Speed camera tickets almost double

**slofox** · 15th September 2011, 08:34

"It's about road safety, not about revenue gathering". Paula Rose

yeah right

**Scuba_Steve** · 15th September 2011, 08:50

Originally Posted by slofox

"It's about road safety, not about revenue gathering". Paula Rose

Yea & those Russian chicks really DO think your pic was sexy on that dating site you never signed up for

**oneofsix** · 15th September 2011, 08:55

Originally Posted by slofox

"It's about road safety, not about revenue gathering". Paula Rose

yeah right

yep and exactly how does something you get in the post a month later slow you down at the time.

Accident rate down, camera tickets up. If they were about safety should they both have tracked down?

**Scuba_Steve** · 15th September 2011, 09:00

Originally Posted by oneofsix

yep and exactly how does something you get in the post a month later slow you down at the time.

Accident rate down, camera tickets up. If they were about safety should they both have tracked down?

don't forget avg speed is down too, that's why their introducing the 4km/h tolerance to keep profit up

**bogan** · 15th September 2011, 09:06

Originally Posted by oneofsix

Accident rate down, camera tickets up. If they were about safety should they both have tracked down?

Depends on the connection. Oppression based measures decrease the offending by increasing the penalties. Education based measures decreases both the offending, and the need for further education.

**oneofsix** · 15th September 2011, 09:13

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

don't forget avg speed is down too, that's why their introducing the 4km/h tolerance to keep profit up

burn the cameras

that will push the profits down.

**pzkpfw** · 15th September 2011, 09:29

It woke up the old gits at the AA: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5628...-nearly-double

**oneofsix** · 15th September 2011, 09:34

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

It woke up the old gits at the AA: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5628...-nearly-double

he would have a point if he had also asked for a return of only using the cameras in high risk areas. This would further prove it wasn't revenue gather but guess it is harder to disprove the truth.

**Zedder** · 15th September 2011, 09:37

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

It woke up the old gits at the AA: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5628...-nearly-double

Interesting article that. Did you vote on the opinion poll?

**willytheekid** · 15th September 2011, 09:38

Sums it up perfectly:

"But AA motoring affairs general manager Mike Noon said the public was concerned the cameras were for revenue gathering, rather than safety.

He said instead of having the speed cameras hidden, there should be signs in place to alert motorists."

"We think that will cause motorists to slow down more in those areas. If they do that then [police] will achieve their job of making that area safer."

And this makes sense:
"Noon said 93 per cent of members also wanted revenues from new fines to be spent on road safety, rather than going to the Government's general account"

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$(Its for safety...honest!)$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$