Third speed camera’s torching is condemned (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
Third speed camera’s torching is condemned
8:00am Monday 24th August 2009 in
THE torching of a third speed camera within two weeks has been condemned as a danger to motorists.
The latest incident happened at Magna Road, Bearwood, in the early hours of Thursday.
Firefighters from Redhill Park fire station in Bournemouth put out the blaze within about 10 minutes, but the camera was completely destroyed.
A camera was vandalised in the same way at Horton Road near Three Legged Cross at 3.55am on Saturday August 8 and another a week later in Ringwood Road, Verwood.
Police are investigating the spate of attacks and Dorset Safety Camera Partnership has slammed those behind the crimes.
After the second incident, Johnny Stephens, head of fixed penalties for the organisation, said: “Vandalism of safety cameras is wholly irresponsible behaviour that could endanger people’s lives.
“There is vast evidence to show that motorists who speed increase their risk of being involved in a collision and pose a real risk to other road users.”
Bournemouth councillor Rob Lawton, cabinet member for environment and transport, said: “We believe the cameras are a safety tool. I know people are disappointed when they have been caught speeding, but there’s no need for them to go and destroy the camera.
“Although people may applaud somebody destroying one, they’re not cheap and it does eventually come out of ratepayers’ money. People shouldn’t be speeding in the first place. The cameras are there for the safety of everybody.”
Comments(109)
crispy_pants
says...
9:45am Mon 24 Aug 09
terry1965
says...
9:55am Mon 24 Aug 09
cooperman
says...
10:16am Mon 24 Aug 09
I laughed so much, it hurt - is that what they mean ? i'll take an Asprin.
Insight
says...
10:27am Mon 24 Aug 09
...and so it continues, the blind leading the blind.
Your mate Cllr Anderson doesn't seem to be in so much of a hurry to look quite as naive and gullible as you do to the people who elected you, perhaps you should have a word and take the blinkers off.
Ef the ref
says...
10:29am Mon 24 Aug 09
Having to look out for cameras, constantly watching the speedometer instead of the road, other motorists suddenly braking when they see a speed camera etc. etc.
Might be safer if they were ALL torched!
Millygee
says...
10:32am Mon 24 Aug 09
PokesdownMark
says...
10:38am Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
10:39am Mon 24 Aug 09
I'm sure there is, but there is a growing body of evidence such as the UK Statistics Authoritys refusal to sign off the governments claimed figures for speed cameras, where the more reliable hospital admissions show they've achieved virtually nothing.
As you seem to be immune to much of what the public say, happy to ignore them because you've swallowed all the partnership propaganda without so much as a question, perhaps you should listen to another elected official who's considerably more important than you are.
"Theresa Villiers, the Shadow Transport spokesman, condemned the Government. “It is deeply worrying that the UK Statistics Authority are unwilling to sign off the Government’s casualty figures. It is a huge concern that Ministers allowed such serious flaws in the collection of data," she said. "This is a crucial area of policy on which lives depend and it is vitally important to have reliable data on what the real facts are. How can we trust anything Government say if they are even willing to spin the figures on an issue as crucial as road casualties?”
I've no doubt your intentions are good sir, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved in good intentions. So keep up the good work Mr Lawton, I'm sure it'll be remembered at the next election!
Insight
says...
10:54am Mon 24 Aug 09
..how about former transport minister at the DfT Labour MP Dr Stephen Ladyman, who in an open letter to the Association of Cheif Police Officers warned them not to rely on speed cameras and to continue to police the roads properly (his words, not mine) only to be told that it was his government that had failed to supply targets and therefore funding for casualty reduction operations.
Mysteriously, Mr Ladyman found himself offered a new job shortly there after.
Still so sure you want to be remembered as one of the officials who're responsible for our country losing 20% of our traffic police, while a wave of counter crime these cameras were simply not designed to deal with grew out of control Mr Lawton?
Insight
says...
10:58am Mon 24 Aug 09
It's a question of wether it's right or wrong to allow a government who're happy to spin it's own statistics to support a failed policy to turn a blind eye to all the drunks, druggies, hit and runs and other illegals, such as unlicensed foreigners, plate cloners and ghost licenses that the cameras and subsequent lack of 'real' police are simply doing nothing about.
I often wonder just naive these officials really are and how many councillors or politicians have a financial interest in these unscrupulus speed camera manufacturers and are happy to go on feathering their nests all the time they think they represent a gulible easily lead public.
Insight
says...
11:09am Mon 24 Aug 09
I even believe Chris Grayling has been heard to condemn the increase in hit and run incidents on britains roads, which are representative of a growing number of drivers who simply shouldn't be on the roads in the first place, but are remaining unchallenged as a result of a lack of adequate policing brought about by an unhealthy reliance on speed cameras. So what makes you right and people more senior from your own party wrong?
Insight
says...
11:13am Mon 24 Aug 09
Fortunatly, he was ignored.
Insight
says...
11:27am Mon 24 Aug 09
Perhaps as an example; Lancashire the county with the highest number of speed cameras, that still rates sixth worst in the country for crashes and was a Labour council for nearly thirty years got turned over to Conservatives this year should give you a bit of a clue about which side of the argument you should really be on.
I'm obviously not saying the decision was all about speed cameras, Labour have done enough wrong, but I'd say it was a healthy contribution, when you consider the two countys who don't use speed cameras have probably the best casualty reduction rates in the country.
Think about it, you might have been slightly misled by not looking at the big picture and focusing on the one issue of speed.
Insight
says...
11:44am Mon 24 Aug 09
It takes reasoning and common sense to dig these officials out of their propaganda fueled complacency and make them realise the half a million a year that goes to the partnership, filled with non productive back office, pr and over paid managers, would be better spent on real front line policing than some idiotic, easily avoided, polaroid on a pole!
Rossi 27
says...
12:29pm Mon 24 Aug 09
I say Right lets look at safety cameras with some sense please! FACT most injury and fatal collisions occur due to the INAPPROPRIATE use of speed for the road conditions or the road enviroment. Drivers exceeding the limit for example in built up areas, near schools or multiple junctions are far more likely to be involved in a collision or near collision than if they are driving under the SPEED LIMIT.
I live in a quiet housing estate with a 30mph limit we have had regular collisions, cars rolled over, even ending up in peoples gardens, my own car has been crashed into on 3 occasions which has been so serious as to write-off two vehicles and cause injuries, in virtually every case excess speed has been the main factor. I don't frankly agree with fixed cameras except outside schools because they only deal with the issue temporarily, how many times do you see a driver slow down and then increase there speed once passed? We need far more mobile cameras and Police officers enforcing the rules and addressing the poor driving standards we all see and parcipitate in every day. Let us all take responsibility for our actions.
Insight
says...
12:29pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Swindon paid £320,000 to their partnership every year before they dumped them for just 'five' nearly antique GATSO's with accidents continuing to rise.
£320,000 would furnish the police force with a fleet of 'ten' brand new BMW police cars every single year. Granted, you need police to operate them, but then, you need operatives to use mobile cameras and back office staff and you wouldn't need to buy ten brand new cars every single year now would you.
You're a Conservative, Cllr Lawton I thought you understood the concepts of value for money and cost effectiveness?
(Besides, you ever tried setting light to a real police officer?, they don't like it much you know!)
Insight
says...
12:34pm Mon 24 Aug 09
rayc
says...
12:46pm Mon 24 Aug 09
I do not know a single person who believes their operations do any good at all.
Insight
says...
12:51pm Mon 24 Aug 09
The partnerships across the country had nearly a million convictions overturned by the Independant Complaints Commision last year due to the inherantly unreliable nature of the mobile cameras, as exposed in a BBC documentary, combined with negligence and incompetence that lead to suspension and dismissal of staff right across the country.
They're still using the unreliable equipment, how many will be over turned by the IPCC this year and how many millions will it cost the tax payer to put right?
gerbil112
says...
12:57pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Have they not noticed that speeding among locals generally happens where there are no fixed cameras, or between fixed cameras such as on Wessex Way? The only sure-fire speed cameras that seem to work in reducung overall speed along a length of road are those that detect AVERAGE SPEED. But then I suppose they don't make as much revenue for the Partnership, even if they do increase road safety and speed awareness!
Insight
says...
12:58pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Then when you get a nip for speeding from a hidden camera van, the real owner pays your fine.
Just one of the side effects being exploited by criminals and banned drivers in this absurd camera era.
Insight
says...
1:04pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Those who don't think it through would say that 40 a week is unaccpetable and they're right. But that isn't the point. 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.
The camera supporters have been on a wild goose chase and now the latest generation of the equipment is so expensive it won't even pay for itself in the normal life time of the equipment. Don't be expecting average cams down your road anytime soon.
Insight
says...
1:17pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Whichever way it's spun, the cameras are the weaker yet more expensive alternative to real and proper policing where suspect drivers are pulled over and identified.
Cameras were the pipe dream of a bean counter, they don't work, no matter how many foolish councillors are easily parted from our council taxes and it's time to give them up and chalk it up to experience and go back to doing the job properly.
Insight
says...
1:27pm Mon 24 Aug 09
That's so painfully absurd, it's hilarious!
bobaub
says...
1:34pm Mon 24 Aug 09
That camera on Magna road was sited to catch the unsuspecting, partly hidden as it was by branches of a tree, and confused by the bus stop pole. The only danger at that point is the next junction where drivers push out on to the main road in front of oncoming vehicles. The camera forced drivers to slow to ridiculously low speeds, encouraging drivers at the junction to push out. How safe is that?
mossy 1
says...
1:51pm Mon 24 Aug 09
r junction.The speed of cars in the outside lane when joining from Cooperdean or from the Blackwater junction itself can be frightening,pulling into the outside lane sometimes impossible.Two,three times ayear the Wessex way is gridlocked with minor accidents a frequent event.
son of mike jones
says...
2:30pm Mon 24 Aug 09
mossy 1 wrote:You are spot on.
As terry1965 said ,where`s the camera at probably the one of the worst blackspots,Blackwate r junction.The speed of cars in the outside lane when joining from Cooperdean or from the Blackwater junction itself can be frightening,pulling into the outside lane sometimes impossible.Two,three times ayear the Wessex way is gridlocked with minor accidents a frequent event.
Come on DCP give us another camera here please.
Insight
says...
2:49pm Mon 24 Aug 09
None of the partnerships erect a fixed camera at a site where there is a history of minor accidents that can't be;
A: Resurfaced with expensive hi grip tarmac, replacing the original worn out tarmac that reduced adhesion between tyre and road surface and caused an increase in stopping distance, even at or below the speed limit, therefore causing an increase in collisions in the first place, which once resurfaced renders the actual camera irrelevant.
or;
B: Lower the speed limit still further to maintain the illusion that cameras actually do something.
Partnerships don’t put cameras where accidents may actually still occur after a camera is erected because that would obviously ruin the illusion and curtail further activity, the excuse will no doubt be there hasn't been any fatal crashes at that location. Sorry n all that, but it is a con and they think everyone is gullible enough to fall for it.
Insight
says...
2:57pm Mon 24 Aug 09
purbeckpara
says...
3:35pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
3:45pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Perhaps he'd like to know that it has already been announced that Londons camera partnership is to have it's central government funding (it's return from the fines) cut by 50% for 2010 and the word on the street is that all camera partnerships will be affected now that the camera revenue stream is drying up.
This will obviously mean our council taxes will come under significant strain to make up the shortfall in operating costs for the partnerships and make it very difficult to maintain George Osbournes pledge to freeze council tax, should the Conservatives come into office next year.
Would the councillor like to explain exactly what services he recommends should be cut to maintain a Camera Partnership full of non productive staff and a collection of aging impotent speed cameras please?, we've already lost 20% of our countrys traffic police to make way for them, what else has to go?
djd
says...
3:53pm Mon 24 Aug 09
The Government is using technology to replace police officers and even the Automatic Number Plate Reader (ANPR) system may tell an officer whether or not a vehicle is insured or taxed, but does not tell the officer the driver's licence status or whether or not drink or drugs play a part in the driver's metabolism.
Insight
says...
3:54pm Mon 24 Aug 09
purbeckpara wrote:Nearly a million convictions of drivers who were not speeding were over turned by the independent police complaints commission last year due to incompetence of staff and inherently unreliable equipment.
I say put a speed camera on every road ..and ...if you don't break the law you've got nothing to worry about ...its obviously law breakers that are causing this damage to public property and anyone caught damaging these safety cameras should be banned for life as they have no respect for other road users and pedestrians....come on life is to short to break the speed limit..and end up killing yourself and others.
This obviously doesn’t include all those overturned convictions on technicalities such as incorrect signage and other local avoidable mistakes had the job been done properly.
Or the number of people being convicted of speeding actually perpetrated by someone in a cloned vehicle.
Your claim that "If you don't break the law you've got nothing to worry about " is therefore patently ridiculous.
As for the rest of your comment, it is just stating the blinkin' obvious.
Insight
says...
4:03pm Mon 24 Aug 09
So, the conclusion I came to is this. If you live in an area with a lot of speed cameras, not only are you likely to be paying someone elses speeding fine when you car is cloned, you're more likely to have your car stolen as well and you might just bump into the car theif as you pad your way to the toilet in the early hours of the morning.
Could this be the law of unexpected consequences?
Lovely!!
tommytorets
says...
4:41pm Mon 24 Aug 09
tommytorets
says...
4:47pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Rally
says...
4:48pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Ef the ref wrote:All of which says a lot about your obvious lack of driving skills.
Surely they're more of a danger to motorists when the cameras are working, aren't they? Having to look out for cameras, constantly watching the speedometer instead of the road, other motorists suddenly braking when they see a speed camera etc. etc. Might be safer if they were ALL torched!
You shouldn't be needing to look out for these cameras.
You should be scanning the speedometer along with your driving mirrors and the road ahead, not staring at it.
You should be keeping your distance, then vehicles suddenly breaking wouldn't be a problem for you.
Take the IAM driving course/test, pass it, and the cameras will cease to be a problem for you - and you'll be less of a problem to other road users.
Insight
says...
5:03pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Increasing the relevance of the ordinary vehicle test to include more of the principles of the IAM would make much more of a difference to road safety than these cameras ever could. But then, there's no revenue for an incompetent government in common sense ideas like that.
Jeremy Klaxon
says...
5:35pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Buttler
says...
5:57pm Mon 24 Aug 09
EGHH
says...
6:03pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Tautologist
says...
6:08pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Could it be in preparation for the Lymington team's world land speed record for their steam-powered car ?
Insight
says...
6:40pm Mon 24 Aug 09
The Max Power Brigade turn up, burn out a camera, use the place as a race track then clear off to the next venue. Leaving the council tax payers to buy another one of these useless flamin' cameras....wonderful {sigh}
karateman1964
says...
7:30pm Mon 24 Aug 09
tommytorets
says...
8:09pm Mon 24 Aug 09
paul2
says...
8:18pm Mon 24 Aug 09
What are you lot afraid of?
karateman1964
says...
8:32pm Mon 24 Aug 09
paul2 wrote:Exactly Paul2..if you cant control your speed you should stop driving ..if you get fined take it on th chin your in the wrong and you know it.
NO SPEEDING = NO FINE. What are you lot afraid of?
Insight
says...
8:37pm Mon 24 Aug 09
karateman1964 wrote:Nobody's afraid of them, that's the whole point you doughnuts!
paul2 wrote: NO SPEEDING = NO FINE. What are you lot afraid of?Exactly Paul2..if you cant control your speed you should stop driving ..if you get fined take it on th chin your in the wrong and you know it.
karateman1964
says...
8:40pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight wrote:Who said anything about being afraid..was it me ..no ..get your facts right first matey
karateman1964 wrote:Nobody's afraid of them, that's the whole point you doughnuts!paul2 wrote: NO SPEEDING = NO FINE. What are you lot afraid of?Exactly Paul2..if you cant control your speed you should stop driving ..if you get fined take it on th chin your in the wrong and you know it.
Insight
says...
8:43pm Mon 24 Aug 09
karateman1964 wrote:er ..paul2 did and you said exactly and agreed with him.
Insight wrote:Who said anything about being afraid..was it me ..no ..get your facts right first mateykarateman1964 wrote:Nobody's afraid of them, that's the whole point you doughnuts!paul2 wrote: NO SPEEDING = NO FINE. What are you lot afraid of?Exactly Paul2..if you cant control your speed you should stop driving ..if you get fined take it on th chin your in the wrong and you know it.
Attention span of a goldfish perhaps?
karateman1964
says...
8:46pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
8:49pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Whatever!
...and your point was proven incorrect earlier in the blogg.
karateman1964
says...
8:50pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
8:56pm Mon 24 Aug 09
karateman1964
says...
8:57pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
9:02pm Mon 24 Aug 09
paul2 wrote:Nearly a million convictions of drivers who were not speeding were over turned by the independent police complaints commission last year due to incompetence of staff and inherently unreliable equipment.
NO SPEEDING = NO FINE. What are you lot afraid of?
This obviously doesn’t include all those overturned convictions on technicalities such as incorrect signage and other local avoidable mistakes had the job been done properly.
Or the number of people being convicted of speeding actually perpetrated by someone in a cloned vehicle.
Your claim of "NO SPEEDING = NO FINE." is therefore incorrect and misleading.
Tautologist
says...
9:02pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
9:09pm Mon 24 Aug 09
karateman1964
says...
9:16pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
9:25pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Drink and drugs are known as the biggest killers on the roads today are you so sure you've backed the right horse?
karateman1964
says...
9:28pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
9:29pm Mon 24 Aug 09
You might be happy with that, the rest of us realise what's going on out on the road the other eleven months of the year, whan the real police aren't there!
paul2
says...
9:29pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight wrote:Who is "them"?
karateman1964 wrote:Nobody's afraid of them, that's the whole point you doughnuts!paul2 wrote: NO SPEEDING = NO FINE. What are you lot afraid of?Exactly Paul2..if you cant control your speed you should stop driving ..if you get fined take it on th chin your in the wrong and you know it.
I was not referring to the police.
Are you afraid that you cannot be in control of your vehicle? -Are you afraid that will tot up so many points so as to eventually lose your licence, your right to drive a motor vehicle & maybe lose your job?
zuccster
says...
9:30pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
9:34pm Mon 24 Aug 09
paul2 wrote:Sorry paul, I'm not following your point, I'm not afraid of speed cameras and I have a clean license, thanks for the concern.
Insight wrote:Who is "them"? I was not referring to the police. Are you afraid that you cannot be in control of your vehicle? -Are you afraid that will tot up so many points so as to eventually lose your licence, your right to drive a motor vehicle & maybe lose your job?karateman1964 wrote:Nobody's afraid of them, that's the whole point you doughnuts!paul2 wrote: NO SPEEDING = NO FINE. What are you lot afraid of?Exactly Paul2..if you cant control your speed you should stop driving ..if you get fined take it on th chin your in the wrong and you know it.
Insight
says...
9:37pm Mon 24 Aug 09
karateman1964 wrote:We've lost 20% of our traffic police with some areas seeing a reduction of patrols of up to 80%.
its a speed camera (thats a hint)..and the police catch loads of those offenders..whilst its there maybe it could cook you a breakfast
Hospital admissions due to crashes involving and drugs are on the increase and are the biggest killers on the roads today.
Other than that, I'm not sure what point you're making about breakfast, that's just weird.
Insight
says...
9:39pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Hospital admissions due to crashes involving **Alcohol** and drugs are on the increase and are the biggest killers on the roads today.
Insight
says...
9:44pm Mon 24 Aug 09
The government has until November this year to correct it's figures if it wishes to continue to call them 'official'.
I assume you camera supporters simply didn't know and harping on at someone who disagree's with you as if you're right is what you normally do.
paul2
says...
9:45pm Mon 24 Aug 09
These "Arsonists" won't receive proper respect for what they are fighting for, which is I assume to get rid of the cameras).
Insight
says...
9:48pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Further the UK statistics authority have refused to sign off the governments figures for road casualties, because they don't match the more reliable hospital admissions statistics that indicate speed cameras have made no discernable difference to crashes or serious injury on Britain’s roads.
The government has until November this year to correct it's figures if it wishes to continue to call them 'official'.
I assume you camera supporters simply didn't know and harping on at someone who disagrees with you as if you were right is what you normally do.
Insight
says...
9:52pm Mon 24 Aug 09
paul2 wrote:I don't think they are paul, those of us who're campaigning for proper policing wouldn't even consider buring out a camera, because we know that it would be counter productive to the cause.
My point is, why is this issue of speeding such a big one; why are people afraid/angry (not you) they have to resort to burn down a camera and then be so proud? Are we still in the playground at school or something? These "Arsonists" won't receive proper respect for what they are fighting for, which is I assume to get rid of the cameras).
Quite often a max power factor (or similar faction, appoligees if I've accused max power unfairly on this one) move into an area, burn out the cameras and use the area as a race track for a while because their aren't any police out on the streets, because they're not receiving targets or funding from government for road casualty duty, then the faction move on leaving us council tax payers to foot the bill for burnt out cameras.
GAHmusic
says...
9:57pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
10:02pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Just what will we moan about when our roads are policed properly again?
Insight
says...
10:11pm Mon 24 Aug 09
The camera may be as about as useful as a chocolate tea pot, but at least it isn't costing the council tax payers their hard earned money to replace the flippin' worthless things.
Insight
says...
10:35pm Mon 24 Aug 09
I'd say the opposite was true and they hold them in contempt and make a laughing stock out of them.
Insight
says...
10:39pm Mon 24 Aug 09
paul2
says...
10:48pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight wrote:These rogues are afraid of something otherwise they wouldn't think twice about doing it (burning down a camera) would they?
Actually, while I think about it and there's a few camera supporters here. What makes you guys think the rogues who do this sort of thing are scared of cameras when they can render them inoperative with a match pot from the DIY centre? I'd say the opposite was true and they hold them in contempt and make a laughing stock out of them.
Tautologist
says...
10:56pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Tautologist
says...
10:57pm Mon 24 Aug 09
Insight
says...
1:51am Tue 25 Aug 09
si quid novisti rectius istis, candidus imperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Insight
says...
2:53am Tue 25 Aug 09
I come from a generation where if the old bill spotted you driving like a div, they'd have you and throw the book at you.
Today, it seems as long as you don't break a speed limit for a 100 yards either side of a camera you can do whatever the hell you want without any fear of being caught.
Out of sight, out of mind I suppose, no wonder the country is going to the dogs!
Cracksl
says...
6:15am Tue 25 Aug 09
You can only laugh at the way these cameras are touted as safety issues when even the police will use their revenue to gain a pay rise.
The do here in Perth Au and I suspect it's the same there
paul2
says...
6:29am Tue 25 Aug 09
Insight wrote:Don't take my word for it - it's just an opinion.
I'll have to take your word for it paul, because I really don't get it. I come from a generation where if the old bill spotted you driving like a div, they'd have you and throw the book at you. Today, it seems as long as you don't break a speed limit for a 100 yards either side of a camera you can do whatever the hell you want without any fear of being caught. Out of sight, out of mind I suppose, no wonder the country is going to the dogs!
terry1965
says...
8:03am Tue 25 Aug 09
Maggie69
says...
10:18am Tue 25 Aug 09
Insight
says...
10:28am Tue 25 Aug 09
It's not my fault these vandals are burning them out, why should I pay for a new one when I'd prefer that money spent on real policing.
If the cameras are as efficient as we've been lead to believe they'll be able to look after themselves and 'our money' can be put to more productive use.
Insight
says...
10:49am Tue 25 Aug 09
Just like the problems with binge drinking, the governments answer is to tax it, punishing everyone for the wrong doing of the minority.
Same with these cameras and our council taxes, the irresponsible minority burn them out, we have to bloody pay for it, not just the camera, but the fire service as well.
It appears even on this level the speed camera supporters tiresome old mantra of 'if you don't break the limit, you don't have to pay' is again proven to be a misleading load of old guff.
rayc
says...
11:30am Tue 25 Aug 09
Insight wrote:The current system is the correct one. The councils get money for road safety and how they spend it is up to them. They have to justify it to the electorate and the Government and if they spend it on inefficient cameras so be it. The previous system where the income from fines went to the Camera Partnership to perpetuate their empires was abused by all members of the partnership.
I believe the link between the cameras and our council tax needs to be severed. It's not my fault these vandals are burning them out, why should I pay for a new one when I'd prefer that money spent on real policing. If the cameras are as efficient as we've been lead to believe they'll be able to look after themselves and 'our money' can be put to more productive use.
Insight
says...
11:40am Tue 25 Aug 09
Perhaps the news that London has already had it's funding for speed cameras cut by 50% with others to follow, meaing the shortfall in operating budget is going to come directly out of our council taxes, will influence our councillors decision making processes when it comes to explaining to George Osbourne why Bournemouth aren't in a position to freeze council taxes without cutting more essential services, unlike the countys who don't run cameras and have superior casualty reduction performance.
Insight
says...
12:05pm Tue 25 Aug 09
That is a real life example of the price ordinary people have to pay for a greedy, short sighted, (previously Labour) council jumping on what was at the time the promise of a veritable gravy train of revenue from the speed camera ‘empire’ builders which has dwindled and what’s left been taken away by central government to prop up it's own mismanagement of the national economy, threatening and depleting their vital services and has ultimately resulted in nothing more than leaving their citizens with huge bills to pay that return nothing but the dubious accolade of being one of the worst counties for road casualties in the country.
A lesson should be learnt from that, so that our councillors don't repeat the mistakes of their fellows.
Fightingback
says...
1:14pm Tue 25 Aug 09
Sounds a better display than Roar on The Shore!
The public are sick to death of these taxation machines and it is the beginning of the end of them!
swimmerpaul
says...
1:14pm Tue 25 Aug 09
doodoo23
says...
1:31pm Tue 25 Aug 09
doodoo23
says...
1:31pm Tue 25 Aug 09
Insight
says...
2:23pm Tue 25 Aug 09
doodoo23 wrote:They don't put cameras on sites where there are likely to be accidents 'after' the camera is put there, because that would expose that they don't actually do anything. They either resurface the road, meaning it isn't an accident blackspot anymore and the camera is actually irrelevant. Or if it's is too expensive or impracticle to refurbish the road in question, they drop the speed limit to a ridiculously low level to make sure the myth of the camera isn't exposed. Either way, if there isn't a sufficient volume of traffic likey to be speeding at the site, there still won't be a camera if it isn't at least paying for itself.
speed cameras should be put in accident blackspots not in places that are just money makers,how many accidents have ther been this year at morden park corner answer 12 and still no camera
It is a confidence trick, perpetrated by a government who'd rather keep our road tax that we pay for the up keep of road network, to pay for illegal and fruitless wars in the middle east.
Meanwhile, some idiot in the same government, obviously believing his own BS, decided to cut funding for real police casualty reduction at the same time.
That I spose, is what you call a double wammy!
sturman
says...
11:57pm Tue 25 Aug 09
'Speed' cameras are not perceived as an effective tool in increasing road safety and should be removed.
If the Executive are so out of touch that they refuse to accept the wishes of the public, it is obvious that somebody will feel it acceptable to destroy them in our defence.
Who can blame them?
fedupwithjobsworths
says...
11:12am Wed 26 Aug 09
No no no - by diverting millions of pounds of money away from front line Police services it is the Dorset Camera "Safety" Partnerhip who are putting lives at risk. It's time to get rid of these chairbound wasters and use the money to employ real Police to patrol our roads.
Insight
says...
12:32pm Wed 26 Aug 09
Opposition to photo enforcement isn’t a peculiarly English obsession, it’s a global phenomena.
***********
Redflex, the biggest camera providers in the worlds have had their profit margins slashed across the world.
Their operations have now been curtailed in fourteen states of America following intense public opposition. One of the most notable being a public ballot in Louisiana, (where it appears, democracy still exists), which displayed a resounding 86% of the general public voting to have photo enforcement of both types of camera, speed and red light, banned and removed from their streets. The most recent American states to close the door on photo enforcement are Maine, Mississippi and Montana.
Of all its American contracts, the Arizona photo enforcement contract has proved the most costly to Redflex as intense public protest has forced lawmakers to cut speed cameras, this means they have lost $2.3 million on that one contract to date which has become a war of attrition that the company appears to be losing.
Australia is similarly affected as hundreds of thousands of drivers simply refuse to pay, (a growing problem here in the UK as well, with London alone showing 200,000 unpaid tickets last year). Putting an enormous burden on traditional police forces tasked to track down those who default, costing the tax payer millions of Australian Dollars.
Coinciding with a growing number of arson attacks on cameras (even more than here in the UK). Some of these arson attacks have been potentially life threatening, as Australians (unlike here in the UK so far), seem to be prepared to set light to camera vans as well, such is their outrage.
Redflex has also suffered further blows, having been exposed for providing deceptive and potentially misleading information to share holders and state legislature; Claiming success where collisions had in reality increased and new contracts claimed to have been obtained that had in reality been refused such as a contract renewal in Santa Ana, California where a Superior Court judge ruled the Speed Camera program to be "illegal and void".
***********
Now, I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m beginning to think this is a whole lot bigger than just some irate motorist or a group of kids flaming a camera.
Insight
says...
1:18pm Wed 26 Aug 09
I found an article on an Australian Business website (associated with an Australian Newspaper, similar to The Times or perhaps Financial Times) where Redflex, a private speed camera company, are explaining to their share holders that profits are expected to go down.
**********
“Redflex in late June warned that earnings for the year to June 2009 would be 10 per cent lower than the previous $15.26m. The downgrade stemmed from a fatal tragedy in April, when an employee in Phoenix, Arizona was shot on duty” and “No action has caused Redflex any "adverse effect over a period of time" and the number of inactive cameras has trended down to 3 per cent”. And on the subject of states ruling against photo enforcement, Redflex chief Graham Davie describes such legal challenges as "Part of the landscape in the US". He says: "A number of these things have been running and continue to run."
Redflex are currently spending more than $1m a year on legal fees and its own political lobbying to counter the ever-present threat of rollback.
**********
They tell us in the UK that speed cameras are all about road safety, but it appears their American cousins aren’t quite so coy about telling us what really matters, their profit margins and the threat of their lucrative contracts being curtailed through roll back.
Shame about the bloke dying, but still, it won’t hurt your profits in the long run!
Shameful, utterly shameful and so are all you people who’ve allowed yourselves to be lead up the garden path by a handful of spun figures and financially motivated heavy weight political lobbying that allows this corruption to continue.
btown
says...
2:24am Thu 27 Aug 09
Cracksl
says...
3:15am Thu 27 Aug 09
We know that safety has nothing to do with these mobile cameras.
We have had lots attacked because they are regarded as another way to gough out so $'s from the motorist.
http://www.google.co
m.au/#hl=en&ei=NeqVS
rbfNcOPkQWN5tyaDA&sa
=X&oi=spell&resnum=0
&ct=result&cd=1&q=we
stern+australia+Spee
d+cameras+attacked&s
pell=1&fp=7725f46d19
13a5db.
Even our own Cops admit that by their own actions.
http://www.news.com.
au/perthnow/story
In fact they cause acidents:
http://www.aussiespe
edingfines.com/pages
/Petition-To-Remove-
Cameras.html/0,27574
,25555678-2761,00.ht
ml
Zzzz
says...
4:29pm Thu 27 Aug 09
twobigdogs
says...
7:55pm Thu 27 Aug 09
Zzzz wrote:Ooooh..let me think... whats more dangerous.....someon
Whatever you think of speed cameras, setting fire to them is utterly irresponsible and potentially dangerous to other motorists passing by. Anyone willing to go out and commit arson just because they got a speeding ticket is one seriously deranged individual. I hope the police catch them soon.
e slamming on their brakes when approaching a revenue/speed camera.....or driving by one on fire in the middle of the night?..............
..............hmmmm
Insight
says...
8:46pm Thu 27 Aug 09
twobigdogs wrote:What's more dangerous, a speed camera on fire, or a councillor who probably already realises the speed camera era is coming to it's natural end, but can't be seen to give in to arsonists so that we're stuck with them for even longer?
Zzzz wrote: Whatever you think of speed cameras, setting fire to them is utterly irresponsible and potentially dangerous to other motorists passing by. Anyone willing to go out and commit arson just because they got a speeding ticket is one seriously deranged individual. I hope the police catch them soon.Ooooh..let me think... whats more dangerous.....someon e slamming on their brakes when approaching a revenue/speed camera.....or driving by one on fire in the middle of the night?.............. ..............hmmmm
tommytorets
says...
9:07pm Thu 27 Aug 09
With all the cameras about today including speed cameras you would think that there would be a zero crime rate and no body would be done for speeding but no the opposite has happened, crime is up due partly to the currant problems we are facing and people killed on our roads is rising so how do cameras help,
We need to reduce dramaticly our fixation with cameras everywhere and get back to ordinary policeing, burn all cameras, well done to who ever did this darstardly deed
Insight
says...
10:08am Fri 28 Aug 09
But if I may, I'll add to your point that on Sky the other day, they were reporting that only 'one' crime has benefited from every 'one thousand' CCTV cameras installed in London.
I think the concept of privacy is irrelevant, when you take into account that these things cost a fortune to purchase and operate and don't return hardly anything.
But as I said, I'll leave the CCTV issue to someone else.
Insight
says...
10:22am Fri 28 Aug 09
Just so that you realise the opposition to speed camera here isn't isolated, how about this article from Crawley in Sussex.
**********
Published Date: 28 August 2009
THE launch of a new mobile speed camera in Worth Road, Crawley, descended into chaos after furious residents called for permanent safety measures.
Angry residents hurled questions at Ken Seymour, project manager for Sussex Safer Roads Partnership, on Thursday (August 20) demanding to know why funds had not been put towards a more permanent speed restriction solution, such as traffic islands or a pedestrian crossing.
Instead of residents celebrating the new camera, many interrupted Mr Seymour during his opening speech, forcing Cllr Henry Smith, leader of West Sussex County Council, to step in to try and calm things down.
Kerry McCannant, whose father was seriously injured on the road, said: "My dad was the first one to be hit on Worth Road, and so I know first hand what it is like to have to deal with this every day.
"I want to know when we are going to get some traffic islands put in the road, we have two nurseries across here, and the traffic light crossing is too far away.
"How many more dead bodies do you want to accumulate? My dad is sat at home with a brain injury, he doesn't remember who he is most of the time. This is a very serious issue for everybody."
Following a very heated discussion, Cllr Henry Smith conceeded and said residents could expect to see traffic islands by 2010.
**********
Councillor Lawton; Nobody is being fooled anymore, do yourself a favour and realise it!!
Insight
says...
10:33am Sat 29 Aug 09
The one with the stoned youngsters in a car with the 'big eyes' that are apparently an unavoidable physiological side effect that gives away the fact that you've been using drugs and the police are trained to see it.
I have to admit it really made me laugh, not because of the seriousness of the offence, or the potential dangers of a bunch of drugged up youngsters in a car, which we're all aware is a growing problem and along with alcohol are the biggest killer on the roads in Britain today, that isn't funny at all.
What made me laugh was; The police are trained to see it? ...what ruddy police?. Some places in the country have lost 80% of their patrols to rely on these idiotic cameras, so who's going to be seeing these wide eyed junkies?
Mr Lawton, honestly, have a rethink, because it's clear the left hand of the DfT doesn't know what the right hand is talking about anymore.
I’ve never seen such an absurd load of old nonsense as this speed camera **** up in my entire life!
More News stories
- Suspect charged on Christmas Eve hit and run
- Swanage First School receives brand new play trail
- Cllr Peter Charon wins leadership award
- Blaze severely damages flat
- Coach mechanic Craig Adams named Daily Echo's Apprentice of the Year
- Felicity swapping Bournemouth for Africa
- Volunteers needed for unique scheme in which dogs help people
- Bournemouth's Pier Theatre is set for one last summer
- Victim’s jaw broken in vicious attack in Bournemouth
- Christchurch youngsters on song to win music prizes
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Insight says...
9:09am Mon 24 Aug 09
Setting fire to them is arson and a crime and a dangers the fire service and innocent people.
Two wrongs simply do not make a right!