Speed cameras axe sparks fears of more deaths on roads

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

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.

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by L3nny

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

Maybe they are being privatised!

Originally Posted by lukemillar

Maybe they are being privatised!

Dont give em ideas!

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.