Home › Forums › Pure Petrolhead › Speed cameras › CAMERAS ARE ‘NOT HELPING
- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 1 month ago by XV16.
February 21, 2004 at 12:38 pm #8601
Sky News headline…
It seems that we have more support than anticipated.
Stuart XV16February 22, 2004 at 10:12 am #17894
But on a diferent note, The Observer wrote…
Drivers face hundreds more speed cameras
New speed cameras are to be installed in spite of the claims of furious drivers that the system is designed as a money-making operation.
A government review launched to placate growing protests has cleared operators of being over-zealous – and led to predictions that hundreds more cameras will be erected.
There are 4,500 fixed and 1,000 mobile cameras in Britain – although only about 1,000 operate at any time.
As more police forces join the scheme, and more sites are found that total ‘could well’ rise to 6,000 by spring 2005, according to Ian Bell, safety camera partnership co-ordinator for the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Aware of anger at the increases, police chiefs will tomorrow call for more offenders to be offered ‘speed awareness’ courses instead of points on their licence and fines. The Department for Transport launched a ‘review’ of where cameras were sited at Christmas after an outbreak of sabotage.
Almost all the 35 partnerships which operate the cameras in England have now submitted details and it is understood all or virtually all sites meet the rules.
David Jamieson, the Transport Minister, said cameras would be removed if they did not meet the criteria that their site has an accident record linked to speeding and that they must be ‘conspicuous’.
Jamieson said research showed deaths and injuries fell 35 per cent at trial sites.
Ministers have received more letters supporting cameras and asking for them to be installed than complaints, Jamieson told The Observer.
‘The statistics we have got are impenetrable,’ he added. ‘Thirty five percent is not a statistical blip.
The RAC Foundation motoring group, however, said ministers still face a revolt from drivers and the policy should be reviewed.
Critics say the number of road deaths has levelled out in recent years, despite the cameras, although ministers point out traffic is rising faster. The RAC wants more money raised spent on education, including speed awareness courses.
Cameras raised £7 million profit for the Treasury last year and are forecast to generate up to £20m this year.February 22, 2004 at 10:33 am #17895imperialdataKeymaster
So if the transport minister removes cameras which have an accident record linked to speeding, does that mean he will have to remove some cameras from UK motorways? Or if there is an accident, for example, because of speeding on Junction 1 of the M6, then will the camera at Junction 24 stay?
It’s all a little bit too vague and with £7 million or more profit for the Treasury, I think it will probably take more than promises of reviews to reduce the amount of cameras.February 22, 2004 at 10:54 am #17896
I agree, it’s all a farce. They say scameras should only be sited where there is a history of accidents in which speed has been a factor. So how come new link roads and the like have scams situated on them. Maybe some construction workers were mowed down by speeding dumper trucks. If this Government told me it was a full moon, I would have to go out and look for myself.
The biggest lie of this decade, “Its not the revenue, it’s the safety”February 22, 2004 at 11:08 am #17897AnonymousInactive
I totally agree on the revenue point. I was done for speeding 3 times on roads which should not have had cameras and had no history of accidents. Can we complain now if we get fined on a road with no history of speeding related accidents?February 22, 2004 at 11:31 am #17898
This is a tricky one, you can certainly try but remember they make up their own statistics so proving it may turn out to be expensive. If you can give me a bit of time I will dig out some info I have and post it here shortly. I will try and get done for you later today.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.