On 26 July, 20:48, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT), allantracy

wrote:
I quite like speed cameras on the basis of the cretins that don’t like
them maybe privatisation could be the solution the way clamping has
been privatised.

Because that would give good results, wouldn't it? *Clamping firms
seem to prey on easy targets rather than real offenders, as they're
the most profitable.

(Yes, I know, if there's a sign up you shouldn't park there. *But a
properly-trained police officer has discretion, and I prefer that.)

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. *If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off, though, perhaps they could also consider cutting
funding to their overzealous programme of slapping blanket 40 and
50mph limits on roads where they're not necessary, while ignoring
other locations where they might actually be sensible?

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

A40, Oxford to Witney, 1994. I was involved in the siting of the first
three cameras. Fatalities fell from 16 a year to just 2 in one year
along that stretch after we spent £75,000. We sited the three cameras
at the two sites where the majority of accidents occurred. They also
caught a burglar who looked back to see the camera flash as he sped
away from Eynsham. So to save £600,000 Oxfordshire may now turn them
off. In 2000 it was concluded that each road fatality cost the local
council about £800,000 once all inquest costs were totted up. The
local NHS costs were far more when injuries and fatalities were
factored in. Cameras are not the answer to everything, but they do
provide a level of enforcement and an increase in public safety in
specific cases. This is going to prove a false economy, and prove
tragic for many families if common sense does not prevail.

On 27 July, 03:54, "
wrote:
On 26 July, 20:48, Neil Williams
wrote:



On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT), allantracy

wrote:
I quite like speed cameras on the basis of the cretins that don’t like
them maybe privatisation could be the solution the way clamping has
been privatised.

Because that would give good results, wouldn't it? *Clamping firms
seem to prey on easy targets rather than real offenders, as they're
the most profitable.

(Yes, I know, if there's a sign up you shouldn't park there. *But a
properly-trained police officer has discretion, and I prefer that.)

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. *If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off, though, perhaps they could also consider cutting
funding to their overzealous programme of slapping blanket 40 and
50mph limits on roads where they're not necessary, while ignoring
other locations where they might actually be sensible?

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

A40, Oxford to Witney, 1994. I was involved in the siting of the first
three cameras. Fatalities fell from 16 a year to just 2 in one year
along that stretch after we spent £75,000. We sited the three cameras
at the two sites where the majority of accidents occurred. They also
caught a burglar who looked back to see the camera flash as he sped
away from Eynsham. So to save £600,000 Oxfordshire may now turn them
off. In 2000 it was concluded that each road fatality cost the local
council about £800,000 once all inquest costs were totted up. The
local NHS costs were far more when injuries and fatalities were
factored in. Cameras are not the answer to everything, but they do
provide a level of enforcement and an increase in public safety in
specific cases. This is going to prove a false economy, and prove
tragic for many families if common sense does not prevail.

Another view ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...n-2036236.html

On Jul 27, 2:54*am, "
wrote:
On 26 July, 20:48, Neil Williams
wrote:



On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT), allantracy

wrote:
I quite like speed cameras on the basis of the cretins that don’t like
them maybe privatisation could be the solution the way clamping has
been privatised.

Because that would give good results, wouldn't it? *Clamping firms
seem to prey on easy targets rather than real offenders, as they're
the most profitable.

(Yes, I know, if there's a sign up you shouldn't park there. *But a
properly-trained police officer has discretion, and I prefer that.)

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. *If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off, though, perhaps they could also consider cutting
funding to their overzealous programme of slapping blanket 40 and
50mph limits on roads where they're not necessary, while ignoring
other locations where they might actually be sensible?

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

A40, Oxford to Witney, 1994. I was involved in the siting of the first
three cameras. Fatalities fell from 16 a year to just 2 in one year
along that stretch after we spent £75,000. We sited the three cameras
at the two sites where the majority of accidents occurred. They also
caught a burglar who looked back to see the camera flash as he sped
away from Eynsham. So to save £600,000 Oxfordshire may now turn them
off. In 2000 it was concluded that each road fatality cost the local
council about £800,000 once all inquest costs were totted up. The
local NHS costs were far more when injuries and fatalities were
factored in. Cameras are not the answer to everything, but they do
provide a level of enforcement and an increase in public safety in
specific cases. This is going to prove a false economy, and prove
tragic for many families if common sense does not prevail.

At last some factual information to back up what I and many many
others intuitively think.
And the reminder about the costs of accidents is timely, although I
suppose the speed/freedom proponents would say the hospitals and
justice system would have to be paid for even if they had nothing to
do even though that arguement is false.
Drive within speed limits and your limits and don't bother about
cameras and save money - then there is no need to pay speeding fines.