Safe Speed Forums

Looks like they're setting new 'Targets' for themselves in Merseyside !

Drivers face £2m speeding offensive.

MERSEYSIDE motorists are facing their biggest-ever speeding blitz which will see 50,000 tickets a year issued from April.

The £60-a-time fines will raise almost £2m, with much of the proceeds going to pay for even more speed cameras for the region's roads.
(This should read: The £60-a-time fines will raise almost £2m EXTRA....as they already make 1.2million quid in fines.)

Plans to launch this all-out(rageous) purge on speeding motorists were first mapped out two years ago, but were postponed indefinitely last summer.

But now the plan is back, and Liverpool council's executive board is expected to approve next Friday the formation of a Merseyside-wide road safety consortium to run and operate all speed cameras and traffic light cameras across the city, Sefton, Wirral, Knowsley and St Helens.

If the local authorities agree, the Department for Transport will be asked to give the go-ahead for an April 1 start.
(No fooling ? )

Officials behind the plan insist it is a road safety initiative rather than a money-making operation.
(Of COURSE it IS !....What makes them think anyone doubts this?)

The existing speed and traffic light cameras across Merseyside generate 20,000 tickets a year, but, if the go-ahead is given to the formation of the Merseyside Road Safety Camera Partnership, this number will go up to 50,000 by using extra staff and enforcement measures.

The aim in the first year will not be to add any new camera sites, but concentrate on making sure the existing sites are properly (mis)used.
(If they were 'properly used' they would collect no revenue, due to the fact that they would be 'preventing' motorists from s p e e d i n g ! which is the claim by the scammers to be their aim!)

However, when the penalties start rolling in, the cash raised will eventually be used to add new camera sites.
(So...they KNOW this scam ooops scheme cannot fail to raise more money !)

The formation of the partnership was first proposed two years ago so that income from the cameras, now sent through the courts to the Treasury, could be used to make roads ?safer?.

That scheme would have seen 36 extra speed camera sites going live at ?accident blackspots? around the region.




I sincerely hope and pray that this year will see a massive, much needed revolt by millions of drivers to rid the country of these unjust cameras.
Remember the 'poll tax' ?

BTW, No!! I have 'not' been 'done' for 's p e e d i n g' ! (Not even 'fractionally' over the limit !)

What a strange attitude we have to lawbreakers in cars. Attempts to enforce speed limits are denounced as interference with ancient English liberties. Motorists who drive too fast are excused on the grounds that they are "otherwise law-abiding", a description that may as easily be applied to wife-beaters or child molesters.
There is no argument whatever for treating errant motorists more leniently than any other class of offender, or for making less determined efforts to catch them. The police are said to hound lawbreaking motorists in preference to pursuing burglars. Why is this such a reprehensible order of priorities? Burglars cause loss and distress, but rarely kill or maim.
Cars seem to create a state of arrested adolescence in many users. Behind the wheel, middle-class, middle-aged men (and the worst drivers are nearly always men) become as reckless and heedless as teenagers. They resemble naughty schoolboys not only in their determination to flout authority, but in their resentment when they are "picked on". Yet a car is potentially a lethal weapon. The use of it is a privilege, not a right; the minority who forget that deserve to be hounded as mercilessly as any housebreaker or teenage vandal.

Thank God you're a former police officer.

The difference is every decent person sees burgling a house as an appaling criminal act, wheras there is no driver in this country who has not at some time exceeded a speed limit (probably quite safely).

Also,if you were targeting burglars, you wouldn't be boasting about how much profit it would bring in.This is nothing to do with law and order, or safety, it's about profit making via war on car users.

Perhaps you should seek the answer as to why that is. Then you migth be a little closey to understanding why the rest of your argument is such nonsense.
No sane person would ever believe burglary is acceptable, yet for some reason millions of people dont think the same way about the apparent offence of exceeding a number on a dial.

Well-well-well, seems we have another Non driving Anti car fanatic on board.

All I'm going to say is, what has:


got to to with my being opposed to the Misuse/Abuse of scameras?

If I were still a serving Police Officer, my stance on these objects would remain the same !

The rest of your seemingly 'Alcohol induced rant' is unworthy of a reply.

Shove it where it belongs, Up Your Tailpipe

What proportion of burglaries result in physical harm to a person other than the burglar?

What proportion of technical speeding offences result in physical harm to a person other than the "speeder"?

I suspect the first figure is much higher than the second.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Okay, I don't own a car, and am probably a bit anti car so I'll try to avoid being too biased. Can anyone answer these quick questions:

Surely the properly positioned and correctly set up speed cameras do serve a purpose i.e. to improve road safety?

I can undertsand why drivers get annoyed at sneakily placed speed cameras, but aren't there any other ways of getting these things repositioned (or simply signed more effectivel) rather than torching them?

Just out interest what would the reaction be if the camera operateors did admit to positioning speed cameras to maximise revenue? They'd still argue that the law was being broken so technically, legally they would be in the right?

I'm sure the answers to these questions are on this site somewhere, I just don't have time to wade through all the stats and stuff (sorry).

My, what short fuses you all have.
Neat rhetorical sleight of hand Zamzara, but you're comparing two un-alike things: perceptions of burglary vs incidence of breaking traffic laws. Seems you're saying we need to target massively more resources at tackling criminal drivers than at the comparatively rare phenomenon of burglary. I agree.
And yes, you might well herald the economic benefits to an area of targetting burglary. Why wouldn't you?
So, nul points to you.
Jules, closer, but still no cigar. By 'decent' people you presumably mean people who aren't burglars, their peers or dependants. Presumably the world-view of the burgling fraternity can be dismissed because as burglars their views are, a priori, invalid. So what's to stop us dismissing the views of the criminal drivers who speed as, a priori, invalid? Ah, sheer weight of numbers. Speeding drivers, fahsands of 'em. Curiously, even if we desist from the moral absolutism with which burglary can be condemned and play the numbers game, polls consistently show a clear majority in favour of speed cameras. This majority must include some of the %100 of drivers who've broken speed limits. Crikey! Some speeders, rather than adopting the shrill and bullish stance that this site is famed for, are contrite and conscientious and welcome measures to make the roads safer for all. Shame none of them are among the few hundred people who post here.
And Hanbo.. Actually, never mind. Enjoy your retirement.

I think speed cameras could have been used in such a way that road safety was improved. But they were not, and now it's far too late. See these pages:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/cameras.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html



I want them scrapped not torched. Whatever we tried to do with them now, we'd still left with false safety messages and dangerous distractions. We also need to restore confidence in official road safety and the Police.



Speed limits were not designed or conceived with "digital enforcement" in mind. Technology has overtaken the law. Adjusting speed to circumstances is important to road safety, precise adherence to speed limits is not.



No problem.

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

SMTP: You really havent been paying attention have you?
You need to look at the evidence provided hereabouts, before you start spouting about the facts.

Evere heard of the 1/3rd lie, Regression to the mean, the 85th percentile, the TRL reports?

There are no figures (truthful ones at least) that show the majority support cameras.

Secondly, no sane person really believes the existance of a grey tax machine by the side of the road makes the road any safer.

Youre talking bollocks, and really should stick it up your tail pipe.

Jules

I would settle for an equally determined effort.

I have been the subject of many crimes ranging from burglary,mugging, arson and vandalism. No one has ever been caught.

But I feel much safer seeing a camera van at the end of the road....NOT

Isn't it just a pity that the death toll keeps going up..

I if it were making a difference you you have some support but it dosn't does it...

You are talking rubbish.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Jules, are you really temperamentally suited to operate a piece of heavy machinery in a public place?
And I've yet to see a tax box at the side of the road. Might they be figments of your febrile imagination?

Thats a new one on me.....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

How about the police

when do you ever see a a press release like this on any other "crime"

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Lot of muck gets slung at my patch by the anti-brigade. Cumbria's Steve Callaghan repeated this on his own site - our little blip which was the result of boy ravers, really daft motorbikers, drunks, drugs, suicidal cyclists (have to say it - call cycling the wrong way down a one way street asking for trouble ....and no use blaming the driver for it). So a bad year - but still below average in real comparable terms with comparable areas

But - we are an area where fixed s/cams are not a realistic option anyway.

We have one fixed s/cam and do most of our enforcement with a mix of old fashioned traffic policing, unmarked cars and a camear van unit which targets key sites where excess speed has proven to be a problem.

Do not equate the crime of blipping over a speed limit with any deliberate, violent and highly serious crime. The Law takes account of the seriousness of these crimes by sentencing according to statutory guidelines, evidence and circumstances of each individual case. There is a big difference between two blokes stealing a car, driving it at high speed and killing someone - and running from the scene - and the average Joe driving a 6 mph above a speed limit.

Tolerance margin is, I believe fair. Allow 10% plus 4/5 - and use that old fashioned copper's nose - and use discretion and lectures where appropriate - instead of just issuing fines and points like confetti.



As I said - a real cop will use his judgement when dealing with an errrant motorist. Our lads are not very pleasant when dealing with serious overspeeds, and proven careless or dangerous driving - but will use their experience of the road when appraising the standard of driving, driver attitude and so on. We educate and warn of potential dangers in a good many cases - and the results would appear apparent in a consistently low death rate. Each accident is different and each cause is different - and not every accident is due to speed alone. Something else is a primary cause - and the scale of injury can also relate to where the impact occurred - an speed below speed limit can kill in such cases.




Well - speaking with knowledge of official data, and one or two high profile stories in the press - would say that increasing numbers of burglars do maim and have killed housholders when caught in the act by them. You have not met a drug crazed person - burglarising to feed his habit - have you! I have - some years ago now - and he tried to stab me! He tried to do me for assault cos I kneed him and caused him to speak with a high pitched voice at them time. I only used "reasonable force" to get the knife off him!

Still like to say "Burglars are 'armless !"





Really? How strange! Most of the people pulled for excessive speeding up here are young lads egging each other on.

The ones I hear complaining about speed camera NIPs are "experienced" middle aged and elderly ladies and gents - copped at 10% to plus 2 above the limit. Ironically - our mobile unit tell me that this age group are the ones they give stern warnings to for such excesses. Mumpties on the school run, younger and less experienced drivers of all ages are the ones they find to be at the NIP level here on aggregate. Rarely find we pull sales reps - but then they probably spotted us and slowed down anyway...




It is a privilege to drive a car - and we find that a persoanl reminder of this little fact by a policeman in uniform and some advice reminding them about their responsibility to apply COAST when they drive has a far better and more positive impact on them than receiving an NIP through the post.

Driving a vehicle marignally above a speed limit - or not reading a condition correctly is better dealt with by a policeman who can at least explain why their action is potentially harmful. A speed camera is only issuing a fine but not a learning message. Thus - it does not change behaviour and attitude - which shows in the higher death rates in areas where there is an over-reliance on these contraptions.

No, because wife beaters and child molesters harm their victims.

People who drift over an arbitrary and artificially low, or even cynically lowered, limit have no victims and do no harm.



You're right, for once:

They should be treated equally leniently to those that transgressed laws such as failing to attend archery practice on Sunday, eating Christmas Pud or celebrating Christmas.

I take it you know which one of those laws they forgot to legalise when they tidied up the statute books in the last parliament, and that you refrained from breaking it.

Or are you claiming you posted off £60 and asked for points on your license, increased insurance costs, and loss of your job for potentially harming society?



Sounds similar to the anti-car lobby's claim that more people are killed by motorists than by murderers.

What they forget to point out is that most people are never exposed to a murderer, never mind one armed with his "weapon".

Whereas most people are exposed to traffic every day of their lives, some for the whole of every working day for the whole of their working lives.

Oh, and whilst fewer people are found guilty of murder, more die from violence and poisoning than on the roads.



Actually, didn't a police study find that whilst "middle-class, middle-aged men" were the safest drivers and "reckless and heedless ... teenagers" and schoolboys the most dangerous: it is the "middle-class, middle-aged men" who get caught by speed cameras, whilst the "reckless and heedless ... teenagers" and schoolboys rarely get caught by anything or anyone.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

In years to come, when I reach retirement age, I shall look forward to enjoying it, thankyou.
(But when I get my 'free bus pass', I shall still use my car(s) as opposed to public transport. )


BTW, When the cameras first appeared, I welcomed them, but when unscrupulous CCs/scammers realised their money making potential, and began their misuse and abuse of the system, that's when I changed my views on them!
(And NO! before you ask, they weren't around when I was a serving officer!)


As for:


Just what has this got to do with my being opposed to the Misuse/Abuse of scameras?

Are you still reluctant/unable to supply an answer to this?