--------------
Transport - Speed Cameras The government would have us all believe that 'safety cameras' are used purely for the purpose of road safety by reducing accidents. Here is proof that these cameras are intended solely to generate revenue from the motorist. A city council's battery of new "self-financing" digital speed cameras has focused drivers' minds so successfully that their income from fixed-penalty tickets has resulted in a £2,000-a-month deficit. But, while failing by a wide margin to cover their running costs, the installations have reduced average speeds by 5mph on Nottingham's 40mph ring road and the 30mph M1 link and cut accidents by more than half. City council officials, studying a report on the new cameras were left pondering on the respective merits of a road safety triumph and a financial disaster. The cameras, the first of their kind in Europe, measure speeds over a specific distance between two points up to a mile apart. They signal violations to a central control centre which issues £40 tickets. When the six camera units were installed the council predicted that they would catch 60 speeding drivers a day who would pay £2,400 in fixed fines into council coffers. At that rate, said officials, they would quickly cover their £350,000 cost and produce profits to be spent on installing further units elsewhere in the city. But the sight of the lenses staring balefully down from overhead gantries has slowed traffic so much that the six cameras together are only "harvesting" a total of nine speeding drivers per day. This is worth just £360 in fines. In their first seven months the system has netted 1,966 offenders who have paid £79,000 in fines. Brian Parbutt, the council's deputy leader, admitted, "They haven't turned out to be the money-spinner we expected." Stewart Thompson, head of the council's road safety department, added, "If things carry on as they are we will have to revise our plans to extend the scheme." A key part of the government's crackdown on crime by teenage tearaways was quietly ditched. Home Secretary David Blunkett had planned to set fixed time limits for such cases to reach court and be dealt with. And in pilot projects throughout the country, the scheme HAD been successful in dealing with young thugs. But ministers thought it put too much pressure on the police and the prosecution service and was too costly. Motorists continue to be the easiest option.
Transport - Speed Cameras The government would have us all believe that 'safety cameras' are used purely for the purpose of road safety by reducing accidents. Here is proof that these cameras are intended solely to generate revenue from the motorist.
A city council's battery of new "self-financing" digital speed cameras has focused drivers' minds so successfully that their income from fixed-penalty tickets has resulted in a £2,000-a-month deficit. But, while failing by a wide margin to cover their running costs, the installations have reduced average speeds by 5mph on Nottingham's 40mph ring road and the 30mph M1 link and cut accidents by more than half. City council officials, studying a report on the new cameras were left pondering on the respective merits of a road safety triumph and a financial disaster. The cameras, the first of their kind in Europe, measure speeds over a specific distance between two points up to a mile apart. They signal violations to a central control centre which issues £40 tickets. When the six camera units were installed the council predicted that they would catch 60 speeding drivers a day who would pay £2,400 in fixed fines into council coffers. At that rate, said officials, they would quickly cover their £350,000 cost and produce profits to be spent on installing further units elsewhere in the city. But the sight of the lenses staring balefully down from overhead gantries has slowed traffic so much that the six cameras together are only "harvesting" a total of nine speeding drivers per day. This is worth just £360 in fines. In their first seven months the system has netted 1,966 offenders who have paid £79,000 in fines. Brian Parbutt, the council's deputy leader, admitted, "They haven't turned out to be the money-spinner we expected." Stewart Thompson, head of the council's road safety department, added, "If things carry on as they are we will have to revise our plans to extend the scheme." A key part of the government's crackdown on crime by teenage tearaways was quietly ditched. Home Secretary David Blunkett had planned to set fixed time limits for such cases to reach court and be dealt with. And in pilot projects throughout the country, the scheme HAD been successful in dealing with young thugs. But ministers thought it put too much pressure on the police and the prosecution service and was too costly. Motorists continue to be the easiest option.
Drivers could write off speeding fines simply by refusing to SIGN forms sent out by the police. An amazing loophole in the law means motorists can escape conviction if they leave the space for their names blank. The law requires them to fill in forms supplying information requested by cops — but does NOT oblige them to provide a signature. And if the forms are unsigned they lose their validity as evidence in court. The law states that the “registered keeper” of a vehicle must supply this information or risk a fine of as much as £2,500. Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman Peter Shipley confirmed, “Officers do not have the power to force people to sign.” The RAC Foundation’s Edmund King warned, “This could make speed cameras ineffective.” A speed camera operator hid in a BUS SHELTER and even used roadside trees as extra cover. After parking his van out of sight he set up under the shelter in Bristol. Police chiefs recently slammed Avon, Somerset and Gloucs Safety Camera Partnership for parking on roundabouts, bus lay-bys, cycle lanes and double yellow lines. The Partnership insisted the operator was working within its guidelines but admitted having no good reason for him not to stand in the open. Tony Vickers of the Association of British Drivers said, “This is the latest way of ensuring revenues are kept high.” Next >>> Home These articles have been collected from various sources. If you are the copyright owner of any of them, contact us for either a credit and link to your site or removal of the article.
Drivers could write off speeding fines simply by refusing to SIGN forms sent out by the police. An amazing loophole in the law means motorists can escape conviction if they leave the space for their names blank. The law requires them to fill in forms supplying information requested by cops — but does NOT oblige them to provide a signature. And if the forms are unsigned they lose their validity as evidence in court. The law states that the “registered keeper” of a vehicle must supply this information or risk a fine of as much as £2,500. Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman Peter Shipley confirmed, “Officers do not have the power to force people to sign.” The RAC Foundation’s Edmund King warned, “This could make speed cameras ineffective.”
A speed camera operator hid in a BUS SHELTER and even used roadside trees as extra cover. After parking his van out of sight he set up under the shelter in Bristol. Police chiefs recently slammed Avon, Somerset and Gloucs Safety Camera Partnership for parking on roundabouts, bus lay-bys, cycle lanes and double yellow lines. The Partnership insisted the operator was working within its guidelines but admitted having no good reason for him not to stand in the open. Tony Vickers of the Association of British Drivers said, “This is the latest way of ensuring revenues are kept high.”
Next >>>
Home
These articles have been collected from various sources. If you are the copyright owner of any of them, contact us for either a credit and link to your site or removal of the article.
Economics
Transport
Law
Links
Sneaky Speed Cameras
How the police get away with it
--------------