scooby nutter

Just wondering,
to put a end to the money making racket that the Goverment has.
Obviously cameras that are near Schools and are in genuine dangerous places will be left unharmed.(so thats about 5 in the uk then)

All other cameras that are there just to make as much money for the fat cats will be destroyed by any means neccesary.
(not by any of us you understand)

If it takes off we could have a competition for the best Destroyed camera,pics must be included as proof of destruction.
Also a points system could be used eg:spray paint over lenses=10 points,camera torched=50 points and camera totally removed =100points.
the person with the most points at the end of the year could win something


LOL

rik1471

Win what? 5 years at her majestys.

merkin

there is actually a website along these lines in the Netherlands where they hate Gatsos with a vengeance, can't remember the site name though

Gridlock Mikey

I wouldn't normally put my name to something like this but I feel that something needs to be done. Now some of this IS sour grapes, i have points for speeding. However, the system is starting to take the pi55 IMHO and i don't know about you but i hate the feeling of being trapped and not being able to do anything about it!
I have come up with loads of different ways of sorting out speed cameras (In all of thier guises) All of them involve destroying the offending item.
Now before people get on thier moral high horses, i believe that in this instance, actions really DO speak louder than words. In the good ole days you had the copper hiding in a bus stop, the odd Gatso and VASCAR. Nowadays it is (I believe) totally out of control and literally there are so many speed detector devices out there, it is encroaching on my civil freedom.
If the camera's were being destroyed at the same rate as they were being erected, initially speeding fines would increase, road tax etc (Government blaming the camera destruction but really it's nothing to do with them!) but eventually, it would become financially unviable to erect any more.
As in the first post, the devices located properly would be left alone, all other devices would be targeted.
I say enough talk, let's get it on, forget about politicians trying to tell us that it's for safety, challenge authority if you feel you have a case,make them accountable for erecting cameras, explain why they have placed a site there,Have a community vote on proposed camera sites instead of just randomly erecting them,make yourselves heard, go rip up a GATSO today

Mikey

Why did they spend a fortune on painting them all yellow and then another fortune on employing low life to hide in ditches, behind trees, in carparks etc with a video pointing out of the back of a van. Sneaky scum. What's the matter, yellow boxes not earnig as much as the hidden grey ones? [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

Only kidding by the way (About the ripping up stuff) disclaimer note cos i didn't want everyone to blame me

scooby nutter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win what? 5 years at her majestys.

Typical Brit attitude,let em walk all over you mate!!
If we dont make a stand now in 10 years time you may aswell leave your car at home,1mph over the limit and goodbye licence


Gridlock,
Well said ,i will pick you up tonight im My JCBWe'll go cruising

LOL




[Edited by scooby nutter - 11/15/2002 12:53:35 PM]

Jen

At the risk of being hated, I don't care - I'm fed up with this. Just to set the scene, I work in Road Safety and Traffic Management so yes, I've seen the figures and I work with the Policemen and the Public. Camera's are places only in areas where there have been high instances of serious and fatal accidents *and* speed has been a contributing factor or there is a risk of workmen being killed/injured (e.g. A-roads with roadworks or motorways with roadworks).

It takes *ages* to get one of these things put in and alot of justification, and no, there is no money made.

Speed limits are there for a reason, and again, there are about a million guidlines to meet to place one. It's taken us almost 1 1/2 years to get a 20mph put in along a road with 2 schools and a busy shopping centre...these things are checked and checked again. If you think you have a unjustifyed speed limit, write to the local govt. in your area and complain (Traffic Mgmt Dept)...if you have a good point they'll take it up, if you're talking cr*p you'll get a polite response.

If you get caught speeding, well, tough. You know the law. Btw, I have been known to speed and no, I have no points on my license.

{flame suit on}

Jen

DrEvil

Funnilly enough, there is one GATSO positioned near a golf course on the Tadworth/Dorking road (parallel to the A217) that has been destroyed so many times that they haven't replaced it since it was last set-a-light a few weeks back.. not that I'm condoning this sort of thing, but your idea could work - but that would be criminal damage.

mutant_matt

Jen,

Thanks for the informative post but I'm afraid I have to disagree. If what you say was (completely true) then all the speed cameras that appear on brand new roads would not appear would they? I can think of several new roads (as in brand new built roads that didn't exist before) that were opened with many speed cameras installed on them from day one. A new road by definition has no accident history so there is no possibility that there could have been any previous accidents, speed related or otherwise. This kind of installation just stinks of revenue generation doesn't it?

Ta,

Matt

jasonwrxowner

Clarkson in the Sun today.



Here

mark_h

There's a GATSO on our industrial estate. In 10 years there has never been an accident there, let alone a serious/fatal one. But drivers did speed along that section.

mutant_matt

Also,

If they were *really* designed to improve road safety then would they not be made more visible - currently only the cameras in the "Cash for Cameras" scheme have to be luminous yellow and in plain view - there are plenty still out there which have zero effect on road safety because they are hidden from view.

The other problem is that because of the move towards cameras, there are far less Police on the roads and this cannot be a good thing, however the politians try and dress it up. The fatality figures for the first time since the introduction of widespread cameras has gone up and convictions for Dangerous and Careless driving are down significantly but I doubt that anyone would argue that the standards are getting better? I think it's plain to see that the standard of driving is in free fall!!!

Police forces used to spend on average 10% of their budget on the Traffic division and this figure is now down to about 2%

Matt

chiark

I know NO-ONE could possibly think this is serious, but just in case...

Scoobynet in NO WAY condones such illegal action and WILL NOT be running a points system (seriously).

Sad when we have to think like this

On a personal note, I'm not a fan of gatsos

Jen

Very true Matt...bizarre eh? Never heard of that before, but then one of the Council's have decided to take the white lines of a A road to improve Safety...Mmm, yes...sensible (this should only be done on minor roads, e.g. housing estates...)

Anyway, just for interest I've looked up the exact criteria:

Static Camera's:

At least 4 KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) per km in 3 years;
or at least 8 PI (Personal Injury) accidents per km in 3 years (although this one is very difficult to get passed);
where speed is a contributory facotr in all accidents;
85th percentile speed 10% above the speed limit plus 2 mph
at least 20% of drivers exceeding the speed limit.

...there's the same sort of thing for mobile camera's and red light cameras (although these won't go off if you go under 5mph )

Therefore, write and complain to your local Constab. Traffic Mgmt team if you think any of those aren't met and make them justify themselves...

Matt, just had a brief discussion here (traffic and engineers) and the only justification we can think of would be that the section of road built is of a dangerous nature e.g. new roundabouts/complicated junctions? ...otherwise, get out that quil and parchment and complain!

Jen

P.S. Sorry - just had earfuls of Councillors/annoying public people today...one guy complained because a car was parked outside he's house and hte sun was reflecting off it into his lounge?!?!?! [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

mark_h

Did you not arrange to have the sun turned off in about 2.5 hours especially for him?

druddle

Well IF i was to volunteer for such a cause then I certainly wouldnt let the world know by posting it on here !!!!

Jen

lol @ Mark...acutally, I might ring him back and let him know!

Jen

Btw...Analysis of 250 sites:

On average speed reduced by 5.6mph
35% reduction in PI accidents
47% reduction in KSI accidents

muppet paster

I'm fed up of gatsos!

There are two near where i live, each is on the approach to an 'accident blackspot'. Not actually close enough to affect the possiblity of speeding around this one particular bend! Plus if memory serves of the last 4 cars to get totalled there, 3 were stolen. How does a camera act as a deterrent against this? Surely that would be the realm of more coppers on the streets / roads? But will this happen wilst money is spent on erecting new cash, sorry, gatsos, or mataining existing ones?

Get real....

P1Fanatic

Jen if its not about earning revenue to get more cameras then why dont they just use speedbumps in danger areas like outside schools and in low speed areas??? They are far more effective at making people slow down - a camera can catch u but youve still done the speeding so what difference did it make at that time????

Also why hide them behind signs, trees etc. I live right next to the A14 in Cambridge that has a car crash on it pretty much every other day of the year - still no cameras yet they have them further up the A14 where its always quiet (going up to the M6).

Simon.

mutant_matt

Jen,

Neither are in my local area (well, one is in London but not my bit of it) and one is miles away. I was just making a point (and both of them are new dual carridgeways) with no obvious reasons and no complicated junctions etc.

A question that people often ask which you could hopefully answer BTW, why is it that there are hadly any cameras in built up areas that do have a history of accidents and people speeding and there are plenty of cameras in areas where nobody ever recalls seeing or hearing about an accident but coincidentally (), the road is safe to travel at a higher speed

Matt

SJ_Skyline

From Mark 4 Supra.net:


'SNIPER' TAKES OUT CAMERAS Monday 11th November



Norfolk gunman is shooting up speed cameras

It's a sign of the times. Speed cameras are increasingly becoming the targets of vandalism and now there's news of cameras being shot at by what some sources are labelling a 'sniper'.

The Norfolk Sniper has taken out two cameras on the A146 south of Norwich. The damage is extensive and the estimated cost of repairing them is over £60,000. This is expected to be met by the insurers although there can be little doubt that premiums for protecting such equipment will shortly be rising.

Police have been unable to establish what type of weapon has caused the damage and although concerned about the damage to their cameras, are particularly concerned about the use of a firearm in a public place.

Bryan Edwards, spokesman for Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership which manages the camera system, said: "Both the cameras have been looked at by scenes of crime officers and are now the subject of a fairly extensive police investigation."

He continued: "You often worry about the mentality of the people who do this sort of thing because the cameras are there to reduce serious casualties".

muppet paster

surprised their isn't a camera here by now...

scunnered

iTrader: (1)

Aren't we lucky in the west of Scotland then. I've only ever seen gatso's on the telly. Not many traffic cops either, might see one every couple of weeks or so.

Tommy 2000

...if anyone knows this fine human being, please point him in the direction of Hampshire!

Diesel

Jen, admire your spirit, but not even a 1000 strong team of PR experts could START to convince us of the justification or logic for these cameras. The damage is done, and virtually every member of the public loathes them and finds their mass proliferation unjustified and their zero discretion unfair.

These very same people would applaud these very same cameras if used in a more measured and restrained manner. Only an idiot would complain of a GATSO in a 30mph village and no one does.

I got caught at 49 in a 40 on a dual carrigeway at 2am coming from Heathrow - absolute bollox. No copper would have done me, and if he had stopped me then it would have been a breathalyser - something MUCH more valid.

If your statistics justify placement, then your benchmarks and sums are totally wrong. There is NO WAY that where I was caught was an accident blackspot - it was totally straight with NO junctions or buildings.

It's out of control due to misguided beurocrats, and how I'd love to re-decorate the revenue earners - or maybe uproot them and place them near schools or shopping areas...

Not happy

EVOLUTION

Hey, you stole my idea LOL

But yes, im up for that one,


The beginning of the end

John

ajm

How about taping a bin liner over the top of the gatsos. If everyone did one a week the police would never be able to afford the resources to keep taking them off again, and it wouldn't be criminal damage!

scoobynutta555

Jen from what ive heard of the guidelines for the placement of gatsos, they are exactly that, guidelines. I seem to remember reading somewhere that local authorities have much greater say in speed limits and the placement of cameas now. Hence the silly places that they are now appearing, places which have no accident history at all, but look like good revenue earners.

And regards the 250 camera sites and their heroic cut in accident rates. Call my cynical but i am willing to bet that the sites that have been chosen for this survey are all hand picked to give the most impressive figures,the impresson therefore that all cameras offer the same benefits. Theres also been talk recently that accidents have even gone up at some gatso sites, or that they have been ineffective as a deterrant.

Incidently, why are the majority painted grey? The obvious answer in an accident blackspot is to paint the things as bright as possble.

As regarding the destruction of the cameras, we pay for them! would be more in favour of the cameras being covered over with bin liners as i understand this is not illegal. It also would be a good PR point to put across as well, maybe scoobynet group action

EVOLUTION

TAZMAN

Surely the last one should say Thief constable??

Its not the speeding that kills..its the not stopping.

Also the feckin motorways would have alot less accidents if they would start punting people who sit in the middle lane in tot he inside lane......its not hard people...

I say mass bin liner over camera day...

rant over

DrEvil

wouldn't putting a bin liner on them be classed as 'perverting the course of justice' or the like... just a thought.