Arsonists destroy Speed camera.
Arsonists destroy Speed camera.
Author
Discussion

deltaf

Original Poster:

6,806 posts

284 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
Arsonists destroy speed camera

Police have condemned arsonists who put a speed camera on one of Northamptonshire's most hazardous roads out of action.
The device at Thorpe Waterville on the A605 was severely damaged.

Police said 29 people have been killed or seriously injured on the stretch between Thrapston and Oundle in the last three years.

A speed camera at Thrapston was destroyed by a bomb in February this year.

The blast sent shards of metal flying more than 50 feet.

Anyone with information is asked to call Northamptonshire Police


Another one bites the dust...Way hay!
NEXT!!!!!!!!

>>> Edited by deltaf on Tuesday 1st April 17:50

umar b

1,484 posts

298 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all

dontlift

9,396 posts

289 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all

umar b said:



Agreed

CarZee

13,382 posts

298 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
Splendid... marvellous

robp

5,823 posts

295 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
How did I guess as I clicked on the link that deltaf was the author!

Anyway, good news I say

rich 36

13,739 posts

297 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
Bye Bye...

paolow

3,262 posts

289 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
lol - excellent news, long may the trend continue.

mannginger

10,304 posts

288 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
At the risk of being alienated and burned. I would say that this camera might have served a purpose if it was on a dangerous road.

Until (like it's ever going to happen) legislation occurs to seriously improve driver awareness and training, cameras in certain accident blackspots have a role to play.

I am unable to comment further as I don't know the road or details on the camera, eg: grey/yellow, or hidden/obvious.

I, like most here, object to obvious revenue generators, but am more than happy for painted cameras to persuade drivers to slow down through a blackspot until (again probably won't happen) re-engineering can occur.

:InowdonmyflameproofunderwearandhopeIdon'tgetburnedtoobadly:

flasher

9,336 posts

315 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
Sorry Manginger but I know this Camera and it's on a long straight piece of road.

Burn baby burn!!!

CarZee

13,382 posts

298 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
noooooooooo.. see my comments in the other thread - every last one must come down or be destroyed.

They are a tool of opression and nothing more. Anyone to who says "well yes but some of them might save lives" - I say bollocks - you've been sucked in by the bubble-wrap spin department. You'll be thinking of the damned children next

joust

14,622 posts

290 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
See the other thread - but I have to agree that the "spin" that surrounds this one is amazing. All sorts of figures have been quoted on the radio today about the deaths on that piece of road - but it's not just flasher that has said that at the actual location its sited is nothing but a straight road.

To me, assuming this is the case, and that *particular* spot hasn't had accidents, then this sort of direct action I fully support. There is absolutly no reason a camera should be in any place that doesn't have a significant case of inappropiate speed leading to a satistically proven problem.

The thread I started about the A5 one is an interesting point - from the visual evidence you can see that the junction that it is situated just before is dangerous (the picture I took showed all of the cars on the A5 going over the junction having their brake lights on as there were cars waiting to join and cross over their flow). In that case, an appropiate change from 60 to 50mph seems sensible, and given that there was plenty of warnings I can only assume that a large number of people did not want to follow that 50 notice. Given that I might have had to be one of those people crossing over the traffic at dusk with low visibility, I would be glad for something ensuring that the traffic slowed down.

*But* - if that junction hadn't been there I would have no issues with what was done to it - as a 50 mph limit with enforcement for that streach of road without a major cross over junction would just be plain stupid.

CarZee - I'm a bit more moderate than you (and actually if I was one of the people turning right across that streaming A5 traffic I would be greatful for the traffic being regulated at 50mph if the sun was against my eyes, there was mist or similar - it gives you a 6 meter bigger gap to get across if you miss judged things) - but the principle that the majority (yes - majority) of cameras are there to extract revenue is one that is proven in my mind.

J

apache

39,731 posts

315 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
excellent

deltaf

Original Poster:

6,806 posts

284 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
In addition to Carzees comments, i would like to add: Stuff the children, theyre getting far too much attention.
There, i feel better already.

mannginger

10,304 posts

288 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
If the road is straight where the camera is situated - then I agree tear it down!

Oh - they did already!

CarZee

13,382 posts

298 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all

joust said: CarZee - I'm a bit more moderate than you
Not much of a boast, dear chap - it puts you to the left of Hitler but still to the right of Franco.

donatien

1,113 posts

289 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all

CarZee said:

joust said: CarZee - I'm a bit more moderate than you
Not much of a boast, dear chap - it puts you to the left of Hitler but still to the right of Franco.


Between those two? God, you might have ended up in a threesome with Eva Braun and Clara Petacci. Oh, hold on - the bikini wax issue is on another thread

Edited to say not that Clara Petacci was doing Franco was she. That was Mussolini

>> Edited by donatien on Tuesday 1st April 20:08

boosted ls1

21,200 posts

291 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all
Well I'd phone them but I just can't seem to find the tel no for Northampton police or come to think of it, the inclination either. I think paintballing would be a good game to play.

littlegearl

3,139 posts

288 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all

mannginger said: At the risk of being alienated and burned. I would say that this camera might have served a purpose if it was on a dangerous road.



nope! i also know this camera reasonably well, the road isn't dangerous... unfortuantly it doesn't stop numpties crashing!!!

its one of those roads where you can spend all day travelling at 90mph, but in doing so, all you see are flowers at the side of the road and it leaves you wondering "how did someone crash here...?"

robp

5,823 posts

295 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all

littlegearl said:


its one of those roads where you can spend all day travelling at 90mph, but in doing so, all you see are flowers at the side of the road and it leaves you wondering "how did someone crash here...?"




There a few roads like that in Notts. The ones that have a sign saying xx deaths on this road. Its a bit morbid when you drive past the same sign a few months later and the number has increased by a few digits.....

CarZee

13,382 posts

298 months

Tuesday 1st April 2003
quotequote all

littlegearl said: the road isn't dangerous... unfortuantly it doesn't stop numpties crashing!!!


Did you read that back before you posted it??