Whilst I agree totally with the notion of positioning a speed camera in order to protect children I do not accept the Journal’s front page head on 29 July that the speed camera near to the railway bridge on Gonerby Road was positioned to ‘protect the lives of young children’.
That speed camera has been there for at least 12 years and during that time has been subject to physical attacks including previous torchings.
As I understand it, the installation and siting of a speed camera is subject to various strictures, one of which is an accumulation of road accidents at a given place.
I seem to recall all those years ago and since, the siting of that particular camera has been a bone of contention. There have been letters to the Journal on this topic. After the last torching (April 2009) the camera has remained dormant with, rather like a Scottish Widow, a hood covering its countenance. Then came the playground.
Off came the hood and doubtless the insides of the camera resumed their mission of collecting revenue.
I feel it to be fanciful to suppose that the timing of the re-emergence of a contentious speed camera and the opening of a children’s playground was entirely coincidental.
Could it be I wonder, rather than the camera being positioned to protect the lives of young children, the provision of a playground was conceived to protect the camera – and its revenue potential?
If there be an element of truth in this conjecture there might be a parallel where in overseas hotspots the innocent are used as a shield for the more nefarious, and if that be the case then those responsible for the creation of the playground might have a lot to answer for.
Yes, let there be a playground. Yes, let there be justifiable speed cameras, but if the guise of protecting cherished little children is deployed to resurrect a dead parrot for the purpose of coffer-swelling – that is way beyond the pale.
Gonerby Hill Foot