Blair and speed cameras

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by scastle

While I don't agree with speed cameras on clear and safe roads, I would like to point out (as I, Graham and other people have before), you do NOT have to pay the fines.. You just don't speed.

scrotnig, have you ever thought that maybe more fixed speed cameras would actually *free* the police up, so they could cover other crimes better?

Yes, but all they do is what they've done in Manchester...use the 'freed up' officers to man speed traps where there are no cameras.

They won't go and catch burglars, whatever anyone says. They have made up their mind quite firmly that there's nothing in it for them, so they don't bother.

Plus, I look at it the other way round...start catching burglars and that will free up enough officers to man speed traps. Let's get our priorities right here. Burglary is more serious. People who say it isn't have never been burgled, it's as simple as that. I defy anyone to face an armed intruder in their house at 3am, and then stand up and say driving at 35mph in a 30 zone is more serious...but that's what road safety groups are trying to say in their increasingly desperate attempts to justify the current situation.

It been done to death but for old times sake.

Nobody here would object to speed cameras in 30mph zones o/s schools and hospitals and other places (funny but you never see them there)

Even the anti-speeding people on this board would admit to "some" camera sites being dubious in their safety potential v revenue potential.

It has been proven that since the introduction of speed cameras road deaths have actually risen, along with the volume of drink drivers, drivers without insurance etc. This mainly becuase the government seems to think that all Traffic Police did was catch speeding motorists which is not the case. Therefore since the introduction of cameras the amount of Traffic police has fallen, quite dramatically.

It has also been proven that Cameras at accident blackspots are nowhere as effective as Vehicle Actuated Signs.

The final proof, for anyone who needs it, that a camera and a "safety camera partnerships" main objective is to raise revenue needed to look no futher than the M4 where they decided to make a quick buck on a motorway. Knowing full well that a) Motorways are the safest roads in Europe let alone the UK b) It is impossible (or at the very least inpractical) to maintain 70mph on a Motorway. As mentioned above 80-85 mph is perfectly safe in dry conditions on a motorway. Do 70mph on a motorway and you run the risk of being tailgated and boxed in by HGVs which is certainly not safe.

And for me cameras are an election issue.

Originally Posted by Pierre

It been done to death but for old times sake.

Nobody here would object to speed cameras in 30mph zones o/s schools and hospitals and other places (funny but you never see them there)

Even the anti-speeding people on this board would admit to "some" camera sites being dubious in their safety potential v revenue potential.

It has been proven that since the introduction of speed cameras road deaths have actually risen, along with the volume of drink drivers, drivers without insurance etc. This mainly becuase the government seems to think that all Traffic Police did was catch speeding motorists which is not the case. Therefore since the introduction of cameras the amount of Traffic police has fallen, quite dramatically.

It has also been proven that Cameras at accident blackspots are nowhere as effective as Vehicle Actuated Signs.

The final proof, for anyone who needs it, that a camera and a "safety camera partnerships" main objective is to raise revenue needed to look no futher than the M4 where they decided to make a quick buck on a motorway. Knowing full well that a) Motorways are the safest roads in Europe let alone the UK b) It is impossible (or at the very least inpractical) to maintain 70mph on a Motorway. As mentioned above 80-85 mph is perfectly safe in dry conditions on a motorway. Do 70mph on a motorway and you run the risk of being tailgated and boxed in by HGVs which is certainly not safe.



And for me cameras are an election issue.

I agree to that in principal, however theres more to add.
Most speed cameras are situated exactly where a speed limit changes.
Did you know that a speed limit can only be legally enforced once a driver has passed the second sign stating the new speed limit?

Your comment about HGV's is true to an extent, HGV drivers can have their speed checked on any part of their journey via tachograph, most HGV's are now limited to 60Mph, so at 70mph they shouldnt give you too much trouble.

I htink the way around this daft camera culture is for the ordinary motorist to swot up on the road laws, take it to court and get the police done for breaking policy, you can then claim malicious prosecution. It'll start to cost them.
It may be seen as a waste of courts time, but the courts are there to make sure that th epolice dont just bully a £60 fine out of you, which is what it ammounts to, has anyone ever received the picture fro the camera that shows your car speeding? Isnt that blackmail? dont the police have to show you evidence? especially if you wish to represent yourself in court? Do they?

Even if you honestly dont know who was driving your car, you will still receive the points, and you may not have even broken the law. Where is the justice in that?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

I agree to that in principal, however theres more to add.
Most speed cameras are situated exactly where a speed limit changes.
Did you know that a speed limit can only be legally enforced once a driver has passed the second sign stating the new speed limit?

I don't know where you dug that up from. You can be prosecuted for speeding even if there are no speed limit signs, depends on road lighting.

EDIT: http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_limit_signs.htm gives details of speed limits and signage.

[Monster Jedi]

If the police weren't screwing the motorist 10yrs ago. Why now

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Monster Jedi

If the police weren't screwing the motorist 10yrs ago. Why now

Many forces revenue share on cameras.

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Top Gear TV show a while back had an excercise on the improvement in stopping distance, while using a performance car (Porsche) they showed the stopping distance in that car was about 1/3 of that detailed in the highway code. This will be an extreem example,

It's a ridiculous example because most of us don't drive Porsches.

And people should *NOT* rely on better brakes/ tyres/ road surfaces to get them out of trouble anyway, they should *avoid* the situation in the first place!

Is it reasonable to drive at 85+ on a motorway these days - yes - the car is designed to do it.

It it reasonable to drive at 85+ on a crowded motorway these days? Hell no! Especially not given the amount of space that people fail to leave between themselves and the next vehicle.

Yet people still do it. Most of the time they're lucky and get away with it, but when it goes wrong the results are *much* worse.

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yet people still do it. Most of the time they're lucky and get away with it, but when it goes wrong the results are *much* worse.

It's also not reasonable to burgle my house in the middle of the night while armed with a knife.....when is something going to be done about THAT type of offence? Because at the moment, absolutely nothing is. I object to my taxes being used to fund crackdowns on minor speeding offences while burglary is effectively decriminalised.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by scrotnig

It's also not reasonable to burgle my house in the middle of the night while armed with a knife.....when is something going to be done about THAT type of offence? Because at the moment, absolutely nothing is. I object to my taxes being used to fund crackdowns on minor speeding offences while burglary is effectively decriminalised.

I think we heard you the first time, and the second, and the third, and ...................................

[zoombini]

Originally Posted by Croker

nonsense! it was a cash generating area. the only reason I didn't cop it was I was in one of the patrol cars

Why?

Either your a copper or you were already caught ? lol

[Croker]

Originally Posted by zoombini

Why?

Either your a copper or you were already caught ? lol

no - there are other types of marked car. Ambulance, Fire, motorway maintenance etc that tend not to get done

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Graham

It's a ridiculous example because most of us don't drive Porsches.

And people should *NOT* rely on better brakes/ tyres/ road surfaces to get them out of trouble anyway, they should *avoid* the situation in the first place!

"but shows how things have improved."
Quote the whole sentance please...
The stopping distance of the average family saloon (say a Ford Focus) will still be way way in excess of the distances detailed in the Highway Code, probably a margin of 50% as ABS is now pretty much standard and you cannot stop any quicker that by pushing your foot through the floor on an ABS equipped car - even the revised Police Driver handbook acknowledges that.

Originally Posted by Graham

It it reasonable to drive at 85+ on a crowded motorway these days? Hell no! Especially not given the amount of space that people fail to leave between themselves and the next vehicle.

Yet people still do it. Most of the time they're lucky and get away with it, but when it goes wrong the results are *much* worse.

No it is not reasonable to drive at 85+ on a busy motorway if you cannot create sufficient thinking distance between you and the car in front. This could easily be improved by UK drivers taking a better attitude to lane discipline and pulling over after they have completed a passing manouvre. It is also not appropriate in the Wet. The French, very sensibly require headlights in the wet and also reduce the speed limit from 140Kph (about 87) to 110 Kph (68mph) - a 20% speed reduction.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by Graham

It's a ridiculous example because most of us don't drive Porsches.

And people should *NOT* rely on better brakes/ tyres/ road surfaces to get them out of trouble anyway, they should *avoid* the situation in the first place!

Perhaps a more realistic test would have been to have someone haring up the motorway at 85 in a clapped out Fiesta. The Mini in the next lane could cut in 2 metres ahead with no warning...

Also, bear in mind that the technology (brakes, roads, tires etc) is PART of the problem. The other part is human reaction time, which probably hasn't improved (and certainly doesn't get better the faster the car you drive).
As Graham says, people should avoid the trouble in the first place.

I think the problem is not so much speeding (although that certainly doesn't help), but bad driving. As SMHarman said above, if you maintain good stopping distance from the car in front, you can drive relatively safely at any speed, if you ignore the possibilty of some tw*t (like the one above) cutting in 2 metres in front of you, and ignore the possibility of a mechanical failure such as a blow out.

Originally Posted by Graham

It's a ridiculous example because most of us don't drive Porsches.

Even the most basic cars nowadays have ABS, Disk Brakes, radial tyres - tyre technology is literally light years beyond what it was even 5 years ago.

And people should *NOT* rely on better brakes/ tyres/ road surfaces to get them out of trouble anyway, they should *avoid* the situation in the first place!

It's not a question of relying on the above. The fact is that this is where modern technology has got us. The tools are available to drive, at speed, quite safely.

The only tool that has not developed so quickly is you or I. No matter how good the technology there are still a few numpties - but that shouldn't mean we all have to stop progress for them.

As the world moves forward we need to move aroundat greater pace but the government is hell bent on slowing us down. Even trains are slower than they where twenty years ago.

It it reasonable to drive at 85+ on a crowded motorway these days? Hell no! Especially not given the amount of space that people fail to leave between themselves and the next vehicle.

Not on a crowded motorway no. But should you be restricted to 85 on a quiet motorway.

Yet people still do it. Most of the time they're lucky and get away with it, but when it goes wrong the results are *much* worse.

Our roads are the safest in Europe and yet they still insist on screwing us down further and further.

They have spent too much time and effort on catching speeders and would better spend their time and money on better training for drivers if reducing accidents is indeed their main objective. Which I doubt.

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by scrotnig

It's also not reasonable to burgle my house in the middle of the night while armed with a knife.....when is something going to be done about THAT type of offence? Because at the moment, absolutely nothing is. I object to my taxes being used to fund crackdowns on minor speeding offences while burglary is effectively decriminalised.

sounds like you might live in Baguley or Wythenshawe as there is a mini crime wave going on at the moment. Burglary especially and vandalism. helped also by the police closing down the local police stations and centralising at Wythenshawe centre.

I agree whole heartedly with your anger and the spirit of your comments. Motorists are a soft target for cash and the Police are underfunded and bloody useless at the moment. The way things are heading, we'll be needing Robocop or vigilanti squads soon!

Although I dont agree with the death penalty, if I'm called to jury service re someone who has killed a burglar, I will find it very easy to have empathy with the poor home owner defending themselves because 'the system' sucks.