Next time you flash you headlights.........

cyclonebri1

WastingMyTime wrote: »

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Errr - no. They're a money making scheme - end of story.

You are wrong.
Oxfordshire council deactivated their camera since the Government withdrew its central funding because they don't make enough money to support the costs of catching speeding motorists. So Oxfordshire isn't raking in the money from speeders!
Since the deactivation there has been an 88% increase in speeding and the community are concerned that this will increase accidents.
I believe that Oxfordshire Council may/are re-activating the cameras due to public concerns even though it's losing money.

If only they were that honest.
Under the present climate no council is going to do anything that costs them, (us), money. regardless of what anyof us feel about speed cameras.

Harry_Flashman

WastingMyTime wrote: »

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Errr - no. They're a money making scheme - end of story.

You are wrong.
Oxfordshire council deactivated their camera since the Government withdrew its central funding because they don't make enough money to support the costs of catching speeding motorists. So Oxfordshire isn't raking in the money from speeders!
Since the deactivation there has been an 88% increase in speeding and the community are concerned that this will increase accidents.
I believe that Oxfordshire Council may/are re-activating the cameras due to public concerns even though it's losing money.

I simply don't believe that - previously councils were keeping the revenue from cameras - they don't now.

alastairq

There could be no obstruction of the officers in the exercise of their duty unless there were vehicles that were speeding or were likely to speed. In my judgment that analysis was correct.

without transcripts of the court hearing in the instance that is the subject of this thread, then the 'unless' bit of the above may in fact have applied.

Or.. perhaps you should contact the gentleman concerned, and point out what you have already ably done so on here....which is hardly the place to apply legal judgements, etc?

sarahg1969

alastairq wrote: »

without transcripts of the court hearing in the instance that is the subject of this thread, then the 'unless' bit of the above may in fact have applied.

Or.. perhaps you should contact the gentleman concerned, and point out what you have already ably done so on here....which is hardly the place to apply legal judgements, etc?

There is absolutely no way that anyone could ever prove that the specific vehicles that he flashed at were speeding and that he knew they were. It's not possible. It was a simple error by the Magistrates.

Mr Thompson is now aware of the precedent, and is appealing.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Paradigm wrote: »

I disagree totally with your holier than thou attitude, however this isn't the thread to discuss the benefits of speed cameras.

So start one!!!

Im not being holier then thou on anything. If people speed they deserve what they get.

So what is your answer to my question then or do you not have one but are happy to spout off 5hite without justifying what your saying?

Littlemissteapot

I'm happy for the whole thing to be a money making scheme because it does save lives. That's the paradigms, I guess.

Flyboy152

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

I simply don't believe that - previously councils were keeping the revenue from cameras - they don't now.

What statistics and data do you have to reinforce your argument?

Harry_Flashman

A report on Radio 4 some time ago.

Flyboy152

A report on a radio station about something, sometime ago?

What did this random report say about how much councils earn from the cameras and how much does it cost to run them?

WastingMyTime

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

WastingMyTime wrote: »

I simply don't believe that - previously councils were keeping the revenue from cameras - they don't now.

You have misread the posting.