Of course we didn't really expect the man from the'safer roads partnership' to say anything else did we!!?? his opinion that the magistrates would've convicted the driver is probably accurate, though it would be nice to see more drivers aquitted than fined!!

Of course we didn't really expect the man from the'safer roads partnership' to say anything else did we!!?? his opinion that the magistrates would've convicted the driver is probably accurate, though it would be nice to see more drivers aquitted than fined!!

Agreed johnnierebel,

...and while these cameras still exist, I shall be paying more attention to my speedometer than I should whilst passing them.

Agreed johnnierebel,

...and while these cameras still exist, I shall be paying more attention to my speedometer than I should whilst passing them.

Disappointed that he didn't manage to prosecute a 63 year old fella at 35 miles an hour ..what on earth is this world coming to?.

You should hang your head in shame sir while all the local lads bomb around everywhere all day and night because they're not falling for this placebo and with a reduction in police nationally of nearly 20% you've turned most camera's zones into an after dark war zone.

You are disgusting!

Disappointed that he didn't manage to prosecute a 63 year old fella at 35 miles an hour ..what on earth is this world coming to?.

You should hang your head in shame sir while all the local lads bomb around everywhere all day and night because they're not falling for this placebo and with a reduction in police nationally of nearly 20% you've turned most camera's zones into an after dark war zone.

You are disgusting!

News Flash: Today, our city streets are being taken over by a new scourge, desperate bands of senior citizens are running riot and only the Camera Partnerships can be relied upon to bring them to justice.

While engaged in the illegal and abhorant act of shopping, Wilfred Smith 71 lead police on a desperate high speed chase through the streets of Worcester, often exceeding speeds of 34 mph. Such was his break neck pace that judges decided to throw him in jail for the rest of his life.

Pensioners!, are you harbouring one? ..let your partnership know today!

News Flash: Today, our city streets are being taken over by a new scourge, desperate bands of senior citizens are running riot and only the Camera Partnerships can be relied upon to bring them to justice.

While engaged in the illegal and abhorant act of shopping, Wilfred Smith 71 lead police on a desperate high speed chase through the streets of Worcester, often exceeding speeds of 34 mph. Such was his break neck pace that judges decided to throw him in jail for the rest of his life.

Pensioners!, are you harbouring one? ..let your partnership know today!

Right ..own up, who lent this bloke a copy of Moby Dick?

Right ..own up, who lent this bloke a copy of Moby Dick?

most dual carriageways around the west midlands have 40mph limits in town so they are guaranteed to keep catching plenty of motorists who are strangers to the area with this camera. the thing that annoys most people is that real criminals get less punishment than motorists

most dual carriageways around the west midlands have 40mph limits in town so they are guaranteed to keep catching plenty of motorists who are strangers to the area with this camera. the thing that annoys most people is that real criminals get less punishment than motorists

Trevor McAvoy, of the "SS" Roads Partnership in West Mercia said.....

Trevor McAvoy, of the "SS" Roads Partnership in West Mercia said.....

I notice our friends from the County Council's highways dept seem to be notable by their absence in this article. What have these overpaid wasters got to say? After all, they're part of the Safer Roads Partnership and determine locations of speed cameras, or should that be where are the best money-generating roads. Can't wait to see how much money is generated from the new cameras on the A449 - also installed by our wonderous council.

I notice our friends from the County Council's highways dept seem to be notable by their absence in this article. What have these overpaid wasters got to say? After all, they're part of the Safer Roads Partnership and determine locations of speed cameras, or should that be where are the best money-generating roads. Can't wait to see how much money is generated from the new cameras on the A449 - also installed by our wonderous council.

With their own statistics showing that the largest percentage of accidents 'are not' caused by speeding, this is just indicative of the madness this campaign is having across the country. This is more than an own goal, this shows at it worst, just how out of control authorities get when they're given technology they don't really understand and autonomy to do with it as they please.

Are we sitting comfortably children? I'm going to tell you a story, this is a modern day fable called, Gordon and Alistairs ..."Hunt for the Great White Whale!!"

With their own statistics showing that the largest percentage of accidents 'are not' caused by speeding, this is just indicative of the madness this campaign is having across the country. This is more than an own goal, this shows at it worst, just how out of control authorities get when they're given technology they don't really understand and autonomy to do with it as they please.

Are we sitting comfortably children? I'm going to tell you a story, this is a modern day fable called, Gordon and Alistairs ..."Hunt for the Great White Whale!!"

Usual bile from the pro death lobby.

Usual bile from the pro death lobby.

Usual witless retort from the "pro camera" lobby.

But you're right, taking this fiasco away from the camera partnerships would be a really bad thing, because then they'd have to put experienced professional police officers back on the road ..regular police patrols would mean that non vehicle related neighbourhood crime might go down as a consequence as they patrol our streets and that as we all know, for the petrol theives, joy riders, drunks and vandals is such a terrible thing.

82% of people in the UK support safety cameras, some because they believe they work, the rest because they know they don't.

Usual witless retort from the "pro camera" lobby.

But you're right, taking this fiasco away from the camera partnerships would be a really bad thing, because then they'd have to put experienced professional police officers back on the road ..regular police patrols would mean that non vehicle related neighbourhood crime might go down as a consequence as they patrol our streets and that as we all know, for the petrol theives, joy riders, drunks and vandals is such a terrible thing.

82% of people in the UK support safety cameras, some because they believe they work, the rest because they know they don't.

Karl Hunderson wrote:
Usual bile from the pro death lobby.

Instead of making such rash comments you would be better explaining why you think camera's are a good idea and just how they save lives. Simple truth is however that even the governments own statistics do not show that this is fact with less then 5% of accidents involving excess speed.

I don't know about other drivers, but I drive on the road and I expect pedestrians to use the pavement provided. When they come to cross the road I expect them to stop and look before doing so, likewise, if I have to cross the pavement I would give way to any pedestrians first.

Unfortunately, pedestrians for some reason these days just don't consider it worth looking before stepping out into the road. Only this evening did I encounter a group of joggers running in a line along pheasant street towards St. Martin's Gate. I was going around the island and the first jogger just ran straight across my path without even looking, the second in the line was also in the road before realising it might well be good idea to stop. Seemingly, a wave as an apology was good enough and I was sufficiently aware to account for this possible stupidity and an accident was avoided.

Yesterday I almost had one in St Johns who stepped out from behind a high vehicle without even a glance. About 6 weeks ago I had the similar incident with a group of kids who had got off a double decker bus used for a school run. I've also had parents with their kids step out in front of me as well as pensioners. I really don't know why people don't seem bothered about looking and seem very cavalier with regard to their own safety. Seemingly however, every time someone gets knocked down it always seems to be attributed to the driver. Whatever happened to the green cross code bloke and the other public information films that used to be on the telly when I was younger. With roads busier than ever, wouldn't you have thought they would be even more necessary.

As for our country roads, they could be made considerably safer at night if the county fixed the one invention that helped the driver see better the road ahead, the 'cat's eyes. Simple fact is that hardly any of them now work because they are mostly broken and you can't always use main beam can you. If the county wants to improve the A449 and other country roads then the investment in fixing the cat's eyes would have been more beneficial than a so called safety camera.

Karl Hunderson wrote:
Usual bile from the pro death lobby.

Instead of making such rash comments you would be better explaining why you think camera's are a good idea and just how they save lives. Simple truth is however that even the governments own statistics do not show that this is fact with less then 5% of accidents involving excess speed.

I don't know about other drivers, but I drive on the road and I expect pedestrians to use the pavement provided. When they come to cross the road I expect them to stop and look before doing so, likewise, if I have to cross the pavement I would give way to any pedestrians first.

Unfortunately, pedestrians for some reason these days just don't consider it worth looking before stepping out into the road. Only this evening did I encounter a group of joggers running in a line along pheasant street towards St. Martin's Gate. I was going around the island and the first jogger just ran straight across my path without even looking, the second in the line was also in the road before realising it might well be good idea to stop. Seemingly, a wave as an apology was good enough and I was sufficiently aware to account for this possible stupidity and an accident was avoided.

Yesterday I almost had one in St Johns who stepped out from behind a high vehicle without even a glance. About 6 weeks ago I had the similar incident with a group of kids who had got off a double decker bus used for a school run. I've also had parents with their kids step out in front of me as well as pensioners. I really don't know why people don't seem bothered about looking and seem very cavalier with regard to their own safety. Seemingly however, every time someone gets knocked down it always seems to be attributed to the driver. Whatever happened to the green cross code bloke and the other public information films that used to be on the telly when I was younger. With roads busier than ever, wouldn't you have thought they would be even more necessary.

As for our country roads, they could be made considerably safer at night if the county fixed the one invention that helped the driver see better the road ahead, the 'cat's eyes. Simple fact is that hardly any of them now work because they are mostly broken and you can't always use main beam can you. If the county wants to improve the A449 and other country roads then the investment in fixing the cat's eyes would have been more beneficial than a so called safety camera.

June 28 , 2007
“DISASTROUS” CHILD ROAD DEATH FIGURES

Department for Transport statistics show big increases in deaths among child pedestrians (up 13 per cent) and child pedal cyclists (up 55 per cent), as well a five per cent jump in motorcycle fatalities

Kevin Clinton, RoSPA Head of Road Safety, said: “The figures are disastrous for vulnerable road users. It is appalling that we are seeing more children killed on our roads.

“There is an increase in deaths on built up roads - up two per cent - and that is where children, cyclists and pedestrians spend most of their time.

RoSPA looks forward to Government consultations on improving the ways people learn to drive and also reducing the drink drive limit - a cut in the limit from 80mg to 50mg could save 65 lives and 230 serious injuries on Britain’s roads each year.

The full figures show the number of people killed in road accidents fell by one per cent to 3,172 in 2006. There were 31,845 killed or seriously injured, down one per cent, and the total road casualty figure was down five per cent to 258,404.

******************

Your average person in the street wouldn't say these make particularly good reading and I don't think a 1% drop in overall deaths should be a reason to have a party or feel proud of yourselves after all this time ..just ask the other 99%.

An overall drop in casualties of 5%? can that be acredited to the presence of speed cameras or just be a variable? or would a sane man start to ask himself, that means 95% of them are still happening, have I gone wrong somewhere and there's a bigger issue we're not seeing.

All you highly skilled professional drivers who work on these partnerships, don't think this criticism is aimed at you, your presence is required once all this nonsense and stubborness over speed cameras as a panacea is put behind us, but at least recommend putting trained police officers back on the road until a real solution is found.

I personally would suggest a zero tolerance on alcohol consumption and driving, but then, no ones figured out how to make a safety camera catch a drink or drunk driver and do a breathalyzer or drugs screen yet.

...and we're the pro death lobby? ...moron!

June 28 , 2007
“DISASTROUS” CHILD ROAD DEATH FIGURES

Department for Transport statistics show big increases in deaths among child pedestrians (up 13 per cent) and child pedal cyclists (up 55 per cent), as well a five per cent jump in motorcycle fatalities

Kevin Clinton, RoSPA Head of Road Safety, said: “The figures are disastrous for vulnerable road users. It is appalling that we are seeing more children killed on our roads.

“There is an increase in deaths on built up roads - up two per cent - and that is where children, cyclists and pedestrians spend most of their time.

RoSPA looks forward to Government consultations on improving the ways people learn to drive and also reducing the drink drive limit - a cut in the limit from 80mg to 50mg could save 65 lives and 230 serious injuries on BritainÂ’s roads each year.

The full figures show the number of people killed in road accidents fell by one per cent to 3,172 in 2006. There were 31,845 killed or seriously injured, down one per cent, and the total road casualty figure was down five per cent to 258,404.

******************

Your average person in the street wouldn't say these make particularly good reading and I don't think a 1% drop in overall deaths should be a reason to have a party or feel proud of yourselves after all this time ..just ask the other 99%.

An overall drop in casualties of 5%? can that be acredited to the presence of speed cameras or just be a variable? or would a sane man start to ask himself, that means 95% of them are still happening, have I gone wrong somewhere and there's a bigger issue we're not seeing.

All you highly skilled professional drivers who work on these partnerships, don't think this criticism is aimed at you, your presence is required once all this nonsense and stubborness over speed cameras as a panacea is put behind us, but at least recommend putting trained police officers back on the road until a real solution is found.

I personally would suggest a zero tolerance on alcohol consumption and driving, but then, no ones figured out how to make a safety camera catch a drink or drunk driver and do a breathalyzer or drugs screen yet.

...and we're the pro death lobby? ...moron!

raw nerve then?

raw nerve then?

Karl Hunderson wrote:
raw nerve then?

Frankly Karl, if you are not prepared to justify you views then perhaps you should keep your sarcastic and meaningless comments to yourself.

Karl Hunderson wrote:
raw nerve then?

Frankly Karl, if you are not prepared to justify you views then perhaps you should keep your sarcastic and meaningless comments to yourself.

What I don't understand is certain individuals’ resistance to what people are saying here, “Put the police back on the road.” Since when did that become a bad thing?

They're not saying they want to speed, they're saying they want a police force who can deal with real speeders and dangerous lunatics, as well as other cardinal sins such as drink drive, driving under the influence of drugs, driving without a license, driving without insurance, driving while banned, driving a dangerous or unsafe vehicle, the list goes on and on.

Because after fifteen years and several generations of technology, 'Safety cameras' as they've now been downgraded to, don't seem to be doing the job.

If the partnerships do start hiding them, as is being suggested, it basically says out loud to the world that as a visible deterrent they've failed miserably, prosecuting the unwary and not catching the street wise, which unfortunately, would then bring into question the validity of millions of pounds worth of previous convictions.

Interesting paradox the partnerships seem to have on their hands here, perhaps they should have tested the things and listened to the critics before it all went this mad, where you see in the papers even today, partnership managers who’re really upset they couldn’t prosecute a 63 year old for doing 35 mph, while all around the people who bother to have a drive round and spot all the cameras, continue, as was said earlier to use our streets as a race track.

After all, the original, the first camera was just developed to give a racing driver an idea of his top speed, it was never intended to be used to replace a whole country’s traffic police.

Gordon and Alistairs 'Prudent Financial Model' for road safety was a three pronged attack,

1, Reduce speed you therefore automatically reduce fatal crashes on the road. (This what many believe to be the faulty premiss, not that speeding is a good thing)

2. With nobody stupid enough to speed in the face of such wonderful all powerful, all seeing technology, they could cut down on traffic police.

3. With less fatal accidents, would come less need for accidents and emergency centres, so they could close lots of those as well.

The amount of money taken by partnerships is trivial in government terms, but as a saving on emergency services and police, it turns out to be quite a considerable amount.

Sadly, two parts have worked, one hasn't ..do you need me to point out which one, or tell you that at this time, according the BBC television news, you've got a 43% chance of dieing from a ‘genuine traffic accident’ before you even get to a hospital.

The Placebo effect didn’t stand the scrutiny and ‘Safety Cameras’ are in my opinion a complete and utter failure, but will anyone listen to reason? ..of course not, because this is the sort of thing which, as I say is just my opinion, could easily topple a government.

******

Copied from elsewhere, but I couldn't have said it better myself.

What I don't understand is certain individuals’ resistance to what people are saying here, “Put the police back on the road.” Since when did that become a bad thing?

They're not saying they want to speed, they're saying they want a police force who can deal with real speeders and dangerous lunatics, as well as other cardinal sins such as drink drive, driving under the influence of drugs, driving without a license, driving without insurance, driving while banned, driving a dangerous or unsafe vehicle, the list goes on and on.

Because after fifteen years and several generations of technology, 'Safety cameras' as they've now been downgraded to, don't seem to be doing the job.

If the partnerships do start hiding them, as is being suggested, it basically says out loud to the world that as a visible deterrent they've failed miserably, prosecuting the unwary and not catching the street wise, which unfortunately, would then bring into question the validity of millions of pounds worth of previous convictions.

Interesting paradox the partnerships seem to have on their hands here, perhaps they should have tested the things and listened to the critics before it all went this mad, where you see in the papers even today, partnership managers whoÂ’re really upset they couldnÂ’t prosecute a 63 year old for doing 35 mph, while all around the people who bother to have a drive round and spot all the cameras, continue, as was said earlier to use our streets as a race track.

After all, the original, the first camera was just developed to give a racing driver an idea of his top speed, it was never intended to be used to replace a whole countryÂ’s traffic police.

Gordon and Alistairs 'Prudent Financial Model' for road safety was a three pronged attack,

1, Reduce speed you therefore automatically reduce fatal crashes on the road. (This what many believe to be the faulty premiss, not that speeding is a good thing)

2. With nobody stupid enough to speed in the face of such wonderful all powerful, all seeing technology, they could cut down on traffic police.

3. With less fatal accidents, would come less need for accidents and emergency centres, so they could close lots of those as well.

The amount of money taken by partnerships is trivial in government terms, but as a saving on emergency services and police, it turns out to be quite a considerable amount.

Sadly, two parts have worked, one hasn't ..do you need me to point out which one, or tell you that at this time, according the BBC television news, you've got a 43% chance of dieing from a ‘genuine traffic accident’ before you even get to a hospital.

The Placebo effect didn’t stand the scrutiny and ‘Safety Cameras’ are in my opinion a complete and utter failure, but will anyone listen to reason? ..of course not, because this is the sort of thing which, as I say is just my opinion, could easily topple a government.

******

Copied from elsewhere, but I couldn't have said it better myself.

Logik wrote:

Karl Hunderson wrote: raw nerve then?

Frankly Karl, if you are not prepared to justify you views then perhaps you should keep your sarcastic and meaningless comments to yourself.

Just stop, draw breath and take a look at the news items on this very website. Almost every day lives are lost and destroyed in road traffic accidents. As a tax payer I have to foot the bill for hospital, police and ambulance services required to mop up the mess. Therefore I'm all for ways of curtailing the carnage. If people are so stupid that they can't drive within the legalspeed limit then they deserve to pay the fines (its like a tax on the stupid isn't it)and perhaps should have their driving licence removed. Now that I have justified my remarks could someone justify the use of the term 'Moron' in this thread or is that the level of debate here. If so then I shall carry on using sarcastic remarks in the spirit of the rest of you.

Logik wrote:

Karl Hunderson wrote: raw nerve then?

Frankly Karl, if you are not prepared to justify you views then perhaps you should keep your sarcastic and meaningless comments to yourself.

Just stop, draw breath and take a look at the news items on this very website. Almost every day lives are lost and destroyed in road traffic accidents. As a tax payer I have to foot the bill for hospital, police and ambulance services required to mop up the mess. Therefore I'm all for ways of curtailing the carnage. If people are so stupid that they can't drive within the legalspeed limit then they deserve to pay the fines (its like a tax on the stupid isn't it)and perhaps should have their driving licence removed. Now that I have justified my remarks could someone justify the use of the term 'Moron' in this thread or is that the level of debate here. If so then I shall carry on using sarcastic remarks in the spirit of the rest of you.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you Karl, because you've answered your own post.

"Almost every day lives are lost and destroyed in road traffic accidents. As a tax payer I have to foot the bill for hospital, police and ambulance services required to mop up the mess."

They're still happening, wether this guy gets to prosecute a 63 year old or not.

And the governments own figures show that on a local level that they've increased, not decreased, you can go on blindly arguing with people who you automatically assume are pro speed because they're anti camera for as long as you like it'll make no difference.

The Partnerships answer to these casualties is to lower the limit to 20, if local drivers are already ignoring the 30 limit because they know where the cameras are, how is lowering it going to help exactly?

Even Dr Stephen Ladyman criticised Police Chiefs for depending on safety cameras too much.

you also said it was a "Tax on the stupid", I agree, can't fault you there, it is.

All you have to do to avoid prosecution is make a note of where the cameras are and you're not affected by them, that isn't exactly rocket science, but the assumption that everyone is slowing down because of an immobile camera is to say the least, a little bit optimistic.


I'm done with wasting my time on these things, if the figures improve, wonderful, if they don't, well, don't say you weren't told!

I'm not going to get into an argument with you Karl, because you've answered your own post.

"Almost every day lives are lost and destroyed in road traffic accidents. As a tax payer I have to foot the bill for hospital, police and ambulance services required to mop up the mess."

They're still happening, wether this guy gets to prosecute a 63 year old or not.

And the governments own figures show that on a local level that they've increased, not decreased, you can go on blindly arguing with people who you automatically assume are pro speed because they're anti camera for as long as you like it'll make no difference.

The Partnerships answer to these casualties is to lower the limit to 20, if local drivers are already ignoring the 30 limit because they know where the cameras are, how is lowering it going to help exactly?

Even Dr Stephen Ladyman criticised Police Chiefs for depending on safety cameras too much.

you also said it was a "Tax on the stupid", I agree, can't fault you there, it is.

All you have to do to avoid prosecution is make a note of where the cameras are and you're not affected by them, that isn't exactly rocket science, but the assumption that everyone is slowing down because of an immobile camera is to say the least, a little bit optimistic.


I'm done with wasting my time on these things, if the figures improve, wonderful, if they don't, well, don't say you weren't told!

I'm not going to get into an argument with you Karl, because you've answered your own post.

"Almost every day lives are lost and destroyed in road traffic accidents. As a tax payer I have to foot the bill for hospital, police and ambulance services required to mop up the mess."

They're still happening, wether this guy gets to prosecute a 63 year old or not.

And the governments own figures show that on a local level that they've increased, not decreased, you can go on blindly arguing with people who you automatically assume are pro speed because they're anti camera for as long as you like it'll make no difference.

The Partnerships answer to these casualties is to lower the limit to 20, if local drivers are already ignoring the 30 limit because they know where the cameras are, how is lowering it going to help exactly?

Even Dr Stephen Ladyman criticised Police Chiefs for depending on safety cameras too much.

you also said it was a "Tax on the stupid", I agree, can't fault you there, it is.

All you have to do to avoid prosecution is make a note of where the cameras are and you're not affected by them, that isn't exactly rocket science, but the assumption that everyone is slowing down because of an immobile camera is to say the least, a little bit optimistic.


I'm done with wasting my time on these things, if the figures improve, wonderful, if they don't, well, don't say you weren't told!

I'm not going to get into an argument with you Karl, because you've answered your own post.

"Almost every day lives are lost and destroyed in road traffic accidents. As a tax payer I have to foot the bill for hospital, police and ambulance services required to mop up the mess."

They're still happening, wether this guy gets to prosecute a 63 year old or not.

And the governments own figures show that on a local level that they've increased, not decreased, you can go on blindly arguing with people who you automatically assume are pro speed because they're anti camera for as long as you like it'll make no difference.

The Partnerships answer to these casualties is to lower the limit to 20, if local drivers are already ignoring the 30 limit because they know where the cameras are, how is lowering it going to help exactly?

Even Dr Stephen Ladyman criticised Police Chiefs for depending on safety cameras too much.

you also said it was a "Tax on the stupid", I agree, can't fault you there, it is.

All you have to do to avoid prosecution is make a note of where the cameras are and you're not affected by them, that isn't exactly rocket science, but the assumption that everyone is slowing down because of an immobile camera is to say the least, a little bit optimistic.


I'm done with wasting my time on these things, if the figures improve, wonderful, if they don't, well, don't say you weren't told!

Karl Hunderson wrote:

Logik wrote:

Karl Hunderson wrote: raw nerve then?

Frankly Karl, if you are not prepared to justify you views then perhaps you should keep your sarcastic and meaningless comments to yourself.

Just stop, draw breath and take a look at the news items on this very website. Almost every day lives are lost and destroyed in road traffic accidents. As a tax payer I have to foot the bill for hospital, police and ambulance services required to mop up the mess. Therefore I'm all for ways of curtailing the carnage. If people are so stupid that they can't drive within the legalspeed limit then they deserve to pay the fines (its like a tax on the stupid isn't it)and perhaps should have their driving licence removed. Now that I have justified my remarks could someone justify the use of the term 'Moron' in this thread or is that the level of debate here. If so then I shall carry on using sarcastic remarks in the spirit of the rest of you.

Yes Karl, we are aware already of the accident tolls and we all want to see them reduced, we just do not see that speed cameras are the way to do it. You have just given your view, you have not justified your argument with fact.

The fact is only 5% of accidents involve speed. Out of that 5% you that are speed related, you have to factor in the joy riders, boy racers, the police themselves, criminals and that percentage would reduce further.

The further fact is that it is also assumed that when accidents occur it must always be the drivers fault, that simply is not the case.

The point we are making in simple terms is that speed cameras in the majority of cases do not improve road safety and this is substantiated by the Dft's own statistics.

Clearly, if it is not working then it needs to be replaced by something that does work, some more traffic police perhaps would be a wise start.

Karl Hunderson wrote:

Logik wrote:

Karl Hunderson wrote: raw nerve then?

Frankly Karl, if you are not prepared to justify you views then perhaps you should keep your sarcastic and meaningless comments to yourself.

Just stop, draw breath and take a look at the news items on this very website. Almost every day lives are lost and destroyed in road traffic accidents. As a tax payer I have to foot the bill for hospital, police and ambulance services required to mop up the mess. Therefore I'm all for ways of curtailing the carnage. If people are so stupid that they can't drive within the legalspeed limit then they deserve to pay the fines (its like a tax on the stupid isn't it)and perhaps should have their driving licence removed. Now that I have justified my remarks could someone justify the use of the term 'Moron' in this thread or is that the level of debate here. If so then I shall carry on using sarcastic remarks in the spirit of the rest of you.

Yes Karl, we are aware already of the accident tolls and we all want to see them reduced, we just do not see that speed cameras are the way to do it. You have just given your view, you have not justified your argument with fact.

The fact is only 5% of accidents involve speed. Out of that 5% you that are speed related, you have to factor in the joy riders, boy racers, the police themselves, criminals and that percentage would reduce further.

The further fact is that it is also assumed that when accidents occur it must always be the drivers fault, that simply is not the case.

The point we are making in simple terms is that speed cameras in the majority of cases do not improve road safety and this is substantiated by the Dft's own statistics.

Clearly, if it is not working then it needs to be replaced by something that does work, some more traffic police perhaps would be a wise start.

Logik wrote:

Karl Hunderson wrote:

Logik wrote:

Karl Hunderson wrote: raw nerve then?

Frankly Karl, if you are not prepared to justify you views then perhaps you should keep your sarcastic and meaningless comments to yourself.

Just stop, draw breath and take a look at the news items on this very website. Almost every day lives are lost and destroyed in road traffic accidents. As a tax payer I have to foot the bill for hospital, police and ambulance services required to mop up the mess. Therefore I'm all for ways of curtailing the carnage. If people are so stupid that they can't drive within the legalspeed limit then they deserve to pay the fines (its like a tax on the stupid isn't it)and perhaps should have their driving licence removed. Now that I have justified my remarks could someone justify the use of the term 'Moron' in this thread or is that the level of debate here. If so then I shall carry on using sarcastic remarks in the spirit of the rest of you.

Yes Karl, we are aware already of the accident tolls and we all want to see them reduced, we just do not see that speed cameras are the way to do it. You have just given your view, you have not justified your argument with fact. The fact is only 5% of accidents involve speed. Out of that 5% you that are speed related, you have to factor in the joy riders, boy racers, the police themselves, criminals and that percentage would reduce further. The further fact is that it is also assumed that when accidents occur it must always be the drivers fault, that simply is not the case. The point we are making in simple terms is that speed cameras in the majority of cases do not improve road safety and this is substantiated by the Dft's own statistics. Clearly, if it is not working then it needs to be replaced by something that does work, some more traffic police perhaps would be a wise start.

Use of the word fact does not mean that what follows are facts.

Logik wrote:

Karl Hunderson wrote:

Logik wrote:

Karl Hunderson wrote: raw nerve then?

Frankly Karl, if you are not prepared to justify you views then perhaps you should keep your sarcastic and meaningless comments to yourself.

Just stop, draw breath and take a look at the news items on this very website. Almost every day lives are lost and destroyed in road traffic accidents. As a tax payer I have to foot the bill for hospital, police and ambulance services required to mop up the mess. Therefore I'm all for ways of curtailing the carnage. If people are so stupid that they can't drive within the legalspeed limit then they deserve to pay the fines (its like a tax on the stupid isn't it)and perhaps should have their driving licence removed. Now that I have justified my remarks could someone justify the use of the term 'Moron' in this thread or is that the level of debate here. If so then I shall carry on using sarcastic remarks in the spirit of the rest of you.

Yes Karl, we are aware already of the accident tolls and we all want to see them reduced, we just do not see that speed cameras are the way to do it. You have just given your view, you have not justified your argument with fact. The fact is only 5% of accidents involve speed. Out of that 5% you that are speed related, you have to factor in the joy riders, boy racers, the police themselves, criminals and that percentage would reduce further. The further fact is that it is also assumed that when accidents occur it must always be the drivers fault, that simply is not the case. The point we are making in simple terms is that speed cameras in the majority of cases do not improve road safety and this is substantiated by the Dft's own statistics. Clearly, if it is not working then it needs to be replaced by something that does work, some more traffic police perhaps would be a wise start.

Use of the word fact does not mean that what follows are facts.

Seeming Karl, you like many others have been brainwashed to believe that what you are told about speed cameras is true. The facts presented are the governments own figures, when they don't fit with what they propagate then questions have to be asked why. It's common sense really.

Seeming Karl, you like many others have been brainwashed to believe that what you are told about speed cameras is true. The facts presented are the governments own figures, when they don't fit with what they propagate then questions have to be asked why. It's common sense really.

Logik, you say brain washing, I say placebo, a medicine you believe to work, even though it doesn't.

They're currently hoping that the new digital devices work. But saddly, as the premiss is unsound, the devices won't have any real impact either, this will be a huge political embarresment once it is revealed just how much time, man power and money has been spent on these projects, money that would have been better spent supporting the original elite best traffic police in the world who did have a clear impact, just by being on the road and being a benefit not just to road users and pedestrians, but to the community as a whole as well.

If the partnerships were costing councils money instead of generating it, this conversation wouldn't be happening, because no one would be turning a blind eye to their own statistics and they'd have been scrapped ages ago when it became clear they weren't having anywhere near as much impact as expected. Unfortunatly some councils have allowed the "keerching" factor to cloud their judgement.

If they work and it was clear they've acheived a significant result, such as a 65% reduction in accidents across the county, I'd be the first one to send them a letter of congratulation.

One big criticism I have for this concept is the fact that they're not allowed to retrain the individuals who are actually causing the problems, the small percentage who break the speed limits by a long way, all that happens to them, is they're prosecuted and assuming they're not banned, they're straight back on the road, which to me, is quite honestly, absurd.

Logik, you say brain washing, I say placebo, a medicine you believe to work, even though it doesn't.

They're currently hoping that the new digital devices work. But saddly, as the premiss is unsound, the devices won't have any real impact either, this will be a huge political embarresment once it is revealed just how much time, man power and money has been spent on these projects, money that would have been better spent supporting the original elite best traffic police in the world who did have a clear impact, just by being on the road and being a benefit not just to road users and pedestrians, but to the community as a whole as well.

If the partnerships were costing councils money instead of generating it, this conversation wouldn't be happening, because no one would be turning a blind eye to their own statistics and they'd have been scrapped ages ago when it became clear they weren't having anywhere near as much impact as expected. Unfortunatly some councils have allowed the "keerching" factor to cloud their judgement.

If they work and it was clear they've acheived a significant result, such as a 65% reduction in accidents across the county, I'd be the first one to send them a letter of congratulation.

One big criticism I have for this concept is the fact that they're not allowed to retrain the individuals who are actually causing the problems, the small percentage who break the speed limits by a long way, all that happens to them, is they're prosecuted and assuming they're not banned, they're straight back on the road, which to me, is quite honestly, absurd.

Let's put this in perspective. The speed camera policy is run on the premise that it is to reduce road deaths as a result of speed. Those accidents relating to where speed is a contributory factor is around 5%.

Would it not be better to concentrate on reducing the of the other 95% of accidents where speed is not a factor, surely more lives could and would be saved.

To put this in perspective even further, deaths from hospital acquired infections far exceed those on the road and what is the governments remedy for this, tell them to 'wash their hands'.

The only difference between the two is that on the road, their is significant money to be made whilst with the hospitals, it costs money.

Let's put this in perspective. The speed camera policy is run on the premise that it is to reduce road deaths as a result of speed. Those accidents relating to where speed is a contributory factor is around 5%.

Would it not be better to concentrate on reducing the of the other 95% of accidents where speed is not a factor, surely more lives could and would be saved.

To put this in perspective even further, deaths from hospital acquired infections far exceed those on the road and what is the governments remedy for this, tell them to 'wash their hands'.

The only difference between the two is that on the road, their is significant money to be made whilst with the hospitals, it costs money.

Speed cameras are just the governments way of making money!

Speed cameras are just the governments way of making money!

Logik wrote:
Let's put this in perspective. The speed camera policy is run on the premise that it is to reduce road deaths as a result of speed. Those accidents relating to where speed is a contributory factor is around 5%.

Would it not be better to concentrate on reducing the of the other 95% of accidents where speed is not a factor, surely more lives could and would be saved.

To put this in perspective even further, deaths from hospital acquired infections far exceed those on the road and what is the governments remedy for this, tell them to 'wash their hands'.

The only difference between the two is that on the road, their is significant money to be made whilst with the hospitals, it costs money.

You make so much sense logik, the government needs to get its priorities right.

Logik wrote:
Let's put this in perspective. The speed camera policy is run on the premise that it is to reduce road deaths as a result of speed. Those accidents relating to where speed is a contributory factor is around 5%.

Would it not be better to concentrate on reducing the of the other 95% of accidents where speed is not a factor, surely more lives could and would be saved.

To put this in perspective even further, deaths from hospital acquired infections far exceed those on the road and what is the governments remedy for this, tell them to 'wash their hands'.

The only difference between the two is that on the road, their is significant money to be made whilst with the hospitals, it costs money.

You make so much sense logik, the government needs to get its priorities right.