View previous topic :: View next topic |
Do you believe that speed cameras mainly exist to fill Police, Councils' and/or Government's coffers with extra cash? |
Yes |
|
86% |
[ 111 ] |
No |
|
9% |
[ 12 ] |
Not sure |
|
4% |
[ 6 ] |
|
Total Votes : 129 |
|
Author |
Message |
RobBrady Frequent Visitor

Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 2718 Location: Chelmsford, UK
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: Speed Cameras - A Stealth Tax on Motorists? |
|
|
Speed Cameras - A Stealth Tax on Motorists?
A Home Office Police Research Group cost to benefit analysis of speed cameras concluded that safety cameras generate a return of five times the investment after one year and 25 times the amount after five years. Alongside the Government's belief in the road safety benefits of cameras, this gives them a strong incentive to push the argument forward for even more cameras.
The police are one of eight partners within the Safety Camera Partnership and speed camera intelligence is often used in other police activities. When asked why they are not out catching 'real' criminals, the police argue that 'exceeding the speed limit is an offence and could result in endangering lives'. The cameras, they say, enable them to free up their time to address other crimes. Operating expenses and officers involved in the Safety Camera Partnership are paid for from collected fines. All money claimed back from speeding fines goes to The Lord Chancellor’s department. The Safety Partnership then claims back agreed yearly operational costs.
Many people do not believe this. Do you believe that the police only claim their expenses or do you believe that it is just a Police, Council and/or Government initiative to make money? Do mobile speed cameras serve no other purpose than to earn revenue for the local authority? Do local police and councils keep just enough to cover the cost of the cameras and the Treasury only gets a small surplus?
Maybe you agree that the police should keep the money - an Institute of Advanced Motorists survey indicated that 6 out of 10 would like to see surplus funds used to pay for more traffic police.
Vote in the poll above and let us know how you feel by commenting below.
Last edited by RobBrady on Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Pocketgps Lifetime Member

Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Posts: 2145 Location: Midlands, UK
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
About 8 miles my home is what has got to be an accident black spot, in just the last 4 years there have been 6 deaths and many serious injuries at this main road junction (you just never seem to pass it without seeing flower wreaths). It was a 60mph limit that now has been reduced to 40mph, but there is not a safety camera within 5 miles of this junction, what's that all about then.
Yet within just 3 miles from my home there are 10 other safety cameras plus redlight cameras located at places that i cannot recall any accidents at all, certainly none reported in the local press. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lupos0_1 Lifetime Member

Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 765 Location: Berkshire
|
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the above post can be mirrorred across the UK. Not the case for all cameras but I would be surprised if more than 10% are in actual accident blackspots. The old saying of rip off Britain springs to mind!!!  _________________ -------------------------------------------------------
Nokia N95
McGuider V7
Latest Maps
(Internal GPS) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RobBrady Frequent Visitor

Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 2718 Location: Chelmsford, UK
|
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lupos0_1 wrote: | I think the above post can be mirrorred across the UK. Not the case for all cameras but I would be surprised if more than 10% are in actual accident blackspots. The old saying of rip off Britain springs to mind!!!  |
You might be interested in the opening post for the following forum which includes:
Quote: | The official line is that most fixed cameras are installed at accident ‘black spots’ where four or more serious road accidents have occurred over a three year period. This, of course means that most cameras can only be operated once several people have been killed or injured, prompting the Parliamentary Select Committee on Transport to comment "We cannot think of any other case where society as a whole is expected to bear the costs of lawbreaking, and effective law enforcement is only deployed as a last resort". |
http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=33976 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lupos0_1 Lifetime Member

Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 765 Location: Berkshire
|
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I for one, can not and will not accept that the only places that a speed camera has been installed is where there have been serious accidents in the last years. I don't believe a lot of the quotes that the government feeds us  _________________ -------------------------------------------------------
Nokia N95
McGuider V7
Latest Maps
(Internal GPS) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thebigman Lifetime Member

Joined: Mar 03, 2006 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do believe in speed cameras at certain locations, one of the main locations beign outside of schools, the school where my children go is on a main road with a speed limit of 30mph, constantly there are people speeding by this school when the parents and children are on there way to school, there has also been instances where they have gone past the lollypop man/lady without stopping and when children are crossing the road there. This is where they should be set up.
Another thing is on my way home from work in London I have drive down Camden High road towards Finsbury Park and there is about 4 speed cameras within 1 mile of each other at 1 part you have 2 within 200 metres of each other, whats that all about.
I just agree that they are a way of just taxing or making money from the motorist, but hey that seems to be the norm nowadays don't it.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lupos0_1 Lifetime Member

Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 765 Location: Berkshire
|
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Absolutely bigman. They should be set up outside 'dangerous' locations ie schools. Apart from that, I'm sure some will have prevented some accidents but then the other side of this argument is how many people do you see suddenly braking as they didn't know or forgot that there is a scammera there? I'm sure this actually causes more accidents.
The answer? Buy GPS and get the database
Common sense is whats required however, teh government definitely lacks a lot of this.  _________________ -------------------------------------------------------
Nokia N95
McGuider V7
Latest Maps
(Internal GPS) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
neil01 Frequent Visitor

Joined: May 06, 2005 Posts: 902 Location: Leeds
|
Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just thinking out aloud because I don't know if this this is the case, but forgetting the revenue aspect for a moment, could the authorities like the cameras so much because it makes the statistics look better?
Assuming that the vast majority of 'culprits' are identified and procecuted; if these 'crime figures' are incorporated in all the other statistics, the clear-up rate can only be improved. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jazzyj Occasional Visitor

Joined: Mar 01, 2006 Posts: 56
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
in the near future , we will all be barcoded,
but for the presant, if we have to pay this stealth tax,
then surely the money collected should go on sorting out the state of our roads, ie pot holes etc... as the road tax money sure aint !!
this country runs on a skeleton service, always out to save a dollar!!
what a state this countrys in, tax tax tax .....
j |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Johnny_D Regular Visitor

Joined: Mar 04, 2006 Posts: 119 Location: West Suffolk
|
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've said it before, but i'm posititve that cameras
probably cause more accidents (Granted, unlikely to be life-threatening) because people tend to brake at the site of anything yellow on a stick
or van's with pritty lines on the back (Check out EDF's Jointing vans)
Speed Cameras really are just a revenue stream....
I'd love to see the accounts and where this
cash is ending up though....
JD _________________ TTG 300 Died the death of a cracked screen
Navman F20 USB Fell off
TTG 520 Third time lucky?
Bloody Superb PGPSW Camera Database.
Not much else! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RobBrady Frequent Visitor

Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 2718 Location: Chelmsford, UK
|
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Johnny_D wrote: | I've said it before, but i'm posititve that cameras
probably cause more accidents (Granted, unlikely to be life-threatening) |
Hi Johnny,
You sound like the perfect candidate to get this other forum going with its first reply http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=33976 _________________ Robert Brady |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thenudehamster Occasional Visitor

Joined: Jul 30, 2006 Posts: 14 Location: the lost city of Basingstoke
|
Posted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quite simply, as many people have discovered to their cost, and councils have discovered to their benefit, speed cameras are a wonderful cash-cow, a almost unending stream of revenue for almost no initial investment.
To my mind, the data upon which a camera site is determined MUST be made public, along with the local authority's justification for emplacing the camera; should it fail to reduce the accident rate within twelve months then the camera must be removed.
We have two cameras near here; both face in the wrong direction, to begin with. They're on a road which has had a few accidents, but not where the cameras are so what earthly use they actually serve I'm not sure.
However we have signs indicating the possible presence of cameras all over the county, and they do seem to have a salutary effect on the motoring public; after all, unless you are a detailed reader of all thel ocal new briefs, can you be certain that there won't suddenly be a mobile camera there today[/]?
The [i]idea of the camera is wonderful as a deterrent; it's the public perception, and lack of confidence in its genuine placement that is causing all the grief. Until the motoring public generally is reassured that the cameras are placed to save lives and not just become a cheap source of revenue, there will always be suspicion that it's all a total scam to make money. _________________ Barry H... thenudehamster - don't ask; it's not worth the effort
Any opinion stated above is warranted to be worth exactly what you paid for it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
nakka1973 Occasional Visitor

Joined: Aug 07, 2006 Posts: 1
|
Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is all part of the big brother policed state that we live in. the scum that like to think that they are in power want total control over the people. i say **** em. the sooner they are gone the better. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Crad Occasional Visitor

Joined: Apr 09, 2006 Posts: 21 Location: Midlands
|
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the real concern is road safety then surely the process would be different. As a driver the first information you receive about an accident black-spot is usually a new speed camera.
If the emphasis was on safety, then surely a big flashing sign warning the driver about the impending danger should be the first action. (This is particularly true when you consider that these have been shown to reduce the accident rate more than speed cameras) Speed cameras should then only be considered if this does not reduce the accident rate.
However the flaw in all of this is revenue. I need say no more. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
shricthism Occasional Visitor
![]()
Joined: Jun 20, 2006 Posts: 7
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject: A Stealth tax maybe but at least its a voluintary one. |
|
|
There are some good points on this thread, and I agree there are some locations with lots of fatal accidents and high speeds, may over the limt, but no cameras ( there is one a few miles from here). However no one has to exceed the speed limit - so even if you don't know where the cameras are, you only pay the fine when you are breaking the law. Seems a good idea to me that some tax is only paid by those who want to pay it, or are too careless to avoid it. I am really fed up with people who overtake me when I am on cruise control at the limit, then see a speed camera and brake to a speed well below the limit forcing me to have to brake for no reason. |
|
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 |
|
 |
|