20mph speed blitz on country roads "to top up police

[buckthesystem]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

20mph speed blitz on country roads 'to top up police coffers'

By MARTIN DELGADO

A new generation of speed cameras will litter the countryside if plans to cut limits on rural roads come into force, local authority leaders have warned.

Some critics fear the move is nothing more than an excuse to boost revenue from fines as motorists increasingly obey current limits.

They suspect police chiefs will push for more electronic traps on country roads in the wake of the review announced last week by Transport Minister Stephen Ladyman.

The shake-up could result in more 20mph and 30mph limits in towns and villages, with the biggest impact expected on rural routes where 64 per cent of road deaths occur.

But a swathe of speed cameras throughout the countryside risks further 'criminalising' put-upon motorists, it was claimed.

"We need to liberate our thinking and stop treating motorists as enemies of society,' said David Sparks, chairman of the transport board of the Local Government Association - which represents 500 English and Welsh local authorities.

"There will inevitably be a tendency for some people in power to maximise revenue when given an opportunity.

"The Government should focus on eliminating this practice so that the emphasis is on maximising safety, not income from fines."

Mr Sparks, who is a councillor in Dudley in the West Midlands, called for a 'more sophisticated' approach to controlling speed.

"Local speed limits should be determined locally, not by some bureaucrat in Whitehall. It is not clear this review has taken into account that we live in a much more technological age than when limits were first thought up.

"Limits should vary according to the time of day and road conditions."

He added: "There are clear inconsistencies in speed limits across the country which the Government is right to want to iron out. But this should not be at the expense of local determination - and the No1 objective should not be taxing motorists."

Monmouth Tory MP David Davies said: "I have no objection to 20mph zones at danger spots. But there is no doubt in my mind that dropping speed limits to such low levels in other areas could turn out to be nothing more than a revenue-raising exercise."

Local authorities, which must implement the review by 2011, are responsible for 67,000 miles of A and B roads. Motorists are three times more likely to die in the countryside than in towns, with more than 1,000 people killed on rural roads every year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Afal]

Monmouth Tory MP David Davies said: "I have no objection to 20mph zones at danger spots. But there is no doubt in my mind that dropping speed limits to such low levels in other areas could turn out to be nothing more than a revenue-raising exercise."

Well said!

[Scarletprayers]

The shake-up could result in more 20mph and 30mph limits in towns and villages, with the biggest impact expected on rural routes where 64 per cent of road deaths occur.

Local authorities, which must implement the review by 2011, are responsible for 67,000 miles of A and B roads. Motorists are three times more likely to die in the countryside than in towns, with more than 1,000 people killed on rural roads every year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64% of road deaths occur on rural roads..................but you think this is just about the money?????

[buckthesystem]

The shake-up could result in more 20mph and 30mph limits in towns and villages, with the biggest impact expected on rural routes where 64 per cent of road deaths occur.

Local authorities, which must implement the review by 2011, are responsible for 67,000 miles of A and B roads. Motorists are three times more likely to die in the countryside than in towns, with more than 1,000 people killed on rural roads every year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

64% of road deaths occur on rural roads..................but you think this is just about the money?????

You just could have a point, but hear me out: Here's the scenario:

Someone dies on a country road while "speeding" (it could very well be that the "speeding" had nothing at all to do with the death, it could be poor - or even no existant - maintenance of country roads which if it is anything like it is in this country, is very likely to be the case). However, what ever the cause of the accident may be, his death occurs 20 minutes after his car being "snapped" by a speed camera (or tax camera, or extortion camera, or theft camera which ever you like to call it).

At the beginning they were pretty slow, but now "fines" can come through the mail pretty quickly. So on the day of his funeral - because for some reason the government usually manages to time these sort of things "just so" (you'd be surprised how many people I've known have received "fines" in the mail for their dead relative on the day of their funeral, or last week in the case of my friends two year old granddaughter's funeral her parents received a letter from the tax dep't saying that their "child benefit" would cease) the dead person's widow goes to her mailbox and gets out a "fine" for his "speeding offence" timed 20 minutes before his death.

Now according to your logic, she is going to rub her hands together in glee and think "I'll be so happy about paying this, because after all it's about saving lives", pops the notice in her handbag, gets the kids together and hurries off to the funeral.

Yeah, sure, the government does things just to be alltruistic - not!

[Scarletprayers]

Yeah, the day my son was killed they called on an unlisted number to ask me about donating his organs, the 1st month "anniversary" of his death, the county called me to find out about his insurance so they could see about getting money from them to pay for the light pole that was damaged in the wreck. Whats your point bucks????

If your loved one or friend is the one saved because they drove the speed limit from fear of getting a ticket, what difference does it make why the government is doing it?

[buckthesystem]

Yeah, the day my son was killed they called on an unlisted number to ask me about donating his organs, the 1st month "anniversary" of his death, the county called me to find out about his insurance so they could see about getting money from them to pay for the light pole that was damaged in the wreck. Whats your point bucks????

If your loved one or friend is the one saved because they drove the speed limit from fear of getting a ticket, what difference does it make why the government is doing it?

My point is: The UK government CLAIMS that 64% of "road deaths" occur on country roads, so instead of addressing the problem, as is their responsibility because they collect massive taxes to use to do this with, they instead want to set up a system which uses this fact to extort millions more in taxes from the people.

I always thought our roads in this country were bad, some of them are are just "goat tracks" with little or no imrovement, but tar sealed over. In rural areas (which is most of the country) we have mostly dirt or gravel roads and the place is littered with one lane "Bailey" bridges left over from WWII even on main routes. However, in UK most of the country roads were originally made for horse and cart travel, are incredibly narrow and in some places can't be improved at this late stage. This is true unless something has drastically changed during the last 20 years or so.

All this means that the mentality behind not doing anything about the state of the roads but lowering the speed limit to 20mph and having extortion-cameras all over the place is accepting that these roads are bad and saying "well we have 64% of road deaths on these roads, so let's make a lot of money out of it while we can".

Why should the greedy government be the only ones to profit from the deaths of so many people? And are people who come out alive, but get a "demanding money with menaces" notice in the mail from government, supposed to happily pay it and think to themselves "than you government for saving my life, I feel really good about paying you for it"?

It would not be profitable for the government to spend money on roads (even though it is NOT THEIR money they'd be spending) but it is far more profitable for them to keep dipping into the endless pool of money that the motorist provides and justify it by telling themselves that they are saving lives by doing it.

[Richard_yaash]

On this one, I must concur with Scarletprayers.

[ayin jade]

There is one highway here where people fly down it, even tho its within the city. Speeds have gotten over 100 mph. People have died. So they set up speed cameras. People slowed down. Less accidents. The time for the cameras expired and the city was evaluating the cameras on the highway. During that off time the cameras still recorded speeds, but didnt send out tickets. Everyone knew the cameras were no longer operational so they started speeding all over again. Several hundred people passed those cameras each day with speeds well over the posted limit. Many per day had speeds over 100 mph. Speed cameras are good. They slow down lawless citizens who insist on speeding.

[Scarletprayers]

There is one highway here where people fly down it, even tho its within the city. Speeds have gotten over 100 mph. People have died. So they set up speed cameras. People slowed down. Less accidents. The time for the cameras expired and the city was evaluating the cameras on the highway. During that off time the cameras still recorded speeds, but didnt send out tickets. Everyone knew the cameras were no longer operational so they started speeding all over again. Several hundred people passed those cameras each day with speeds well over the posted limit. Many per day had speeds over 100 mph. Speed cameras are good. They slow down lawless citizens who insist on speeding.

I agree!