View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
RobBrady Frequent Visitor
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 2718 Location: Chelmsford, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 4:47 pm Post subject: Half Of Speed Cameras Are Inactive |
|
|
According to an investigation by The Sun, almost half of all speed cameras in Britain are not currently operational.
Of the 3,189 cameras which are located on British roads, 48 per cent (1,522 cameras) were inactive. This was attributed to a reduction in government spending of £38 million and comes shortly after speed cameras celebrated their twentieth birthday.
On top of this figure, some areas, such as Avon and Somerset, were found to have switched off all of their cameras, whilst London pulled the plug on 75 per cent of their localised cameras. This means only 565 cameras out of a total of 764 were active.
Overall, more speed cameras were inactive this year than previously; with 37 per cent and 32 per cent of cameras switched off during 2010 and 2009 respectively.
However, whilst many of the speed cameras have been turned off, most of the units have not been removed from the roadside. Their continued presence is hoped to deter speeding, even if those guilty of the crime will not be captured or prosecuted as a result of the device.
In many ways, this is indicative of reports from earlier this year which saw the Nottinghamshire village of Ompton erect a fake speed camera to enforce speed restrictions.
For some, these reports will spark further speculation over whether speed cameras are an effective method of enforcing speed limits. _________________ Robert Brady |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:19 pm Post subject: Re: Half Of Speed Cameras Are Inactive |
|
|
News Team wrote: | whilst London pulled the plug on 75 per cent of their localised cameras. This means only 565 cameras out of a total of 764 were active. | Errrr. Do you want to check the maths here try 'only 192 of a total of 764....' unless they have only switched off 25% |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the Sun might do well to refer to your article last month noting the 20th anniversary of speed cameras, in which you included the following Quote: | Nowadays, the sight of speed cameras is common - although motorists may be surprised to learn than not all cameras are live at all times. In fact, Roger Reynolds, the former police officer who was responsible for switching on the first camera, contends that speed cameras were installed 20 years ago to deter motorists from speeding, not to prosecute them, saying "Only one in eight cameras were live". | This was my own understanding when I was paying for the first installations in Avon and Somerset - there were not enough cameras to go into all the boxes we erected. And was it so recent as 20 years? I'd have sworn it was much earlier than 1992 that we put up Gatso:3217@30. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Which only goes to show that no one has the whole picture of how many are active and does it matter anyway? It's all done with smoke and mirrors, and if people slow down at a camera, provided it is located in a dangerous area rather than a cash cow area, then the camera has done it's job |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mikealder Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 19638 Location: Blackpool , Lancs
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:35 pm Post subject: Re: Half Of Speed Cameras Are Inactive |
|
|
M8TJT wrote: | Do you want to check the maths here try 'only 192 of a total of 764....' unless they have only switched off 25% |
565/ 764 x 100 = 74% which is close to what they claim with 75% but I agree it's not the way to work out the figure they are claiming, someone needs to go back to school me thinks (probably got a recent A** in Maths for what that means) - Mike |
|
Back to top |
|
|
actd Occasional Visitor
Joined: Jul 26, 2008 Posts: 46
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, if it slows down the driver it's done the job. However, I think average speed cameras are a more effective way of enforcement if the force is genuine about reducing accidents and not raising money. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Half Of Speed Cameras Are Inactive |
|
|
mikealder wrote: | M8TJT wrote: | Do you want to check the maths here try 'only 192 of a total of 764....' unless they have only switched off 25% |
565/ 764 x 100 = 74% which is close to what they claim with 75% but I agree it's not the way to work out the figure they are claiming, someone needs to go back to school me thinks (probably got a recent A** in Maths for what that means) - Mike | Yes, I had no problem working out that fairly simple sum, but the article says that they 'have pulled the plug on 75% of their localised cameras.' This means to me that only 25% are working as they are still 'plugged in'. Hence my query about the maths. Not the finer point about percentage calculation, but the numbers given are just plain wrong. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree average speed cameras are the proper way to go about it. BUT they need to make a HUGE publicity effort about them, so that all drivers understand what average speed check means - I'm sure I'm not the only one to be blasted by the slipstream of some fool who thinks he only has to slow down as he passes the batman pole. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shires999 Lifetime Member
Joined: Nov 09, 2006 Posts: 96
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
DennisN wrote: | I agree average speed cameras are the proper way to go about it. BUT they need to make a HUGE publicity effort about them, so that all drivers understand what average speed check means - I'm sure I'm not the only one to be blasted by the slipstream of some fool who thinks he only has to slow down as he passes the batman pole. |
I expect they will learn the hard way by their wallet being a bit lighter.
On a slightly related note, my wife has just had to go on a speed awareness course as she was caught by a gatso camera (and she even had the PGPSW database installed and the camera was on it ) and the majority of people on that course were caught by the variable speed limit cameras on the M42/M6 near Birmingham. Only last night I saw 3 cars activate the flash bulbs on my way home. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guivre46 Frequent Visitor
Joined: Apr 14, 2010 Posts: 1262 Location: West London
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As debated in another thread, it is the serious view insurers are now taking of speeding that is the penalty. Your wife will be hit hard in the purse. _________________ Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For "serious view of..." I would use "another opportunity to fleece..." _________________ "Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guivre46 Frequent Visitor
Joined: Apr 14, 2010 Posts: 1262 Location: West London
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I'd used up my daily allowance of cynicism by then. _________________ Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shires999 Lifetime Member
Joined: Nov 09, 2006 Posts: 96
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guivre46 wrote: | As debated in another thread, it is the serious view insurers are now taking of speeding that is the penalty. Your wife will be hit hard in the purse. |
They only ask about convictions. By going on the course no points, no fine no conviction |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guivre46 Frequent Visitor
Joined: Apr 14, 2010 Posts: 1262 Location: West London
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True, but it is 'relevant information' to their quote/premium and you might invalidate the policy if it is not disclosed. _________________ Mike R [aka Wyvern46]
Go 530T - unsupported
Go550 Live [not renewed]
Kia In-dash Tomtom
Last edited by Guivre46 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2012 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I began a claim with my insurers for a theft from my vehicle, but by the time they had rejected almost all of it for various pathetic reasons, I decided it was not worth the hassle and so I withdrew the claim.
I promised myself I would never deal with that company again, so at renewal time I went elsewhere (even though the quote from the current bunch was cheaper).
All went well until a week later when I got a call from the new company saying there was a problem.... an "at fault" claim with my old insurers that I hadn't told them about!
Bunch of crooks and shysters, the lot of them. _________________ "Settling in nicely" ;-) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|