Speed Camera's - Cash Cows.

[Justin Smith]

Seems that the twaddle foisted upon us that "Speed Cameras" are there to stop accidents has been proved wrong now. Seems like a study on them has come up with a different reason - as many of us thought from their onset - most are just simple "revenue collectors".

 

What makes this story credible is that it was carried out by the DOT, aye the Department of Transport, a Government body.

 

So there you have it, we are been fleeced again it would seem.

 

http://www.walletpop.co.uk/2011/08/24/speed-cameras-revealed-as-dangerous-money-spinners/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk-bb%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk3%7C75327

 

Regards

 

Angel.

 

The argument that speed cameras are "revenue raising devices" is totally illogical.

You stick to the law, you don`t pay anything.

You break the law you pay a fine.

Anyone who finds that hard to follow is cranially challenged.

You might just as well say that any fines, like for theft for instance, are "revenue raising devices".

It just depends where you draw the line.

The fact is that people who object to speed cameras just want to speed, or, alternatively, they don`t consider speeding is breaking the law, which is arrogant in the extreme, as well as being dangerous.

 

I want more speed cameras, and hidden movable ones, not just these fixed ones which are painted yellow and marked on most maps these days, they`re a waste of time.

Better still, we`ve got the GPS technology these days to make it impossible to speed, then you wouldn`t have to worry about paying any fines at all, and be safer on the roads, that`d be far better.

[Xt500]

The argument that speed cameras are "revenue raising devices" is totally illogical.

You stick to the law, you don`t pay anything.

You break the law you pay a fine.

Anyone who finds that hard to follow is cranially challenged.

You might just as well say that any fines, like for theft for instance, are "revenue raising devices".

It just depends where you draw the line.

The fact is that people who object to speed cameras just want to speed, or, alternatively, they don`t consider speeding is breaking the law, which is arrogant in the extreme, as well as being dangerous.

 

I want more speed cameras, and hidden movable ones, not just these fixed ones which are painted yellow and marked on most maps these days, they`re a waste of time.

Better still, we`ve got the GPS technology these days to make it impossible to speed, then you wouldn`t have to worry about paying any fines at all, and be safer on the roads, that`d be far better.

 

I wonder if you will still want them in a few years when the roads are at a stand still and everything costs a fortune because we cant move things around.

The fact is which some are missing (while calling others idiots) is that the capable drivers among us dont actually need signs every 20 yards to tell us what or what not to do to be able to drive safely,some of us can actually do it using skill and common sense and do it by default.

Its obvoius as always on these threads which ones mums still tie their shoe laces and whilst personnally i dont see the need for speed cameras and signs littered everywhere telling drivers what to do,the slower incable drivers are obvoiusly in great need of them and the rest of us must suffer the control.

Speed isnt dangerous or more likely to cause accidents its idiots that do that most accidents are caused by drivers WITHIN the speed limits.

[willman]

You "don't believe ANYONE is a good driver all the time" because you have no idea how to drive. Your statement makes that clear but you're probably not clever enough to work out why.

 

Motorways are designed for higher speeds so that's the argument of the daft.

 

My accident was a nothing job because I chose to obey the law and took the trouble to learn how to drive. Your (if your telling the truth) lack of accidents is down to pure luck but...

 

 

 

You don't claim never to have his anyone, just not at any speed. Details sound like they're in order.

 

Of course i didn't realise how significantly superior you are.

You didn't kill someone because you are intelligent, i've never hit anyone and i'm lucky.

okay.

 

As you feel its prerequisite of your to name call and insult i'll leave you to play by yourself.

[willman]

The fact is that people who object to speed cameras just want to speed, or, alternatively, they don`t consider speeding is breaking the law, which is arrogant in the extreme, as well as being dangerous.

 

.

 

That isn't the argument (from me) my point is any idiot can fail to indicate,drive drugged, park in hazard boxes all of which infringe the Highway Code and get away scott free. Dangerous driving is against the law as well - surprising how people only select speed as being dangerous enough to warrant cameras.

I don't object to speed cameras at all - i think more driving misbehaviour should be prosecuted just to level the playing field.

[DT Ralge]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

People will read what they want into figures, studies and reports.*

But I prefer to go with what I observe, what I know and try to be open minded to the "facts".

Mentioned in the review is the Banner Cross camera that points down Eccy Rd South towards town, just below Ringinglow Road. Despite it being local to me I haven't been sat by it 24/7 so I was interested in its particular stats:

1 serious crash in 8 years before its installation, 6 in the 13 years after.

Its location doesn't therefore meet the stated criteria of 4 KSI's within a kilometre in a 3-year period. So they've allowed themselves some latitude there, then, but it was the case that locals could always express their concerns about the need for a camera and it would be investigated. What has not been reported in the Star is how many PIC (personal injury collisions) were recorded prior to (or after) installation. Maybe there were enough to confirm the locals' fears of worse to come if nothing was done (somewhat prophetically, it could

be said).

There's also the matter of what constitutes a serious crash. This is defined quite specifically as any injury that requires an overnight stop in hospital, broken bones, non-friction burns and, no doubt, a few other categories of injury. But its being recorded as "serious" is open to the interpretation of the attending PC on his Stats19 form AND on his/her following the incident through to A&E, triage ... Over the 20+ years that we are talking about around the Eccy Rd camera, have we not become more keen to ensure that all bases (backsides) are covered with visits to hospitals, check-ups after a crash and are we not more litigious and aware of potential pay-outs? Are PC's more or less likely to fill in the Stats19 at the crash site or at leisure later on at thehospital? I don't know but there is massive scope for very different emphasis and form filling-in over the period. So I'm not so sure a direct comparison over 20 years can be made without fear of comparing apples with pears.

Then there's the "within a kilometre" of the site. I'd have to pace 500m either side of the camera to fully explore the extent of this camera site. Would it, for instance, capture the incident of the upturned car on Psalter Lane, or the vehicle that once took out the traffic light at the junction with Psalter Lane?

Then there's the fact that the camera only points one way and does nothing to deter miscreants racing out of town (there's plenty of them, believe me) AND there's no recognition in the stats as to which direction any of the unfortunates were travelling in.

 

But stepping back from where the camera is, how effective it is or isn't what I WOULD hope to see in drivers' behaviour on this road is improved hazard perception, more effective observations and anticipation skills. In the direction of the camera, drivers come out of a 40 limit above Knowle Lane, the 30 road sweeps right and left past an awful junction (Millhouses), a library, parked cars, shops, bus stop, now you see the traffic lights (and stationary traffic) now you don't, through the lights (drivers swapping lanes twice perhaps), another awful junction at Ringinglow (why do drivers try to turn right here?), a pelican crossing and, before the bus-stop, the camera. My view is that if you miss the change in limit, ignore all the actual and potential hazards associated with the list above AND the camera and still get pinged at 35+ you probably deserve to go on a course that focuses on speed, hazard awareness and laws of physics (if something goes wrong from a starting speed of 35 the outcome is massively worse than if the starting speed before braking had been 30).

Close to the camera itself there are two difficult junctions to turn into and emerge from: Ringinglow and Gisborne. Both are blighted with poor vision on emerging and significant risks of being clipped by unobservant drivers when waiting to turn. The worst is for drivers turning right into Gisborne faced with two lanes of accelerating traffic from Banner Cross/Psalter Lane. More than a few crashes have taken place from this direction and they remain absolutely uncontrolled by the camera's existence.

That the camera has failed to reduce the figures is no big surprise to me, therefore. That the camera may mitigate the severity of the outcomes of some of the crashes is a reasonable assumption if it manages to curtail the speed of some drivers in the road(s) adjacent to the camera.

The "scamera notion", by contrast, that is spouted on here all-too-regularly makes it more likely that drivers will pay attention to where cameras are but fail to see hazards where they are or could be.

So cameras prove themselves only to be a small part of any resolution to a problem and may even worsen the overall situation.

For me, they could take the cameras away and it would not affect my driving one little bit. It is a sad reality that other drivers could and would not make the same claim since their M.O. Is to drive reactively rather than proactively with very shallow observation, suspect and less than comprehensive hazard perception and limited anticipation skills. Instead, they blame "momentary" lapses for being snapped on Eccy Rd South - these lapses have lasted for at least 12 seconds/250 metres, not particularly impressive or clever.

[Cyclone]

The fact is that people who object to speed cameras just want to speed, or, alternatively, they don`t consider speeding is breaking the law, which is arrogant in the extreme, as well as being dangerous.

 

 

Or they object to being lied to by the government that the purposes of the cameras are safety...

[DT Ralge]

Or they object to being lied to by the government that the purposes of the cameras are safety...

 

And in doing so they might just be believing what the "man in the pub" told them and refuse to allow a grain of truth to be seen through a pile of half-truths and misinformation. I am not four-square behind the use of cameras - I'd prefer flesh-and-blood PC's making live judgments on drivers' actions and having an immediate discreet word with the driver. But continuing to propagate/peddle blanket anti-camera sentiments does nothing by way of encouraging drivers to develop their hazard perception and lets them off the hook somewhat - their driving skills ought to be at a standard where they recognise a change in limit along with every other warning sign, road paint and surfacing so I have never suggested that driving by numbers is safe. But missing, ignoring changes in limits and getting snapped by a camera could be indicative of a standard of driver attitude, awareness and focus that falls way short of a reasonable minimum. Your constant banging on along the "scamera" route does nothing to encourage the drivers to consider that their "momentary AWOL-ness suggests, as a trigger-event, that they ought to develop their driving skills a little/a lot i.e. my main focus.

[alchresearch]

Or they object to being lied to by the government that the purposes of the cameras are safety...

 

Like I said earlier, define safety.

 

If I'm crossing the road in a village with a 30mph limit, I'd like to know that the cars driving are doing 30mph and won't be bearing down on me at speed, no matter if I'm crossing the road or at a zebra or pelican crossing.

 

I've lost count of the cars speeding down Beaver Hill Road at Woodhouse who've sped through the zebra crossing while people are on it.

 

But the fact is, anyone who defends a speed camera on here is soon slated by those against them - usually referring to them being a "do gooder" or can do no wrong or some other sly dig. Why do you feel the need to attack a poster just because they follow the law and cameras don't affect them because they drive to the limits?

[donkey7159]

That they are "nothing more than revenue generators" could be seen as a bit bigoted, closed-mind and illogical conclusion.

That cameras are not paticularly effective is a more logical interpretation (hold on, that's what the article says if you read it).

That the Partnership can report on crashes at the sites before and after suggests an interest in crashes at the sites AND perhaps an interest in safety.

 

So would you agree that those cameras that have NOT reduced accidents should now be removed totally , as they have failed to do what they were put there to do ........ reduce accidents ( if you believe the offical line) .?

 

To leave those cameras in place will only go to prove they are NOT there to reduce accidents ................... they are there to RAISE REVENUE.

[SnailyBoy]

So would you agree that those cameras that have NOT reduced accidents should now be removed totally , as they have failed to do what they were put there to do ........ reduce accidents ( if you believe the offical line) .?

 

To leave those cameras in place will only go to prove they are NOT there to reduce accidents ................... they are there to RAISE REVENUE.

 

And how do they raise revenue?