"Funding cuts see Oxfordshire speed cameras switched off
Plans are in place to start switching off speed cameras in Oxfordshire as part of council plans to cut £13m from its budget.
All 72 fixed and 89 mobile camera sites cameras will be switched off from 1 August after £600,000 was axed from the road safety budget.
The money had been earmarked for the Thames Valley Road Safety Partnership, which operates the cameras.
Officials backed the cuts at a full council meeting on 27 July.
Pic.No.1. An Oxfordshire Revenue Generating Safety Camera
For years, the police have been terrorising British drivers with these "safety" cameras in order to generate revenue for their own coffers. Get caught speeding, and a fine will land on your doorstep within two days, with payment being ruthlessly pursued. Ring the police because your house has been burgled and they will ask; "Did you see who did it? No? Sorry there is nothing we can do." True story. It happened to me, and my story was broadcast on Radio 4's programme 'Any Questions?' after I rang Jonathon Dimbleby to rant. Oh yeh, I can properly get on my soapbox when I want to.
So let's look into the reasons why I can rant for England about "safety" cameras. Firstly, I have got 9 penalty points on my driving license, all for speeding. Blimey, on the face of it I sound like Clyde's sidekick, Bonnie.
But I'm not, and that pisses me off. I am a good driver but my insurance premiums have gone through the roof because of three speeding fines where I was driving at 36mph in a 30mph zone or 54mph in a 50mph zone. You get the picture.
Pic.No.2. Ha ha! It's not just me then
Part of my problem lies with the blanket premise that 'Speed Kills.' Speed doesn't kill, crashing does. A fast competent driver can be significantly safer than a slow dithery driver. By using speed cameras, the police are assuming that safety can be achieved by attacking a one dimensional aspect of driver behaviour, namely speed. Either that or they like the money generated by speeding fines.
Secondly, there is a plethora of evidence suggesting that "safety" cameras actually increase the incidence of accidents at the spots where they are installed (just type 'speed cameras cause accidents' into Google). You've probably been there yourself. You are driving along, you see a camera at the side of the road and you look down to check your speedometer. Meanwhile, the car in front sees the camera and slams on the brakes, irrespective of what speed they are driving. The closest I have ever come to having a nasty accident was when I was riding a motorbike and the exact same scenario happened. So why do cameras still exist? Maybe the police like the revenue generated from the speeding fines?
Finally, another reason why "safety" cameras are a scandal, is because excessive speed is only a contributer in between 3-5% of accidents. Meanwhile, 'driver error' and a wish to 'take shortcuts' causes four out of five accidents. In light of this, why is so much time and effort put into catching speeding motorists rather than addressing the issue of driver error? Maybe it isn't as easy to generate revenue from driver error.
The screwed-up brainwashing that we have been subjected to was perfectly summised in an article I read in the local newspaper a couple of weeks ago. A reader had written a letter saying that "the reduction of the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph in suburban areas of Oxford had not been a sucess because fewer motorists had been caught speeding."
Is it me? Surely the pertinent statistic should have been the number of accidents in those areas, not the number of speeding motorists? Therein lies the problem.
So, what are your thoughts on speed cameras? Should they stay or should they go? Nom, nom, nom. I love this debate; let's hear what you have to say.
6 comments:
We don't have too many such cameras in the US, but I have been annoyed so many times by the amazing halt in traffic passing by someone who has been pulled over (even if no one is speeding) It is a clear hazard, but the cameras at least, can be removed and sounds like they should.
Yikes, you are a speed demon!
We have those damn things here and I get the occasional ticket. Yes I drive a tad above the limit.
How it works here -- if caught by photo radar you get the $ fine but no demerit points (as no witnesses). If a cop stops you, $ and points cost.
I hate them. On the other hand, am not really in favour of getting rid of them --- there are lots of cowboy drivers out there who need to be tamed.
I have been nicked for speeding four times. Twice was by sneaky coppers with radar guns, hiding behind trees and on top of bridges. The other two times were by static speed cameras. Both in Oxfordshire, funnily enough.
The last time I got nicked for it, I was sent on one of those speed awareness courses and it was quite enlightening when the facts and figures are presented to you.
As you say, speed doesn't kill, crashing does. But the two combined makes for a bad combination: the faster you go, the harder you crash, the more likely you (or someone else) is to die. That much is obvious.
What's not so obvious is how we solve the problem and I really don't think speed cameras are the answer. Like you, I fully believe they are mainly for generating revenue.
Maybe education is the way forward and we should all have to attend Speed Awareness courses and retake our driving test every five years.
Your lovely when your angry!!!!!!
Hi. I just noticed that I got a surge in Photobucket views from your blog on August 5th. The most viewed picture was my Florida State student ID issued when I took a summer course at Oxford. Did you use this image? I was trying to see how it fit in to the story about the speed cameras. I'm not in any way angry, just curious to see how I contributed to your blog. Thanks for your time.
Hiya TDC, Oooh I am all perplexed now because I don't know which photograph I used of yours. Can you let me know what the photo was so I can solve the mystery?
Post a Comment