Angry Dorset motorists torch speed cameras (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Don't miss our new Youth Sport supplement every Thursday inside your Echo 
Daily Echo on FacebookAll of today's content from across the site, all in one place at bournemouthecho.co.uk/today
Angry Dorset motorists torch speed cameras
8:14am Monday 17th August 2009 in
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)
Bournehammer68
says...
9:14am Mon 17 Aug 09
kevvo's daughter
says...
9:26am Mon 17 Aug 09
NONSENSICAL:BLABBERM
OUTHING OF A NANCY
bobaub
says...
10:35am Mon 17 Aug 09
ferret38
says...
10:43am Mon 17 Aug 09
magicmonkey
says...
10:54am Mon 17 Aug 09
pd7
says...
11:02am Mon 17 Aug 09
"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 .
Maureen Arthur
says...
11:03am Mon 17 Aug 09
raaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
btw - when is the air show???
raypike
says...
11:21am Mon 17 Aug 09
Ef the ref
says...
11:37am Mon 17 Aug 09
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?)
BrianBrain
says...
12:16pm Mon 17 Aug 09
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.
ltm
says...
12:25pm Mon 17 Aug 09
:D
kevvo's daughter
says...
12:35pm Mon 17 Aug 09
djd
says...
12:36pm Mon 17 Aug 09
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 !!!
TinyLegacy
says...
12:40pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Securityword: town-goal
You're not wrong there!
kevvo's daughter
says...
12:58pm Mon 17 Aug 09
i totally agree
security word =tiny- legs
Insight
says...
1:02pm Mon 17 Aug 09
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.
r50mini
says...
1:29pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
1:30pm Mon 17 Aug 09
golden mouldie
says...
1:49pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Now THATS a deterrent !!!!!
Tripod
says...
2:07pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
2:09pm Mon 17 Aug 09
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.
Insight
says...
2:18pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Tripod wrote: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.
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.
pd7
says...
2:20pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
2:43pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
2:47pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Zzzz
says...
3:13pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Tripod wrote: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.
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.
Insight
says...
3:34pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Zzzz wrote: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.
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.
Mullerman
says...
4:07pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
4:15pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
4:22pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
4:25pm Mon 17 Aug 09
EGHH
says...
5:41pm Mon 17 Aug 09
where is pete woodley
says...
5:48pm Mon 17 Aug 09
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
where is pete woodley
says...
5:50pm Mon 17 Aug 09
where is pete woodley
says...
5:52pm Mon 17 Aug 09
dorsetspeed wrote:this one that is
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
pathetic
WIGGINSv
says...
6:03pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Zzzz wrote:Why not just transport them - if caught - to the antipodes.
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.
ferret38
says...
6:05pm Mon 17 Aug 09
paul2
says...
6:36pm Mon 17 Aug 09
...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.
Insight
says...
6:44pm Mon 17 Aug 09
paul2 wrote: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.
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.
paul2
says...
6:51pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight wrote: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?
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.
Insight
says...
6:53pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
7:00pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
7:07pm Mon 17 Aug 09
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.
Insight
says...
7:12pm Mon 17 Aug 09
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?
Insight
says...
7:27pm Mon 17 Aug 09
paul2
says...
8:11pm Mon 17 Aug 09
dorsetspeed
says...
8:34pm Mon 17 Aug 09
paul2 wrote:...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.
By setting them alight? Thats not the right way.
tommytorets
says...
8:34pm Mon 17 Aug 09
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.
ferret38
says...
10:17pm Mon 17 Aug 09
tommytorets wrote:Hit the nail on the head there , spot on :)
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.
Insight
says...
10:18pm Mon 17 Aug 09
paul2 wrote: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.
By setting them alight? Thats not the right way.
Removing them has to be done by the politicians, not the criminals.
Insight
says...
10:23pm Mon 17 Aug 09
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.
vch
says...
10:37pm Mon 17 Aug 09
paul2 wrote:Maybe not the right way, but I can't think of a better way.
By setting them alight? Thats not the right way.
Anyhow, it's not like we have to worry about the police catching these "angry motorists".
Insight
says...
10:43pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
11:15pm Mon 17 Aug 09
Insight
says...
11:22pm Mon 17 Aug 09
peter hurt
says...
7:05am Tue 18 Aug 09
terry1965
says...
9:15am Tue 18 Aug 09
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.
swimmerpaul
says...
6:03pm Tue 18 Aug 09
GAHmusic
says...
11:09pm Tue 18 Aug 09
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.
Insight
says...
3:03am Wed 19 Aug 09
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.
Insight
says...
3:22pm Thu 20 Aug 09
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!
More News stories
- Woman fights for life after being hit by train at Wool
- Redknapp speaks after being cleared of tax evasion
- Bournemouth hotelier's anger at 'brothel' review on TripAdvisor website
- Get up close and personal with creatures at the Oceanarium
- Mudeford boy up for buddy award from Haemophilia Society
- Sell off your clothes to help Christchurch charity
- Castlepoint’s traffic: Queues driven away
- Castlepoint’s traffic: What drivers think
- Old Littledown Neighbourhood Watch to make film on bogus callers
- Poole drummer narrowly beaten in national contest
Angry Dorset motorists torch speed cameras
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Perry_Winkle says...
9:06am Mon 17 Aug 09
but...
Ha!