RE: Speed camera expansion stops (nearly)
Wednesday 13th July 2005
Expansion plans slow drasticallyFigures released yesterday by the Department for Transport (DfT), show that the growth of UK speed cameras was strongly curtailed in 2004.
Speed camera expansion stops (nearly)
Revenue raisers' growth halted -- has the Government seen sense?
Expansion plans slow drastically
While the number of fixed and mobile sites between 2002 and 2003 grew by 33 per cent, the growth was under one per cent for 2003 to 2004. Clearly the DfT has put the brakes on speed camera expansion. Road deaths fell last year from 3,508 to 3,221 -- the first decent reduction since 1998.
Safe Speed's Paul Smith said: "Now we know the true reason why road deaths fell last year. The Government got cold feet with their dangerous speed camera programme, put on the brakes and saved some lives. Speed cameras are a dangerous distraction to drivers, Police and local authorities alike. In almost every case there's something else that's more important to road safety than strict speed limit compliance."
"Clearly someone in Government saw sense 18 months ago, but I am intensely angry that they have not had the honour and the courage required to admit their deadly mistake. Speed cameras must all be scrapped and those responsible must resign. They have blood on their hands."
Discussion
"Clearly someone in Government saw sense 18 months ago, but I am intensely angry that they have not had the honour and the courage required to admit their deadly mistake. Speed cameras must all be scrapped and those responsible must resign. They have blood on their hands."
Well said paul!! Good work fella!!!
Well said paul!! Good work fella!!!
safespeed said:
It's good news, but to claim it accounts for the recent drop in casualties seems to be pure speculation which plays into the hands of the pro-scamera lobby.
Wait and see the data I'm working on. Amazing, amazing stuff.
Ooh, ooh, show us, show us!!
(Then explain what it means....
)safespeed said:
safespeed said:
Wait and see the data I'm working on. Amazing, amazing stuff.
Ooh, ooh, show us, show us!!
As soon as poss. I promise.
Excellent! Then they can go swing from their cameras...
Looking forward to it! PS. Can you forward the data onto the Australian government to stop their reliance on cameras which aren't even noticeable.
You spend more time worrying about your speed than the road and other road users.
"Speed cameras must all be scrapped "
..I disagree with scameras, and have a Snooper S3. I am strongly in favour of them outside schools though, - anything for that matter that slows down the usual (mostly) vans and lorries hurtling past without any thought whatsoever for our childrens safety.
..I disagree with scameras, and have a Snooper S3. I am strongly in favour of them outside schools though, - anything for that matter that slows down the usual (mostly) vans and lorries hurtling past without any thought whatsoever for our childrens safety.
martinbown said:
"Speed cameras must all be scrapped "
..I disagree with scameras, and have a Snooper S3. I am strongly in favour of them outside schools though, - anything for that matter that slows down the usual (mostly) vans and lorries hurtling past without any thought whatsoever for our childrens safety.
Why do Dorset camera partnership only carry out traps past schools on evenings and weekends and not when children are actually going to and from school? Perhaps it is because that congestion due to the school run that traffic is moving at snails pace.
martinbown said:
"Speed cameras must all be scrapped "
..I disagree with scameras, and have a Snooper S3. I am strongly in favour of them outside schools though, - anything for that matter that slows down the usual (mostly) vans and lorries hurtling past without any thought whatsoever for our childrens safety.
Have a look at this: www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html
If it's right, and I can't see how it can be wrong, then outside a school is the LAST place to put a speed camera.
Anyway, TRL says vehicle activated signs are three times more effective at reducing vehicle speeds in areas of special danger. If flashing signs are far cheaper and far more effective, which would you choose?
jezzaaa said:
Hi chaps - they may have slowed up considerably on fixed camera sites.....but I'll bet that's because they're buying mobile units like mad. Mobile ones are infinitely worse.
We've got (DfT published) numbers for mobile sites and fixed sites. Zero increase in 2004.
They might have made more use of the sites - that we don't know. But I think it's critically important that the brakes came on and sites were not expanded.
safespeed said:
We've got (DfT published) numbers for mobile sites and fixed sites. Zero increase in 2004.
They might have made more use of the sites - that we don't know. But I think it's critically important that the brakes came on and sites were not expanded.
In 2005 in Kent I know of 3 new fixed cameras, and not one that has been removed
rodney59 said:
We've got (DfT published) numbers for mobile sites and fixed sites. Zero increase in 2004.
They might have made more use of the sites - that we don't know. But I think it's critically important that the brakes came on and sites were not expanded.
In 2005 in Kent I know of 3 new fixed cameras, and not one that has been removed
There are a few odd cases like that, but DfT figures show a 33.5% increase from 2002 to 2003 and only a 0.9% increase from 2003 to 2004.
Interestingly, Kent and Medway added 9 fixed urban speed cameras in 2004 - and those amounted to around a quarter of the 40 sites added nationally.
safespeed said:
martinbown said:
"Speed cameras must all be scrapped "
..I disagree with scameras, and have a Snooper S3. I am strongly in favour of them outside schools though, - anything for that matter that slows down the usual (mostly) vans and lorries hurtling past without any thought whatsoever for our childrens safety.
Have a look at this: <a href="www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html">www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html</a>
If it's right, and I can't see how it can be wrong, then outside a school is the LAST place to put a speed camera.
Anyway, TRL says vehicle activated signs are three times more effective at reducing vehicle speeds in areas of special danger. If flashing signs are far cheaper and far more effective, which would you choose?
At first I thought Paul was going a bit loopy saying that, but after some consideration I can’t really fault him.
So how about a compromise: speed cameras and speed activated signs, the former set at 30, the latter at 20. No excuse!
I would go even further than that and substitute fixed cameras with regular and completely hidden mobile laser/video enforcement. Not only do you get reasonable speed enforcement, idiot drivers within the limit can be pulled up and educated (or banned). Also, Bully Billy and Paedophile Pete may think twice if they knew their actions were being monitored and recorded by undercover operators. The safer roads would encourage parents to let their children walk to school; therefore getting some of the numpties off the road, reducing congestion and pollution and also resulting with less obese kids.
Everyone’s a winner!
But I guess this doesn’t make as much money as scamming motorway drivers
>> Edited by smeggy on Friday 15th July 08:49
smeggy said:
martinbown said:
"Speed cameras must all be scrapped "
..I disagree with scameras, and have a Snooper S3. I am strongly in favour of them outside schools though, - anything for that matter that slows down the usual (mostly) vans and lorries hurtling past without any thought whatsoever for our childrens safety.
Have a look at this: <a href="www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html"><a href="www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html">www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html</a></a>
If it's right, and I can't see how it can be wrong, then outside a school is the LAST place to put a speed camera.
Anyway, TRL says vehicle activated signs are three times more effective at reducing vehicle speeds in areas of special danger. If flashing signs are far cheaper and far more effective, which would you choose?
At first I thought Paul was going a bit loopy saying that, but after some consideration I can’t really fault him.
So how about a compromise: speed cameras and speed activated signs, the former set at 30, the latter at 20. No excuse!
I would go even further than that and substitute fixed cameras with regular and completely hidden mobile laser/video enforcement. Not only do you get reasonable speed enforcement, idiot drivers within the limit can be pulled up and educated (or banned). Also, Bully Billy and Paedophile Pete may think twice if they knew their actions were being monitored and recorded by undercover operators. The safer roads would encourage parents to let their children walk to school; therefore getting some of the numpties off the road, reducing congestion and pollution and also resulting with less obese kids.
Everyone’s a winner!
But I guess this doesn’t make as much money as scamming motorway drivers
>> Edited by smeggy on Friday 15th July 08:49
Do you read the Guardian by any chance?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff