Speed cameras axed over funding

[superbiatch]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Remove the camera box then speeds will increase

They'd cottoned onto this in Liverpool a while back (near to the airport for thiose who know the area), when someone decided to whizz the whole thing in half. I still have visions of someone using the top of a speed camera as a coffee table in their living room

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Under the terms by which they are deployed, and due to the way that the fines are collected, ALL revenue coming from the speed cameras goes directly to the Treasury.

Local/District councils won't fund something that is basically going to generate a loss for them, and the Government are cutting funding of 'Road Safety' in line with everything else.

The only way the Local/District councils would consider funding them is if the Treasury allowed them to keep all (or even a reasonable percentage) of the revenue they generate.[COLOR="Silver"]

But it's Central Government who cut the grant, not the local council. Why would the Government stop funding something if they were making a profit?

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Osem

If you don't speed the cameras won't catch you - simple! It amazes me how many 'perfect' drivers there are out there who don't consider themselves a risk to anyone yet can't apparently see the warning signs and either don't know what speed they're doing or what the prevailing limit is....

Every driver speeds at one point.

[Angua]

You will probably find the only people actually making money are the firms running Speed Awareness courses.

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

But it's Central Government who cut the grant, not the local council. Why would the Government stop funding something if they were making a profit?

Because they're short-sighted idiots. They've been told to cut, cut, cut. They've chosen to cut spending on 'Road Safety' (not specifically on cameras). Councils have realised that if they're going to use their (now very) limited road safety budget on something they might as well use it for something that will actually improve road safety (crossings, signs, traffic calming measures, etc) rather than something which generates revenue for the Treasury.

So, treasury cuts funding on 'Road Safety', Councils remove/shut down speed cameras and spend limited budget on real road safety measures, less revenue generated for Treasury, Treasury therefore has less money to spend and so cuts funding on 'Road Safety'.....

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Every driver speeds at one point.

Very true. even if it's just 3mph over the limit it's still speeding.

You take a standard long 30mph road, or a standard 40mph dual carriageway. nobody is doing dead on 30/40. the average speed will be at least 35/45 or even 40/50 quite easily all day long.

I'm not including the Sunday drivers that drive as if it's a Sunday all week long.

[Taf]

SERCO is going to be upset... a cash cow taken away from them...

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Very true. even if it's just 3mph over the limit it's still speeding.

You take a standard long 30mph road, or a standard 40mph dual carriageway. nobody is doing dead on 30/40. the average speed will be at least 35/45 or even 40/50 quite easily all day long.

I'm not including the Sunday drivers that drive as if it's a Sunday all week long.

So we should ignore some laws?? Lets see someone use that defence in death through dangerous driving incidents especially where the only thing the driver did wrong is break the speed limit..

There are probably areas that do have an outdated speed limit but the limits are there for a reason. If you break them the fines are there for a reason..

I'm all for those who constantly speed, they get more and more points, they then get banned and they then remove themselves off the road for a period of time.. Well done

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Because they're short-sighted idiots. They've been told to cut, cut, cut. They've chosen to cut spending on 'Road Safety' (not specifically on cameras). Councils have realised that if they're going to use their (now very) limited road safety budget on something they might as well use it for something that will actually improve road safety (crossings, signs, traffic calming measures, etc) rather than something which generates revenue for the Treasury.

So, treasury cuts funding on 'Road Safety', Councils remove/shut down speed cameras and spend limited budget on real road safety measures, less revenue generated for Treasury, Treasury therefore has less money to spend and so cuts funding on 'Road Safety'.....

My point is that if they were making a profit for the Treasury, the Treasury would do all it can to protect that profit. The Treasury has it's faults, but it is actually quite good at protecting schemes that make it a profit.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

So we should ignore some laws?? Lets see someone use that defence in death through dangerous driving incidents especially where the only thing the driver did wrong is break the speed limit..

There are probably areas that do have an outdated speed limit but the limits are there for a reason. If you break them the fines are there for a reason..

I'm not saying we should ignore the laws of speeding. I'm saying that we all naturally do it as a matter of course.
you go and sit at the side of a dual carriageway now and the average speed will be in excess of 40mph.

one without a speed camera on.

I'm all for those who constantly speed, they get more and more points, they then get banned and they then remove themselves off the road for a period of time.. Well done

Them people are a different argument.
and it's a get out clause for not riding a 50cc moped

[Kymmy]

That's the issue, to most people it's become socially acceptable to break the speed limit laws (the same way as 30 years ago it was acceptable to drink and drive even though it was against the law since 1967 when the first limit was set)

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

That's the issue, to most people it's become socially acceptable to break the speed limit laws (the same way as 30 years ago it was acceptable to drink and drive even though it was against the law since 1967 when the first limit was set)

Is it socially acceptable to you? do you ever go over 30 or 40 unless there's a speed camera telling you to slow down?

it will be impossible for traffic to move at a constant 30 or 40. and because it's impossible it's acceptable to drive over the 'limits' unless there is a camera or the whole police station are having a nice day out in the sun.

[Angua]

Problem in the UK is we are sold cars which can do well in excess of the speed limit and because speed is easily measured it is used to control everyone, good or bad. Current speed limits out of towns and built up areas are archaic by comparison to the current vehicle specifications.

Even this most perfect driver may be forced into a situation where they have to speed to avoid a collision or some other hazard. So trotting out the trite "if you don't speed you have nothing to worry about" becomes tedious & sanctimonious. At 3am in the morning on a wide empty road doing 10 mph above the speed limit is NOT dangerous.

Speed cameras do not stop bad drivers being bad drivers. Police at least can stop the bad drivers if they can spot them. Speed cameras often slow traffic down with hard braking & cause jams.

A far more effective safety measure are the whinge boards which people actually attempt not to set off but keep moving at a sensible speed.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Angua

Problem in the UK is we are sold cars which can do well in excess of the speed limit

Very poor point to make..

The car can only break the speed limit by the drivers actions.. The cars not to blame..

Also the speed limits might be archaic but whilst they are there then they simply are the law. It's not upto us to say that we don;t think this should be a 30 zone so we'll instead do 50..

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Osem

If you don't speed the cameras won't catch you - simple! It amazes me how many 'perfect' drivers there are out there who don't consider themselves a risk to anyone yet can't apparently see the warning signs and either don't know what speed they're doing or what the prevailing limit is....

.... .....