Why are people against CCTV and speed cameras on the roads?

[Paul J]

Got any actual evidence though?

Good places to start

http://servicingstopblog.co.uk/saving-money/speed-cameras-making-3-1-million-a-year/

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disclosurelog/syscp-20110046

 

[benb]

They don't drive fast all of the time though (exceeding the limit/at a speed which they can't stop within the distance to they see to be safe) - I doubt Smeggers does, and I don't. IIRC, Speeding (breaking the limits) only accounts for 8% of accidents. Nobody is saying that this is insignifficant, but an awful lot of resources have been thrown at automating a system which doesn't realistically do the job of policing the roads effectively at all - it is a one trick pony.

Where does your 8% figure come from? Whilst it may be true that speeding is not that often a direct cause of a collision (although I am unconvinced) it clearly makes any collision, no matter what the cause, both more likely and more serious.

 

[Paul J]

I think theclaud should have said "cost effective" rather than "good". A police officer is not.

What neither good or cost effective

 

[dellzeqq]

It's widely been reported that some cameras rake in millions. Rot, I think not.

excellent! The more the better!

 

[dellzeqq]

Where are they then? Last time I saw traffic police out patrolling was just before christmas.

Around here as the amount of Cameras has gone up the amount of traffic police has gone down

Brilliant! The police can chase real criminals and the criminals who speed have to pay their tickets. This thread is cheering me up no end! Can we have another one about clamping in private car parks please?

 

[Paul J]

excellent! The more the better!

Cameras? Millions? or Rot?

 

[dellzeqq]

Cameras? Millions? or Rot?

More cameras = more millions! It's all good!

 

[400bhp]

CCTV is contentious. Nearly everyone seems to be against it, until they become victim of a crime. Let's use a robbery (mugging) for example. At that point, suddenly everyone is pro-CCTV. The victim says "You'll be able to catch them, there was CCTV". The offender when arrested always says "Check duh CCTV, proofs it's nots me innit". (They say this even when guilty, I suspect they have been trained to do so by defence solicitors due to the following point).

The modern view of CPS tends to be a complete fear to charge an offender unless they are guaranteed a 'win' at court. This means we need some irrefutable evidence, like, you've guessed it, CCTV. For me the issue with CCTV isn't 'impinging my civil liberties' - hell if I'm out in public then why do I care about being filmed - but the fact that when it comes to criminal proceedings, rather than being the 'icing on the cake' in the evidential process, it seems to have become the cake itself.

Half the time the CCTV isn't a great help unless there's actively been a controller watching the proceeding and zooming in anyway.

This is chicken & egg, the CPS stance has come about because of CCTV, not in-spite of it. CCTV has its uses but appears to have become the panacea of crime prevention and detection which it clearly isn't

 

[benb]

Good places to start

http://servicingstopblog.co.uk/saving-money/speed-cameras-making-3-1-million-a-year/

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disclosurelog/syscp-20110046

The first link has no discussion on what it costs to maintain the cameras, so saying they "make" £3.1 million is disingenuous at best.

The second link has total fines for 2010 at £291,420, and total expenditure (servicing, maintenance, &c.) at £1,852,217.88. So the cameras operate at a deficit of more than £1.5 million!

So if speed cameras are this massive cash cow, how come they are being cut back in this time of austerity? If they made so much money, you'd think the government would be putting more of them up?

Oh, maybe it's because the idea that they make tons of money is utter rubbish:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...te-than-fines-they-brought-in-86908-22411951/

In any case, fines raised from them goes to the treasury, not the local authority, so your claim that they are "a cash cow for local Police forces" is untrue.

 

[benb]

Risk adversity. Wheres the limit to that argument? Is there any speed where accidents* suddenly become "safe"? Erm no.

[Clue: If there was then they wouldnt be called accidents]

Well they are very rarely accidents, if you ask me. I don't follow the rest of your post at all. Are you saying that a crash at 40mph is no more serious than one at 30mph?

 

[theclaud]

If me, as a driver, went round "not giving a flying (or otherwise) f*ck about other drivers", I would have been killed years ago.

And by implication I presume you think non drivers are a united front?

You're being silly, Smeglington. By "don't give a f**k" I don't mean that they are happy about maiming each other (although they seem to do a fair bit of it anyway). I mean simply when it comes to slowing down, it's only themselves having to go slower that rankles - other people slowing down only annoys them if it makes them reduce their own speed. Whereas from outside the car, slowing down makes everything better for everyone else.

 

[Paul J]

total expenditure (servicing, maintenance, &c.) at £1,852,217.88. So the cameras operate at a deficit of more than £1.5 million!

After installing new cameras that they do not list cost seperate.

 

[benb]

After installing new cameras that they do not list cost seperate.

I don't understand what you're saying. There was a figure for fines raised, and a figure for costs of maintenance. The result was a £1.5 million deficit.

 

[Linford]

Well they are very rarely accidents, if you ask me. I don't follow the rest of your post at all. Are you saying that a crash at 40mph is no more serious than one at 30mph?

A vehicle rarely impacts at the speed it travels at though - I knew that the brake pedal was a good invention

 

[green1]

Are you saying that a crash at 40mph is no more serious than one at 30mph?

If it's a head on crash at 30 and a side swipe at 40 then yes.