. It's either safe or it isn't," he said. "It can't be safe one way and not the other."

"I think it's a total set up. I'm not a speed camera crusader but that's not right," he says.

Even the local police are reported to have admitted the camera and limit are a result of 'community concern' and nothing to do with casualty reduction.

Author
Discussion

Laurel Green

Original Poster:

23,481 posts

150 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
Hmmm, £24,000 expenditure against £1,000,000 income - now let me mull over this and, will get back to you with my conclusion!

odyssey2200

18,650 posts

127 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
Thermite!!

Jasandjules

59,778 posts

147 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
On the plus side it is more publicity to just show that the scameras are for revenue only.

Mermaid

21,492 posts

89 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
Can the victims of this obvious greed mount a legal challenge? Or else hire a hit man.;)

Munter

27,697 posts

159 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
Laurel Green said:
Hmmm, £24,000 expenditure against £1,000,000 income - now let me mull over this and, will get back to you with my conclusion!
A part of me says "ok fine run it for a week and use the income to pay for the signs".

It's not right. But I think it's a solution.
Advertisement

Steameh

3,154 posts

128 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
Is the 1 million revenue off set against how many times they will have to replace the camera after being destroyed by irate motorists?

Cupramax

6,475 posts

170 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
I drive through the junction this camera is on every day on my way to work... its a joke, its seems to catch most out (not me) as its a traffic light camera thats been modified to do speed as well although it has the flourescent yellow sticker and was well publicised locally when it changed. The junction used to have a 50 limit on it (its a 3 lane "A" road) coming down from a 70 on the dual carriageway which comes into it. The D/C is now 50 reducing to 30 which is mad... I find it amusing that Poole council found it fit to open that road with a 70mph limit but now they can make some cash its convenien to be 30.

Arun_D

2,050 posts

113 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
I am still waiting for the return of my licence following getting snapped by this particular 'speed on green' dual purpose red light & speed camera in Poole.

Been nearly a month now. It was bad enough getting caught by this in the first place, as I really can't see how they can justify it's existence, but the wait for my licence is equally as frustrating. I guess, like others, I wrongly assumed it was a 40mph. Silly of me but v annoying.

I was only visiting to pick up my new motor, and frustratingly was only a mile from my destination. Fitting send of for the old RS, I guess smile



Edited by Arun_D on Thursday 2nd December 11:12

Fluffsri/?

2,197 posts

114 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
My wife and a couple of mates have been caught by this camera. All three assumed it was a 40. Money grabbing arses!

soad

27,540 posts

94 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
Erm...nothing new. If they can grab some cash out of motorist, they'll damn well will do so. stty s

Dr G

12,714 posts

160 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
Get it in The Sun and wait for someone to set fire to it smile

andyps

7,686 posts

200 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
Not that I, or PH I'm sure, would ever advocate such action, but if ever there was a case for torching a camera this has to be it.

Scraggles

7,619 posts

142 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
recall some camera in america used the same way, people afflicted stopped all trade with the town and went to the others, seemed to work quite well smile

DIW35

3,668 posts

118 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
That really is just calling out for an angle grinder.

CampDavid

9,053 posts

116 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
My using cameras like this the council stops them being used in a more worthwhile location where they'd actually save lives.

There are loads of 20 and 30 limit roads which would be safer with cameras. Unfortunately it seems that instead of putting them there some councils use them as cash cows, which means that people get ripped off and more importantly others will die

Mermaid

21,492 posts

89 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
CampDavid said:
My using cameras like this the council stops them being used in a more worthwhile location where they'd actually save lives.
Perhaps the PH band of merry men and women should send an email/petition to the Council/local MP?

Then it will be the PH's that will have won a battle for fairness to motorists.

OatSy

1,481 posts

134 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
They don't need to change the signs just set the camera to catch people over 45mph

Chris-R

747 posts

105 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
More in a similar vein here

LukeBird

17,129 posts

127 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
On the plus side it is more publicity to just show that the scameras are for revenue only.
Yeah, a (barely) silver lining to a giant ste cloud.
I'm pretty sure I know which camera is being referred to in the article, it's an idiotic placement for a camera; I can't see any reason for it's placement.

Cupramax

6,475 posts

170 months

Thursday 2nd December 2010
quotequote all
Oh and for accuracy here's a correct pic of the offending unit... apparently theres been one serious accident at this junction since 1999.

pre speed enablement


and post