"Hidden" speed (tax) cameras return...??

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Pompey_Jock, Jun 5, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. People may not be aware that the initial 'speed camera' partnerships (more colloquially known as scamera partnerships) between police and councils are now no longer bound by 'the rules' which state that cameras should be bright yellow, in obvious places, easy to see and so on......

    An article in "The Times" today cites Chief Police Officers making a case for a return to hidden cameras, camouflaged to catch those that slow down because they know where cameras are - and then promptly speed up again.

    Personally I am adamant that these cameras were f'k all to do with safety (in the main) but were a handy source of revenue for various bodies.... By all means have them on built up urban through ways, and outside schools, hospitals, shopping centres etc - but get the bloody things off A-roads and Motorways... especially if the thieving bar-stewards are going to hide them again.

    Article to follow:-


    A variety/range of comments posted at the bottom of the article....
  2. Or people could just keep within the speed limits?
  3. No big surprise on this. Whether they're really for tax / improving police statistics or even a genuine attempt to improve road safety, the fact is that cameras are cheap and give measurable results.

    My personal belief is that there are far greater risks on the road than people being a few mph over an arbitrary speed limit (or even a few points over an arbitrary drink limit come to that).

    But other, generally more dangerous, acts such as tailgating on motorways or driving too fast (even within a speed limit) for the road and traffic conditions are a hell of a lot harder to (a) detect (b) measure and (c) prove.

    How do you produce a non-subjective test for tailgating? Or an objective one for what is a "safe" speed on that slightly wet road, with a sharp bend and a badly placed pedestrian crossing? The thing that has always concerned me about rigid speed enfrcement is that, by implication, keeping within the limit is "safe" driving. So, when you hit that child at 25 in a 30 limit with parked cars everywhere, it wasn't your fault.

    And before someone suggests that limits could be lowered even more for these places - if you can't judge what a safe speed is in any given conditions without reading a big lollipop with a number chosen by someone who's not there then you really shouldn't be driving!

    Personally, I never drink drive, I sometimes speed, and in 22 years I've driven about 300000 miles with no accidents.
  4. There is always one! No one - not even your maiden aunt - can guarantee to keep to the speed limit all the time, every time... to err is human and all that (especially on some roads, where it is very difficult to work out what the actual limit is). Therefore, cameras penalise genuine mistakes as well as overtly criminal activity... there is none of the discretion which must be at the heart of any equitable enforcement system.

    Further, the evidence shows that automated enforcement tends to catch the law abiding: an estimated 2.2 million cars are unregistered (up from 1.2 million), allowing their drivers to escape penalties - further adding to the lack of equity in the system.

    Then, our brave copper misses the point. According to road minister Stephen Ladyman, visible cameras are supposed to deter people from speeding. If they are hidden, they cease to perform that function.

    See Hansard:

  5. Or people could just keep within the speed limits?

    PS. I am not a copper.

    I am sick to the back teeth of people constantly moaning about speed cameras being another form of taxation.

    They only work as a form of taxation if you break the law and speed!

    Therefore surely the best way to beat the government at their own game is not to speed, meaning the government won't tax you and at the end of the month you have that little bit more left in your bank account.

    It's really quite simple!
  7. Why does the money not go to road safety charitys?????
  8. A good point, keep the operating costs from the money they generate but send the rest of the cash to road safety charity groups...if its really 'safety' cameras and they are REALLY doing thier bit for road safety...then police/councils have really nothing to hide.....keep some...send the rest...you think it would ever happen....NOT

    You have to wonder, if they are 'safety' cameras, why dont we never see them outside schools, or any place a whole lot of people cross the road at certain times?..
  9. hear fcuking hear

    Driving is getting expensive enough soon the only people able to afford to own a vehicle and drive will be the rich and criminal.

    The new road tax rates, I agree with.
    The congestion charge is now spreading, I don't agree with.
    Now they want to hide speed cameras to generate more cash for what? it doesn't go on the roads, as they don't maintained, does it go on more cameras? to generate more cash, which goes to......

    Right where is that emigration thread......I'm off.
  10. Let's limit all cars to 30mph. That would save lives would it not?
  11. "Let's limit all cars to 30mph. That would save lives would it not?

    Man with a flag, what a boost to the employment figures !

  12. Where did I say I advocated speed cameras as a life saving measure?

    I simply suggested a way in which fines and therefore endless ******* whining could be avoided.
  13. So complaining about something that is a money raising, infringement of liberty is 'whining' is it?

    Silly me, I thought it was our right in a democracy to voice our concerns about things we think unfair.
  14. What liberty has been infringed that I should feel upset about and join in with your protest?
  15. To the, "well just don't speed then" brigade;

    1. there have been 'A' roads where the speed limit has been redued to forty MPH, and by a very strange coincidence, speed cameras cropped up on the same day! Safety my arrse.

    2. As has been mentioned in previous posts, we want the drivers to be THINKING about what they are doing, not sitting at the speed limit, regardless of conditions, with only momentary glances away from the speedo, to look at the road.

    3. If we are to maintan the illusion of being a free liberal society, we cannot get to the situation where everyone is permanently monitiored for every slight devialton from the law. that is where we are going. Part of being free, is being free to decide FOR MYSELF not break the law.

    Tell you what, why don't we just ban all criminal thoughts and implant chips in poeples heads. If they have no intention of commiting a crime they obviously have nothing to fear - Right! If they do think bout commiting a crime, the thought police will be round super fast, ignoring the speed limits of course, to give the deviant 're-education'.