Speed camera penalties fall by record amount as police lose right to keep fines
Well, i dont think anyone really needed that much proof.
However i do think it was the right call to pay them a fixed amount, rather than a percentage of the takings because as said, it just becomes a
self-forfilling road to a stupid number of cameras.
Some cameras, in key places, is a good thing. More than is nessary, a bad thing.
Daniel
"Edmund King, the president of the AA, suggested that the reason for the reduction in penalties was that the police put fewer resources into
speed enforcement when they were unable to recoup the costs of installing and operating cameras. "
So it would seem that they are not installing cameras because they are unable to recoup the cost. That's not quite the same thing as not
bothering with the cameras because they are not making money with them.
John
quote:
A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "Safety cameras are there to save lives, not make money. Independent research has shown there are 1,745 fewer deaths and serious injuries at camera sites each year. The Government is clear that the best safety camera is the one which takes no fines at all, but succeeds in deterring drivers from speeding."
quote:
Spuriously precise numbers like that annoy me. How do they know it wasn't only 1744? They give a false sheen of non-existent accuracy.
4 is a much more accurate definition of pi than the precise 27.34531354
There are 2 cameras withn a mile of my house and I think I may have noticed over 3,000 deaths there before they were put in.
How do they come up with these figures?