BREAKING NEWS: Speed cameras to go back on

Cameras are set to be switched back on

Cameras are set to be switched back on

First published in News

OXFORDSHIRE'S speed cameras are set to be switched on, it has emerged today, three months after they were turned off.

The 72 fixed camera sites were turned off on August 1 after Oxfordshire County Council withdrew its funding to Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership, the organisation that co-ordinates speed enforcement.

The decision brought a storm of protest as road safety groups and residents warned it would lead to an increase in accidents.

Today the Oxford Mail can reveal the police and council are near a deal that would see the cameras re-activated.

A county spokesman said: "We've been in discussion with our partners at Thames Valley Police and we're close to an agreement to have the cameras switched back on in the future.

"We look forward to being able to reveal the detail of that agreement in future weeks."

The county had withdrawn £600,000 in funding to the Safer Roads Partnership - an organisation of the police and local roads authorities in the Thames Valley - because of cuts in the money it received from central Government.

Oxfordshire was the only authority in the region to do this, with the police mobile speed camera and the enforcement cameras still operating in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire.

Within days of the switch-off there was evidence that motorists were ignoring the redundant camera housings with speeds increasing.

Comments (69)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:36pm Tue 2 Nov 10

abingdonguy says...

Wonderful just when i thouhgt they'd seen sense.
Wonderful just when i thouhgt they'd seen sense. abingdonguy
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Tue 2 Nov 10

Insight says...

I'm in total agreement with the comment above. The usefulness of the static speed camera came to an end when sat navs became cheap and easy to purchase.
Here we were hoping for a return to common sense and proper policing of our roads and what do we get? ..plunged back into the stupidity of a by-gone era where Guardian readers think that speed cameras are a solution.
Oh well, c'est la vie, makes me wonder how many more millions will be wasted on a auto-cop before the authorities realise it's irrelevant.
I'm in total agreement with the comment above. The usefulness of the static speed camera came to an end when sat navs became cheap and easy to purchase. Here we were hoping for a return to common sense and proper policing of our roads and what do we get? ..plunged back into the stupidity of a by-gone era where Guardian readers think that speed cameras are a solution. Oh well, c'est la vie, makes me wonder how many more millions will be wasted on a auto-cop before the authorities realise it's irrelevant. Insight
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Tue 2 Nov 10

Victor Meldrew2 says...

So Oxfordshire County Council are to spend £600,000 of our money on another project.
I am sure that when we see the evidence that switching off camera's has caused more accidents and injuries we will see that this is good use of the money.
Unfortunately I don't think any such evidence exists and again this is a political move and further waste upon waste which will cost local services.
Surely the 'intelligent' traffic lights at Botley must be more intelligent than the councillors running transport - move them into County Hall now!!!
So Oxfordshire County Council are to spend £600,000 of our money on another project. I am sure that when we see the evidence that switching off camera's has caused more accidents and injuries we will see that this is good use of the money. Unfortunately I don't think any such evidence exists and again this is a political move and further waste upon waste which will cost local services. Surely the 'intelligent' traffic lights at Botley must be more intelligent than the councillors running transport - move them into County Hall now!!! Victor Meldrew2
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Tue 2 Nov 10

Tom Cranmer says...

"the police and council are near a deal that would see the cameras re-activated." I assume that TVP would do as they have done in Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, which is to survey each individual site, and increase the use of mobile cameras. However, it being the County CouncilN anything coulf happen.
"the police and council are near a deal that would see the cameras re-activated." I assume that TVP would do as they have done in Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, which is to survey each individual site, and increase the use of mobile cameras. However, it being the County CouncilN anything coulf happen. Tom Cranmer
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Tue 2 Nov 10

PT1 says...

Fixed camera's are a waste of time and money.
If the money raised was to go on the up-keep of the roads then I think I could justify them.
Fixed camera's are a waste of time and money. If the money raised was to go on the up-keep of the roads then I think I could justify them. PT1
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Tue 2 Nov 10

cwadid says...

I assume the council will also be telling us what it's going to cut to find this £600k - schools, or maybe road maintenance?

If they've suddenly found some "spare" money spend it on real traffic police, who can catch dangerous, not just speeding, drivers.
I assume the council will also be telling us what it's going to cut to find this £600k - schools, or maybe road maintenance? If they've suddenly found some "spare" money spend it on real traffic police, who can catch dangerous, not just speeding, drivers. cwadid
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Tue 2 Nov 10

BigAlBiker says...

Crazy, the "outfit" which run the council ought to all stand down and put themselves back up for election, they could not run the proverbial booze up in the pub.

No evidence has been produced to me anywhere that they do any good, especially the ones on busy roads when the NSL is unobtainable as it is.
Crazy, the "outfit" which run the council ought to all stand down and put themselves back up for election, they could not run the proverbial booze up in the pub. No evidence has been produced to me anywhere that they do any good, especially the ones on busy roads when the NSL is unobtainable as it is. BigAlBiker
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Tue 2 Nov 10

BigAlBiker says...

Crazy, the "outfit" which run the council ought to all stand down and put themselves back up for election, they could not run the proverbial booze up in the pub.

No evidence has been produced to me anywhere that they do any good, especially the ones on busy roads when the NSL is unobtainable as it is.
Crazy, the "outfit" which run the council ought to all stand down and put themselves back up for election, they could not run the proverbial booze up in the pub. No evidence has been produced to me anywhere that they do any good, especially the ones on busy roads when the NSL is unobtainable as it is. BigAlBiker
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Tue 2 Nov 10

Biggsy says...

Errrr! Don't This is Oxfordshire read their own articles?:

"Within days of the switch-off there was evidence that motorists were ignoring the redundant camera housings with speeds increasing."

But we have this:

Speed camera data 'misleading'

10:10am Thursday 19th August 2010

"Now, the Oxford Mail having obtained the information, the figures actually show speed offences fell by four per cent when comparing the figures since the switch-off to offences in 2008-9."

http://www.thisisoxf
ordshire.co.uk/news/
8339528.Speed_camera
_data__misleading_/
Errrr! Don't This is Oxfordshire read their own articles?: "Within days of the switch-off there was evidence that motorists were ignoring the redundant camera housings with speeds increasing." But we have this: Speed camera data 'misleading' 10:10am Thursday 19th August 2010 "Now, the Oxford Mail having obtained the information, the figures actually show speed offences fell by four per cent when comparing the figures since the switch-off to offences in 2008-9." http://www.thisisoxf ordshire.co.uk/news/ 8339528.Speed_camera _data__misleading_/ Biggsy
  • Score: 0

3:55pm Tue 2 Nov 10

Trevor Craig says...

The home office evidence for fixed cameras was dodgy and they actually withdrew it. Now we have this bunch of numpties at OCC doing a embarrassing U-turn and spending the cash when they keep telling us how bad their budgets are. I cannot wait for to hear Keith Mitchell's smug explanation for this one. This is what happens when you have one party completely unopposed in power for years in a council. We should all vote independent to keep the dogmatic, party political zealots out of office.
The home office evidence for fixed cameras was dodgy and they actually withdrew it. Now we have this bunch of numpties at OCC doing a embarrassing U-turn and spending the cash when they keep telling us how bad their budgets are. I cannot wait for to hear Keith Mitchell's smug explanation for this one. This is what happens when you have one party completely unopposed in power for years in a council. We should all vote independent to keep the dogmatic, party political zealots out of office. Trevor Craig
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Tue 2 Nov 10

Tom Cranmer says...

I understand that when OCC originally withdrew the funding, they had failed to consult the DoT regarding revenue generation from fixed penalty notices, which I believe had to be spent on road improvements in Oxfordshire by the Highways Agency, and allocated in central government grants to OCC. The figure being bandied about was £3.2 million pa... So that may explain the council's about face, given the recent CSR announcement regarding overall cuts.
I understand that when OCC originally withdrew the funding, they had failed to consult the DoT regarding revenue generation from fixed penalty notices, which I believe had to be spent on road improvements in Oxfordshire by the Highways Agency, and allocated in central government grants to OCC. The figure being bandied about was £3.2 million pa... So that may explain the council's about face, given the recent CSR announcement regarding overall cuts. Tom Cranmer
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Tue 2 Nov 10

philg says...

There should be direct elections for the police authority and the 'Safer Roads Partnership' or whatever its called. Let's decide on priorities democratically.
There should be direct elections for the police authority and the 'Safer Roads Partnership' or whatever its called. Let's decide on priorities democratically. philg
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Tue 2 Nov 10

hughcurran says...

i know where all the speed cameras throughout oxfordshire are! & all the ones on my weekly trips to london & back!...i just slow down with everone else then pick up speed with everyone else, its as simple as that!...iv'e never been had by one yet!...M4 heathrow is a typical example, everyone does 80 & some even more! then slow down to 60 & back up again!...same as the 20 mph speed limit round oxford's streets, does anyone do this speed? not from what iv'e seen! fixed cameras just blight the roads & are yet another eyesore....
i know where all the speed cameras throughout oxfordshire are! & all the ones on my weekly trips to london & back!...i just slow down with everone else then pick up speed with everyone else, its as simple as that!...iv'e never been had by one yet!...M4 heathrow is a typical example, everyone does 80 & some even more! then slow down to 60 & back up again!...same as the 20 mph speed limit round oxford's streets, does anyone do this speed? not from what iv'e seen! fixed cameras just blight the roads & are yet another eyesore.... hughcurran
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Tue 2 Nov 10

AbingdonMassive says...

Why cant they just use the money made from the speeders they catch to fund the **** things?
Why cant they just use the money made from the speeders they catch to fund the **** things? AbingdonMassive
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Tue 2 Nov 10

GaryOxford says...

I'm not sure exactly how much OCC will be spending to get the speed cameras up and running, I'd guess less than £600,000. Whatever amount it is I would rather it was spent on traffic policeman who can catch speeders, drink drivers, uninsured drivers, untaxed cars, cars without MOTs, people using their phones, people driving without due care and attention....the list goes on. Rather than cameras that only catch people speeding.
The other problem I have with cameras is that they generally only catch those who are dozy enough not to see them or who are unable to drive at a sensible legal speed. The type of people who do 40 in a 60 zone and then 40 in a 30 zone. The boy racers and the people who drive at 60 in a 30 limit know where the cameras are and slow down accordingly.
I'm not sure exactly how much OCC will be spending to get the speed cameras up and running, I'd guess less than £600,000. Whatever amount it is I would rather it was spent on traffic policeman who can catch speeders, drink drivers, uninsured drivers, untaxed cars, cars without MOTs, people using their phones, people driving without due care and attention....the list goes on. Rather than cameras that only catch people speeding. The other problem I have with cameras is that they generally only catch those who are dozy enough not to see them or who are unable to drive at a sensible legal speed. The type of people who do 40 in a 60 zone and then 40 in a 30 zone. The boy racers and the people who drive at 60 in a 30 limit know where the cameras are and slow down accordingly. GaryOxford
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Tue 2 Nov 10

George III says...

Does anyone know where you can get expanding builders foam ?
Does anyone know where you can get expanding builders foam ? George III
  • Score: 0

8:24pm Tue 2 Nov 10

Paul Wesson says...

OCC have talked at length about the services they must cut. The grant from central government is being reduced. The money spent on reactivating the speed cameras must come from another service. I wonder which one.
OCC have talked at length about the services they must cut. The grant from central government is being reduced. The money spent on reactivating the speed cameras must come from another service. I wonder which one. Paul Wesson
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Tue 2 Nov 10

svbitch says...

So Oxford City Council are feeling the effects of the Spending Review and need to generate some additional income, or bonuses for the fat cats!
So Oxford City Council are feeling the effects of the Spending Review and need to generate some additional income, or bonuses for the fat cats! svbitch
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Tue 2 Nov 10

EBTWO says...

COME ON MITCHELL - WHERE'S THE MONEY COMING FROM?

Why won't you tell us? What are you trying to hide?

It says something when our elected "leaders" shy away from telling us how they spend our money. Yet another reason to vote this muppet and his chums out ASAP.

We need an elected mayor who gives a **** about Oxford.
COME ON MITCHELL - WHERE'S THE MONEY COMING FROM? Why won't you tell us? What are you trying to hide? It says something when our elected "leaders" shy away from telling us how they spend our money. Yet another reason to vote this muppet and his chums out ASAP. We need an elected mayor who gives a **** about Oxford. EBTWO
  • Score: 0

9:20am Wed 3 Nov 10

slimjim says...

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY A SPEEDING FINE!because you don't have to speed.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY A SPEEDING FINE!because you don't have to speed. slimjim
  • Score: 0

9:32am Wed 3 Nov 10

bodchris says...

Stupidity beyond belief, the nanny state is still up and running! Why do we need the state to regulate our lives? It's really time for a British 'Tea Party'. I rejoiced when they were turned off so that I could, as a responsible driver, driver the speed the road could take at the time I was driving and not be dictated by daft 'catch-all' indiscriminate road speed.
Stupidity beyond belief, the nanny state is still up and running! Why do we need the state to regulate our lives? It's really time for a British 'Tea Party'. I rejoiced when they were turned off so that I could, as a responsible driver, driver the speed the road could take at the time I was driving and not be dictated by daft 'catch-all' indiscriminate road speed. bodchris
  • Score: 0

9:40am Wed 3 Nov 10

Major County says...

Joke decision based on ideology and prejudice and not on any independent evidence that speed cameras reduce casualties or address poor driving standards.
Joke decision based on ideology and prejudice and not on any independent evidence that speed cameras reduce casualties or address poor driving standards. Major County
  • Score: 0

9:44am Wed 3 Nov 10

martico1 says...

Just one sensible comment here and that's from slimjim. Nobody has suggested what else will work to deter the great many that act as if rules are for others to obey. We know that going too fast increases the risks to other road users. What would all YOU suggest instead of teh (self-funding) cameras?
Just one sensible comment here and that's from slimjim. Nobody has suggested what else will work to deter the great many that act as if rules are for others to obey. We know that going too fast increases the risks to other road users. What would all YOU suggest instead of teh (self-funding) cameras? martico1
  • Score: 0

9:49am Wed 3 Nov 10

Tony Starr says...

I knew they'd see sense in the end, but this is quicker than I thought. I assumed they'd want meaningful data on the increase in collisions, but they have given in to public opinion, which is what politicians do.
Despite what the camera-haters say, most people support cameras, or at least agree they are a necessary evil, and no-one likes it when the one near where they live gets switched off!
I knew they'd see sense in the end, but this is quicker than I thought. I assumed they'd want meaningful data on the increase in collisions, but they have given in to public opinion, which is what politicians do. Despite what the camera-haters say, most people support cameras, or at least agree they are a necessary evil, and no-one likes it when the one near where they live gets switched off! Tony Starr
  • Score: 0

9:49am Wed 3 Nov 10

Porphyro says...

Judging by many of the previous comments, some people seem to believe that speed limits are advisory and it's up to individual drivers whether they observe them or not. Would they extend their reasoning to other offences and shoplift if they think they can get away with it, or commit opportunist crimes of other sorts if they think they can get away with it? Don't they recognise a basic distinction between behaviour which is lawful and unlawful?

There may be some laws that I think are bad but as a general principle I believe in the rule of law and abide by all laws, or take the consequences without complaint. I wish the speed camera whingers would try to argue from principle rather stamp their feet and bawl.

Oxon county councillors got it badly wrong when they withdrew from the road safety partnership and thereby confirmed their reputation for incompetence; let's at least give them credit for realising their error and putting matters right.
Judging by many of the previous comments, some people seem to believe that speed limits are advisory and it's up to individual drivers whether they observe them or not. Would they extend their reasoning to other offences and shoplift if they think they can get away with it, or commit opportunist crimes of other sorts if they think they can get away with it? Don't they recognise a basic distinction between behaviour which is lawful and unlawful? There may be some laws that I think are bad but as a general principle I believe in the rule of law and abide by all laws, or take the consequences without complaint. I wish the speed camera whingers would try to argue from principle rather stamp their feet and bawl. Oxon county councillors got it badly wrong when they withdrew from the road safety partnership and thereby confirmed their reputation for incompetence; let's at least give them credit for realising their error and putting matters right. Porphyro
  • Score: 0

11:08am Wed 3 Nov 10

EBTWO says...

As that chap from the Institute of Advanced Motorists said, there is a lot more to road safety than numbers on a sign.

Let's see some facts about the number of casualties in Oxon since the cameras were turned off - and use real data to make a decision.
As that chap from the Institute of Advanced Motorists said, there is a lot more to road safety than numbers on a sign. Let's see some facts about the number of casualties in Oxon since the cameras were turned off - and use real data to make a decision. EBTWO
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Wed 3 Nov 10

redstone says...

Call me cynical, but perhaps they are not being swiched back on at all! This is just a con to lead you to believe they are working again and thus save spending the money!! After all, there were some ar$es kicked over letting the cat out of the bag by announcing the switch off in the first place.

Mind you I still believe Robert Maxwell is still alive and spending his pension money!!
Call me cynical, but perhaps they are not being swiched back on at all! This is just a con to lead you to believe they are working again and thus save spending the money!! After all, there were some ar$es kicked over letting the cat out of the bag by announcing the switch off in the first place. Mind you I still believe Robert Maxwell is still alive and spending his pension money!! redstone
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Wed 3 Nov 10

Scaramuccia says...

Whatever the pros and cons of said switch back on I am certain of two things from reading the article and my own behaviour since the switch OFF

Firstly - I have been driving way too fast on town roads since the switch off and have nearly had two accidents but I am a bad person I confess.
Secondly -nowhere I can see is there mention of the council spending £600,000 on this deal so why are people stupidly referring to this sum
Whatever the pros and cons of said switch back on I am certain of two things from reading the article and my own behaviour since the switch OFF Firstly - I have been driving way too fast on town roads since the switch off and have nearly had two accidents but I am a bad person I confess. Secondly -nowhere I can see is there mention of the council spending £600,000 on this deal so why are people stupidly referring to this sum Scaramuccia
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Wed 3 Nov 10

hesperus says...

The real question is has there been an increase in accidents since the cameras were turend off? I note that no one has made that point inm justifying turning them back on.
I have noticed a distinct lack of urgent braking and near misses at the three sites near me - because drivers are watching the road not their speedometer!
The real question is has there been an increase in accidents since the cameras were turend off? I note that no one has made that point inm justifying turning them back on. I have noticed a distinct lack of urgent braking and near misses at the three sites near me - because drivers are watching the road not their speedometer! hesperus
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Wed 3 Nov 10

Porphyro says...

What Hesperus describes here as "urgent braking" to avoid detection by speed cameras is, by definition, bad driving. Drivers who are so preocuupied by watching their speedometer and not the road are not going to be transformed into good drivers because speed cameras are switched off. The simple truth is that anyone exceeding the speed limit (whether he/she thinks it's a sensible limit or not) deserves to be prosecuted. The only excuse, which you can argue in court, is that you were in a life-or-death emergency and the magistrate can decide whether to exercise discretion.
What Hesperus describes here as "urgent braking" to avoid detection by speed cameras is, by definition, bad driving. Drivers who are so preocuupied by watching their speedometer and not the road are not going to be transformed into good drivers because speed cameras are switched off. The simple truth is that anyone exceeding the speed limit (whether he/she thinks it's a sensible limit or not) deserves to be prosecuted. The only excuse, which you can argue in court, is that you were in a life-or-death emergency and the magistrate can decide whether to exercise discretion. Porphyro
  • Score: 0

10:09pm Wed 3 Nov 10

Victor Meldrew2 says...

'Secondly -nowhere I can see is there mention of the council spending £600,000 on this deal so why are people stupidly referring to this sum'
Errrrr thats because that was what the annual saving was said to be by switching them off.
And because you cannot exercise self control you have made the case for everyone else footing the bill for your inadequacies
'Secondly -nowhere I can see is there mention of the council spending £600,000 on this deal so why are people stupidly referring to this sum' Errrrr thats because that was what the annual saving was said to be by switching them off. And because you cannot exercise self control you have made the case for everyone else footing the bill for your inadequacies Victor Meldrew2
  • Score: 0

9:22am Thu 4 Nov 10

whiteshark says...

The real truth is not only road safety, if you had read Motorcycle News you would realise that the ACPO make hundreds of thousands of pounds from speed cameras by providing services to convict drivers, so switching off speed cameras would loose them money.
My opinion is that the ACPO are interested in money first, would you like to see your lucrative income being eroded away NO.
The real truth is not only road safety, if you had read Motorcycle News you would realise that the ACPO make hundreds of thousands of pounds from speed cameras by providing services to convict drivers, so switching off speed cameras would loose them money. My opinion is that the ACPO are interested in money first, would you like to see your lucrative income being eroded away NO. whiteshark
  • Score: 0

10:39am Thu 4 Nov 10

Porphyro says...

Is Whiteshark really saying that drivers who break speed limits should be exempt from enforcement action? Simple truth: keep to the limits and you have no need to "see your lucrative income being eroded away" (sic).

I wonder whether the anti-speed camera lobby would also find excuses for phoning or texting while driving, or whether they regard parking fines as an assault on the individual freedom to inconvenience others by parking inconsiderately, or whether they think motor insurance and MOTs should be optional. If not, why do they think speed limit enforcement is so unfair?
Is Whiteshark really saying that drivers who break speed limits should be exempt from enforcement action? Simple truth: keep to the limits and you have no need to "see your lucrative income being eroded away" (sic). I wonder whether the anti-speed camera lobby would also find excuses for phoning or texting while driving, or whether they regard parking fines as an assault on the individual freedom to inconvenience others by parking inconsiderately, or whether they think motor insurance and MOTs should be optional. If not, why do they think speed limit enforcement is so unfair? Porphyro
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Scaramuccia says...

Victor can you not understand my point - 600K was the SAVING but nowhere does iot say it is going to cost the same amount to switch back on - otherwise why turn them off in the first place - even OCC is not THAT stupid - if there is to be a deal then the inference is it will NOT cost 600,000 so I repeat - why are people stupidly referring to this sum - it has no relevance to this article and the switch on - we have no idea yet what the cost will be. Peole are too lazy or stupid to read what is in front of them as they get carried away with their emotions
Victor can you not understand my point - 600K was the SAVING but nowhere does iot say it is going to cost the same amount to switch back on - otherwise why turn them off in the first place - even OCC is not THAT stupid - if there is to be a deal then the inference is it will NOT cost 600,000 so I repeat - why are people stupidly referring to this sum - it has no relevance to this article and the switch on - we have no idea yet what the cost will be. Peole are too lazy or stupid to read what is in front of them as they get carried away with their emotions Scaramuccia
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Insight says...

Wether it be £600,000 or £6.50 it's still an abject waste of money as the concept of a 'fixed camera' became redundant when camera avoiding sat navs became readily available.
The old partnership axiom of 'if you don't speed you don't get a ticket' has been replaced with 'you don't get a ticket if you've got a sat nav'.
Those who still stubbornly support this out of date antique camera concept would do well to realise at some point that no one you're trying to catch actually cares anymore!
Oh well, I suppose you're all too entrenched in your views to grasp the bigger picture.
Go ahead council, waste our money.
Wether it be £600,000 or £6.50 it's still an abject waste of money as the concept of a 'fixed camera' became redundant when camera avoiding sat navs became readily available. The old partnership axiom of 'if you don't speed you don't get a ticket' has been replaced with 'you don't get a ticket if you've got a sat nav'. Those who still stubbornly support this out of date antique camera concept would do well to realise at some point that no one you're trying to catch actually cares anymore! Oh well, I suppose you're all too entrenched in your views to grasp the bigger picture. Go ahead council, waste our money. Insight
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Insight says...

Meanwhile, on the horizon is an all new all singing and dancing speed camera that catches up to five offences at one time. So, here we go again, spending a load of money on yet another heap of the latest gadgets that, just like all of it's predecessors, will be out of date and in need of replacement in a couple of years requiring the tax payer to cough up yet more millions to feather the nests of these morally corrupt camera manufacturers.
Meanwhile they still haven't invented a camera that catches drunks or druggies, but nevermind, turn a blind eye to them eh?
How many times do we have to repeat this cycle before the easily lead camera fans finally get the fact they're being ripped off as it appears fools and 'our' money are very easily parted.
What can you say in the face of such abject blind stupidity? ..gawd only knows!
Meanwhile, on the horizon is an all new all singing and dancing speed camera that catches up to five offences at one time. So, here we go again, spending a load of money on yet another heap of the latest gadgets that, just like all of it's predecessors, will be out of date and in need of replacement in a couple of years requiring the tax payer to cough up yet more millions to feather the nests of these morally corrupt camera manufacturers. Meanwhile they still haven't invented a camera that catches drunks or druggies, but nevermind, turn a blind eye to them eh? How many times do we have to repeat this cycle before the easily lead camera fans finally get the fact they're being ripped off as it appears fools and 'our' money are very easily parted. What can you say in the face of such abject blind stupidity? ..gawd only knows! Insight
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Insight says...

Meanwhile, Swindon has closed down it's partnership completely and is spending the money saved on resurfacing worn out roads, which lets now be honest about it, is the actual cause of most collisions (for those who don't understand, a worn out shiney road increases stopping distance, even below the posted limit, increasing the likelyhood of a collision).
You see, the cat is out of the bag, they don't erect speed cameras at sites where there might actually be accidents, if they haven't repaired the road before hand. The camera doesn't actually do anything beyond generating revenue and now the sat nav is widely available, they don't even do that very well anymore.
Why do we have to go round and round and round and round and round on this? ...because there's too many vested financial interests, from the people who work on these partnerships, to the manufacturers of the devices and even the AA who make millions out of providing these training course. Even the sat nav manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping speed cameras, their market share has boomed since they added a speed camera database.
It's hilarious to read all these people who still think speed cameras are there to actually stop people speeding.
Deary me, what a farce this has all become and just when you thought the council had taken a common sense pill, here we go again. It is truly pathetic.
Meanwhile, Swindon has closed down it's partnership completely and is spending the money saved on resurfacing worn out roads, which lets now be honest about it, is the actual cause of most collisions (for those who don't understand, a worn out shiney road increases stopping distance, even below the posted limit, increasing the likelyhood of a collision). You see, the cat is out of the bag, they don't erect speed cameras at sites where there might actually be accidents, if they haven't repaired the road before hand. The camera doesn't actually do anything beyond generating revenue and now the sat nav is widely available, they don't even do that very well anymore. Why do we have to go round and round and round and round and round on this? ...because there's too many vested financial interests, from the people who work on these partnerships, to the manufacturers of the devices and even the AA who make millions out of providing these training course. Even the sat nav manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping speed cameras, their market share has boomed since they added a speed camera database. It's hilarious to read all these people who still think speed cameras are there to actually stop people speeding. Deary me, what a farce this has all become and just when you thought the council had taken a common sense pill, here we go again. It is truly pathetic. Insight
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Insight says...

Mind you, as confidence tricks go, the speed camera saga has been magnificent to watch unfold.
Normally sensible people buying into it like it's some kind of religion and arguing venemously in favour of these ridiculous devices, totally incapable of accepting anything that doesn't conform to the often repeated doctrine. The deliberate media fueled division of the two opposing sides, stubbornly refusing to listen to the othersides point of view.
Who'da thought there'd be so many apparently educated and yet clearly gullible people ready to sign up to it and hand over the readies?
It's a series of tricks and massaged misinformation, beautifully simple when you understand it, but you got to admire the way it's been executed.
Mind you, as confidence tricks go, the speed camera saga has been magnificent to watch unfold. Normally sensible people buying into it like it's some kind of religion and arguing venemously in favour of these ridiculous devices, totally incapable of accepting anything that doesn't conform to the often repeated doctrine. The deliberate media fueled division of the two opposing sides, stubbornly refusing to listen to the othersides point of view. Who'da thought there'd be so many apparently educated and yet clearly gullible people ready to sign up to it and hand over the readies? It's a series of tricks and massaged misinformation, beautifully simple when you understand it, but you got to admire the way it's been executed. Insight
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Insight says...

Here’s a little factoid for you.
There’s roughly 6000 speed cameras in the UK at the moment. They’re not all the same, some only cover a hundred yards, the newer expensive ones cover a couple of miles, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume they’re all of the same type and for the sake of this comment they all cover 5 miles.
6000 cameras x 5 miles = 30,000 miles.
According to the Ordinance Survey there’s 246,988 miles of drivable road in the UK, take away the 30,000 miles and you’re left with 210,988 of virtually unpoliced road since speed cameras arrived.
Your sat nav alerts you to the presence of cameras sites therefore giving you time to change your speed and you're not getting caught.
...
And people argue to keep speed cameras? …are you mental?
Here’s a little factoid for you. There’s roughly 6000 speed cameras in the UK at the moment. They’re not all the same, some only cover a hundred yards, the newer expensive ones cover a couple of miles, but to give them the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume they’re all of the same type and for the sake of this comment they all cover 5 miles. 6000 cameras x 5 miles = 30,000 miles. According to the Ordinance Survey there’s 246,988 miles of drivable road in the UK, take away the 30,000 miles and you’re left with 210,988 of virtually unpoliced road since speed cameras arrived. Your sat nav alerts you to the presence of cameras sites therefore giving you time to change your speed and you're not getting caught. ... And people argue to keep speed cameras? …are you mental? Insight
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Insight says...

By the way, the latest speed cameras cost anywhere between £50,000 and several hundred thousand for the latest average cameras and when it comes to, yet again, replacing all 6000 in a couple of years time (assuming the lowest price of £50K) and 6000 x £50,000 = £30,000,000 (that’s thirty million) straight into the bank accounts of the camera manufacturers for devices that only cover a fraction of 1% of our roads.
I don’t know about you camera supporters, but I’d be embarrassed if I’d been that stupid.
Nice little earner for someone though, perhaps I need to buy some shares?
By the way, the latest speed cameras cost anywhere between £50,000 and several hundred thousand for the latest average cameras and when it comes to, yet again, replacing all 6000 in a couple of years time (assuming the lowest price of £50K) and 6000 x £50,000 = £30,000,000 (that’s thirty million) straight into the bank accounts of the camera manufacturers for devices that only cover a fraction of 1% of our roads. I don’t know about you camera supporters, but I’d be embarrassed if I’d been that stupid. Nice little earner for someone though, perhaps I need to buy some shares? Insight
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Porphyro says...

The ironically named Insight is stronger on abuse than on calm analysis. Some of his compatriots criticise speed cameras as a way of forcing the poor unsuspecting motorist to pay vast sums to the exchequer; others become dyspeptic in protest at the public money that is spent on financing them. The facts are readily available to anyone who's interesting in finding them on the web, but facts don't half get in the way of the angry outbursts that anti-speed camera factions are prone to. Thankfully, public policy decisions are generally in the hands of more rational and level-headed folk who are actually capable of analysing data and resisting the foot-stamping and bawling of extreme libertarians.
The ironically named Insight is stronger on abuse than on calm analysis. Some of his compatriots criticise speed cameras as a way of forcing the poor unsuspecting motorist to pay vast sums to the exchequer; others become dyspeptic in protest at the public money that is spent on financing them. The facts are readily available to anyone who's interesting in finding them on the web, but facts don't half get in the way of the angry outbursts that anti-speed camera factions are prone to. Thankfully, public policy decisions are generally in the hands of more rational and level-headed folk who are actually capable of analysing data and resisting the foot-stamping and bawling of extreme libertarians. Porphyro
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Scaramuccia says...

Well said P that was certainly QUITE a diatribe - nay monograph, by old Insight there - the truth is most people with Sat navs dont have them on all the time and they do slow down in areas where cameras are. Theres the messy business of dismantling and putting away SATNAVs and wiping the sucker marks of the windscreen so some thug or smackhead doesn't smash his way into your car to take it out of the glove compartment. One thing Insight does not have much insight into is the cameras for catching drunks and druggies - we do have them its called CCTV but many of the anti camera faction like him don't like CCTV either. I know that since oxfordshire cameras went off I am probably driving too fast too often and the law of averages suggests that sooner or later this will contribute to an accident - now Insight don't be getting all obstreperous again you will bust a blood vessel.
Well said P that was certainly QUITE a diatribe - nay monograph, by old Insight there - the truth is most people with Sat navs dont have them on all the time and they do slow down in areas where cameras are. Theres the messy business of dismantling and putting away SATNAVs and wiping the sucker marks of the windscreen so some thug or smackhead doesn't smash his way into your car to take it out of the glove compartment. One thing Insight does not have much insight into is the cameras for catching drunks and druggies - we do have them its called CCTV but many of the anti camera faction like him don't like CCTV either. I know that since oxfordshire cameras went off I am probably driving too fast too often and the law of averages suggests that sooner or later this will contribute to an accident - now Insight don't be getting all obstreperous again you will bust a blood vessel. Scaramuccia
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Scaramuccia says...

Well said P that was certainly QUITE a diatribe - nay monograph, by old Insight there - the truth is most people with Sat navs dont have them on all the time and they do slow down in areas where cameras are. Theres the messy business of dismantling and putting away SATNAVs and wiping the sucker marks of the windscreen so some thug or smackhead doesn't smash his way into your car to take it out of the glove compartment. One thing Insight does not have much insight into is the cameras for catching drunks and druggies - we do have them its called CCTV but many of the anti camera faction like him don't like CCTV either. I know that since oxfordshire cameras went off I am probably driving too fast too often and the law of averages suggests that sooner or later this will contribute to an accident - now Insight don't be getting all obstreperous again you will bust a blood vessel.
Well said P that was certainly QUITE a diatribe - nay monograph, by old Insight there - the truth is most people with Sat navs dont have them on all the time and they do slow down in areas where cameras are. Theres the messy business of dismantling and putting away SATNAVs and wiping the sucker marks of the windscreen so some thug or smackhead doesn't smash his way into your car to take it out of the glove compartment. One thing Insight does not have much insight into is the cameras for catching drunks and druggies - we do have them its called CCTV but many of the anti camera faction like him don't like CCTV either. I know that since oxfordshire cameras went off I am probably driving too fast too often and the law of averages suggests that sooner or later this will contribute to an accident - now Insight don't be getting all obstreperous again you will bust a blood vessel. Scaramuccia
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Insight says...

Porphyro wrote:
The ironically named Insight is stronger on abuse than on calm analysis. Some of his compatriots criticise speed cameras as a way of forcing the poor unsuspecting motorist to pay vast sums to the exchequer; others become dyspeptic in protest at the public money that is spent on financing them. The facts are readily available to anyone who's interesting in finding them on the web, but facts don't half get in the way of the angry outbursts that anti-speed camera factions are prone to. Thankfully, public policy decisions are generally in the hands of more rational and level-headed folk who are actually capable of analysing data and resisting the foot-stamping and bawling of extreme libertarians.
Who's angry? I think it's amusing.
By the way, the only claim the partnerships make is that collisions reduce at camera sites, which isn't surprising considering they frequently resurface the worn out tarmac at the offending site which caused an increased number of accidents in the first place. Meanwhile the remaining 99.something of Britains road networks remain pretty much a free for all.
You keep on painting a picture of how you see people who don't believe the confidence trick the way you do and that's fine, because no one cares anymore.
Unfortunatly however, there's been a history of public policy decisions being derived from the hysterical, yet short sighted minority who've bought into all the fear mongering hype.
I don't support dangerous motorists as you would have others believe and those who get caught these days deserve it ...it's those you're not catching that worries the rest of us, those who know how limited the strategy really is and take full advantage of it.
But go on, knock yourself out, I don't agree with you, therefore I'm a dangerous naughty speeder it's all you've got isn't it.
[quote][p][bold]Porphyro[/bold] wrote: The ironically named Insight is stronger on abuse than on calm analysis. Some of his compatriots criticise speed cameras as a way of forcing the poor unsuspecting motorist to pay vast sums to the exchequer; others become dyspeptic in protest at the public money that is spent on financing them. The facts are readily available to anyone who's interesting in finding them on the web, but facts don't half get in the way of the angry outbursts that anti-speed camera factions are prone to. Thankfully, public policy decisions are generally in the hands of more rational and level-headed folk who are actually capable of analysing data and resisting the foot-stamping and bawling of extreme libertarians.[/p][/quote]Who's angry? I think it's amusing. By the way, the only claim the partnerships make is that collisions reduce at camera sites, which isn't surprising considering they frequently resurface the worn out tarmac at the offending site which caused an increased number of accidents in the first place. Meanwhile the remaining 99.something of Britains road networks remain pretty much a free for all. You keep on painting a picture of how you see people who don't believe the confidence trick the way you do and that's fine, because no one cares anymore. Unfortunatly however, there's been a history of public policy decisions being derived from the hysterical, yet short sighted minority who've bought into all the fear mongering hype. I don't support dangerous motorists as you would have others believe and those who get caught these days deserve it ...it's those you're not catching that worries the rest of us, those who know how limited the strategy really is and take full advantage of it. But go on, knock yourself out, I don't agree with you, therefore I'm a dangerous naughty speeder it's all you've got isn't it. Insight
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Thu 4 Nov 10

Insight says...

By the way, you don't have to take my word for the people speed cameras aren't catching ..look in any local press, anywhere in the country when there's one of these two week crackdowns and the alarmingly high number of offences that are caught by 'real' police. Because I hate to put too fine a point on it, but that's what's happening the other fifty weeks of the year when all that's out there is a bunch of impotent and essentially obsolete cameras.
If you can't see it and insist on cameras so be it, just don't expect me to believe a word of it.
By the way, you don't have to take my word for the people speed cameras aren't catching ..look in any local press, anywhere in the country when there's one of these two week crackdowns and the alarmingly high number of offences that are caught by 'real' police. Because I hate to put too fine a point on it, but that's what's happening the other fifty weeks of the year when all that's out there is a bunch of impotent and essentially obsolete cameras. If you can't see it and insist on cameras so be it, just don't expect me to believe a word of it. Insight
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Fri 5 Nov 10

Budowaah says...

Hahaha fantastic news. I'm all for it. I love reading when you sad bastards whinge about the good old speed camera.
.
If you can't see a bloody huge yellow box on a pole and lines on the tarmac then you deserve to be fined.
.
Keep crying me a river, it's entertaining :D
Hahaha fantastic news. I'm all for it. I love reading when you sad bastards whinge about the good old speed camera. . If you can't see a bloody huge yellow box on a pole and lines on the tarmac then you deserve to be fined. . Keep crying me a river, it's entertaining :D Budowaah
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Fri 5 Nov 10

Peterr Mcvey says...

Budowaah wrote:
Hahaha fantastic news. I'm all for it. I love reading when you sad bastards whinge about the good old speed camera.
.
If you can't see a bloody huge yellow box on a pole and lines on the tarmac then you deserve to be fined.
.
Keep crying me a river, it's entertaining :D
To be honest mate it is more fun with them on. You come down the Woodstock Rd at 50, slam on the anchors by the church and watch the bloke behind panic as he tries to stop going into the back of you, and once past Squitchy Lane you get to try out the 30-50 acceleration time and see if it matches the top gear stats. Lets have them back on.
[quote][p][bold]Budowaah[/bold] wrote: Hahaha fantastic news. I'm all for it. I love reading when you sad bastards whinge about the good old speed camera. . If you can't see a bloody huge yellow box on a pole and lines on the tarmac then you deserve to be fined. . Keep crying me a river, it's entertaining :D[/p][/quote]To be honest mate it is more fun with them on. You come down the Woodstock Rd at 50, slam on the anchors by the church and watch the bloke behind panic as he tries to stop going into the back of you, and once past Squitchy Lane you get to try out the 30-50 acceleration time and see if it matches the top gear stats. Lets have them back on. Peterr Mcvey
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Fri 5 Nov 10

abingdonguy says...

Insite Bravo. When you standing for election?
Insite Bravo. When you standing for election? abingdonguy
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Fri 5 Nov 10

Insight says...

Budowaah wrote:
Hahaha fantastic news. I'm all for it. I love reading when you sad bastards whinge about the good old speed camera. . If you can't see a bloody huge yellow box on a pole and lines on the tarmac then you deserve to be fined. . Keep crying me a river, it's entertaining :D
I think you're somewhat missing the point, the speedy motorists are conspicuous in their absence and aren't even on here complaining about or are bothered by speed cameras these days, especially the now impotent fixed type, because that view is obsolete.
It's the council tax payers (I assume you're one of them as well) who're funding these now redundant devices and the hoards of irrelevant staff at the expense of other more important issues during this time of austerity, now that camera fine revenue has plummeted and central grants have been withdrawn.
The only reason the police are offering to fund this is because they don't have to the money to take over.
So, all we're left with is a collection of out of date Polaroid’s on poles that due to the sat nav do absolutely nothing about speeding and don't even begin to address more serious issues.
But, if it makes you happy to think motorists are concerned, go right ahead, it is they who're really laughing at you.
[quote][p][bold]Budowaah[/bold] wrote: Hahaha fantastic news. I'm all for it. I love reading when you sad bastards whinge about the good old speed camera. . If you can't see a bloody huge yellow box on a pole and lines on the tarmac then you deserve to be fined. . Keep crying me a river, it's entertaining :D[/p][/quote]I think you're somewhat missing the point, the speedy motorists are conspicuous in their absence and aren't even on here complaining about or are bothered by speed cameras these days, especially the now impotent fixed type, because that view is obsolete. It's the council tax payers (I assume you're one of them as well) who're funding these now redundant devices and the hoards of irrelevant staff at the expense of other more important issues during this time of austerity, now that camera fine revenue has plummeted and central grants have been withdrawn. The only reason the police are offering to fund this is because they don't have to the money to take over. So, all we're left with is a collection of out of date Polaroid’s on poles that due to the sat nav do absolutely nothing about speeding and don't even begin to address more serious issues. But, if it makes you happy to think motorists are concerned, go right ahead, it is they who're really laughing at you. Insight
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Fri 5 Nov 10

Insight says...

abingdonguy wrote:
Insite Bravo. When you standing for election?
Thanks for the potential vote, but I'd never become a politician as I have a conscience, integrity and a nasty habit of telling the truth, meaning that I'm totally unqualified for such a position.
I just enjoy this speed camera farce because that's exactly what it is, a farce.
[quote][p][bold]abingdonguy[/bold] wrote: Insite Bravo. When you standing for election?[/p][/quote]Thanks for the potential vote, but I'd never become a politician as I have a conscience, integrity and a nasty habit of telling the truth, meaning that I'm totally unqualified for such a position. I just enjoy this speed camera farce because that's exactly what it is, a farce. Insight
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Fri 5 Nov 10

Insight says...

Here's a question for the camera supporters. There's a speed camera a couple of miles away from where I live. Please explain in as much detail as you feel necessary how it prevents people speeding on my road and past my house?.
It's not too much to ask?, is it?, I mean, you seem quite happy to ridicule anyone who complains, it'd be nice to know why you think it's ok to do that!
Here's a question for the camera supporters. There's a speed camera a couple of miles away from where I live. Please explain in as much detail as you feel necessary how it prevents people speeding on my road and past my house?. It's not too much to ask?, is it?, I mean, you seem quite happy to ridicule anyone who complains, it'd be nice to know why you think it's ok to do that! Insight
  • Score: 0

11:17pm Fri 5 Nov 10

Insight says...

Following a recent survey from the sat nav manufacturer Road Pilot assuring us that speed cameras are actually popular, well, surprise, surprise, today, the AA have published a report declaring that support for speed cameras is at an all time high amongst their members.
I wonder if the millions the AA make out of providing these re-training courses had any influence in compiling that report.
It's so blatant and boardering on desperate you've got to laugh!
Following a recent survey from the sat nav manufacturer Road Pilot assuring us that speed cameras are actually popular, well, surprise, surprise, today, the AA have published a report declaring that support for speed cameras is at an all time high amongst their members. I wonder if the millions the AA make out of providing these re-training courses had any influence in compiling that report. It's so blatant and boardering on desperate you've got to laugh! Insight
  • Score: 0

10:35am Sat 6 Nov 10

Porphyro says...

Insight, thanks for confirming what a previous correspondent said about the anti-speed camera lobby being resistent to data and sound argument. You cite an AA survey which presented findings unwelcome to you so you resort to smear and innuendo without a shred of evidence to support your prejudice.

The other questions you ask can be answered by a few minutes' googling.
Insight, thanks for confirming what a previous correspondent said about the anti-speed camera lobby being resistent to data and sound argument. You cite an AA survey which presented findings unwelcome to you so you resort to smear and innuendo without a shred of evidence to support your prejudice. The other questions you ask can be answered by a few minutes' googling. Porphyro
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Sat 6 Nov 10

Insight says...

No grasping at straws there then, I'd say it was only 'smear' if it were not entirely true.
It's simple really, do the AA and other organisations involved in the speed camera kabal have a vested financial interest, or are they totally independent? The answer is that obviously they are not independent and do have a vested financial interest and are actually part of a group which includes two of the manufacturers of speed cameras and are involved in a panel that includes several self appointed road safety groups who rightly or wrongly directly influence parliament policy, or at least used to influence the previous government.
So, since when did fact become innuendo?
As for this so called ‘anti speed camera lobby’ does such a thing even exist? Or is it little more than a contrivance of the speed camera empire, a tamed pantomime villain, always mysteriously on hand to provide a quote to the press stirring up emotions every time the partnerships release a news media item.
As for five minutes googling, I'd say the burden of proof is for the supporters to provide, I know that goes against the established and well crafted script, but surely it’s a really simple question for them to answer.
How does a now easily avoided and essentially redundant speed camera, several miles away, on a different road, prevent speeding on the road where I live?. If you don't have a satisfactory answer, please explain why I should have to continue to pay for it through my taxes and why I have to put up with the attitudes of people like you?.
No grasping at straws there then, I'd say it was only 'smear' if it were not entirely true. It's simple really, do the AA and other organisations involved in the speed camera kabal have a vested financial interest, or are they totally independent? The answer is that obviously they are not independent and do have a vested financial interest and are actually part of a group which includes two of the manufacturers of speed cameras and are involved in a panel that includes several self appointed road safety groups who rightly or wrongly directly influence parliament policy, or at least used to influence the previous government. So, since when did fact become innuendo? As for this so called ‘anti speed camera lobby’ does such a thing even exist? Or is it little more than a contrivance of the speed camera empire, a tamed pantomime villain, always mysteriously on hand to provide a quote to the press stirring up emotions every time the partnerships release a news media item. As for five minutes googling, I'd say the burden of proof is for the supporters to provide, I know that goes against the established and well crafted script, but surely it’s a really simple question for them to answer. How does a now easily avoided and essentially redundant speed camera, several miles away, on a different road, prevent speeding on the road where I live?. If you don't have a satisfactory answer, please explain why I should have to continue to pay for it through my taxes and why I have to put up with the attitudes of people like you?. Insight
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Sat 6 Nov 10

Insight says...

It does make me laugh ...imagine walking into an electrical retailer and asking "This tumble dryer, does it dry clothes?" to receive a patronising answer like "google it and find out mate" it's no wonder you holier than thou camera folk are failing to communicate effectively, you have an undeserved arrogance derived from a now out of date belief that your tissue of lies was impenetrable.
It does make me laugh ...imagine walking into an electrical retailer and asking "This tumble dryer, does it dry clothes?" to receive a patronising answer like "google it and find out mate" it's no wonder you holier than thou camera folk are failing to communicate effectively, you have an undeserved arrogance derived from a now out of date belief that your tissue of lies was impenetrable. Insight
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Sat 6 Nov 10

Insight says...

So, to summarise: As a motorist armed with the latest speed camera database, (as provided by one of the supporting manufacturers of cameras) these now antique devices from the last century don't affect me at all.
Logically then, I should keep quiet about it and enjoy the freedom.
So, why do some of us complain?
Because, now the camera is increasingly incapable of fining speeding drivers and central funding has been slashed, the money is, one way or another, increasingly being taken from my council taxes, effectively fining everyone for speeding ...even those who don't drive.
You camera supporters need to re-evaluate who're you're dealing with, because the worn out naughty speeder mantra is falling on deaf ears.
So, to summarise: As a motorist armed with the latest speed camera database, (as provided by one of the supporting manufacturers of cameras) these now antique devices from the last century don't affect me at all. Logically then, I should keep quiet about it and enjoy the freedom. So, why do some of us complain? Because, now the camera is increasingly incapable of fining speeding drivers and central funding has been slashed, the money is, one way or another, increasingly being taken from my council taxes, effectively fining everyone for speeding ...even those who don't drive. You camera supporters need to re-evaluate who're you're dealing with, because the worn out naughty speeder mantra is falling on deaf ears. Insight
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Sat 6 Nov 10

Insight says...

What would I do instead?, well, for one thing I'd stop paying a large number of essentially irrelevant people at these partnerships for an increasingly depreciating quality of service and pump the money into solutions that aren't so easily avoided.
It's really not that difficult, as the money saved from sacking just one partnership manager would pay to put three 'real' police back on the front line where they're actually needed and this doesn't even begin to address all the thousands of back office processors across the country, maintenance staff and most annoying of all, the PR staff who're now clearly failing to win the argument.
We know we're in a time of austerity and funding for 'real' police is at a premium, but that’s no excuse, as to continue wasting money on what is now nothing more than a placebo of road safety policy that very few people actually believe, is surely bordering on criminal negligence.
As the RAC have said recently, it's time for the government and local authority to grasp the nettle of defeat and invoke a new road safety policy that cuts out all the dead wood and waste and go back to doing the job properly and cost effectively, this is after all, what we all pay you for.
What would I do instead?, well, for one thing I'd stop paying a large number of essentially irrelevant people at these partnerships for an increasingly depreciating quality of service and pump the money into solutions that aren't so easily avoided. It's really not that difficult, as the money saved from sacking just one partnership manager would pay to put three 'real' police back on the front line where they're actually needed and this doesn't even begin to address all the thousands of back office processors across the country, maintenance staff and most annoying of all, the PR staff who're now clearly failing to win the argument. We know we're in a time of austerity and funding for 'real' police is at a premium, but that’s no excuse, as to continue wasting money on what is now nothing more than a placebo of road safety policy that very few people actually believe, is surely bordering on criminal negligence. As the RAC have said recently, it's time for the government and local authority to grasp the nettle of defeat and invoke a new road safety policy that cuts out all the dead wood and waste and go back to doing the job properly and cost effectively, this is after all, what we all pay you for. Insight
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Sat 6 Nov 10

Insight says...

Or, we can do it the camera supporters way.
Spend yet more millions across the country replacing the now out of date and beyond economical repair first and second generation speed cameras that cover less than 1% of Britains road networks, waste even more millions on all the support staff, further cut police budgets to make way for it and let the drunks and druggies have an absolute free for all.
Extreme Libertarian? me?, you're 'avin a laugh.
Or, we can do it the camera supporters way. Spend yet more millions across the country replacing the now out of date and beyond economical repair first and second generation speed cameras that cover less than 1% of Britains road networks, waste even more millions on all the support staff, further cut police budgets to make way for it and let the drunks and druggies have an absolute free for all. Extreme Libertarian? me?, you're 'avin a laugh. Insight
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Sat 6 Nov 10

Porphyro says...

Insight (or should that be Incite?), you're getting deep into OCD territory. You've evidently got more time on your hands than I have, so one final contribution only from me.

1) The AA survey about which you are so disparaging was conducted by the independent and highly respected research organisation, Populus, so your allegations of bias are indeed sheer prejudice.

2) OCC provides statistical data showing that accident rates in the county have fallen significantly during the past 10 years. My contention is that the presence of speed cameras is part of the climate of awareness about the need to be careful and considerate towards fellow road users. I would never argue that the presence or absence of speed cameras explains all changes in accident trends. merely that they are a legitimate part of the campaign to cut still further the 500 or so road deaths that have occurred in the county since 1999.

3) Speaking of being careful and considerate, if you review the comments on this site, you will see that many of the anti-camera contributors have gone for the man and not the ball. This makes a rational and productive exchange of reasoned argument pretty pointless so you will have to excuse me if I refer you to the mass of relevant research on which my arguments are based, rather than set it all out in great detail only for you to ignore it.

4) You ask why you have to put up with the attitudes of people like me. Well, you don't. Nevertheless, I hope you can recognise that people who disagree with you are not by definition stupid or dishonest. Freedom of speech is part of the democratic process, as are our laws. We are all free to disagree with particular laws but not to disobey them.
If you or I are fined for exceeding the speed limit we should put it down to our own carelessness, stupidity or selfishness rather than blame somebody else who has a professional interest in ensuring that laws are upheld.
Insight (or should that be Incite?), you're getting deep into OCD territory. You've evidently got more time on your hands than I have, so one final contribution only from me. 1) The AA survey about which you are so disparaging was conducted by the independent and highly respected research organisation, Populus, so your allegations of bias are indeed sheer prejudice. 2) OCC provides statistical data showing that accident rates in the county have fallen significantly during the past 10 years. My contention is that the presence of speed cameras is part of the climate of awareness about the need to be careful and considerate towards fellow road users. I would never argue that the presence or absence of speed cameras explains all changes in accident trends. merely that they are a legitimate part of the campaign to cut still further the 500 or so road deaths that have occurred in the county since 1999. 3) Speaking of being careful and considerate, if you review the comments on this site, you will see that many of the anti-camera contributors have gone for the man and not the ball. This makes a rational and productive exchange of reasoned argument pretty pointless so you will have to excuse me if I refer you to the mass of relevant research on which my arguments are based, rather than set it all out in great detail only for you to ignore it. 4) You ask why you have to put up with the attitudes of people like me. Well, you don't. Nevertheless, I hope you can recognise that people who disagree with you are not by definition stupid or dishonest. Freedom of speech is part of the democratic process, as are our laws. We are all free to disagree with particular laws but not to disobey them. If you or I are fined for exceeding the speed limit we should put it down to our own carelessness, stupidity or selfishness rather than blame somebody else who has a professional interest in ensuring that laws are upheld. Porphyro
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Sat 6 Nov 10

Insight says...

I think the majority of us realise the need to be careful and considerate on the roads and it is indeed patronising to infer that those who disagree with you, by definition, do not uphold similar values. Your final paragraph also alludes to a now out of date notion where in fact I agree in essence with the comment, however where I disagree is those that should be caught and accept the consequences of their own stupidity simply aren't being caught, because of the inadequacy of a now obsolete and easily avoided concept, as the dwindling generated revenue across the entire country (now well below the operating costs of these overbloated and increasingly impotent partnerships adequately demonstrates.
As for a bias, one way or another, toward the AA and their report, this isn't and won't be the last time reports have been cherry picked to achieve an outcome on a governmental policy for a financial vested interest and to imply that it is strictly legitimate is indicative of simple naivety as only four years ago the AA published a report which for all intent and purposes stated the complete opposite (I suppose that was before they made a lucrative deal on training courses, or perhaps I’m just being cynical).
You have ever right to your freedom of speech of course and I'd suggest you remember that right applies to all of us, the blanket bombardment by the partnership media departments over the previous years has attempted to quash that right and has indeed eroded democracy and sensible debate by a crass policy to ridicule and vilify anyone who simply doesn't tow the well rehearsed speed camera line.
Now the camera project is on it's financial last legs yet still content to dish out misleading information in favour of it's cause (as was seen only recently in this paper regards to claims that incidents of speeding had increased, when access to the actual information revealed these instances had actually fallen) there’s never been a better time to dump the out of date notion and begin to make progress again.
No amount of investment is going to make this faulty out of date concept work and it really is time to start accepting it, as the rest of the world is now doing. Arizona, once speed camera citation capital of the world has now abandoned use of speed cameras state-wide, returning to the tried and trusted old school policing albeit with modern and superior technology onboard that is quite simply cheaper and more cost effective and vastly more productive than speed cameras, so why this country has to remain in the road safety dark ages to satisfy the misinformed vocal minority who don’t know any better is totally beyond me.
I think the majority of us realise the need to be careful and considerate on the roads and it is indeed patronising to infer that those who disagree with you, by definition, do not uphold similar values. Your final paragraph also alludes to a now out of date notion where in fact I agree in essence with the comment, however where I disagree is those that should be caught and accept the consequences of their own stupidity simply aren't being caught, because of the inadequacy of a now obsolete and easily avoided concept, as the dwindling generated revenue across the entire country (now well below the operating costs of these overbloated and increasingly impotent partnerships adequately demonstrates. As for a bias, one way or another, toward the AA and their report, this isn't and won't be the last time reports have been cherry picked to achieve an outcome on a governmental policy for a financial vested interest and to imply that it is strictly legitimate is indicative of simple naivety as only four years ago the AA published a report which for all intent and purposes stated the complete opposite (I suppose that was before they made a lucrative deal on training courses, or perhaps I’m just being cynical). You have ever right to your freedom of speech of course and I'd suggest you remember that right applies to all of us, the blanket bombardment by the partnership media departments over the previous years has attempted to quash that right and has indeed eroded democracy and sensible debate by a crass policy to ridicule and vilify anyone who simply doesn't tow the well rehearsed speed camera line. Now the camera project is on it's financial last legs yet still content to dish out misleading information in favour of it's cause (as was seen only recently in this paper regards to claims that incidents of speeding had increased, when access to the actual information revealed these instances had actually fallen) there’s never been a better time to dump the out of date notion and begin to make progress again. No amount of investment is going to make this faulty out of date concept work and it really is time to start accepting it, as the rest of the world is now doing. Arizona, once speed camera citation capital of the world has now abandoned use of speed cameras state-wide, returning to the tried and trusted old school policing albeit with modern and superior technology onboard that is quite simply cheaper and more cost effective and vastly more productive than speed cameras, so why this country has to remain in the road safety dark ages to satisfy the misinformed vocal minority who don’t know any better is totally beyond me. Insight
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Sat 6 Nov 10

Porphyro says...

Thanks, but be careful with those apostrophes...
Thanks, but be careful with those apostrophes... Porphyro
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Sat 6 Nov 10

Insight says...

Having now said all that, this is why I find it all amusing and in a strange way I'll actually miss the speed camera. From the beginning it's been a modern day folly, a white elephant, dependant on perception rather than results. Those days are over and these times of austerity mean that we, as a country, can only afford to pay for what works not waste yet more millions on a now failed experiment in social compliance.
Having now said all that, this is why I find it all amusing and in a strange way I'll actually miss the speed camera. From the beginning it's been a modern day folly, a white elephant, dependant on perception rather than results. Those days are over and these times of austerity mean that we, as a country, can only afford to pay for what works not waste yet more millions on a now failed experiment in social compliance. Insight
  • Score: 0

4:50am Sun 7 Nov 10

Peterr Mcvey says...

2) OCC provides statistical data showing that accident rates in the county have fallen significantly during the past 10 years. My contention is that the presence of speed cameras is part of the climate of awareness about the need to be careful and considerate towards fellow road users. I would never argue that the presence or absence of speed cameras explains all changes in accident trends. merely that they are a legitimate part of the campaign to cut still further the 500 or so road deaths that have occurred in the county since 1999.

Actually Porp, I think you will find that the reduction in accidents is due to advances in safety aspects on the car itself (Suspension, traction control etc) and a tougher driving test (new drivers are more competent now than 10 years ago) rather than speed cameras. Speed is an obsession with most ill-informed people but only contributes to 7% of accidents, hardly worthy of all the press it gets, but highly lucrative as it is an easy buck for all involved to make. Don't forget that our biggest fatal road accident in recent history was caused by 1 womans stupidity, and not speed, but led to the limit on a 3 mile section of the ring road being reduced by 20MPH due to a knee jerk reaction from the anti speed brigade (it also let T.V.S.R.P. stand there with their guns raising more money) when speed was not involved at all. When will people understand that it is not speed that kills but idiot drivers such as that mentioned above, and that the cameras are just another of lifes big cons. P.S. If there had been a speed camera on the Eastern By-pass it would NOT have flashed before the accident, so exactly how do they save lives?.
2) OCC provides statistical data showing that accident rates in the county have fallen significantly during the past 10 years. My contention is that the presence of speed cameras is part of the climate of awareness about the need to be careful and considerate towards fellow road users. I would never argue that the presence or absence of speed cameras explains all changes in accident trends. merely that they are a legitimate part of the campaign to cut still further the 500 or so road deaths that have occurred in the county since 1999. Actually Porp, I think you will find that the reduction in accidents is due to advances in safety aspects on the car itself (Suspension, traction control etc) and a tougher driving test (new drivers are more competent now than 10 years ago) rather than speed cameras. Speed is an obsession with most ill-informed people but only contributes to 7% of accidents, hardly worthy of all the press it gets, but highly lucrative as it is an easy buck for all involved to make. Don't forget that our biggest fatal road accident in recent history was caused by 1 womans stupidity, and not speed, but led to the limit on a 3 mile section of the ring road being reduced by 20MPH due to a knee jerk reaction from the anti speed brigade (it also let T.V.S.R.P. stand there with their guns raising more money) when speed was not involved at all. When will people understand that it is not speed that kills but idiot drivers such as that mentioned above, and that the cameras are just another of lifes big cons. P.S. If there had been a speed camera on the Eastern By-pass it would NOT have flashed before the accident, so exactly how do they save lives?. Peterr Mcvey
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Sun 7 Nov 10

Porphyro says...

I had not intended to make further contributions to this topic but Peterr (sic) Mcvey’s comments above are such a willful misinterpretation of facts and such an offensive misappropriation of road tragedies in support of his misguided thesis that I will respond once more.

1) Speed is a factor in virtually every accident. Drivers have a responsibility to match their speed to prevailing circumstances, which includes anticipating the possibility that another driver or pedestrian may do something careless or the unexpected may occur. If I am driving at 20 mph a few feet from the car in front and that car has to make an emergency stop I’m virtually certain to hit that car. If I had matched speed and distance more intelligently I could have avoided a collision. I may be the innocent victim of another driver’s misjudgement about speed and safety but that does not mean that speed was irrelevant to the accident. It is, I think you will agree upon serious reflection, unwise to assert that speed contributes to only 7% of accidents. I’ve encountered that claim before and upon serious examination it crumbles as an entirely bogus statistic.

2) You claim that in the Oxford accident which caused the death of three children and serious injuries to four more “speed was not involved at all”. That is a grotesque misrepresentation as the following BBC report makes clear:
“ was seen pulling into an overtaking lane without indicating as she approached a silver car in front at about 70mph (112km/h).
Three of her seven passengers, Josh Bartlett, Liam Hastings, and Marshall Haynes, all 13, were killed.
Howard Hillsdon, 21, of Oxford was also killed when Dublin's car hit his vehicle and sent it into a spin.”
The fact is that given the circumstances in which she was driving, “about 70 mph” was an irresponsible speed. Yes, the car was overloaded but try to answer the following question honestly: is it equally likely that there would have been an accident and would the outcome have been as tragic had the car been travelling at 50mph? There really is only one possible answer, isn’t there?
Denying that road safety and speed are intimately connected is utterly irresponsible self-delusion.
I had not intended to make further contributions to this topic but Peterr (sic) Mcvey’s comments above are such a willful misinterpretation of facts and such an offensive misappropriation of road tragedies in support of his misguided thesis that I will respond once more. 1) Speed is a factor in virtually every accident. Drivers have a responsibility to match their speed to prevailing circumstances, which includes anticipating the possibility that another driver or pedestrian may do something careless or the unexpected may occur. If I am driving at 20 mph a few feet from the car in front and that car has to make an emergency stop I’m virtually certain to hit that car. If I had matched speed and distance more intelligently I could have avoided a collision. I may be the innocent victim of another driver’s misjudgement about speed and safety but that does not mean that speed was irrelevant to the accident. It is, I think you will agree upon serious reflection, unwise to assert that speed contributes to only 7% of accidents. I’ve encountered that claim before and upon serious examination it crumbles as an entirely bogus statistic. 2) You claim that in the Oxford accident which caused the death of three children and serious injuries to four more “speed was not involved at all”. That is a grotesque misrepresentation as the following BBC report makes clear: “[the driver] was seen pulling into an overtaking lane without indicating as she approached a silver car in front at about 70mph (112km/h). Three of her seven passengers, Josh Bartlett, Liam Hastings, and Marshall Haynes, all 13, were killed. Howard Hillsdon, 21, of Oxford was also killed when Dublin's car hit his vehicle and sent it into a spin.” The fact is that given the circumstances in which she was driving, “about 70 mph” was an irresponsible speed. Yes, the car was overloaded but try to answer the following question honestly: is it equally likely that there would have been an accident and would the outcome have been as tragic had the car been travelling at 50mph? There really is only one possible answer, isn’t there? Denying that road safety and speed are intimately connected is utterly irresponsible self-delusion. Porphyro
  • Score: 0

10:12pm Sun 7 Nov 10

Peterr Mcvey says...

Ok porp, people have been driving on that stretch of road at 70mph for longer than I have lived (except during the fuel crisis of the 70s) with no major problems, so why after the accident was the limit lowered when the 70 mph limit was perfectly safe?. Secondly sorry, I am mistaken about speed, you are right, if we all sat in our cars stationary we would hit nobody so speed no matter how low it is MUST be a cause of all accidents. Thanks for putting me right. P.S If she had been travelling at 50 the accident would still have happened, but poor Howard would not have been hit, it would have been someother poor soul.
Ok porp, people have been driving on that stretch of road at 70mph for longer than I have lived (except during the fuel crisis of the 70s) with no major problems, so why after the accident was the limit lowered when the 70 mph limit was perfectly safe?. Secondly sorry, I am mistaken about speed, you are right, if we all sat in our cars stationary we would hit nobody so speed no matter how low it is MUST be a cause of all accidents. Thanks for putting me right. P.S If she had been travelling at 50 the accident would still have happened, but poor Howard would not have been hit, it would have been someother poor soul. Peterr Mcvey
  • Score: 0

7:11am Mon 8 Nov 10

Insight says...

I feel I need to add something to my previous comments here.
I very rarely even mention speed limits because as a general rule I have no issue with them, if anything I feel that countrywide they should be simplified and for want of a better phrase "evened out", ie reduced to three 30 urban, 50 non urban and of course 70 motorway doing away with all the others. There's too much confusion on our roads with all these arbitrary changes that these partnerships keep making, this is why you have to be a full 11 miles an hour over the posted limit to be fined in some other countrys.
Of course speed is relevant, as things that don't move generally don't collide with each other, however, it is a fact that 'breaking a speed limit' is a contributory factor in less than '3%' of collisions, speed cameras are simply incapable of adjusting for anything else, such as too fast for conditions and it doesn't matter how many times the camera supporters repeat their misguided clarion call, their strategy is not working.
The question still remains, how does a smattering of easily avoided speed cameras (that cost a small fortune) even begin to address the problem? The answer is that they don't, we need our roads policed properly again and we need this entrenched factional arguement between both of the two sides to end so that we can begin to make progress.
I feel I need to add something to my previous comments here. I very rarely even mention speed limits because as a general rule I have no issue with them, if anything I feel that countrywide they should be simplified and for want of a better phrase "evened out", ie reduced to three 30 urban, 50 non urban and of course 70 motorway doing away with all the others. There's too much confusion on our roads with all these arbitrary changes that these partnerships keep making, this is why you have to be a full 11 miles an hour over the posted limit to be fined in some other countrys. Of course speed is relevant, as things that don't move generally don't collide with each other, however, it is a fact that 'breaking a speed limit' is a contributory factor in less than '3%' of collisions, speed cameras are simply incapable of adjusting for anything else, such as too fast for conditions and it doesn't matter how many times the camera supporters repeat their misguided clarion call, their strategy is not working. The question still remains, how does a smattering of easily avoided speed cameras (that cost a small fortune) even begin to address the problem? The answer is that they don't, we need our roads policed properly again and we need this entrenched factional arguement between both of the two sides to end so that we can begin to make progress. Insight
  • Score: 0

8:40pm Mon 8 Nov 10

Peterr Mcvey says...

The question still remains, how does a smattering of easily avoided speed cameras (that cost a small fortune) even begin to address the problem? Insight, my answer is that it does not, but it would be interesting to see Porps and the others answers to your question.
The question still remains, how does a smattering of easily avoided speed cameras (that cost a small fortune) even begin to address the problem? Insight, my answer is that it does not, but it would be interesting to see Porps and the others answers to your question. Peterr Mcvey
  • Score: 0

10:48am Thu 18 Nov 10

Insight says...

So, as expected, no response from the camera supporters.
As I said earlier, it is a fact that less than ‘3%’ of collisions on Britain’s roads have ‘breaking a speed limit’ as a contributory factor, this simply means that, even if there were a speed camera every hundred yards of every single road in the country (this would obviously mean millions of cameras to cover the near three hundred thousand miles of paved roads) and even then they were 100% successful in their one and only task of ‘monitoring a speed limit’ and absolutely nobody was caught speeding, then the absolute best return we could expect for that enormous amount of expenditure is a less than 3% drop in collisions.
By comparison, with only 6000 cameras in the whole of the UK it is clear when you look at the bigger picture that the camera supporters efforts are nothing but a drip in the ocean and do not warrant such an enormous amount of money being spent on such an irrelevant and easily avoided strategy, especially when that money could and should be being spent on putting at least some of the 20% of Britains traffic police that have gone AWOL since the white elephant cameras appeared as was revealed in a freedom of information act request made by Theresa Villiers in the House of Commons..
The speed camera supporters are understandably confused, there’s nothing wrong with some of their messages, that they do keep on repeating to the point of tedium, as if that was good enough, it’s their strategy, it doesn’t work, it can’t work and it will simply never work no matter how much money is spent on a now out of date technology and all they’re doing is playing into the hands of an industry that’s in crisis who’re being kicked out of contracts all over the world and are desperate to maintain their market share and huge profits that they once had for as long as they can.
Camera supporters, please take a moment and try to look at what you’re advocating, no one is arguing with you anymore, because you’re simply irrelevant, so stop wasting my council taxes on a modern day folly.
So, as expected, no response from the camera supporters. As I said earlier, it is a fact that less than ‘3%’ of collisions on Britain’s roads have ‘breaking a speed limit’ as a contributory factor, this simply means that, even if there were a speed camera every hundred yards of every single road in the country (this would obviously mean millions of cameras to cover the near three hundred thousand miles of paved roads) and even then they were 100% successful in their one and only task of ‘monitoring a speed limit’ and absolutely nobody was caught speeding, then the absolute best return we could expect for that enormous amount of expenditure is a less than 3% drop in collisions. By comparison, with only 6000 cameras in the whole of the UK it is clear when you look at the bigger picture that the camera supporters efforts are nothing but a drip in the ocean and do not warrant such an enormous amount of money being spent on such an irrelevant and easily avoided strategy, especially when that money could and should be being spent on putting at least some of the 20% of Britains traffic police that have gone AWOL since the white elephant cameras appeared as was revealed in a freedom of information act request made by Theresa Villiers in the House of Commons.. The speed camera supporters are understandably confused, there’s nothing wrong with some of their messages, that they do keep on repeating to the point of tedium, as if that was good enough, it’s their strategy, it doesn’t work, it can’t work and it will simply never work no matter how much money is spent on a now out of date technology and all they’re doing is playing into the hands of an industry that’s in crisis who’re being kicked out of contracts all over the world and are desperate to maintain their market share and huge profits that they once had for as long as they can. Camera supporters, please take a moment and try to look at what you’re advocating, no one is arguing with you anymore, because you’re simply irrelevant, so stop wasting my council taxes on a modern day folly. Insight
  • Score: 0

10:57am Thu 18 Nov 10

Insight says...

Meanwhile of course, 17% of all fatal crashes involve drink and/or alcohol, but you mention that to the camera supporters and they say ..well, that's nothing to do with us, that's the job of the police.
Yes, the police who're now missing because of your misguided strategy and financial profligacy with an out of date technology.
Camera supporters, you never really did have the moral high ground regardless of all your misleading and massaged stats, now it should be clear just how gullible you’ve really been.
Meanwhile of course, 17% of all fatal crashes involve drink and/or alcohol, but you mention that to the camera supporters and they say ..well, that's nothing to do with us, that's the job of the police. Yes, the police who're now missing because of your misguided strategy and financial profligacy with an out of date technology. Camera supporters, you never really did have the moral high ground regardless of all your misleading and massaged stats, now it should be clear just how gullible you’ve really been. Insight
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree