[Closed] The upside to government cuts!

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/arseholes-who-think-they're-good-at-driving-celebrate-speed-camera-victory-201007262943/ ]Government plans to scrap speed cameras were last night welcomed by middle-aged men who believe themselves to be excellent drivers.[/url]

You won't find this funny of course. But it is. 🙂

I'd bet the quid pro quo means road charging...

BD - I imagine that's a link to the Daily Mash. I'll not even bother clicking on it if it's all the same with you...?

I'd hate you to be exposed to any satire Peter. 🙂

Bring on road chargeing, I barely drive (live next to the rail station (costs about the same as fuel if I'm traveling alone), car's arent allowed at work so either have to cycle, or get the bus or train, and the midget is a year too young for tax exemption, which peeves me off so it would remove my itch to sell it and buy an older one.

I'd prefer more speed cameras. When driving they are much preferable to the alternative traffic calming measures like speedbumps or choke points/chicanes (which rather than slow traffic just seem to cause extra danger for cyclists with cars trying squeeze pass without leaving anyroom)

that's a bit of an odd one.

the speed cameras they put up near Sussex University during road works with a reduced speed limit earned more money than the road works cost.

I'd imagine they'd generally be lookign to up revenue rather than just reduce costs so surely there shoudl be more speed cameras?

It kind of blows up the [s]myth[/s] often stated fact that speed cameras were merely there as a method of government fund raising as ranted by Clarkson et al. Surely in times of austerity you would increase not decrease your camera numbers if this were true.

I'd hate you to be exposed to any satire Peter

I'd just hate to be totally underwhelmed by something that tries so hard to be amusing and fails so catastrophically. I've never found satire funny, sorry. Becasue it's not, mainly. 😛

STW is far funnier than the Daily Mash, IMO. 🙂

What's the problem with speed cameras being installed as a means to create revenue anyway? Even if it were true. The fact that most people blatantly disregard the Law on speeding, means that one of the only ways to 'punish' them or create any sort of deterrent, is to have speed cameras. You speed, you get fined. You do it repeatedly, you get banned. Don't want to get fined? Then don't speed. Simples. Squeak.

Mind you, speed limits on some motorways are a bit silly. That could be looked at. 100mph wouldn't be inappropriate on some stretches, and modern cars have better brakes and that.

I'd prefer more speed cameras. When driving they are much preferable to the alternative traffic calming measures like speedbumps or choke points/chicanes (which rather than slow traffic just seem to cause extra danger for cyclists with cars trying squeeze pass without leaving anyroom)

Personally, I'd prefer every speed camera to be replaced by 2 police officers in a fast car. Becasue they don't just slow people down, they catch the ones drink driving, with no insurance, on the phone, with bald tyres, carrying drugs, driving like twunts, in stolen cars, after doing an armed robbery......

But that's just me. I like the Plods.

Personally, I'd prefer every speed camera to be replaced by 2 police officers in a fast car

Have you done a proper cost feasibility study for this? That would cost a fortune. I'd prefer to see more police patrolling on foot or by bike, in high crime areas, rather than zooming about like they're auditioning for Police Camera Action. Too many fat sweaty coppers these days. No wonder youths are stabbing each other so much; if the Plod do turn up, they can just trot off at a leisurely pace, knowing the coppers will be out of breath and collapsing through exhaustion within a few yards. Obese Babylon.

Obese Babylon.

No-one else says this Fred. 🙂

Our council in Oxon. should have popped a few cameras on the road from Reading to Oxford. They could have easily made up the short fall in govt funding given the number of idiots whizzing up and down. Instead Mr. Cameron is splashing the cash flying out to India to ask them for more money please whilst telling them that they are not welcome here. Bunch of a**e, but not like it comes as a surprise.

What's the problem with speed cameras being installed as a means to create revenue anyway? Even if it were true. The fact that most people blatantly disregard the Law on speeding, means that one of the only ways to 'punish' them or create any sort of deterrent, is to have speed cameras. You speed, you get fined. You do it repeatedly, you get banned. Don't want to get fined? Then don't speed. Simples. Squeak.

Becasue it don't work quite like that, simples.

Laying all my cards on the table here, I've never been done by a static speed camera (One by one hidden in a plain van before they stopped doing that 11 years ago, I'll admit. I was driving a van, I didn't know it's 60mph for a van on a dual carrigeway, not 70mph....) becasue they are soooooo easy to see. And also becasue in the places they tend to put them, I'm not going to speed anyway. I'm mostly fairly steady and careful.

But, I ride a motorbike, so cameras and a lack of police benefit me a lot. I know where the cameras are, so I'll happily hit 130-140mph (Which I'd imagine is faster than the majority of people ever get even close to) on empty roads away from prying eyes, knowing I won't be caught. And I have a nice clean license. 🙂

I know a people who you would say are 'safer' than me with points on their licences from static cameras becasue they just weren't paying attention.

BigDummy - Member
Government plans to scrap speed cameras were last night welcomed by middle-aged men who believe themselves to be excellent drivers.

You won't find this funny of course. But it is

Cheers, one of the funniest things Ive read for a while

Have you done a proper cost feasibility study for this? That would cost a fortune. I'd prefer to see more police patrolling on foot or by bike, in high crime areas, rather than zooming about like they're auditioning for Police Camera Action.

Oh yeah, fairy nuff, so would I. Point taken but I just said that as an example. 🙂

so PP either we install gps on all vehicles that link speed to location and generate a ticket automatically or we use the same gps linked to a speed limiter based on prevailing speed limit?

I have nothing against speed cameras if they are put in sensible locations, outside schools, before junctions on A-roads etc. But the placement of some of them is just cynical, the bottom of a hill on a motorway where it changes from 70 to 50 for example.

Also the so called demonstrated safety improvements almost always rely on a very well known statistical phenomenom called "regression to mean"

mtbfix - The A4074 is an absolute joy for giving it death on!!!

I'd like it if there was a speed camera every 100 yards.

You do not have the right to speed. You just don't. MTFU and deal with it 🙂

either we install gps on all vehicles that link speed to location and generate a ticket automatically or we use the same gps linked to a speed limiter based on prevailing speed limit?

Not ever gonna happen. Won't work. Sorry.

[i]Won't work.[/i]

well, it would work but people wouldn't accept it...

i think the daily mash has it spot on with this one

and as for the cuts i liked this quote from the bbcs report on the bank of england and interest rates

[i]"The idea of a Greek-style crisis in the UK was always very unlikely. The 'emergency' budget was more about political theatre than economic necessity."[/i]

whatever PP and his 140 mph safe driving says speed is a factor in a third of all crashes and the faster you go the more likely you are to crash and also die.
Hopefully one day speeding will be viewed in the same way as drink driving is...remember when everyone did this and no one could see why it was such a big deal?
PP I am sure you and everyone else who speeds is safe attentive and has a clean driving licence and does not cause carshes and I await the stats you have at hand to support this ...you dont have any as it is BS
Stay within the speed limits please the roads are for all and the rules are there to keep us all safe. Speed kills it realy does

Surley elfinsafety should have posted this

well, it would work but people wouldn't accept it...

Go on then, you start, tell me how it works and I'll then carefully explain where you're mistaken, starting with "Who's going to pay for it?" 🙂

The A4074 is an absolute joy for giving it death on

From Reading to Wallingford is a smashing stretch of road but north of that the width eggs the idiots on into overtaking where they shouldn't.

The upside to government cuts!

They're turning the speed cameras off!

(Now we find out for real how much BS it is about them saving lives)

If cameras were just a way of making money (rather than a saftey thing) then why are they switching them off to save money? If anything it shows they were about saving lives and not making money.

whatever PP and his 140 mph safe driving

Please copy and paste below exactly where I said 140mph was safe, then prove to me it's not. 🙂

Speed kills it realy does

No, it really doesn't. You just believe the BS that's been forced down your throat for so long, that's all.

[i]"Who's going to pay for it?"[/i]

maybe they should introduce some sort of road tax to fund it 😉

maybe they should introduce some sort of road tax to fund it

"Road Tax" does not exist. The Disc in your car is not a tax on roads, nor does it pay for roads. It is "Vehicle Excise Duty" and is a tax on car ownership and goes straight to the goverment. 🙂

As PP has said, for the committed speeder, cameras are no bother at all. Statics get slowed down for, and once a mobile camera's been spotted, you know the rest of the county is probably clear.

The people who I know who get nicked by cameras a fair bit are generally fairly uninterested drivers. Half of my mate's family have been repeatedly nicked by the same mobile camera, in the same place about half a mile from their house. My mum now does an emergency stop for every camera. How the hell do you do that unless you're not paying any attention?

By far the biggest behavior change I've seen is the reaction to the signs that display your speed. They make much more difference to traffic speed than a camera does.

I really can't understand the logic behind road pricing - if we want to charge people for travelling about, pump up the fuel duty. Miles travelled is pretty proportional to fuel use, with inbuilt penalties for speeding and going to town at peak time. Road charging needs a load more infrastructure, and opens a massive can of worms on the privacy front.

If cameras were just a way of making money (rather than a saftey thing) then why are they switching them off to save money?

Again, please copy and paste below where I said they were a way of making money.....

I did question weather they save lives however. Which can be argued either way.....

[i]"Road Tax" does not exist. [/i]

which was precisely why I suggested they introduce it rather than raise it...

Tron, thanks for understanding my (possibly a bit vague?) point. 🙂

which was precisely why I suggested they introduce it rather than raise it...

OK, fairy nuff. 🙂

In that case, let's say I still had my 1972 VW Camper. How are you going to design a speed limiter to fit in something with no EFi electronics, that works the same as the one you'll fit to my Ford Focus?

You'll need to retro-fit every car in the country, so you're gonna need a LOT of different units to do that. Which don't exist..... Then you've got to get someone to actually fit them..... And then some way of enforcing them......

Are you beginning to see the practicalities of this yet? 🙂

of course speed kills modern cars can cushion the impact of a 30mph crash, much better than they can a 70mph crash
increased spead means you need greater breaking distance and reduced reaction times

and these cameras arent being removed to save money or make the roads safer

its a policy decision to keep the clarksons/pps of this world happy

Again, please copy and paste below where I said they were a way of making money.....

OK, Fair enough, but it is the standard argument put forward by people who are anti-camera.

I would be interested to know what you think the Governments motivation for cameras are then if it isn't for money or safety.

[i]Junkyard; speed is a factor in a third of all crashes[/i]

The 1/3 figure is a bit of a con because it includes crashes caused by driving too fast for the conditions but within the speed limit. In those situations the driver wouldn't have triggered a camera. The % of accidents caused by speeding is much lower.

'Swindon switched off all its fixed speed cameras a year ago, saying they weren't an effective tool in cutting road traffic accidents as only 6% were caused by people speeding'
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10762590 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10762590[/url]

I'd like it if there was a speed camera every 100 yards.

You do not have the right to speed. You just don't. MTFU and deal with it

Do we have a right to make progress along a road at the speed limit though?

Speed cameras every 100 yards would make safe overtaking on single carraigeways almost impossible. So we would all end up travelling at the speed of the slowest vehicle on a stretch of road.

No doubt the "speed kills" dogmatists will disagree but briefly exceeding the speed limit to oveertake a slower vehicle is MUCH safer than attempting the same manouver while staring at your speedo to make sure you don't go over 60

Do we have a right to make progress along a road at the speed limit though?

No you don't and if overtaking requires you to break the rules (be it speeding, breaking a solid middle line or whatever) then you shouldn't do it.

Of course, that's not to say that you/I/we don't but you can't really complain when the rules are clear.

No doubt the "speed kills" dogmatists will disagree but briefly exceeding the speed limit to oveertake a slower vehicle is MUCH safer than attempting the same manouver while staring at your speedo to make sure you don't go over 60

As if... safer still would be to not overtake if you can't do it without breaking the rules 😉

I would be interested to know what you think the Governments motivation for cameras are then if it isn't for money or saftey

Misguided belief that they can replace the police on the roads, fuelled by someone, somewhere, who looked at some statistics and decided they were 'The Best Thing Ever' to reduce accidents, without looking at other more positive measures first......

Like better training, retesting, medicals, different ways of reducing speeds, etc.

Like I said above, they have their place, but they aren't the be all and end all of safer roads like most would like you to believe.

I have not read any of the news regarding the abolishion of the cameras but are we just talking about the road side ones on the smaller A roads here and not the new average speed cameras that adorn quite alot of the motor ways now or is it all cameras everywhere?? What about the random copper with a speed gun hid behind a tree??

of course speed kills modern cars can cushion the impact of a 30mph crash, much better than they can a 70mph crash
increased spead means you need greater breaking distance and reduced reaction times

But it's not the speed that causes the crash, it's the mistake by the driver in the first place. Train the driver to be better, or remove him/her from the road if they aren't good enough. But less drivers = Less tax, so can you see that happening? No, me neither.

and these cameras arent being removed to save money or make the roads safer

its a policy decision to keep the clarksons/pps of this world happy

Well the article I linked to in to OP proves that wrong for a start, and I can avoid cameras all day long, thanks! They don't stop me if I'm in the mood......

PP - I'm sure there are practicalities for the speed limiter thing - the 'record and report' option though could be installed with no impact on safety or mechanical workings of the vehicle? Just a 'black box' solution.

If there was a political will to achieve it then it would happen. I doubt there ever will be as people want the 'freedom' to do 150mph when they fancy an adrenaline rush.

Lets be honest here, all speed camera's cause is congestion - you do whatever speed, see the camera, slow down then speed up again afterwards.

As for "Speed kills", no it doesn't - it's the stopping with the aid of a brick wall / other vehicle that kills!!

But it's not the speed that causes the crash, it's the mistake by the driver in the first place.

But still, make a mistake at 30mph and you'll probably live. Make the mistake at 80mph and you'll probably die. So the speed does kill. Humans arent machines, they make mistakes

No doubt the "speed kills" dogmatists will disagree but briefly exceeding the speed limit to oveertake a slower vehicle is MUCH safer than attempting the same manouver while staring at your speedo to make sure you don't go over 60

Indeed it is. Take some advanced training and find out how to do it properly. I've been out on a Bikesafe course with maked police bikes. And it's really quite eye opening.
No copper is going to stop you for going a bit over the limit to make a safe overtake. Do it on a double white, a bend, with oncoming traffic etc and they'll have you though (Rightly so IMO). But a camera won't catch the latter examples will it?

But, I ride a motorbike, so cameras and a lack of police benefit me a lot. I know where the cameras are, so I'll happily hit 130-140mph (Which I'd imagine is faster than the majority of people ever get even close to) on empty roads away from prying eyes, knowing I won't be caught. And I have a nice clean license.

This is from the man who has crashed his bike what, 5 times? But of course is never riding beyond his abilities.

Train the driver to be better, or[b] remove him/her from the road if they aren't good enough.[/b]

People like you should be banned from the roads.

Speed kills it realy does
No, it really doesn't. You just believe the BS that's been forced down your throat for so long, that's all

FFS PP that is some really powerful statistics that you have use there to persuade me thanks.
No relationship between speed and injury /crashes and you accuse me of believing BS. once more in caps for you
Thanks for the indignation and invective PP but any stats , research , data or science to prove your point?

Do we have a right to make progress along a road at the speed limit though?

here some research for you to ignore and tell me why you are a great and safe driver at any speed
http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/vol-1.html

The high way code says you are allowed to exceed the speed limit to make a safe overtaking manouver though clubber. If you are overtaking on solid white lines then you are an arse hole. Yes speed does kill, but not perhaps the biggest factor contributing to death. It would perhaps me more reasonable to say cars and motorbikes kill so perhaps they should be banned.

But still, make a mistake at 30mph and you'll probably live. Make the mistake at 80mph and you'll probably die. So the speed does kill. Humans arent machines, they make mistakes

Reduce the number of mistakes and less people will die regardless of speed. But that's harder to achieve and takes time and training.

But if you train the drivers better and weed out the crap ones, then maybe, just maybe, people will realise that they don't need to rush everywhere, and that obeying the rules and taking some care with your driving is the thing to do instead of acting like asshats behind the wheel.

beep beep beep beep!

Sorry, that's my alarm going off, I must have been dreaming.... 😉

But still, make a mistake at 30mph and you'll probably live. Make the mistake at 80mph and you'll probably die. So the speed does kill. Humans arent machines, they make mistakes

This is irrefutable. How can anyone say speed does not kill.

As regards the practicalities of the speed limiter thing its utterly simple, you start with a mandatory install on all new cars, much like cat convertors.

Then on any car with a spark ignition system a very simple method exists to limit the spark, so you could have a GPS receiver and a spark inhibitor that would fit any vehicle EFi or not. You can apply the same idea to diesel cars by using a solenoid to limit fuel flow, diesel limiters have been in use for many many years already.

Sorry its eminently practical. I can imagine a future where the GPS signal changes your max limit as you cross the speed limit boundary from town to country. Or it could be done by rfid or bluetooth.

If you want to do 140 MPH do it on a racetrack you recklessly dangerous man.

But if you train the drivers better and weed out the crap ones, then maybe, just maybe, people will realise that they don't need to rush everywhere, and that [b]obeying the rules and taking some care [/b]with your driving is the thing to do instead of acting like asshats behind the wheel.

Contradicting yourself massively there. 😕

obeying the rules and taking some care with your driving is the thing to do instead of acting like asshats behind the [s]wheel[/s] handlebars.

PP I fixed that for you.

Thanks for the indignation and invective PP but any stats , research , data or science to prove your point

With thanks to Birky earlier, May I repost this?

[i]Swindon switched off all its fixed speed cameras a year ago, saying they weren't an effective tool in cutting road traffic accidents as only 6% were caused by people speeding'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10762590 [/i]

🙂

Speed doesn't kill.

Speed makes driving more dangerous though.

No-one thinks speed cameras are a replacement for proper policing. However they are cheaper than policemen, and would serve a purpose if there were enough of them.

6% were caused by people speeding

So what, it doesn't say that only 6% of road deaths are caused by speeding does it?

SO most accidents are not at speed, I can imagine all the low speed shunts and little prangs where all parties can have a laugh about it because the insurance paid out and [b]NO ONE WAS KILLED [/b].

PP I fixed that for you.

Fair doos!
I freely admit I'll ride like an absolute tool if the fit takes me. Couple of laps of a roundabout to warm the tyres and scrape the footpegs, then rev limiter in every gear on the way out? Mmmm, Lovely!
It was very rare I took my bikes out (Not got a big bike right now, only a scooter) without going over 100mph at some point, Indeed my little Monster 696 would hit it's 130mph + top speed so easily it was rude not to. And the noise it made getting there was utterly addicive. And I don't give a toss what anyone thinks of that to be honest, and I'm not even going to attempt to justify it. But anybody who rides a mountain bike should understand WHY at the very least... 🙂

Right, that's that out of the way, lets get back to these bloody useless cameras! 😉

PP I think the wanting to go fast is understandable, it's the thinking beyond that to the "what if's" that mean that we shouldn't on a public road.

whatever PP and his 140 mph safe driving says speed is a factor in a third of all crashes and the faster you go the more likely you are to ....

What is your source for this statistic ?

Bazzer

I dunno, I don't speed (75mph max on M'way?) so cameras don't bother me but I do watch other drivers shoot past like I'm standing still but while I like speed too I won't be responsible for causing the death of an innocent driver from careless driving by speeding.

Leave the cameras-nothing to hide so don't worry.

Put cruise control on all cars eg 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70. Driving would be nice just using steering controls and no foot pedal for accerlating.

At least PP is honest and you can see how speed is fun but its selfish without consideration to others.

Just go on a track day with your mean machine!

The cameras are not useless if they manage to catch/ban/fine even a small number of idiots like you PP. I can imagine how much fun it is riding a bike at 130mph, but that's why I don't have a bike. Stop being a dick/troll.

In that case, let's say I still had my 1972 VW Camper. How are you going to design a speed limiter to fit in something with no EFi electronics,

No need. A '72 Camper isn't capable of doing over 50, let alone 70. And if you drive one along a motorway at it's top speed in winter you'll freeze to death because the heat exchangers don't work and there'll be a howling gale blowing through some hole somewhere. You need a sheepskin jacket even in summer with one of those. Horrible things. Owned by masochists who want to be like Jamie Oliver. Scrap the lot. Thousands and thousands of pounds they cost and always breaking down, when you could just buy a Transit or something and do that up. Much better.

But anybody who rides a mountain bike should understand WHY at the very least...

Well despite my pious remarks I am an ex biker who behaved in exactly the same way, but I have also seen the horrific after effects on riders, passengers and a pedestrian child who was hit by a motorcycle (country 'A' road, child walking with parent on verge, high speed motorcycle (140+) approached, saw peds, panicked, braked, lost it and bike hit kid, very sad results, and the biker survived with a broken wrist. Imagine having the death of kid on your conscience.
I have since sold my bikes and slowed right down in the car, but I ride as I did on the road on my mtb instead.

This is great!
Helmets, druggies now speed cameras.
All we need is God loving Vegans to get the complete STW thread set 🙂

But still, make a mistake at 30mph and you'll probably live. Make the mistake at 80mph and you'll probably die. So the speed does kill. Humans arent machines, they make mistakes

This is irrefutable. How can anyone say speed does not kill.

As regards the practicalities of the speed limiter thing its utterly simple, you start with a mandatory install on all new cars, much like cat convertors.

Then on any car with a spark ignition system a very simple method exists to limit the spark, so you could have a GPS receiver and a spark inhibitor that would fit any vehicle EFi or not. You can apply the same idea to diesel cars by using a solenoid to limit fuel flow, diesel limiters have been in use for many many years already.

Sorry its eminently practical. I can imagine a future where the GPS signal changes your max limit as you cross the speed limit boundary from town to country. Or it could be done by rfid or bluetooth.

If you want to do 140 MPH do it on a racetrack you recklessly dangerous man.

Complete tosh and anyone who has ever worked with GPS would know that its tosh. Its not accurate enough 100% of the time to do this. Sat nav systems use clever algorythms to keep locked onto a road when the GPS position wanders, but it does get it wrong a fair bit.

I would not want to be doing 70 miles an hour on the motorway with someone up my chuff and the box decide I was on the 30MPH road I am running adjacent too.

All these things seem simple until you actualy have to build what amounts to a safety critical system that does the job in the real world.

Bazzer

PP - want to borrow my flame proof suit?

[i]I would not want to be doing 70 miles an hour on the motorway with someone up my chuff[/i]

to be fair, there's not many of us that would - it makes the pedals so much more dificult to reach.

Speed is a factor in a lot of crashes however it doesn't mean they are speeding. Its not difficult to have a tight corner on a 60mph limit road. Yet try to do 60 round it you are going into a hedge. Speed cameras help in some places. Blackspots junctions etc but on motorways I doubt it. Its hard enough to stay at 70 on most motorways for a period without getting slowed by someone

wait a minute is it rotational forces that kill rather than speed?

Having a gps limiter would be fun when you went through a tunnel. Dumb ass

No need. A '72 Camper isn't capable of doing over 50, let alone 70. And if you drive one along a motorway at it's top speed in winter you'll freeze to death because the heat exchangers don't work and there'll be a howling gale blowing through some hole somewhere. You need a sheepskin jacket even in summer with one of those. Horrible things. Owned by masochists who want to be like Jamie Oliver. Scrap the lot. Thousands and thousands of pounds they cost and always breaking down, when you could just buy a Transit or something and do that up. Much better.

Oh man. Oh man. Oh man.

A transit?

A TRANSIT????????

[size=5]A FLIPPIN TRANSIT!?!?!?!?!?!?![/size]

People have been killed for suggesting less than that my friend.

I had 85 out of mine. The heater was OK. It never broke down becasue I looked after it, and a full service is only £50 so that's not hard.
And I'd have another if I could afford one. Best vehicle I've ever owned. I miss it so much. You can stuff your modern cars where the sun don't shine.
And I lived in it for 6 months too. It saved my sanity. It really really did.

As someone who uses roads, I'm not wholly reassured by the fact that anyone coming round a bend at 140mph has [u]self-selected[/u] into the special club of people who are too skilled for speed limits to apply to. Although it is comforting to know that they do it because they can, because they don't give a toss about anyone else and because it's fun and makes a cool sound. 🙂

[i]Having a gps limiter would be fun when you went through a tunnel.[/i]

it would fail safe and not limit speed?

the issue is not one of whether some form of gps speed recording and/or limiting could be done it's one of whether there is the political will to make it be done.

There were some figures released a while ago with a full breakdown of accident causes. The leading cause was inattention.

anyone coming round a bend at 140mph

Showing your naiveity there BD....... Think about that more carefully please.

Go on then. How fast can motorbikers as awe-inspiringly skilled as you are corner when there isn't a speed camera? 🙂

A quick point on how cutting Speed Costs can save money, but they can also be revenue generators. This isn't a perfect analysis but is more or less right. Cameras are installed and managed by Road Safety Partnerships, which are funded by Councils who in turn receive grants from Central Government. The fines go to Central Government. A Council can therefore [u]save[/u] money by getting rid of Cameras albeit this may be at a cost to Central Government if the fines exceeded the grant. The system used to be ring fenced so the fines were reinvested by the Councils.