M42 Junction 3a to 2 - Cameras?

bigadaj

GingerBob wrote: »

So much for speed cameras only being deployed where there's a need, e.g. at accident black-spots, which as I recall was the excuse to bring them in originally.

Nothing wrong with revenue raising through speeding fines, if your time is sufficiently important to pay tens or hundreds of pounds to save a few seconds then good on you.

GingerBob_3

bigadaj wrote: »

Nothing wrong with revenue raising through speeding fines, if your time is sufficiently important to pay tens or hundreds of pounds to save a few seconds then good on you.

Yes, that is the view of these so-called "safety camera partnerships" (what a brilliant euphemism "safety camera" is).


A while ago in the Cleveland Police area a new speed camera was installed at an accident black-spot. For those who know the area, it was on the A177 at Thorpe Thewles. Exceptionally, the revenue from this camera was to be used to fund another camera elsewhere in the Force's area. He's a classic quote (paraphrased) from the head of the Partnership, a former police traffic officer:


"I'm hopeful we'll be able to quickly finance the new camera from the revenue generated at Thorpe Thewles."


In a civilised society he would have put in jail for such a remark. Of course, in making that remark the cat was well and truly out of the bag.

Fat_Walt

GingerBob wrote: »

Yes, that is the view of these so-called "safety camera partnerships" (what a brilliant euphemism "safety camera" is).


A while ago in the Cleveland Police area a new speed camera was installed at an accident black-spot. For those who know the area, it was on the A177 at Thorpe Thewles. Exceptionally, the revenue from this camera was to be used to fund another camera elsewhere in the Force's area. He's a classic quote (paraphrased) from the head of the Partnership, a former police traffic officer:


"I'm hopeful we'll be able to quickly finance the new camera from the revenue generated at Thorpe Thewles."


In a civilised society he would have put in jail for such a remark. Of course, in making that remark the cat was well and truly out of the bag.

Why do you think he should be jailed for such a comment?

GingerBob_3

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Why do you think he should be jailed for such a comment?

Well jail is perhaps a bit over the top, but he should certainly have been sacked.

Fat_Walt

GingerBob wrote: »

Well jail is perhaps a bit over the top, but he should certainly have been sacked.

Why, what's wrong with it?

GingerBob_3

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Why, what's wrong with it?

Do I have to spell it out?


This blighter was hoping people would carry on speeding at an accident black-spot just so that he could finance yet another camera from the fines. I thought the most successful speed camera was the one that raises no revenue whatsoever?

Fat_Walt

GingerBob wrote: »

Do I have to spell it out?


This blighter was hoping people would carry on speeding at an accident black-spot just so that he could finance yet another camera from the fines. I thought the most successful speed camera was the one that raises no revenue whatsoever?

That would depend on how it's decided to measure success.

GingerBob_3

Fat_Walt wrote: »

That would depend on how it's decided to measure success.

Clearly the prevailing school of thought is that success is measured by direct proportion to revenue raised, whereas it should be by inverse proportion.

Fat_Walt

GingerBob wrote: »

Clearly the prevailing school of thought is that success is measured by direct proportion to revenue raised, whereas it should be by inverse proportion.

It's the old chicken and egg. A successful camera catches the most criminals. It's down to the driver and not the camera partnerships to have it the way you see it. If they don't commit the crime then they won't be detected.

GingerBob_3

Fat_Walt wrote: »

It's the old chicken and egg. A successful camera catches the most criminals. It's down to the driver and not the camera partnerships to have it the way you see it. If they don't commit the crime then they won't be detected.

Sorry, but that's rubbish. The purpose of a speed camera is not to catch "criminals" as you describe them, but to stop people speeding. If it's raising vast amounts of money then it's not working and should be removed. It couldn't be simpler.