Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Aug 13, 2020 18:47

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 06:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6239786.stm

Speed camera fines reach £114.6m

Speed camera fines rose to £114.6m last year even though fewer fixed penalty notices were issued to motorists, a survey has indicated.

The total was 1% more than in the 2004/05 financial year because more fines were collected.

The Philip's road atlas company figures showed the areas paying the highest and lowest in fines per person were North Wales (£5.82) and Merseyside (£0.80).

The government said research had proved that cameras saved lives.

Some areas had a 100% rate for collecting fines, although Surrey managed only a 47% success rate.

There was a 48% increase in tickets issued in Leicestershire and a 30% decrease in Derbyshire.

The most money collected was in London, totalling £9.45m.

Speed camera expert Stephen Mesquita, who got the figures from the Department for Transport, said: "At Philip's, we find the regional inconsistencies very disturbing. They undermine the credibility of the scheme.

"Wales is the speed camera centre of the UK. Mid and South Wales comes second only to London for raising money through fines.

"And North Wales raises more per resident than any other area, although some midland counties, like Bedfordshire, Northants and Warwickshire, run it close."

He said the situation reinforced motorists' feelings that speed cameras were unfair.

A Department spokesman said: "We don't want drivers' money, we want them to slow down.

"Independent research has conclusively proved that cameras save lives, with around 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured each year at camera sites."

Tuesday is the last day for people to sign a petition on the Downing Street website calling on the prime minister to scrap speed cameras.

The petition, submitted by the Safe Speed campaign, already has more than 26,000 signatures.



LEAST MONEY RAISED
1. Merseyside £0.80
2. West Midlands £1.11
3. London £1.26
4. Surrey £1.33
5. Greater Manchester £1.39
(Average amount per resident)

MOST MONEY RAISED
1. North Wales £5.82
2. Bedfordshire £5.20
3. Northamptonshire £4.72
4. Wiltshire £4.61
5. Warwickshire £4.39
(Average amount per resident)

***

Great to see the 'scrapcam' petition getting a mention. But no internet link! I've rung them already and they will do it. Hell - they have done it already. Thanks Georgina!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 08:38 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
A Department spokesman wrote:
"Independent research has conclusively proved that cameras save lives, with around 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured each year at camera sites."

Blatant RTTM. I can't believe these people continue to get away with spouting this crap! :mad:

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 08:58 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
Quote:
A Department spokesman said: "We don't want drivers' money, we want them to slow down.

I would rather they drive safely, by looking at the road ahead, and at a suitable speed for the conditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 09:03 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
smeggy wrote:
A Department spokesman wrote:
"Independent research has conclusively proved that cameras save lives, with around 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured each year at camera sites."

Blatant RTTM. I can't believe these people continue to get away with spouting this crap! :mad:

Exactly what I thought. They do it because they know there's nothing we can do about it. Surely there should be provision for prosecuting politicians for deliberately misleading us, especially when it's a matter of life and death? It's clearly in the public interest, far more than doing someone for 79 on the M6.

They're just so incredibly dishonest and I'm fed up with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 09:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
bombus wrote:
They do it because they know there's nothing we can do about it. Surely there should be provision for prosecuting politicians for deliberately misleading us, especially when it's a matter of life and death? It's clearly in the public interest, far more than doing someone for 79 on the M6.

They're just so incredibly dishonest and I'm fed up with it.


The RTTM thing needs to be hammered and hammered until it is driven home to the public. The way to approach it is to use the word 'lie' when talking about it, but to point out that it isn't a lie but a deliberate misdirection.

The RTTM glamorised figures keep getting used, so the causes and effects of regression to the mean with regards to speed cameras has to be repeatedly explained, time and time again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 09:43 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
r11co wrote:
bombus wrote:
They do it because they know there's nothing we can do about it. Surely there should be provision for prosecuting politicians for deliberately misleading us, especially when it's a matter of life and death? It's clearly in the public interest, far more than doing someone for 79 on the M6.

They're just so incredibly dishonest and I'm fed up with it.


The RTTM thing needs to be hammered and hammered until it is driven home to the public. The way to approach it is to use the word 'lie' when talking about it, but to point out that it isn't a lie but a deliberate misdirection.

The RTTM glamorised figures keep getting used, so the causes and effects of regression to the mean with regards to speed cameras has to be repeatedly explained, time and time again.


'Fraudulent' is a better word.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 09:56 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
B*ll*cks is an even better word :P

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:55 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
I'm with Paul on this one; see my sig :)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.296s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]