Speed cameras and the Big Society

Posted on July 26, 2010 by bobpiper

I am not either in favour of, nor opposed to speed cameras as a matter of principle. Nor do I have any beef about them because I have got points on my license… because I don’t have any.
I do think some authorities have abused the cameras, putting them in difficult to see locations and on roads without a history of accidents with limits far too low for the roads in question.
But the decision by the coalition to cease any funding for new cameras is just plain daft! In my Ward there is a main trunk road in to Birmingham, a dual carriageway, with a 40mph limit. There is a junction halfway down a slope on this road which has been a constant source of accidents. People pull out from the junction seeing a car approaching, but some way away, and before they know it some boy racer doing 70 miles per hour (no joke) is on them in no time.
I have been collating the accident statistics, liaising with the police, and I’ve got some agreement with them to getting a speed camera in place that would have an obvious beneficial impact, both for drivers and the local community. But today the police tell me that the road safety partnership say they have received an edict… no new speed cameras.
But hold on… what happened to the Big Society? I distinctly heard Cameron saying that if people wanted a post office or chip shop, the Big Society would empower them, and local people would take the decision, not remote figures in councils or Westminster.
So, we can have a say on the future of our local post office… but if we want some say over something which is dangerous and routinely leads to road traffic accidents… forget it!
Terrific.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Speed cameras and the Big Society

  1. Richard Blogger says:
    July 26, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    I suspect that this edict is meant to appeal to the Jeremy Clarkson demographic. I suspect that the Dept of Transport will do something to upset JC soon and hence his followers will be treated as a lost cause and the Home Office will quietly reintroduce speed cameras. Let’s hope that it does not have to take a minibus of schoolkids colliding with a speeding car to change the mind of Mrs May. Like you I am agnostic towards speed camera: they should be used when they will give real benefit.
    Let’s face it, speed cameras only photograph cars that exceed the speed limit, and hence it is gathering evidence of an offence. The idea that “if you are not caught committing an offence then you’re not an offender” disgusts me. The offence occurs whether there is a camera there or not. So it is the limits, not the camera that people should complain about.
    I think that a proper “Big Society” approach would have been to allow people to have a right of appeal to speed limits and both “sides” in the issue should present evidence. If road death statistics show that the speed limit is correct then the police should be allowed to use a camera if they decide that doing so would save lives. If the “Clarksons” provide evidence that the limit can be raised with no effect on death statistics then the limits should be raised.
    Of course the “Big Society” is nothing to do with making things fairer, but that is another discussion.

    Reply
  2. David Duff says:
    July 26, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    With the sort of unerring accuracy for which you are famed the length and breadth of, er, your bedroom where-in you churn out this rubbish dressed in your jim-jams, you point the finger at the government instead of ‘get-rich-quick’ local authorities who have torn the arse out of the system – and I will die of shock if ‘Brumland’ is any exception.
    If (to use current English child-grammar) you really, really, want a speed camera, have a whip round in the district concerned and see if they want to pay for it – but don’t hold your breath!

    Reply
  3. Bob Piper says:
    July 26, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    Duffy, I have no idea what they do in Birmingham, if that is what you meant in your ‘child grammar’. I don’t live there, don’t work there, and I’m not a councillor there.
    Nor do I know whether they keep the receipts from speed cameras, but if you took the trouble to read what I wrote (in my lunchtime, at work, I’m afraid I don’t have the privilege of a life of indolence like yourself) you will see that I acknowledged that speed cameras have been abused by the authorities.
    Finally, the idea of residents installing speed cameras to catch the hooligan mini-Clarksons, from which they keep the revenue, may prove very, very attractive to them, if your boy Cameron is prepared to allow it. I think the Daily Heil had something about one camera making £2 million in a year.
    For an idiot, you occasionally (very occasionally, admittedly) come up with a little gem.

    Reply
  4. David Duff says:
    July 26, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    Good, then let’s privatise the lot of ‘em and anyone who can raise the (not inconsiderable) cost of buying, installing and running them deserves all the money they can make.
    Incidentally, anywhere north of the M4 is ‘Brumland’, as any fule do no!

    Reply
  5. Bob says:
    July 26, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    Mad as a box of frogs! Vigilantes with permission to issue fines at will. Complete tit.

    Reply
  6. Bob Piper says:
    July 27, 2010 at 12:15 am

    Tom Harris makes a good point about these libertarian tossers who complain about speed cameras. They are all for ‘personal responsibility by individuals’… until they get a speeding fine, then they start whining about being victims.
    You speed, you miss the big yellow camera box, you get fined. Pay up and shut up!

    Reply
  7. Bob piper says:
    July 27, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    Duffy… incidentally, you point the finger at the government instead of ‘get-rich-quick’ local authorities who have torn the arse out of the system – and I will die of shock if ‘Brumland’ is any exception. councils don’t get any income from speed cameras.

    Reply
  8. David Duff says:
    July 28, 2010 at 10:47 am

    Councillor, up until 2007 the local authority and the police split the booty but by then it had become such a huge milch-cow, ‘ur wee Gordie’ spotted it and nicked it for the Treasury – although much of the dosh still goes directly towards the, er, ‘multi-agencies’ involved in setting up and running the wretched things.
    Anyway, do stop trying to kid a kidder, I’m not, thank the Intelligent Designer, one of your local muppets who vote for you!

    Reply
  9. Bob says:
    July 28, 2010 at 10:51 am

    I know, you’re a muppet from some soft southern he’ll hole.
    If the designer had been intelligent he’d have had you thrown awe with the afterbirth

    Reply
  10. Hugh Collins says:
    July 29, 2010 at 2:02 am

    Speed Cameras are a disaster. The great majority of drivers drive according to road conditions and do not want to be involved in an accident. Therefore they speed up when the road is clear, and reduce speed when conditions or risks require. Having to slow down for speed cameras causes bunching and raises the risk of accidents.

    Reply
  11. Bob says:
    July 29, 2010 at 7:30 am

    Is there any evidence to support the view that speed cameras increase accidents, Hugh?

    Reply