Leading story on BBC local news

[Dr T]

Last night's 10.30 Yorshire BBC bulletin kicked off with a declaration that mobile scameras are to be deployed much more around the region (a third more patrols). (Particularly on Kirkstall Road (for those in the region!)). Although the newsreader acknowledged the general decline in confidence with the things, the piece was backed up with only pro-camera interviews. Some guy from the partnership said that peoples' behaviour on roads with cameras (ie slow driving) has continued on other non-enforced roads (err, how does he know that?) and that these extra patrols would definitely increase revenue - erm, sorry, save lives.....
A nice little graphic described that there are 108 scameras in Yorkshire, and that these had prevented 200-odd serious injuries!!! Cracking data. Safespeed!!!

[KB_S1]

So they actually saw an accident being prevented by a camera over 200 times?
i thought the new 1mile range cameras could see a long way accurately but yorkshire must have cameras that can see into the future and alter events

[madbadger]

I saw this.

Very one sided "facts" telling us exactly how many lives has been saved (~208ish) and how 80% of people want more cameras!

Err - no they don't. I'd be surprised if it was as high as 8%. No mention of sources, or what questions were asked.

[dilbert]

What they saw was a whole pile of speeding motorists piling on the anchors, because of the camera.

The near accidents that they saw were vehicles behind the braking vehicle only just stopping in time!

Sadly the pratnership, arent aware that they're causing these near misses, the ones they're trying to prevent.

That's the trouble with dogooder lefties.

The way to see this is;

If you drive above the stated speed limit speed you have a choice that isn't yours. You can either pay, or have someone drive into you.

[LongQ]

dilbert said:

What they saw was a whole pile of speeding motorists piling on the anchors, because of the camera. The near accidents that they saw were vehicles behind the braking vehicle only just stopping in time!

And the BBC camera crew I would bet. Always good for a pile up - remember the John Stalker one (was it him?)and a few others.

However, what we see here is politics in motion.

"Lets stop putting up fixed cameras 'cos they are easy targets for vandals and local people get to know where they are. Then we can make a bif fuss about reducing the numbers of cash machines."

"In the meantime the mobile units are expanded and they can go anywhere at any time 'cos even if we apply 'rules' no one will be in a position to chweck if they are applied and anyway we have get out clauses to cover any silliy cockups through FOI quesitons."

Plod will be happy having a nice guaranteed source of overtime that is reasonably easy and we can point to the stats that show Joe Public just how many hours plad work! With J Public paying for it and then we can say we need more money because of all the overtime that plod have to do ..."

"If The Chancer can up his take to 40% or so Tony can afford to go to a few more exotic places on his family hols."

Strikes me there are a few people who seem to be causing problems in London who could be much better deployed.

[supermono]

According to this survey

www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL[phone]_1.pdf

only 19% want more cameras and 71% realise that cameras are for revenue. And that was almost two years ago.

So which survey are the scammers referring to? Perhaps the one that asks 100 motorists:

"Speed cameras save lives. Should more lives be saved on our roads?"

Errrr....

SM

[james_j]

Tell the left wing, emotion-led, control freaks (they're one or all of these things) what you think:

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

[v15ben]

To be fair to Look North, they always show utter anyway and their pro-camera attitude has been on display ever since they were first introduced!
I think it is time to show them what people really think, I just emailed the link above!

[MMC]

I spoke on Radio Leeds about this - against a chap from the Council side of the Partnership. His arguments were, in my view, pretty ineffectual. The usual "slow down to be safe" and "it's the law".

I made the point that driving is a little more complex than simply limit observation and that cameras had seen a massive fall in police numbers. Also made the point that vehicle activated signs are far more effective, but don't allow the building of an empire...