alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Here we go again, more speed cameras in Humberside, and more of my "favourite kind", the forward-facing ones. You know, the ones that ACPO asked to have because far too many people were "getting away with it" because they couldn't remember who was driving, and a photo of the back of a car can't identify the driver, can it?

I have a few questions for you:

1, Which type of vehicle makes up only 1% of the vehicles on the road, but is involved in 20% of the serious accidents?
2, Driving which type of vehicle are you 44% more likely to die if involved in an accident, than if driving a car?
3, Which type of vehicle had 700 deaths and 7000 serious injuries from accidents in 2003, the last year I could find figures for?
4, Which type of vehicle is often seen overtaking, or even "under"taking in heavy traffic, queues, and roadworks?
5, And finally, which type of vehicle CAN'T be caught by forward-facing cameras?

If you're having any problems with those, here's a clue: the answer to all five questions is the same, and if you're still stuck, I'll put the answer at the bottom.***

It seems very strange to me, then, that if those statistics are correct, (and I got them from a government website, so who am I to say they aren't?), the so-called "safety partnerships", aren't targetting that group I mentioned above, in order to save lots of lives. After all, "speed kills" as we are repeatedly told, and most accidents are caused by speeding, aren't they? Or so we are also told, hence the proliferation of "safety" cameras.

But hold on a minute, if we assume, (just assume, mind you), that safety/speed cameras are REALLY about revenue, wouldn't it make sense for the "safety camera" partnerships to ignore that small group....after all, what's 1%? A small drop in the ocean of the £2 million they took, (oops, bad phraseology), in fines last year, 1 in 100 fines lost? Who cares? If it's about revenue, we can ignore the 20% involved in serious accidents, can't we? And if the above were true, wouldn't they CONTINUE to use, and to defend, forward-facing cameras? In order to ensure that the car driver, the REAL criminals of today, can't get away without paying their fines?

I'll leave you to form an opinion here. I have already formed mine

Alcazar




*** The answer to the question is, of course, motorbikes.

^Qwerty^

Where you got the info from?

richs2891

I think you have already answered both of your questions her, Yes the safety camera scheme should be renamed to blatent money making scheme - or something along those lines. And yes they are quite happy to ignore motorbikes.

Now I wonder what would happen if I removed my front number pate and when question claimed it was discrimatory (sp) to display a front number
plate ?

Richard

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Which? The cameras coming? (last night's Telegraph, M180 roadworks), or the motorbike injuries? (DoT website).

Alcazar

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Or what would happen to a car manufacturer who asked the government if it was OK not to display a front number plate as they couldn't fit one on?

Alcazar

^Qwerty^

Source and mainly the location is what I was interested in. The good old M180 then. Clearly a safety issue on that road......

Dunno what they'll do when the Melton by-pass is finished, as I imagine that will result in the loss of a "nice little earner", unless the 50mph limit is maintained, but I can't see that happening.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

It's M180, between junctions 3 and 4, and I CAN see the point as it's for raodworks, although the cameras will be live 24/7 and what's the betting that little goes on at night? And I HATE forward facing cameras...........

Melton? Not Melton ross?

Alcazar

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Humberside safety camera partnership slogan:

"We'll get our bit, don't you f***ing worry!"

NS04

^Qwerty^

Nah, Melton on the A63 -North Bank. Bad accident record over the years, in the main due to that being the first place you may have to stop after joining the M62 in Liverpool if you drive all the way to Hull and most people treat it as a motorway. So the obvious answer is to drop the speed limit to 50 and zap as many people as possible.

However to be fair the highways agency are spending millions of pounds putting a flyover/roundabout in, which will get rid of the traffic lights. Bet that wouldn't have happend if it was maintained by the local authority.

hedgehog

Have I picked it up correctly that they are removing a dangerous junction and carrying out significant engineering improvements? Then they are going to install speed cameras, catch a lot of people and claim that the reductions in accidents due to the engineering works are actually down to their "safety cameras." Then, instead of spending cash improving more dangerous junctions, they will spend the money installing more cameras and be on a nice little earner in the process.

Poor Guy

awwww ****. M180. I love that road. Can get to cleethorpes in 30mins. Damn

Abdabz

No-one can complain about more speed cameras as capturing deliberate law breakers and drivers so incompetent they cant maintain a legal speed can only be a good thing. So I am pleased to hear of these latest additions to our roads...
On the flip side I do understand where alazar is coming from with regards to motorbikes getting away with it in SPECs camera land, but then they'll get there comeuppance (sp) when they leave their family behind and have their first chinwag with Saint Peter...
As for what speed cameras are (or are not) for, its a shame that the good people of scoobynet and elsewhere seem to blame the government for the "spin" they put on speed cameras. Whether its to reduce accidents or whether its to generate revenue skirts the real issue that theyre there to catch law breakers. There to catch those who flout the law, those who regard themselves above the law because they have brembo brakes or once drove past Oulton Park and are therefore special .
It would be ideal to have more visible bike patrols dishing out fines and bans to bikers, prevent them from "filtering" or simply using white lines dividing lanes as their own lanes, but I guess thats too much to ask for
Arguements over who was driving a car caught speeding wouldnt be a problem if perpatrators where ballsy enough to own up to their indiscretions but it seems we live in a cowardly society
So in short, what does it matter which cameras are there, as long as they catch speeders or make them slow down which in turn reduces accidents on that road (regardless of any hedgehog spin )...?
P

Nick

Where did you get that data, or is it a joke?

hedgehog

From the Western Morning News today for example:

10 January 2006
Police have dropped a speeding prosecution against a driver and apologised to him after he demanded to see photographic evidence of the offence.

Martin Shirley was told he was being prosecuted after being caught travelling at 66mph in a 40mph limit. But Mr Shirley was sure he was not going that fast in his Land Rover - and asked to see photographs which proved his guilt.

The Devon and Cornwall Safety Camera Partnership could not produce the pictures, taken automatically when an offence is committed, and it wrote to him saying it was dropping the case, blaming "human error".

But it refused to say how the mistake happened, and has ruled out reviewing other prosecutions.

Mr Shirley said: "It is clearly unacceptable that drivers can be prosecuted in error for speeding, based on erroneous evidence which they are not shown and which would in many cases remain undetected."

A notice of prosecution sent by police, who take cases to court on behalf of the partnership, claimed Mr Shirley was travelling at 66mph in a 40mph roadworks limit on the A30 on Bodmin Moor in December. But when he challenged the finding, the partnership wrote back admitting it did not have the photographic evidence of the offence.

Motorists paid £3 million in speed camera fines in Devon and Cornwall last year. A total of 53,204 drivers were handed fixed penalty notices.

But a series of incidents have cast doubt on the accuracy of speed cameras. Portland deputy mayor Kris Haskins got a ticket for driving at 51mph, but after checking the pictures, he was able to prove he was doing just 13mph. Officials said a "projected reflection"
triggered the speed camera.

Motorist Paul *** was "clocked" doing 90mph in Plymouth by a police speed gun, but he had his cruise control set at 70mph at the time, and a court threw out the case, saying there were discrepancies in the speed gun evidence.

Just last month, motorcyclist Bryn Carlyon was recorded doing an apparent 46mph in a 30mph zone, but used photographs to prove his speed was just 18mph. The safety camera partnership in Cardiff said a bus travelling in the opposite direction could have triggered the false reading.

^Qwerty^

Maybe you should go do an advanced driving/riding course with a serving traffic officer. Might help you pull your head out of your own backside.

micared

Lol, never a truer word....did a course with a Hants traffic cop a couple of months ago in the Evo. He managed 94 in a 60 limit, and said if it had been safe to do so would have done more. Also said that, as a traffic cop, didn't bother to pull anyone on the Hampshire motorways as long as they were under a ton, and driving with common sense.
He paid attention to 30, 40 and 50 limits, but the national limit seemed fair game to him.
Overtook in places I wouldn't have considered reasonable in all honesty, and encouraged me to be more " progressive " in my driving, i.e., overtake whenever possible, even when it meant getting halfway past a line of cars, and then pulling in if necessary. I'm personally not comfortable doing this, and consider it rude, but he pointed out, and quite rightly, that the onus is in them to let you in, and that it is only their ignorance of the law that upsets people when you do this.