RE : Now, 18 years, 6,000 cameras, and an estimated £100m in fines later, speed cameras could be nearing the end of the road - at least in England and Wales. The ultimatum comes after Downing Street announced it would be cutting the road safety budgets it gives to English and Welsh local authorities by 40%, as part of its wider efforts to reduce public spending.
I can't really vote on this. Correctly placed and monitored speed cameras can cut accidents. Badly and thoughtlessly placed cameras could well increase accidents. We would have to have access to an independent study into the effects pre and post camera installation to be able to answer accurately. What would cut accidents is better driving. Maybe we should be looking at the initial driver training and considering refresher training and regular eye and reaction tests.
This is a very interesting arguement and the figures make ones eyes open up.
Of course it is a better idea to have a deterrent outside of schools and shopping centres to slow traffic down. But I do not believe that overall they make a great deal of difference, other than to coin in the money. In Swindon I think it is where they have been turned off, there has been no increase in accidents....fact.
Which proves beyond any doubt that their only reason for being there in most cases is to con the motorist. Also where there are speed cameras they actually cause accidents with the sudden braking they cause. Certain places do need them but....the vast majority are there pure and simple to make money.
A bit like asking if silver top drivers really have a lower accident record.. They may not have had any or many accidents themselves but a sure as eggs will break if you drop them from the rooftops, they may well have caused quite a few in their time!
I have no idea if they do or don't. But all cameras inc mobile camera unit are being turned off in Oxfordshire, by the weekend, to save £600,000 per year according to the local news on telly tonight.
Quote by Sarah I have no idea if they do or don't. But all cameras inc mobile camera unit are being turned off in Oxfordshire, by the weekend, to save £600,000 per year according to the local news on telly tonight.
The reasons why councils are turning them off...
Councils used to pocket the money but now it goes into central Governments coffers, so no incentive with money being tight for councils to keep them going. Which proves a point that surely money over road safety should never be an issue, but it is and was always about the money, and for many the safety aspect was a mere side issue. If that was not true councils would keep them on and find the money, over saving peoples lives like they say they do.
So IF they stop people from speeding and IF they do save lives, then what is the view on the councils turning them off then if it is not about money? Surely it should be about saving lives? Down the A2 as an example there are 50mph speed limits. They were put in place purely because of the number of accidents at peak times. The cameras do not determine road conditions or the time of the day or night. At 2 in the morning it is very safe to do the national speed limit on a three way carriageway, but if you do over 55mph on that stretch of road at that time of night it will still flash you, and make normal law abiding people pay a 60 quid fine but more importantly three points on your license. Swindon is a classic example of them not working, but the councils would never have admitted that when they were raking in the all of a sudden the councils no longer get any money so do not want to fund them anymore, even though apparently they save lives....money over lives. I now know where the councils loyalties lie.
Quote by kentswingers777 So IF they stop people from speeding and IF they do save lives, then what is the view on the councils turning them off then if it is not about money? Surely it should be about saving lives? Down the A2 as an example there are 50mph speed limits. They were put in place purely because of the number of accidents at peak times. The cameras do not determine road conditions or the time of the day or night. At 2 in the morning it is very safe to do the national speed limit on a three way carriageway, but if you do over 55mph on that stretch of road at that time of night it will still flash you, and make normal law abiding people pay a 60 quid fine but more importantly three points on your license. Swindon is a classic example of them not working, but the councils would never have admitted that when they were raking in the all of a sudden the councils no longer get any money so do not want to fund them anymore, even though apparently they save lives....money over lives. I now know where the councils loyalties lie.
Quote by Kaznkev So IF they stop people from speeding and IF they do save lives, then what is the view on the councils turning them off then if it is not about money? Surely it should be about saving lives? Down the A2 as an example there are 50mph speed limits. They were put in place purely because of the number of accidents at peak times. The cameras do not determine road conditions or the time of the day or night. At 2 in the morning it is very safe to do the national speed limit on a three way carriageway, but if you do over 55mph on that stretch of road at that time of night it will still flash you, and make normal law abiding people pay a 60 quid fine but more importantly three points on your license. Swindon is a classic example of them not working, but the councils would never have admitted that when they were raking in the all of a sudden the councils no longer get any money so do not want to fund them anymore, even though apparently they save lives....money over lives. I now know where the councils loyalties lie.
You Don't see the contradiction there ?? No he laws he likes are good others are bad.The fact that a child killed at 30 would be alive at 20 is irrelevant. I blame the parents.. at 2am they should be tucked up in bed...
Quote by Kaznkev No he laws he likes are good others are fact that a child killed at 30 would be alive at 20 is irrelevant.
Why do you not do the obvious thing when you jump to your friends conclusions all the time, and actually bother to read what I have written?????? I said " Of course it is a better idea to have a deterrent outside of schools and shopping centres to slow traffic down ". I know your not very good at backing up your claims but, can you show me where I have said about children being alive at 20mph if it was lowered from 30mph is irrelevant??? Also yes I know the lower the speed the more chance of not being killed, but if a child was hit at 20mph they could still possibly die, so your above comment once again holds no evidence, as it insinuates a child would definatly live at 20mph....no they would not. I am fully aware my dear that speed limits outside of schools should be lower than they currently are, but I do not make the decisions on that one I am afraid. For what it is worth, though God knows why I bother, limits outside of schools should be be any clearer than that. I was ( if you had bothered to read ) only said about the speed limits on a 3 lane major carriageway were too low at 2 in the morning.... I in case you had not noticed do not make the speed limit rules, I can only use my opinion on whether I think they are too low.
I dont understand why we cant have variable speed limits as outside schools in Scotland. Its easy enough to understand and works very well in my opinion. When lights flash the speed limit is lowered to 20mph but there's no point in having it at 20 the rest of the time. It would work just as well at peak times on any road. And speed cameras are supposed to be placed where there have been so many accidents in the past but the accidents are rarely attributed to speed. They're placed where they can make the most money NOT where they can prevent the most accidents. With the proposals to lower the natitonal speed limit on rural roads from 60mph to 50mph they'll make even more profit.
Quote by kentswingers777 The reasons why councils are turning them off...
Councils used to pocket the money but now it goes into central Governments coffers, so no incentive with money being tight for councils to keep them going.
That's not strictly true Kent. Councils have only ever been allowed to claw back that part of the fines raised that covers their specific, accounted for maintenance / enforcement costs, and only their specific, accounted for maintenance / enforcement costs, in a process called netting-off. All surplus revenues, even prior to the 2007 rule change went straight into central government coffers.
The commonly held misconception that fines generated by speed cameras were ever much in the way of a revenue raiser for local councils is quite simply wrong. N x x x ;)
I hate the bloody things...but fact is they work. The reason I dislike them..is because they work....I slow down and check my speed when they are around. Job done in reality. The ones I really hate are the vans....they are always parked where you can't see them, hidden away round a bend or something. This doesn't make you slow down until its to late. As they are not there permantantly they don't work as a deterant.
Our local police force are currently using an old dirty removal truck with a small hole in the tail lift for the camera to poke through. Its unmarked. Its almost invisible. Its sole purpose is to catch speeders. Its no deterant whatsoever. Putting a marked vehicle out would absolutly deter speeders. Hiding a camera in a mucky van on long clear straight roads is not the way to prevent speeding, it can only cash in on it.
What self righteous nonsense. I presume you drive? Or your other half drives? Your seriously telling us that you have never ever broken the speed limit? Or you have never broken any laws? As someone said in another thread....you really are whiter than white.
It was once said that no punishment will deter an act, if there is no possibility of detection. The camera raise that possibility, some need that deterrent.
Quote by vampanya Our local police force are currently using an old dirty removal truck with a small hole in the tail lift for the camera to poke through. Its unmarked. Its almost invisible. Its sole purpose is to catch speeders. Its no deterant whatsoever. Putting a marked vehicle out would absolutly deter speeders. Hiding a camera in a mucky van on long clear straight roads is not the way to prevent speeding, it can only cash in on it.
Quote by Kaznkev i clearly cant argue with those who wish to break the law and not be punished. Complaining about a reduction of 10 miles an hour suggests to me the poster thinks speed limits are a bad idea. i shall leave this thread to those of you who believe the selfish gratification of desires is the only goal of humanity.
Wrong! Wrong Wrong. It suggests to me that I think that a speed limit reduction is a bad idea. Nothing more. And for the record I have never had any speeding convictions whatsoever.
Quote by Kaznkev Hilarious. "Reported Child casualties fell by 8 per cent. The number of children killed or seriously injured in 2008 was 2,807 (down 9 per cent on 2007). Of those, 1,784 were pedestrians, 6 per cent down on 2007. 124 children died on the roads, 2 per cent higher than in the previous year, when the lowest ever child fatality figure of 121 was recorded." show that at their funerals.
Where's the relation to speed in these accident stats? Is there any? Where the children concerned here pedestrians or passengers? Would cameras at any of the locations prevented their accidents? What relevance does this report have to speed cameras? None that I can see.
Quote by Kaznkev i clearly cant argue with those who wish to break the law and not be punished. Complaining about a reduction of 10 miles an hour suggests to me the poster thinks speed limits are a bad idea. i shall leave this thread to those of you who believe the selfish gratification of desires is the only goal of humanity.
You might think that Kazzie but I don't see that as having been said. What I think is being said is that the means of enforcement is somewhat corrupt. Near where I used to live in UK, there was a 30mph speed limit outside one of the Primary Schools. Quite regularly, and with proper Police supervision, the kids - armed with their own design of leaflet about driving behaviour in the vicinity of the school, would talk to motorists pulled over by the Police and hand them one of the leaflets. If the driver was in any way obtuse, the Officer would pull out his notebook and pen! but for those willing to listen to the kids' plea to abate their speed they would be allowed on their way, ticket free. Interestingly, the last I heard, driver behaviour in the area had improved! There are alternatives to cameras but there is no alternative to a properly applied speed limit. The more complex the system, the more likely it will be ignored.
I dont speed, I dont complain about being caught and fined bacause I haven't been. I complain aobut speed cameras because they dont work. There has been NO significant reduction in accident rates anywhere since the introduction of cameras. Fixed cameras are cash cows nothing more. If they wern't there would be more outside schools and less on long straight roads. People slow down past them then continue as normal. So yes - they might work on that 100yd section of road but not overall. What works best to prevent speeding is high profile policing. The covert tactics employed by using an unmarked truck do little to prevent speeding. It just adds wieght to the arguement that its about revenue rather than prevention.
Quote by vampanya snip... What works best to prevent speeding is high profile policing. The covert tactics employed by using an unmarked truck do little to prevent speeding. It just adds wieght to the arguement that its about revenue rather than prevention.
and given the size of the hole as mentioned earlier, the coppers up your way have small dicks
Swinging Heaven features sexually explicit material. To access this site you must be of the legal age to engage with the material of an adult site.
By entering Swinging Heaven you agree to the following;
I am deemed an adult where I live, and I am at least 18 years old
I am allowed to access & view sexually explicit material
0 likes
