RE: Flaming Volvo Torches Speed Camera
Discussion
Another scamera story , surely the council should be charged with mansloughter if they prove the camera caused all these accidents ? Maybe just some wishfull thinking ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6568753/Dan...
'Dangerous' speed camera rakes in £500,000 a year
A motorway speed camera blamed for causing accidents generates up to half a million pounds a year in fines.
By David Williams
Published: 8:30PM GMT 14 Nov 2009
Crashes have risen by almost a quarter and casualties have almost doubled since the camera was installed on a busy stretch of the M11 in Essex, in 2000.
Now, details revealed under Freedom of Information legislation, show that the device results in up to 9,000 speeding tickets a year, enough to raise around £500,000.
Campaigners have accused the authorities of refusing to remove the camera, despite it being linked to accidents, because of the revenue it brings them.
Paul Pearson, who runs motoring website penaltychargenotice.co.uk, said: "No wonder they haven't removed the camera that is causing these accidents. It is just raising too much money and they clearly want to keep it there."
Essex Police, which runs the camera together with Essex Council and the Highways Agency, had initially refused a Freedom of Information request by Mr Pearson for details about the speeding tickets issued by the machine.
But after a ruling by the Information Commissioner, the police have been forced to disclose that in 2003 alone the M11 camera was responsible for 9,639 fines and a further 8,451 in 2004. The following year 9,047 motorists were caught by the camera and in 2006 a total of 7,801 were sent fines. In 2007, the number fell to 3,305. There are no complete figures for 2008, but in the year up to May 2009, the number of fines had risen to 6,445.
Mr Pearson has highlighted the danger he claims the camera poses, after he put in an earlier Freedom of Information request, having witnessed an accident on the road.
The data showed that in the five years before the camera was installed, there were 13 accidents and 14 casualties in the area. In the following five years, the number of accidents rose to 16 and casualties to 24.
At the spot, between Junctions 5 and 4 on the soutbound carriageway, the motorway's three lanes narrow to two and the speed limit drops from 70mph to 50.
The Highways Agency said that the accident data did not show a pattern of accidents which would be consistent with the camera itself being a factor.
Police have blamed motorists who slow down ahead of the camera and then speed up once they are clear of it.
A spokesman for Essex police denied the camera was causing crashes. He said it was not being kept for revenue reasons and that there were no plans to remove it.
He said that police recently added an extra 'speed indicator' sign that displayed approaching motorists' speeds before they reached the camera, in addition to camera warning signs and 50mph signs.
"Cameras do not cause collisions, poor driving does," said the spokesman
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6568753/Dan...
'Dangerous' speed camera rakes in £500,000 a year
A motorway speed camera blamed for causing accidents generates up to half a million pounds a year in fines.
By David Williams
Published: 8:30PM GMT 14 Nov 2009
Crashes have risen by almost a quarter and casualties have almost doubled since the camera was installed on a busy stretch of the M11 in Essex, in 2000.
Now, details revealed under Freedom of Information legislation, show that the device results in up to 9,000 speeding tickets a year, enough to raise around £500,000.
Campaigners have accused the authorities of refusing to remove the camera, despite it being linked to accidents, because of the revenue it brings them.
Paul Pearson, who runs motoring website penaltychargenotice.co.uk, said: "No wonder they haven't removed the camera that is causing these accidents. It is just raising too much money and they clearly want to keep it there."
Essex Police, which runs the camera together with Essex Council and the Highways Agency, had initially refused a Freedom of Information request by Mr Pearson for details about the speeding tickets issued by the machine.
But after a ruling by the Information Commissioner, the police have been forced to disclose that in 2003 alone the M11 camera was responsible for 9,639 fines and a further 8,451 in 2004. The following year 9,047 motorists were caught by the camera and in 2006 a total of 7,801 were sent fines. In 2007, the number fell to 3,305. There are no complete figures for 2008, but in the year up to May 2009, the number of fines had risen to 6,445.
Mr Pearson has highlighted the danger he claims the camera poses, after he put in an earlier Freedom of Information request, having witnessed an accident on the road.
The data showed that in the five years before the camera was installed, there were 13 accidents and 14 casualties in the area. In the following five years, the number of accidents rose to 16 and casualties to 24.
At the spot, between Junctions 5 and 4 on the soutbound carriageway, the motorway's three lanes narrow to two and the speed limit drops from 70mph to 50.
The Highways Agency said that the accident data did not show a pattern of accidents which would be consistent with the camera itself being a factor.
Police have blamed motorists who slow down ahead of the camera and then speed up once they are clear of it.
A spokesman for Essex police denied the camera was causing crashes. He said it was not being kept for revenue reasons and that there were no plans to remove it.
He said that police recently added an extra 'speed indicator' sign that displayed approaching motorists' speeds before they reached the camera, in addition to camera warning signs and 50mph signs.
"Cameras do not cause collisions, poor driving does," said the spokesman
A911DOM said:
Dark Helmet said:
The scamera may be outside a school, but I doubt it was turned off outside of school hours, or the speed limit changed accordingly? Speed limits enforced by Gatsos etc. don't factor this sort of thing into the equation. It would be better to use the schemes active in some of the towns and villages near me whereby there is a lower speed limit during school hours, along with mobile patrols.
This scamera is just another example of blanket enforcement, just like the traffic lights at entrances to supermarkets/shopping centres/football stadiums which are left on all night forcing people to waste fuel, wear out their brakes and STOP for no reason at all. (Yes, there are several examples of this near me).
But I DO NOT condone the sacrifice of an apparently decent car for this because, even if it belonged to the people who did it, it's a waste of a serviceable vehicle.
What compounds the matter though, the car in question was STOLEN, meaning the owner now faces the bill for another vehicle and the problem of how to get to work without a car in the meantime.
Yes, I know, Insurance might cover the initial cost, but bear in mind it's actually a Loan ... what they (might) pay out now, YOU pay back later!! And I doubt that, even if caught, the car thieves would be required to pay for it.
I won't mourn the loss of a speed scamera, but if I were the owner I would probably miss my car ...
BG
Well said! This scamera is just another example of blanket enforcement, just like the traffic lights at entrances to supermarkets/shopping centres/football stadiums which are left on all night forcing people to waste fuel, wear out their brakes and STOP for no reason at all. (Yes, there are several examples of this near me).
But I DO NOT condone the sacrifice of an apparently decent car for this because, even if it belonged to the people who did it, it's a waste of a serviceable vehicle.
What compounds the matter though, the car in question was STOLEN, meaning the owner now faces the bill for another vehicle and the problem of how to get to work without a car in the meantime.
Yes, I know, Insurance might cover the initial cost, but bear in mind it's actually a Loan ... what they (might) pay out now, YOU pay back later!! And I doubt that, even if caught, the car thieves would be required to pay for it.
I won't mourn the loss of a speed scamera, but if I were the owner I would probably miss my car ...
BG
Of course, the BiB will come to your house and ask you about it. You have two options:
1) Oh yes, that camera has pissed me off forever
2) WHAT? MY CAR WAS BURNED?? THEY DESTROYED A SPEED CAMERA WITH IT?? CRIMINALS!!!
Anyway, like I said, that volvo has 5 tyres so it could easely be used to take out 6 speed camera's. What a waste...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff