Speed Camera's - Cash Cows.

[DT Ralge]

There are many who can see it.

I'm saying what I said, I'm surprised that so many people don't care about being lied to.

 

Ok, I'm gullible and have been hoodwinked by Derbyshire's Casualty Reduction team's mission, activities and all the detailed information they supply about their camera sites.

Sorry, I can't yet supply the equivalent for South Yorkshire.

Follow the link suggested by my contact at Crest in the quote below:

 

"Dear Ralge

*

In answer to your question, regarding a timeline of the reasons for considering the installation of camera sites, an explanation of how sites were selected is available on our website within the annual operational cases which were a requirement from DFT. The operational cases can be found at the following link under the section, "what we spend and how we spend it".*http://www.slowitdown.co.uk/F-O-I.html

*

Answering your other point, we review all fixed camera sites in Derbyshire on an annual basis to determine which sites still have a poor collision record. This ensures we only focus enforcement*at sites which still*remain to have a poor collision record.

*

Many thanks"

 

Take the time to read some of their "propaganda" and work out if it's reasonable to suggest duplicity etc.

[SnailyBoy]

Do you include cyclists in with 'red light offenders' ?

 

Not sure what your point is?

[Cyclone]

How about letting the cameras to catch the speeders, along with Red Light offenders (which never seem to be mentioned when discussing automatic offence detection).

 

The limited number of traffic police officers can then utilise their resources to catch other offenders, which can of course include speeders too.

 

That would be fine if speed limits were all set appropriately and cameras were used where there was a genuine danger from speeding vehicles.

The primary source of complaint is the inappropriate use of the cameras for their stated aim (safety, not revenue) and the associated deliberate reduction of limits to be less than is reasonable for the road.

[Cyclone]

Ok, I'm gullible and have been hoodwinked by Derbyshire's Casualty Reduction team's mission, activities and all the detailed information they supply about their camera sites.

Sorry, I can't yet supply the equivalent for South Yorkshire.

Follow the link suggested by my contact at Crest in the quote below:

 

"Dear Ralge

*

In answer to your question, regarding a timeline of the reasons for considering the installation of camera sites, an explanation of how sites were selected is available on our website within the annual operational cases which were a requirement from DFT. The operational cases can be found at the following link under the section, "what we spend and how we spend it".*http://www.slowitdown.co.uk/F-O-I.html

*

Answering your other point, we review all fixed camera sites in Derbyshire on an annual basis to determine which sites still have a poor collision record. This ensures we only focus enforcement*at sites which still*remain to have a poor collision record.

*

Many thanks"

 

Take the time to read some of their "propaganda" and work out if it's reasonable to suggest duplicity etc.

 

How about I just use the evidence of my own eyes.

 

The mobile speed camera on the straightest, safest portion of the A57 from the Ladybower towards Manchester. Mainly at weekends, and particularly if it's a nice sunny day.

[convert]

Not sure what your point is?

 

Simple enough question.

 

Should be a simple enough answer.

[Cyclone]

Surely it's a rhetorical question that doesn't require any answer.

[SnailyBoy]

That would be fine if speed limits were all set appropriately and cameras were used where there was a genuine danger from speeding vehicles.

The primary source of complaint is the inappropriate use of the cameras for their stated aim (safety, not revenue) and the associated deliberate reduction of limits to be less than is reasonable for the road.

 

Where's the evidence that limits have been reduced to being deemed unreasonable?

 

Once again though, the limits are there for all to see. Unfortunately for some, the self discipline isn't.

[truman]

*

Answering your other point, we review all fixed camera sites in Derbyshire on an annual basis to determine which sites still have a poor collision record. This ensures we only focus enforcement*at sites which still*remain to have a poor collision record.

*

.

 

Does this mean that the cameras in these spots don't improve safety there?

[SnailyBoy]

Simple enough question.

 

Should be a simple enough answer.

 

Not sure how a red light camera would detect offending cyclists, after all they don't have number plates. Maybe that's where actual traffic police come in.

 

However, this morning driving to work I saw 3 vehicles jumping red lights. Only one of them had 2 wheels............and an engine.

[alchresearch]

How about I just use the evidence of my own eyes.

 

The mobile speed camera on the straightest, safest portion of the A57 from the Ladybower towards Manchester. Mainly at weekends, and particularly if it's a nice sunny day.

 

Do you mean the bit where people overtake just to get one car in front after being stuck behind them for so long? I've had a few times where an oncoming car has overtook a bit too late (or just taken a stupid risk) and forced me to slow down to allow them to finish the manoeuvre.

 

The A57 is a good example though. A road that was reduced to 50mph because of all the dangerous drivers and bikers, spoiling it for people like me who can drive to the limit and know when the brake or drop down a gear to handle the corners. "Self discipline" - good phrase there.