Speed Camera on Halifax Road 7/11/08

[sheffworker 11]

that camera was still there in the DARK and was not very visible at all - i thought they had to be clearly visible from a distance??

 

don't agree with excessive speed, tho.

[pitsmoorlad 10]

that camera was still there in the DARK and was not very visible at all - i thought they had to be clearly visible from a distance??

 

don't agree with excessive speed, tho.

 

So if the camera's still active in the dark, does it make a difference. I understood that speed cameras should be visible, that's why they're painted yellow.

 

Also, the temporary setting up of portable speed camera's has got to be an income raising scheme. If the idea is to enforce reduced speed, why not put up a permanent camera. Maybe the camera partnership peole are needing funds for their Staff Christmas Dinner.

[Em11ro 10]

it is all about money making, but because of all the camera signs along that road they are your warning so the camera doesn't have to be visable however it did have a yellow reflective panel on the front of it. as for a permanent one that wouldn't make half as much money as sitting in the dark in an unmarked van does.

[Planner1 431]

So if the camera's still active in the dark, does it make a difference. I understood that speed cameras should be visible, that's why they're painted yellow.

 

Also, the temporary setting up of portable speed camera's has got to be an income raising scheme. If the idea is to enforce reduced speed, why not put up a permanent camera. Maybe the camera partnership peole are needing funds for their Staff Christmas Dinner.

 

How is a mobile camera more of an income raising scheme than a fixed one? If people don't spped, there's no income.

 

Did people complain that it was a money making scheme when they were followed by the police and pulled for speeding? Use of cameras is just a more up-to date way of doing it.

 

They can cover more sites by using mobile cameras. People are well aware of permanent camera sites and just slow down at that particular point, the mobile cameras are sometimes used near fixed sites to counteract this.

 

They can also cover "areas of local concern" where people are complaining about speed of vehicles.

[Darbees 10]

How is a mobile camera more of an income raising scheme than a fixed one? If people don't spped, there's no income.

 

Did people complain that it was a money making scheme when they were followed by the police and pulled for speeding? Use of cameras is just a more up-to date way of doing it.

 

They can cover more sites by using mobile cameras. People are well aware of permanent camera sites and just slow down at that particular point, the mobile cameras are sometimes used near fixed sites to counteract this.

 

They can also cover "areas of local concern" where people are complaining about speed of vehicles.

It may be more up to date but it doesn't have any discretion like the police do/did have and will zap anyone regardless of the prevailing traffic conditions. When the police pull people for speeding they are more inclined to use their discretion and if it's a minor transgression often simply remind a person that they are breaking the limit and tick them off as a deterrant, in that way the public are more likely to stay on the side of the police. This particular site is quite clearly a big revenue earner and nothing else. The only time when a camera may be appropriate on that stretch of road is when the school children are around.

[Planner1 431]

It may be more up to date but it doesn't have any discretion like the police do/did have and will zap anyone regardless of the prevailing traffic conditions. When the police pull people for speeding they are more inclined to use their discretion and if it's a minor transgression often simply remind a person that they are breaking the limit and tick them off as a deterrant, in that way the public are more likely to stay on the side of the police. This particular site is quite clearly a big revenue earner and nothing else. The only time when a camera may be appropriate on that stretch of road is when the school children are around.

 

The problem is that the public also want the police to be out solving crimes and that's where the polce's government targets and indicators are aimed, so they've cut down massively on road traffic policing. Consequently the police don't really want to get involved in areas where other agencies can do the work ie speed enforcement, red light abuse, bus lane abuse. More and more enforcement powers are being transferred to Local Authorities, like enforcement of box junction and banned turns etc.

 

The speed cameras don't enforce exactly to the limit, the Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines say they should start to issue fines at the speed limit +10% + 2mph (ie 30 + 3 +2 = 35mph you get a ticket, 34mph you don't), so there is "leeway" for "minor" indescretions. One advantage is consistency, so whether or not you get a ticket doesn't depend on what mood the officer who catches you is in.

 

Basically across the country, the "tolerance" level for speeding has decreased. Where at one time you were likely not to get a ticket if you stayed under 40 and drove sensibly, now it's less than 35. That's a general thrust of Governement policy, to reduce road casualties by reducing speed. Whether or not you agree that it's appropriate to put that much emphasis on speed, is another matter.

[DaFoot 10]

that camera was still there in the DARK and was not very visible at all - i thought they had to be clearly visible from a distance??

 

don't agree with excessive speed, tho.

 

There in lies the issue I have with those that insist you should be able to see the cameras from a distance - I think they should be painted in the same drab/dark colours a lot of pedestrians wear....

[Darbees 10]

The problem is that the public also want the police to be out solving crimes and that's where the polce's government targets and indicators are aimed, so they've cut down massively on road traffic policing. Consequently the police don't really want to get involved in areas where other agencies can do the work ie speed enforcement, red light abuse, bus lane abuse. More and more enforcement powers are being transferred to Local Authorities, like enforcement of box junction and banned turns etc.

 

The speed cameras don't enforce exactly to the limit, the Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines say they should start to issue fines at the speed limit +10% + 2mph (ie 30 + 3 +2 = 35mph you get a ticket, 34mph you don't), so there is "leeway" for "minor" indescretions. One advantage is consistency, so whether or not you get a ticket doesn't depend on what mood the officer who catches you is in.

 

Basically across the country, the "tolerance" level for speeding has decreased. Where at one time you were likely not to get a ticket if you stayed under 40 and drove sensibly, now it's less than 35. That's a general thrust of Governement policy, to reduce road casualties by reducing speed. Whether or not you agree that it's appropriate to put that much emphasis on speed, is another matter.

 

That, of course has the added advantage of raising more revenue for the authorities, disguised as a safety scheme. Familiar theme in your arguments methinks.

[Darbees 10]

There in lies the issue I have with those that insist you should be able to see the cameras from a distance - I think they should be painted in the same drab/dark colours a lot of pedestrians wear....

It is a better that they are visible as a deterrant than catching people out with sneaky tactics. If the authorities really wanted to deter speeding they would put cameras everywhere most of which were inactive for cost/admin reasons and move the working insides around the sites at random. If the cameras didn't make any money it would prove that the deterrant worked. Unfortunately, as we all know, that isn't why cameras exist.

[DaFoot 10]

It is a better that they are visible as a deterrant than catching people out with sneaky tactics. If the authorities really wanted to deter speeding they would put cameras everywhere most of which were inactive for cost/admin reasons and move the working insides around the sites at random. If the cameras didn't make any money it would prove that the deterrant worked. Unfortunately, as we all know, that isn't why cameras exist.

 

Fair enough.

Like the idea of moving the innards around the boxes so you never know which are active at a given time, or would that lead to gambling on whether a box was active?

 

I'd go a step further and have a team of traffic officers monitoring the trouble junction at random and dishing out tickets - could make a fortune off the roundabout on Bradfield Road in Hillsborough from drivers in wrong lanes alone!

[Darbees 10]

I'd go a step further and have a team of traffic officers monitoring the trouble junction at random and dishing out tickets - could make a fortune off the roundabout on Bradfield Road in Hillsborough from drivers in wrong lanes alone!

Same would apply to that, if it is enforced properly and consistently it wouldn't make any money and "they" don't want that.

[diddy 10]

I doubt they'd mind. I imagine that if everyone flashed then people would slow down and fewer people would die. Reverse psychology. Carry on flashing dude! Well done.