Proof that camera's are for revenue!!
16 March 2001, 06:53 AM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From today's sun
NEW hi-tech speed cameras have proved a financial flop - because they are so successful.
Only NINE drivers a day are trapped by the devices which were expected to catch SIXTY.
So instead of heading for a profit of £1.4 million in fines they are running at a loss of £2,000 a month.
Six sets of the revolutionary digital cameras were introduced in Nottingham seven months ago. They measure the speed of cars between two points up to a mile apart. But motorists soon learned where the traps were and stuck to the speed limit.
The number of serious road accidents has dropped by 52 per cent and average vehicle speeds are down by 5mph.
Traffic chiefs had predicted an income of £1.4 million during a two-year trial.
Instead, the scheme faces a loss of more than £50,000 in the same period.
It was expected that use of the cameras - the first of their kind in Europe - would be extended across the UK. But it was feared last night that they might not be <B>financially viable. </B>
Brian Parbutt, deputy leader of Nottingham council, said: <B>"There was talk that this would a money-spinner.
"But there has been a much lower level of income from the fines. </B>
"However, there has been a much bigger impact in terms of reducing driver speed and accidents."
Fellow councillor Alan Clark added: <B>"We may have to scale the project down slightly if the income isn't forthcoming." </B>
So, there we go. How long before 'safety camera vans' pop up around nottingham to try and claw back the money
NEW hi-tech speed cameras have proved a financial flop - because they are so successful.
Only NINE drivers a day are trapped by the devices which were expected to catch SIXTY.
So instead of heading for a profit of £1.4 million in fines they are running at a loss of £2,000 a month.
Six sets of the revolutionary digital cameras were introduced in Nottingham seven months ago. They measure the speed of cars between two points up to a mile apart. But motorists soon learned where the traps were and stuck to the speed limit.
The number of serious road accidents has dropped by 52 per cent and average vehicle speeds are down by 5mph.
Traffic chiefs had predicted an income of £1.4 million during a two-year trial.
Instead, the scheme faces a loss of more than £50,000 in the same period.
It was expected that use of the cameras - the first of their kind in Europe - would be extended across the UK. But it was feared last night that they might not be <B>financially viable. </B>
Brian Parbutt, deputy leader of Nottingham council, said: <B>"There was talk that this would a money-spinner.
"But there has been a much lower level of income from the fines. </B>
"However, there has been a much bigger impact in terms of reducing driver speed and accidents."
Fellow councillor Alan Clark added: <B>"We may have to scale the project down slightly if the income isn't forthcoming." </B>
So, there we go. How long before 'safety camera vans' pop up around nottingham to try and claw back the money
16 March 2001, 07:28 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neil,
You just beat me by 25 minutes. I just got to that page in the Sun..... but I chose to get myself a cup of tea and a nice roll with sausage in before reading my copy.
It really does go to prove that speed cameras are simply a money spinner and deep down safety is not an issue but an acceptable reason for raising revenue.
Disgusted of near Tunbridge Wells
You just beat me by 25 minutes. I just got to that page in the Sun..... but I chose to get myself a cup of tea and a nice roll with sausage in before reading my copy.
It really does go to prove that speed cameras are simply a money spinner and deep down safety is not an issue but an acceptable reason for raising revenue.
Disgusted of near Tunbridge Wells
16 March 2001, 07:40 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: http://www.facebook.com
Posts: 15,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was one of those 9 drivers a day 
and it makes me very, very angry that these *******s can have a meeting around tier councillors table with thier rich tea biscuits and decide that they didn't ruin enough lives to justify the cost of having them.
They are all a bunch of grey, boring, ****, *** kissing bunch of TW*T's
These are my views and I will stand up to anyone who dares to tell me after this evidence that speed cameras are for the best.
As for the reduction in accidents! Bollocks! I have used said road in Nott'm for over 10 years now and I have seen 1 minor accident on it. They make it sound like some accident blackspot and due to the camera's the rate has dropped.......MY ****..... Hows about the road has become so congested that 30MPH is a lucky speed to achieve.
*******S
Remember if there are any do gooders reading this, this is MY view not that of all Scooby drivers here. If you want me Fatties, come get some!!!!
Rant over
MIKEY
and it makes me very, very angry that these *******s can have a meeting around tier councillors table with thier rich tea biscuits and decide that they didn't ruin enough lives to justify the cost of having them.They are all a bunch of grey, boring, ****, *** kissing bunch of TW*T's
These are my views and I will stand up to anyone who dares to tell me after this evidence that speed cameras are for the best.
As for the reduction in accidents! Bollocks! I have used said road in Nott'm for over 10 years now and I have seen 1 minor accident on it. They make it sound like some accident blackspot and due to the camera's the rate has dropped.......MY ****..... Hows about the road has become so congested that 30MPH is a lucky speed to achieve.
*******S
Remember if there are any do gooders reading this, this is MY view not that of all Scooby drivers here. If you want me Fatties, come get some!!!!
Rant over
MIKEY
16 March 2001, 08:56 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will notice it says serious road accidents. No comment on the total number of accidents though.
IMHO:
Less speed = less serious accidents.
Less speed = less concentration = more minor accidents
How do they determine the average speed has dropped by 5mph? now the cameras are up they can get the average speed of each vehicle, but how did they determine what it was before?
IMHO:
Less speed = less serious accidents.
Less speed = less concentration = more minor accidents
How do they determine the average speed has dropped by 5mph? now the cameras are up they can get the average speed of each vehicle, but how did they determine what it was before?
16 March 2001, 09:28 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 2,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you know what they say... There are lies, Damned lies and statistics. 
Massive local and national publicitly has meant that drivers have been more attentive along these stretches because of the cameras. (which are only 1/4 mile from my house).
Patterns don't develop in only 7 months as seasonal factors have not kicked in yet.
There are (IIRC) 24 cameras of which there is only ever one pair operational (any 2 cameras can be linked to make the pair).
Only lane 2 is monitored and bikes can't be checked.
I suspect that the majority of accidents are based around the "Kamikaze Island" junction, where speed is not a prime contributory factor.
I'd like to know of the 9 people per day caught speeding, how many of those were involved in the actual accidents which did occurr. Cos that excess speed means they are the ones that will have the accidents!!!! (None I suspect).
Also actual numbers would tell a more accurate story than percentages, If there were 2 accidents before the cameras, it would only take one less accident to make a 50% reduction.... (I'm approximating but you getthe idea).
Mike.
Massive local and national publicitly has meant that drivers have been more attentive along these stretches because of the cameras. (which are only 1/4 mile from my house).
Patterns don't develop in only 7 months as seasonal factors have not kicked in yet.
There are (IIRC) 24 cameras of which there is only ever one pair operational (any 2 cameras can be linked to make the pair).
Only lane 2 is monitored and bikes can't be checked.
I suspect that the majority of accidents are based around the "Kamikaze Island" junction, where speed is not a prime contributory factor.
I'd like to know of the 9 people per day caught speeding, how many of those were involved in the actual accidents which did occurr. Cos that excess speed means they are the ones that will have the accidents!!!! (None I suspect).
Also actual numbers would tell a more accurate story than percentages, If there were 2 accidents before the cameras, it would only take one less accident to make a 50% reduction.... (I'm approximating but you getthe idea).
Mike.
16 March 2001, 09:37 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still trying to use the age old 'speed kills' message and speed cameras stop this, well, proves that wrong, motorists just slow down a bit (ok, so that is dropping speed) but then we all speed up once past the traps.
Must say that I hate the 'speed kills' signs that councils put up. The only one I have seen which is any good is one upon entering croydon, it says, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'inappropriate speed kills' YES! finally someone gets the correct message across.
anyway, we know gatso's are money spinners, as does plod and council, we just need 'them' to put thier hands up and admit in public, and I'd say the article more or less does this.
Must say that I hate the 'speed kills' signs that councils put up. The only one I have seen which is any good is one upon entering croydon, it says, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'inappropriate speed kills' YES! finally someone gets the correct message across.
anyway, we know gatso's are money spinners, as does plod and council, we just need 'them' to put thier hands up and admit in public, and I'd say the article more or less does this.
Trending Topics
16 March 2001, 10:02 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could write a book on the influence speed has on accidents. And to say that because there a gatsos or whatever the accidents have dropped by 52% is incredible. No wonder OJ got off!!!
I read that in oxford where they had no cameras, the death rate reduced by 20 odd anyway, and in some counties it increased! Its complete b*****x - just a revenue maker.
It would be so funny if Notts CC have to remove the cameras - theyd have to admit they arent making a profit so they arent really interested in road safety just cash!
Jza
I read that in oxford where they had no cameras, the death rate reduced by 20 odd anyway, and in some counties it increased! Its complete b*****x - just a revenue maker.
It would be so funny if Notts CC have to remove the cameras - theyd have to admit they arent making a profit so they arent really interested in road safety just cash!
Jza
16 March 2001, 11:18 AM
#9
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of observations...
1) If they actually state 52% reduction in serious accidents, it implies that either enough accidents are occuring to provide an accuracy great enough to give the 2% bit... or, and I suspect this is the actual case, they have a very small number of accidents occurring and have scaled the values by a fraction of the whole year. As stated before, actual numbers would be more useful (but not to their cause. ). Providing actual numbers concerning factors such as the area covered by statistics, number of accidents by class occurring over what period etc would probably sink their case. Ho hum.
2) (I like this one)
If they have ony two cameras operating in this scheme, and it's unprofitable enough for them to consider scaling the scheme down "slightly"... how do they do this? You need both cameras to get an average speed reading... so I suspect they will have to either reduce the time the system is in operation each day, saving a bit of computer time and not much else, or just abandon it completely... what a shame.
1) If they actually state 52% reduction in serious accidents, it implies that either enough accidents are occuring to provide an accuracy great enough to give the 2% bit... or, and I suspect this is the actual case, they have a very small number of accidents occurring and have scaled the values by a fraction of the whole year. As stated before, actual numbers would be more useful (but not to their cause.
). Providing actual numbers concerning factors such as the area covered by statistics, number of accidents by class occurring over what period etc would probably sink their case. Ho hum.2) (I like this one)
If they have ony two cameras operating in this scheme, and it's unprofitable enough for them to consider scaling the scheme down "slightly"... how do they do this? You need both cameras to get an average speed reading... so I suspect they will have to either reduce the time the system is in operation each day, saving a bit of computer time and not much else, or just abandon it completely... what a shame.
16 March 2001, 03:17 PM
#10
Scooby Senior
as you can see i'm in Nottm, i know where they are!
so if i need to go in that direction i go round them by taking the back roads! and enter the RingRoad mid way through the S/Cameras, waste of time! lol
soory if i say this and some one else has put it....but
they may be making a loss on fines, but they must be saving money in the 'Services' depatment!
if theres a 52% increase in less accidents that must be saving money by not having to use/send out Police, Ambulances, the use of Hosiptal beds/costs etc!!!
u know where i'm coming from?
G/Mikey
trust you to get caught, were you racing back to check up on hayley?? lol
Phil
so if i need to go in that direction i go round them by taking the back roads! and enter the RingRoad mid way through the S/Cameras, waste of time! lol
soory if i say this and some one else has put it....but
they may be making a loss on fines, but they must be saving money in the 'Services' depatment!
if theres a 52% increase in less accidents that must be saving money by not having to use/send out Police, Ambulances, the use of Hosiptal beds/costs etc!!!
u know where i'm coming from?
G/Mikey
trust you to get caught, were you racing back to check up on hayley?? lol
Phil
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sub-Subaru
General Technical
1
28 September 2015 12:47 PM