thesultanofsheight Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I just want to know what this camera does because having listened to that bird from the DOT explain its purpose on MR I'm confused. She said: It is not a speed camera It is not there to issue speeding tickets If it catches you speeding you won't get a fine but they might send you a letter Even if they send you more than one letter you won't get a fine Its sole purpose is monitor "why accidents happen" So its totally f**king useless from what I can work out - its a non working, non fining, "speed" camera that records accidents so that they can work out what caused them after someone has been injured. I'm so glad that I don't live on planet DOT. They said that its there because there have been 8 unexplained accidents on Ballaugh Bridge without a common cause. Do the DOT not have a dictionary - "ACCIDENT any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause" How much did this useless piece of kit cost to instal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 no speed camera can stop an accident - it may deter some from breaking the speed limit which is considered safe for that stretch of road. As anyone who uses that road knows the bridge and its approaches should have been modernised some years ago when traffic increased - approaching from the south the near side is often blocked by cars/vans parked near the garage/car sales outlet, the bridge is at an awkward bend with a skewed and now quite busy road junction to new housing estates + the major village shop just after the turn off. However for bikers the sight of airbourne TT riders is a major turn on and I suspect many wish to emulate them - the approach road from the south has only recently been speed restricted after the death of an elderly woman resident of a housing complex hit by a motorbike - IMO provision of a pavement etc would have been a better investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 IMO provision of a pavement etc would have been a better investment. But Frances that would affect the TT when we all know that its the DOT's brief to improve road safety without putting in any measures that affect the TT, and to find the cause of accidents (but not those linked to the TT or to changes needed to accomodate the TT). That accident is a prime example. It happened at TT week and was due to speed and increased traffic on the roads, but we have to install a bloody camera 12 months later to analyse how it might have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 I just want to know what this camera does because having listened to that bird from the DOT explain its purpose on MR I'm confused. She said: It is not a speed camera It is not there to issue speeding tickets If it catches you speeding you won't get a fine but they might send you a letter Even if they send you more than one letter you won't get a fine Its sole purpose is monitor "why accidents happen" So its totally f**king useless from what I can work out - its a non working, non fining, "speed" camera that records accidents so that they can work out what caused them after someone has been injured. I'm so glad that I don't live on planet DOT. They said that its there because there have been 8 unexplained accidents on Ballaugh Bridge without a common cause. Do the DOT not have a dictionary - "ACCIDENT any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause" How much did this useless piece of kit cost to instal? On the radio, I'm sure it was said that photographs from the speed camera COULD be sent to the police for the investigation of an accident. So in theory a prosecution could take place based on evidence from the camera. Stinks of - From the 500 speeders going over 30mph that they would otherwise catch - and otherwise have an uproar - 'let's get the successful prosecution of one idiot (who knows the camera is there) and get Joe Public to say it's a good idea'. IMO, we are witnessing the propaganda of the Department of Truth Transport first hand. What I would like to know, is why the DoT is ignoring two public consultations about these cameras. This is facism not democracy, and I really think people should be sacked for ignoring these consultations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 But Frances that would affect the TT when we all know that its the DOT's brief to improve road safety without putting in any measures that affect the TT, I have made this point many times and been told to get the boat in the morning for my pains - the TT was of its time - today's road usage means that much of the course needs changing for the safety of the other users outside of TT racetimes - the 'obvious' approach for Ballaugh bridge is to narrow the road to single width and put lights either side ( set to be red until traffic sensed (see those by side of house of manannan)) and ban parking within 50m of lights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideload Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 or how about people just drive with common sense and leave the junction the way its been for as long as I've been driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 What I would like to know, is why the DoT is ignoring two public consultations about these cameras. This is facism not democracy, and I really think people should be sacked for ignoring these consultations. I thought the consultations were about speed limits. Seeing as this camera is placed in an area that already has a designated speed limit, I'm not quite sure how you can draw relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 What I would like to know, is why the DoT is ignoring two public consultations about these cameras. This is facism not democracy, and I really think people should be sacked for ignoring these consultations. I thought the consultations were about speed limits. Seeing as this camera is placed in an area that already has a designated speed limit, I'm not quite sure how you can draw relevance. Speed cameras were all part of the debate. I remain sceptical. Let's see how long it takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Personally, I think speed cameras are a great idea, bring them on, I say. Purely from a revenue point of view they make excellent economic sense. This particular one is fitted in a well established speed limit, has been widely publicised and is suitably signposted in advance. So, really, what's the problem? Is it more to do with the DoT 'description' of the device, rather than the device itself. Agreed, I think they should just come out and say that they are trying to nail speeders, and that the revenue made will be used for....blah.....blah. There are convicted speeders in the paper most weeks, so the problem obviously 'exists' at various places around the Island. So, lets have cameras located at all of the 'regular' mobile checking places and free up police time for other pilocing issues. Speed cameras were certainly not part of the last 'consultation', so no-one can be said to be ignoring the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Speed cameras were all part of the debate. Nice try. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Speed cameras were certainly not part of the last 'consultation', so no-one can be said to be ignoring the public. Au Contraire! It is hidden in the small print on page 1 of the consultation document. Had the consultation gone the other way, no doubt this would have been used to justify cameras because 'cameras were mentioned in the consultation'. We might be stupid but we're not ****ing stupid. _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Even taking that rather erroneous link with a rather large pinch of salt, one could equally argue that they are not introducing 'modern camera technology' to police a national speed limit. (as was the purpose of the consultation). However, they are utilising 'modern camera technology' to (potentially) police existing speed limits. Which, if I recall correctly was not an issue addressed during the consultation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Even taking that rather erroneous link with a rather large pinch of salt, one could equally argue that they are not introducing 'modern camera technology' to police a national speed limit. (as was the purpose of the consultation). However, they are utilising 'modern camera technology' to (potentially) police existing speed limits. Which, if I recall correctly was not an issue addressed during the consultation. What is erroneous about a scan of the actual consultation document that says: Questions and Answers "Impossible to enforce" the introduction of the modern camera technology will assist the police to enforce all speed limits There is no use of the word 'potentially' or 'existing' (it says ALL). Why do you have a problem recalling when the consultation document is presented here? It says what it says. _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 So they have clearly stated that the introduction of modern camera technology will assist the police to enforce all speed limits. (it is presented as a statement, not an option within the actual consultation) It would appear then that they are actually sticking to their word, by the introduction of this device in Ballaugh. The more the better, in locations such as this, schools, residential areas etc. I know you find it difficult that the authorities don't run everything past you first, but hey, that's life DH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 I know you find it difficult that the authorities don't run everything past you first, but hey, that's life DH Unfortunate initials you have there If you really believe that's true - what the heck is it in the questions and answers on this consultation for any way - if not for that? There are still some of us left who can see straight through this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.