Britain's most effective revenue camera

GingerBob_3

Car_54 wrote: »

On the basis of the calculations above, the signs are seen and obeyed by about 99% of drivers. That's a pretty good success rate.

The camera is also doing the job it's intended for, catching the remaining 1%.

So, a non-story.

Cameras are there to stop speeding, not to catch speeding. The most successful camera is one that raises no money at all. The one featured in the Telegraph article is an abysmal failure.

DoaM

GingerBob wrote: »

Cameras are there to stop speeding, not to catch speeding. The most successful camera is one that raises no money at all. The one featured in the Telegraph article is an abysmal failure.

In what alternative reality does a camera stop someone speeding? A camera cannot do that - it can only record a speeding incident. Only a physical obstruction can do this ... but your proposed speed bumps for the road in question is unlikely to be effective and achieve the desired effect - for the reasons already commented.

Mercdriver

GingerBob wrote: »

Cameras are there to stop speeding, not to catch speeding. The most successful camera is one that raises no money at all. The one featured in the Telegraph article is an abysmal failure.

You really are quite illogical.

Of course they are there to catch speeding. That is their role.

takman

GingerBob wrote: »

Cameras are there to stop speeding, not to catch speeding. The most successful camera is one that raises no money at all. The one featured in the Telegraph article is an abysmal failure.

The purpose of speed cameras are to catch people who are speeding and to fine them to make them less likely to do it again. I have no idea why you think that a speed camera can in any way stop people from speeding?.

In your initial post you wanted to get rid of the camera because it was catching people speeding?. Would you also remove CCTV from locations where it caught people commiting crimes?. Or remove police from areas where they are catching alot of criminals?.

Joe_Horner

JP08 wrote: »

But they are not in large numbers. 80 a day got nicked. 0.5% as estimated earlier. The speed limit and the camera were a sufficient deterrent to the rest.

Much as I hate to be seen in the same thread as GB's hatred of speed cameras, in this case he does have a point.

80 car per day / 0.5% may seem small when expressed that way but according to the article (assuming the Torygraph isn't just making things up again of course) that represents a third of all tickets issued in London. Which means that all the other cameras are detecting vastly below that rate.

If the safety of the workforce really is the reason behind the reduced limit - which I'm willing to accept seeing as it's a pretty standard measure - then that level of ticketing compaared to similar cameras elsewhere should have raised a big warning flag to whoever's responsible for their safety in the first few weeks and they should have looked for ways to improve compliance with the limit rather than just letting the fines roll in.

shaun_from_Africa

What I would be interested in seeing is a weekly or monthly breakdown of the number of people caught speeding by the camera since the revised limits were put in place.

The only figures given so far only allow for an average daily rate to be worked out but if there was more info provided, it might show that the number caught was at its highest when the limit was initially lowered and has been dropping since.
If this is indeed the case, then it would prove that the camera is reducing the number of speeders.
After all, anyone caught is very unlikely to speed at the same place again.

Edwood_Woodwood

I wish there were speed cameras absolutely everywhere.

Let's face it, you got to be a proper dope to get caught by one and a totally rubbish driver.

bigadaj

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

I wish there were speed cameras absolutely everywhere.

Let's face it, you got to be a proper dope to get caught by one and a totally rubbish driver.

Best form of revenue raising, purely optional and if someone's time is that important to them that they are prepared to pay to save a few seconds then good on them.

NBLondon

I agree with Joe... there is a point here. The camera is there to A) deter and detect speeding. If a particular location is much more active than similar ones elsewhere in the city then it's failing at A. (If it's better at B then the calibration is out somewhere). So maybe something else is needed - and maybe temporary ramps or ripples would be a physical reminder. At least until we have all driverless cars which can be over-ridden by a signal at the start of the temporary limit.


Based on my experience of the South Circular - I see plenty of people who drive at any old speed they can between cameras then brake as soon as they see one; so average speed cameras could actually be more effective in reducing speeds throughout the affected area rather than the 25 yards of a fixed camera.

Stoke

Bet the Met had a great Christmas do.