Speed Cameras To Be Switched Off Due To Spending Cuts.

[scottsmith]

For the record, they have already said that there is no chance of introducing road-pricing on existing roads, although more roads such as the M6Toll may be built in future.

 

Not that many people consider a politician's word to be his bond, but there's not a lot else they can do on the subject except to say "No, we are not going to do it."

 

I was saying they wouldn't more to the black box thing rather than the road pricing. Though I am glad that they have said they won't be putting that in place!

[Alex C.]

Speed cameras have their place in reducing accidents, however I'd ask you the following question.

 

Who is the most danger:-

 

The drunk driver, in an untaxed vehicle without an MOT; driving past a school @ 3PM in foggy weather at 29mph.

 

or.

 

A sober driver going past the same school @ 6AM, in a taxed, MOT'd vehicle; in clear weather @35mph?

 

 

As I understand it all revenue from fixed speed cameras now goes tocentral government, whilst the upkeep of these cameras is at the local authorities expense.

 

I can see a lot more councils switching them off in the future.

 

I don't understand your point...

 

The first driver will receive much harsher penalties if caught, and is clearly more of a danger.

 

The second will likely receive a small fine, if caught, and is less of a danger.

 

They can both be caught automatically, one via speed camera, one via ANPR camera.

 

What have I missed?

[HeadingNorth]

They can both be caught automatically, one via speed camera, one via ANPR camera.

 

 

The ANPR camera can't tell if he's drunk, can it? (Although it will surely pick up the lack of an MOT, and probably insurance.)

 

You still make a perfectly valid argument, though; and besides, that Crime B which is worse than Crime A might go unpunished, is no reason at all for not punishing Crime A.

[convert]

I don't understand your point...

 

The first driver will receive much harsher penalties if caught, and is clearly more of a danger.

 

The second will likely receive a small fine, if caught, and is less of a danger.

 

They can both be caught automatically, one via speed camera, one via ANPR camera.

 

What have I missed?

 

I agree that the first will recieve a harsher penatly IF caught, however ANPR isn't as prevalent as GATSO / Truvelo / SPECS systems; therefore there is less chance of the most dangerous offender being caught.

 

Not enough emphasis has been placed on intelligent policing, instead resources have been prioritised on speed cameras.

[Dogs Of War]

Im in favour of going back to the Police Patroling the streets and dealing with bad driving.

 

The main problem with speed cameras is they will fine a driver , who has been driving for 30 years , never had an accident or points on his licence , driving perfectly safely and competantly for doing 35 in a 30 zone , when he is in no danger of causing an accident , BUT the same camera will miss a lunatic who is driving dangerously , tail gating, overtaking on blind bends, cutting up other vehicles and is a serious accident waiting to happen , just because he slipped past the speed camera doing 29mph before speeding up after.

 

Now if we went back to the old system of police out patroling the roads , they would see these two drivers ,and stop and deal with the lunatic who an accident waiting to happen with his shocking driving.

 

The cameras dont do this - they just have a "one size fits all" way of operating.

 

once you take away human involvment ,and the option to be able to use common sense in situations ,you just end up with an automated system that just keeps racking up the money.

[HeadingNorth]

Im in favour of going back to the Police Patroling the streets and dealing with bad driving.

 

 

By definition, breaking the speed limit is bad driving.

 

Where the speed limit is inappropriately low, campaign for it to be changed as I do. You cannot use it as an excuse for breaking the law.

[HeadingNorth]

once you take away human involvment ,and the option to be able to use common sense in situations ,you just end up with an automated system that just keeps racking up the money.

 

 

How do you square this comment with your flatly-contradictory original post that they are being removed because they cost money?

[AJ sheffield]

By definition, breaking the speed limit is bad driving.

 

Where the speed limit is inappropriately low, campaign for it to be changed as I do. You cannot use it as an excuse for breaking the law.

 

I think you have an obsession with the law and not with speeding...very odd.

[Shipshape]

By definition, breaking the speed limit is bad driving.

Where the speed limit is inappropriately low, campaign for it to be changed as I do. You cannot use it as an excuse for breaking the law.

 

There you go again. If you are going along an empty motorway with no other car in sight and you do 71 MPH you are by his definition a bad driver. By my definition you are NOT a bad driver.

[AJ sheffield]

Im in favour of going back to the Police Patroling the streets and dealing with bad driving.

 

Traffic patrols have steadily declined alongside speed camera proliferation.