Police told to move speed cameras to catch more leadfoots

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by mik

reminds me of trucky log books, you could/would be well fined for a spelling mistake or a minor book keeping error, blatant revenueing, but it not the boys in blues fault they are just doing what they are told.

if your boss told you to do something which was clearly morally wrong, would you?

-edit morally is probably not the right word. ethically.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by fmc351

If someone was to stand entirely on a drivers platform, I doubt he/she would get elected, look around any electorate and see which is the most common, nice enthusiast cars, or cars for transport. They would need a much wider scope of policy opinion. IMO.

An independent is only able to be effective (to any serious degree) when he holds the balance of power. At that point, he/she is able to wield immense influence and can hold a government over a barrel, a nice big pork barrel. But, even if they can make enough noise and make a difference on speed cameras, the problem is if in the end the government cant milk traffic, they will just resort to raising taxes/levies etc to make up the shortfall. In the end they need the money, or need to stop providing services.

So those who never get caught by cameras or lidar traps etc, will end up paying via higher rego, or higher stamp duty, or some other form of government revenue raising. As will everyone else. For the most part, most people dont get caught all that often, and when it comes down to a choice between letting speeding motorists pay the bill, or let themselves foot part of the bill via higher rego or stamp duty etc, I wonder which they will choose.

Sure there are a lot of people who like cars, would love to drive faster etc, but not enough in any one electorate.

But still, dont fool yourself it will get cheaper, you will pay somewhere else instead.

well thats what i mean, not just make noise on speed camera's but the whole dodgy revenue raising system, make noise on high revenue, make noise on lidar, stamp duty, rego etc. make noise on the fact that there are 16 million registered vehicles on the road.


http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0

hell, at even 500 dollars a year rego (average trucks/bikes/cars)

thats approx 8.15 BILLION dollars a year just from rego's for the government.

this doesn't include

Petrol and diesel excise approx 10 billion
GST on fuel and vehicles approx 5 billion
Insurance premiums approx 12 billion

+ the multitude of other fines, levies, fees, etc....

thats a year.

this is from an article

"n 2007-08 the total amount spent on roads was $13.9 billion including $2.7 billion in federal money; $7.3 billion from states and territories; $3.1 billion from local government and; $800 million from the private sector."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/plea-to-treasurer-spend-fuel-excise-to-fix-our-roads-20100102-lmix.html#ixzz1dMhdZCsO"

$ 35 billion from motorists.

$ 13 billion back into roads

it's not even 50%.

in canberra, roughly $4million is spent on road safety.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-04-1...safety/2610312

extrapolate that across all states and territories. lets be generous, say $100 million is spent.


$ 35 billion from motorists.

$ 13 billion back into roads

$ 1 billion on safety.....

doesn't add up does it, even with rubbery figures....

[mik]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

if your boss told you to do something which was clearly morally wrong, would you?

-edit morally is probably not the right word. ethically.

not if i could help it.

[EDManual]

Originally Posted by mik

not if i could help it.

If I was a cop, I'd let everyone off, except for what I thought was actually dangerous.
Like getting sideways round a corner with oncoming traffic... not doing 40 over on a deserted highway. No way would I take someones licence away for something so trivial as speeding by themselves where theres no one to hurt.

[dylby1]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

So...remind me again how cameras aren't about revenue and are about road safety...?

There's an ancient saying..."the only time you will see a line of cars on the highway all sitting exactly on the speed limit is when one of them is a police car"...spend some money, get the old Highway patrol back (they used to have yellow Commodores and Falcons and just cruise up and down the main highways all day instead of hiding in the bushes), and get men on the ground to actually see what's going on.

Pull up some young guy driving dangerously and give him revving, and he'll usually drive like a little old lady for the next six months. Take a photo from the bushes and send it out two weeks later, and he learns nothing.

couldnt have said it better myself

[mltezr]

no suprise really. anything for money

[csv8]

QUEENSLANDERS are on track to record one of the worst-ever results for speeding offences after police nabbed 1731 motorists a day in the first six months of 2011.

Figures provided by Transport and Main Roads show 313,460 speeding tickets have been issued to the end of June, with mobile speed cameras having the most success.

Every month of this year, the vans and covert camera cars have averaged 28,055 detections, compared with 24,350 for each month of 2010.

Yesterday The Courier-Mail revealed traffic police had been ordered to move speed camera vans if they were not detecting more than one or two offenders an hour.

The Queensland Police Service defended the practice, saying the success of mobile speed cameras was judged on a number of factors including the number of deployments, and traffic volumes.

A TMR spokesman said speeding was still a major killer on Queensland roads, with about one in five deaths caused by people going too fast. My comment..if speed causes 1 in 5 road deaths..then the amount of money spent on speed detection is out of proportion,to road deaths..Why isn't the same amount of money being spent on the other 4 out of 5 road death causes??????????

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by csv8

My comment..if speed causes 1 in 5 road deaths..then the amount of money spent on speed detection is out of proportion,to road deaths..Why isn't the same amount of money being spent on the other 4 out of 5 road death causes??????????

That report is a little out of date with current statistics issued on 6th November,
the Queensland road toll looks to be less than last year.....

Here's the factors associated with Fatalities, it shows why police are zoning in on driver behavior, especially speeding but IMO speeding is only a symptom of general driver frustration, take a drive north and your journey is crippled by countless speed restrictions and massive amounts of road works, all taking place at the same time.

LINK

Table 1: Comparative Queensland Road Toll, Year to date as at November 6 2011
2006 262
2007 293
2008 247
2009 263
2010 193
2011 187


Fatalities as a result of crashes 12 Months September 2010 to August 2011 (Total = 267)



Human Behavioural Factors 257 96.3%
Road Factors 30 11.2%
Vehicle Factors 5 1.9%
Atmospheric / Lighting Conditions 14 5.2%
Road and Roadside** 96 36.0%
Involving Speeding Drivers/Riders 42 15.7%
Involving Drink Drivers/Riders 52 19.5%
Involving Drivers/Riders - Fatigue related crashes 35 13.1%
Unrestrained Vehicle Occupants*** 30 27.8%
Involving Young Adult Drivers/Riders (17-24) 71 26.6%
Involving Senior Adult Drivers/Riders (60+) 60 22.5%
Involving Heavy Freight Vehicles 56 21.0%
Involving Motorcycles 53 19.9%
Involving Mopeds 5 1.9%
Involving Buses 9 3.4%
Involving Drivers/Riders - Fail to Give Way or Stop 21 7.9%
Involving Drivers/Riders - Disobey Traffic Light/Sign 5 1.9%
Involving Drivers/Riders - Illegal Manoeuvre 62 23.2%
Involving Drivers/Riders - Dangerous Driving 6 2.2%
Involving Drivers/Riders - Disobey Road Rules - Other 0 0.0%
Involving Drivers/Riders - Distracted 1 0.4%
Involving Drivers/Riders - Rain/wet road 25 9.4%
Involving Drivers/Riders - Road Conditions 4 1.5%
Involving Drivers/Riders - Roadworks 0 0.0%
Child Road User Fatalities (0-16)**** 23 8.6%
Young Adult Road User Fatalities (17-24)**** \59 22.1%
Mature Adult Road User Fatalities (25-59)**** 133 49.8%-22.9%
Senior Adult Road User Fatalities (60+)**** 52 19.5%

^ This column is rounded to the nearest whole number.
** The road and roadside characteristic is attributed to crashes where roadside features or road surface conditions may have contributed to the crash. This includes all crashes where unfavourable road
conditions have contributed to a crash, or where the crash nature was hit fixed obstruction or temporary object.
*** Where restraint use was known.
**** Where age was known.
Please note that coding of contributing circumstances “Driver – Inexperience/lack of expertise” , “Driver – Age (Lack of perception power or concentration)”, "Violation - Undue care and attention" and
"Driver - Inattention/Negligence" has recently changed. As a result of this break in the data series, figures relating to these factors and "Human behavioural factors" may differ slightly from those
previously published.

Contributing circumstances are circumstances that may have contributed to a unit being involved in a road traffic crash. A contributing circumstance may not necessarily have been the direct cause of a
crash.
Any road crash has a complex combination of contributing and causal factors, so there can be any number of contributing circumstances recorded for a single crash. Contributing circumstances are
attributed to units involved in the crash (rather than the crash itself), so a single crash may have more than one instance of the same contributing circumstance. In addition, more than one contributing
circumstance can be attributed to any unit involved in the crash.
There may be more than one contributing factor for each fatality, therefore the percentages above may add up to more than 100%.

[csv8]

Typical!! Courier Mail being behind the news !! that was in yesterdays Courier Mail..

[EDManual]

Those QLD figures are interesting! 13% were speeding drivers.
But that also can mean, that many of them were drunk, or not concentrating, etc, which is the actual cause of the crash, not the speeding. So really they should be taken off that percentage.

In Vic the govt and cops advertise that "speeding drivers are the biggest killers on the road".

Up until recently they used the word "speed", to make us think it involved speeding, but it was just that the speed (even if under the limit) contributed. Now they are downright lying!

In England, by their own research just 2 to 3% or crashes can be said to be caused primarily by speed, and it would be NO DIFFERENT here!

So there is absolutely no reason to focus on speed like they do, but to justify the revenue that they receive from fines.

[SteveJH]

I'm going to ask a question here, and I'm going to ask everyone to put aside their conspiracy theories for a couple of minutes when they read it (if they read it).

Is it possible that if a camera is only getting a couple of hits an hour in a particular site, that its done its job their by slowing traffic down? AND that it is best utilised by sending it to another spot to slow the traffic down there?

Then they can just throw the camera back at the previous spot for one day in every 1-2 weeks as "maintenance therapy" to keep the speeds down.

[EDManual]

In the stats a few posts back, the only stat to do with real speeding and hooning is the 2%. Thats all.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

I'm going to ask a question here, and I'm going to ask everyone to put aside their conspiracy theories for a couple of minutes when they read it (if they read it).

Is it possible that if a camera is only getting a couple of hits an hour in a particular site, that its done its job their by slowing traffic down? AND that it is best utilised by sending it to another spot to slow the traffic down there?

Then they can just throw the camera back at the previous spot for one day in every 1-2 weeks as "maintenance therapy" to keep the speeds down.

how dare you look at it from a different side - are you harold scruby

i am not sure it has done it's job, maybe just people are slowing going passed it and not everywhere else. but, yes it is better utilised somewhere else. that way the observant drivers will notice it and the others will complain . . . again

[EDManual]

I dont see a problem with speed cameras, as yes, you should be observant enough to notice one and slow down if you are speeding. In the same way you would have slowed down if there was something dangerous. Just a bit of braking practice for some drivers who have their eyes open.

Also, really you shouldnt be speeding past parked cars anyway....

(I speed all the time, not past parked cars though, and not that they could be speed cameras, I see a parked car as a potential dangerous situation.)

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

I'm going to ask a question here, and I'm going to ask everyone to put aside their conspiracy theories for a couple of minutes when they read it (if they read it).

Is it possible that if a camera is only getting a couple of hits an hour in a particular site, that its done its job their by slowing traffic down? AND that it is best utilised by sending it to another spot to slow the traffic down there?

Then they can just throw the camera back at the previous spot for one day in every 1-2 weeks as "maintenance therapy" to keep the speeds down.

as the article states, it's got nothing to do with "slowing" anyone down.

"Police are under pressure to pick locations where they can catch more speeding motorists.
POLICE have been warned to find new places to catch leadfoots if their mobile speed cameras are not flashing more than a couple of times an hour.

An email, obtained by The Courier-Mail, was sent to all traffic police in Brisbane's Metropolitan North Region ordering officers to change camera locations if the site was "not returning a reasonable rate of detection".

Penned by Regional Traffic Co-ordinator Jac Feather, the email expresses concern about falling speed camera detection rates in the region, which has the equal lowest number of road fatalities in the state.

"In recent times there has been an increase in the number of deployments where the detections have been below five for a three-hour deployment," Inspector Feather said.

"Such deployments do not represent best use of the asset."

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

as the article states, it's got nothing to do with "slowing" anyone down.

"Police are under pressure to pick locations where they can catch more speeding motorists.
POLICE have been warned to find new places to catch leadfoots if their mobile speed cameras are not flashing more than a couple of times an hour.

An email, obtained by The Courier-Mail, was sent to all traffic police in Brisbane's Metropolitan North Region ordering officers to change camera locations if the site was "not returning a reasonable rate of detection".

Penned by Regional Traffic Co-ordinator Jac Feather, the email expresses concern about falling speed camera detection rates in the region, which has the equal lowest number of road fatalities in the state.

"In recent times there has been an increase in the number of deployments where the detections have been below five for a three-hour deployment," Inspector Feather said.

"Such deployments do not represent best use of the asset."

Yup, it seems my post went straight over your head.

I will repeat.

If not many people are being ticketed, the camera has fulfilled its role, it is no longer needed at that point as people are no longer speeding there.

Hence, you put it somewhere else where people *are* going faster then you want it to go.

Personally, i'd rather all camera's were mobile camera's if the government/police want to stop speeding. However, that doesn't mean I don't think the speed limits on some roads shouldn't be higher.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Yup, it seems my post went straight over your head.

I will repeat.

If not many people are being ticketed, the camera has fulfilled its role, it is no longer needed at that point as people are no longer speeding there.

Hence, you put it somewhere else where people *are* going faster then you want it to go.

Personally, i'd rather all camera's were mobile camera's if the government/police want to stop speeding. However, that doesn't mean I don't think the speed limits on some roads shouldn't be higher.

But cameras are ONLY put in known black spots. Surely once they go everyone will immediately be killing themselves by speeding. Keeping them there will keep the road safe and that is more important that revenue isn't it?

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by flappist

But cameras are ONLY put in known black spots. Surely once they go everyone will immediately be killing themselves by speeding. Keeping them there will keep the road safe and that is more important that revenue isn't it?

Couldn't they also argue that people are not going to know when the camera's are/are not going to be present on the road? As a result of this, they could utilise the camera on other stretches at least some of the time.

Plus using the same spot all the time just means people will slow down for that spot then speed up again.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Couldn't they also argue that people are not going to know when the camera's are/are not going to be present on the road? As a result of this, they could utilise the camera on other stretches at least some of the time.

Plus using the same spot all the time just means people will slow down for that spot then speed up again.

The original stated purpose of speed cameras is to slow down traffic in dangerous places.

Suddenly a side effect was discovered, they make lots of money.

So now they must be put in places were there will be more money made.

These are obviously not dangerous places or they would already have had cameras.

So all your spin doctoring can not hide the simple fact that the only thing they are using speed cameras to try to slow down is drain of public money from the treasury.........

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by flappist

The original stated purpose of speed cameras is to slow down traffic in dangerous places.

Suddenly a side effect was discovered, they make lots of money.

So now they must be put in places were there will be more money made.

These are obviously not dangerous places or they would already have had cameras.

So all your spin doctoring can not hide the simple fact that the only thing they are using speed cameras to try to slow down is drain of public money from the treasury.........

Oh come on. Do you really think they didnt expect the revenue when they decided to get the first camera? Side effect?, my ****

"They cost X amount of dollars and save lives" ... [insert image of politicians coming up with ways to say we cant afford them]

or

"They make money, ...and I mean lots of it" ... [insert images of every politician laughing his guts out as they realise the safety message is a difficult one to dispute]


Regardless, he isnt wrong. Maybe the motivation is money, maybe its road safety but the result is the same. When the cameras stop ticking over its time to move them. And that makes perfect sense for both scenarios, revenue, or road safety. There are less cameras than there are black spots. Maybe we should be asking the government to instead use the revenue raised to buy more cameras so they can set them up in every black spot. And then some where people are known to speed (so they never become a black spot, remember one life is too many), until every last metre of road is covered?

Do you really think that is the conclusive argument strategy (or even part of) to stop cameras, or stop them being set up randomly? All it will do, is result in many, many more cameras. Not that that wont occur anyway, regardless of who is in power. These things are here to stay, policies of privatisation have seen to it.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Oh come on. Do you really think they didnt expect the revenue when they decided to get the first camera? Side effect?, my ****

"They cost X amount of dollars and save lives" ... [insert image of politicians coming up with ways to say we cant afford them]

or

"They make money, ...and I mean lots of it" ... [insert images of every politician laughing his guts out as they realise the safety message is a difficult one to dispute]

governments are run like corporations, the cost v financial benefit would have been tabled long before they were implemented. i don't think they realised HOW MUCH they would have made from them. once that was found out, saving your kids from killing themselves became a distant second to cash. if they really did care, you would have dual lane highways to every capital city, they would be raising the speed limit, they would be implementing over passes and under passes rather then jamming a new set of lights every 50 meters

Originally Posted by fmc351

Regardless, he isnt wrong. Maybe the motivation is money, maybe its road safety but the result is the same. When the cameras stop ticking over its time to move them. And that makes perfect sense for both scenarios, revenue, or road safety. There are less cameras than there are black spots. Maybe we should be asking the government to instead use the revenue raised to buy more cameras so they can set them up in every black spot. And then some where people are known to speed (so they never become a black spot, remember one life is too many), until every last metre of road is covered?

results are not the same, because less then 40% of all road revenue goes back into roads and safety. the other 60% is being used for who knows, funding pollies super maybe.

maybe we should actually ask the government to
-stick cameras in black spots
-better driver training
-better roads
-dual lane carriage ways between states
-RAISING the speed limit on highways as cars are much safer now.
-stop using false "speed kills" lying mantra

Originally Posted by fmc351

Do you really think that is the conclusive argument strategy (or even part of) to stop cameras, or stop them being set up randomly? All it will do, is result in many, many more cameras. Not that that wont occur anyway, regardless of who is in power. These things are here to stay, policies of privatisation have seen to it.

which goes back to my original post of funding an independent. add to the fact that australians are so blase' about anything the government does, thats why they act like you don't exist, because all we do is go "you b**tards", raise and shake our fist, and not do anything about it.

i remember being in lebanon many years ago, and the government tried to raise fuel prices 10%, which way way beyond normal cpi etc etc. something like 100,000 people picketed parliament house for 3 days. shut down half the city, and the government backed off.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by flappist

But cameras are ONLY put in known black spots. Surely once they go everyone will immediately be killing themselves by speeding. Keeping them there will keep the road safe and that is more important that revenue isn't it?

The funniest sites Ive seen is where signs warn of a camera up the road...twice, they even put the speed sign right there too.

1) Gateway arterial near Boondall
2) Beaudesert Road at Sunnybank Hills.

Anyone who gets caught there is plain dumb......

[irish2]

Originally Posted by jpd80

The funniest sites Ive seen is where signs warn of a camera up the road...twice, they even put the speed sign right there too.

1) Gateway arterial near Boondall
2) Beaudesert Road at Sunnybank Hills.

Anyone who gets caught there is plain dumb......

Or inattentive becuase the slow speed has numbed their brain.

[Newbiexr6t]

Originally Posted by irish2

Or inattentive becuase the slow speed has numbed their brain.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

governments are run like corporations, the cost v financial benefit would have been tabled long before they were implemented. i don't think they realised HOW MUCH they would have made from them. once that was found out, saving your kids from killing themselves became a distant second to cash. if they really did care, you would have dual lane highways to every capital city, they would be raising the speed limit, they would be implementing over passes and under passes rather then jamming a new set of lights every 50 meters

Exact dollars?, probably not. But Im pretty sure they would have had a pretty good idea of the ball park they were playing in. Stats arent always unreliable to use as guides for 'productivity'.

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

results are not the same, because less then 40% of all road revenue goes back into roads and safety. the other 60% is being used for who knows, funding pollies super maybe.

Results are the same. You missed the point. You need to put that remark into perspective of flappists post, and the post flappist was quoting. Its simply dealing why they move the cameras, not what they do with the money, or whether one reason is true and the other not. It seems most see the issue as either revenue, or safety, while common sense should tell you its win win to government, its both. But back to the point you missed, if the motivation is the lack of revenue in a particular spot they would obviously move the cameras. If the motivation is road safety, the alternative explanation is the lack speeding motorists suggests the cameras are not needed there for the time being and would be better utilised to slow drivers down, over time, if moved to a new location. One is the conspiracy theorists version, the other is the road safety message version. Both fit nicely. The poster flappist quoted wasnt wrong. Im making no comment one way or the other as to which reason the directive was actually issued.

Separate yourself from the emotional response to the subject, read what I said objectively, and you might learn something.

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

maybe we should actually ask the government to
-stick cameras in black spots
-better driver training
-better roads
-dual lane carriage ways between states
-RAISING the speed limit on highways as cars are much safer now.
-stop using false "speed kills" lying mantra

I wasnt suggesting we should have cameras everywhere. I was making an observation that a likely response by government to statements about moving cameras clearly indicates revenue raising as opposed to the stated safety message will only encourage government to introduce more cameras, in order to cover more bases. The obvious press release being something along the lines of 'in order to keep the black spots covered at all times, we have introduced more cameras and fitted permanent cameras at the 'official' black spot, in order to replicate that drop in number of motorists endangering lives in other locations'.

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

which goes back to my original post of funding an independent. add to the fact that australians are so blase' about anything the government does, thats why they act like you don't exist, because all we do is go "you b**tards", raise and shake our fist, and not do anything about it.

i remember being in lebanon many years ago, and the government tried to raise fuel prices 10%, which way way beyond normal cpi etc etc. something like 100,000 people picketed parliament house for 3 days. shut down half the city, and the government backed off.

Well, you again miss the point on the problems getting that independent elected. Raise all the money you like, find the bloke/sheila who shares your view and youve got your candidate, but you still lack an electorate. You need a majority (not quite with preferences etc, but for the sake of conversation its apt) in one electorate to share your view, good luck with that.

Ford Forums is not an electorate, it is many members spread over many electorates. And that is not how a member is elected. You need to find a state electorate where the majority of the voter age population share your view as being more important than other issues in that electorate. Otherwise, his/her other policy (say, immigration policy, employment, taxes, or localised issues like environment or development etc) views come to the fore. ie: Think of something that you are opposed to, not involving driving, and then understand he/she might hold the opposite view on those issues. Now realise this is electorate wide, not just you, but every other voter in his/her electorate. Maybe Shepparton or Bendigo as they have significant car culture could fit the bill, but I doubt even there it could come close to fruition. Too many other issues for the citizens of an electorate to consider.

Just so you know, I grew up in a family that was heavily involved in politics. Ive been around it my entire life. I know how to fight the good fight, and I know when some fights are going nowhere. Much like this debate on this forum. Too much emotion, not enough common sense. A smarter argument might not be opposition to cameras and law enforcement, but a change in speed limits themselves. This is one issue I believe that given the right representative (not political, but media etc) could sway public opinion. But opinionated people like myself, flappist and a few others will not make the best rep. We make too many enemies and seem to thrive on it, we're abrasive personalities.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by flappist

The original stated purpose of speed cameras is to slow down traffic in dangerous places.

Suddenly a side effect was discovered, they make lots of money.

So now they must be put in places were there will be more money made.

These are obviously not dangerous places or they would already have had cameras.

So all your spin doctoring can not hide the simple fact that the only thing they are using speed cameras to try to slow down is drain of public money from the treasury.........

Spot on.
I'm still waiting for someone to show stats of the amount of crashes that these cameras have captured.

[sk8xr8]

Originally Posted by Neale

I have no problem with people getting fined for doing the wrong thing, but I think that the money raised from it should be used to subsidise driver education programs & advanced driving courses for new drivers that should be a mandatory part of etting your licence, not these hazard perception test BS.

When you look at it in NSW if you do 20kph over it will cost you around $360. An advanced driving course costs around $285 (Ian Luff - Drive to Survive)

^^^^^^thankyou^^^^^^

logical, and productive way to lower the roadtoll..

[Lightning Strike GT]

Originally Posted by flappist

The original stated purpose of speed cameras is to slow down traffic in dangerous places.

Suddenly a side effect was discovered, they make lots of money.

So now they must be put in places were there will be more money made.

These are obviously not dangerous places or they would already have had cameras.

So all your spin doctoring can not hide the simple fact that the only thing they are using speed cameras to try to slow down is drain of public money from the treasury.........

Correct I remember the spin doctors back in about 96 or 97 when these happy snappers came in about it being only used in "black spots" - fast fwd 14 years and they put them in the Phlem 7 stating it will be a known speeding spot - it was a road that was not even opened and they predicted the cash cow there - it is not a black spot - just a spot to get the gov't back in the black - remember that fiasco a few months ago with the Phlem 7

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by irish2

Or inattentive becuase the slow speed has numbed their brain.

All I'm saying is that there's a sign warning of the Camera ahead,
I fail to see how anyone could get caught there but apparently they do....

[irish2]

Originally Posted by jpd80

All I'm saying is that there's a sign warning of the Camera ahead,
I fail to see how anyone could get caught there but apparently they do....

I fail to see how they are caught also. But with the number of inattentive people I see driving around, who are doing everything but actually driving, it is no wonder they are off with the fairies doing 10 over at the camera.