Help & FAQs    Search BCF    Members    Groups    Events Calendar
Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Speed camera windfall millions

 Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Biking News & Rumours
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Mister James
I want to believe!



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 04:14 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Speed camera windfall millions Reply with quote
Click for source

Six traffic areas clock up £1m-plus speed profits
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
(Filed: 27/12/2005)

Quote:


Six road safety partnerships have each made a profit of more than £1 million from their speed cameras, according to figures released by Whitehall.

The accounts of the partnerships will intensify the controversy over cameras, showing that in some areas they do little more than cover their cost while in other parts of the country they have raised huge amounts of cash.

While supporters maintain that the cameras are a vital weapon in the effort to reduce road casualties, the devices are resented by motorists who face £60 fines and three points on their licence for each transgression.

Unless the surplus is reinvested in more cameras, it has had to be surrendered to the Treasury. However, Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, recently announced an overhaul of the speed camera programme, in which the surpluses - of up to £110 million a year - would go to a new national road safety fund.

The biggest surplus for 2004-05 was claimed by Northumbria Safety Camera Partnership. It made a profit of £1.7 million, with motorists in the county paying more than £4 million in fines.

One of the most modest surpluses - £15,416 - was in North Wales, where Richard Brunstrom, the chief constable, has attracted national fame for his outspoken support for the cameras. However, the total raised in fines - in a sparsely populated part of the country - was more than £3 million.

Other partnerships to break the £1 million barrier were Bedfordshire and Luton, Hertfordshire, Lancashire, Mid and South Wales and Thames Valley. In London, where motorists paid nearly £9 million, the partnership made a fairly modest £376,000 surplus.

The latest statistics served to renew the debate over the role of cameras.

Edmund King, the executive director of the RAC Foundation, said: "These figures show that there is a lot that can be spent on wider road safety improvements.

"Some cameras are money-making enterprises, some are not. I have seen a document from a road safety partnership warning that it was in danger of not breaking even and suggesting two options.

"One was to place cameras where they would catch more motorists and the other was to lower the speed threshold for prosecution.

"We have to slow people down, but the problem is that cameras were the first and last resort."

Chris Grayling, the Tories' shadow transport secretary, said the detailed figures showed beyond reasonable doubt that cameras were being used as a "stealth tax" in some parts of the country.

"It is right that they should be used where they contribute to road safety, but not as a means to raise money for other purposes."

____________________
>Soultrader Mister James, I bet you are a copper
>Bazza Wow. Eyes like a shithouse rat, you...
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

DEN MONKEY
World Chat Champion



Joined: 17 May 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 09:50 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thats some big bickies theyre pulling down.
I agree to a point that money made from these cameras could be re-invested back into road safety and the like.
I do not however have an issue with the cameras themselves.
On the contrary, I think theyre great.
For those who bitch and moan about this being just another way for the authorities to raise revenue, there is a simple answer.
DONT FUCKIN SPEED.
If you are caught legitimately then you simply have no right to argue the purpose of them.
You're simply dobbing yourself in for being someone who forgoes the law for your own benefit.
Don't get me wrong I know we've all sped at some time or another but if your kidding yourself to think that it was safe to do so.
It wasnt safe you were just lucky is all.
____________________
meh
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

doggone
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 May 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 11:09 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's been suggested the profit could be used to keep the air ambulance flying - since they rely on charity to keep going that would seem a good idea, and you might not feel so bad about the fine either.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

lilredmachine
World Chat Champion



Joined: 24 Jan 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 11:28 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
DEN MONKEY wrote:
Thats some big bickies theyre pulling down.
I agree to a point that money made from these cameras could be re-invested back into road safety and the like.
I do not however have an issue with the cameras themselves.
On the contrary, I think theyre great.
For those who bitch and moan about this being just another way for the authorities to raise revenue, there is a simple answer.
DONT FUCKIN SPEED.
If you are caught legitimately then you simply have no right to argue the purpose of them.
You're simply dobbing yourself in for being someone who forgoes the law for your own benefit.
Don't get me wrong I know we've all sped at some time or another but if your kidding yourself to think that it was safe to do so.
It wasnt safe you were just lucky is all.


Don't you live in Australia?
____________________
Bikes: too many, too much for one man to maintain anyway.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

G
The Voice of Reason



Joined: 02 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 11:32 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
DEN MONKEY wrote:

Don't get me wrong I know we've all sped at some time or another but if your kidding yourself to think that it was safe to do so.
It wasnt safe you were just lucky is all.

This is where I have an issue with the way such things are treated.

So it wasn't safe to be doing 31mph in that 30mph? Yet the driver next to you doing 30mph, abiet weaving all over the road as they haven't had any sleep in the last 36 hours gets off fine.

Yes, it's always dangerous to go faster, but I'd suggest not siginficantly more dangerous to be doing 31mph rather than 30mph, as opposed to 30mph rather than 29mph.

In the end, fixed rear facing Gatsos probably help me not get caught out - as they are generally pretty easy to see so an easy way to drive over the speed limit and not get caught if I wanted to.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

flat spot
World Chat Champion



Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Karma :
PostPosted: 11:52 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Don't get me wrong I know we've all sped at some time or another but if your kidding yourself to think that it was safe to do so.
It wasnt safe you were just lucky is all.


That's the biggest crock of shit I've read all year. Laughing But it put a smile on my face.
Do you work for the government or the police by any chance? Either that or you're one of the minority that believes the propaganda shite they churn out.
Speeding DOES NOT KILL OR CAUSE ACCIDENTS!!!! Inappropriate speeds do though, and that's the issue.

Let's take the 70 mph limit on the motorway. Do you think it was because of high speeds and more accidents they introduced it??

Nooo, they introduced it 40 years ago on 22 December 1965, as a PANIC MEASURE following a series of pile-ups in fog, the 70 mph limit has NEVER been shown to have reduced accidents.

I can't even be bothered typing any more FACTS because you're obviously completely sucked in by the safety issue, but hey if it wasn't for suckers believing the government shite then were would they be?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

NSR125-Kid-UK
Attention Whore



Joined: 03 May 2003
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:12 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
This might seem odd but it proves a point.

Play Need for Speed. Look at the road signs, look at your speedo. Notice how you're flying along at three times the limit, and you're not killing people as you pass?
With skill, speed can be used as safely as anything else in motoring.
If you crash in NFS, be honest. It's not because of your speed, it's because you couldn't control your vehicle. If slowing down to negotiate a turn is required, then do it, it's just common sense. There's no need to say "THIS TURN IS A SLOW TURN BY LAW" when plenty of people can negotiate it quickly and safely.

What we need is a complete rethink on whether speed limits that are posted are appropriate. There's a 30 road near me, that's six car widths wide. You can do 120 down it.
There is absolutely no reason why that road should be a 30.
____________________
https://www.bikepics.com/members/nsrandy/96rs250/ My Bike!

"I'm either going to teach andy to get his knee down, or I'm going to get him killed. One of the two" - Teaman
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

lilredmachine
World Chat Champion



Joined: 24 Jan 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:19 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
There is a road on the island that has recently gone 30 down from 40, for no reason. There is a school in the area, but all the houses (and the school) are on the same side of the road, so no one even crosses the road and on the left side there is only fields, with nothing in. 3 days after the new limit is introduced, who should be hiding behind a bush with a camera? Mr. plod of the local constabulary. Cunts.
____________________
Bikes: too many, too much for one man to maintain anyway.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Mister James
I want to believe!



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:31 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
NSR125-Kid-UK wrote:
This might seem odd but it proves a point.

Play Need for Speed. Look at the road signs, look at your speedo. Notice how you're flying along at three times the limit, and you're not killing people as you pass?


Notice how are you playing a computer game in the safety of your own home, and not actually driving a car in the real world?

Quote:

With skill, speed can be used as safely as anything else in motoring.


Agreed. A shame most people don't have anywhere near as much skill as they think they do. The law must legislate to allow for that.

Very few people who crash were thinking "wow, I'm a really rubbish driver" before the accident.

Quote:
There's no need to say "THIS TURN IS A SLOW TURN BY LAW" when plenty of people can negotiate it quickly and safely.


There is when the majority of people vastly over-estimate their own abilities.

Quote:

What we need is a complete rethink on whether speed limits that are posted are appropriate. There's a 30 road near me, that's six car widths wide. You can do 120 down it.
There is absolutely no reason why that road should be a 30.


On a local level, I believe that such things can be looked at?

I personally think that the motorways should be bumped up to 90 once you leave urban areas - no reason for it to stick to 70 once you have left most distractions behind.
____________________
>Soultrader Mister James, I bet you are a copper
>Bazza Wow. Eyes like a shithouse rat, you...
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Knowlsey
Scooby Slapper



Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 17:28 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
there was a post somewhere on here that a judge in new zealand
or OZ prooved a point. He did not convict a motorist for doing over 100 miles an hour or something like that, the police tried to prosicute him for dangerous driving, the judge said that because he was doing that speed does not mean that he was driving dangerously, however if the police tried to prosicute for speeding then that would have been upheld

I live in an area (durham) where even the cheif super does not believe in speed cameras, so that summs it up for me
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

flat spot
World Chat Champion



Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Karma :
PostPosted: 18:03 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
That was in US I think
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mchaggis
World Chat Champion



Joined: 10 May 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 18:43 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Unfortunately, I'm not able to draw any easy conclusions based on heresay and anecdotal evidence, so I did a little research on the whole thing.

Revenue from speed cameras

In summary for 35 partnerships: fixed penalty receipts: £112.2m, expenditure: £91.8m, balance: £20.4m. That's an average profit of £580k. Thinking

https://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/downloadable/dft_rdsafety_029194.pdf

Dft speed camera evaluation report wrote:
In 2000, a system was introduced that allowed eight pilot areas to recover the costs of operating speed and red-light cameras (safety cameras) from fines resulting from enforcement. In 2001, legislation was introduced that allowed the system to be extended to other areas. A national programme was then gradually introduced.


In February 2003, the Department for Transport (DfT) published a research report that analysed the effectiveness of the system in the eight pilot areas over the first two years (April 2000 to March 2002). This report updates this analysis to the 24 areas that were operating within the programme over the first three years (April 2000 to March 2003). Only areas operating within the programme for at least a year were included in the analysis. High level results are as follows:


Vehicle speeds were down - surveys showed that vehicle speeds at speed camera sites had dropped by around 7% following the introduction of cameras. At new sites, there was a 32% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. At fixed sites, there was a 71% reduction and at mobile sites there was a 21% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (ie 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 80% at fixed camera sites, and 28% at mobile camera sites
Both casualties and deaths were down - after allowing for the long-term rend there was a 33% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites here cameras were introduced. Overall, this meant that 40% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (40% fewer). There were 870 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,030 fewer personal injury collisions per annum. There was a clear correlation between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs
There was a positive cost-benefit of around 4:1. In the third year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £221million compared to enforcement costs of around £54million
The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level.

Overall, this report concludes that safety cameras have reduced collisions, casualties and deaths


All interesting stuff. The question really is whether you believe them. I'm sure they're quite professional in what they do, but everyone has a bias towards something.

The dft do say that in 2004, road accidents cost £18bn. Shocked
https://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610642-02.hcsp#P57_10699

If they could reduce the accident rate with a relatively low cost scheme, it would be beneficial. My main problem with them (apart from being penalised for doing something which is merely against the law, without necessarily being dangerous) is that they're only obviously publically looking at one aspect of road safety without an awful lot of publicised effort on very many other fronts. Road user behaviour and road and junction design are far more important than simple speed. It's just that they are rather more difficult to modify and control by punitive means. We all know the government prefer punitive measures to most other things. Thumbs Down
____________________
I must not be a troll...
Mmmm, Guinness
Discovering the delights of Hammerite and a 3/4" brush. Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

m99dws
World Chat Champion



Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 18:44 - 27 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
NSR125-Kid-UK wrote:

Play Need for Speed. Look at the road signs, look at your speedo. Notice how you're flying along at three times the limit, and you're not killing people as you pass?
With skill, speed can be used as safely as anything else in motoring.
If you crash in NFS, be honest. It's not because of your speed, it's because you couldn't control your vehicle. If slowing down to negotiate a turn is required, then do it, it's just common sense. There's no need to say "THIS TURN IS A SLOW TURN BY LAW" when plenty of people can negotiate it quickly and safely.

What we need is a complete rethink on whether speed limits that are posted are appropriate. There's a 30 road near me, that's six car widths wide. You can do 120 down it.
There is absolutely no reason why that road should be a 30.


That's because speed doesn't kill. It's simply the kinetic energy released upon impact that kills. HTH.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 01:07 - 28 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
DEN MONKEY wrote:
Don't get me wrong I know we've all sped at some time or another but if your kidding yourself to think that it was safe to do so.
It wasnt safe you were just lucky is all.


Absolute rubbish. UK government document (page 36 of the pdf) from a couple of months ago admitted that only 3% of motorcycle accidents were caused by speeding. Funny how they did not publicise that one much. Speeding is a very minor cause of accidents.

mchaggis wrote:
The dft do say that in 2004, road accidents cost £18bn. Shocked
https://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_610642-02.hcsp#P57_10699


Check how that figure is calculated. From the above document:-

DfT wrote:
5. The values for the prevention of fatal, serious and slight casualties include the following elements
loss of output due to injury. This is calculated as the present value of the expected loss of earnings
plus any non-wage payments (national insurance contributions, etc.) paid by the employer.
ambulance costs and the costs of hospital treatment.
human costs, based on WTP values, which represent pain, grief and suffering to the casualty,
relatives and friends, and, for fatal casualties, the intrinsic loss of enjoyment of life over and
above the consumption of goods and services.


So the cost of a death is quoted to include "human costs" and "lost output", which are pretty much made up costs. Last time I dug the full figures out for these they amounted to about 95% of the quoted cost for a road death.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

ismunday
Borekit Bruiser



Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 14:21 - 28 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
DEN MONKEY wrote:
I agree to a point that money made from these cameras could be re-invested back into road safety and the like.


Agreed.

DEN MONKEY wrote:
I do not however have an issue with the cameras themselves.
On the contrary, I think theyre great.
For those who bitch and moan about this being just another way for the authorities to raise revenue, there is a simple answer.
DONT FUCKIN SPEED.
If you are caught legitimately then you simply have no right to argue the purpose of them.
You're simply dobbing yourself in for being someone who forgoes the law for your own benefit.


Absolutely. Agree with all of this.

What is the alternative to having a limit? A line has to be drawn somewhere and someone will winge either way. In my opinion the limits we have, however they have come to be, best balance the rights of all road users.

Late and got to get somewhere quick? You simply should have set out earlier in the first place.

Bored at the 'slow' speeds? 'Safe' to go faster? I'm not stopping you going on a track and doing whatever speed you like. Other road users have a right not to be endangered by your unsafe/unexpected antics.

DEN MONKEY wrote:
Don't get me wrong I know we've all sped at some time or another but if your kidding yourself to think that it was safe to do so.
It wasnt safe you were just lucky is all.


I don't think speed limits are necessarily a true reflection on the safe speed. Tight, blind corner on nation speed limit? We don't all go round at 60 mph - it could be foolish. But, on balance, society is all the better for having rules which protect the majority.


One more thing... What does bug me is people who post things like, "I got pulled the other day and have to produce at my local cop station. But I don't have my CBT... help..."

You're the tosser who forces my insurance premium up. I have no sympathy for you whatsoever. Same for those who ride un-insured and un-taxed. There's no excuse whatsoever.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

G
The Voice of Reason



Joined: 02 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 14:30 - 28 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
ismunday wrote:

Bored at the 'slow' speeds? 'Safe' to go faster? I'm not stopping you going on a track and doing whatever speed you like. Other road users have a right not to be endangered by your unsafe/unexpected antics.

But they don't have the right to not be endangered by people driving under the speed limit dangerously, or so it seems now with a lot of police areas cutting their traffic police divisions and getting more cameras.
Do you consider this will help road safety in general?


Quote:
One more thing... What does bug me is people who post things like, "I got pulled the other day and have to produce at my local cop station. But I don't have my CBT... help..."

You're the tosser who forces my insurance premium up. I have no sympathy for you whatsoever. Same for those who ride un-insured and un-taxed. There's no excuse whatsoever.

The people that don't stop for accidents or try to get out of compensating the other person, regardless of whether or not they have insurance, are the ones that put your insurance premium up.
I doubt the amount you pay for tax is significantly effected by those that don't pay.

Nothing to do with those that ride a bike with the incorrect licence, infact those that are caught will be giving money to the authorities, so may even lower the total tax burden.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:00 - 28 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
ismunday wrote:
What is the alternative to having a limit? A line has to be drawn somewhere and someone will winge either way.


Why does a line have to be drawn somewhere? Why is choosing a speed that is safe at one time of day for one particular driver in one particular vehicle in any way relevant for a driver with a totally different level of competance at another time of day in a very different vehicle?

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

lilredmachine
World Chat Champion



Joined: 24 Jan 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 16:17 - 28 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Tight, blind corner on nation speed limit? We don't all go round at 60 mph - it could be foolish.


Straight, wide road with no hedges or other visibility limiting hazards on national speed limit? Why don't we all go down it at 90 MPH, doesn't seem foolish.
____________________
Bikes: too many, too much for one man to maintain anyway.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

extreme3d
World Chat Champion



Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 16:39 - 28 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
doggone wrote:
It's been suggested the profit could be used to keep the air ambulance flying - since they rely on charity to keep going that would seem a good idea, and you might not feel so bad about the fine either.


No one has a problem with the fine, its the points we all hate. THEY do the damage and can destroy peoples livelihoods through a few seconds of concentration lapse. We would be quite happy to just pay a fine only. This in effect becomes 'pay to speed' and this is the system used very successfully in most european countries... In Germany it's quite simply a case of "how much money have you got in your wallet?". You pay the guy with what ever you have, he gives you a receipt and on you go.

WE on the other hand can't have a system like that as it would be slated under "the rich able to buy their way out" culture that we have.....It sucks Thumbs Down
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

carvell
Scuttler



Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Karma :
PostPosted: 19:03 - 28 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
As Clarkson said, Simon Cowell gives more money to the government in tax per year than the total speed camera revenue for the UK in a year.

It's not about the money, it really isn't. I don't know what it is about, but it's not the money.
____________________
Yamaha TDM 850
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

BenBray
Spanner Monkey



Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 20:44 - 28 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Andy. You dont get pedestrians on Need for Speed you knobber.

I agree that 1-3mph over the limit is ridiculous.

What would the government rather I do, do near as damnit 30 and keep my consentration on the road - or do they want me to constantly look down at my speedo and focus my energy elsewhere for the sake of a few MPH?

Ben
____________________
Current Bike: nc30
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 20:46 - 28 Dec 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
carvell wrote:
It's not about the money, it really isn't. I don't know what it is about, but it's not the money.


Nationally not about money. Locally they do want the money to carry on building their own little empires, paying themselves as much as they want.

Notice how North Wales claims to make little profit. However they take a hell of a lot in fines, just that they manage to waste it all in the expenses that they manage to justify.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 18 years, 115 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Biking News & Rumours All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
 You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.14 Sec - Server Load: 0.42 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 144.01 Kb