"Graeme" wrote in message

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really)
wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

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...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all,
given how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising
money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of
speed cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. While some may
appear to be effective one has to take into account other changes
that were made at the same time, a factor that is ignored by the
so-called safety-camera activists.

A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that
anyone who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.

Near where I live, there was a fatal accident a couple of years ago, on
a straight road, approaching a set of traffic lights, in broad daylight,
with clear visibility. An elderly lady motorist in a very ordinary car
managed to run over and kill two other elderly lady pedestrians on the
pavement. Her car was so badly damaged that the roof had to be cut off
and she was helicoptered to hospital.

Why would such an unlikely accident happen (assuming it wasn't some an
ancient vendetta between the ladies in question)? One possible
explanation may be the speed camera she had just driven past, which may
well have distracted her, especially if she had just been flashed.

But I bet this never got recorded as an accident possibly caused by a
speed camera. Certainly, I can't remember there ever having been a fatal
accident on that stretch of road before the camera was installed.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:21:29 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:12:29 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:53:13 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

The joys of Milton Keynes...long may the national speed limit prevail.
While 60/70mph is a bit fast for a good part of the grid, it is nice
to be able to drive at your chosen safe speed without having to pay
religious attention to the speedometer in preference to the road. And
you find, generally speaking, that people do not act dangerously
(though the prevailing high speeds are perhaps unsettling to those
unfamiliar with the area) and that because there are few or no
unnecessary lower limits people tend to respect them.


The single biggest contribution Milton Keynes could make to reducing
its CO2 emissions would be to impose blanket speed limits within MK of
50 mph on dual carriageways and 40 mph on single carriageway roads,
with lower local limits as they are now. The idea of allowing people
to drive at 60 or 70 mph through the city

Town!


OK, the town that thinks it's a city. ;-)

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

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...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all, given
how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

I'm not sure that helps answer the point. Turning the cameras off
because the Treasury won't pay will result in the Treasury not getting
the money in. The only real question is whether the income is more or
less than the funding, whoever actually pays it. If indeed it is a
cost-effective measure, then it can only be because the cameras raise
less money than they cost to install and operate, which blows the
money-raising argument out of the water. If, OTOH, they raise more money
than they cost, then the treasury should continue funding them, because
its money will come back with interest.

Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of speed
cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. While some may appear to be
effective one has to take into account other changes that were made at the
same time, a factor that is ignored by the so-called safety-camera activists.

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits. There are
many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the cause of
some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people have to
respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real difference
that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that anyone
who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.

There are bound to be academic studies on these things. Were they
consulted?
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632846.html
(33 046 at Salisbury, 1985)

"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote in
message
Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really)
wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

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...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all,
given how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising
money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

I'm not sure that helps answer the point. Turning the cameras off
because the Treasury won't pay will result in the Treasury not getting
the money in. The only real question is whether the income is more or
less than the funding, whoever actually pays it. If indeed it is a
cost-effective measure, then it can only be because the cameras raise
less money than they cost to install and operate, which blows the
money-raising argument out of the water. If, OTOH, they raise more
money than they cost, then the treasury should continue funding them,
because its money will come back with interest.

I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

In message
"Recliner" wrote:

"Graeme" wrote in message

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really)
wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

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...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all,
given how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising
money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of
speed cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. While some may
appear to be effective one has to take into account other changes
that were made at the same time, a factor that is ignored by the
so-called safety-camera activists.

A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that
anyone who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.

Near where I live, there was a fatal accident a couple of years ago, on
a straight road, approaching a set of traffic lights, in broad daylight,
with clear visibility. An elderly lady motorist in a very ordinary car
managed to run over and kill two other elderly lady pedestrians on the
pavement. Her car was so badly damaged that the roof had to be cut off
and she was helicoptered to hospital.

Why would such an unlikely accident happen (assuming it wasn't some an
ancient vendetta between the ladies in question)?

Was it an automatic? I've covered two major accidents that were caused by an
elderly driver getting confused by auomatic controls. The first was a Rolls
Royce in Romsey that destroyed about 5 cars and half demolished a shop-front
because the driver hit the kickdown accidentally. Fortunately no one was
hurt in that one.

The second was more tragic, an elderly woman mowed down a bus queue in New
Milton, killing at least 6 people. Again it was thought she may have hit the
kickdown by accident.

: One possible explanation may be the speed camera she had just driven
past, which may well have distracted her, especially if she had just been
flashed.

It's a possibilty.

My own encounter with inappropriately sited speed cameras was joining the A40
one evening at Hangar Lane. There was a camera by the side of the slip road
but aimed at the main carriageway. As I passed it it was triggered by a car
on the main road and the flash went off right beside me and reflected off the
inside of my windscreen momentarily blinding me just as I was trying to join
a fast moving and fairly heavy traffic stream.


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On 27 Jul., 13:35, "Recliner" wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

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...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all, given
how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

I'm not sure that helps answer the point. Turning the cameras off
because the Treasury won't pay will result in the Treasury not getting
the money in.

That is of little interest to the County which has the cost of maintaining
the cameras but gets no revenue. With councils facing cuts in funding and
ratecapping it's an obvious area to cyt.

The only real question is whether the income is more or less than the
funding, whoever actually pays it. If indeed it is a cost-effective
measure, then it can only be because the cameras raise less money than they
cost to install and operate, which blows the money-raising argument out of
the water. If, OTOH, they raise more money than they cost, then the
treasury should continue funding them, because its money will come back
with interest.

That's the Government's problem not the council's.


Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of speed
cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. While some may appear to be
effective one has to take into account other changes that were made at
the same time, a factor that is ignored by the so-called safety-camera
activists.

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

There are many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the
cause of some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people have
to respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real difference
that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference between 30
and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras do you see in
30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise enough revenue. It is
that level of cynicism that has brought them into disrepute.


A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that
anyone who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.

There are bound to be academic studies on these things. Were they
consulted?

Yes, they wouldn't talk.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:49:03 -0700 (PDT), amogles
wrote:

On 27 Jul., 13:35, "Recliner" wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.


It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Local government therefore adopted a missionary zeal to get as many
cameras as possible installed at no cost to themselves while raking in
the fines which could be used for almost any purpose they wanted, as
ring-fencing isn't what it used to be, if indeed it ever was. ;-)

So yes, calling it a stealth tax was probably quite accurate; cameras
were paid for out of general taxation, only for the fines to be used
as a means of raising money locally. A double whammy.

What was noticeable is that when the fines started to be clawed back
by the Treasury, rather than retained by the councils, all the
councils' so-called "good intentions" regarding "road safety" were
suddenly consigned to the dustbin. What humbug!

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:53:41 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference between 30
and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras do you see in
30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise enough revenue. It is
that level of cynicism that has brought them into disrepute.

Do you have numbers to back up that claim? A quick scan of my GPS
speed camera data lists 2715 fixed cameras in 30MPH zones out of a
total of 3507. I'm not claiming perfect accuracy but it certainly
implies more than your "very few" observation.

In the part of Lancashire where I live many villages have 30MPH
cameras to slow cars coming off faster country roads.

In message
amogles wrote:

On 27 Jul., 13:35, "Recliner" wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.

Dog Licence for a start.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/