Speed cameras axe sparks fears of more deaths on roads

[beabert]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/07/26/speed-cams-axe-115875-22440564/

ppl in oxford will be happy.

"Oxfordshire was yesterday considering shutting down all of its 79 cameras this week as a result of the decision"
"

[keith_d]

Hmm... if they had been used as 'safety' cameras in the first place maybe things would have turned out differently. But as it is I don't think I'll miss 'em.

[Jabba]

D'oh!

Ignore me.

[maviczap]

Hmm... if they had been used as 'safety' cameras in the first place maybe things would have turned out differently. But as it is I don't think I'll miss 'em.

Agreed.

Spend money on real Policemen to catch people speeding in the wrong places and people using mobiles at the wheel

[gruntygiggles]

Had this discussion the other day with someone. I always have been annoyed by the fact that they are not often used as a safety tool, but a money making tool.

This is evident when you consider that where there are real accident black spots, you'll see a massive number of warning signs and chevrons with bright yellow surround, even signs telling how many fatal accidents on that stretch of road in the last 5 years etc. These are the places that need cameras...to slow people down where it can actually make a difference.

Not on the stretches of road that, for instance on dual carriageways make much difference in safety terms, but have a high yield for fines.

They're already off in Swindon...all cameras are covered, so would be interesting to know if the accident rate has dropped. In fact, this has reminded me about a thread I wanted to start!

[beabert]

My view is that on the whole, they dont bring in enough revenue for me to consider them beiing used as a money making scheme.

However, some do appear to be in some odd places. They dont really work, we all slow down and speed up afterwards. They should be using average speed camera along stretchs of road to combat speeding, i can only assume it costs more so they dont implement many of these.

This leaves me with conclusion that they are only doing this for public perception purposes, they need to be seen to be doing something, and maybe they use the oddly placed ones that make a little money to fund the ones outside school etc.

[breakz187]

I think this is all a setup to start using those security traffic cameras for the average time fines.

You can see this cameras coming out of many towns and cities in the south east.

[barwel1992]

all this means is there will be a huge increase in unmarked plod cars like GG said in her thread.

id rather have cameras than unmarked cars. all i will do now is spend more time looking in every car i go past at a sprightly pace just in case its a plod car instead of looking where im going.

[L3nny]

So they cut £38m in finding but they generate £100m in income.

The governmet havent told the council to remove them, just that they wont fund them. But they generate more than 100 percent profit.

Am I missing something?

[Biker Biggles]

The councils pay for them with the help of government grants but all the income generated goes to government.Remove the grant and the councils get no money.I do think road enforcement will move towards more high tech surveillance from now on,with monitoring done by roadside sensors or satelites,and every vehicle being required to have a transponder.This will double for speed enforcement and road pricing as and when the government sees fit.

[Quedos]

oh well oxfordshire can go back to being a real bunch of moronic idiotic drivers.
I hate driving down there! I'm not surprised the generated 100% profit

[Sid Squid]

So they cut £38m in finding but they generate £100m in income.

The governmet havent told the council to remove them, just that they wont fund them. But they generate more than 100 percent profit.

Am I missing something?
Only if I am too.

I'm not sure about the numbers but if correct then the above makes no sense.
The whole business smacks to me of finding a convenient reason to take the decision and someone else to blame.

[squirrel_hunter]

They're already off in Swindon...all cameras are covered, so would be interesting to know if the accident rate has dropped.

When the Oxfordshire story was covered on the local news they interviewed someone from Swindon Council who said the the accident rate stayed the same while the cameras were in operation and they have not seen any change in the rate without them. Or words to that effect as I can't find the report to link to.

[mwncimelyn]

They're already off in Swindon...all cameras are covered, so would be interesting to know if the accident rate has dropped. In fact, this has reminded me about a thread I wanted to start!

They mentioned Swindon on the news item about the plans in Oxfordshire on BBC breakfast this morning - they said switching off the cameras in Swindon had made no difference to the accident rate.

[squirrel_hunter]

So they cut £38m in finding but they generate £100m in income.

The governmet havent told the council to remove them, just that they wont fund them. But they generate more than 100 percent profit.

Am I missing something?

Its where the income is going thats the issue. As I understand it the local councils do not see the revenue generated.

[yorkie_chris]

They should not see it.

If somewhere is a safety risk then they should put a camera up at their own cost, surely that's their service to the public.

The perfect speed camera is the one which nobody speeds through.

[mcgrimes]

I too read that all money made goes into the treasury; not supporting the local council, not fixing those darned potholes and certainly not reducing road tax - from the start a nice big money maker.

I agree with putting speed cameras in places with a high accident/fatality rate however.

[lukemillar]

The governmet havent told the council to remove them, just that they wont fund them.

Maybe they are being privatised! :wink:

[beabert]

Maybe they are being privatised! :wink:

Dont give em ideas!

[Specialone]

Personally, i think there should be big changes in the whole speed debate.
Speed cameras no longer have any support from the majority of road users, they are just a cash cow.
Also the speed limits are so out of date and inconsistent, some areas are 30 mph when they are not built up or congested when others are 40mph and really would benefit from a lower speed limit.

Some ideas which work,

better signage,
'your speed' electronic signs in problem areas,
Better lighting, for night time obviously,
Better vision, remove bushes and obstructions, introduce parking restrictions etc in key areas if this improves vision,
Outside schools, better fencing to stop kids running into the road in various places,
Maybe variable speed limits at problem times,

Most important, education, kids are not taught road safety as much as when i was a kid, the green cross code adverts were on all the time, i regularly see kids walk out into the road having only looked in one direction or not at all.

[Bear]

Hmm... if they had been used as 'safety' cameras in the first place maybe things would have turned out differently. But as it is I don't think I'll miss 'em.

I really hate the government doublespeak that led to them being called "safety" cameras rather than speed cameras: If I drive thrugh them drunk, will they take my picture? If I drive through them while on the phone? If I reverse through them on the wrong side of the carriageway blindfolded while juggling live monkeys and receiving oral pleasure from Bella Emburg as she injects me with a heroic dose of methamphetamine? No, no and no.

So, what you're saying is they only take photos of people who are speeding.

And they're triggered by speed.

But, if we call them safety cameras then the public will think we're doing something about road safety, even though excess speed is the main cause of something like 5% of accidents on the road...

[keith_d]

Ah, but government is setting targets in terms of KSI (injury) figures.

Councils could spend lots of money improving junction layouts and sight lines which would result in genuine improvements in road safety. Or they could buy a truck load of 50mph signs and a few speed cameras and get the same statistics for a fraction of the cost by reducing the severity of the accidents that do happen.

It's your council tax bill - how much would you like to pay??

Keith.

[yorkie_chris]

But, if we call them safety cameras then the public will think we're doing something about road safety, even though excess speed is the main cause of something like 5% of accidents on the road...

And not to mention the fact that excess speed is a viable cause of a crash even though it may be below the speed limit!