Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
1788 messages, Last post on Nov 14, 2009 at 3:43 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
As far as the TN AG's opinion is concerned: from: http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2008/12/tn_opinion_on_r.shtml (excerpt) TN opinion on revenue-light cameras is not a court ruling Contrary to what has been reported elsewhere (WBIR Channel 10 at 6 p.m. Tuesday) yesterday's state attorney general's opinion is not a ruling. It is an opinion. I can go down to the courthouse and get you 900 others and they'd all carry the same legal authority - nada. As this commenter pointed out: The AG's opinion is of little use. Only courts decide what is legal and illegal. And there's this at the same link: Everybody remember that it was the AG's opinion that term limits in Knoxville wasn't legal too. It took the Supreme Court to overturn his opinion. I guess they'll have to do it on this one too. Here is a nice report about photo enforcement in TN if anybody's interested, with figures, charts and references: http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/files/pdf/Red%20Light%20Cameras%20in%20the%20Volu- - nteer%20State.pdf From the bottom of page 6 is this quote: "Despite this hurdle, in March 2008, Judge Thomas Philips of the U.S. District Court for Eastern Tennessee sent a clear message regarding the constitutionality of these devices in Williams v.Redflex. In his order granting dismissal of the case on procedural grounds, Judge Philips stated, “Although this plaintiff lacks standing, the court is constrained to observe that the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program raises numerous constitutional questions.” The reference is #30: Satterfield, Jamie. "Judge rejects red light lawsuit." Knoxville News Sentinel 22 Mar. 2008. |
|
|
It is as simple as adding one second to the yellow for a reduction in accidents, but where's the money in THAT? (Please note the large text providing clear grounds for suspecting financial considerations and collusion wrapped in the guise of safety, as usual.) http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2713.asp Georgia: Red Light Cameras Struggle in Face of Longer Yellow Lilburn, Georgia suspends red light camera program after extended yellow time cut violations by 80 percent. On January 1, a new Georgia law kicked in forcing a one-second increase in the duration of the yellow warning light at intersections with red light cameras. The result has been devastating for red light camera makers as violations -- and revenue -- immediately plunged for the months of January, February and March. Last week, the city of Norcross dumped photo enforcement. Now the UK-owned red light camera maker Lasercraft is offering its customers a 90-day suspension of service to prevent cities from dropping their automated ticketing contracts. The cities of Lilburn and Snellville accepted this offer yesterday and suspended their red light camera programs. "With the passage of House Bill 77, effective January 1, 2009, there has been a precipitous decline in the number of citations issued through the program," Lilburn Police Chief J.B. Davidson wrote in a memo to the city council. The mandated increase in signal time created dramatic and instant results. In 2008, Lasercraft issued an average of 1,559 citations each month. In January, that number dropped 80 percent to just 313. Norcross also saw an 80 percent drop in violations. According to a 2001 report by the Office of the U.S. House Majority Leader, the findings in Lilburn and Norcross are not coincidental. The report argued that changes in national signal timing guidelines systematically reduced the amount of warning time available to motorists. It argued further that those with a financial incentive in using enforcement to deal with the additional violations created may have played a role in the changes (view report). "This strongly suggests that inadequate yellow time is the major cause of red-light entries," the Congressional report stated. "If the vast majority of red light entries occur in the first second after the yellow light expires, it is reasonable to assume an additional second of yellow time on that light will yield a nearly 80 percent decrease in red light entries." To date, Lilburn's three red light camera intersections have issued 57,528 tickets worth $4,026,960. Thanks to the longer yellow, however, monthly income from the program dropped $80,000 forcing Lasercraft to pause to discover what more might be done. "The program vendor has proposed a plan to suspend the program for a ninety-day period, and the vendor will waive all Lasercraft charges during the suspension period," Davidson wrote. Lilburn voted to accept the suspension to give Lasercraft time to come up with a plan to increase the number of citations. In a letter to Davidson, Lasercraft officials hinted that deactivating some cameras and presumably moving them to higher volume intersections could be part of the solution. "In ninety days, on or before June 7th, the city and Lasercraft will meet to review the most current citation counts and make a decision as to reactivation of approaches, continuation of the suspension period, or de-commission of the program," Lasercraft Regional Director Ty Sellers wrote. Lasercraft's letter also implied that violations may increase as drivers adapt to the longer yellow. This has not proved true in places such as Fairfax County, Virginia where the benefit of an increased yellow time appeared permanent. A 1985 report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers summarized the best opinion of experts as confirming the permanence of the benefit view report in PDF, see page 8). "Research has consistently shown that drivers do not, in fact, adapt to the length of the yellow," the ITE report stated. Although it is too early to draw any conclusions, accident data for January and February appear positive for the intersections with longer yellow. A copy of the Lasercraft letter and the police chief's memo to city council are available in a 325k PDF file at the source link below. Source: Details on Suspension of Red Light Camera Program (City of Lilburn, Georgia and Lasercraft, 3/10/2009) |
|
|
AZ City Photo Radar/Red Light Camera system saving LIVES but not MONEY: "If the road is safer, then the program is achieving its goal," While the state and some Valley cities report huge profits from photo radar, Mesa's program is actually costing the city money, but city officials say the program is worth the cost because it enhances public safety. The city lost $390,000 last calendar year on the program, which comes on the heels of a $281,000 deficit the year before. A significant loss also occurred during the start up year of 2006, when the program was expanded and the city switched contractors. But while the losses have climbed, the number of fatalities on city streets has decreased dramatically. There were 67 fatalities in 2005, compared with 29 last year. City officials are reluctant to attribute the decline to red light cameras, but they say the cost of photo radar is money well spent. "If we know the program is producing public safety results, it's an acceptable loss. The goal is public safety," said Mesa police Sgt. Andy Nesbit, who administers the program. Nesbit said the operating deficits stem from a combination of factors: When the Loop 202 was completed in east Mesa, the incidence of red light runners dropped at Higley and Brown roads and Higley and McKellipsroad, making those cameras less productive. Road improvements at Power and Baseline roads removed problems at a troublesome intersection where 7,000 drivers a year were running red lights. The improvements increased safety but cut revenue. The city loses about $150,000 a year on the costs of serving summonses to drivers who never pay their fines. Mesa police are looking for ways to reduce the losses while redeploying cameras to crack down on red light runners and speeders in school zones. The cost-saving efforts include going out to bid in September on a new process-serving contract for the photo radar program. Documents from the city of Mesa court system show there were nearly 40,000 citations issued in 2008, with slightly more than half coming from red-light cameras and the rest from speed cameras. However only about 11,000 of those citations were paid, and an additional 13,000 went to traffic school. In all, the city received about $2.4 million from the program. On the expense side, the city paid out about $1.7 million for the red light camera program costs; $159, 000 for intersection speed cameras; $230,000 for photo radar vans; $261,000 in process service fees; and nearly $450,000 in court and police expenses in running the program. A critic of the program, D.T. Arneson of Mesa, a photo radar opponent and volunteer with CameraFRAUD.com, said Mesa's program is "mind-boggling." "Only the government could take a complete moneymaker and lose money at it," he said. "The truth of the matter is its all about the money," with the contractor, American Traffic Solutions, still making plenty of money. With Mesa still suffering through a fiscal crisis, "I can think of a lot of jobs that $380,000 could go to right now," Arneson said. In contrast to Mesa, Tempe said its photo radar program made $1.56 million in 2008 and Chandler reports it made about $50,000. The Tempe and Chandler contracts are based on fees calculated per ticket. Mesa's contract, however, is based on flat fees paid for each photo radar device. Lenny Montanaro, Mesa's deputy court administrator, said he uses a more detailed formula than other cities to calculate the true costs of photo radar, including the salaries of court employees and time spent on hearings. Mesa signed a five-year contract with ATS in 2006, expanding the number of cameras from 17 to 34 after a record 67 traffic fatalities in 2005 turned into a rallying cry for improved highway safety. The previous record was 39 a decade earlier. But when the expanded program was approved, it also was supposed to either break even or make a small profit. The digital cameras represented a higher level of technology, with clearer images to identify drivers. Sean Casey, 14, a Rhodes student, became a symbol of the highway carnage when he was killed crossing Baseline Road at Longmore on Sept. 23, 2005 while on his way home from football practice. The boy was struck by a car driven by a woman who ran a red light. His father, Don, advocated for the safety crackdown. Eventually, the city launched an experiment with mid-block photo radar cameras in August 2008. A traffic study showed the cameras reduced the average speed from 47 mph to 36 mph during school hours, when the speed limit is 35 mph. "The goal is to suppress red light running," Nesbit said, not to reduce $380,000 in losses for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. "Priority number one is safety. Priority number two is cost neutral to the city." He said a driver going 36 mph can stop 60 feet sooner for a pedestrian, about four car lengths, than a driver going 47 mph. Traffic engineering improvements at new east Mesa intersections, at Power and Baseline roads and at Power and Main Street, vastly reduced the number of violations but also cut revenues, Nesbit said. During a construction project last year at Power and Baseline, there were as many as 7,000 violations in one year, he said, with drivers heading south on Power running the red light to turn east on Baseline Road during rush hour. After the project was completed, violations dropped to zero and the cameras were removed, Nesbit said. The same pattern occurred at Power and Main. Before a change in the timing of lights, the cameras recorded 17 to 20 red light runners a day. Violations dropped to about 20 a month after the improvements. |
|
A shaky legal foundation, but the lure of easy money is too much for MOST petty officials to resist. Maybe the Missouri Police Officers' Association is a bunch of loonies too?  from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2714.asp Missouri Cops Oppose Red Light Cameras Police in St. Louis, Missouri oppose red light camera program that legal advisors to camera firm operates illegally. The St. Louis, Missouri Police Officers' Association on Monday spoke out against the use of red light cameras as a revenue raising tool. The police union adopted a resolution opposing automated ticketing as state lawmakers consider measures that would authorize use of the devices statewide. The group representing rank-and-file police officers stands in opposition to the high-ranking officials represented by the Missouri Police Chiefs' Association. "Police chiefs serve at the pleasure of the mayor -- they're political jobs," said Jesse Irwin, co-founder of Missourians against Red Light Cameras. "I'm not surprised that the Missouri Police Chiefs' organization would be for the cameras. I'm also not surprised that the men and women out on the street enforcing the law would be against them -- they don't work." Irwin's organization claims to have 500 members willing to circulate a petition that will force a referendum on the red light camera issue in St. Louis. The group is joined by Don't Tread on Me, another band of photo enforcement opponents in the city of Arnold who yesterday circulated documents showing that American Traffic Solutions (ATS) knew from the start that its ticketing program rested on a weak legal foundation. A May 2005 letter from ATS' law firm, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, explained that Missouri law does not allow red light cameras to issue tickets that carry only a monetary penalty. Six months later, Arnold became the first city in the state issuing automated fines with ATS in charge of the program. "We do not believe, however, that the municipalities possess the authority to adopt an ordinance that would permit the municipality to circumvent the Missouri Director of Revenue's point system for the suspension and revocation motor vehicle licenses," Stinson Morrison Hecker attorney Stephen P. Chinn wrote. "Under current Missouri law, every court with jurisdiction over any state laws or county or municipal ordinances regulating the operation of vehicles on highways must report, to the Missouri Highway Patrol, a record of any plea or finding of guilty of any person convicted of any moving violation under the state, county or municipal regulations within ten days after the record is made... The mandatory language used in the text of the statute supports a conclusion that an ordinance of this nature would conflict with state law." The legal opinion noted that a number of Jackson County judges also spoke out publicly against a 1992 photo radar proposal on the grounds that ignoring license points violated state law. Despite the clarity of the statutes involved, nearly two dozen Missouri cities have established automated ticketing programs that do not issue license points. "It is appalling to think that the city council at that time had legal advice from ATS' own legal counsel stating what they were intending to do was illegal, and yet they disregarded it at the thought of how much cash these cameras could bring in to city coffers," Arnold City Councilman Matthew Hay said in a statement. Although red light camera tickets in Missouri are vulnerable to court challenge, legislation including Senate Bill 58 and House Bill 241 would authorize their use. An ATS spokesman said there was "nothing new" in the charges brought by the St. Louis and Arnold activists. A copy of the legal opinion is available in a 500k PDF file at the source link below. Source: Municipal authority to adopt automated traffic enforcement measures in Missouri (Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, 3/11/2009) |
|
|
And from the land of Big Brother with the most experience with speed cameras is this Department for Transport's Highways Agency funded study which was released only after an Freedom of Information request. from: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/602.asp UK Study: Speed Cameras Increase Injury Accidents Full text of suppressed UK government study shows speed cameras increase accidents 31 percent on freeways, 55 percent in work zones. The UK Department for Transport funded, then suppressed, a study that shows a 55 percent increase in injury accidents when speed cameras are used on highway work zones and a 31 percent increase when used on freeways without construction projects. According to the Transport Research Laboratory, the "non-works [personal injury accident] rate is significantly higher for the sites with speed cameras than the rate for sites without." An analysis of this data, buried on page 43 of the report, yields the following result: Effect on Personal Injury Accidents Enforcement Type Construction Zone No Construction Conventional speed cameras 55% increase 31% increase Speed-averaging cameras (SPECS) 4.5% increase 6.7% increase Police patrols 27% reduction 10% reduction View Table 3.18 in original format Although the Department for Transport's Highways Agency funded the study, no information regarding these results was ever made public until a Freedom of Information Act request was honored earlier this month. The Transport Research Laboratory attempted to suppress the UK taxpayer-funded study further by charging £40 (US $72) for access to the results. Moreover, the study's executive summary calculates only the aggregate accident rate including the benefit of manned police patrol cars in the work zones. The significant decrease in accidents from a human police presence was used to offset the increase in camera accidents. "It is outrageous that this sort of information has been hidden from the public," said Safe Speed road safety campaign founder Paul Smith whose FOIA request uncovered the study's existence. "We have all seen strange driver behaviour where fixed speed cameras operate. This report highlights the dangers. We're not surprised to see this information -- we have know for years that speed cameras were the wrong road safety strategy, and it's a huge relief to see the truth coming out so clearly" The TRL study compared accident reports covering 29 highway construction zone projects over 730km of road from November 2001 to July 2003 with an equivalent period without the construction zones, controlling for changes in traffic volume. In the US, the state of Illinois plans to implement a similar freeway work zone speed camera program within the next few months. The full text of this taxpayer-funded public policy document is available in 620K PDF format at the source link below. Source: Safety Performance of Traffic Management at Major Motorway Road Works (Transport Research Laboratories, 8/5/2005) |
|
|
Here is an interesting Op-Ed from The Washington Times about the lure of easy money and corruption of the officials entrusted with upholding our laws: from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/27/stimulating-big-brother-in-a-fla- - sh/ DIAMOND: Stimulating Big Brother in a flash Congress funds traffic cameras nationwide Richard Diamond Friday, February 27, 2009 OP-ED: Much of the discontent with the recently adopted economic stimulus bill has focused on the package's enormous cost. While the most expensive projects attract the most attention, taxpayers also will be affected by the small-dollar items of the sort found on the U.S. Conference of Mayors' wish list. Take Alexandria, for example. Officials there put in a $32,000 request for federal money to equip 10 motorcycles with new moving radar units that will allow traffic police to set up mobile speed traps. According to the city's request, this project will create one "shovel-ready" new job. It's not clear what kind of job that might be. It seems unlikely that hundreds of visitors and tourists will be eager to return to the area and support local business after running into the ticketing team. Instead, the scheme will transfer wealth from the pockets of productive citizens into the hands of municipal bureaucracy. In these tough times, that's just what cities want. Increasing revenue in the guise of safety - or even now in the name of homeland security - is the order of the day. Lorain, Ohio, for example, wants $250,000 to equip 10 police cars with license-plate recognition cameras. The more ambitious plan of Oakland, Calif., is to take $1.5 million in federal cash to ring the city with this technology, which records and identifies every passing vehicle. In theory, these systems allow police to locate stolen cars and rescue abducted children. In reality, cities use plate-recognition systems to scan for vehicles that can be impounded because their owners failed to pay a few parking tickets or have some late library books. Add towing and storage fees to the original ticket and penalties that must be paid for the car's return and each "hit" from a license-plate recognition system can bring in a tidy sum. Nobody better understands the lucrative new aspect of "homeland security" than President Obama's new Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. As governor of Arizona, Miss Napolitano signed a contract with an Australian company, Redflex Traffic Systems, to blanket the state's freeways with up to 200 speed cameras. The ambitious plan was slipped into a state budget bill last June as a means of generating $150 million in new revenue to help close the $1 billion budget gap with "non-tax increase revenue generation." This inspired Maryland's Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley, who is about to deploy the same fully automated speed traps on the Capital Beltway and other freeways throughout the state. Instead of protecting the homeland, however, Mr. O'Malley's cameras will protect his bureaucracy's revenue stream. Each privately operated photo-radar van is expected to issue tickets at a rate of one-per-minute. On a typical deployment schedule, that's 96,000 tickets a year. Any time state officials need another $3.8 million in revenue, they just need to pick up the phone to order another van. Maryland will need a worker just to count all the money it rakes in. Perhaps that will be the job created by the stimulus package. There is one other example that stands out. Glendale Heights, Ill., is asking Congress for $67,000 in stimulus money to hire someone to look at the pictures generated by its red-light camera system. Those cameras will be purchased with another $96,000 in stimulus money. If the District of Columbia's experience is any evidence, Glendale Heights won't be disappointed. Over the course of a decade, red-light and speed cameras in the nation's capital have generated more than a quarter-billion dollars' worth of tickets. While this sounds like a lot, it still falls short when compared to the sums generated in Europe - which sets the revenue standard that bureaucrats across American want to emulate. With more than 6,000 speed cameras deployed, England issues 2 million tickets each year. France generated $600 million in revenue from tickets last year alone. Total revenue from all types of fines in Italy topped a staggering $2 billion in 2007. How did Italy's total rise so high? Most observers credit the "T-Red" system of red-light cameras. Municipalities willing to shave a few seconds off the yellow warning time at intersections were instantly rewarded with a quadrupling of fine revenue as drivers found themselves trapped, photographed and billed. The camera contractors responsible for the programs ensured, behind closed doors, that key city officials shared personally in the financial success. The party didn't last long. Last month, an ambitious prosecutor grew fed up with the corruption. He ordered the arrest of photo-ticketing executives implicated in the plot. Another 100 local officials are under investigation. Most shocking of all, many of the practices under scrutiny in Italy now - especially on signal timing - are actually common in the United States. The difference is that while Italy is putting its ravenous local officials in jail, we are rewarding ours with federal bailout dollars. Richard Diamond is a member of the board of directors of the National Motorists Association Foundation. |
|
|
Here is whole litany of causes that support the contention that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have photo radar work correctly as claimed for safety in a LEGAL manner. Just look at these AT LEAST 286,000 drivers illegally fined over 10 million GBP (about $15-20 million dollars). What is worrisome is that ALL sorts of reasons go into these illegal prosecutions. Why would our experience in the US be any different? excerpt from: http://www.abd.org.uk/talivan_incompetence.htm (all "cockups" (ah that wonderful British term ) listed have references on the link if anybody is interested) CockUp Illegal prosecutions Illegal fines 2007 Feb–Sep — Lancs — Speed cameras incorrectly calibrated 300 £18,000 2006 — Devon — A30 Illegal speed limit 170 £10,200 2006 Jul — Cleveland — Illegal form 240,000 £9M 2005 Jun — London — Mis-placed SPECS 5,600 £335,800 2005 Jun — Lincolnshire — Street lighting 2,637 £158,220 2005 Jun — Dorset — Illegal form Total (Not including cases pending*) 285,779 £ 10,466,220 If you stole £10M from the public you'd end up in jail. Note: Some dates refer to when the cockup first came to notice in the courts or the press, the illegal acts are often many months or even years earlier. Bungling ineptitude? Over-enthusiasm? Deliberately malpractice? Or sympomatic of the attitude of the police towards drivers? You decide...
|
|
|
Well, duh .... of course if you remove the financial interest, all sorts of people with their finger in the pie are not as interested anymore. from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article2781340.ece The Times November 1, 2007 Public outrage leads to first fall in number of speed-camera fines Ben Webster Transport Editor The number of drivers caught by speed cameras has fallen for the first time, according to government figures which reveal that widespread complaints about excessive enforcement have finally forced a retreat by police and local authorities. All of the main types of motoring offence, including illegal parking and driving without insurance or an MoT certificate, have declined. For the first time in more than a decade drivers are less likely to be given a penalty than in the previous year. The RAC Foundation said that the figures, published by the Ministry of Justice and relating to 2005, marked a big change in the relationship between motorists and the enforcement authorities. Edmund King, the executive director of the foundation, said: “This shows the outcry by millions of drivers has finally paid off and forced councils and police to exercise more discretion. There is no doubt that enforcement was getting out of hand, particularly with the use of speed cameras. “The authorities have finally realised that showing a small degree of flexibility can be more effective than huge numbers of fines, even though they are making less money.” There were 438 offences per 1,000 licensed vehicles in 2005, down from 466 in 2004. The total number of motoring offences fell by 450,000 to 13 million. The number of speed-camera fines had been increasing since 1995 at the rate of about 200,000 a year, but in 2005 it fell by 40,000, from 1.91 million to 1.87 million. Richard Brunstrom, the former head of road policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers, had predicted four years ago that the number of camera fines would carry on growing until it reached three million a year. But the number is likely to have continued falling in 2006 because the policy that allowed police to keep a proportion of the fines to pay for more cameras ended in April of that year. The number of drivers being automatically disqualified for receiving 12 penalty points within three years also fell to the lowest level for more than a decade, down 2,000 to 29,000. However, it is unclear whether this was because drivers slowed down or because they persuaded someone to take the points for them. Parking fines fell sharply in 2005 after several years of substantial year-on-year increases. The number reduced from 8.5 to 8.2 million. As with speed camera fines, parking penalties are likely to continue to fall because the Government issued guidelines this year that prevent local authorities from setting targets for the issuing of tickets by private parking companies. Police focused more attention in 2005 on more serious motoring offences, with a 5 per cent increase in the number of breath tests to 607,000 and a 35 per cent rise in careless driving prosecutions to 186,000. Penalties for using mobile phones at the wheel also rose in 2005, up 53,000 to 126,800, but this was because forces had taken time to begin penalising the new offence. The figures revealed a discrepancy in the number of breath tests being carried out by different forces, despite a guideline that states every driver involved in a collision must be tested. West Midlands Police carried out only 270 tests per 100,000 population compared with 3,200 in North Wales. The forces with the highest rates of positive tests per 100,000 population were South Yorkshire, Thames Valley, Dorset, South Wales, Hampshire and Nottinghamshire. |
|
|
More DUH! If one removes the financial gain, petty local officials soon see the "light"! It takes a wise man indeed to learn from others' experiences, no? from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1079884/Speed-cameras-face-end-road-Town- - s-join-rush-ditch-money-making-machines.html Speed cameras face the end of the road: Towns join rush to ditch money-making machines By Matthew Drake and Ray Massey Last updated at 3:01 PM on 24th October 2008 Towns all over the country are joining the rush to get rid of fixed speed cameras. Portsmouth, Walsall and Birmingham may copy Swindon in ripping out the hated cameras, and others are expected to follow suit. Tory-run Swindon Borough Council became the first to ditch the yellow boxes after councillor Peter Greenhalgh objected to central Government receiving all the cash from fines while Swindon council pays £320,000 a year for the cameras' upkeep. Mr Greenhalgh said the fact that 70 people were killed on Swindon's streets in 2007-08 was proof that speed cameras were not making roads safer. He suggested that cash should be spent on other safety measures, including training for motorists, better street lighting and reduced speed limits in problem areas. On Thursday the Liberal Democrat leader of Portsmouth City Council, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, said speed cameras could be scrapped there too. He said: 'We pay £380,000 a year of public money for six fixed speed cameras. I don't think that is good value for money. It costs £40,000 to provide an extra copper. I could buy an awful lot of coppers for £380,000. 'There is a feeling around the country that speed cameras are not great value for money. I have had informal discussions about this with colleagues on other councils, mainly Liberal Democrat. But this is not a party political issue. This is just common sense.' Anthony Harris, Walsall Council's transport chief, said all 47 speed cameras in the district could be pulled down. He said: 'It's about establishing respect with the motorist. These cameras have no impact on speeding and drivers understandably view them as traps to siphon off money for the Government. 'In most cases the motorist has no idea he has been caught for at least two weeks. Who is that helping?' David Sparks of the Local Government Association, which represents all councils in England and Wales, confirmed that other councils were investigating scrapping cameras and predicted a move towards electronic speed warning signs. He said: 'There's a reluctance to deploy speed cameras because of the cost.' Meanwhile, the AA highlighted figures in answer to a Tory question showing a decline of 20 per cent in the number of traffic police in England and Wales over the last decade. There are now 1,507 fewer patrolling the roads. Until recently, speed camera 'partnerships' - comprising councils, police, courts, and road safety groups - kept the revenue from the cameras to invest in road safety, principally more cameras. After massive criticism, the Government decided that the millions generated from the cameras would go directly into Treasury coffers in return for road safety grants to councils. |
|
|
It is a naked money grab hiding under a guise of safety. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410515/Speed-cameras-milking-innocent-pu- - - blic.html Speed cameras and the milking of an innocent public Last updated at 15:44 15 October 2006 How appropriate that the people who operate the nasty and oppressive speed-camera system should themselves have been caught in a trap and captured on film. Thinking they were speaking to fellow sharks, they unwisely revealed their teeth, and their greedy appetites. We now know for certain that their pretended concern for road safety is almost entirely faked. These devices are there to raise money, first for the 'partnerships' that operate them and then for the ever-hungry Treasury. And it is not just a little money but 'buckets of it', so much so that the courts can barely cope with the burden of collecting it all. Goals for the number of prosecutions are set in advance. Businessmen and school-run mothers are deliberately targeted as they struggle to keep the economy going on our congested, roadworks infested highways. Perhaps the most cynical detail is the revelation that speed checks are sometimes deliberately set up on quiet roads, so that 'partnerships' can avoid over-running their quotas. The Mail on Sunday has argued from the start that the speed-camera network is a tax masquerading as a safety measure. Since it was inaugurated, proper police traffic patrols have virtually vanished and all forms of dangerous and inconsiderate driving have increased, while hundreds of thousands of responsible, careful motorists have been unfairly criminalised for what are often trivial breaches of arbitrary speed limits. Pious lectures on the supposed safety benefits of cameras can no longer have any force. The truth is out. While it may well be that some cameras save lives, many more are machines for milking the innocent public. The whole policy needs to be urgently re-examined in the light of these revelations. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Photo Radar
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
