Speed camera cuts 'mean disaster'
Discussion
I feel these are generally good moves by the authorities concerned. But regrettably, also due to the proposed spending cuts, we will not see what is needed, ie more on-road policing.
As I have said before - a camera cannot distinguish between a driver drunk in charge of an unroadworthy uninsured untaxed vehicle with no MOT, driven at 29 MPH in thick fog at 3pm on a schoolday past a school, and a completely legal vehicle at 6am on a clear day in the same location but at 33 MPH. While I have to admit the driver doing 33 shouldn't be, which is the greater danger?
My personal view is that I will continue to drive to conditions, and will survive as I have over more than 50 years on the road on motorbikes & in cars, with only 3 speeding convictions over that period. Now I can spend less time constantly watching my speedo and concentrate more on observation of the surrounding conditions....
I like the post regarding the P45 - chuckled at that.
As I have said before - a camera cannot distinguish between a driver drunk in charge of an unroadworthy uninsured untaxed vehicle with no MOT, driven at 29 MPH in thick fog at 3pm on a schoolday past a school, and a completely legal vehicle at 6am on a clear day in the same location but at 33 MPH. While I have to admit the driver doing 33 shouldn't be, which is the greater danger?
My personal view is that I will continue to drive to conditions, and will survive as I have over more than 50 years on the road on motorbikes & in cars, with only 3 speeding convictions over that period. Now I can spend less time constantly watching my speedo and concentrate more on observation of the surrounding conditions....
I like the post regarding the P45 - chuckled at that.
I wonder if we can create friction between different campaign groups... perhaps write to Brake! saying "How can they risk the lives of our innocent children *insert picture of cute child* by taking down speed cameras yet they continue to fund unfounded claims of climate change?" 
You never know, both groups are rabid enough to finish eachother off
You never know, both groups are rabid enough to finish eachother off
Last Saturday I rode through Swindon.
You may recall that Swindon was the first council to turn off its Speed cameras.
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
My colleague and I were on bikes and gave due respect to the speed limit but were overtaken by a number of cars that were probably doing in excess of 60.
It is this sort of t
ttish behaviour that will be used by the alarmist do-gooders to justify turning the cameras back on.
Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a!
You may recall that Swindon was the first council to turn off its Speed cameras.
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
My colleague and I were on bikes and gave due respect to the speed limit but were overtaken by a number of cars that were probably doing in excess of 60.
It is this sort of t
ttish behaviour that will be used by the alarmist do-gooders to justify turning the cameras back on.Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a
!odyssey2200 said:
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
Perhaps the Council would like to justify the 40 limit for a dual carriageway? This has IMO been the key problem, unrealistic and unjustified speed limits. I don't have a problem with enforcement per se, after all that is why we have the Police, it is their job to enforce the all the laws. I do have a problem with Councils setting unrealistic speed limits against the advice of bodies including the Police.I'll don my flame proof suit and say I also don't have a problem with speed cameras, even concealed ones, for the above reason. The job of enforcement is easier if law breaking is discouraged. Never knowing where a hidden camera may be would discourage many from wantonly breaking the law. However, first the limits need to be assessed as reasonable by an independant body, not a busybody.
odyssey2200 said:
Last Saturday I rode through Swindon.
You may recall that Swindon was the first council to turn off its Speed cameras.
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
My colleague and I were on bikes and gave due respect to the speed limit but were overtaken by a number of cars that were probably doing in excess of 60.
It is this sort of tttish behaviour that will be used by the alarmist do-gooders to justify turning the cameras back on.
Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a!
Maybe the road used to be a 60 limit ? Lots like that . . . should be 60 but were reduced to 40 and made a good regular site for a mobile scamera.You may recall that Swindon was the first council to turn off its Speed cameras.
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
My colleague and I were on bikes and gave due respect to the speed limit but were overtaken by a number of cars that were probably doing in excess of 60.
It is this sort of t
ttish behaviour that will be used by the alarmist do-gooders to justify turning the cameras back on.Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a
!Was there any reason for it being 40 ?
Busa_Rush said:
odyssey2200 said:
Last Saturday I rode through Swindon.
You may recall that Swindon was the first council to turn off its Speed cameras.
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
My colleague and I were on bikes and gave due respect to the speed limit but were overtaken by a number of cars that were probably doing in excess of 60.
It is this sort of tttish behaviour that will be used by the alarmist do-gooders to justify turning the cameras back on.
Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a!
Maybe the road used to be a 60 limit ? Lots like that . . . should be 60 but were reduced to 40 and made a good regular site for a mobile scamera.You may recall that Swindon was the first council to turn off its Speed cameras.
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
My colleague and I were on bikes and gave due respect to the speed limit but were overtaken by a number of cars that were probably doing in excess of 60.
It is this sort of t
ttish behaviour that will be used by the alarmist do-gooders to justify turning the cameras back on.Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a
!Was there any reason for it being 40 ?
it is a wide carriage way but does go through a residential area.
As far as I can recall it has always been 40.
Busa_Rush said:
odyssey2200 said:
Last Saturday I rode through Swindon.
You may recall that Swindon was the first council to turn off its Speed cameras.
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
My colleague and I were on bikes and gave due respect to the speed limit but were overtaken by a number of cars that were probably doing in excess of 60.
It is this sort of tttish behaviour that will be used by the alarmist do-gooders to justify turning the cameras back on.
Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a!
Maybe the road used to be a 60 limit ? Lots like that . . . should be 60 but were reduced to 40 and made a good regular site for a mobile scamera.You may recall that Swindon was the first council to turn off its Speed cameras.
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
My colleague and I were on bikes and gave due respect to the speed limit but were overtaken by a number of cars that were probably doing in excess of 60.
It is this sort of t
ttish behaviour that will be used by the alarmist do-gooders to justify turning the cameras back on.Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a
!Was there any reason for it being 40 ?
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=swindon&oe=utf...
Mark Benson said:
Busa_Rush said:
odyssey2200 said:
Last Saturday I rode through Swindon.
You may recall that Swindon was the first council to turn off its Speed cameras.
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
My colleague and I were on bikes and gave due respect to the speed limit but were overtaken by a number of cars that were probably doing in excess of 60.
It is this sort of tttish behaviour that will be used by the alarmist do-gooders to justify turning the cameras back on.
Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a!
Maybe the road used to be a 60 limit ? Lots like that . . . should be 60 but were reduced to 40 and made a good regular site for a mobile scamera.You may recall that Swindon was the first council to turn off its Speed cameras.
There is a long urban dual carriageway that heads out of Swindon towards the Hospital and the Marlborough road that is IIRC a 40 limit.
My colleague and I were on bikes and gave due respect to the speed limit but were overtaken by a number of cars that were probably doing in excess of 60.
It is this sort of t
ttish behaviour that will be used by the alarmist do-gooders to justify turning the cameras back on.Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a
!Was there any reason for it being 40 ?
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=swindon&oe=utf...
Why is it that the Speed Camera is now considered to be the ONLy way to enforce speed?
How about Plod standing there with a radar gun?
Edited by odyssey2200 on Monday 26th July 13:41
digimeistter said:
Interesting that it was reported today that any existing scameras that are damaged or vandalised will probably not be replaced 
Thermite is the only way to be surehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S84UMbF0s2k&vid...
The R4 Today piece this morning was amusing.
The angle played was that "the cameras made money but the Council did not get the fines revenue so running them was a net loss to the council and in a time when they were being asked to save money it was a clear either / or choice, either fund the camera operation or fund vital services for underprivileged children."
It was THE MOST BLATANT "Think of the Children Piece" I have ever heard.
And they made the point that if in overall GB plc terms the cameras made money it didn't make sense to scrap them because of "random accounting rules." Of course there was no mention made of why those "random accounting rules" were put in place, expressly to dissociate fine revenue from the operational side because of reasons well discussed on here.
The response from the Council was still it was a clear either / or choice, either fund the camera operation or fund vital services for underprivileged children."
Think of the Children.
Finally the small bit of balance came in, as the interviewer asked if ignoring the financial issues whether cameras were worth it? The answer referred to the Swindon experiment where cameras had been switched off and no detriment had been claimed and that they considered the jury was out on whether camera enforcement was worthwhile or not. Political answer imo, they could hardly have said anything else frankly.
The angle played was that "the cameras made money but the Council did not get the fines revenue so running them was a net loss to the council and in a time when they were being asked to save money it was a clear either / or choice, either fund the camera operation or fund vital services for underprivileged children."
It was THE MOST BLATANT "Think of the Children Piece" I have ever heard.
And they made the point that if in overall GB plc terms the cameras made money it didn't make sense to scrap them because of "random accounting rules." Of course there was no mention made of why those "random accounting rules" were put in place, expressly to dissociate fine revenue from the operational side because of reasons well discussed on here.
The response from the Council was still it was a clear either / or choice, either fund the camera operation or fund vital services for underprivileged children."
Think of the Children.
Finally the small bit of balance came in, as the interviewer asked if ignoring the financial issues whether cameras were worth it? The answer referred to the Swindon experiment where cameras had been switched off and no detriment had been claimed and that they considered the jury was out on whether camera enforcement was worthwhile or not. Political answer imo, they could hardly have said anything else frankly.
Guam said:
digimeistter said:
Interesting that it was reported today that any existing scameras that are damaged or vandalised will probably not be replaced
Surely you dont think there may be a sudden upsurge, in vandalism of these devices, no surely not.............................................
odyssey2200 said:
Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a !
Not in Oxfordshire but in the last few days on a road with imo an artificially low limit normally policed by vans, plus a couple of statics, there has been a noticeable increase in the behaviour described above, ie DLAC. !That not only includes above the posted limit but in many cases significantly above what the NSL would be and includes things that I would argue are contrary to S3 RTA, ie genuinely DLAC and not just OPL.
This, no matter what our views re cameras and the pratnerships in general are, really is NOT a good thing.
F i F said:
odyssey2200 said:
Just because the camera is off, don't drive like a !
Not in Oxfordshire but in the last few days on a road with imo an artificially low limit normally policed by vans, plus a couple of statics, there has been a noticeable increase in the behaviour described above, ie DLAC. !That not only includes above the posted limit but in many cases significantly above what the NSL would be and includes things that I would argue are contrary to S3 RTA, ie genuinely DLAC and not just OPL.
This, no matter what our views re cameras and the pratnerships in general are, really is NOT a good thing.
A new PH definition!
DLAC
We should all be keeping a list of people that say it's going to be a disaster, ready for when next years statistics come out showing no increase in road deaths.
Plenty of smug emails, letters and posts should be dedicated to those people, hopefully enough that if anyone googles them, those posts / emails come up first.
Plenty of smug emails, letters and posts should be dedicated to those people, hopefully enough that if anyone googles them, those posts / emails come up first.
Cameras would only ever be of use if the chant of "Speed (absolute) Kills" were true. The actual truth is that inappropriate speed can contribute to an accident which may or may not result in fatalities. The fact is that an inanimate object cannot determine whether something is inappropriate or not, the only things that can, are people, therefore if safety is paramount, above all else, replace cameras with more plod in more cars. Unless its all about money, in which case....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff