Speed Camera Scam Options

[spartacus]

“West Berkshire will not be doing an Oxfordshire. The cameras are staying on.” declares Richard Owen, spokesman for Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership.

linky thing

A bit sure of himself I'd say. These cameras are a waste of money and the hypothecation monies recovered which are meant to pay for road safety schemes invariably do not. I can think of two which serve absolutely no road safety purpose whatsoever. Both are on The Moors in Thatcham. Nowhere near where pedestrians cross or where there's a dodgy junction where vehicles might out from and cause an accident.

About time Gatso Man returned and perhaps this time WBC could loan him the angle grinder and take that smile off Richard Owen's face.... and save a few bob in the process.....

[Andy Capp]

I'd say the wisest option, if one were to be withdrawing active cameras, is to say nothing, or deny their removal.

[Biker1]

Pity they can't produce a "General Crap Driving" camera.

That might get results!

[Darren]

If people stuck to the speed limits then there would be no need for them.

Or is that too obvious?

[Andy Capp]

If people stuck to the speed limits then there would be no need for them. Or is that too obvious?

These days, I have more problems with people driving too slow, more than anything else. I've been driving to Reading this week and it is incredible how many vehicles travel at around 40 mph (on a road with a 60 mph speed limit).

[Biker1]

If people stuck to the speed limits then there would be no need for them.

Or is that too obvious?

If people didn't break the law full stop then there would be no need for the police!

[spartacus]

If people stuck to the speed limits then there would be no need for them.

Or is that too obvious?

FAR too simplistic Darren. And you've fallen into the same trap I just fell into by assuming they were speed limiting devices....

I have been reliably informed that they are called SAFETY cameras, not SPEED cameras (my bad) and are a non-lethal weapon used by the SAFER Roads Partnership. (SRP)

Well if they are SAFETY cameras then they should be located in areas where there is a REAL road safety risk. In West Berks (because we were one of the pilot sites when the SRP was set up) we have cameras sited in the oddest of locations. These days there are set criteria regarding accident statistics to justify new cameras, etc... but when the cameras were set up in our area they were probably done on a whim or a request from a loud mouthed local councillor.

I'm not against speed enforcement, by uniformed coppers who are able to move around and target hotspots as they shift around the district.... But these static cameras are known to the local road users, come up on displays for every SatNav and therefore serve no real purpose anymore. Everyone slows down then picks up speed again. If only they were located around schools or near 'blackspots' or where there was a particular problem then they could at least justify their 'safety' tag..

These days they are just a scam.... When was the last camera put in? Two years ago? Five? I'm sure there haven't been any new sites for these yellow boxes in recent years which probably means that new ones cannot be justified... I'd say the old ones should be investigated too, to see if they meet that same criteria and if not, pull the bleedin' things down...

[GMR]

Funnily enough I thought exactly that. Newbury's council doesn't strike me as a council for the people...

[Andy Capp]

I cannot off hand think of a camera in Newbury that I would say was in a pointless location. If they cannot be funded, then the simplest thing to do in my view, is to leave them empty. They would do just as good a job as if they had a camera in.

[Biker1]

They would do just as good a job as if they had a camera in.

And what job is that then?

Not brining in revenue!

[Andy Capp]

Generally speaking, people slowdown for speed cameras (with or without a camera).

[GMR]

Generally speaking, people slowdown for speed cameras (with or without a camera).

Sat naves tell you where they are.

[Andy Capp]

Sat naves tell you where they are.

Yes, and most people still tend to slow down for them, with or without a camera.

[Jayjay]

Don't mind the cameras so much, don't speed and they don't bother you. Would love to get rid of the road humps, some of them are worse than the potholes and they are in unnecessary places, not near schools etc,

[dannyboy]

Sat naves tell you where they are.

You can gererally see them as you approach. You don't need a sat nav stuck to the centre of your windowscreen to tell you.

You'll need other gadgets to tell you if the thing is actually working though.

[dannyboy]

Don't mind the cameras so much, don't speed and they don't bother you. Would love to get rid of the road humps, some of them are worse than the potholes and they are in unnecessary places, not near schools etc,

Are you saying that you only need do 30mph near a school, regardless of the limit?

[Jayjay]

Are you saying that you only need do 30mph near a school, regardless of the limit?

No. I could understand speed bumps near places like schools, or homes for older people. What I hate is humps in areas where traffic and road contours mean you can only do 20ish anyway or on a clear, straight road in a 30pmh area.

[Biker1]

Generally speaking, people slowdown for speed cameras (with or without a camera).

And what does this achieve?

[JeffG]

And what does this achieve?

No more or less than what they were put there for - to slow down traffic.

The problem is that to be effective there would need to be one every couple of hundred yards.

[dannyboy]

And what does this achieve?

what do you think?