Tuesday 2nd November 2010

Oxford's Speed Cameras To Go Back On

Is the 'great speed camera switch-off' slowing down?

---

Oxfordshire's 72 axed fixed camera sites look set to be turned back on, a mere three months after they were turned off.

The news threatens to reverse the recent trend towards cutting, cancelling or reviewing 'scamera' programmes, which have come under scrutiny in the wake of dramatic cuts in government spending..

All 72 fixed camera sites and 89 mobile sites in Oxfordshire were mothballed in August after the county council withdrew £600k of funding to Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership as a result of cuts in central government funding.

But police are now said to be close to a deal with the county council that could bring the cameras back into force "We've been in discussion with our partners at Thames Valley police and we're close to an agreement to have the cameras switched back on in the future," said a council spokesman. "We look forward to being able to reveal the detail of that agreement in future weeks."

[BigI]

[Essex Exile]

I'll bet they'll look forward to it.
I had one of life's little victories against Thames Vally plod, last week. I got nicked for doing 38 in a 30 in Reading.
The alleged offence took place at 00.20 am. Sadly for Robocop, he forgot that the date had changed 20 minutes earlier!

[neal1980]

I thought it changed at 2:00 in the morning

[r11co]

Proof positive that the reason these cameras operate (or fail to operate) is purely financial.

The end of the hypothecation scheme killed off the self-funding element of the camera 'partnership' quangos. Looks like they've come up with another way....

[dapprman]

neal1980 said:

I thought it changed at 2:00 in the morning

It does, so the previous poster will still be facing 3 points and a fine unless he was stopped and plod fell for it.

[ellisd82]

[Blayney]

dapprman said:

neal1980 said:

I thought it changed at 2:00 in the morning

It does, so the previous poster will still be facing 3 points and a fine unless he was stopped and plod fell for it.

I thought he meant date, not the clocks going back. ie the copper wrote down 27/10/10 00:20 when he meant 28/10/10 00:20. Atleast, that's how I read it?

[Bonefish Blues]

So where's the study of accidents pre and post switch off which could be used as empirical evidence to determine their effect?

Seems like an ideal opportunity to me, assuming the motive of the TVSCP is indeed to reduce death & injury.

[DanBMW]

"We look forward to being able to reveal the detail of that agreement in future weeks.".... WAN**R

[joe_90]

Blayney said:

dapprman said:

neal1980 said:

I thought it changed at 2:00 in the morning

It does, so the previous poster will still be facing 3 points and a fine unless he was stopped and plod fell for it.

I thought he meant date, not the clocks going back. ie the copper wrote down 27/10/10 00:20 when he meant 28/10/10 00:20. Atleast, that's how I read it?

Thats what i thought.. so if he can prove he was else where at that date and time..

[BigI]

joe_90 said:

Blayney said:

dapprman said:

neal1980 said:

I thought it changed at 2:00 in the morning

It does, so the previous poster will still be facing 3 points and a fine unless he was stopped and plod fell for it.

I thought he meant date, not the clocks going back. ie the copper wrote down 27/10/10 00:20 when he meant 28/10/10 00:20. Atleast, that's how I read it?

Thats what i thought.. so if he can prove he was else where at that date and time..

Not sure he even needs to make much effort to prove it, happend to a friend of mine got caught doing 60 in a 40, but the wrong date was written down all he did was say he was at work on that day and they had to let it go.

[hilly10]

Its the cops who want them back on otherwise they would have to get out there themselves to slow us down,now that would never do

[madcyril]

on the A420 one or two have been played with fire lol lol

[Godzilla]

I am in two minds about this.

On one hand it is a reinforcement of the entirely false mantra that "speed kills", but on the other hand, anyone that gets done by a well sign posted, flourescent yellow box deserves it for not paying due care and attention and it reduced the preference towards mobile laser traps.

However, seeing as the obligation to make the cameras bright yellow has now passed, on balance I think this is bad news (that some counties might start switching them back on).

[ManOpener]

Godzilla said:

However, seeing as the obligation to make the cameras bright yellow has now passed, on balance I think this is bad news (that some counties might start switching them back on).

There was never an obligation to make them bright yellow. They just did as a way of thinly disguising the fact they're entirely money-making schemes. There are speed cameras out there that are grey.

[Accelebrate]

I live, work, drive and cycle in and around Oxford. I can honestly say that I haven't seen a single incident in the last three months which wouldn't have happened before the switch off. If anything I think people are generally driving slower, although I doubt that has anything to do with the switch off.

Although I do miss making disapproving gestures as I cycle past the van that used to wait at the bottom of Headington Hill of a morning, whilst well in excess of the legal limit.

[TimmmyT]

So we all need to make it as expensive as hell for them to get the money out of us. That way making the department too costly to run. People need to start playing the game. Ask for photo evidence; write letters arguing various points, drag things out for weeks, even months. Before it’s got as far as court you can cost them hundreds of pounds in man hours. The problem is too many of us roll over and pay up. These departments are going to be struggling to justify their existence more than ever. We need to make sure they're not a viable option. Imagine if every ticket they sent out got met with an endless list of requests and excuses. If you don't want to go to court and want to pay up, fully understandable, then at least get your monies worth and make them earn it. Small things you don't think of all add up to cost them a fortune. Stamps, paper, ink, envelopes, IT systems, electricity etc. etc. but most importantly peoples time and wages.
With enough crap flooding into their offices they are going to struggle to pursue every case and you'll have a good chance of it being dropped. As was the case with me. If we did all put the effort in and act more like the French maybe we'd get some results!

[[AJ]]

A bit short on funds for their Christmas party are they?

[ManOpener]

TimmmyT said:

So we all need to make it as expensive as hell for them to get the money out of us. That way making the department too costly to run. People need to start playing the game. Ask for photo evidence; write letters arguing various points, drag things out for weeks, even months. Before it’s got as far as court you can cost them hundreds of pounds in man hours. The problem is too many of us roll over and pay up. These departments are going to be struggling to justify their existence more than ever. We need to make sure they're not a viable option. Imagine if every ticket they sent out got met with an endless list of requests and excuses. If you don't want to go to court and want to pay up, fully understandable, then at least get your monies worth and make them earn it. Small things you don't think of all add up to cost them a fortune. Stamps, paper, ink, envelopes, IT systems, electricity etc. etc. but most importantly peoples time and wages.
With enough crap flooding into their offices they are going to struggle to pursue every case and you'll have a good chance of it being dropped. As was the case with me. If we did all put the effort in and act more like the French maybe we'd get some results!

Ahh but the flipside of that coin is that they then need to start making fines larger to pay for the demands

[Robb F]

no matter, no good roads round here have cameras on them, only the boring ones