Lancashire's most prolific fixed speed cameras revealed

9:30am Thursday 21st July 2011 in News Photograph of the Author By Sam Chadderton, Reporter

NUMBER ONE SITE A59 Longsight Road, near Abbott Brow in Osbaldeston NUMBER ONE SITE A59 Longsight Road, near Abbott Brow in Osbaldeston

MORE than 25,000 tickets were issued in 2010 from fixed speed cameras in Lancashire, according to new figures released yesterday.

The fixed camera on the A59 Longsight Road near Abbot Brow, Osbaldeston, caught out 2,569 motorists in 2010 – 600 more than the next highest figure.

Of those, 921 paid £55,000 in fines and a further 1,257 paid a total of £106,000 to go on a speed awareness course.

Many motorists, including Blackburn Rovers players on their way to training, were trapped in Longsight Road in November and December when the limit changed from 40mph to 30mph and warning signs were hidden.

They have now been moved but dozens of those caught are appealing through the courts.

There has been no-one killed or seriously injured on Longsight Road since 2007.

The second-most tickets were issued from a camera in Rossendale Road, Burnley, with 1,900 people caught out.

Yesterday we spoke to residents, who said they weren't surprised at the total as the road used to be a 40mph limit before work started on Hameldon College a few years ago.

Other hotspots in East Lancashire include the A682 Manchester Road, near St Matthew Street, Burnley, which caught 567 speeders, and Manchester Road in Nelson, near Farrer St, which snared 244.

Related links

The A671 Market Street, Shawforth, trapped 385 motorists. They raised a combined £26,750 in fines.

East Lancashire’s least effective speed cameras are in Shear Brow, Blackburn, with only eight people caught, and Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, with only two people caught.

In total in Lancashire more than 25,000 tickets were issued in 2010 from fixed speed cameras, according to new figures released yesterday.

Lancashire County Council and the police have pledged to use the figures, published for the first time today by Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety, to axe cameras which raise money but don’t reduce accident figures.

They had previously refused to release figures because of concerns that vandals would target cameras, as they have done in Blakewater Road, Blackburn.

Across the entire county, 49,825 people were caught speeding on fixed and mobile sites, with 21,809 fined and given points and 15,458 given speed awareness courses.

This coincides with Lancashire’s accident figures being at a 30-year low.

The cameras brought in £2.6m in 2010, the majority of which goes to central government.

The police receive £35 from every course. The Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety also gets a small percentage.

Lancashire’s Assistant Chief Constable Andy Rhodes, said: “Road safety cameras are intended to reduce the average speed of motorists on roads where there is evidence that speeding is an issue.

“We are committed to reducing the number of people killed and injured on the county’s roads and we will continue to use cameras to help us achieve this.”

Tim Ashton, the county council cabinet member for highways and transport, said: “Using cameras is just one of the ways we've been able to make our roads safer and reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured by more than 40 per cent in five years.”

In Lancashire there are 285 fixed safety camera sites.

East Lancashire top 10

1 A59 Longsight Road, Osbaldeston, 2589
2 A646 Rossendale Road, Burnley, 1901
3 A682 Manchester Road, Burnley, 567
4 A6119 Whitebirk Road. Blackburn, 396
5 A671 Market Street, Shawforth, 385
6 A666 Bolton Road (Longshaw Ln), Darwen, 345
7 A682 Manchester Road, Nelson, 244
8 A6114 Belvedere Road, Burnley, 222
9 A679 Hyndburn Road, Accrington, 211
10= A6114 Queen Victoria Road, Burnley, 190
10= B6447 Buncer Lane, Blackburn, 190.

Lancashire County Council top 10

1 A59 Longsight Road, Osbaldeston, 2589
2 A646 Rossendale Road, Burnley, 1901
3 A6 London Road, Preston 1767
4 A5029 Parbold Hill, Parbold, 1126
5 A6 Garstang Road, Preston, 808
6 A59 Guildway, Preston, 693
7 A6 Shepherds Way, Chorley, 648
8 Portway, Preston, 642
9 A5085 Blackpool Road, Preston, 632
10 A6 Bengal Street, Chorley, 627.

Blackburn with Darwen top 10

1 A6119 Whitebirk Road 396
2 A666 Bolton Road (Longshaw Ln) 345
3 B6447 Buncer Lane, 190
4 B6447 Stancliffe Street, 159
5 A666 Bolton Road (Swan St), 157
6 A678 Burnley Road, 129
7 A677 Copy Nook 125
8 A677 Barbara Castle Way, 106
9 A666 Whalley New Road, 76
10 A674 Preston Old Road, 67.

Click on the links below to see the full totals.

Comments(42)

Pendlesider says...
9:08am Wed 20 Jul 11

Replace the word 'prolific' with 'covertly hidden. that's £60 x 2,500 = £150,000 in 12 months for ONE covertly hidden camera. or £1.5Million for all of Lancashire. above assumes fpn and no court costs.
.
This cameras location should be reported to The Department of Transport, as doing so should result in the particular authority being removed from the "netting-off scheme" which allows them to keep part of the revenue collected by their speed cameras. If the camera is obscured by tree branches request they be removed.
.
Speed cameras must be visible from a distance of 66 yards ( 60 metres) on roads with a speed limit of up to 40mph ( 64 Kmph), and 109 yards ( 100 metres) for speeds above that.

Report this post »

happycyclist says...
10:03am Wed 20 Jul 11

Pendlesider wrote:
Replace the word 'prolific' with 'covertly hidden. that's £60 x 2,500 = £150,000 in 12 months for ONE covertly hidden camera. or £1.5Million for all of Lancashire. above assumes fpn and no court costs.
.
This cameras location should be reported to The Department of Transport, as doing so should result in the particular authority being removed from the "netting-off scheme" which allows them to keep part of the revenue collected by their speed cameras. If the camera is obscured by tree branches request they be removed.
.
Speed cameras must be visible from a distance of 66 yards ( 60 metres) on roads with a speed limit of up to 40mph ( 64 Kmph), and 109 yards ( 100 metres) for speeds above that.
Well if the camera can see you, you should be able to see the camera.

It's not about speed cameras though, it's about speed limits, and you should be keeping to them whether there are cameras there or not. And if you don't know the speed limits then you shouldn't really be on the roads. They're the round signs, red border, big black number -THAT'S the speed limit. Keep to it or pay up; your choice.

Report this post »

Dickiepayshey says...
10:43am Wed 20 Jul 11

Well said happycyclist !!!

Report this post »

CapitaBackHander says...
11:14am Wed 20 Jul 11

No way has any of these cameras accounted for even a drop of 10% in accident rates.
Answer this - the main road (St Peters Way to the Motorway) through Bolton is a 50 mph rd. Before the cameras and reduced speed limit how many accidents were there? After the icameras (3 and 2!) how many accidents have there been each year?
These figures change each year re driver in certain situ and set of circumstances. You can't say road safety and cameras have caused the drop - certainly never say they are to blame when there is an accident.
p.s. never caught by camera, I just can't stand bad publicity.
Look at Blackpool - many many cameras along the front but they have just created the most dangerous road situation along the front. My guess would be 15 deaths a year any many many accidents.

Report this post »

mys says...
11:28am Wed 20 Jul 11

Well well well,if people choose to ignore the speed limit then they deserve to get caught,theres a limit for a reason,i just dont agree when these mobile speed cameras get people when they have gone 1 mile over the limit,its just another way of getting some money back into the kitty because of all the cut backs.

Report this post »

CLARETMINTY says...
11:41am Wed 20 Jul 11

i agree we should keep to the limit's it's funny how 2 of these camera's are in area's where the speed limit has been changed

Report this post »

CLARETMINTY says...
11:46am Wed 20 Jul 11

our van driver got caught on the rossendale rd camera because he always used his sat nav which it still comes up with the old speed of 40 even though it's now 30.
People rely on sat nav's too much nowadays instead of using there own initiative

Report this post »

Wetwangman says...
11:58am Wed 20 Jul 11

I want to know if these figures include the ones ' let off ' by that corrupt kid working for the Lancashire Police. Whatever happened to that piece of scum, by any chance.. slapped wrist perhaps ?

Report this post »

useyourhead says...
12:19pm Wed 20 Jul 11

Never been unlucky enough to get done by one, Just glad I don't live in yorkshire, a lot of their cameras face forward so you really don't stand a chance if your speeding there!

Report this post »

Seneca says...
12:42pm Wed 20 Jul 11

Oh what fun it is to see the flash of the camera when some t1t has just overtaken at silly speed.

There should be more speed cameras, it isn't stealth tax it's a voluntary tax. If you don't speed you don't pay and stop painting them yellow there shouldn't be a warning where they are.

Report this post »

Armchair Warrior says...
1:36pm Wed 20 Jul 11

Seneca wrote:
Oh what fun it is to see the flash of the camera when some t1t has just overtaken at silly speed. There should be more speed cameras, it isn't stealth tax it's a voluntary tax. If you don't speed you don't pay and stop painting them yellow there shouldn't be a warning where they are.
Yawn

Report this post »

Alf Hart says...
2:08pm Wed 20 Jul 11

The A59 on Longsight Rd, Osbaldeston is 50mph then drops to 30mph for no more than 200yds (for a junction) then goes back up to 50mph with very little prior warning.

It`s not a speed camera they`ve got there, it`s a pot of gold for Lancashire police.

Report this post »

Pendlesider says...
2:45pm Wed 20 Jul 11

happycyclist wrote:
Pendlesider wrote:
Replace the word 'prolific' with 'covertly hidden. that's £60 x 2,500 = £150,000 in 12 months for ONE covertly hidden camera. or £1.5Million for all of Lancashire. above assumes fpn and no court costs.
.
This cameras location should be reported to The Department of Transport, as doing so should result in the particular authority being removed from the "netting-off scheme" which allows them to keep part of the revenue collected by their speed cameras. If the camera is obscured by tree branches request they be removed.
.
Speed cameras must be visible from a distance of 66 yards ( 60 metres) on roads with a speed limit of up to 40mph ( 64 Kmph), and 109 yards ( 100 metres) for speeds above that.
Well if the camera can see you, you should be able to see the camera.

It's not about speed cameras though, it's about speed limits, and you should be keeping to them whether there are cameras there or not. And if you don't know the speed limits then you shouldn't really be on the roads. They're the round signs, red border, big black number -THAT'S the speed limit. Keep to it or pay up; your choice.
"Well if the camera can see you, you should be able to see the camera."
.
don't talk nonsense the lens is facing the opposite way and I avoid travelling at excess speeds above limits and have never been done for speeding. It's the visibility of the GATSO CAMERA in question, not some imaginary sign you seem to have just made up. stick to the topic.

Report this post »

halfhearted says...
5:56pm Wed 20 Jul 11

ACC Andy Rhodes,calls it a Safety Camera,it is not,its a Speed Enforcement Camera. This man appears on a regular basis now speaking on Police matters and every time he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it.
Figures have proved that these cameras have not,and I presume never will reduce the number of accidents. But the Government and Police will never admit this as it is one ofe the main sources of income.
I do not encourage speeding,but unlike those who comment on here who rub their hands with glee stating it is a capital offence to do so,must not drive a motor vehicle or have been very very lucky they too have not been caught.
Many drivers when approaching these cameras are so tied up in speedo watching they are not concentrating on the road.
These cameras are a substitute for the Traffic Department,and most people would like to see more Police vehicles on the road than these machines.
Crime prevention and detection would appear to be secondary these days to motoring offences.

Report this post »

jghazanfar says...
6:44pm Wed 20 Jul 11

Motorist are an easy target for the police. The police were setup to prevent and detect crime,.
Nowadays Its all about money - when your car breaks down the police call the recovery truck police get paid a commission, when police attend an accident they “refer” you to an accident claims company they get paid a commission..
Every day i see 5 to 10 police cars driving up and down the main road stopping drivers, but they never have a single patrol available to patrol the streets.
Dealing with violence, anti social behaviour drugs and thefts doesn’t seem to be the priority anymore

Report this post »

stilladarrener says...
7:11pm Wed 20 Jul 11

From a good source, all the earlier speed camera ' offenders ' could be let off as the signage / rules were not adhered to and not signed off. Test cases in the courts as we speak

Report this post »

working chap says...
9:22pm Wed 20 Jul 11

Seneca wrote:
Oh what fun it is to see the flash of the camera when some t1t has just overtaken at silly speed.

There should be more speed cameras, it isn't stealth tax it's a voluntary tax. If you don't speed you don't pay and stop painting them yellow there shouldn't be a warning where they are.
More cameras please. It is a tax on stupid, impatient bad drivers. No one has to speed so no one has to pay speeding fines. You speed, you pay - simples!

Report this post »

"Archaea" says...
11:44pm Wed 20 Jul 11

Simply flick the Cruise Control to automatic in any speed restricted area. Problem solved, no hassle and no added expense. I can’t understand what all the fuss is about.

Report this post »

bburnrover says...
9:29am Thu 21 Jul 11

The problem is the fact that some speedlimits are too low for the type of road they are on.The Longsite road one or A59 at Osbaldeston is a case in question it was 40 mph and is now 30 mph I use it a lot and did not realise it had changed until I read about it.
I think this one is designed to raise funds as 30 mph is a ridiculously low speed on a major A road.I am suprised it does not create more accidents with people being rear ended by the idiots that drive police cars.

Report this post »

bburnrover says...
9:35am Thu 21 Jul 11

I also did not mention that I feel the most dangerous drivers are on housing estates where they drive at up to speeds of 70 mph in short bursts with children playing -where are the speed cameras there?The culprits are young lads who have not got the experience and skill to avoid hitting people and just clear off without stopping.

Report this post »

Plasticbertrand says...
11:10am Thu 21 Jul 11

You all seem to be missing the point here, regarding this camera. Through total incompetance by Jo Turton at LCC and her department, the warning signs of the speed limit change were totally inadequate. Even now when you approach this section of road from the Clitheroe direction, one of the two 30 MPH signs is placed directly behind a lampost and is overgrown by trees. The reason this 30MPH zone was instated was to slow traffic down in front of St Mary's Primary School. An electronic warning sign flashing school and 30 mph would slow 99% of the traffic down and save children's lives, but sadly dead children do not pay for public sector pensions. It is therefore better for LCC and the Police to allow motorists to speed past the school and for them to collect the revenue after the event.

Finally the positioning of this camera is far from safe. Motorists who may be slightly above the 30MPH speed instantly look at their speedometer followed by their rear view mirror whilst passing the entrance of the school. Any dimwitt would know that this is a recipe for disaster, but perhaps Lancashire Road Safety Parnership have hired David Blunkett to select the locations for their cameras.

Report this post »

Plasticbertrand says...
11:10am Thu 21 Jul 11

You all seem to be missing the point here, regarding this camera. Through total incompetance by Jo Turton at LCC and her department, the warning signs of the speed limit change were totally inadequate. Even now when you approach this section of road from the Clitheroe direction, one of the two 30 MPH signs is placed directly behind a lampost and is overgrown by trees. The reason this 30MPH zone was instated was to slow traffic down in front of St Mary's Primary School. An electronic warning sign flashing school and 30 mph would slow 99% of the traffic down and save children's lives, but sadly dead children do not pay for public sector pensions. It is therefore better for LCC and the Police to allow motorists to speed past the school and for them to collect the revenue after the event.

Finally the positioning of this camera is far from safe. Motorists who may be slightly above the 30MPH speed instantly look at their speedometer followed by their rear view mirror whilst passing the entrance of the school. Any dimwitt would know that this is a recipe for disaster, but perhaps Lancashire Road Safety Parnership have hired David Blunkett to select the locations for their cameras.

Report this post »

ipb1962 says...
12:10pm Thu 21 Jul 11

What I would be interested in is how many of those 2589 occurred after the speed limit change....now that would make interesting reading !

I am still fighting my ticket along with a number of other people. What happened to the backbone of all the people who just capitulated and paid up.

Report this post »

ipb1962 says...
12:18pm Thu 21 Jul 11

Secondly to all those holier than thou people who have posted on here.

The Osbaldeston camera caught hundreds of people who were driving within the original speed limit and IT IS incumbent on the local authority to make sure the signs and road markings comply with the regulations, in that regard they failed miserably.

Report this post »

happycyclist says...
12:42pm Thu 21 Jul 11

ipb1962 wrote:
Secondly to all those holier than thou people who have posted on here.

The Osbaldeston camera caught hundreds of people who were driving within the original speed limit and IT IS incumbent on the local authority to make sure the signs and road markings comply with the regulations, in that regard they failed miserably.
Yeah, I know that and think those people should be recompensed.

The 'holier than thou' attitude crops up every time the subject of speed cameras crops up though because some people absolutely refuse to accept any responsibility for their driving.

Report this post »

xrjxman says...
12:47pm Thu 21 Jul 11

This set of figures is yet more proof that the whole speed camera business is no more than a "cash cow" for the authorities.
Livesey Branch Road has been a source of speeding problems for many years now.. yet the cameras there do not even register on the list DESPITE the least tickets shown is EIGHT,
STILL however the road is blighted by a combination of boy racers in their little souped up astras, clios and polos AND (worse still) the yobs in the Subaru Impretzas, screaming up and down regularly in the afternoons, evenings and weekends.
What do they do when complaints are made.... send the camera van mid morning or early afternoon. All they catch are ordinary motorists a few mph over the limit going about their normal law abiding lives.

RUBBISH... all of it

Report this post »

xrjxman says...
12:48pm Thu 21 Jul 11

This set of figures is yet more proof that the whole speed camera business is no more than a "cash cow" for the authorities.
Livesey Branch Road has been a source of speeding problems for many years now.. yet the cameras there do not even register on the list DESPITE the least tickets shown is EIGHT,
STILL however the road is blighted by a combination of boy racers in their little souped up astras, clios and polos AND (worse still) the yobs in the Subaru Impretzas, screaming up and down regularly in the afternoons, evenings and weekends.
What do they do when complaints are made.... send the camera van mid morning or early afternoon. All they catch are ordinary motorists a few mph over the limit going about their normal law abiding lives.

RUBBISH... all of it

Report this post »

Burnleymumof1 says...
1:21pm Thu 21 Jul 11

I was caught on Rossendale Road doing 37 in what I thought was a 40 mph zone. I went back and checked and did actually see one road sign displaying the 30mph limit. This had been vandalised with blue spray paint.

I'm sure there were far more 40mph signs visable before it was changed to 30. Funny how there's just the one now.

Report this post »

Plasticbertrand says...
1:39pm Thu 21 Jul 11

I have to say that Chief Superintendent Bob Eastwood should be thoroughly ashamed at his forces diabolical performance in making our roads safe. This year my wife an I saw an increase in insurance policies of £975.00, despite that fact that we have a combined 27 years no claims between us. I was told the reason for this, by one insurer who refuses to deal with vehicles in a BB1 and BB2 postcode, is that we have the 2nd highest fraudulent claim rate for 'cash for crash' incidents and uninsured drivers in the country. Now correct me I'm wrong, but have our magistrates courts been inundated with these fraudsters, as I can only recall one article in the L.E.T of someone being convicted of this crime. Instead our courts seem to be full of motorists duped into speeding offenses by inadequate signage and in Osbaldeston's case, a warning sign that was installed facing in the wrong direction.

On my daily commute I witness at least 14 traffic offenses every day, from driving whilst using a mobile phone, boy racing, unsafe vehicles and groups of unrestrained persons traveling in vehicles that are only designed to carry five persons, but the police do 'sweet father Abrahams' about it.

I therefore believe that like Jo Turton, (the head oh highways at LCC), Bob Eastwood appears to be someone who has been promoted way beyond his actual ability, yet we as tax payers are paying his wages for a less than mediocre performance.

Report this post »

I predict a riot says...
12:02am Fri 22 Jul 11

bburnrover wrote:
The problem is the fact that some speedlimits are too low for the type of road they are on.The Longsite road one or A59 at Osbaldeston is a case in question it was 40 mph and is now 30 mph I use it a lot and did not realise it had changed until I read about it. I think this one is designed to raise funds as 30 mph is a ridiculously low speed on a major A road.I am suprised it does not create more accidents with people being rear ended by the idiots that drive police cars.
Tell Leon Atkinson's family that 30mph is a ridiculously low speed for this stretch of road.
He lost his life at this spot back in 2007 aged just 24. Yes he made a fatal error and pulled out into the path of a car and skip waggon but he'd still be with us today if the traffic he pulled out into was travelling at 30mph.

And for those posters stating that these camera's are hidden, if you can't see a bright yellow 2ft square box on a 6ft high post you really shouldn't be driving in the first place.

Report this post »

CapitaBackHander says...
12:10am Fri 22 Jul 11

Burnleymumof1 wrote:
I was caught on Rossendale Road doing 37 in what I thought was a 40 mph zone. I went back and checked and did actually see one road sign displaying the 30mph limit. This had been vandalised with blue spray paint.

I'm sure there were far more 40mph signs visable before it was changed to 30. Funny how there's just the one now.
That is totally irrelevant. What made you think it was 40mph? You should assume the speed limit is 30mph unless marked otherwise.

Report this post »

CapitaBackHander says...
2:17am Fri 22 Jul 11

I predict a riot wrote:
bburnrover wrote:
The problem is the fact that some speedlimits are too low for the type of road they are on.The Longsite road one or A59 at Osbaldeston is a case in question it was 40 mph and is now 30 mph I use it a lot and did not realise it had changed until I read about it. I think this one is designed to raise funds as 30 mph is a ridiculously low speed on a major A road.I am suprised it does not create more accidents with people being rear ended by the idiots that drive police cars.
Tell Leon Atkinson's family that 30mph is a ridiculously low speed for this stretch of road.
He lost his life at this spot back in 2007 aged just 24. Yes he made a fatal error and pulled out into the path of a car and skip waggon but he'd still be with us today if the traffic he pulled out into was travelling at 30mph.

And for those posters stating that these camera's are hidden, if you can't see a bright yellow 2ft square box on a 6ft high post you really shouldn't be driving in the first place.
Oh in that case let's reduce all roads to ten mph. What a stupid way to make a totally invalid point. I don't know anything about case but that sounds like the same stupidity re a death in Darwen where certain people want railings to protect drunks from killing themselves. Strange that their own taxi drivers still park up and drive dangerously at same spot.

Report this post »

Lifeinthemix says...
9:50am Fri 22 Jul 11

so have you grasped the fact that the constabulary and the magistrates are acting in the manner of corporate goons for nothing other than the enrichment of the corporate at the expense of the taxpayer?
.
and the manner in which this is achieved is unjust therefore the same are enriching the corporate in an unjust fashion...send that as a response to any and all speeding and parking fines...

Report this post »

Plasticbertrand says...
1:22pm Fri 22 Jul 11

I predict a riot wrote:
bburnrover wrote:
The problem is the fact that some speedlimits are too low for the type of road they are on.The Longsite road one or A59 at Osbaldeston is a case in question it was 40 mph and is now 30 mph I use it a lot and did not realise it had changed until I read about it. I think this one is designed to raise funds as 30 mph is a ridiculously low speed on a major A road.I am suprised it does not create more accidents with people being rear ended by the idiots that drive police cars.
Tell Leon Atkinson's family that 30mph is a ridiculously low speed for this stretch of road.
He lost his life at this spot back in 2007 aged just 24. Yes he made a fatal error and pulled out into the path of a car and skip waggon but he'd still be with us today if the traffic he pulled out into was travelling at 30mph.

And for those posters stating that these camera's are hidden, if you can't see a bright yellow 2ft square box on a 6ft high post you really shouldn't be driving in the first place.
I somehow doubt that anyone would survive being hit by an 18 ton skip lorry, even if it was travelling at 30 MPH. Moreover there have been fatalities on all of our motorways, since they were created, so by your argument these should be reduced to 30MPH too.

The sad geeks that run the speed awareness course, always bang on about if there is a system of street lighting then you should assume that it is a 30 mph zone. My question is just how many lampost must you count, since you last saw a speed sign before reducing down to 30mph, just to be on the safe side. It's all a crock of poo.

Report this post »

bigted says...
5:13pm Fri 22 Jul 11

"Across the entire county, 49,825 people were caught speeding on fixed and mobile sites, with 21,809 fined and given points and 15,458 given speed awareness courses"

so that leaves 12,558 who were let off? i reckon many drivers in blackburn will have an address outside of the EU for situations just like this... or was it the old "trouser leg up, funny handshake, thankyou very much brother chief inspector?"

whatever the reason: 12000 people NOT brought to book is just unacceptable

Report this post »

bigted says...
5:23pm Fri 22 Jul 11

QUOTE"They had previously refused to release figures because of concerns that vandals would target cameras, as they have done in Blakewater Road, Blackburn."

Not vandals. Heros. I applaud anybody who knocks those things down.

I'd rather see no cash-cow cameras at all on our roads. But if they do have to be there, then it needs to be the same justice for all.

Report this post »

pdb951 says...
8:50pm Fri 22 Jul 11

Happycyclist.

You people can't even see red traffic lights so it's a bit ripe hreading your comment

Report this post »

mysay.com says...
9:37pm Fri 22 Jul 11

well here we are again, firstly , happy cyclist commenting again on something yuo know nothing about, the holier than though comment was ained at comments like yours, pay attention at least.
secondly, the worse culprets for speeding are the police, i have watched and commented on the fact that the police slow down for these cameras and then speed up again once they have passed them, i have followed police cars along 30 mph roads in excess of 60mph, if they are not responding to an emergency they are bound by the same laws as the rest of us so unless they are showing blue lights, follow them and maintain the flow of traffic.
95% of convictions are gained by admission only, unless they have hand delivered the notices to you, and gained a signature, they have NOT been served and they have no proof that they ever even sent them, stop accepting delivery by signing them and sending them back.

If you are caught speeding, by a police officer who gains a signature form you at the scene, you have NOT been caught speeding, only photographed in a vehicle on a rd by a machine, you may have been doing 28 in a 30 zone and got past a camera scot free with 16 pints under your skin, and thats acceptable is it?

How many of these cameras have actually shown a reduction in the nnumber of accidents, solely the cameras, not in conjuction with police presence or speed awareness campaigns or anything else which actually does something, but just cameras which only make money?

Report this post »

Darwenbert says...
11:41pm Sat 23 Jul 11

ITS A SPEED LIMIT NOT A TARGET END OFF.

Report this post »

Darwenbert says...
11:42pm Sat 23 Jul 11

ITS A SPEED LIMIT NOT A TARGET END OFF.

Report this post »

Darwenbert says...
11:47pm Sat 23 Jul 11

http://www.speedcame
rasuk.com/speed-came
ra-types.htm worth a look just to keep you up to speed pardon the pun

Report this post »

speedindan says...
12:06pm Tue 26 Jul 11

These statistics boggle the mind - So does this infographic on speed cameras: www.speedcameralocat
ions.co.uk - Shut down the lot of em I say, there must be a better, more effective way of controlling speeding maniacs.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree