60% of French speed cameras "knocked out."

60% of French speed cameras "knocked out."

Author
Discussion

Puggit

41,738 posts

193 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
zygalski said:
If the cameras in the UK were removed tomorrow, I assume nobody here would complain about a corresponding hike in income or pensions taxes to make up the shortfall in funding?
So they are nothing to do with safety then - thanks for clarifying.

turbobloke

85,448 posts

205 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
zygalski said:
If the cameras in the UK were removed tomorrow, I assume nobody here would complain about a corresponding hike in income or pensions taxes to make up the shortfall in funding?
I've read in the past that the cash raised amounts to around £100m per year but haven't counted it myself.

If so, and with this peanuts level in mind, there's no need to replace it; just cut spending. For example FoI requests have shown that the government (DWP) spent over £100m in the past two years on often futile legal battles trying to stop claimants from receiving disability benefit. That's the sort of cut in spending that would be facilitated by getting rid of speed cameras which are mostly useless in term of road safety. There will be others for sure.

O/T the most notorious and lucrative site is arguably the M11 southbound camera near Chigwell in Essex which was installed around the turn of the century at the point the 70mph motorway limit ends. In one year (2003) 9,600+ drivers were prosecuted, yet road safety data showed accidents had risen since its introduction.

In general giving politicians more of other people's money only encourages them to waste it.

zygalski

6,007 posts

90 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
If the cameras in the UK were removed tomorrow, I assume nobody here would complain about a corresponding hike in income or pensions taxes to make up the shortfall in funding?
I've read in the past that the cash raised amounts to around £100m per year but haven't counted it myself.

If so, and with this peanuts level in mind, there's no need to replace it; just cut spending. For example FoI requests have shown that the government (DWP) spent over £100m in the past two years on often futile legal battles trying to stop claimants from receiving disability benefit. That's the sort of cut in spending that would be facilitated by getting rid of speed cameras which are mostly useless in term of road safety. There will be others for sure.

O/T the most notorious and lucrative site is arguably the M11 southbound camera near Chigwell in Essex which was installed around the turn of the century at the point the 70mph motorway limit ends. In one year (2003) 9,600+ drivers were prosecuted, yet road safety data showed accidents had risen since its introduction.

In general giving politicians more of other people's money only encourages them to waste it.
I think I'm right in thinking that your answer to any query on tax is cut spending.

turbobloke

85,448 posts

205 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
zygalski said:
turbobloke said:
zygalski said:
If the cameras in the UK were removed tomorrow, I assume nobody here would complain about a corresponding hike in income or pensions taxes to make up the shortfall in funding?
I've read in the past that the cash raised amounts to around £100m per year but haven't counted it myself.

If so, and with this peanuts level in mind, there's no need to replace it; just cut spending. For example FoI requests have shown that the government (DWP) spent over £100m in the past two years on often futile legal battles trying to stop claimants from receiving disability benefit. That's the sort of cut in spending that would be facilitated by getting rid of speed cameras which are mostly useless in term of road safety. There will be others for sure.

O/T the most notorious and lucrative site is arguably the M11 southbound camera near Chigwell in Essex which was installed around the turn of the century at the point the 70mph motorway limit ends. In one year (2003) 9,600+ drivers were prosecuted, yet road safety data showed accidents had risen since its introduction.

In general giving politicians more of other people's money only encourages them to waste it.
I think I'm right in thinking that your answer to any query on tax is cut spending.
If the spending relates to DWP legal costs fighting disability awards from appeal/tribunal stages then yes, otherwise it depends; so no, you're wrong.

Do you think it's a good use of £100m of public money for the DWP to fight legal battles like that (above)?

stargazer30

1,162 posts

111 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Good on them lol!

Can we bring back Captain Gatso in the UK too please biggrinbiggrinbiggrin

zygalski

6,007 posts

90 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Puggit said:
So they are nothing to do with safety then - thanks for clarifying.
Well clearly there's no other option for you other than get caught by the cameras.
Oh, wait...

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

103 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
zygalski said:
Well clearly there's no other option for you other than get caught by the cameras.
Oh, wait...
They often excessively enforce deliberately bad rules. Based on this I'm happy with their destruction.

Puggit

41,738 posts

193 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
zygalski said:
Well clearly there's no other option for you other than get caught by the cameras.
Oh, wait...
No - that's a different argument.

If money raised is planned to be incorporated in to tax receipts, then it is not all about safety, is it? Black and white - give me an answer.

Guybrush

4,046 posts

151 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
zygalski said:
Well clearly there's no other option for you other than get caught by the cameras.
Oh, wait...
They often excessively enforce deliberately bad rules. Based on this I'm happy with their destruction.
Me too. It's clear that the more compliance there is, the lower limits will become and / or the greater the strictness of the enforcement.

Puggit

41,738 posts

193 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
No sign of Zygalski?

Chris944

295 posts

175 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
oyster said:
What hardship are they being caused by a speed camera?

Fuel can't be too expensive if they can afford to pass speed cameras above the limit as that would suggest they aren't driving as fuel efficiently as possible.

Unless it's only cameras in slower urban areas with lower limits that are being destroyed so that road users can maintain a higher speed. Purely to save fuel though, not for any other reason.
>>>>>>>>>>
Tsk, tsk, Mumsnet alert.

zygalski

6,007 posts

90 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Guybrush said:
Rovinghawk said:
zygalski said:
Well clearly there's no other option for you other than get caught by the cameras.
Oh, wait...
They often excessively enforce deliberately bad rules. Based on this I'm happy with their destruction.
Me too. It's clear that the more compliance there is, the lower limits will become and / or the greater the strictness of the enforcement.
Puggit said:
No - that's a different argument.

If money raised is planned to be incorporated in to tax receipts, then it is not all about safety, is it? Black and white - give me an answer.
Puggit said:
No sign of Zygalski?
What's the point in arguing with morons who think they're above the law & condone criminal damage?

Also, when did I say speed cameras were entirely about safety.
Quote please Mr Strawman....

If someone decides to speed, gets caught, and in doing so raises revenue for central government then that's their decision.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

Pvapour

8,246 posts

198 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Not good frown. Intersting that sky news banner is yellow

https://news.sky.com/story/loud-explosion-in-centr...

Biker 1

3,417 posts

64 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Pvapour said:
Not good frown. Intersting that sky news banner is yellow

https://news.sky.com/story/loud-explosion-in-centr...
What's that got to do with speed cameras??

Pvapour

8,246 posts

198 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Yellow? The colour used by the gillets jaunne? Used as a banner for the news? or is that not sowing on the link?

Im not seeing any other news item by sky with a yellow heading, thats all, bit strange..



Edited by Pvapour on Saturday 12th January 10:58

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

103 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
zygalski said:
If someone decides to speed, gets caught, and in doing so raises revenue for central government then that's their decision.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Counter argument: the limits are often unreasonably low & are excessively enforced compared to other more serious offences purely for financial motives. This under the guise of 'safety'.

AndrewCrown

980 posts

59 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
There is a design fault with most French speed cameras which make them particularly vulnerable.
From observation, France’s original installation of speed cameras were on autoroutes...smallish units around the size of a pillar box or wheelie bin..or smaller at vehicle height. Sometimes in the central reservation..

Some of the newer ones are similar and smaller but now placed in easy to access roads . A well placed bin bag or farm sack would render them temporarily out of action... they are very easy targets for a motivated individual. I’m not surprised by the numbers.

Our UK cameras are elevated, larger and much more difficult to vandalise...and require rather more ingenuity to disable...

The French are quite good about informing the public about how much of ‘their tax euros’ are required to replace vandalised cameras.


turbobloke

85,448 posts

205 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
zygalski said:
If someone decides to speed, gets caught, and in doing so raises revenue for central government then that's their decision.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Counter argument: the limits are often unreasonably low & are excessively enforced compared to other more serious offences purely for financial motives. This under the guise of 'safety'.
Several senior BiB have agreed with your comments. Two examples follow, there are more.

Paul Garvin when Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary said:
The pro-camera lobby, and a lot of the safety partnerships, deliberately misquote the statistics to try and mislead people to try and justify their position. I think it is disingenuous if we are really intent on reducing casualties on the road - as opposed to enforcing speed limits and dishing out lots of tickets.

More accidents are caused by inattention, drink driving, or nowadays, more by driving under the influence of drugs. And these statistics adopted by certain forces show a woolly area regarding the proximity of speed cameras. Some statistics are taken from an area 20 metres from a camera and others from a two-kilometre radius. The speed cameras issue is not a point of principle, it is a fact that they are pointless.
Neil Longsden former Chief Inspector with Greater Manchester Police Motorway Group said:
With more than 20 years as a traffic inspector and chief inspector, I always thought that, when decisions were made to prosecute motorists, the police had not only to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubt but that they also had to use a certain amount of discretion and commonsense. Now I believe those basic principles are being ignored in pursuit of revenue.

Piersman2

5,669 posts

144 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
AndrewCrown said:
There is a design fault with most French speed cameras which make them particularly vulnerable.
From observation, France’s original installation of speed cameras were on autoroutes...smallish units around the size of a pillar box or wheelie bin..or smaller at vehicle height. Sometimes in the central reservation..

Some of the newer ones are similar and smaller but now placed in easy to access roads . A well placed bin bag or farm sack would render them temporarily out of action... they are very easy targets for a motivated individual. I’m not surprised by the numbers.

Our UK cameras are elevated, larger and much more difficult to vandalise...and require rather more ingenuity to disable...

The French are quite good about informing the public about how much of ‘their tax euros’ are required to replace vandalised cameras.
I would have thought a can of black spray on the end of a stick would be capable of disabling most of ours! smile

Murph7355

22,948 posts

201 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
zygalski said:
I think I'm right in thinking that your answer to any query on tax is cut spending.
Currently, with a large deficit and eye watering national debt, that's not a bad shout.

Hardly any actual cuts have been made. Hardly surprising when cases like the UC recent one were lost, tuition fee whining, child benefit change whining etc.