Lets face it the government want our hard earned cash and the car is the easy target. It has been pointed out that speed kills and yes more training and visual aids in the form of adverts and warning signs all over the place will slow people down, for a day week whatever! Unfortunately drivers as soon as we get in that cabin with the I know all and everyone is a crap driver but me attitude. Were screwed! I have been witness to some horrible accidents in Europe through speed and in this country also though speed and bad driving. After saying that in Germany when a speed limit sign was shown they stuck to it. I personally like to drive fast and drive according to the conditions but I do hate the cameras I agree when they are put on black spots but not on the open road like on the Dalkeith to Coldsteam road just to name a road. Accidents don't happen they are caused HSE
____(OO=[II]=OO)___ (O=0000=O)
Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. After that, who cares? ...He's a mile away and you've got his shoes.
Speed cameras are pointless, it seems to me that it's people who are bad at driving and generally going slowly that cause most of the crashes on the roads.
good if used to slow down traffic in genuine danger areas and built up areas...bad if used as a source of income for local police forces on clear long straights where a camera cannot discern between 90mph on a dry warm suummer morning on a deserted stretch at 3am..(illegal but not dangerous...)...and 50mph in freezing fog nose to tail poor visibility on black ice on the same stretch...(legal but lethal...)
There has to be limits and they need to be enforced. Speed camera's are not the way to bludgeon the rules and are certainly not the safety device claimed by many. The figures show that up glaringly.
I am not against their existence, more the way they are used and abused to the detriment of proper policing.
Over-use of speed cameras and other 'traffic calming' measures draws drivers' attention away from hazards and towards either their speedometer or avoiding artificial hazards. I believe there is a greater risk of me hitting a pedestrian or other vehicle on a certain stretch of road that has loads of speed cameras, and on another that has loads of speed bumps, than on a similar piece of road without these. And the sad truth is, that I don't drive any faster on the road with no intrusions.
Well we're safe for now. Thank goodness we're in a bowling alley.
Originally posted by Phinehas: Over-use of speed cameras and other 'traffic calming' measures draws drivers' attention away from hazards and towards either their speedometer or avoiding artificial hazards.
Wouldn't agree with you there, P, once you are down to the speed limit you don't have to keep looking at the speedo, I've found i can judge the speed by how I am progressing along the road with only the occassional glance to the speedo.
Lets face it the problem is not necessarily the cameras themselves but more the speed limits - from the arguements above most people are saying that the limits themselves are not flexible enough resulting in the cameras enforcing a limit at say 3am (to use biggbn's example) even though there's no-one else around.
Trouble is the limits are put in to try to cover all road conditions, whether they be busy, quiet, lots of pedestrians around, icy, rainy, you name it. A blanket speed limit will not be right for all conditions.
When you go to France the Mototway limit is reduced when its wet or bad conditions - a sensible approach..........BUT..
And this is the problem all speed limits have - there are always those around who "know better", or who are a "better driver" - and they will speed - most accidents are caused by excessive speed (note - I didn't say speeding!!) - if motorists continue to break speed limits you will have cameras - its a viscious circle and I can't see a way out of it!
So I'll say that I'm sitting on the fence! I can see and sympathise with the "money grabbers" argument, but I can also see sense in the "speed reduction" argument as well - lets face it they are only "a source of income" if people are stupid enough to break the limit and if the driver doesn't see them,I'd suggest that if a driver doesn't see tham and take action then they are not concentrating on driving the car properly and they deserve to be fined...
I agree with b308. I do think the leniancy needs to be looked at 35mph in a 30 limit shouldnt be an offence but 40 should. I also think that on the open road and motorways they shouldnt be used as it should all be about protecting pedestrian safety in built up areas. Someone doing 60 in a 30 limit is much more dangerous than someone doing 105 in a 70. However, the issue with speed cameras is that they catch speed and nothing else. The reduction in traffic police sees a lot of dangerous driving, driving without due care and attention, texting whilst driving etc going unpunished.
Originally posted by Wobbletastic: Yes I wouldn’t mind so much if they spent the money they’d stolen off people on something productive.
Whether we like them or not they are not stealing money from people - the speed limits are there, if you don't abide by them you are fined, whats stealing about that? You are breaking the law.
Its the same as parking on a double yellow and going shopping, you know the outcome if you are caught so if you don't want to pay a fine park somewhere else!
I think Fixed speed camera's should be scrapped Mobile Speed Cameras I can appreciate you should keep in mind that there may be police units with the cameras and if your speed is excessive watch out for the blue lights.
I actually think we need more police patrols back on the roads People who think they have full control of there car whilst doing 80,85,90,95mph are wrong - even trained police drivers are risking it all when they have to do these sort of speeds even - all it takes is for a car in front to brake or have a blow out if you are doing 70 you have more chance to avoid an accident whereas if you are doing 90 it is goodnight vienna
AND TO SPEED IN TOWNS OR CITIES IN MY OPINION SHOULD BE AN INSTANT BAN REGARDLESS OF THE HOUR A YOUNG CHILD OR ADULT COULD RUN OUT INFRONT OF A CAR AT ANY MOMENT o.k no one should ever run out in front of a car but it can and does happen and if someone is doing 30mph there is more chance of the pedestrian surviving
So to go on but I have a friend who works for the ambulance service and some of the stories that he comes out with are shocking
I've recently worked with the people behind these and a lot of your points here are unfounded - more the result of too much exposure to one particular press group's Sunday paper...but that's another story.
I can't speak for outside London, but the partnership's only receive a grant from the Government (DfT) to operate them (based on a reduction of deaths not number of fines). They do not receive any money directly from the penalties or the courts. In the sites that they have been positioned, they normally reduce accident rates by half, in some places, to zero.
They've come in for a lot of stick recently through various press articles and it appears the very people who are the 'I'm the best driver in the world and know MY limits' are the very ones protesting when they receive a notice in the post. The speed limit is there for a reason and it is the maximum you are permitted to travel on that road. It is up to the driver to read the road and interpret the conditions to decide how fast up to that speed limit he/she wants to travel. The number of drivers who think it is ok to travel at 40 in a 30, or 70 in a 50 zone is unbelievable. It is pure physics that the higher the speed an object travels, the greater the impact will be if it hits anything. Yes, if you want to hurl around at over 100mph, do so on a track, not some pokey A road.
The cameras are there for a reason and are placed because the data backs up the case for one. The idea that they are 'cash cows' is antiquated and totally false. Since they have moved out of council control and into the governments, the legislation governing them has been significantly tightened up. There seems to be a mentality in London that if you see anything wider than a single lane road, it gives the driver free will to plant their right foot into the carpet. They forget that homes, schools and offices are either side or just round the corner. I wonder how many people here voluntarily reduce their speed outside schools and shops to 20 or less, or see the need to as an inconvenience.
Whilst they are not the be-all-and-end-all in policing our roads, they must form part of a unified strategy along with traffic police, education and traffic calming. Remember, if we all drove to the conditions and within the speed limits, the cameras wouldn’t exist…
Sorry me again just another small point For these people who think it is o.k to do 90,95 100 + MPH in the middle of the night on an empty motorway are WRONG!!!! o.k so you ain't going to kill anyone else but you could kill yourself what if your car has a problem a blown tyre or somthing similar if you had been doing 70 or 70ish you would probably get away with it but at the Higher speeds you are just asking for trouble
In the sites that they have been positioned, they normally reduce accident rates by half, in some places, to zero.
Yes they would, its not rocket science, people learn where they are. But the overall figures were still up one year despite the installation rates on the camera's. Which would suggest speed is not a major contributer, but then we know that anyway.
In the sites that they have been positioned, they normally reduce accident rates by half, in some places, to zero.
Yes they would, its not rocket science, people learn where they are. But the overall figures were still up one year despite the installation rates on the camera's. Which would suggest speed is not a major contributer, but then we know that anyway.
Surely that means they are doing their job. The rise in figures is a moot point among the safety brigade. You comment speed is not a major contributor, but it is a major factor in the severity of an accident.
Interesting to see your press article comes from the same group I mentioned earlier.
We all statistics can used to prove whatever you damn well please.
Here are simple facts.
1. Money collected from fines doesn't just vanish, no matter what anyone says.
2. The backlash against speed cameras is natural response to the increasing amount of liberties being lost to the nanny state. My concern is that this is at the thin end of increasingly bloated looking wedge.
3. Cars are currently massively safer in terms of crash safety, stopping distances and avoidance abilities than the days before speed cameras.
Originally posted by Sebro99: Surely that means they are doing their job. The rise in figures is a moot point among the safety brigade. You comment speed is not a major contributor, but it is a major factor in the severity of an accident.
Interesting to see your press article comes from the same group I mentioned earlier.
Nope. The problem is going elsewhere. The figures are still high (overall not necessarily speed) and are not supporting the installation of camera's. The authorities have tried to implicate speed as a major cause and have constantly found to be fibbing or using a huge dollop of spin. The first 1/3 claim was found out to be 7%. So they make a big drive to tackle the 7% and leave the 93% on the back burner.
Of course speed will have an impact on the severity, thought that goes without saying. Problem is, its not the biggest killer and the main reasons are being ignored. And they don't often involve excessive speed.
3. Cars are currently massively safer in terms of crash safety, stopping distances and avoidance abilities than the days before speed cameras.
Modern Cars are safer nowadays but they are designed to be safe whilst keeping within the legal speed limit - However there are still a lot of older models out on the roads as well god help them
Speed limiters. Awful. I have already looked up on this and I am convinced that the government with the urging of the EU (one of their pet projects, galileo) will bend over and give in to this project. Whether it works or not. Scary thing is it also propose vehicle direction control as well. Of course, its all in the name of safety so we are not worthy to counter it. Some of the figures quoted by the EU are for EU wide stats, not taking into account we have some of the best figures going.
They have already trailed it and there is a paper on the dft site that proposes how it would be introduced. Guess who pays?
Originally posted by Phinehas: Over-use of speed cameras and other 'traffic calming' measures draws drivers' attention away from hazards and towards either their speedometer or avoiding artificial hazards.
Wouldn't agree with you there, P, once you are down to the speed limit you don't have to keep looking at the speedo, I've found i can judge the speed by how I am progressing along the road with only the occassional glance to the speedo.
In MY car, I don't have a problem with this generally. Let me I identify two stretches of road, one that I have to drive regulary, the other that most of us will know: 1. A610 Nutall Rd, Nottingham which has Ave Speed Cameras for about two miles - 30mph speed limit; 2. M1 roadworks in Herts -40mph speed limit for what, 10 miles?. On the M1 it is really difficult after a long drive at 70mph to keep to 40 without constantly checking the speedo. There are few points of reference, especially at night, and you can't rely on other vehicles to judge your speed. Also, if you do obey the limit and need to pass someone, you will be aggressively tailgated. On the A610, which I drive regularly, I don't have a problem doing 30mph in MY car. I know the gearing and the engine sounds. But I drive a lot of different vehicles for work, the worst being a Toyota Previa auto. That has one of those awful 1mm = 5mph speedos, AND it gathers speed without any apparent change in input. I solve the problem by selecting D2 and O/D off (honest, but I've never had a ticket and I never want one). I've also driven a Mondeo that was showing 35mph and being overtaken by everyone - and drivers there do actually stick to the limit very carefully. Whether I like it or not, I spend what I consider an inordinate ie. dangerous, amount of time speedo-watching. I try to avoid driving too fast for the situation and certainly don't drive around built-up areas at more than 30-35, but I'd prefer it if I could concentrate on hazard avoidance rather than ticket avoidance. If I am to be held responsible for my actions as a driver - which I agree with, let me do the job properly.<
