Speed cameras are not for road safety

[lostandconfused]

IMHO speed cameras are far to widely used.

They do have their place on our roads but they shouldnt replace actually having police in patrol cars, they should be there aswell as them.

With regards to the revenue gained from speed cameras, i dont know if it is a money gaining scheme or maybe as mentioned it turned into that after introduction.

What is more important is that is what the general perception of them is. Personally i think it would do the whole scheme and the government as a whole a lot of good to remove the fine, and just to have points on your licence as now. That way any people saying its more about money than safety wouldnt have an argument.

The £60.00 fine isnt really a deterant to most people, losing your licence and the incovenience and cost assosiated with getting it back is what deters me from going over the speed limit.

[foreverwar]

This will (probably) just end up like all the other speed camera threads, so I will make my one point, and then observe from the sidelines -
30MPH - if a car hits a pedestrian, they have an 80% likelyhood of survival
40MPH - if a car hits a pedestrian, they have an 90% likelyhood of death (this lowers to 80% for a child). Linky

So next time you accelerate to overtake a van parked at the side of the road to beat the oncoming traffic, why not just wait for the oncoming traffic to pass?

[rogermevans]

Originally Posted by goldoni

As a policeman he would have attended many RTI as they are known today in our PC world. He would have to take statements from bystanders “What speed was he doing when he appeared in your view” “he was doing well over 80 mph” in fact he was doing 35mph people can’t estimate speed and when we are in a car with that so called safety cage all around us we all are unable to judge speed. Then we get the “I’m a safe driver I have never had an accident in my life” no but if he / she had opened their eyes they have caused many near accidents.

The point is we are lead to believe by our government the speed cameras are in place for our safety. That is the biggest lie ever. They are in place to make money and for no other reason. Policemen in cars make the roads a safer place, but sadly the Government feels they are no longer needed in high viz cars.

We all think we are safe drivers, like we all feel we are when were in our cocoon zipping down the motorway until that road traffic incident happens.

I felt I was a good driver until I went on an advanced driver’s course. I made so many mistakes I felt like a learner again.

With regards to No 2 I think we are all guilty of that one, we don’t know it but we are.

agreed with you they are there just for money making in nearly all cases

as to you feeling not so good a driver after advanced course do not be to dishartend thier course in my opinion is about 30 years out of date

while i was a driving instructor i got a 17 year old through his main test and an advanced drivers test on the same day . they and ROSPA seem stuck in thier ways insisting on not crossing hands etc still despite the advances in cars

and its the advances in breaking systems etc which have steadily brought down road casualties not speed cameras . i know you will get people quoteing stats from particular roads on reductions but these in almost all cases ignore the resultant in crease in near by or bypass roads as most reductions are due to people avoiding the camera or just slowing at the spot it is placed then accelerating on after it.

---------- Post added at 19:12 ---------- Previous post was at 19:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul M

Why is difficult to believe that a Policeman would think straying over a speed limit is not dangerous in itself ?

Doing 75 mph on a clear motorway in good conditions is not really any more dangerous than doing 70 mph. Doing 70 mph in wet/icy conditions is a different story.

Doing 55mph down the A610 near me is no more dangerous than it was 12 months ago, the only difference is that someone reduced the limit from 70mph to 50mph.

exactly and soon you will see the cameras go in ( if you havent already got them ) because now the limits lower the camera will generate decent money

we have a 60mph 2 lane road by us that was "upgraded" ( to a slower road lol ) a dual carigeway with proper center barriers but now has a 50mph limit and guess what now they want to put cameras on it

[Chris W]

Much as i hate to admit it, the most effective solution i have seen to prevent speeding are the Average Speed cameras. There are some on the m4 at the moment where they are doing roadworks (50mph) and they actually cause people to slow down. The Gatso cameras just cause people to speed up and slow down repeatedly which is more dangerous than driving at a constant albeit higher speed.

Once you have reached the speed when you enter the 50 limit it doesn't take much concentration at all to stay at the speed- even easier for those who have cruise control.

[rogermevans]

Originally Posted by Chris W

Much as i hate to admit it, the most effective solution i have seen to prevent speeding are the Average Speed cameras. There are some on the m4 at the moment where they are doing roadworks (50mph) and they actually cause people to slow down. The Gatso cameras just cause people to speed up and slow down repeatedly which is more dangerous than driving at a constant albeit higher speed.

Once you have reached the speed when you enter the 50 limit it doesn't take much concentration at all to stay at the speed- even easier for those who have cruise control.

those type are the exception to a rule and even then ( as long as there are people working lol ) its more the fact that there is a risk people can appreciate ( or at least the ones with brains ) that causes the slow down

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

This will (probably) just end up like all the other speed camera threads, so I will make my one point, and then observe from the sidelines -
30MPH - if a car hits a pedestrian, they have an 80% likelyhood of survival
40MPH - if a car hits a pedestrian, they have an 90% likelyhood of death (this lowers to 80% for a child). Linky

So next time you accelerate to overtake a van parked at the side of the road to beat the oncoming traffic, why not just wait for the oncoming traffic to pass?

I know you couldn't resist a pop at me!

Do you not think it stupid and dangerous to park at an angle with the front nearside wheel up on a grass verge and back end sticking out in the road close to a busy road junction. My immediate reaction was what is this stupid ar****e doing parked like that.

It would be difficult for me to run a kid over on that stretch of road because there are no pavements adjacent to the road, the pavement is with the cycle path set back from the road and a fence between. I can find a postcode for you to view on Google earth if you once again wish to question anything and everything I say.

Better still, wouldn't it be better if the mobile camera 'safety' van didn't park and cause obstructions. This practice stopped because of the numerous complaints to the police, I parked further up the road when it happened and ran back to take a photo, but they had already moved to the next hit and run location.

[foreverwar]

I wasn't having a pop at you - I agree that the van was parked, from your description, in a hazardous way; however, from your description of what you did -
"I remember posting about an incident where I was approaching traffic lights and actually accelerated because there was a van parked 45 degrees with its back end sticking out in the road. I was increasing my speed to safely pass before A line of oncoming traffic got close.

Yes, it was the bl**dy 'hit and run' camera van with its back end sticking out into the road. Fortunately I was under the limit before accelerating and I spotted it and had to stop to allow oncoming traffic through first".
I surmised from that that you would have exceeded the speed limit at that stretch of road to enable you to pass the van before the oncoming traffic got there - breaking the speed limit is breaking the speed limit, even if you think you were breaking the speed limit safely.

What if the oncoming traffic had dangerously accelerated to get through at the same time you increased your speed to safely pass? Who would have been at fault?

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I wasn't having a pop at you - I agree that the van was parked, from your description, in a hazardous way; however, from your description of what you did -
"I remember posting about an incident where I was approaching traffic lights and actually accelerated because there was a van parked 45 degrees with its back end sticking out in the road. I was increasing my speed to safely pass before A line of oncoming traffic got close.

Yes, it was the bl**dy 'hit and run' camera van with its back end sticking out into the road. Fortunately I was under the limit before accelerating and I spotted it and had to stop to allow oncoming traffic through first".
I surmised from that that you would have exceeded the speed limit at that stretch of road to enable you to pass the van before the oncoming traffic got there - breaking the speed limit is breaking the speed limit, even if you think you were breaking the speed limit safely.

What if the oncoming traffic had dangerously accelerated to get through at the same time you increased your speed to safely pass? Who would have been at fault?

My apologies, I thought the comment was aimed at me.

The oncoming traffic would not of needed to accelerate, as the obstruction was on my side of the road, they were approaching lights that were green in both directions so they could not overtake the lorry. This was a few years ago but the oncoming vehicle was a lorry coming up the slope with a line of traffic behind it, my judgement was that it was safe to increase my speed and safely pass. The lights are on a straight section after a roundabout and bend, it is difficult to exceed the speed limit at the location of the mobile camera. I remember looking down at the speedo as I took my foot off and I was travelling almost at the 40mph limit, in reality by this point I was almost level with the camera van so I would of been OK to proceed.

It is however good that they put a stop to this practice after so many complaints. I also remember posting a few years ago around the same time about following the safety camera van on the Usk - Little Mill road on my way home, the driver was using a mobile phone for quite some distance as he was driving along.

I guess its the old 'Dont do as I do, do as I say' routine, and that doesn't show a good example.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by Muggle

I don't complain i have the means to ensure i don't add to the Speed camera taxation system and i am well informed by that means of forth coming black spots and that makes sure i don't add to the problem where those black spots are

Everyone has the means to ensure they "don't add to the Speed camera taxation system". Don't speed.

[c_r]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Everyone has the means to ensure they "don't add to the Speed camera taxation system". Don't speed.

I couldn't agree more. It's really that simple, if you don't want to be punished by the law then don't break the law. What amazes me is the amount of people who are extremely vocal against speed cameras who seem to be in favour of absolutely draconian punishment for other offences.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by c_r

I couldn't agree more. It's really that simple, if you don't want to be punished by the law then don't break the law. What amazes me is the amount of people who are extremely vocal against speed cameras who seem to be in favour of absolutely draconian punishment for other offences.

What's more: they often seem to use the phrase 'law abiding citizens' when calling for harsher penalties.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by daniel f

What's more: they often seem to use the phrase 'law abiding citizens' when calling for harsher penalties.

And dont forget they normally go on about

Tree hugging Wally's
Human rights Wally's

And the famous send them all on holidays and then make them do thinking classes as a punishment brigade

I don't intentionally go over the speed limit however i don't trust the siting of SOME of the so called safety cameras and therefor make sure i know they are there in case i do make a small mistake and exceed by a few Mph and end up paying the price.

[Escapee]

I am in a position where I have never had a speeding ticket, I have never even had a parking ticket, my beef is the cameras that are there for one purpose only, and that is to generate renenue or catch the maximum amount of people to make the stats look good.

Cameras should be sited to aid safety not to maximise revenue or make the high figures look like they are more effective than they actually are, the use of mobile cameras on straight sections of road leaving a village and indeed extending the 30mph zone for this purpose should not be allowed. I have a section of road about 4 miles from my home where they extended the 30mph limit one day and were sat there the next with a speed camera catching people accelerate out of the village on an open country road.

The authorities (perhaps not all areas) seem to think its a cat and mouse game, where they can use any tactics to catch people who have strayed over the limit. Cameras both fixed and mobile are rarely sited at the dangerous spot they are intended to serve, that's because only a small percentage of people drive irresponsibly at the actual danger location but a higher percentage are slightly exceeding the limit a few hundred yards away from the location.

If a camera catches x amount of motorists 500yds from an accident blackspot, the government is then using the figures to suggest that x amount were actually speeding at the site of the blackspot.

Lets have cameras at the exact spot where there is a danger and not at spots where motorists are likely to be exceeding the limit because the limit is set too low. I would also like to see a different limit for traffic climbing steep hills, as a driver of classic cars I have a steep hill on my way home from work, and I am in the same situation as lorries.

I have to exceed the limit at the bottom of the steep hill through the 30mph section to gain enough speed to climb the 60mph section at 30mph. I can understand why there is a 30mph limit coming down the steep hill to the traffic lights, but I cannot understand why there is not a 40mph limit going up the hill. Surely the law of physics says the stopping distance going up the hill is a lot less!

[trevortt]

Originally Posted by danielf

What's more: they often seem to use the phrase 'law abiding citizens' when calling for harsher penalties.

it might be because the driver is always the person that gets punishemed far more than the real criminal who has just stabbed someone, robbed someone.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by trevortt

it might be because the driver is always the person that gets punishemed far more than the real criminal who has just stabbed someone, robbed someone.

Exactly, and perhaps if people had registration numbers displayed on their front and rear, it would be easy for the police to send a fixed penalty notice through the post when a crime is committed.