[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......