March 1, 2004 at 11:51 pm #8647XV16Participant
Take a look at this.. 11 Points for 4 speeding offences and a £250 Fine?
That’s what this guy got. He’s changed his tune now though!
Our story today about the councillor who was caught four times in an hour by a speed camera is significant. That in itself makes Bob Bateman a talking point.
But there are further underlying issues here that are more important.
Mr Bateman is a local councillor who spends a great deal of time and effort contributing to the community where he lives.
He is articulate, considerate and cares for the environment in which he lives and the people within it.
He is a classic example of a law-abiding, middle class citizen of this country.
Yet he, like tens of thousands of others, have ended up on the brink of a driving ban.
He makes the valid point that the police he speaks to don’t like speed cameras.
Mainly because they are turning people against the police who would otherwise be their natural supporters.
And it doesn’t matter how many times we say the so-called Safety Camera Partnership is distinct from the police, people generally regard them as one and the same – particularly because it is police who man the mobile speed cameras.
Already the speed camera people have been forced to make concessions.
Fixed cameras have been painted yellow to make them more visible, mobile camera vans are now more clearly marked and the partnership has asked if some of its cameras can be replaced with signs that light up to inform drivers of their speed.
None of this would have been achieved without the pressure of public opinion. None of it would have happened had not the unjust practices of the speed camera partnership been exposed time and again.
The road where Councillor Bateman was caught is not an accident blackspot, yet the speed camera people are obsessed with it.
Why? Because it represents easy pickings for them. It’s as simple and as calculated as that.
The rest of us have to watch while time, effort and money is spent on catching out otherwise law-abiding motorists while the police fight shy of tackling genuine criminals.
That is why the middle classes get so angry about speed cameras.
It’s not that they object to them in principle, it’s rather that there are far worse offences to deal with and they should take priority.
Ironically, there are mindless thugs in fast hatchbacks tearing around Weston most nights.
Yet do the police do anything about them? Do they hell. That would be far too big a challenge.
No, leave it to the speed camera people to pick off drivers on a Sunday afternoon. That’s much easier.
We want to see changes. We want more warning signs instead of cameras.
And where cameras are positioned we want account taken of the volume of traffic and the weather conditions at the time.
And we want the police and local authorities involved with the Safety Camera Partnership to withdraw their support until its present imbalance in approach is addressed.
I thought 4 times 3 was 12. Although it was not mentioned in the above that was his outcome. It shows how these people can retreat when the desire takes them.!!!
Please note that some of the comments and articles posted may not represent my views or the views of FORUM99 and its moderators.
HELP KEEP THIS FORUM ALIVE! Click the Make a Donation button in the top left hand corner.March 2, 2004 at 1:07 pm #18053imperialdataKeymaster
Well spoken XV. I think there is a greater need for warning signs than cameras in many of the areas where cameras are currently situated. The imbalance in the current approach certainly needs addressing too and many people (myself included) are not aware of to just what extent this imbalance is currently sitting at.March 3, 2004 at 9:49 pm #18054AnonymousInactive
Let’s not forget that some cameras save lives. These should be kept in situ at all costs, even if it ruffles a few feathers. Lives are worth saving.March 4, 2004 at 8:51 am #18055XV16Participant
It has to be said that well situated, highly visible cameras and plenty of advanced warning signs do slow drivers down in urban areas. This could be down to the advanced signage, good driving and good thinking. The down side of any camera is it can only detect one offence, the joy riders, drunks, banned drivers, insurance dodgers and the rest get away unscathed. It has been proven that the acceleration zone after a camera is more dangerous than passing through the stretch at say 5 MPH above the limit, while accelerating drivers/riders have less chance of coming to a stop in an emergency. Until we can come up with a better solution, we need whatever we can in place. The Gatso does not work, however if all urban areas were fitted with the Specs System this would cut speeding to a minimum. That would be a fair compromise providing all Specs Systems, DS2s, Gatsos, Truvelos and Talivans were removed from all non-urban roads and the officialdom did not play around with the speed limits.
Best Regards XV
HAVE YOU DONATED
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.