Angry Dorset motorists torch speed cameras

8:14am Monday 17th August 2009 in News By Fiona Pendlebury

Angry Dorset motorists torch speed cameras Angry Dorset motorists torch speed cameras

ANGRY motorists appear to have taken their revenge after two speed cameras were torched in the space of just over a week.

Police are investigating after the GATSO machine was set alight in the early hours of Saturday at Ringwood Road, Verwood.

A member of staff at the nearby Verwood Surplus Stores said: “Someone probably got caught during the day and thought they’d come back at night. We don’t get a lot of trouble around here. It was a surprise to see it down when we went out in the morning.”

The previous weekend, the camera at Horton Road, near Three Legged Cross, was set on fire at around 3.35am on Saturday.

Mike Jackson, crew manager at Verwood Fire Station said: “To have two in one week is very uncommon for this area.

“It almost makes you wonder if it’s an organised thing to get rid of speed cameras.

“The damage to the cameras was quite severe. Certainly the lenses and the glass at the front had completely disintegrated.”

Last week the Echo revealed that Bournemouth councillors are to consider the controversial idea of scrapping speed cameras in the town – though any such plan would not affect cameras outside the borough.

A council committee will look at whether the 20 fixed speed cameras in the town do a good job in reducing vehicle speeds and preventing collisions.

And it will also decide whether Bournemouth should follow the example of Swindon and turn off its cameras, ploughing money into other road safety schemes instead.

The 38 fixed cameras across the county are operated by the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership and the two incidents in East Dorset are not the first.

The camera near Cemetery Junction on Wimborne Road in Bournemouth was sprayed over earlier this year and previously the one on Wessex Way approaching the Frizzell roundabout was damaged by fire.

A survey by satellite navigation system company Road Angel found that up to 16 per cent of people support the illegal destruction of speed cameras by ‘vigilante’ gangs.

Cllr Spencer Flower, leader of East Dorset District Council, said he was “shocked” by the damage.

He said: “I couldn’t understand how they managed to burn them both out unless someone put some sort of incendiary device in there.

“There are all sorts of arguments about the benefits of having fixed cameras. I think there’s probably more to be gained in having mobile cameras.

“I shall be interested to see what develops from the Bournemouth initiative. We will look at how the accident record compares before and since we had cameras.”

Speed indicator devices may well be more effective in getting people to abide by the speed limit, he added.

Comments(62)

Perry_Winkle says...
9:06am Mon 17 Aug 09

I can't condone, and wouldn't encourage vandalism of any form...


but...


Ha!

Report this post »

Bournehammer68 says...
9:14am Mon 17 Aug 09

V for VENDETTA!!

Report this post »

kevvo's daughter says...
9:26am Mon 17 Aug 09

What

NONSENSICAL:BLABBERM
OUTHING OF A NANCY

Report this post »

bobaub says...
10:35am Mon 17 Aug 09

Silent witness to their own demise. Can't say I'm sorry to see them out of action. The only way to stop motorists speeding is to have the device fitted to vehicles that keep tabs on where and what we're doing, or have average speed cameras every where. They have them on motorway road-works. They control traffic speed, but does not control stupid drivers from bashing into one another. I thought that was the intention, to reduce accidents. It's just a stealth tax. To avoid it, don't join the club.

Report this post »

ferret38 says...
10:43am Mon 17 Aug 09

Fantastic news good to see that some people or someone have had enough of these cash boxs !! :)

Report this post »

magicmonkey says...
10:54am Mon 17 Aug 09

Saw this myself, many people driving past the wrecked camera sites are happily tooting and cheering when they see what's happened, and who can blame them?

Report this post »

pd7 says...
11:02am Mon 17 Aug 09

Quote

"Angry Dorset motorists torch speed cameras"

Why does the person have to come from Dorset , I can read no evidence that the person was from Dorset .
They could have come from Hants or Wilts , Ches, Lancs anwhere .

Report this post »

Maureen Arthur says...
11:03am Mon 17 Aug 09

Mob Rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!
raaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

btw - when is the air show???

Report this post »

raypike says...
11:21am Mon 17 Aug 09

In my experience dorset 'safety' camera partnership site their mobile cameras in areas that are likely to accrue the maximum fines(in bovington for instance just a few yards from where the speed limit changes from 30 to 60 and not just up the road near the school where real safety is needed).!!

Report this post »

Ef the ref says...
11:37am Mon 17 Aug 09

'kevvo's daughter, says'...
9:26am Mon 17 Aug 09
What

NONSENSICAL:BLABBERM

OUTHING OF A NANCY"


Didn't understand that either!

(Why have the Echo taken down your other posting?)

Report this post »

BrianBrain says...
12:16pm Mon 17 Aug 09

What a shame!

I notice from the article that hundreds of people called the firebrigade to report it burning lol

Although I do not condone any criminal act it is most satisfying to hear that camera's which are purely cash cows are taken out.

As long as they leave them alone outside schools or at accident sites I for one am not going to moan about the loss.

Report this post »

ltm says...
12:25pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Nice job, keep up the good work!!!

:D

Report this post »

kevvo's daughter says...
12:35pm Mon 17 Aug 09

my dad says they flash so fast i its self conbuston is that nice

Report this post »

djd says...
12:36pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Dorset Safety Camera Partnership..... listen to your public.

They don't want speed cameras which, to them, are seen solely as a money making machine.

Persuasion is preferred to enforcement and it works !!!

Report this post »

TinyLegacy says...
12:40pm Mon 17 Aug 09

They'll probably just set all the other cameras to 29mph to raise funds for the replacement.

Securityword: town-goal

You're not wrong there!

Report this post »

kevvo's daughter says...
12:58pm Mon 17 Aug 09

12.25
i totally agree

security word =tiny- legs

Report this post »

Insight says...
1:02pm Mon 17 Aug 09

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they torch their own old and broken camera equipment themselves to claim on the insurance.
Remember everyone, we shouldn't be condoning a criminal act regardless of how most people feel about speed cameras, because 'two wrongs don't make a right'.
Saddly, it's the politicians who need to make the decision to remove them and only fear of being removed at the next council elections for wasting half a million pounds a year on private enterprise will do that.

Report this post »

r50mini says...
1:29pm Mon 17 Aug 09

The safety groups and campaigners don't seem to realise that people will accept common sense, not abuse of the system. If these groups were serious in their campaign on safety they would clamp down on the anti social drivers, those using mobiles, not using indicators, tail gaters, unlicensed, untaxed vehicles, those under the influence of drink or drugs, pedestrians who walk out in front of cars, cyclists who think the rules of the road don't apply. Do you get my drift or is it easier to have a box do all the work and the powers that be remain anonymous. A common sense approach to road safety is needed not robot big brother.

Report this post »

Insight says...
1:30pm Mon 17 Aug 09

The only political support speed cameras got in Swindon was from the sole Liberal Democrat councilor who flew in the face of the parliamentary liberal party who'd been campaigning for more active policing in the face of the increase in drink drive and the Labour MP (defending her own partys misdoings), who has as much chance of being reelected at the next general election as I have of becoming President of The United States. It makes me wonder just how many of these soon to be expoliticians have a vested financial interest in speed camera manufacturers secreted in their retirement financial portfolios, afterall, the investment house Goldman Sachs did state that the speed camera industry was going to be one of the few growth industrys this year, as foolish councils seemed all too willing to part with their council tax payers revenue to get on the revenue band wagon. Saddly, the revenue stream dried up now that it's being taken directly into the exchequer to prop a failing and incompetent government and funding return to the partnerships is being slashed across the country, it's already been announced that Londons is to be cut by 50%, makes you wonder how much our council tax bills will have to increase to pay for the impotent partnership.

Report this post »

golden mouldie says...
1:49pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Get rid of camera's and replace them with unmarked patrol cars with camera's, number plate recognition and policemen/women who will take the unlicensed, untaxed, speeding and mobile phone holding/bad drivers off of the road.

Now THATS a deterrent !!!!!

Report this post »

Tripod says...
2:07pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Strange isn't it; someone sets light to rubbish bins and a car in Poole, and it's Mindless Vandalism; someone sets light to 2 Speed Cameras (about £30,000 each out of local Tax payers pockets) and people think it's funny.

Report this post »

Insight says...
2:09pm Mon 17 Aug 09

golden-mouldie; Although I strongly agree with you about replacing the cameras with real police, can I point out that it defeats the object if all they're doing is minding their own cameras and are also too reliant on ANPR.
ANPR is just as easy to avoid as speed cameras if the perpetrators car is wearing a fake number plate.
It's the act of apprehension, pulling over and questioning irresponsible drivers that needs to be reintroduced, this is why drink and drug drive, ghost licenses, organised rings of criminals taking points and simply banned drivers are on the increase, because theres nobody out there catching them.
It's time that common sense replaced the much over hyped technology that is becoming very clear, doesn't work very well at all.

Report this post »

Insight says...
2:18pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Tripod wrote:
Strange isn't it; someone sets light to rubbish bins and a car in Poole, and it's Mindless Vandalism; someone sets light to 2 Speed Cameras (about £30,000 each out of local Tax payers pockets) and people think it's funny.
Wouldn't it be ludicrous and deliciously ironic if they wasted yet more money and started to station 'real' police to protect the £30,000 cameras? ...now that would make me laugh out loud. On a serious note, I wonder just how many police man hours and thousands of pounds the investigation into these arson attacks will cost the tax payer, surely the value of these devices must come under severe scrutiny now that it's been demonstrated just how easily they're rendered inopertive.

Report this post »

pd7 says...
2:20pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Yes it is a bad comment , because some parasites are usefull to the host.


Report this post »

Insight says...
2:43pm Mon 17 Aug 09

All this arguement and talk is rapidly becoming irrelevant. On a previous article I wrote that we're living in the playstation generation, youngsters who view easily avoided speed cameras with nothing more than contempt. It seems the whole speed camera project is about to be rendered totally irrelevant by an ipod app, out now in Australia and soon to be released in the UK and Northern Europe that identifys every single speed and red light camera in the country. It can't be banned, because it isn't a dedicated device. Now if that doesn't make you laugh at the futility of the camera project nothing will, an 89p app that renders millions of pounds worth of wasted government and tax payer expenditure obsolete.

Report this post »

Insight says...
2:47pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Sorry, that should of course been 'iphone', not ipod.

Report this post »

Zzzz says...
3:13pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Tripod wrote:
Strange isn't it; someone sets light to rubbish bins and a car in Poole, and it's Mindless Vandalism; someone sets light to 2 Speed Cameras (about £30,000 each out of local Tax payers pockets) and people think it's funny.
Totally agree. Whatever anyone thinks of speed cameras, the people who torched them are very dangerous individuals if they're willing to go to such lengths (arson, no less - which can carry a life sentence) just to avoid getting a speeding ticket.

Report this post »

Insight says...
3:34pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Zzzz wrote:
Tripod wrote: Strange isn't it; someone sets light to rubbish bins and a car in Poole, and it's Mindless Vandalism; someone sets light to 2 Speed Cameras (about £30,000 each out of local Tax payers pockets) and people think it's funny.
Totally agree. Whatever anyone thinks of speed cameras, the people who torched them are very dangerous individuals if they're willing to go to such lengths (arson, no less - which can carry a life sentence) just to avoid getting a speeding ticket.
I agree with you both, as I said in my first post, none of us should be condoning a criminal act regardless of our position on speed cameras. Even for the majority who oppose the soon to be obsolete cameras these arsonists aren't doing anyone any favours, it's costing money, wasting police time and endangering our firebrigade, because these devices need to be removed by the politicians, not the criminals.

Report this post »

Mullerman says...
4:07pm Mon 17 Aug 09

In the cold light of day ........... I still think its funny! Being on the receiving end of one these remote tax collectors probably heightens my glee. Technology can render them useless now, engine management control linked to GPS will ensure i cant 'speed' in a known 'black spot' area. But wheres the revenue in prevention!?

Report this post »

Insight says...
4:15pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Engine management linked to GPS?. You people just can't help playing into the hands of the hackers can you. It's embarrassing enough that the governments pet speed camera project is being rendered irrelevant by an iphone app, let alone door to the computer whizz kids to play scalextric with family cars on the streets. You don't need technology, we just need the policeto be allowed to do the job properly again, there's no need for pseudo rocket science that plays into the hands of the criminals. Saying for today : Don't let the promises of technology overtake common sense.

Report this post »

Insight says...
4:22pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Everytime this government in particular dabbles in technology it gets it's fingers burnt. Twenty year old easily avoided speed cameras are just one example. They believed they could save a huge amount of money with the NHS computer system that should already be in operation, but is now over double it's original budget and expanding rapidly and has been put back to 2015 for completion assuming it ever gets finished at all. The same was true of the Child Support Agency, in went a new computer system and the Agency is all but dead in the water today. Just pay the otherwise wasted money to CPO's to deploy real police and pull suspect drivers over. It's much more cost effective, let alone moral, than turning a blind eye to drink drive just because they haven't invented a camera that can deal with it.

Report this post »

Insight says...
4:25pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Pardon the unintentional pun about getting fingers burnt considering the nature of the article.

Report this post »

EGHH says...
5:41pm Mon 17 Aug 09

I don't condone this behaviour, but there's plenty of them left...

Report this post »

where is pete woodley says...
5:48pm Mon 17 Aug 09

what a stupid thing to report

i think the echo would like poeple to do this so they can report it and be the peoples champion

grow up echo, report some real crime

Report this post »

where is pete woodley says...
5:50pm Mon 17 Aug 09

pathetic comment

Report this post »

where is pete woodley says...
5:52pm Mon 17 Aug 09

dorsetspeed wrote:
The only people who support speed cameras are the parasites who feed off them, or those who are incompetent / corrupt enough (i.e. the government) to believe the misinformation created by the “safety” partnerships
this one that is

pathetic

Report this post »

WIGGINSv says...
6:03pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Zzzz wrote:
Tripod wrote: Strange isn't it; someone sets light to rubbish bins and a car in Poole, and it's Mindless Vandalism; someone sets light to 2 Speed Cameras (about £30,000 each out of local Tax payers pockets) and people think it's funny.
Totally agree. Whatever anyone thinks of speed cameras, the people who torched them are very dangerous individuals if they're willing to go to such lengths (arson, no less - which can carry a life sentence) just to avoid getting a speeding ticket.
Why not just transport them - if caught - to the antipodes.

Report this post »

ferret38 says...
6:05pm Mon 17 Aug 09

i agree with the fella that said keep the cameras by the schools . But hope to see some more burning would be welcome , lets hope DSCP take note of the comments on here !!

Report this post »

paul2 says...
6:36pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Headline quote is quite right: "Angry Dorset motorists torch speed cameras"

...WHY are motorists so angry about having to go 10mph slower than they would like and they feel vandalism is justified? If your answer is revenue (you may be correct/not correct) then well-just slow down and you won't get a fine. You will feel a lot better after your journey as well.

Report this post »

Insight says...
6:44pm Mon 17 Aug 09

paul2 wrote:
Headline quote is quite right: "Angry Dorset motorists torch speed cameras" ...WHY are motorists so angry about having to go 10mph slower than they would like and they feel vandalism is justified? If your answer is revenue (you may be correct/not correct) then well-just slow down and you won't get a fine. You will feel a lot better after your journey as well.
Saddly, that's a bit of a myth, as slowing down a bit is no gurantee of not being flashed by a camera. Last year nearly a million drivers who were not speeding had their convictions overturned by the Independant Police Complaints Commission due to incompetence of the partnership operatives and the inherantly unreliable nature of the equipment. These days, you don't even have to be driving your car to be summonsed for a speeding nic, just ask anyone who's been a victim of number plate cloning.

Report this post »

paul2 says...
6:51pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Insight wrote:
paul2 wrote: Headline quote is quite right: "Angry Dorset motorists torch speed cameras" ...WHY are motorists so angry about having to go 10mph slower than they would like and they feel vandalism is justified? If your answer is revenue (you may be correct/not correct) then well-just slow down and you won't get a fine. You will feel a lot better after your journey as well.
Saddly, that's a bit of a myth, as slowing down a bit is no gurantee of not being flashed by a camera. Last year nearly a million drivers who were not speeding had their convictions overturned by the Independant Police Complaints Commission due to incompetence of the partnership operatives and the inherantly unreliable nature of the equipment. These days, you don't even have to be driving your car to be summonsed for a speeding nic, just ask anyone who's been a victim of number plate cloning.
Well I've been OK so far, surely it's not that common to get a summons or get stopped for speeding when you haven't, although it does happen as you say. How many total drivers are there in the UK?

Report this post »

Insight says...
6:53pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Nearly a million overturned convictions isn't that common?

Report this post »

Insight says...
7:00pm Mon 17 Aug 09

There's also a big question mark over how many people simply don't contest a conviction because the way it's been setup makes it prohibitively expensive for the majority of people, even if they're sure they didn't do it. They just pay up, because they simply wouldn't know where to start or be able to afford the legal fee's. But it is those who have successfully challenged the system and won who've exposed the incompetence of the partnerships that lead to nearly a million convictions being overturned. This doesn't of course include those such as here were a road has been named incorrectly, or other similar technicallity.

Report this post »

Insight says...
7:07pm Mon 17 Aug 09

We've all got to remember that what we're talking about here is wether speed cameras work, not wether speeding is right or wrong, because the two aren't mutually exclusive. I for one don't believe a word the partnerships say, but I certainly don't advocate speeding either. Infact I get very annoyed when the assumption is made that if you don't support speed cameras, you automatically support speeding. My answer to that is, well, if you do support speed cameras, you obviously support drink and drug drive, because speed cameras aren't capable of dealing with those, but the government has seen fit to reduce funding to road going police in the UK and as was seen by a freedom of information act in parliament there are 20% missing with some areas seeing a reduction in patrols of up to 80%.
The only claim that the partnerships make is that collisions decrease at camera sites, which isn't at all surprising when you look down at the very expensive hi grip tarmac that is commonly laid at cameras sites. Because it replaces the worn out tarmac that caused an increase in stopping distances that caused the area to become an accident hot spot in the first place. Once the tarmac is laid, the camera is basically irrelevant.
As that's the case, I don't think any of us can afford to allow these authoritys to ignore the growing threat of drink and drug drive, just to allow the government to rake in additional revenue.

Report this post »

Insight says...
7:12pm Mon 17 Aug 09

There's also a school of thought that says, the only people who support speed cameras, are the ones who don't want real police back on the roads, because it's all too easy to identify a fixed GATSO and make a note of likely mobile camera sites and drive however you want everywhere else.
Let's be honest about it, when was the last time any of you saw a GATSO jump on a bicycle and chase a car with a noisy exhaust or a plank of wood sticking out of the boot too far. Just exactly are the camera supporters defending and why?

Report this post »

Insight says...
7:27pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Speed cameras have basically encouraged an epidemic of illegal activity. From number plate cloning to ghost licenses, from a documented increase in accidents involving alcohol, to a sudden increase in car theft from areas with many speed cameras. There is an estimated two million drivers on Britains roads right now who shouldn't be there, wether they're simply banned already and driving around in a cloned car or as an immigrant they simply don't have a British license, because the police aren't out there there's nobody stopping them and I don't think we can allow this farce to continue. Even senior politicians concluded that the increasing number of accidents of a hit and run nature are simply because those drivers shouldn't even be driving in the first place, but they're all too scared to tackle the problem, because the ill informed speed camera supporters would see it as being wreckless and they obviously don't want to commit political suicide. The speed camera policy is a modern day version of the emporers new clothes, the old fairy tale where the emporer is sold a suit so fine it can't be seen or felt by a couple of con artists and it's only when a small child says that the emporer is actually naked does the monarch realise and is shamed... and I believe it's time to put an end to it.

Report this post »

paul2 says...
8:11pm Mon 17 Aug 09

By setting them alight? Thats not the right way.

Report this post »

dorsetspeed says...
8:34pm Mon 17 Aug 09

paul2 wrote:
By setting them alight? Thats not the right way.
...but it does help to get something which really has to change, under the spotlight. I know that if speed cameras were replaced by proper policing, accidents would reduce, road efficiency would improve, and costs to society would reduce substantially. Those brave enough to face being caught vandalising speed cameras, probably because they know it is so wrong, but that their actions might actually save lives if it results in cameras being taken out, are not perhaps so wrong.


Report this post »

tommytorets says...
8:34pm Mon 17 Aug 09

Who ever did this dastardly deed gets my vote. two down 36 to go, its a lauge a minute when one of these thing gets destroyed , they are nothing but tax machines, the sooner they are all demolished the better.
They do not prevent accidents, they dont catch uninsured vehicles, drunk drivers, drugged up drivers, untaxed vehicles, they dont even catch speeders any more, not locals anyway as we all know where they are, we just slow down go through then speed up again, stop wasting tax payers money on these things and start putting up speed boards, they ar more visual and do work if you are speeding,
To whoever set these things on fire, keep up the good work.

Report this post »

ferret38 says...
10:17pm Mon 17 Aug 09

tommytorets wrote:
Who ever did this dastardly deed gets my vote. two down 36 to go, its a lauge a minute when one of these thing gets destroyed , they are nothing but tax machines, the sooner they are all demolished the better.
They do not prevent accidents, they dont catch uninsured vehicles, drunk drivers, drugged up drivers, untaxed vehicles, they dont even catch speeders any more, not locals anyway as we all know where they are, we just slow down go through then speed up again, stop wasting tax payers money on these things and start putting up speed boards, they ar more visual and do work if you are speeding,
To whoever set these things on fire, keep up the good work.
Hit the nail on the head there , spot on :)

Report this post »

Insight says...
10:18pm Mon 17 Aug 09

paul2 wrote:
By setting them alight? Thats not the right way.
I agree, setting light to them should never be supported, it simply makes the authority dig it's toes in, so as strange as it seems it's totally counter productive.
Removing them has to be done by the politicians, not the criminals.

Report this post »

Insight says...
10:23pm Mon 17 Aug 09

It's quite clear that the financial incentives for councils to maintain the partnerships has been removed by the government and the half a million support to the quango each year is going to be putting real strain on our council tax bills. That is money I'd rather seen spent on real policing, rather than a collection of overpaid back office non productive staff.
Those countys who didn't jump on the speed camera bandwagon, not only don't have these problems, they're also rewarded with superior casualty reduction results as well.

Report this post »

vch says...
10:37pm Mon 17 Aug 09

paul2 wrote:
By setting them alight? Thats not the right way.
Maybe not the right way, but I can't think of a better way.

Anyhow, it's not like we have to worry about the police catching these "angry motorists".

Report this post »

Insight says...
10:43pm Mon 17 Aug 09

It's a question of ever diminishing returns from the speed cameras. Now that the speed numptys will be able to get an 89p app for the iphone that effectively renders the entire camera network redundant, the money we tax payers are and will be asked to cough up to cover the shortfall in operating costs for an increasingly obsolete psuedo authority is becoming more and more ridiculous, especially, because at that very same time incidents involving alcohol and drugs, sins that the speed cameras obviously can't cope with, are on the increase in the absence of the police and these councils, even now, still turning a blind eye to one of the biggest killers on the roads.

Report this post »

Insight says...
11:15pm Mon 17 Aug 09

You know, another thing that bugs me?. This Captain GATSO, this annonymous so called vigillante. Considering he's supposed to be this masked arsonist, burning down cameras all over the country, doesn't it seem amazing that whatever article you read, anywhere in the country, he's there, ready to give an interview? ..if I wasn't so cynical, I'd be tempted to believe he was fiction, a tame fugitive vigilante, a construct of the PR department a premade white knight (or black knight, depending on your point of view) at the beck and call of the partnerships, apparently fighting the evil of the marauding speed cameras, while maintaining the media fueled illusion that todays drivers are scared of cameras, when the reality is the complete opposite.

Report this post »

Insight says...
11:22pm Mon 17 Aug 09

To be honest, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the partnership didn't burn these cameras out themselves (they must have a few dead ones laying about in the yard). It does seem suspicious that the moment a councillor starts talking about reviewing the situation, a couple get turned into toast doesn't it. I know so called charities such as brake have shown whole hearted support for these cameras and it was all good intentioned, but as is so often the case, the road to hell is paved in good intentions.

Report this post »

peter hurt says...
7:05am Tue 18 Aug 09

"Why not just transport them - if caught - to the antipodes." Oh come on! fair suck of the sauce bottle cobber.

Report this post »

terry1965 says...
9:15am Tue 18 Aug 09

I would love to meet the person/people responsible for the attacks on those "safety" cameras.......... and shake them by the hand, offer my congratulations for a job well done & buy them a drink!

Keep up the good work whoever you are.

"Safety" cameras are not there for our safety, they are purely there to rip us off. If "safety" camera partnerships truly cared about our safety why are there no cameras on the A338 between Ringwood & Salisbury? Or on the A31 at Ringwood? Or the A326 between Totton & Holbury? Or the Spur Road into Bournemouth? These roads have all had numerous fatal accidents in recent times, so where are the cameras? I'll tell you. They're on the Wessex Way where the "safety" camera partnerships can maximise income from the volume of traffic & ridiculously low speed limit.

I have nothing but contempt for the Dorset "Safety" Camera Partnership & I always raise a middle finger to the morons in their little white vans at the side of the road when passing them.

Report this post »

swimmerpaul says...
6:03pm Tue 18 Aug 09

GO BROTHER GO! Please if there's a God let there be some robin hood burning these things to the ground they are taking money off of us like the sheriff of Nottingham. GO FOR IT Robin.

Report this post »

GAHmusic says...
11:09pm Tue 18 Aug 09

Insight
The kind of aplication you are talking about has been around for years. It can be part of a satnav, a phone, a pda all kinds. These devices use GPS related positioning to compare against lists of camera locations, including mobile cameras and is supplied by the camera partnership as published on their website. They are not in fact illigal as the idea is that by knowing the location of the camera you won't speed thus partly justifying it as a preventative safety measure. there are other device which actively scan the area for lasers and I'm not sure about them and the law.

Report this post »

Insight says...
3:03am Wed 19 Aug 09

I do understand that GAHmusic, however there was talk of banning devices, such as radar scanners that would alert you to the location of cameras, this however I believe was abandonned, as you say, when they started appearing on PDA's. Again, I know this it isn't a first for the iphone app either, but the database is updatable by users as well as any official partnership information, some of whom do not give out full lists of locations. I don't believe the camera partnerships did allow this as a preventative measure, they did it because they realised they weren't going to beat the spread of such applications.
With the latest news from the government, that they intend to extend the powers the police themselves have for handing out fixed penaltys without an appearance in court, it's suddenly very clear that the speed cameras days are numbered. This little flurry of activity in councils up and down the land isn't an outbreak of common sense, this is a realisation that the easy money photo booth gravy train is at an end.
Magistrates have criticised the goverments latest moves, because it is seen as nothing more than turning our police force into revenue gathers now that the speed camera project is failing. Personally, I don't like this type of abuse of the legal system by such a corrupt government, but given the choice, I'd much rather have real police out there stopping people than stupid obsolete cameras.

Report this post »

Insight says...
3:22pm Thu 20 Aug 09

Futhermore, here is a perfect example of why in a microcosm speed cameras are losing favour with councils all over the land and have cost the Irish in particular very dear indeed having taken a huge amount out of their road improvment budgets while showing no financial return which has curtailed further road improvment projects. The latest generation of the tarnished and controversial speed camera brand are Average Speed Cameras, or SPECS3. These devices have been installed on the A127 in Essex, which is the main arterial road between Southend and London, so as you can imagine it is a very very busy road. It is a dual carriage way it's entire length and basically a captive enviroment for motorist with no escape apart from the obvious exit ramps. Their local news reports that the SPECS system is catching up to 40 drivers per week speeding (although it is not clear the level of speeding) and it is acknowledge that it is an artificial speed limit for the type of road at just 50 mph, where the majority of dual carriages ways of that type in the UK are 70 mph.
Those who don't think it through would say that 40 a week is unaccpetable and perhaps they're right. But that isn't the point of this post. The point is, even at 40 per week, at sixty pounds a fine, taking into account the artificially low speed limit and considering the very high volume of traffic necessary to acheive these figures, these devices won't even have paid for themselves after over ten years of service. Apply the same logic to local residential areas, the much lower volume of traffic and by definition lower speed etc and it's very clear why the partnerships are in no hurry to deploy these horendously over expensive devices where they might actually do some good becuase it is commonly accepted that they are superior, because they do have some calming effect on traffic when compared to their now virtually antique and obsolete cousins, the GATSO.
Get off the speed camera soap box, the camera supporters have been on a wild goose chase and now the issue has run it's course. Those councils that jumped on the revenue band wagon have been left high and dry by the government for funding and the latest generation of cameras cost a mint, aren't very effective and return nothing and it's now costing a fortune on our council taxes, while showing no difference, according the UK statistics authority, in road safety in the UK. Swindon did the right thing buying their way out of their partnership, it's only a question of time until other councils, especially those who didn't dive in head first, follow suit!

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree