Tories to axe speed camera funding

I don't really understand why stopping putting money into road cameras would allow them to use the money elsewhere on road safety schemes? The two are not mutually exclusive, I believe the cameras earn far more then they cost so there would actually be less money in the pot for road improvements without the cameras.

Its purely a vote winner. I very much doubt when/if they come to power they will actually action this.
 
Tesla said:
I actually think that Specs' cameras are a good thing on active motorway roadworks.

Reducing the speed to 50mph as you go past work men is not a bad thing at all. I would welcome any thoughts that appose this as I cannot think of any myself?

Obviously hitting a bloke at 50mph or 70mph is going to finish him off, but I think the factor of reduced speed and having to actually think about what you are doing behind the wheel and not drive in auto piliot (which a lot of people do) are the main contributing factors.
Click to expand...

I agree. Specs + Roadworks = fine. Fixed speed cameras etc not so much a fan of.
 
dannyjo22 said:
"The Yorkshire Post picked up the story first last night, when it reported that in her speech today, Ms Villiers will say: "Labour's army of speed cameras is not the best way to make our roads safer. We will switch to alternative, better, ways to improve road safety."

Firstly Labours army of speedcams? Remind me again which government brought them to these shores in the first place? Before labour got in in 97 they had already built up an 'army' of them.

Secondly the new tory "better way to improve safety" could be to fit a tracker to your car ;) They don't say what they will do instead. Anyone can make these vote winning statements.

So the tories will admit this speed camera saviour they introduced was a failure? Whose to say their next scheme will be a winner?
Click to expand...

I disagree. Safety cameras in the correct location are a great idea e.g. average speed cameras on motorways where there is an active team of workman. Fixed cameras directly outside of schools etc.

The problem with them is that they've been used in a hugely inefficient way
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;15036120 said:
I think a vote for anyone other than Labour or Tory is a vote wasted - realistically, nobody else will ever get in.
Click to expand...
It depends very much on where you live. You aren't voting for the party that will run the country, you're voting for a representative for your constituency. In the area I live in Labour get next to no votes at all, they don't even bother canvassing round election times they do that poorly, and the current incumbent is a Lib Dem with a reasonable majority. A vote here for Labour will be a wasted vote.
 
Bluelion said:
I don't really understand why stopping putting money into road cameras would allow them to use the money elsewhere on road safety schemes? The two are not mutually exclusive, I believe the cameras earn far more then they cost so there would actually be less money in the pot for road improvements without the cameras.

Its purely a vote winner. I very much doubt when/if they come to power they will actually action this.
Click to expand...

Because cameras provide no real road safety benefit (and cannot, because they are not targetting an accident cause), so any money spent on measures with better results will be beneficial.

Also camera fines go to the treasury, not for reinvestment in road safety.
 
ci_newman said:
I disagree. Safety cameras in the correct location are a great idea e.g. average speed cameras on motorways where there is an active team of workman. Fixed cameras directly outside of schools etc.

The problem with them is that they've been used in a hugely inefficient way
Click to expand...

Yup,

Came back up the M6 on Sunday night/Monday morning.

6 sets of SPECS I went through, not a single workman, must have been 30 miles in total, some even signed "night working" with lights and everything.

Emergency road repairs, workmen in the outside lane (No speed reduction in place)!
 
The thing is, for a speed camera to have even the slightest effect (eg it might actually reduce some of the 3% or so of accidents that have a cause of exceeding the speed limit), it has to not be catching many people because they are driving slowly...

A speed camera that catches a lot of people is a complete failure as a road safety device.
 
Tesla said:
I actually think that Specs' cameras are a good thing on active motorway roadworks.

Reducing the speed to 50mph as you go past work men is not a bad thing at all. I would welcome any thoughts that oppose this as I cannot think of any myself?
Click to expand...

None at all where it is a geniune safety issue. I would also like to see speed cameras on dangerous roads outside schools.
 
[TW]Fox;15036120 said:
I think a vote for anyone other than Labour or Tory is a vote wasted - realistically, nobody else will ever get in.
Click to expand...

And they never would, if everyone had that attitude :p

Tesla said:
I actually think that Specs' cameras are a good thing on active motorway roadworks.

Reducing the speed to 50mph as you go past work men is not a bad thing at all. I would welcome any thoughts that appose this as I cannot think of any myself?

Obviously hitting a bloke at 50mph or 70mph is going to finish him off, but I think the factor of reduced speed and having to actually think about what you are doing behind the wheel and not drive in auto piliot (which a lot of people do) are the main contributing factors.

If there was some other means to force drivers to concentrate for a couple miles then would be willing to hear these ideas out too.

Something that currently annoys me is Mother's on the school run. There are usually 50m of zig zags outside a regular school. The Mum's still insist on parking on them, or as close to the school as possible.

Why do they not care and park a little further afield making it much safer around school rush hour times?
Click to expand...

Sin_Chase said:
Would be nice if they turned them off when there is no schedules works.
Click to expand...

This tbh. It's always annoying when you're going through motorway roadworks at 50 when it's perfectly safe to do more, simply because you have one or two carriageways open, and there are no workmen on site.
 
Janesy B said:
If the opposition were 4 chimps smashing pots and pans together, they'd be winning the election at this rate. The only reason the Tories will win is because Labour is so rotten.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on a Tory victory, it would be quite a feat even with Brown.

For example, in the 1997 Labour landslide, in which very few thought Major had any chance of hanging on, they only won 147 extra seats taking them to 418 (+54%).

In the 2005 election the Tories won just 198 seats. In order to hold just a majority of the 646 they'd need 324 or an extra 126 (+64%). They would need a larger relative improvement on the last election than Labour had, just for an unworkable majority of 1. (I haven't checked subsequent by-elections of constituency changes so plus/minus a few). That's a pretty tall order, especially as we can expect minor nationalist parties and a few independents to take seats from the major parties.

I think a majority Tory hung parliament is the most likely outcome.
 
There will be no government funding for new fixed speed cameras if the Conservatives win the next election, the party's conference has been told.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8292665.stm
Click to expand...
So no actual reduction in the number of existing cameras; councils would just have to raise the money to install new ones, and prove they cut road accidents. I'm not quite sure to whom they would prove this or how a decision on their appropriateness would be made :confused:

However, let's not let actual details get in the way of a meaningless electioneering sound-bite.


The most hilarious part is that Ms Villiers wants an increase in the number of utterly pointless "vehicle-activated signs" :rolleyes:
 
stockhausen said:
So no actual reduction in the number of existing cameras; councils would just have to raise the money to install new ones, and prove they cut road accidents. I'm not quite sure to whom they would prove this or how a decision on their appropriateness would be made :confused:
Click to expand...

They won't be able to, because cameras are not an effective approach to accident reduction in the vast majority of cases. The only time cameras are really effective is when they serve as a warning that the road is deceptive, but the same benefit can be achieved with VAS...

However, let's not let actual details get in the way of a meaningless electioneering sound-bite.

The most hilarious part is that Ms Villiers wants an increase in the number of utterly pointless "vehicle-activated signs" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Those would be the vehicle activated signs that the government's commissioned research shows are more successful at reducing accidents than cameras?

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3


Of course, they ignored the findings of the report, just as they have many others that show that the current road safety policy is massively flawed.

What's really hilarious is that you appear to either have no understanding of road safety, or of the research surrounding it...
 
stockhausen said:
So no actual reduction in the number of existing cameras; councils would just have to raise the money to install new ones, and prove they cut road accidents. I'm not quite sure to whom they would prove this or how a decision on their appropriateness would be made :confused:

However, let's not let actual details get in the way of a meaningless electioneering sound-bite.


The most hilarious part is that Ms Villiers wants an increase in the number of utterly pointless "vehicle-activated signs" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Phew, I'm not alone in reading the article and thinking "but they've not suggested that they will actually REMOVE ANY cameras".
So in short, the leave the cash cows that are already in place (and have already saturated our roads), with pretty much bugger all genuine detail on just how they will actually change things to improve road safety.

Cleverly worded, but bs all the same.
Now why was it I don't trust politicians?
 
The most hilarious part is that Ms Villiers wants an increase in the number of utterly pointless "vehicle-activated signs

the most pointless and ugly peice of street furninture!
 
Dolph said:
...
What's really hilarious is that you appear to either have no understanding of road safety, or of the research surrounding it...
Click to expand...
Whilst you on the other hand are just about to outline some practical, concrete proposals on how you would save the lives of some of the nine people who are killed on the roads every day and reduce the number of serious injuries aren't you Dolph?

Why don't you have the courage to acknowledge that Ms Theresa Villiers pronouncement was nothing more nor less that an entirely meaningless sound-bite and that she has no idea as to how the impact of RTAs could be reduced either?


The truth is that your real desire is for all rules to be abolished so as to facilitate some far-fetched "Lord of the flies" Utopia and you hope that the Tories might be more supportive of your eccentric vision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom