Printable Version | Subscribe | Add to Favourites
New Topic New Poll New Reply
Author: Subject: Scameras - proof it's all about £s
Rod Ends

posted on 2/5/09 at 12:38 PM Reply With Quote
Scameras - proof it's all about £s

Speed camera penalties fall by record amount as police lose right to keep fines
View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
dhutch

posted on 2/5/09 at 02:27 PM Reply With Quote
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

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
mr henderson

posted on 2/5/09 at 03:27 PM Reply With Quote
Hang on a minute!

"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






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
scudderfish

posted on 2/5/09 at 05:26 PM Reply With Quote
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."



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

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
MautoK

posted on 2/5/09 at 07:11 PM Reply With Quote
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


You mean 4 * atan(1), surely.

OK I won't call you Shirley again.





He's whittling on a piece of wood. I got a feeling that when he stops whittling, something's gonna happen. (OUATITW/Cheyenne)

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
aerosam

posted on 2/5/09 at 09:41 PM Reply With Quote
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?





Had enough of this dictatorship known as LCB. Gone elsewhere, not coming back. Kiss my ass ChrisW.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member

New Topic New Poll New Reply


go to top






Website design and SEO by Studio Montage

All content © 2001-16 LocostBuilders. Reproduction prohibited
Opinions expressed in public posts are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
the views of other users or any member of the LocostBuilders team.
Running XMB 1.8 Partagium [© 2002 XMB Group] on Apache under CentOS Linux
Founded, built and operated by ChrisW.