Good to see that the Sun's always up with the latest news.

Still, only good can come from raising awareness that these really are just money makers and do not contribute to road safety when used in such a way.

Bring 'em on to accident blackspots say I, and place 'em outside schools, hospitals, ...

While we're at it, let's have a frenzy on bad parking in those locations which is, IMHO, just as bad as speeding.

 

Maybe the number of cameras being hidden and used as revenue-raisers is a good thing... (bear with me on this!)

If cameras' main purpose does start to be producing income, surely it is insupportable for minor speeding offences to attract penalty points? My concern with speed cameras has always been that you could lose your licence in a short journey (if the M25 cameras ever have film in, technically you could amass 12 points by driving a couple of miles at 80mph). Acting like a toll booth, I have less to complain about because at least it's not infringing our civil liberties (just making them more expensive to exercise).

[I have another problem with speed cameras (which was inspired by thinking about the M25 cameras being so close together). If I sat at 80mph without slowing down and set off 4 cameras, surely that's only one offence? How far does one have to travel at a particular speed before it becomes another offence? If I then slowed to 79 mph, would I be committing a separate offence (9mph over the limit, instead of 10)?]

I'm sure there are constitutional law arguments about whether it is permitted to allow any body (here obviously the police force) to profit from fines (unreasonable bias against one section of the community rather than another, conflict of interest as a result of the financial interest).

Well, I thought speed cameras would change the world when they were introduced, and they haven't. Turn them into money raisers by all means but make them equivalent to parking fines, that's the answer - no insurance premium hikes or loss of licence.

Simon

 

There was a test case a while back when a motorcyclist went through 2 cameras 200 yards apart and they both had film in. He appealed against the second set of points and fine - saying it was all one offence - but the courts rejected it.

It seems unbelieveable they can do this. Would a burglar get convicted of 2 counts of burglary because he went into 2 separate rooms in the same house. No.

With motoring offences the courts seem to be able to make up the rules as they go along.

 

Cheer Jerome - should have done some research before my off-the-cuff rant. I find it absolutely incredible that maintaining a steady speed can be more than one offence, but unless someone with loads of cash and time (and who doesn't get high blood pressure) pursues that argument, seems we're stuck with a precedent.

Still stick with my opinion that if cameras are treated solely as revenue raisers and don't attract points on your licence, there'd be far less outcry.

 

Our speed cameras are revenue generaters but unless you are doing over 30kmh over the limit then you don't get points just a fine.
However the fine varies depending on how much over the limit you are.

 

What about some cameras at traffic lights? I was driving down the dual carriageway on the A417 or A419 where there is a slight bend round to the left at the lights if you're heading towards Swindon, so you don't need to slow down that much. I wasn't speeding and the lights turned amber and in that split second I had to react I decided that with a car up my **** I will try to make it through the lights. I went through too late, apparently 1.01 seconds too late according to the camera. 1 second is not enough time for the traffic coming from the other direction to start off from their set of lights, so with that car up my rear I think I did the right thing rather than potentially cause an accident. These cameras, of course, have no common sense. So 3 points and a £40 fine duly arrived soon after.

I, for reasons of my own, get conned enough from the government as it is, without them fining me for a petty driving offense, and in doing so, putting my insuance up by quite a few quid.

Safety? Don't make me laugh, it's all about money - 100%. Surely there will be a backlash sooner or later and the police/government have no-one to blame but themselves.

Another conned P1553D off driver.

 

They say that they 'want to make speeding as socially unaceptable as drink driving'... well, make the penalies as harsh, but they know that if they made it so that drivers caught 10 mph (or whatover) over the limit got banned, no one would speed and speed cameras would make no revnue.

If they are serious about reducing speeding they should increase the penalties. At the momet most people consider it to be worth the risk...

 

Yeah, it's like the government running ads to stop smoking. If they really care about peoples health then simply ban cigarettes and make them illegal! But how many millions would they lose from the huge tax on ****? They are just hypoctrites.

 

Shaun27,

surely the photo(s, they take two!) would have shown the car behind you, and thus the reason for not braking hard?

However, sadly, the law says that you should _always_ assume that traffic lights will turn red, and thus drive at an appropriate speed (i.e. so that you can stop).


... but back to topic, the more exposure about the Police/Government "cash cow" in the way of Gatsos, the better (even in the Sun!)

mb

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by chiark:
<B>
Bring 'em on to accident blackspots say I, and place 'em outside schools, hospitals, ...
[/quote]

I have two littl'uns that I occasionally drop off at school (like, when I'm not working 7 days a week). I find it amazing that the people who speed outside schools, and park on the 'School -- No parking' zigzags are <B>parents</B> dropping their kids off at school ("I'm not parking all the way up there, I'll just stop on these zigzags for five minutes")! You would think they'd know better.