ChatterBank4 mins ago
speed cameras are a menace
20 Answers
why do people consider these things as a "cycnical revenue collecting exercise"? (as stated two questions down) what a load of bollox if you did 30 in a 30 zone and 40 in a 40 zone then there would be no fines. The cameras are there to encourage drivers to obey the law, not collect a few bob for the police benevolent fund. Sorry this is a sounding off more than a question but comments welcomed
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by darth vader. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
On the A20 into Kent there is a camera about 200 yards before the end of the 50 speed limit and well out of any built up areas. I don't believe this camera makes any contribution to road safety on this large clear dual-carriageway.
More pertinantly, I live in a street that is a through-road in which both sides usually have parked vehicles reducing the road to a little over the width of a large car. With children and elderly people using the road, it is insanity to travel at much over 10-15mph here, yet the majority of drivers tear down here at 30mph, risking no fine, breaking no laws, but putting the lives of residents in danger every day.
You cannot simply state, in effect, 'the law is the law', there is far more to road safety than that, although the reactionary opinions of the inner clique of the Answerbank - always so quick to rush to judgement - will probably differ from mine.
I'm sorry, Thecooler, but one can simply state 'the law is the law'. (What else could one say...'the law isn't the law'?)
It never ceases to amaze me when motorists say: "Why can't the police go after real criminals?" Any motorist breaking a speed limit is a 'real criminal'...end of story. I'm with you all the way on this one, Darth.
darth, you are of course right in that those who stick to the speed limit will not be penalised. The cameras were installed in a blaze of assurances, though, that they would only be placed at accident black spots and were there to save lives. More and more they are being exposed as being away from black spots and in places where drivers are tempted to speed a little in a relatively safe location. That's why they have such a bad press.
I live in Surrey, but go to Devon fairly regularly. Once I enter Devon, there are cameras every few yards, it seems. Most are placed just after a speed limit sign or on little bits of downhill where an automatic car will overrun a limit by a few mph - in other words to catch anyone who is not watching his speedometer like a hawk. I drive an automatic and normally just take my foot off when I see a limit sign, so I am often a bit above the limit at the sign, but slowing. In Devon I have to use the brakes a lot more. Perhaps even more importantly I have to drive with my eyes "inside the office" half the time watching the dial, not watching the road, and that is not a safety measure.
I live in Surrey, but go to Devon fairly regularly. Once I enter Devon, there are cameras every few yards, it seems. Most are placed just after a speed limit sign or on little bits of downhill where an automatic car will overrun a limit by a few mph - in other words to catch anyone who is not watching his speedometer like a hawk. I drive an automatic and normally just take my foot off when I see a limit sign, so I am often a bit above the limit at the sign, but slowing. In Devon I have to use the brakes a lot more. Perhaps even more importantly I have to drive with my eyes "inside the office" half the time watching the dial, not watching the road, and that is not a safety measure.
Perhaps the way to look at this one is the law is indeed the law but the traffic laws in this country are woefully out of date.....as already said they are many instances where 30 although legal is far too fast and where although 85-90ish is indeed over the legal limit it would be safe to do so (motorway late at night in good conditions)....the much more worrying thing is that the number of traffic cops on the roads has fallen and standards of road use are appalling.....Gatso's don't catch the mother letting her kids romp about on the back seats, the rep on his mobile or the loads of other dangerous driving you'll see day in day out. They tend to slow drivers down for the small section of road and then everyone speeds up again...they have uses but they are being abuse by the powers that be at the minute.
as the poster states,if you observe the speed limit then of course these cameras will gain no revenue but these cameras cost millions per year to run,monitor and maintain and still they turn a profit.
as i stated in the previous similar question the worst accident hotspots in the uk have no speed cameras so if these camreras exist solely to see the law obeyed then why are these locations left vacant ????
I agree entirely with darth vader et al. But I also think if the police have hit upon a way to legally make loadsa easy money out of "we know best", excuse-ridden, serial speed-law-breaking numnuts then fair play. Like taking candy off a baby, isn't it. Only entirely fair and bang to rights.
To add a new angle to this debate, after much discussion the the other half on this very subject, it became clear that the main reason he has an irrational hatred of these inanimate objects is just that - because they are inanimate! So much better would it be if the rozzers caught him in the act personally and in the traditional manner, one tracking him with a camera by the roadside with the other one stepping out further up the road, gesturing him to stop. I reckon he feels emasculated by the "big brother" machine - like it's not actually a fair cop. Yawn...
Mattk, My step father is a magistrate. he often has to deal with speed cameras. i asked him on his views once and he told me things that newspapers and TV programs dont tell you. things like, speed cameras cannot be placed on accident free areas, and the accidents have to be numerous and speed related. if a speed camera has no effect on the frequency of accidents it has to be removed. Overall since the introduction of cameras 75% of blackspot areas have seen accident reports lose the word FATAL and just have INJURED in them. Also about revenue, the cameras dont make a huge amount of money for the police force, most of it goes on further traffic investigations. And more money is gained in revenue from Criminal damage claims from drunk and dissordally than cameras. Yes they are a burden to motorists, but if a family member was involved in an accident wouldnt you rather have INJURED instead of FATAL on the report?
and what is your point ? i dont recall at any point saying that cameras shouldnt be used,all i said is that the WORST blackspots are devoid of cameras.
at best,cameras slow traffic down for a very short space of time(at the vital points i would guess) but once out of range the speeding 'offenders' soon accelerate to the speeds they want to be doing.
and to use your stepfather 'the magistrate' for the arguement is like me saying that i am rich because i walked into a bank yesterday.
and for the record,i do not excessively speed as i am a family man and extend the same courtesy to pedestrians/traffic that i would wish to be exteneded to me.
sorry i started rating responses but realised how many there are (and gave up) so thanks for the responses. to follow up:
thecooler whilst i agree there may be cases where the speed limit doesn't justify the area it is restricting (in your own opinion), this is not licence to take the law into your own hands - i know a section of road in Leeds which is a 30 zone and for the life of me i don't know why (perhaps it used to be a suburban area but isn't any more) - but not agreeing with the 30 limit imposed does not allow me to take the law into my own hands and start doing 40. Incidentally have you considered writing to the council? they DO listen sometimes - i have had a sign removed in my local town after complaining about it. Also (with regard the 30 zone being too fast) they have introduced 20 zones around the local school - again you should write and suggest it.
ewood27 - the cameras wouldn't be there if no one went over the speed limit. we all had to stick to the law like glue when we were learning to drive (and doing the test) why should we be any different now we have our licence?
quite correct bernardo, if a little abrupt :-)
thecooler whilst i agree there may be cases where the speed limit doesn't justify the area it is restricting (in your own opinion), this is not licence to take the law into your own hands - i know a section of road in Leeds which is a 30 zone and for the life of me i don't know why (perhaps it used to be a suburban area but isn't any more) - but not agreeing with the 30 limit imposed does not allow me to take the law into my own hands and start doing 40. Incidentally have you considered writing to the council? they DO listen sometimes - i have had a sign removed in my local town after complaining about it. Also (with regard the 30 zone being too fast) they have introduced 20 zones around the local school - again you should write and suggest it.
ewood27 - the cameras wouldn't be there if no one went over the speed limit. we all had to stick to the law like glue when we were learning to drive (and doing the test) why should we be any different now we have our licence?
quite correct bernardo, if a little abrupt :-)
I live in North Wales, so I know all about speed cameras - our chief constable is Richard Brunstrom (who famously said that "There is no more excuse for drifting over the speed limit than there is for drifting a knife into someone" - what?!!). I do not speed nor do I condone speeding, however, certainly in this area, huge amounts of resources have been poured into mobile speed cameras at the expense of policing the streets, sorting out the drug problem and responding to victims of crime when they need police help. The North Wales contabulary has the worst burglary solving rate in the whole of Britain, that's what p****s me off about the anti-speeding campaign.
Personally I think speed cameras don't work very well. If Gatso's stopped people speeding, they would collect no revenue. They tend to cause people to slow down abruptly in some cases and this constitutes a danger. I know people shouldn't be travelling over the limit and then slowing down abruptly, but this is the reality of what happens and not the ideal world. Furthermore, keeping speeds low, means local authorities don't have to upgrade roads and can leave them in a shocking state. Many roads are capable of being upgraded so that motorists can legally and safely travel at higher speeds but this excuse of safety (use the word safety and you can do anything because people believe it, whether it's true or not) gives the local government carte blanche to not improve some roads.
As previously stated, speed cameras don't catch the mobile phone user or the mother distracted by whining kids, yet these are also undoubtedly factors in accident rates. Speed doesn't necessarily kill, distraction is a far more likely culprit IMHO.
If you hit a kid at 30 he/she may live. if you hit a kid at 40 he/she is unlikely to live (remember the advert?). Speeding causes death, however you want to justify it. Did you know that originally there was no speed limit on a motorway? They introduced the national speed limit because of all the horrendrous crashes (and deaths) by speeding vehicles.
The upper limit of 70 is now considered too slow: equally, the braking distances found in the highway code are also woefully out of date with the advances in brake technology.
Speed cameras are arbitary - they cannot exercise common sense, and they are certainly no substitute for traffic police.
A gatso will penalise the proverbial "little old lady" for straying over the limit - whilst just behind her is a driver ripped to the tits on booze or drugs weaving all over the road and being a shocking danger to all around him - but if he remains in the speed limit then he is OK. Possibly a bit of an extreme example but, I contend, a perfectly valid one. And remember, yorkshire ripper as a result of a stop. Cameras have their place, around schools, in accident blackspots (which was their original purpose), in built up areas etc..., but they do not have a place on fast safe roads: 90mph in todays's cars on a deserted dual carriagway in good dry conditions is a safe limit - anybody who they cannot handle a car at 90mph under those circumstances should not be driving.
So in that respect, certain speed cameras are a cynical revenue raising exercise.
As Darth says the NSL was introduced at a time when deaths were around 8,000 a year as opposed to about 3,500 now, this is a huge drop considering the extra traffic now. It would be silly to attribute all of that gain to the speed limit, but equally silly to ignore it as part of that gain
The call for more police on the roads makes a lot of sense, though twenty years ago the cry was not of "more police" but "why don't you go and catch real criminals?". Cameras are just the latest target, drivers who get caught speeding will never be happy about it whatever method is used
1 to 20 of 20
