End of the Cameras?....Hmm

[IanA2]

The Government has signalled a change in the way the controversial speed camera partnership scheme is funded.

From 2007, cameras will no longer be funded from the fines raised from those caught by the devices, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling announced.

There will also be new requirements to improve the signposting of cameras and a requirement for all local authorities to review the speed limits on their A and B roads by 2011.

From 2007/08, camera schemes will be integrated into wider local authority road safety activity.

Instead of the money raised from fines going towards funding the cameras, English local authorities will get an additional £110 million a year for the four years from 2007/08.

This exceeds the £93 million a year now spent by the local authority-police-government camera partnerships.

Mr Darling made his announcement as he published an independent four-year report that showed that cameras continue to have an important part to play, with around 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured each year.

Mr Darling said: "This report is clear proof that safety cameras save lives. There are hundreds of people alive today who would otherwise be dead.

"All the academics involved in this independent report agree that cameras are delivering substantial reductions in accidents and casualties.

"But I want cameras to be linked more closely to wider road safety. That is why I am increasing the amount of money available for spending on road safety, giving them a new fund of £110 million.

"In some places, cameras will still be the solution, and can be funded through this money. In other places, there will be alternative solutions which this funding can cover.

"In 2004, the UK had the lowest number on record of people killed in road accidents. We are committed to reducing that number even further."

 

[DRICCI]

Instead of the money raised from fines going towards funding the cameras, English local authorities will get an additional £110 million a year for the four years from 2007/08.

So yet more spin. The fines go to.... um the government.... and the government....ummm..... gives the money to fund the cameras.


So what they REALLY meant to say was "the cameras will be funded indirectly from the fines paid and we'll give them a bit more of your taxes"





Duh. How stupid do they think we are?

 

[jeremy156]

Mixed news... especially alarmed at the predictions I've heard that we'll all encounter yet more speed humps and "chicanes". I'm no environmental angel but I do recognise the unnecessary polution caused by always slowing down enough to avoid killing your car and then necessarily accelerating to make reasonable progress - there's also a fuel consumption issue there! And as for introducing additional hazards to the road in the form of road narrowing chicanes, openly described as being to reduce the speed people can drive..... add the word "risk" into that sentence to illustrate that they're making the road less safe, requiring more attention to be put into staying rubber side down and less attention left for spotting kids with bouncing balls etc.

Now... I must admit I do like the idea of reviewing speed limits - we all know some appropriate ones and of course we'll all expect some inappropriate decisions to follow... but it's a chance for some common sense to come in and increased speed limit signing might reduce the number of times we come across someone panic breaking when they see a speed camera because they've absolutely no idea what speed limit applies to the road. I personally believe drivers should maintain an awareness of current speed limit through concentrating - however the reality is that drivers are distracted (those bloody chicanes won't help) and reminders in the form of speed limit repeaters are no bad thing.

So how about a completely different approach.... what if there were no mandatory speed limits, no decisions made *for* you, but instead signs gave advice. Think of the impact of actually *giving* the responsibility to each and every driver to travel at a speed he considers suitable for the road and conditions. Make speed just one factor our police could use in determining who's driving inappropriately. Just a thought... In other dangerous activities (e.g. rifle shooting) would a sign saying "yeah, you can do it at this speed" be appropriate all the time? What about when your coach is stood in front of you, would the sign apply? No.... the responsibility is with the operator of the "dangerous weapon". Anyway, I'm digressing. Time for a coffee.

 

[jeremy156]

Hey, will this funding be available for claims from road users with knackared suspension due to more "traffic calming"? I really should shut up now.

 

[BearFace]

So yet more spin. The fines go to.... um the government.... and the government....ummm..... gives the money to fund the cameras.

So what they REALLY meant to say was "the cameras will be funded indirectly from the fines paid and we'll give them a bit more of your taxes"

Duh. How stupid do they think we are?

Oh, I think we'd all be highly offended if we really knew how stupid they think we are. After all, the statistics used to justify the cameras as a whole are some of the most misleading ever published. For example, the claim you see on the backs of buses which states that a speed camera is only commissioned when there has been a minimum of four deaths in it's vicinity is actually genuine, but only when you dig a little deeper do you discover that the deaths can be (and often are) as tenuously linked to speed-related deaths as:

...........a drunk pedestrian falling off the curb into the path of a car.........drink-driving related accidents..........drivers falling asleep at the wheel..............old people veering off course and causing chaos and carnage..........diesel spills causing bikers (and cars) to lose control and skid off the road...........crashes caused by defective or faulty vehicles.........people falling ill at the wheel and losing control of their vehicle.........

.....oh, and of course there are the genuine speed-related accidents resulting in the death of a driver, passenger or pedestrian. Yes, they occur, but how often relative to the quoted statistics?

In short, we are expected to buy into the idea that all road deaths are caused by Gary Turbo in his purple 200mph Corsa SRi, or Rory Finance in his BMW 330 Coupe with the cruise control permanently set to 110mph.............hence the heart-rending ad-campaigns showing injured children begging you to slow down and these mind-boggling statistics which have ultimately succeeded in still further raping the motorist, while at the same time making him or her feel as guilty as possible for driving at 36mph in a 30mph limit...........scandalous

Sometimes I wish we could be more like the French. Sure, we all got a little p"ssed when Maggie introduced the Poll Tax, but we soon calmed down when they changed the name a few times.......(I mean, paying a "Community Charge" seemed so civil and decent, how could we refuse..?).......and now the Government are stealthily removing our trousers by giving us the impression that the "safety camera" (read "Revenue Machines") initiative is being rationalised and funded directly, while simultaneously taking more hard-earned cash off the ridiculously easy target we like to refer to as "the motorist". How we can even drive past a fixed camera or a civilian operated van without expressing our disgust (just a dab on the horn and a V-sign for the van driver/operator, and a quick pee against a fixed camera would be a start...) is beyond me, but like everything in this so-called democracy, we accept it because we believe the statistics and because that "wholly sincere" spin fools us every time.

Ahhh, that felt good

 

[Flyer]

It's all a load of crap. Speed cameras, both fixed and in vans cunningly stationed just before an NSL or at the only overtaking point for miles, should be scrapped. No ifs or buts, get rid of them, they do more harm than good and are there purely to generate cash. And fortunately, more and more people are becoming wise to them.

I would love to know why (rhetorical question ahead) "they" insist on lumping "Seriously Injured" along with "Killed"*. Bit of a difference there, wouldn't you say?

Only musing on this the other day on the anniversary of John Lennon's murder. Say if he had merely been Seriously Injured, the shot damaging his arm badly and he couldn't use it again. We would have had years of his humour and some brilliant songs and maybe he'd have eventually dumped the mad one. As opposed to Killed ... forever gone.

So wouldn't it be more accurate and, goddammit, more TRUTHFUL if they seperated the Killed from the Seriously Injured? Especially when a Serious Injury is defined as:

Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.

Having a concussion is very different from being dead!

Also like to comment on the BBC's reporting of this yesterday. Apart from the dubious figures that they unquestioningly spouted, they started their reporting by showing crashed cars, then a speed camera, then more crashed cars, inextricably linking speed with crashing. "You speed = you crash. You speed = you die. Speed = bad."

Another rhetorical question: Is the BBC impartial? (As their charter says they should be)