In Grafton Rd NW5 there is a short stretch which is northbound-only for a
few hours in the morning and southbound-only for a few hours in the evening.
There is a pair of cameras to ensure the law is upheld. How much does a pair
of cameras like this cost to install, and how much to maintain?

John Rowland wrote:
In Grafton Rd NW5 there is a short stretch which is northbound-only for a
few hours in the morning and southbound-only for a few hours in the evening.
There is a pair of cameras to ensure the law is upheld. How much does a pair
of cameras like this cost to install, and how much to maintain?

Probably less than the cost of one fatal head on accident by idiots who
would take a chance in the absence of cameras.
George

furnessvale wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
In Grafton Rd NW5 there is a short stretch which is northbound-only for a
few hours in the morning and southbound-only for a few hours in the evening.
There is a pair of cameras to ensure the law is upheld. How much does a pair
of cameras like this cost to install, and how much to maintain?

Probably less than the cost of one fatal head on accident by idiots who
would take a chance in the absence of cameras.
George

That's what everyone who hates the cameras (speed or otherwise)
conveniently forgets, that there seems to be an endless supply of
f**kwits out there.

They spoil it for the rest of us.

It's the same with those that insist on driving those Daktari trucks
around town to school and the supermarket, the ones where you need a
stepladder to get into them.

They take the **** on every level but the rest of us end up paying for
it when we all get caned with higher congestion charges.

Where I live there's an unrestricted B road (60 mph) that's really
not suitable for much above forty. Yet, just you try driving at that
speed without ending up with a queue of ten or more behind you.

Ninety per cent drive too fast down there. There's plenty of tree lined
bends and there's no way you can see round them and could stop in time
much above twenty, let alone at fifty, but does that stop them, does it
f**k.

What does stop them, all too often, are the farmers in the tractors
they end up hitting.

Five serious accidents this year already, one young lad decapitated.
The poor girl who was driving the tractor hasn't been able to work
since, not physically injured, but still in a state of shock. A local
fireman told me the road is well known by the emergency services as
'Death Valley'.

Now there's talk of speed cameras and when (if) they do go in, no doubt
we will hear all the usual rants about it's just another tax or PC
loony left councils and well my car can brake much better than they did
in the sixties.

Why do they never put the blame where it really belongs - with the
f**kwits?

I've driven in Germany and the level of obedience to the traffic
rules is on a completely different level to what you experience in the
UK. I would almost go as far as saying it's absolute obedience.

Just maybe, that's why the Germans get to be trusted with no speed
limit motorways.

Imagine that over here everyone driving according to the Highway Code
it's inconceivable, do it here and you get labelled a Muppet.

allan tracy wrote:
That's what everyone who hates the cameras (speed or otherwise)
conveniently forgets, that there seems to be an endless supply of
f**kwits out there.

And the ****wits don't have to worry about the cameras, because they're
driving a stolen car, or have fake plates or haven't bothered to
register it.

We used to have this system where the ****wits were penalised while the
reasonable drivers could break stupid laws when doing so wasn't overly
dangerous; you see, we had people in cars driving around the roads to
stop those who behaved dangerously and punish them. Unfortunately that
was expensive, whereas setting up cameras which penalise the reasonable
drivers while doing nothing to affect ****wits brings in money, so road
safety was thrown out the window in the search for easy cash.

And now ****wits like you defend the scam that's done more to reduce
road safety and destroy respect for the police than anything I can
think of.

Mark

In article , John Rowland
says...

In Grafton Rd NW5 there is a short stretch which is northbound-only for a
few hours in the morning and southbound-only for a few hours in the evening.
There is a pair of cameras to ensure the law is upheld. How much does a pair
of cameras like this cost to install, and how much to maintain?

I've seen figures of £10,000 per camera bandied about.


--
Conor

Religion, ****ing people over for millennia.

furnessvale wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

In Grafton Rd NW5 there is a short stretch which is northbound-only
for a few hours in the morning and southbound-only for a few hours
in the evening. There is a pair of cameras to ensure the law is
upheld. How much does a pair of cameras like this cost to install,
and how much to maintain?

Probably less than the cost of one fatal head on accident by idiots
who would take a chance in the absence of cameras.

I don't think there are barriers in either carriageway, so without cameras
the cars would just stick to their own carriageway. If anything, the
presence of cameras probably encourages cars to drive in the wrong
carriageway.

Anyway the tone of the replies suggests that people think I'm complaining
about the cost... I'm actually trying to find out how cheap these cameras
are, so that I know what I'm talking about when I encourage councils to
install similar cameras in other places.

) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

allan tracy wrote:
That's what everyone who hates the cameras (speed or otherwise)
conveniently forgets, that there seems to be an endless supply of
f**kwits out there.

And the ****wits don't have to worry about the cameras, because they're
driving a stolen car, or have fake plates or haven't bothered to
register it.

We used to have this system where the ****wits were penalised while the
reasonable drivers could break stupid laws when doing so wasn't overly
dangerous; you see, we had people in cars driving around the roads to
stop those who behaved dangerously and punish them. Unfortunately that
was expensive, whereas setting up cameras which penalise the reasonable
drivers while doing nothing to affect ****wits brings in money, so road
safety was thrown out the window in the search for easy cash.

And now ****wits like you defend the scam that's done more to reduce
road safety and destroy respect for the police than anything I can
think of.

Applause

All Allan needs to do is to look at how little the road casualty figures
have gone down over the course of a decade during which the primary safety
- crash survivability - of cars has rocketed.

Changing nothing else would have seen casualty figures falling drastically,
ergo the stasis must be due to a negative effect from the other changes.

Conor wrote:
In article , John Rowland
says...

In Grafton Rd NW5 there is a short stretch which is northbound-only
for a few hours in the morning and southbound-only for a few hours
in the evening. There is a pair of cameras to ensure the law is
upheld. How much does a pair of cameras like this cost to install,
and how much to maintain?

I've seen figures of £10,000 per camera bandied about.

Is that the cost of a Gatso? The cameras I'm talking about have a simpler
job to do.

All Allan needs to do is to look at how little the road casualty figures
have gone down over the course of a decade during which the primary safety
- crash survivability - of cars has rocketed.


Hit the back of a combine harvester or a hay truck at thirty and let's
see what your crash survivability does for you.

It doesn't make a tosh of difference what they do to cars when they
still have to share the same road with monster HGVs. Hit one of those
head on and there's always only going to be one winner.

Changing nothing else would have seen casualty figures falling drastically,
ergo the stasis must be due to a negative effect from the other changes.

I'm sorry but that's complete ********.

By far, most stretches of road still do not have speed cameras so have
been unaffected.

On the roads where they have been introduced reportable accident have
declined by between 41% and 69%.

Overall (Nationally) the level of traffic accidents has declined
slightly (not much) but this has to be set in context of year on year
traffic growth which should (normally) have led to more accidents.

And the ****wits don't have to worry about the cameras, because they're
driving a stolen car, or have fake plates or haven't bothered to
register it.


Well they have quite a few cameras for that nowadays as well, besides
round my way most of the f**kwits I get to see are driving around in
new cars or white vans.

We used to have this system where the ****wits were penalised while the
reasonable drivers could break stupid laws when doing so wasn't overly
dangerous; you see, we had people in cars driving around the roads to
stop those who behaved dangerously and punish them. Unfortunately that
was expensive, whereas setting up cameras which penalise the reasonable
drivers while doing nothing to affect ****wits brings in money, so road
safety was thrown out the window in the search for easy cash.


It's funny but where I work the company car drivers, that we all knew
had been driving like pratts for years (as the insurance claims
showed), are the same people that seem to be picking up the points from
the cameras.

People that drive around aggressively-fast one hand on their mobile and
the other on their secretary's knee are just the sort of drivers that
tend not to notice the cameras.

Safe responsible drivers, by definition, will always notice the signs
and therefore never be caught.

And now ****wits like you defend the scam that's done more to reduce
road safety and destroy respect for the police than anything I can
think of.


For that read - you don't like them because you can't speed anymore.