End of the fixed speed camera?

VVC-Geeza · 28th June 2011, 15:26

Are we seeing the demise of the fixed speed camera?

In my city at least 50% of them are now either bagged over (stating not in use) or have been removed completely.I read in my Sunday newspaper that the government have cut 39M from the road safety budget received by councils, which partially funds the cameras.

While i'm not completely against the use of cameras,i DO object to their indiscriminate use as a revinue raiser by greedy grabbing councils.Good riddance and about time too i say to ones sited as council cash machines,perhaps the remainder will now serve their TRUE intended purpose.Assuming that is, that the selection of those that remain will be made on a road safety basis... and NOT profitability!

wraymond · 28th June 2011, 15:44

As I recall, there had to be so many fatal or serious accidents at a particular point on the road for the camera to be justified. And for the figures to be maintained over a period of time. Somehow those conditions got forgotten, or ignored when the revenue started to get substantial. Sounds like 'mission creep'.

trikey · 28th June 2011, 16:02

Do not be fooled. Acpo bought all the speed cameras, non working, and non profitable - hence a knock down price!

Wait and see them all come back to life in the not so distant future, as a major revenue generator.

Acpo are not yet covered by the freedom of information act, imagine being caught by one of ther cameras and asking to see records..???

Suspicious, me.. Hell yeah!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rds-check.html

http://www.acpo.police.uk/FreedomofI...ationsFoI.aspx

ROBBIE G · 28th June 2011, 16:38

god help us all

trikey · 28th June 2011, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBBIE G

god help us all

Yep, pretty gloomy isn't it!

mamasboy · 28th June 2011, 19:02

I've never sped (well so my licence says

) but I dont agree with the fixed cameras. They prob do save a few lives, how many is open for debate, but I believe there are better ways to do that without a financial penelty for the motorist, i.e. better education for motorists. I was in converstaion with a middle aged man last week who took great pride in reaching 140mph on our roads. He couldnt see any issue with it

Targeted speed traps in sensitive areas such as schools are, I feel, ok - lets face it if you hit a child at speed its not just your licence that should be withdrawn, i'd vote to take away your oxygen habit as well......

COLVERT · 28th June 2011, 21:32

Why bother with the fixed ones when they are getting more and more mobile ones which, by their nature, are much more profitable.

The bags on top are to fool you and you think you are safe to, maybe, go a little faster. Then click and that stabbing pain in your wallet.

crashmarks · 28th June 2011, 22:39

You can mock them all you like but as their numbers have grown fatals and serious RTCs have fallen significantly year on year. Fixed cameras are cheaper to employ because once installed they can work 24/7 and are cheap to maintain as compared to mobile ones which are not. Each fatal costs the tax payer well over a million pounds to deal with when you add together ambulance, fire, police, coroners, criminal and civil court cost. Most fatals involve others who have serious injuries and the cost of putting those people back together is borne by the NHS which we all have to for. Of course non of that takes account of the personal mysery that befalls the friends and familys of the dead and injured. If you ever saw the look on a persons face when you tell them that their son or daughter has just been killed in a collision and you were the one telling them you might change your tune. Yep its true they can be money makers but there money and mysery savers too and there only only going to cost you money if you speed, its simple really dont speed and you wont have to pay.

VVC-Geeza · 29th June 2011, 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by crashmarks

as their numbers have grown fatals and serious RTCs have fallen significantly year on year.

That is simply not true,and the statistics dont support it.In fact they have been shown to increase the accident rate in some circumstances
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...asualties.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tatistics.html

I assume from your avatar that you may have had to be the bearer of bad news on occasions,something none of us would envy,however to blame speed for all fatals/serious accidents is just wrong.Yes it is a contributory factor on "some" occasions but so are BAD and careless driving.The fixed camera is a one trick pony,it wont catch a drunk,drugged,careless dangerous driver on the wrong side of the road doing 35mph in a 40.That is the job of traffic patrols which have been sacrificed in favour of blanketing the country with fixed cameras.

As i said in the OP i'm not against the use of cameras,just those that have so blatanty been sited to swell the local authority coffers.I agree with your figures on the cost to the taxpayer of a fatal.So it does beg the question,"If they are cost effective in preventing accidents why are they being decommisioned in such large numbers?"

Used in the correct locations for the purposes they were intended they help to regulate speed.

wraymond · 29th June 2011, 14:21

Contrary to the mantra 'speed kills', no it doesn't. That was a focus group's killer message that was a result of a group of business consultant idiots' effort, at great cost to the taxpayer by the way, to come up with a snappy logo. Most of the 'fatals', there's an insulting abbreviation if there ever was one, occur at speeds under 50mph. I know that's exceeding the limit in a 30 or 40, before that comes back at me. And what a disgraceful way to use vernacular brutal language, born of over-familiarity with the aftermath of these terrible events, it's almost worse than 'fatacs' as in police terminology. When will officialdom treat EVERYBODY with respect please.

Why are motorways the safest roads in the land? They carry the fastest by far of all our traffic and some of the most reckless drivers to boot. And drivers who passed their test on the same day! Yet they have a fraction of driver mile/smashes. No friend, and I do sympathise with your apparent experience of road traffic events, the majority of 'speeding' offences caught by cameras are a result of impatience with congested traffic conditions leading to reckless and dangerous driving by both experienced and inexperienced.

The problem is, the relevant problem has not been recognised. What on earth is the use of fining someone AFTER the event! If road safety is really the objective, the deterent is surely the means. A sixty quid fine does not deter anyone as the number of offenders with multiple points on their licence proves. On the other hand, and this may be considered Draconian by some, if someone breaks the limit a retest at their own expense would be suitable. If they speed twice, loss of licence for 1 year might just be the deterent that means something. That's not 'hanging 'n flogging'. That's society saying NO, we won't have it. Our loved ones are far too valuable to us to put up with your stupid aggression, we don't care how late you are. It's not clever, it's not macho, it's just plain stupid.

28th June 2011, 15:26	#1
VVC-Geeza This is my second home 2005 Connoisseur SE 1.8 Turbo,2004 45 1.8 Connoisseur and my beloved 1998 VVC Coupe. Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Derby. Posts: 8,803 Thanks: 2,022 Thanked 1,016 Times in 739 Posts	End of the fixed speed camera? Are we seeing the demise of the fixed speed camera? In my city at least 50% of them are now either bagged over (stating not in use) or have been removed completely.I read in my Sunday newspaper that the government have cut 39M from the road safety budget received by councils, which partially funds the cameras. While i'm not completely against the use of cameras,i DO object to their indiscriminate use as a revinue raiser by greedy grabbing councils.Good riddance and about time too i say to ones sited as council cash machines,perhaps the remainder will now serve their TRUE intended purpose.Assuming that is, that the selection of those that remain will be made on a road safety basis... and NOT profitability! __________________ Last edited by VVC-Geeza; 28th June 2011 at 15:30..

28th June 2011, 16:02	#3
trikey Premium Trader Rover 75 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Devon Posts: 33,810 Thanks: 8,837 Thanked 14,831 Times in 8,030 Posts	Do not be fooled. Acpo bought all the speed cameras, non working, and non profitable - hence a knock down price! Wait and see them all come back to life in the not so distant future, as a major revenue generator. Acpo are not yet covered by the freedom of information act, imagine being caught by one of ther cameras and asking to see records..??? Suspicious, me.. Hell yeah! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rds-check.html http://www.acpo.police.uk/FreedomofI...ationsFoI.aspx __________________ Lest we forget..

28th June 2011, 19:02	#6
mamasboy RS South East Ford fester... blah.... Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Hastings Posts: 2,900 Thanks: 29 Thanked 78 Times in 42 Posts	I've never sped (well so my licence says) but I dont agree with the fixed cameras. They prob do save a few lives, how many is open for debate, but I believe there are better ways to do that without a financial penelty for the motorist, i.e. better education for motorists. I was in converstaion with a middle aged man last week who took great pride in reaching 140mph on our roads. He couldnt see any issue with it Targeted speed traps in sensitive areas such as schools are, I feel, ok - lets face it if you hit a child at speed its not just your licence that should be withdrawn, i'd vote to take away your oxygen habit as well...... __________________ the name's Bernard but you can call me nursie......

29th June 2011, 14:21	#10
wraymond This is my second home 75 Auto 2.5 SE Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Westcliff on Sea Posts: 5,214 Thanks: 423 Thanked 1,680 Times in 1,014 Posts	Contrary to the mantra 'speed kills', no it doesn't. That was a focus group's killer message that was a result of a group of business consultant idiots' effort, at great cost to the taxpayer by the way, to come up with a snappy logo. Most of the 'fatals', there's an insulting abbreviation if there ever was one, occur at speeds under 50mph. I know that's exceeding the limit in a 30 or 40, before that comes back at me. And what a disgraceful way to use vernacular brutal language, born of over-familiarity with the aftermath of these terrible events, it's almost worse than 'fatacs' as in police terminology. When will officialdom treat EVERYBODY with respect please. Why are motorways the safest roads in the land? They carry the fastest by far of all our traffic and some of the most reckless drivers to boot. And drivers who passed their test on the same day! Yet they have a fraction of driver mile/smashes. No friend, and I do sympathise with your apparent experience of road traffic events, the majority of 'speeding' offences caught by cameras are a result of impatience with congested traffic conditions leading to reckless and dangerous driving by both experienced and inexperienced. The problem is, the relevant problem has not been recognised. What on earth is the use of fining someone AFTER the event! If road safety is really the objective, the deterent is surely the means. A sixty quid fine does not deter anyone as the number of offenders with multiple points on their licence proves. On the other hand, and this may be considered Draconian by some, if someone breaks the limit a retest at their own expense would be suitable. If they speed twice, loss of licence for 1 year might just be the deterent that means something. That's not 'hanging 'n flogging'. That's society saying NO, we won't have it. Our loved ones are far too valuable to us to put up with your stupid aggression, we don't care how late you are. It's not clever, it's not macho, it's just plain stupid. Last edited by wraymond; 29th June 2011 at 15:27..

28th June 2011, 15:44	#2
wraymond This is my second home 75 Auto 2.5 SE Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Westcliff on Sea Posts: 5,214 Thanks: 423 Thanked 1,680 Times in 1,014 Posts	As I recall, there had to be so many fatal or serious accidents at a particular point on the road for the camera to be justified. And for the figures to be maintained over a period of time. Somehow those conditions got forgotten, or ignored when the revenue started to get substantial. Sounds like 'mission creep'.

28th June 2011, 16:38	#4
ROBBIE G Posted a thing or two 75 saloon 1.8 classic Join Date: May 2011 Location: WOLVERHAMPTON Posts: 1,142 Thanks: 18 Thanked 106 Times in 77 Posts	god help us all

28th June 2011, 21:32	#7
COLVERT This is my second home R75 Saloon. Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: France/or Devon. Posts: 14,003 Thanks: 3,851 Thanked 2,167 Times in 1,816 Posts	Why bother with the fixed ones when they are getting more and more mobile ones which, by their nature, are much more profitable. The bags on top are to fool you and you think you are safe to, maybe, go a little faster. Then click and that stabbing pain in your wallet.

28th June 2011, 22:39	#8
crashmarks Loves to post Rover 75 Connoisseur SE Tourer Auto Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Wakefield Posts: 408 Thanks: 12 Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts	You can mock them all you like but as their numbers have grown fatals and serious RTCs have fallen significantly year on year. Fixed cameras are cheaper to employ because once installed they can work 24/7 and are cheap to maintain as compared to mobile ones which are not. Each fatal costs the tax payer well over a million pounds to deal with when you add together ambulance, fire, police, coroners, criminal and civil court cost. Most fatals involve others who have serious injuries and the cost of putting those people back together is borne by the NHS which we all have to for. Of course non of that takes account of the personal mysery that befalls the friends and familys of the dead and injured. If you ever saw the look on a persons face when you tell them that their son or daughter has just been killed in a collision and you were the one telling them you might change your tune. Yep its true they can be money makers but there money and mysery savers too and there only only going to cost you money if you speed, its simple really dont speed and you wont have to pay.