Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[over50now]

Head over the parapet time.

Facts - not fiction.   I teach this every day. I'm one of the trainers on the National Speed Awareness Course. The following might help us understand why cameras have been sited. Still might not like them, but might be a bit more acceptable.

The Government have an on-going 10 year road safety programme. By the year 2010, their aim is a 40% reduction in road users (drivers, riders, pedestrians (you and me)) being killed or seriously injured. Refered as KSI. Also a 50% reduction in child KSI on our roads.  (Children - 15 years and under).

Prior to the year 2000, revenue collected from speed cameras went to the Government. Where it went from there ??

Since 2000, as part of the Government aim, Safety Camera Partnerships (SCP) were formed. Revenue from cameras still go to the Government, in actual fact, The Department of Constitional Affairs (DCA). The SCP then present a portfolio to the DCA and claim that revenue back to spend on reducing road casualties in that SCP operating area. If the SCP have got their act together, that money comes back.  Some SCP's are very good at getting it back and spend it on the three E's.    Education, Engineerng and the last option Enforcement.   Education is the first option.   Check out what your local authority is doing to reduce casualties by checking out their web sites. See if they are doing free driver training, or financially assisted /subsidied driver training (Paid for by the revenue collected from safety cameras)

Northants for example do free training for 16 year olds before they get their licence, free training for 17/18 to 24 year olds after they pass the very basic 'L' test and free motor cycle training (no age restriction).  Available for Northants residents. Courses are 1 day events at Silverstone / Rockingham.

The siting of cameras have strict criteria, as follows:-

Fixed/Static:-
Within 500 metres of the camera site, within a 3 year period there have been 8 personal injury crashes/collisions of which involved at least 4 KSI's   (Northants 3 KSI's - very proactive)
Mobile:-
Within 500 metres of the camera site, within a 3 year period there have been 4 personal injury crashes/collisions of which involved at least 2 KSI's   (Northants 1 KSI - very proactive)
There are occasions when Mobile cameras attend a location, this is normally as a result of a request of the local community or as a result speed issue/abuse collected data (Northants mobile can spend up to 15% of their operating time at these requested or abuse/issue sites).

Now having said all that, very basically, we wait until something happens in this country until we do something.  Yep, someone or a number of someone's have died or been maimed, before something is done.   This country is reactive.
Last thought, every time you see a bunch of flowers, bouquet of flowers, collection of flowers at the side of the road, what do you think has happened there?

Next time you see a safety camera, consider what has happened there, or very nearby for the reasons for that camera to be sited.

Up for discussion???
Appreciate that not all systems are perfect.

Hope the above helps you understand this emotive subject a bit more.

[tmx]

Hmm the one on aylestone hill hereford is deffinaly a money earner

No serious accidents there ever no ones been run over there ever!

it was put there to earn cash as its a 30 and the hill is very steep so hard to keep 30mph robbing basteds!

[over50now]

tmx

When was it sited - what year was it put there?

Go on the Police web site that covers that area, follow the links. It should, and I say should give you a break down of what has happened there for the camera to be sited.

I said in my post 'Safety Camera Partnerships' formed since 2000. Prior to that, leave it to your own imagination/interpretation :-/

[waspy]

The problem is, they depend too highly on cameras & NOT Traffic Officers. Long gone are the days when you could drive only a few miles & you'd see a Traffic Car. Traffic Cars & their Officers cost money, cameras don't cost half as much.
Personally i would love to see ALL cameras removed & an officer with a speed detection device in it's place instead.
When was the last time a camera caught a drunk/drugged driver. When was the last time one caught a criminal at large (Jack The Ripper for instance), a terrorist, the list is almost endless.
I for one hate the damned things & the fist one that gives me a ticket will accidently catch fire

No matter what any one says or does it will not change my mind, we got on quite well before they arrived.

[tmx]

been on my Safety Camera Partnership site and yes the camera is on there site but all it says is A465 Aylestone Hill Hereford 30mph nothing else!

it was sited just before labor banned the siting of the bloody things!

[over50now]

Hmm the one on aylestone hill hereford is deffinaly a money earner

No serious accidents there ever no ones been run over there ever!

it was put there to earn cash as its a 30 and the hill is very steep so hard to keep 30mph robbing basteds!

Just noticed and I've highlighted it.

Ask any advanced driver, there are some Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) and at least one other ROSPA Gold in OOF. what gear you should be in to help you manage and control the car to keep to 30.

Tip is 3rd gear (works for 5 speed and most 6 speed manual gear boxes)   Regarding Auto boxes.  Come out of 'D' (Drive) and put it in a lower gear.

Auto boxes, whilst in 'D' it's all ways looking for the higher gear, therefore looking to go faster.  

Hope this tip works for you.

Modern cars like 4th gear for 35+
Modern cars like 3rd gear for 30.

I've looked at the Owners manual for my Omega (it's a 1999 - 10 years old - recocmends 3rd gear for 30 - fuel efficiency.)

[sassanach]

are you for real? :-?

[Bumbazor]

There are several arguments to this but my favourite is that if you exceed the limit you deserve to be punished. This is completely separate to arguments such as why they are there, or that they are they to make money.

If you don't like them, don't exceed the limit and they won't cause you trouble.

They are depended upon highly because of the quantity of people speeding. This wouldn't be the case if people kept to the limit, or under.

I agree that cameras are used more to catch people than TOs but again, why would this affect you if you don't exceed the limit?

I would not have a problem at all if caught speeding, whether by a camera or otherwise as it's my own choice to exceed the limit and I should take the consequences.

I agree some cameras do make a lot of money but why is that? Well it's because so many drivers speed through them over the limit. The cameras don't force drivers to do that; it's their own choice and deserve what they get in return. If anyone has a problem with cameras making money then the drivers should reduce their speed accordingly.

If you would prefer to have all cameras replaced by officers, then if caught speeding by an officer would you then go back and set fire to that officer? Probably not. Why is it different then for an inanimate object? Your fine and points would still be the same whether caught by and officer or camera.

I can't understand your argument about cameras not catching drunk/drugged drivers, criminals at large, terrorists... etc. They are speed detection devices, not criminal detection devices.
It is quite easy to be drunk, drugged, at large, or a terrorist but not exceed the limit. Detecting these crimes requires human intervention and the officer's skill in detecting odd behaviour that a camera simply can not. Surely having cameras detecting speed free up officers to detect those criminals that cameras can not.

I'm quite sure you only hate the cameras because you are more likely to get caught and fined. Well that's your own fault for exceeding the limit.

[sassanach]

have a shufti at this
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=689159&mid=40987&nmt=The%20Great%20Speed%20Awareness%20Course%20Swindle
at least dick turpin had the decency to wear a mask and carry a gun.

[JamesV6CDX]

have a shufti at this
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=689159&mid=40987&nmt=The%20Great%20Speed%20Awareness%20Course%20Swindle
at least dick turpin had the decency to wear a mask and carry a gun.

Speak like you find, Sassanach  

[Andy B]

.......
Tip is 3rd gear (works for 5 speed and most 6 speed manual gear boxes)   Regarding Auto boxes.  Come out of 'D' (Drive) and put it in a lower gear.

Auto boxes, whilst in 'D' it's all ways looking for the higher gear, therefore looking to go faster.  

Hope this tip works for you.

Modern cars like 4th gear for 35+
Modern cars like 3rd gear for 30.

I've looked at the Owners manual for my Omega (it's a 1999 - 10 years old - recocmends 3rd gear for 30 - fuel efficiency.)

I'll try to refrain fom using a certain phrase, but condecending is one of the words!  
We have 4 in Bury. Two of them were certainly put up without the number of casualies/fatalities - either end of a dual carriageway at the same time as the 40 limit was reduced to 30 .... discuss!
Another camera was put up after just one fatality, the parents of the girl campaigned to get it errected ...... not trying to be cold hearted ( I would never ever want to be in their shoes0 but she was at paraletic & fault. The driver wasn't proscecuted as far as I remember.
The fourth is just before a waste of space bus lane which causes more problems than we ever had before the thing was put in, because the road isn't marked out with any kind of priority so the buses bully their way back in again!

[Omega man 2]

I do alot of driving across the country here and I know of only three speed cameras. None of which actually work.

And on most roads that are tolled over here, there is almost no chance of comming across a copper (I haven't come across any on a toll motorway) because they don't want to pay.  

So you're all welcome to come over and drive as fast as you like

[KillerWatt]

what gear you should be in to help you manage and control the car to keep to 30.

Dunno about you, but I find it more conducive to road safety to look at what's going on in front of me (which is forever changing by the way), rather than have to worry about whether I've momentarily hit 33mph which will earn me 3 points and a £60 fine....which arrives 2 weeks AFTER my so called example of dangerous driving.

As for cameras only being sited at accident blackspots, all I can say to that is 'dangle berries'.
A3 Tolworth.....nothing happens for years....cameras appear (and speed limit is artificially reduced at the same time)....god knows how many accidents since their arrival......yeah, that's road safety alright!

If you are really interested in road safety and saving lives, why don't you put a camera outside my son's school?
I'll tell you why, it's because you know full well you won't catch anybody because people slow down by default for that kind of scenario (and therefore, there is no money to be made).

[waspy]

There are several arguments to this but my favourite is that if you exceed the limit you deserve to be punished. This is completely separate to arguments such as why they are there, or that they are they to make money.

If you don't like them, don't exceed the limit and they won't cause you trouble.

They are depended upon highly because of the quantity of people speeding. This wouldn't be the case if people kept to the limit, or under.

I agree that cameras are used more to catch people than TOs but again, why would this affect you if you don't exceed the limit?

I would not have a problem at all if caught speeding, whether by a camera or otherwise as it's my own choice to exceed the limit and I should take the consequences.

I agree some cameras do make a lot of money but why is that? Well it's because so many drivers speed through them over the limit. The cameras don't force drivers to do that; it's their own choice and deserve what they get in return. If anyone has a problem with cameras making money then the drivers should reduce their speed accordingly.

If you would prefer to have all cameras replaced by officers, then if caught speeding by an officer would you then go back and set fire to that officer? Probably not. Why is it different then for an inanimate object? Your fine and points would still be the same whether caught by and officer or camera.

I can't understand your argument about cameras not catching drunk/drugged drivers, criminals at large, terrorists... etc. They are speed detection devices, not criminal detection devices.
It is quite easy to be drunk, drugged, at large, or a terrorist but not exceed the limit. Detecting these crimes requires human intervention and the officer's skill in detecting odd behaviour that a camera simply can not. Surely having cameras detecting speed free up officers to detect those criminals that cameras can not.

I'm quite sure you only hate the cameras because you are more likely to get caught and fined. Well that's your own fault for exceeding the limit.

I am a very carefull & considerate driver whom sticks to the limits 99% of the time. How ever, me being human off flesh & blood, i make mistakes. We all exceed the limit, be it on purpose or un-intentionally. The only time i ever exceed the limit intentionally is on the motorway. So long as the conditions are good then why not :-/
I prefer the old way of an officer & not some bloody machine, that i see as being there just for money. Cameras don't save lives, it's been proven year in year that they don't, but the authorities have their heads so far up their own backsides. All they see is money, lives do not matter any more. It's all about money.
A totally different subject & off topic, but the Irac war isn't about weapons of mass destruction, the freedom of the Irac people, it's about OIL. This is just a example.

We've saved £XXXXX's this year by not having more police officers & we've collected £XXXXXX's in fines.
Cameras also don't catch cocks that drive like idiots, yes you mister BMW driver that undertook three cars on the A38 last night, because you couldn't wait an extra few seconds. What he did was extremely dangerous.

[over50now]

Well some think I'm being condercending, some are asking 'am I for real'

That wasn't my intention. Devils advocate springs to my mind.

Reflection time for some of us.

Have we been caught by these cameras and feel p*&sed off.

Ask - why did I get caught.

Got a discussion going.  Got some of us thinking.
It might not be you who kills or maims someone.
"Sorry I ran over your relative, sorry I didn't stop in time"  "I was only doing 34, I knows it's a 30 but my car doesn't like doing 30".
or is it "I don't like doing 30"

Devils advocate.     Job done.