Don't scrap cameras, says Rospa (From Bournemouth Echo)

Perry_Winkle wrote:
Dorset Road Safe and RoSPA both think that we should keep the cameras ...

... and in a recent poll turkeys voted to abolish Christmas.

pd7 wrote:
No it cuts down their jobs. Invest in police and patrols much more value for money. They catch "on the phone drivers" , "drink drivers" , "no insurance drivers" ,"unsafe cars" ..... and also speeders.

Nev Monkton wrote:

Perry_Winkle wrote: Dorset Road Safe and RoSPA both think that we should keep the cameras ... ... and in a recent poll turkeys voted to abolish Christmas.

RoSPA have no vested interest in keeping cameras, so their independent opinion is certainly of value.

rayc wrote:
We were told on the introduction of speed cameras that it would free up Ploce Officer to carry out real Police work. I wonder what the true figure is concerning dedicated traffic Officers numbers compared to pre introduction and now?
It reminds me that on the introduction of parking meters that the income would provide free off street parking.
Lies and more lies from those with vested interests. Despite what DSCP say on their web site the majority of the population do not support speed camera enforcement in it's current form. What worries me most is who gave Johnny Stephens' the right to spout this nonsense. He is head of Fixed Penalties, not the God of Road Safety, and has a vested interest in keeping his job so will say anything that backs up the cameras save lives mantra. If he really cared he would involve the public in his partnership and not hide behind the data protection act when it suits his purposes.

GB916 wrote:
The point alot of people have missed is,they are cutting funding to speed camera's to save money,which means they will hav eno money to fund extra plolice patrols,so the end result is you not only have people getting away still with no insurance,MOT etc and other offences,but you then have an increase in people breaking the speed limit and getting away with it,so for road safety in general it willbe lose lose alround.

Nev Monkton wrote:

GB916 wrote:
The point alot of people have missed is,they are cutting funding to speed camera's to save money,which means they will hav eno money to fund extra plolice patrols,so the end result is you not only have people getting away still with no insurance,MOT etc and other offences,but you then have an increase in people breaking the speed limit and getting away with it,so for road safety in general it willbe lose lose alround.

Spot on.

dorsetspeed wrote:

Nev Monkton wrote:

GB916 wrote: The point alot of people have missed is,they are cutting funding to speed camera's to save money,which means they will hav eno money to fund extra plolice patrols,so the end result is you not only have people getting away still with no insurance,MOT etc and other offences,but you then have an increase in people breaking the speed limit and getting away with it,so for road safety in general it willbe lose lose alround.

Spot on.

I don’t think so. Cameras only target an insignificant proportion of the roads and make drivers focus on not being caught by a speed camera more than anything else, while at the same time alienating drivers against all road safety activities. They are completely ineffective as a road safety method. Look at Swindon, a year on without cameras, no increase.

dorsetspeed wrote:

Nev Monkton wrote:

GB916 wrote: The point alot of people have missed is,they are cutting funding to speed camera's to save money,which means they will hav eno money to fund extra plolice patrols,so the end result is you not only have people getting away still with no insurance,MOT etc and other offences,but you then have an increase in people breaking the speed limit and getting away with it,so for road safety in general it willbe lose lose alround.

Spot on.

I don’t think so. Cameras only target an insignificant proportion of the roads and make drivers focus on not being caught by a speed camera more than anything else, while at the same time alienating drivers against all road safety activities. They are completely ineffective as a road safety method. Look at Swindon, a year on without cameras, no increase.

rayc wrote:
We were told on the introduction of speed cameras that it would free up Ploce Officer to carry out real Police work. I wonder what the true figure is concerning dedicated traffic Officers numbers compared to pre introduction and now? It reminds me that on the introduction of parking meters that the income would provide free off street parking. Lies and more lies from those with vested interests. Despite what DSCP say on their web site the majority of the population do not support speed camera enforcement in it's current form. What worries me most is who gave Johnny Stephens' the right to spout this nonsense. He is head of Fixed Penalties, not the God of Road Safety, and has a vested interest in keeping his job so will say anything that backs up the cameras save lives mantra. If he really cared he would involve the public in his partnership and not hide behind the data protection act when it suits his purposes.

dizzy17 wrote:
well there not they have now installed 2 cameras on springdale road that get you on your average speed I don't no if they are testing them or they are turned on but they are still investing .

captsanders wrote:
I see Rally and mikey2gorgeous are commenting here again with nothing significant as usual, they both, as usual, repeat everything other people leave as comments and then insult there intelligence by calling them irresponsible drivers because they exert their freedom of speech against speed cameras, they also label everyone who hates speed cameras as dangerous drivers.
Most dont hate speed cameras because of what they are, they hate them because of the inapproapriate way they are used.
I'm have a few theories about Rally and mikey2gorgeous, they are either siamese twins sharing one laptop, they both work for D,S,C,P and are scared about losing there jobs, they hold shares in the D,S,C,P or they are not two seperate people at all but one and the same.
In any event, although I read what these two, or one, writes I never get to the end because I am normally nodding off with boredom by then as their increasing support for speed cameras pales into an insignificant black hole as I read in other news every day about the carnage on our roads caused by drunk drivers, drivers on phones, unroarworthy vehicles, under age drivers, non insured drivers, drugged up drivers all of which get away scott free because a camera has not been invented yet to catch the 1000s of offenders that cause all these serious injuries and deaths which is supposedly attributed to speeding.
Only when other drivers committing more serious infringments are seen to get their just desserts will speed cameras be more widely accepted.
Untill then perhaps Rally and mikey2gorgeous could show absolute proof to me that I am still alive today as a result of a speed camera.

dorsetspeed wrote:
Sorry, comment to m2g should have been:M2g, I have not ever said that speed is not a problem on the roads, I have frequently said that it is, but current limits and enforcements are not addressing dangerous speed effectively

Nev Monkton wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote:
Sorry, comment to m2g should have been:M2g, I have not ever said that speed is not a problem on the roads, I have frequently said that it is, but current limits and enforcements are not addressing dangerous speed effectively

So what do you propose to improve road safety and address 'dangerous speed'? Ah, higher speed limits. Genius.

dorsetspeed wrote:

Nev Monkton wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote: Sorry, comment to m2g should have been:M2g, I have not ever said that speed is not a problem on the roads, I have frequently said that it is, but current limits and enforcements are not addressing dangerous speed effectively

So what do you propose to improve road safety and address 'dangerous speed'? Ah, higher speed limits. Genius.

The main point here is that existing speed cameras don't enforce speed limits very well so there won't be any significant problem removing them. Higher speed limits on some roads would help to restore some credibility and respect of limits, and could actually therefore result in LOWER speeds than now where limits may be ignored because they are too low. Higher speed limits on roads like Holes Bay won't be a problem anyway. . It is a bit difficult to see why anyone would not understand these simple common sense suggestions, I think this is why it seems so likley that those who argue so desperately to keep these ugly and entirely useless yellow boxes are in some way connected to the industry.

Nev Monkton wrote:

captsanders wrote:
I see Rally and mikey2gorgeous are commenting here again with nothing significant as usual, they both, as usual, repeat everything other people leave as comments and then insult there intelligence by calling them irresponsible drivers because they exert their freedom of speech against speed cameras, they also label everyone who hates speed cameras as dangerous drivers.
Most dont hate speed cameras because of what they are, they hate them because of the inapproapriate way they are used.
I'm have a few theories about Rally and mikey2gorgeous, they are either siamese twins sharing one laptop, they both work for D,S,C,P and are scared about losing there jobs, they hold shares in the D,S,C,P or they are not two seperate people at all but one and the same.
In any event, although I read what these two, or one, writes I never get to the end because I am normally nodding off with boredom by then as their increasing support for speed cameras pales into an insignificant black hole as I read in other news every day about the carnage on our roads caused by drunk drivers, drivers on phones, unroarworthy vehicles, under age drivers, non insured drivers, drugged up drivers all of which get away scott free because a camera has not been invented yet to catch the 1000s of offenders that cause all these serious injuries and deaths which is supposedly attributed to speeding.
Only when other drivers committing more serious infringments are seen to get their just desserts will speed cameras be more widely accepted.
Untill then perhaps Rally and mikey2gorgeous could show absolute proof to me that I am still alive today as a result of a speed camera.

There's always someone committing a worse offence, isn't there? Yet if some yob vandalised your property, you'd be the first to complain that the police weren't adopting a zero-tolerance policy if they let the culprit off. Yet when it comes to speeding, you think they should ignore it because there are 'worse offenders'.
.
It's a pathetic argument, as is your completely unfounded allegation that anyone saying that speed cameras may be of some use must be employed by the DSCP. Such remarks make you look even more foolish.

captsanders wrote:

Nev Monkton wrote:

captsanders wrote: I see Rally and mikey2gorgeous are commenting here again with nothing significant as usual, they both, as usual, repeat everything other people leave as comments and then insult there intelligence by calling them irresponsible drivers because they exert their freedom of speech against speed cameras, they also label everyone who hates speed cameras as dangerous drivers. Most dont hate speed cameras because of what they are, they hate them because of the inapproapriate way they are used. I'm have a few theories about Rally and mikey2gorgeous, they are either siamese twins sharing one laptop, they both work for D,S,C,P and are scared about losing there jobs, they hold shares in the D,S,C,P or they are not two seperate people at all but one and the same. In any event, although I read what these two, or one, writes I never get to the end because I am normally nodding off with boredom by then as their increasing support for speed cameras pales into an insignificant black hole as I read in other news every day about the carnage on our roads caused by drunk drivers, drivers on phones, unroarworthy vehicles, under age drivers, non insured drivers, drugged up drivers all of which get away scott free because a camera has not been invented yet to catch the 1000s of offenders that cause all these serious injuries and deaths which is supposedly attributed to speeding. Only when other drivers committing more serious infringments are seen to get their just desserts will speed cameras be more widely accepted. Untill then perhaps Rally and mikey2gorgeous could show absolute proof to me that I am still alive today as a result of a speed camera.

There's always someone committing a worse offence, isn't there? Yet if some yob vandalised your property, you'd be the first to complain that the police weren't adopting a zero-tolerance policy if they let the culprit off. Yet when it comes to speeding, you think they should ignore it because there are 'worse offenders'. . It's a pathetic argument, as is your completely unfounded allegation that anyone saying that speed cameras may be of some use must be employed by the DSCP. Such remarks make you look even more foolish.

More jibber jabbering as usual, still waiting for some proof that I am still alive today because of a yellow box This claptrap about someone commotting a worse offence, I would consider drunk driving much worse than speeding and much more dangerous. not only have these people no control over their vehicle but they often think that they are Lewis Hamilton, but from your view it seems that you are quite happy to let drunk drivers run riot on our roads, just as long as speeders get caught, what a weird outlook you have, In your little world we increase speed camera use to trap minor offenders but we let the drunks take over and kill hundreds on the pavement.

twobigdogs wrote:
Hear we go again!...."rally" and "mikey2" spouting their usual camera nonsense.As soon as speed cameras are mentioned they go off on one! Perhaps they should form their own scamera partnership....they obviously have nothing else better to do!.........

Insight wrote:
Afterall, regardless of all the rhetoric, what good is a law based on a device that is simply incapable of catching all those who know how to avoid it?

Insight wrote:
As an ever growing segment of driving society arm themselves with cheap dashboard camera avoidance devices, GPS and even smart phones, effectively outsmarting and opting out of speed camera enforcement, the usual suspects continue to wage their war of words in support of the now obsolete camera projects. It is this kind of backward, stubborn, unable to acknowledge or accept change and stick with the faulty concept to the bitter end, even though it doesn't work, way of thinking that's wrong. Today cameras are simply irrelevant and therefore so are the comments in support of them.

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: Afterall, regardless of all the rhetoric, what good is a law based on a device that is simply incapable of catching all those who know how to avoid it?

Hmm, burglars have been known to defeat all kinds of security devices. Perhaps we should stop making burglary an offence.

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: As an ever growing segment of driving society arm themselves with cheap dashboard camera avoidance devices, GPS and even smart phones, effectively outsmarting and opting out of speed camera enforcement, the usual suspects continue to wage their war of words in support of the now obsolete camera projects. It is this kind of backward, stubborn, unable to acknowledge or accept change and stick with the faulty concept to the bitter end, even though it doesn't work, way of thinking that's wrong. Today cameras are simply irrelevant and therefore so are the comments in support of them.

Insight, My understanding is that the majority of supporters of fixed speed cameras also support a general increase in policing along with a clampdown on other driving offences (driving without due care and attention, reckless driving, dangerous driving, driving when drunk, using a mobile phone, and so on). Some supporters of fixed speed cameras would like to see extra policing replace the cameras entirely, whereas others (including myself) would like to have both the cameras and extra policing. Given our country's current economic climate and most people's reluctance to pay yet more taxes (no matter what label is pasted on them), funding any road safety scheme is going to prove very difficult indeed. Would it be too much to ask for you to take these points into consideration before once more railing against those of us who simply do not, repeat do not, want to keep fixed speed cameras at the expense of more policing.

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: As an ever growing segment of driving society arm themselves with cheap dashboard camera avoidance devices, GPS and even smart phones, effectively outsmarting and opting out of speed camera enforcement, the usual suspects continue to wage their war of words in support of the now obsolete camera projects. It is this kind of backward, stubborn, unable to acknowledge or accept change and stick with the faulty concept to the bitter end, even though it doesn't work, way of thinking that's wrong. Today cameras are simply irrelevant and therefore so are the comments in support of them.

Insight, My understanding is that the majority of supporters of fixed speed cameras also support a general increase in policing along with a clampdown on other driving offences (driving without due care and attention, reckless driving, dangerous driving, driving when drunk, using a mobile phone, and so on). Some supporters of fixed speed cameras would like to see extra policing replace the cameras entirely, whereas others (including myself) would like to have both the cameras and extra policing. Given our country's current economic climate and most people's reluctance to pay yet more taxes (no matter what label is pasted on them), funding any road safety scheme is going to prove very difficult indeed. Would it be too much to ask for you to take these points into consideration before once more railing against those of us who simply do not, repeat do not, want to keep fixed speed cameras at the expense of more policing.

Nobody I've seen (beyond the occasional internet troll deliberately playing devils advocate) advocates any form of law breaking (no matter how it get’s spun) and although you say you ‘don’t want to keep fixed speed cameras at the expense of more policing’ I'm afraid that is exactly what’s happened and now that all of these first generation speed cameras are at the end of their useful lives and need replacing just to stay as it is and camera avoidance technology renders them all impotent anyway we're all paying the price for adopting the wrong strategy and no amount of argument is going to fix a fatally flawed concept as any money spent on them now is simply more good money after bad.

twobigdogs wrote:
Well ....perhaps you are right......but I tend to go off on one when I see your daft comments blindly going on about keeping the cameras! I think you should both move on and accept that the cameras are only there to make money and thats the only thing they have realy ever done.Leave speeding for the Police to deal with.

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote:

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: As an ever growing segment of driving society arm themselves with cheap dashboard camera avoidance devices, GPS and even smart phones, effectively outsmarting and opting out of speed camera enforcement, the usual suspects continue to wage their war of words in support of the now obsolete camera projects. It is this kind of backward, stubborn, unable to acknowledge or accept change and stick with the faulty concept to the bitter end, even though it doesn't work, way of thinking that's wrong. Today cameras are simply irrelevant and therefore so are the comments in support of them.

Insight, My understanding is that the majority of supporters of fixed speed cameras also support a general increase in policing along with a clampdown on other driving offences (driving without due care and attention, reckless driving, dangerous driving, driving when drunk, using a mobile phone, and so on). Some supporters of fixed speed cameras would like to see extra policing replace the cameras entirely, whereas others (including myself) would like to have both the cameras and extra policing. Given our country's current economic climate and most people's reluctance to pay yet more taxes (no matter what label is pasted on them), funding any road safety scheme is going to prove very difficult indeed. Would it be too much to ask for you to take these points into consideration before once more railing against those of us who simply do not, repeat do not, want to keep fixed speed cameras at the expense of more policing.

Nobody I've seen (beyond the occasional internet troll deliberately playing devils advocate) advocates any form of law breaking (no matter how it get’s spun) and although you say you ‘don’t want to keep fixed speed cameras at the expense of more policing’ I'm afraid that is exactly what’s happened and now that all of these first generation speed cameras are at the end of their useful lives and need replacing just to stay as it is and camera avoidance technology renders them all impotent anyway we're all paying the price for adopting the wrong strategy and no amount of argument is going to fix a fatally flawed concept as any money spent on them now is simply more good money after bad.

Hello Insight, To play Devil's Advocate and to advocate something are two different things. Playing Devil's Advocate is always a deliberate act. If you do a bit of research you will find that the cuts in policing had little, if anything, to do with funding the cameras. Please explain how a police patrol is better than a fixed speed camera at detecting motorists exceeding the posted speed limit. It is well known that a motorist who sees a police vehicle is likely to slow down for a longer period/greater distance than had it been a fixed speed camera he saw. I'm sure you'll understand the cause of this. Now, aside from this phenomenon, what makes a police patrol more efficient than a fixed speed camera when it comes to detecting motorists exceeding the posted speed limit? And please, no fudging the issue with talk about speeding, drink-driving, etc. Let's, just for once, try and discuss/debate this contentious issue a point at a time.

Rossi 27 wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote:

Nev Monkton wrote:

GB916 wrote: The point alot of people have missed is,they are cutting funding to speed camera's to save money,which means they will hav eno money to fund extra plolice patrols,so the end result is you not only have people getting away still with no insurance,MOT etc and other offences,but you then have an increase in people breaking the speed limit and getting away with it,so for road safety in general it willbe lose lose alround.

Spot on.

I don’t think so. Cameras only target an insignificant proportion of the roads and make drivers focus on not being caught by a speed camera more than anything else, while at the same time alienating drivers against all road safety activities. They are completely ineffective as a road safety method. Look at Swindon, a year on without cameras, no increase.

Once again your argument goes down the drain,a recent report in the local Swindon paper stated that shortly after the cameras were switched off a check was made on one particularly dangerous stretch of road(I know it well) and caught 15 drivers in a period of 1 hour exceeding the 30mph limit. A senior Police officer in the nearby Thames Valley force was noted in a report in the Times recently that they had measured an 88% increase in speeding on sections where cameras had been shut down. I know that you and some others are great at spouting statistics and figures to prove your case so I thought you would like some which go against your case,just in the interest of balance.

Insight wrote:

Rossi 27 wrote:

dorsetspeed wrote:

Nev Monkton wrote:

GB916 wrote: The point alot of people have missed is,they are cutting funding to speed camera's to save money,which means they will hav eno money to fund extra plolice patrols,so the end result is you not only have people getting away still with no insurance,MOT etc and other offences,but you then have an increase in people breaking the speed limit and getting away with it,so for road safety in general it willbe lose lose alround.

Spot on.

I don’t think so. Cameras only target an insignificant proportion of the roads and make drivers focus on not being caught by a speed camera more than anything else, while at the same time alienating drivers against all road safety activities. They are completely ineffective as a road safety method. Look at Swindon, a year on without cameras, no increase.

Once again your argument goes down the drain,a recent report in the local Swindon paper stated that shortly after the cameras were switched off a check was made on one particularly dangerous stretch of road(I know it well) and caught 15 drivers in a period of 1 hour exceeding the 30mph limit. A senior Police officer in the nearby Thames Valley force was noted in a report in the Times recently that they had measured an 88% increase in speeding on sections where cameras had been shut down. I know that you and some others are great at spouting statistics and figures to prove your case so I thought you would like some which go against your case,just in the interest of balance.

Any chance we could have the whole story please? + SPEED camera officials have been accused of releasing “misleading” figures after it emerged fewer drivers were breaking the law at a camera site since Oxfordshire’s cameras were switched off. ... Last week, Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership claimed a roadside camera on the A44 in Woodstock had seen an 18.3 per cent increase in speed offences since the switch-off compared to the number caught earlier in 2010. ... At the same time a radar inside a second camera in Watlington Road, Blackbird Leys — which cannot take pictures of offenders — registered an 88 per cent rise in offences when compared with figures in the previous two years. ... When The Oxford Times requested data for the Woodstock camera for 2008 and 2009 to make an equal comparison we were told those figures were not readily to hand. ... Now 'The Oxford Times' has obtained the information it shows speed offences actually fell by four per cent at the Woodstock camera, close to Blenheim Palace, during five days of monitoring since the switch-off on August 1, compared to offences committed between 2008 and 2009. ... Woodstock town councillor and former mayor Peter Jay said: “This is lies, **** lies and statistics. ... “It’s always wrong if anyone misuses figures and if a public authority misuses them it’s not only wrong but a disgrace.”

Insight wrote:
As you're so desperate for a little (any) recognition, while you invariably appear to have absolutely nothing of interest to add to the conversation McPricker I'll indulge you this once. Can you please expand on your theory that drink driving is about the same as speeding please, as I found your earlier comments absolutely fascinating and I’m sure everyone else will as well. Alternatively you can always browse http://www.flayme.co m/troll/ it may go some way to explaining why everyone generally appears to ignore you in spite of your obvious maturity and well thought out comments.

Insight wrote:
I'm surprised Rally, I thought you'd have something to say about Thames Valley Safety Camera Partnership being caught red handed and lying. Still, I suppose we'll just have to get used to you resorting to insult at the end of these articles, it's clearly becoming something of a habit.

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote: I'm surprised Rally, I thought you'd have something to say about Thames Valley Safety Camera Partnership being caught red handed and lying. Still, I suppose we'll just have to get used to you resorting to insult at the end of these articles, it's clearly becoming something of a habit.

Then, you thought wrong, Insight. I've grown tired of wading through your floods of what I see as bigoted and repetitive verbiage. In my opinion, Insight, you are a classic know-all, and everybody knows what a waste of time and effort it is to try and reason with such a person.

Rally wrote:

Insight wrote:
As you're so desperate for a little (any) recognition, while you invariably appear to have absolutely nothing of interest to add to the conversation McPricker I'll indulge you this once. Can you please expand on your theory that drink driving is about the same as speeding please, as I found your earlier comments absolutely fascinating and I’m sure everyone else will as well. Alternatively you can always browse http://www.flayme.co m/troll/ it may go some way to explaining why everyone generally appears to ignore you in spite of your obvious maturity and well thought out comments.

Hello Insight,
Think of your egotism or self-righteousness as a large over-inflated balloon.
Now think of McPricker as a bright, shiny, and very sharp pin.
____________________

___
p.s. I do hope McPricker won't mind my likening him/her to 'a bright, shiny, and very sharp pin'.

McPricker wrote:
One question for Insight, though: How much does a speed camera cost per annum, and how much revenue is the Holes Bay Road one taking? Would that be making a profit or a loss then?

McPricker wrote:
I think the opposite: a successful camera is one that raises lots of money for the Treasury, helping to pay off the deficit. In other words, a tax on the stupid. Why would anyone be against a tax on the stupid, I wonder? I suspect it's the sort of person who like COPY and PASTE, COPY and PASTE, COPY and PASTE…

Insight wrote:
A word of warning for you McPricker, seeing as you didn't even know what a troll was until I told you. Having multiple ID's seems like a clever idea, but the site you're posting to retains the ip address from the isp that they're posted from and removing posts and even the user id's who abuse it in this manner are generally quite easy for the sysop or board owner.

Nev Monkton wrote:

Perry_Winkle wrote: Dorset Road Safe and RoSPA both think that we should keep the cameras ... ... and in a recent poll turkeys voted to abolish Christmas.

RoSPA have no vested interest in keeping cameras, so their independent opinion is certainly of value.

Pepper Pig wrote:

Nev Monkton wrote:

Perry_Winkle wrote: Dorset Road Safe and RoSPA both think that we should keep the cameras ... ... and in a recent poll turkeys voted to abolish Christmas.

RoSPA have no vested interest in keeping cameras, so their independent opinion is certainly of value.

I agree. RoSPA, as in independant safety promoter has nothing to gain from cameras being left on. As the article states, "DRS recently announced plans to slowly phase out fixed cameras in favour of more mobile and average speed cameras. " At least with fixed cameras we can see the big box on a pole and can slow down (unless you're too stupid to realise it!). With mobile cameras you won't have a clue that it's there until it's too late! So Perry Winkle (? does the name 'winkle' indicate that you are a small man?) will you be happy when even more motorists are caught by the mobile and average speed cameras??? Those of you who want these cameras switched off will be regreting your words in a year or two!