In yer face

[crankedup]

Picked up my local regional rag to catch up on the gossip, and there it is Poxey Speed Scam campaign, how its saving lives and all the rest of the verbal garbage that rammed into yer face at every corner. Front page spread FFS, ok could have not bought the rag, is that what its coming to.

More scameras are on the way, as they are so good at catching crim's.

Copper asked the question in the piece, ' who else but an idiot could get caught speeding when our cameras are placed in high visbility and published sites?

Was it 3 Chief Constables last year?

[off_again]

.....and hundreds of police officers.....

[v8thunder]

We've got a 'speedwatch' section in our local rag that takes an incredibly parsimonious tone, enjoying the misery of drivers caught just a few mph over the limit on deserted dual carriageways. I still remember the one that said 'A visiting businessman thought he could get away with doing 60 mph in his Lotus Elan on the Bramhall-Gatley bypass last week'. FFS! There are sections of that bypass that are 60, and the limit changes to 50 when, funnily enough, there's a scamera, then go back up again (in one place there are NSL, 50, 40 & 30-limit signs within a few yards of each other). They're more dangerous than leaving the whole road at 60 - I've nearly been hit by cars that have locked up their brakes and slid because they've realised that the cheeky scamera stuffed under the bridge is running to a different speed limit to the rest of the road.

Why do they make such a song and dance out of things people find so openly annoying?

[DeltaFox]

Yeah we have much the same bollox published in our local toilet paper as well.
There was an article by a councillor who was complaining about the amount of accidents in his particular area and placing all the blame on drivers speeding for the accidents despite the speed camera he campaigned for being put in place!

Red rag to a bull with me, so i wrote a letter to the paper and got it published.
Basically it comprehensively demolished his assertions and challenged him to back his statements up. I also suggested that he was obviously backing a flawed strategy as if the the speed camera was "working" then why was he complaining about drivers speeding? as there shouldnt be any! And if drivers are still speeding, that obviously shows the camera ISNT working!
In which case either the accidents arent caused by speeding or else theyre being caused by some other phenomenon...like his "priveliged residents" parking on double yellows in the vicinity or/and the councils stupid bus stop build outs causing drivers to go head on.

Needless to say, i got no reply and he's since been voted outa office...oh joy.

[cliffe_mafia]

Snap...

The parents of a drunken 15 year old girl killed by a speeding driver are pleading for speed cameras on a road near my house....

A camera may have stopped the accident but its doubtful that the same thing would happen in the same spot again.

www.thisislancashire.co.uk/lancashire/bury/news/BURYLETTERS16.html

It was discussed on the forum here

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=&t=138752

The outcome was that the driver got let off even though he was doing over twice the limit.

I have written into them previously but didn't manage to get published, and have struggled with a reply to the parents emotive letter... its the usual problem of real facts and stats versus save the children.

[g_attrill]

This is one of the most annoying articles I've read all year.

Particularly the first bit:

article said:

More than 48,000 people were prosecuted for speeding in Suffolk last year, leading to a dramatic fall in the number of serious injuries on the county's roads.

Gareth

[v8thunder]

[quote=article]The annual rate of collisions at the sites also dropped from 173 in 2003 to 104 in 2004. The injuries suffered in collisions have also been less severe[/paste]

So, 48,000 motorists persecuted in the name of a reduction in collisions of - yes, 69. And all you can say about the injuries and deaths are that they've been 'less severe'.

Yet you extol the fact that £29 million was taken in revenue fines. If that's not the most financially inefficient and humanely deficient way of reducing casualities then I don't know what is.

[crankedup]

Yes it was the Suffolk story I was refering to. Making matters worse was on local telly whereby the scamara team were extolling the virtues of the absolute success of speed scamera. Saying how huge % of accidents / deaths / injuries there had been since the introduction of the things.

Noted that they kept refering to "at the camera locations" clearly people slow down when they spot a camera, pass it then speed up and have a huge accident which is'nt recorded at the "camera site"

At this rate were going to have more poxey scameras then bloody street lights