Hideous new scamera web site
Discussion
That is a HUGE q&a page! But they can't even answer their own questions 
Q25 The ABD claims that despite 4,300 cameras having been installed since 1991, the downward trend in fatal accidents has tailed off since 1994. This, they say, is a clear indication that the sole purpose behind more cameras is financial.
While there may be around 4,000 camera housings in place, the number of active cameras is far fewer. There are comparatively few working cameras due to the resource implications for the police and local authorities. That is why the netting off financing system is being made nationally available. We fully expect the downward trend in fatal and serious injury accidents to continue at a greater pace as better use is made of cameras.
Q25 The ABD claims that despite 4,300 cameras having been installed since 1991, the downward trend in fatal accidents has tailed off since 1994. This, they say, is a clear indication that the sole purpose behind more cameras is financial.
While there may be around 4,000 camera housings in place, the number of active cameras is far fewer. There are comparatively few working cameras due to the resource implications for the police and local authorities. That is why the netting off financing system is being made nationally available. We fully expect the downward trend in fatal and serious injury accidents to continue at a greater pace as better use is made of cameras.
Interesting!!!!
Q47 Is there a life expectancy of speed cameras ? Now the Human Rights Act is law in England, it will make it impossible for people to incriminate themselves when asked by police who was driving the speeding car ?
No, under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the keeper of a vehicle can be required to provide the police with information on who was driving it when certain road traffic offences are committed. It is an offence not to provide the police with such information unless the keeper can show that he/she did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have found out. These provisions are commonly used for offences detected by police speed cameras.
Q47 Is there a life expectancy of speed cameras ? Now the Human Rights Act is law in England, it will make it impossible for people to incriminate themselves when asked by police who was driving the speeding car ?
No, under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the keeper of a vehicle can be required to provide the police with information on who was driving it when certain road traffic offences are committed. It is an offence not to provide the police with such information unless the keeper can show that he/she did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have found out. These provisions are commonly used for offences detected by police speed cameras.
Q62:
'Speed is clearly a factor when the causes are shown as any of the following:
Sudden Braking,
Careless/ Reckless driving
Following too close
Behaviour - in a hurry
Loss of control of vehicle
Poor overtaking.
- Some valid points, perhaps, but exactly HOW ARE CAMERAS STOPPING PEOPLE DRIVING LIKE THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
FFS, I give up, I really do.
Mark
'Speed is clearly a factor when the causes are shown as any of the following:
Sudden Braking,
Careless/ Reckless driving
Following too close
Behaviour - in a hurry
Loss of control of vehicle
Poor overtaking.
- Some valid points, perhaps, but exactly HOW ARE CAMERAS STOPPING PEOPLE DRIVING LIKE THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
FFS, I give up, I really do.
Mark
Just been on her case, sent her this, lets see what she says:
Hi ive got some questions/comments that you might like to comment on, however, if you feel that youre not up to answering "hard ones", ill send a transcript of this to the press in your area and see what they make of your response or lack of.
Can you tell me how your "safety cameras" measure the safety of a particular situation?
You see, im not really sold on the idea that if i travel at or below the painted numbers on a sign, that it somehow makes me a safer driver.
For example, im driving along road A at 25mph, in my little nissan micra.
From the opposite direction (head on) comes another driver also doing 25mph, also in a little nissan micra.
A speed camera monitors road A at this point as its claimed to prevent accidents......more on this later.
A child runs out from between cars parked along the road.
The other driver has nowhere to go but attempts to steer around the child, failing to do so and hitting the child, who is flung down the road, while this same driver steers head on into me.
Speed of impact with me is some 50mph as the driver had no time to apply the brakes.
We are now dead.
Have you seen what a 50mph impact does to a car?
Nope, ill bet you have zero clue.
So, to recap. Child suffers severe internal injuries, and two drivers are dead.
What have we learned?
1) Both drivers were well under the "limit" for this road, and neither was DUI.
2) Both drivers are now deceased.
3) a child is in critical condition.
4) the road is closed for 7 hours.
5) The "safety camera" saw nothing. It prevented *nothing*. It FAILED to protect the "safety" of those who YOU say it does.
6) The "safety camera" partnership decides to put up another camera, totally missing the obvious point that both drivers WERNT speeding, but playing on public fears that the road is "dangerous".
In other words a PR stunt, at the expense of lives lost. An abhorrent disgrace.
You people are charged with NEGLECT of public safety due to your reliance on cameras that measure SPEED, NOT SAFETY.
They DONT contribute anything in the situation ive just described to you.
And yet, there we have 2 dead drivers and a critically injured child! Right in plain view of a supposed "safety camera".
How do you respond to that charge?
How do you explain the failure of the "safety camera" to preserve those people
You cannot even seem to make up your OWN minds about whether theyre A "safety" cameras or B "speed" cameras.
Which is it? A or B?
Hot tip: People appreciate being told the truth, they dont appreciate being taken for fools.
I have NO issues with red light cameras. I support them for prevention of red light jumpers, but will withdraw support if you greedy people convert them for speed duties.
To coin a phrase, i suggest you "Think" before you ignore this one.
Regards.
Hi ive got some questions/comments that you might like to comment on, however, if you feel that youre not up to answering "hard ones", ill send a transcript of this to the press in your area and see what they make of your response or lack of.
Can you tell me how your "safety cameras" measure the safety of a particular situation?
You see, im not really sold on the idea that if i travel at or below the painted numbers on a sign, that it somehow makes me a safer driver.
For example, im driving along road A at 25mph, in my little nissan micra.
From the opposite direction (head on) comes another driver also doing 25mph, also in a little nissan micra.
A speed camera monitors road A at this point as its claimed to prevent accidents......more on this later.
A child runs out from between cars parked along the road.
The other driver has nowhere to go but attempts to steer around the child, failing to do so and hitting the child, who is flung down the road, while this same driver steers head on into me.
Speed of impact with me is some 50mph as the driver had no time to apply the brakes.
We are now dead.
Have you seen what a 50mph impact does to a car?
Nope, ill bet you have zero clue.
So, to recap. Child suffers severe internal injuries, and two drivers are dead.
What have we learned?
1) Both drivers were well under the "limit" for this road, and neither was DUI.
2) Both drivers are now deceased.
3) a child is in critical condition.
4) the road is closed for 7 hours.
5) The "safety camera" saw nothing. It prevented *nothing*. It FAILED to protect the "safety" of those who YOU say it does.
6) The "safety camera" partnership decides to put up another camera, totally missing the obvious point that both drivers WERNT speeding, but playing on public fears that the road is "dangerous".
In other words a PR stunt, at the expense of lives lost. An abhorrent disgrace.
You people are charged with NEGLECT of public safety due to your reliance on cameras that measure SPEED, NOT SAFETY.
They DONT contribute anything in the situation ive just described to you.
And yet, there we have 2 dead drivers and a critically injured child! Right in plain view of a supposed "safety camera".
How do you respond to that charge?
How do you explain the failure of the "safety camera" to preserve those people
You cannot even seem to make up your OWN minds about whether theyre A "safety" cameras or B "speed" cameras.
Which is it? A or B?
Hot tip: People appreciate being told the truth, they dont appreciate being taken for fools.
I have NO issues with red light cameras. I support them for prevention of red light jumpers, but will withdraw support if you greedy people convert them for speed duties.
To coin a phrase, i suggest you "Think" before you ignore this one.
Regards.
dontlift said:Dontlift's new motto
Dont give up go here: www.saferroads.co.uk/
Are you getting pennys per click?
puggit said:
Dont give up go here: <a href="http://www.saferroads.co.uk/">www.saferroads.co.uk/</a>
Dontlift's new motto
Are you getting pennys per click?
Far from it I am expecting the bandwidth to cost me an arm and a leg but hopefully it will be worth it
markla said:Humm! Let's look at this list:
Q62:
'Speed is clearly a factor when the causes are shown as any of the following:
Sudden Braking,
Careless/ Reckless driving
Following too close
Behaviour - in a hurry
Loss of control of vehicle
Poor overtaking.
- Some valid points, perhaps, but exactly HOW ARE CAMERAS STOPPING PEOPLE DRIVING LIKE THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
FFS, I give up, I really do.
Mark
1) Sudden Braking - well, if speed was not involved there would be no need to brake. All braking is sudden, the issue is more whether it is 'appropriate' braking. Fierce (ie. stamping on the pedal) braking in the wrong circumstances is what is wrong.
2) Careless/ Reckless driving - apart from the obvious, it is perfectly possible to drive carelessly or recklessly without speeding. If I take my hands off the steering wheel and my eyes off the road at 10mph through a twisting side street, that's at least careless. If Instead I swerve from side to side in the face of oncoming traffic at 20 mph in a 40 limit, that's at least reckless.
3) Following too close - 'too close' is a term relative to the speed of the vehicles involved, the response time of the brake lights of the vehicle in front, and the efficiency of the braking system and reaction time of the driver of the vehicle behind.
4) Behaviour - in a hurry - well, if you're in a hurry no doubt you will travel at speed.
5) Loss of control of vehicle - again this is relative, to the road/weather conditions, the friction of the vehicle (tyres) and the ability of the driver. A metal tracked vehicle on an ice-covered road could travel faster than a normal car, without the driver losing control. Rally drivers can drive on snow covered roads faster than the great majority.
6) Poor overtaking - here speed is a clear factor ... but speed differential, not absolute. I could overtake at 20mph and be more dangerous and in more danger than overtaking at 70mph (or faster).
The trouble is, few people analyse such statements and so they pass into lore ... rather than being clearly labelled 'urban myth'!
Streaky
dontlift said:
dontlift said:
Dont give up go here: <a href="http://www.saferroads.co.uk/"><a href="http://www.saferroads.co.uk/">www.saferroads.co.uk/</a></a>
Dontlift's new motto
Are you getting pennys per click?
Far from it I am expecting the bandwidth to cost me an arm and a leg but hopefully it will be worth it
The hope is that when we get the site 'officially launched' (now aiming for start of next week due to work commitments) that some of the national papers etc will actively support the petition and run it in their pages/web site.
This should not only generate far greater response but also reduce the burden on both my mailing facilities and Patrick's bandwidth.
Don't really want Joe Public in on this until the 'official launch' to the media when we can hopefully launch with a bang.
I lose count of the amount of people I see daily with no road-sense, directional or spatial awareness and quite obviously no idea what on earth they are doing, but have the unshakable belief that they are safe because they aren't speeding. I swear its happening more and more.
All this sort of *ollocks just re-inforces that opinion. Blind faith in officialdom breeding gross negligence. Why do people no longer question what they are told?
Thats it, i'm off to hide in the shed until the revolution comes....
All this sort of *ollocks just re-inforces that opinion. Blind faith in officialdom breeding gross negligence. Why do people no longer question what they are told?
Thats it, i'm off to hide in the shed until the revolution comes....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff