PDA

View Full Version : Speed cameras are not for road safety


goldoni
31-08-2007, 14:59
A retired Police Sergeant recently wrote to the Telegraph and his letter is compelling reading.

here is his letter:

"I am a retired police sergeant and have extensive road safety and traffic accident investigation experience. I have followed the debate regarding speed cameras and would like to add my opinion. Speed cameras have nothing whatever to do with road safety. They are a blunt instrument with which to criminalise drivers who stray several mph above the speed limit - something that clearly isn't dangerous per se, unless changing or prevailing conditions render it so. Cameras are not able to determine this. Traffic police officers could, but they have mostly been diverted on to other uniform duties, mainly to persecute members of the public for other trivial matters in order to fulfil their "performance indicators", which are hated universally by police officers.

This is a cynical ploy by the Government to fool the electorate that detection rates are up, but you score as many points for solving a shoplifting case as a murder. If the Government was remotely interested in road safety, it would invest more of the excruciating levels of tax it extracts from the road system. Instead, we are forced to endure increasingly dangerous road surfaces, neglected signs and ridiculous levels of congestion that have deliberately been engineered into our transport system. The clear objective is to make motoring such a miserable experience that people will be forced to take public transport.

With speed cameras, the authorities have simply created another dangerous hazard. Where people are unfamiliar with an area, they now spend far too much time with their eyes off the road looking at their speedos, and this has undoubtedly led to an increase in accidents. Fortunately for the Government there is no way of identifying from accident statistics where this has happened, as drivers, while admitting privately what really took place, will not do so officially. Straying over the limit by a few miles per hour does not make a bad driver. Poor governmental policy does.

P.F., Scots Gap"

You can find the original at: Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2007/08/25/mrjon25.xml)

Stuart
31-08-2007, 15:23
With speed cameras, the authorities have simply created another dangerous hazard. Where people are unfamiliar with an area, they now spend far too much time with their eyes off the road looking at their speedos=

He appears to be saying two things there:

1) The average motorist cannot estimate their speed.
2) The average motorist is more concerned with getting somewhere fast and not paying a fine than he is with his/her own and other people's safety.

If 1 is true, then something is clearly wrong with the way we learn driving (even with no speed limits, you would still need to be able to estimate your speed if only for stopping distances).

If 2 is true, then something is wrong with society. Sadly, in a lot of cases, people are more concerned with not paying a fine and getting somewhere fast rather than safety.

goldoni
31-08-2007, 16:48
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.

danielf
31-08-2007, 16:56
As a policeman he would have attended many RTI as they are known today in our PC world.

That's assuming he is a police man, as opposed to someone who merely says he is a policeman. Are we to believe that a police man thinks it's ok to 'stray several mph above the speed limit - something that clearly isn't dangerous per se, unless changing or prevailing conditions render it so'? I'm tempted to take this letter with a pinch of salt.

Paul
31-08-2007, 17:10
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.

nffc
31-08-2007, 17:13
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.
The 40 bit is lamer. And on the bit from Nuthall island to Cinderhill island which is still NSL everyone drives at 40.

Mick
31-08-2007, 17:52
Hmm - it didn't need an ex-Police officer to come and 'spill the beans' so to speak and explain that our dearly loved Government (as if), tells the biggest lies. Telling lies, is the absolute prerequisite to becoming an MP surely? :rolleyes:

goldoni
31-08-2007, 18:04
I am aware of at least three traffic officers and in short if a person was say doing 85 and was driving with due care and attention they personally would do nothing, if they saw a driver doing 65 and weaving in and out of traffic they would stick them on. One other fact some stretches of motorway with speed cameras are set at 90mph if they were set any lower they would not be able to deal with the amount of speeding tickets.

I would like to see more traffic cars on our roads. People slow down when they see the brightly coloured cars. I just love it when you get a long line of traffic behind those new traffic management control cars you now see on our motorways.



They only have limited powers when at an accident or a breakdown.

Derek
31-08-2007, 18:10
RTC's (Road Traffic Collisions seeing accident implies someone might not be at fault for most forces these days, however most cops using radios still call them RTA's) :)

Anyway I personally think there is a place for them on the roads the same way there is a place for red light cameras and both marked and unmarked road policing vehicles/officers. If people think they are not there for enforcing a limit complain if the speed limit was strictly enforced on all roads (via average speed cameras or satellite tracking) as Stuart C says I think a lot of people are more concerned with escaping a fine and 3 points than safety.

trevortt
31-08-2007, 18:28
As far as i am concerned police are all ****, last night for instance i was driving back from the petrol station on a 30mph road and a police car came flying up must have been doing atleast 60mph.

At first i thought he must have been called for an incident so then i ask the question why did it stop at the traffic light?

This proves that police are also liable to the speed cameras too but they don't get charged with speeding as they can get let off as they are 'more important'

They are all ****.

Derek
31-08-2007, 18:33
As far as i am concerned police are all ****, last night for instance i was driving back from the petrol station on a 30mph road and a police car came flying up must have been doing atleast 60mph.

Look up the thread for examples of how accurate "He must have been doing at least ..." guesstimates are.

At first i thought he must have been called for an incident so then i ask the question why did it stop at the traffic light?

Did he stop completely or edge through? If he stopped completely he might have been stood down from the call. If he edged through he did exactly what is expected. You don't just scream through junctions and hope for the best.

This proves that police are also liable to the speed cameras too but they don't get charged with speeding as they can get let off as they are 'more important'

Yes they do get charged with speeding. And if they crash (even with blue lights, sirens etc. they can get charged with careless driving. Not many jobs ask you to put your own licence on the line and tell you to break the rules of the road.

Anyway I'm sure the Police love you too. And with an attitude like that I'm sure if you ever get pulled over they'll give you a warning and let you on your way. :rolleyes: They definately won't go through absolutely everything on your car and end up doing you for not having any water in your washers or a loose battery.

Russ
31-08-2007, 18:34
As far as i am concerned police are all ****, last night for instance i was driving back from the petrol station on a 30mph road and a police car came flying up must have been doing atleast 60mph.

At first i thought he must have been called for an incident so then i ask the question why did it stop at the traffic light?

This proves that police are also liable to the speed cameras too but they don't get charged with speeding as they can get let off as they are 'more important'

They are all ****.

So I'm assuming if you get beaten up or burgled you won't be calling the '****' for help then?

Escapee
31-08-2007, 18:59
Yes they do get charged with speeding. And if they crash (even with blue lights, sirens etc. they can get charged with careless driving. Not many jobs ask you to put your own licence on the line and tell you to break the rules of the road.


Quite a few coppers got off with speeding around here a few years ago, the local police force were boasting about how much they made in x number of weeks with the mobile camera van.

A few weeks later there was much egg on their face when news was released that x amount of police cars were speeding whilst not on an emergancy call, the biggest kick in the teeth was in the majority of instances they didn't even know who was driving because they hadn't signed the log.

I personally think the chief constable should get the fines and points in that situation.

Sirius
31-08-2007, 19:03
Speed cameras are there for one reason and only one reason


They bring in a lot of MONEY

A simple question. If they did not bring in Money do you think there would be as many as there are ????????????

trevortt
31-08-2007, 19:26
So I'm assuming if you get beaten up or burgled you won't be calling the '****' for help then?

Definitely not, i might as well deal with the culprits myself as when the police do arrive the villains would have fled the scene the police would not do anything anyway, apart from a caution or a asbo maybe!

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Did he stop completely or edge through? If he stopped completely he might have been stood down from the call. If he edged through he did exactly what is expected. You don't just scream through junctions and hope for the best.

yes he completely stopped and then raced up the road again after those lighst had turned green and did the exact same further ahead.

I was doing 30Mph so he definately was doing far more than me actually come to think of it i could actually hear his engine racing, now that to me sounds like he is throttling his vehicle.

Russ
31-08-2007, 19:33
Speed cameras are there for one reason and only one reason


They bring in a lot of MONEY

A simple question. If they did not bring in Money do you think there would be as many as there are ????????????

I disagree completely with that. If they were there ONLY for money then there'd be one on each and every road.

I don't doubt that revenue is a motivation for the authorities to put them up but to say they are more interested in money than saving lives is, IMO ridiculous.

Sirius
31-08-2007, 19:37
I disagree completely with that. If they were there ONLY for money then there'd be one on each and every road.

I don't doubt that revenue is a motivation for the authorities to put them up but to say they are more interested in money than saving lives is, IMO ridiculous.

I do believe that they started as a means to stop speeding. Then they discovered just how much they could get from them. Now its a growth industry and a growing form of taxation.

So Russ do you think there would be so many of them if they did not bring in so much money ?

trevortt
31-08-2007, 19:45
I disagree completely with that. If they were there ONLY for money then there'd be one on each and every road.

I don't doubt that revenue is a motivation for the authorities to put them up but to say they are more interested in money than saving lives is, IMO ridiculous.


There is 1 every few yards near me, its a right bloody eye saw.

And i agree they are there for the revenue and not for safety, how can they say its for safety!! have you seen the state of the roads, if they want safety fix the bloody roads.

Russ
31-08-2007, 19:46
I do believe that they started as a means to stop speeding. Then they discovered just how much they could get from them. Now its a growth industry and a growing form of taxation.

So Russ do you think there would be so many of them if they did not bring in so much money ?

That's debateable. But my point is I think it's ridiculous that you think the government is more concerned with making money than saving lives.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------


And i agree they are there for the revenue and not for safety, how can they say its for safety!!

If that was true then the standard fine for speeding would be in the hundreds of piunds.

trevortt
31-08-2007, 19:49
That's debateable. But my point is I think it's ridiculous that you think the government is more concerned with making money than saving lives.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------



If that was true then the standard fine for speeding would be in the hundreds of piunds.

it doesn't matter about the fine for them, they are just bothered about that big fat pay check they get at the end of every month for catching so called criminals speeding.

Its statistics mate, you must have heard the government going on about them.

Russ
31-08-2007, 19:56
it doesn't matter about the fine for them, they are just bothered about that big fat pay check they get at the end of every month for catching so called criminals speeding.

Its statistics mate, you must have heard the government going on about them.

Do you think if the government did not 'go on' about statistics then there would be no speed cameras?

Osem
31-08-2007, 20:08
Speed cameras are there for one reason and only one reason


They bring in a lot of MONEY

A simple question. If they did not bring in Money do you think there would be as many as there are ????????????

Sorry don't entirely buy the revenue raising idea - the money they generate is miniscule in the scheme of things and given all the hassle the authorities get for installing them I can think of far easier ways to raise cash.

As for speeding motorists well anyone who's paying attention to what they're doing behind the wheel and knows the relevant limits needn't worry about cameras at all. The truth is that some people break the rules (speeding, parking etc.), get caught and then spend their lives whingeing about it.

Sirius
31-08-2007, 20:32
Sorry don't entirely buy the revenue raising idea - the money they generate is miniscule in the scheme of things and given all the hassle the authorities get for installing them I can think of far easier ways to raise cash.

As for speeding motorists well anyone who's paying attention to what they're doing behind the wheel and knows the relevant limits needn't worry about cameras at all. The truth is that some people break the rules (speeding, parking etc.), get caught and then spend their lives whingeing about it.

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 ;)

Escapee
01-09-2007, 15:28
That's debateable. But my point is I think it's ridiculous that you think the government is more concerned with making money than saving lives.

---------- Post added at 18:46 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------



If that was true then the standard fine for speeding would be in the hundreds of piunds.

We only have 2 cameras to my knowledge within a 5 mile radius of my home, one is placed on a very quiet road not anywhere near where the houses are and children may be playing, but closer to the rear of an industrial estate and waste land. I would of thought it would of been a greater value to saving lives if it were placed near the row of houses.

The other is on a road scheme built within the last 10 years, the only reason it's required is because the authority cut cost resulting in 2 dangerous side roads onto a nice new by-pass, a roundabout or slip roads would of impoved safety without the need for a camera.

However building a safe road costs money, put up a camera to make the road safe and it earns you money... So whick is the best?

I have said numerous times the most dangerous junctions and road schemes around here are ones built in recent years, the end of my street has a staggered cross roads and the main road has a 90 deg bend within 100 yards in each direction, this was implemented within the last 10 years and its so far a miracle that no pedestrians have been killed.


The speeding fine I believe is set to a level that people will accept and pay, if they made it hundreds of pounds the courts would be full of people contesting the fine, and then people would be asking to pay in installments due to the cost.

Derek
01-09-2007, 16:41
it doesn't matter about the fine for them, they are just bothered about that big fat pay check they get at the end of every month for catching so called criminals speeding.

It's not that big or fat. And you don't get bonuses for catching a certain number of criminals (even speeders) each month.
Anyway there is a small matter of the law. It sets speed limits and if someone breaks them (without lawful authority or reasonable excuse) they are breaking the law, no so-called about it.

Anyway as I'm sure some has already said if it was purely money based there would be hidden cameras on every road and far more average speed systems than there is now.

Angua
01-09-2007, 17:52
There are still two types of camera placement AFAIK. The first ones to go in were just to prevent speeding and the latest ones should only be placed to prevent accidents. What should be happening is those that do not reduce accidents or indeed cause them should be moved to more sensible places such as near schools where they might actually save some lives, and the ridiculous ones every few hundred yards should be swapped for average speed type ones.

Having said that the most effective way I have noticed of reducing speeds (apart from a police car) is to stick a whinge board up.

Escapee
01-09-2007, 18:14
It's not that big or fat. And you don't get bonuses for catching a certain number of criminals (even speeders) each month.
Anyway there is a small matter of the law. It sets speed limits and if someone breaks them (without lawful authority or reasonable excuse) they are breaking the law, no so-called about it.

Anyway as I'm sure some has already said if it was purely money based there would be hidden cameras on every road and far more average speed systems than there is now.

Derek, do you believe it is fair for the local authority to be setting speed limits?

The reason why I ask, is a town about 5 miles away under a different local authority has roads set at 40mph, in my area similar roads are set at 30mph.

I did also contact the highway agency a few years ago about a new traffic light system set up at a T junction in town, this is the only set of traffic lights I have ever seen that only have the lights on one side of the road. I have seen a car go straight the the lights when on red because the lights are only on the near side of the road, and on this occassion a lorry was parked in front of them unloading at the shops.

The highway agency advised me that the local council were responsible for that road now it is deregulated, so the very people I should complain to are the ones who implemented it. The very same council has place 2 bus stops opposite each oher on a narrow road, there is no bay or the bus to pull in they both stop opposite one another on the only narrow road through town.

My whole point is that I believe speed limits and any road schemes should be dealt with by a responsible body, not a few pensioners at a council meeting.

TheNorm
01-09-2007, 19:24
Several studies have shown that "speed cameras" reduce "accidents", e.g. this study in south Wales

...51% reduction in injurious crashes...

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/302

The cameras probably do help to improve road safety.

Derek
01-09-2007, 19:40
Derek, do you believe it is fair for the local authority to be setting speed limits?

Within reason. 20MPH limits near schools is something I agree with although to be honest I'm not sure if this is an enforceable limit or not.

For some of the examples you've given they do sound a bit poorly managed but I suppose thats just local authorities for you. In theory they should have more local knowledge and be able to site bus stops, traffic lights etc. where there is going to be the least disruption but accountablity, common sense and councils aren't things that usually go together.

Escapee
01-09-2007, 19:48
Several studies have shown that "speed cameras" reduce "accidents", e.g. this study in south Wales



http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/302

The cameras probably do help to improve road safety.

Couldn't see a reference to a police force there, I would guess its South Wales Police and not Gwent.
The mobile camera team came in for sharp criticism for their hit and run tactics around here a few years ago. They would pull up and start their activities anywhere including locations where they caused a disruption and danger to road safety.

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 dont think they were a good advert for road safety!

---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:44 ----------

Within reason. 20MPH limits near schools is something I agree with although to be honest I'm not sure if this is an enforceable limit or not.

For some of the examples you've given they do sound a bit poorly managed but I suppose thats just local authorities for you. In theory they should have more local knowledge and be able to site bus stops, traffic lights etc. where there is going to be the least disruption but accountablity, common sense and councils aren't things that usually go together.

The one camera just up the road from my house is a very strange one, as I said its not near the houses. It points away from the houses, has lines on one side of the road and is in a place where traffic would be expected to slow because there is a nasty 90 degree left hander over a bridge that only allows single traffic.

I should imagine its one of the poorest cameras for safety, and surely the poorest for revenue generating around. Just makes me wonder why it has been sited there, I can only guess that possibly there has been youngsters racing up and down the road at some point. Probably find that a councillor lives very close;)

lostandconfused
01-09-2007, 19:49
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.

Hugh
01-09-2007, 20:06
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 (http://www.saferroads4cumbria.org.uk/Thelaw/speeding.asp)

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?

rogerdraig
01-09-2007, 20:12
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 ----------

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
01-09-2007, 20:19
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.

rogerdraig
01-09-2007, 20:30
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
01-09-2007, 20:43
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 (http://www.saferroads4cumbria.org.uk/Thelaw/speeding.asp)

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.

Hugh
01-09-2007, 21:02
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
01-09-2007, 21:31
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
02-09-2007, 00:13
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
02-09-2007, 00:39
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
02-09-2007, 00:54
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. :erm:

Sirius
02-09-2007, 01:03
What's more: they often seem to use the phrase 'law abiding citizens' when calling for harsher penalties. :erm:

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 :rolleyes:

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
02-09-2007, 17:34
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
02-09-2007, 19:36
What's more: they often seem to use the phrase 'law abiding citizens' when calling for harsher penalties. :erm:

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
02-09-2007, 20:42
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.

Stuart
02-09-2007, 20:51
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.

You have proof, I take it?

c_r
02-09-2007, 21:14
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!

Surely it doesn't matter where they site the cameras though? Anyone going over the speed limit anywhere is breaking the law and liable to punishment. Presumably they site them in the places where they think they'll catch the most people because that's the idea of it - to catch and punish people breaking the law.

trevortt
02-09-2007, 21:17
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.

It proves again there is lack of police on the roads cos if you have seen people driving their vehicles with no reg plates well thats riddiculouse!

Escapee
02-09-2007, 21:50
Surely it doesn't matter where they site the cameras though? Anyone going over the speed limit anywhere is breaking the law and liable to punishment. Presumably they site them in the places where they think they'll catch the most people because that's the idea of it - to catch and punish people breaking the law.

It does matter!

Placing a camera at the actual blackspot increases the chances of slowing motorists at the blackspot location, placing it 500yds away will make drivers slow to pass it and then speed up through the blackspot. Extending 30mph speed limits out of villages on straight clear sections of road have no affect on safety, it does however catch more people exceeding the limit but not necessarily the ones who will exceed the limit dangerously at the blackspot.

I do not believe local authorities should be responsible for setting speed limits or placing cameras. A camera should be at the exact location of the blackspot, not at a safer location futher down the road where it will catch a greater number of people.

It should be more about catching people who are unsafe on the roads than catching those who stray over the limit possibly in location where there is an artificially imposed limit for camera purposes.

homealone
02-09-2007, 22:04
It proves again there is lack of police on the roads cos if you have seen people driving their vehicles with no reg plates well thats riddiculouse!

you may need to remove 'appreciates irony' from your list of strengths ;)

Escapee
02-09-2007, 22:20
you may need to remove 'appreciates irony' from your list of strengths ;)

Yes, because I had my sarcastic head on. I was infact pointing out that if People had a number plate on their front and back, it would be easy to fine them by fixed penalty making it just as easy to catch criminals as people exceeding the speed limit.

c_r
02-09-2007, 22:38
placing it 500yds away will make drivers slow to pass it and then speed up through the blackspot.



A camera should be at the exact location of the blackspot, not at a safer location futher down the road where it will catch a greater number of people.

Surely these two statements contradict each other?

Xaccers
02-09-2007, 22:45
Surely these two statements contradict each other?

How?
One states that if you put the camera too far away from the black spot, people will slow down for the camera, speed up again, then hit the black spot.

The other states that if you put the camera where the black spot is, people slow down for the camera, and in doing so, slow down for the black spot.

c_r
02-09-2007, 22:50
How?
One states that if you put the camera too far away from the black spot, people will slow down for the camera, speed up again, then hit the black spot.

The other states that if you put the camera where the black spot is, people slow down for the camera, and in doing so, slow down for the black spot.

One says people slow down for a camera positioned too far away from a black spot. The other one says the reason they put them too far away from black spots is to catch more people.

goldoni
02-09-2007, 23:13
I have just been sent this file it shows that speed can save lives so for those of you who say speed kills look at this Link (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/frank.cooke/downloads/Differencebetween30and50Mph.wmv) The bloke who runs the road pricing web site sent it. So you see it works both ways.

Xaccers
02-09-2007, 23:20
One says people slow down for a camera positioned too far away from a black spot. The other one says the reason they put them too far away from black spots is to catch more people.

Sorry, are you suggesting that all drivers are identical and respond identically because I don't believe escapee was suggesting that.
Surely you can see that some people will slow down for a speed camera then speed back up, while others will look at the road conditions and think "it's a straight bit of road, and there's 500yrds til the bend which looks a bit hairy" so won't slow down until they need to, and with camera's being hidden, they'll get flashed.
If the camera is there to try and get people to slow down for back spots, then surely they should be in the area of the black spot and not 500yrds or so up or down the road where there is no black spot?

danielf
02-09-2007, 23:55
I have just been sent this file it shows that speed can save lives so for those of you who say speed kills look at this Link (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/frank.cooke/downloads/Differencebetween30and50Mph.wmv) The bloke who runs the road pricing web site sent it. So you see it works both ways.

:rofl: I've seen it before. Classic! :rofl:

Sirius
03-09-2007, 20:40
Surely it doesn't matter where they site the cameras though? Anyone going over the speed limit anywhere is breaking the law and liable to punishment. Presumably they site them in the places where they think they'll catch the most people because that's the idea of it - to catch and punish people breaking the law.

Then why are they not siting the police where there is the most trouble. Instead of on motorways and duel carriageways with a portable speed camera in there hands. We have just had a man killed in Warrington in a area where there is always trouble with gangs of young thugs, This man had even tried to get a neighbourhood watch system in place it is that bad, yet where were the police when he needed them. Probably by a nice juicy road waiting for a dastardly speeder with a fixed penalty book in there hands on the orders of some Lycra wearing push bike mad local liberal democrat councilor. Probably the same councilor who just had a bike lane installed on the way to daresbury that is as wide as the car lane and up hill at that :mad:

Warrington is unfortunately run by the lib Dem's :td:

c_r
03-09-2007, 21:05
Sorry, are you suggesting that all drivers are identical and respond identically because I don't believe escapee was suggesting that.
Surely you can see that some people will slow down for a speed camera then speed back up, while others will look at the road conditions and think "it's a straight bit of road, and there's 500yrds til the bend which looks a bit hairy" so won't slow down until they need to, and with camera's being hidden, they'll get flashed.
If the camera is there to try and get people to slow down for back spots, then surely they should be in the area of the black spot and not 500yrds or so up or down the road where there is no black spot?

No I'm not suggesting all drivers are the same, it wasn't me who made the statements. I was just pointing out that Escapee appears to contradict himself in consecutive paragraphs.

---------- Post added at 20:05 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------

Then why are they not siting the police where there is the most trouble. Instead of on motorways and duel carriageways with a portable speed camera in there hands. We have just had a man killed in Warrington in a area where there is always trouble with gangs of young thugs, This man had even tried to get a neighbourhood watch system in place it is that bad, yet where were the police when he needed them. Probably by a nice juicy road waiting for a dastardly speeder with a fixed penalty book in there hands . :mad:

That's a good point and one would assume that they do target places where there is more likely to be trouble, at least to a certain extent?

Escapee
03-09-2007, 21:55
No I'm not suggesting all drivers are the same, it wasn't me who made the statements. I was just pointing out that Escapee appears to contradict himself in consecutive paragraphs.

---------- Post added at 20:05 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------



That's a good point and one would assume that they do target places where there is more likely to be trouble, at least to a certain extent?

How am I contradicting myself, xaccers could understand my post without any problems.

Normal driver 'A' 90% of motorists drive down a straight road with no speed camera at a speed he feels safe, he is possibly exceeding the speed limit and slows down to a safe speed when approaching the hazzardous junction. Installing a speed camera catches a percentage of driver 'A' 500 yds before the hazzardous junction because he does not see the camera or have any warning device.

Driver 'B' 10% of motorists using his camera detector warning device or whatever, slows down for the camera 500 yds before the hazzardous junction, once past the speed camera he is able to speed up to an unsafe level to pass the hazzardous junction.

Would it not be better to site the camera at the exact spot where there is a hazzard, then there is more chance of saving lives, catching the 10% of unsafe drivers and not annoying 90% of drivers who drive sensibly.

Placing the camera at the blackspot will not catch any more unsafe drivers because they are warned or know of the camera, it will however catch a lower number of sensible drivers who have slowed because they see a hazzard and use common sense.

c_r
03-09-2007, 22:37
How am I contradicting myself, xaccers could understand my post without any problems.

Normal driver 'A' 90% of motorists drive down a straight road with no speed camera at a speed he feels safe, he is possibly exceeding the speed limit and slows down to a safe speed when approaching the hazzardous junction. Installing a speed camera catches a percentage of driver 'A' 500 yds before the hazzardous junction because he does not see the camera or have any warning device.

Driver 'B' 10% of motorists using his camera detector warning device or whatever, slows down for the camera 500 yds before the hazzardous junction, once past the speed camera he is able to speed up to an unsafe level to pass the hazzardous junction.

Would it not be better to site the camera at the exact spot where there is a hazzard, then there is more chance of saving lives, catching the 10% of unsafe drivers and not annoying 90% of drivers who drive sensibly.

Placing the camera at the blackspot will not catch any more unsafe drivers because they are warned or know of the camera, it will however catch a lower number of sensible drivers who have slowed because they see a hazzard and use common sense.

Ah I see what you mean, now you've put some percentages in. Is this really what's going on then? In the situation you've described one would expect to see an increase in the number of accidents at the blackspot which the cameras are sited around. Have you any evidence that this has happened?

rogerdraig
04-09-2007, 13:43
Surely it doesn't matter where they site the cameras though? Anyone going over the speed limit anywhere is breaking the law and liable to punishment. Presumably they site them in the places where they think they'll catch the most people because that's the idea of it - to catch and punish people breaking the law.

but thats not what they are for they are ment to reduce accidents and over all they dont

Escapee
04-09-2007, 21:20
Ah I see what you mean, now you've put some percentages in. Is this really what's going on then? In the situation you've described one would expect to see an increase in the number of accidents at the blackspot which the cameras are sited around. Have you any evidence that this has happened?

I would of thought the answer is common sense, the same as extending the lower speed limit on a staight piece of road out of a village will raise more revenue.

trevortt
04-09-2007, 23:42
You have proof, I take it?

Well look on your news, you always hear the driver gets points and a fine yet the criminal behind the wheel who does not have a license, has no insurance & tax is let off with a 6 months community order.

I would prefer to do a community order than to be stuck with 3 penalty point on my license for as long as i can drive.

Now i would call that unfair.

dragon
05-09-2007, 00:02
This is a cynical ploy by the Government to fool the electorate that detection rates are up, but you score as many points for solving a shoplifting case as a murder. If the Government was remotely interested in road safety, it would invest more of the excruciating levels of tax it extracts from the road system. Instead, we are forced to endure increasingly dangerous road surfaces, neglected signs and ridiculous levels of congestion that have deliberately been engineered into our transport system. The clear objective is to make motoring such a miserable experience that people will be forced to take public transport.


Except there isn't any "public" transport because the government sold it all off to private companies. :mad:

lostandconfused
05-09-2007, 09:55
Well look on your news, you always hear the driver gets points and a fine yet the criminal behind the wheel who does not have a license, has no insurance & tax is let off with a 6 months community order.

I would prefer to do a community order than to be stuck with 3 penalty point on my license for as long as i can drive.

Now i would call that unfair.

they are only on there for 4 years, unless its related to drink driving or dangerous driving

Derek
05-09-2007, 11:51
Well look on your news, you always hear the driver gets points and a fine yet the criminal behind the wheel who does not have a license, has no insurance & tax is let off with a 6 months community order.

And as usual the news doesn't report the full story. I wouldn't say criminals get dealt with less harshly than (aside from speeding) 'law-abiding' road users.

rogerdraig
05-09-2007, 15:48
motorists speeding are use to massage figures now not reduce accidents

a policeman i know was told to go out and get his ticket quota up not to reduce accidents but to get the stats right

he went and ticketed a load of cars for dangerously parking the wrong way at night on the high way with out parking lights ( suposedly according to some these must be criminals as they were breaking the law ;) to )

bosses then were pleading for him to drop them he refused but as he said at least they dont nag him to go wait on a nice safe straight road at night to get his quota up