£4.2m - from a single camera!!
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/4276061.stm

If I told lies like that in my job I'd be sacked. :mad:

So, where are these new cameras that catch people not paying attention :confused: at any speed :mad:

I know those SPECS well. 30 mph on a dual carriage way (i.e. 2 lanes in each direction) - wonder why so many are getting caught, anything to do with artificial and innapropriately low speed limit? These cameras were originally introduced following a child being knocked over in Nottingham by a drunk driver who was travelling under the speed limit. These cameras ahve caught absolutely nobody that was drunk and travelling under the limit since they were installed - a real sucess then :rolleyes:

"We judge if a speed camera is working by the reduction of casualties at a particular site."

The main casualty is the motorists wallet!! AGAIN! :mad:

What she said:

"It is an absolute shame really that we're in the position where cameras are hated so much and that people are paranoid that more cameras are being put up."

What she meant:

"But I don't care, my job depends on them"

What she said:

"If drivers slowed down and paid more attention on the road we wouldn't have this issue of casualties or collisions and therefore we wouldn't be looking at installing more cameras."

What she meant:

"I hope that doesn't happen, my job depends on it"

They say:

Safety officers say accidents and the number of people injured on the road has halved in three years.

In many places they also say that accidents at camera sites are down by 74%.

What I, in my stupidity, can't work out is why the total number killed on our roads is increasing for the first time since WWII despite all these amazing reductions.

What also confuses me is when I see various people report that a third of all accidents are caused by speeding, then I turn over the page in my paper to find that a third of all accidents are caused by drink driving, then on another page a third of all accidents are caused by drugs, then on another page a third of all accidents are caused by tiredness, then on another page 25% are caused by inattention.

I wonder who makes up their numbers for them? It is a bit like Countdown, the camera partnerships ask Carol for "a 75% reduction in accidents and a third of all accidents to be caused by speeding Carol."

Tiggs should be along soon banging his drum. ;)

They never quote fatalities, but KSI(Killed or seriously injured). What no one has been able to obtain is their definition of seriously injured. So they can make the figures read what they want.

They will do that anyway!

Les :(

I watched Road Rage on Sky this week where 2 coppers pulled a car for driving at night with no lights on. While they were behind it, they noticed a spliff was being passed aaround - driver included. to me astonishment they openly admitted that driving under the influence of dope wasn't illegal, and gave him a mild ticking off. What about the 'no lights at night' bit, or plain old driving w/o due care and attention. Best bit was this was on a Friday night, he'd opnly passed his test on the Monday!!!!

But go 3 mph over the speed limit and you're a criminal, my son!!!

The boys in blue are surprised that they are not everybody's favourite people!!!!!! FFS get your priorities right!! :razz: :razz:

I think there would be far more sympathy for cameras if they were located at true danger spots such as hospitals, schools, through windy rural villages and such like. If they then used 50% of the money to re-invest in additional non-camera based safety measures such as: kerb side barriers to prevent crossing at danger spots, better eduction of driver and pedestrians, compulsary proficiency testing for cyclists and horse riders (preferably including the need for 3rd party insurance), more pedestrian crossing in busy areas, road re-engineering at blackspots, congestion reduction measures so people don't feel the need to try going down side roads turning them in to rat runs and thus resulting in speed humps.

I could go on, but the government doesn't seem interested in improving road safety by any means, only in collecting revenue from speeding.

no need :D

legislation is heading in a direction i agree with.....i dont need to add anything!

Awwwww, I've enjoyed reading the threads. :D

Simple question for the w@nker who picks the site to put these money making machine in my town

<<Big Rant on>>

Where the fook are the camera's then on the A453 between Clifton and the
M1 J24 ??? this stretch of road comes in joint 1st place as the most accident ridden road in the WHOLE of Nottinghamshire, and yes i've been a victim, was hit head on at 70mph by a cnut who lived in Stoke and thought it was a duel carriageway :mad: luckily i walked away but others didn't.
And yet there isn't one single camera along the 5 mile road ? and why not i wonder ??:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

<<Big rant off>>

*cough*Anyone wanna drop her a mail? *cough* :D

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_029147.hcsp

Oh, you've noticed then ..... :-((

Dave

Tis done :D:D:D
Lets see if i get a reply :rolleyes:

LMAO I didnt have the cohones.

What did you put :D !!

they openly admitted that driving under the influence of dope wasn't illegal, and gave him a mild ticking off

This is total bollocks. 1 year ban, £5000 fine, 6 months in prison.

Drug driving IS illegal.

basically what i said in my post, and im gonna give her a call on Monday just to see if she's has received it :D:D
I hate camera's myself, but, they say there to cut down on traffic accidents, so i can't think why there aren't any on this road :confused:, my accident closed the road both ways for 4hrs and made my sister late for work due to the tailbacks :D:D

Neil,

from Safe Speed

...thus being "quite shook up" or having a broken finger is an SI :rolleyes:

mb

(excluding friction burns)

At least they're still legal. ;) :p