Speed Cameras Set To Be Switched Off

Speed Cameras Set To Be Switched Off

news.sky.com

Thousands of speed cameras could be switched off after the Government slashed cash for road safety by 40%

(visit the link for the full news article)

Turning speed cameras off?? how on earth is this going to be good for road safety?
Surely with them turned off drivers are going to be speeding again, so all this work the councils, government and the police have done is a waste of time.
If they didnt spend so much money with roads which dont need to be fixed then im sure they would have enough money, how many of you people steps out your house one morning and saw 5-9 men in yellow jackets tarmacking the road, and your saying in your head im sure there was nothing wrong with that road.

its all a mystery to me.

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Athink


Hi,

When I heard this, I initially had the same thought - how does it save money when it used to generate money?

Guess this is the new broom trying to display and undo 10? years of Big Brother in the UK


That said - none of you will know which are switched off and which aren't....


Peace!

Originally posted by The Wave
reply to post by Athink

 

That said - none of you will know which are switched off and which aren't....

People tend to get used to the ones which work and which dont, word soon gets passed around, and your right the cameras make them money, i didnt think it like that.

I think they should them turn off permanently, I have too much tickets allready

reply to post by Athink


Hi Athink,

Somewhere in the back of my mind, I've seen studies that show speed cameras (in certain situations) - this is important, actually creat more havoc and carnage that having a free road in which we human beings are allowed to use our judgement.

But still believe that a suggestion that some will be switched off isn'[t all that honest.

Peace!

[edit on 25-7-2010 by The Wave]

reply to post by The Wave


i understand what your saying but reports like this don't pop up for nothing.
i think this is a sore subject for people who drive, maybe its for the best maybe not lol, anyways feel free to flag,

Tarmacking, I like the sound of that. Since I am not native to English, I haven't the slightest idea what it means and I am not going to look it up either. It sounds just right as it is. It's like maxing out a Veyron at a whopping 253 Mph (a football pitch, or whatever you call that field you kick that rather lemon-like ball around, a second) - get your foot as quickly as you can from that magical paddle that's making a blur out of the world and apply at léást the same pressure you did one home-run ago into stopping as progressive as you can turning the road back into its liquid state - paving your gravel driveway in the process.

There you have it, Tarmacking.

Since there is no footage off actual tarmacking as described above, I leave you with just half of it. A Veyron at one lemonfield a second. It'll show rather well why those camera's shouldn't be turned off.



Ever.

Originally posted by The Wave
When I heard this, I initially had the same thought - how does it save money when it used to generate money?

I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that the cost of installing and maintaining them falls to the local council, they have to take that from their budget - but all the money raised from the fines goes straight into the treasury, so that can be used for anything from road maintenance to funding private jets.

Not sure how it works in the UK, but on this side of the pond it's usually an independent company that installs, maintains and processes the photos from the camera who themseves are authorized by the jurisdiction to mail a citation along with a copy of the photo and data from the speed sensors to the owner of the alleged vehicle. In turn, the jurisdiction agrees to pay the camera operator a portion of the revenue collected from prosecuting the citation. So, if the jurisdiction was paying for the cameras out of their budget and solely relying recouping costs from the tickets generated to cover the cameras, only then would turning cameras off reduce expenditures make any sense.

reply to post by D.Wolf


If all goes well, this will be my car come late 2011

reply to post by tristar


Be sure to purch your own tanker-plane whilst your at it. Looking forward to some vids of you tarmacking your neigbourhood.

Do I love to use that word!

[edit on 25/7/10 by D.Wolf]

reply to post by D.Wolf


Well i guess i should have pointed out that as long as gov contracts are met with a green light then all will be good.

Originally posted by DutchBigBoy
I think they should them turn off permanently, I have too much tickets allready

Wot you evil little git you have been driving at 40 mph in an area where it was perfectly safe to do so and no suicidal school kids in site to jump in front of your car and your upset you got a fine.

Think about all those people starving in africa you are killing because you are wasting fuel having to stop and start all the time because they have a million cones on the M1 and not a bloody worker in site.

Traffic jams = more petrol= more taxes and thats why your sitting in jams.

They are good at telling us how to drive safely and yet when the weather turns bad and people stay at home due to the risk of accident we are told to go to work and why is it that councils are allowed to put bus stops oposite junction and so called sleeping policemen all over the place.

don't you just love the roundabouts where they try to engineer the flow of traffic on approach so you hit the roundabout head on and end up taking a track as if you can not drive to stay in the lines.

i'm so happy when i see speed traps with a car tyres dipped in petrol being hung around the traps and set alight as it restores my faith in humanity and yes i was once knocked over myself and nearly dies and it was my own stupid fault.

Ban helicopters over london due to saftey isues that our MP's all fly around in and i might agree with the theory that one life saved is worth wasting zillions hours of drivers lives but untill such a time i'm not swallowing the BS they are throwing.

reply to post by Now_Then


Hi Now_Then,

You could well be right. I'm not au fait with where the money goes . Still have a sneaking suspiscion that it is to undo the Big Brother mentality that the labour govenment imposed.

Peace!

Voyeurism in all its many forms is well entrenched in British life, the story about how cameras and microphones have been installed in public toilets still amazes me, even for the UK.

They'll keep the cameras, rest assured.

The cost cutting is interesting though, I'm hearing Greece like stories from the UK of late in terms of their fiscal problems and unemployment levels.

They're in a real mess.

reply to post by Athink


Road safety?
Are you serious?
Cameras create more accidents then they prevent.
People who are speeding will suddenly jam on their brakes to avoid getting flashed by a camera.
And, before you go on with the "well, you shouldn't be speeding in the first place" argument, keep in mind that everyone speeds at one point or another.
If you've ever, even accidentally, gone 1 mile/hour over the speed limit, then you've committed the same act.
Arizona has cameras everywhere and the majority of accidents I've seen since I've been out here are at or around a speed camera.
Not only are they not installed to promote "road safety", but it's been shown that they are installed strictly to generate revenue.
Now, there's the argument that they are a violation of some constitutional right or another...I'm not exactly sure where that aspect comes into play here...but I have personally witnessed cameras being the sole cause of many accidents.
Keep in mind, that the Autobon (or however you spell it) had no speed limit or cameras or any type of enforcement for years and years and it had the lowest rate of accidents in the world.
Here...if you wish to do some actual research on the subject of traffic cameras, this is a good site to sift through...CameraFraud.com

I'd wished the same thing could be said for my home country, Australia.

Around here, many cities who have put them up, have ended up taking them down because it cost more to maintain them then they were bringing in. In other words they were losing money.

They also don't cut down on speeders. If you are going to speed you are going to do it whether a camera is there or not. If you are going to run a red light you are going to do so with or with out a camera...

Just like it was before we had street light cameras, if you are going to speed or run a red light you are just going to do it...

That said, these things were not put up for the sake of public safety to begin with, they were put up to earn money, which is why they were taken down around here in so many cities as soon as they saw they were a money pit.....

cool i can blow the dust off my "i cant drive 55" tape, just some old foot to the floor, tunes i made for this day would come, now to find a car that will do over 60!