Speed cameras

[jc denton]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADj_lnKVRhE

& this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSguQg_bK38&feature=related


Millions upon millions of pounds a year are generated under the LIE: "We're doing this to make our streets safer."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
There are many ways of improving road safety which are far more effective than prosecuting motorists for speeding. Speeding is Not the biggest cause of road accidents! (Personally I think lack of concentration is).

But as a way of generating revenue for the government, it's almost unbeatable![/FONT]

 

[obi_waynne]

Local authorities were "creaming it in" with cameras and put these everywhere. Then the funds generated were diverted centrally and as a result lots of speed cameras are being removed or no longer maintained!

I never knowingly speed on the roads but cameras still worry me! I just know that a moments lapse of concentration or misread sign is all it takes to get the dreaded flash.

 

[HDi fun]

I'm in two minds. I do agree that driver error is the principle cause of almost all RTCs. But taking this further, people still get clobbered by cameras which are visible for hundreds of yards. Clearly they are not paying attention.

For some, it's a wake up call and they sort out their observation and attitude.

For others, it just winds 'em up and their driving, attitude and observation does not improve at all. But if it slows 'em down then when they finally DO have a collision (as a result of general brain impairment or clinical stupidity ) at least it's likely to be at a lower speed and therefore less damaging for everyone involved.

 

[Hansi]

They are also putting up more and more speed cameras here. But because of the law of protection of the personal rights they can't take your picture without letting you know first so there is a warning sign telling you of the camera a few hundred meters before you drive past it. Still people get cought on them so it is obviously lack of concentration.

In some situations the speed can cause a serious risk such as in wery wet snow or deep snow where you can either float on it or get cought in old tracks and not be able to do anything.

My opinion is that the highway speed law is to low for the situations on the road but the government never approves of the suggestions congressmen have tried to push through congress about raising speed limits up to the same it is in countries around us

 

[jc denton]

If they put them up around schools & such like, I for one wouldn't be complaining. But they don't. They put them up on long open roads where people drive faster.

When was the last time someone got hit by a speeding car on the dual carragway?

Ironically, the millions of pounds of tax payers money spent on speed cameras & the billions generated for the government, the level of RTC's in britain has remained virtually unchanged.

 

[HDi fun]

If they put them up around schools & such like, I for one wouldn't be complaining. But they don't. They put them up on long open roads where people drive faster.

When was the last time someone got hit by a speeding car on the dual carragway?

Ironically, the millions of pounds of tax payers money spent on speed cameras & the billions generated for the government, the level of RTC's in britain has remained virtually unchanged.

In fairness, I haven't seen many cynically placed cameras over years.

One I do remember is M4 Junction 2 (Brentford) where traffic merges on an uphill slip lane into two lanes of Eastbound (into Hammersmith) and the limit is 40mph.

Sticking a camera where the lanes of dense traffic are merging was very very naughty indeed.

 

[T9 man]

In fairness, I haven't seen many cynically placed cameras over years.

One I do remember is M4 Junction 2 (Brentford) where traffic merges on an uphill slip lane into two lanes of Eastbound (into Hammersmith) and the limit is 40mph.

Sticking a camera where the lanes of dense traffic are merging was very very naughty indeed.

I think I know the one your describing there! Remember the old days when speed cameras were painted grey only? you did'nt stand a chance!

 

[old-git]

I have said it before and I will say it again:

Getting caught by a speed camera isn't compulsory. If you are not observant enough to be able to see the warning signs, makings on the road and bright yellow boxes, then you should consider either actually driving within the speed limits (your speedo is a useful tool to help with this) or taking public transport.

Unlike most other taxes, this is one that you can decide on whether you want to contribute to or not

If you don't like the rules, choose another game to play

 

[T9 man]

I have said it before and I will say it again:

Getting caught by a speed camera isn't compulsory. If you are not observant enough to be able to see the warning signs, makings on the road and bright yellow boxes, then you should consider either actually driving within the speed limits (your speedo is a useful tool to help with this) or taking public transport.

Unlike most other taxes, this is one that you can decide on whether you want to contribute to or not

If you don't like the rules, choose another game to play

Amen to the words of wisdom!

 

[HDi fun]

I have said it before and I will say it again:

Getting caught by a speed camera isn't compulsory. If you are not observant enough to be able to see the warning signs, makings on the road and bright yellow boxes, then you should consider either actually driving within the speed limits (your speedo is a useful tool to help with this) or taking public transport.

Unlike most other taxes, this is one that you can decide on whether you want to contribute to or not

If you don't like the rules, choose another game to play

Completely agree with you - read my previous posts.

But the Brentford flyover one was nasty - I first saw it during early 1993. Trying to adjust speed to join dense traffic on an uphill ramp and getting clobbered for 46mph for a couple of seconds was very very cynical.

Especially when the traffic on the M4 was doing 45 and just below the trigger threshold.

 

[jc denton]

If you don't like the rules, choose another game to play?

Society is not a game, neither is tyranny. Playing buy the rules is all well & good but when legislaters make unjust rules we should not just roll over & take it.

If you have any concirn at all for the safety of our roads & the use of our tax moneys, you will surely be apposed too speed cameras as revenue collectors rather than safety devices.

 

[HDi fun]

If you don't like the rules, choose another game to play?

Society is not a game, neither is tyranny. Playing buy the rules is all well & good but when legislaters make unjust rules (for their own benifit rather than that of society, which is their job) we should not just roll over & take it.

If you have any concirn at all for the safety of our roads & the use of our tax moneys, you will surely be apposed too speed cameras as revenue collectors rather than safety devices.

If you can't be good, be careful. If you can't be careful, then don't get caught.

It's an old old chestnut this speed camera thing and I've come round to the fact that they probably are worthwhile PROVIDED they're well located and well marked. The speed limit must be clearly marked as well.

I'm fully aware that blind speed limit observance with brain in neutral is not going to help anything but for those who do drive (and I am not referrining to you or anyone else here) with their brains in neutral - well, when they do finally have a crash it's better that it happens at the speed limit rather than above it.

 

[HDi fun]

<If you can't be good, be careful. If you can't be careful, then don't get caught>

Come up with that by yourself? Sounds like your encouraging people too drive illegal!?

I know its an old chestnut but it remains a problem. Maybe I'll follow the dutch guys example from the vid.

The 'can't be good......' thing is also an old chestnut and I am not in any way attempting plagiarise anybody else's work.

I'm not encouraging anything at all. and I am totally against censorship of any kind. There are such things as comment and commentary, both of which can be utilised without any intent to mislead or coerce anyone to do anything at all - illegally or otherwise.

I haven't yet watched the vid - I promise I will do so.

 

[jc denton]

Does anybody know how to make a thread which allows people too vote?

 

[old-git]

If you don't like the rules, choose another game to play?

Society is not a game, neither is tyranny. Playing buy the rules is all well & good but when legislaters make unjust rules (for their own benifit rather than that of society, which is their job) we should not just roll over & take it.

If you have any concern at all for the safety of our roads & the use of our tax moneys, you will surely be apposed too speed cameras as revenue collectors rather than safety devices.

If you want tyranny, move to Libya! Speed cameras are hardly tyranny. They were/are an attempt to reduce the frequency of injuries at certain 'accident black spots' caused by excessive speed, in the opinion of the safety specialists. I was involved with them (but not on the installation side) for many years and we only got requests for more of them, not less!!! However, as Essex County Council worked strictly to the rules set out by government on the placing of cameras (had to be a certain number of speed related injuries within a set period) we were unable to help many people.

What is unjust and tyrannical about setting a speed limit and attempting to achieve its compliance by the majority or road users? There are warning signs, markings on the road, the cameras are painted (generally) bright yellow and sat navs tell you about them. in a tyrannical system the cameras would be hidden so as much money as possible could be made from them.

Cameras only take money from those who choose to donate. I have been driving past them for many years without paying a penny, really quite easy to do. If cameras were solely for revenue collection I would oppose them, simply by doing what I do now. If that was the sole reason for them, there would be a LOT more of them and they would be hidden.

Please explain why you consider the rules on speed and the installation of safety cameras is unjust and how it benefits the legislators rather than society?

 

[old-git]

Does anybody know how to make a thread which allows people too vote?

Waynne can no doubt help you there but, if you are thinking of a poll to find out members' opinion on safety cameras, I don't think that you need bother as I can pretty much guess that the answer would be a resonding NO to cameras - go on, prove me wrong . However, we are but a very small, car orientated, group that is hardly representative of the Country's population.

 

[jc denton]

Old git, take a chill pill!...& did you even watch the videos?

I'm sure that the initial intention & invention of speed cameras was good. But in realilty the number of RTC's has been virtually uneffected. But since they are reelling in revenue, they have not been removed & the public are still paying for them.

 

[T9 man]

Waynne, how do I make a thread where people can vote?

Click on the "Help" tab at the top of this page, then type in the word "Poll" into the "Search Word" open box, then click on the "Search FAQ" tab, then all will be revealed.

 

[Big Fat Fatty]

Old git, take a chill pill!...& did you even watch the videos?

I'm sure that the initial intention & invention of speed cameras was good. But in realilty the number of RTC's has been virtually uneffected. But since they are reelling in revenue, they have not been removed & the public are still paying for them.

The Gatso camera was originally invented to photograph fast moving rally cars on timed stages, since then people have put it to better use stopping irresponsible drivers killing innocent people,

The number of fatal RTC's has significantly dropped in the most accident prone blackspots the fact that the average across the country hasn't is irelevant because it never will

There is a road on the outskirts of weymouth that follows the coast for about 30 miles passing through several small villages and hamlets round blind bends and summits, over the past ten years there has been numerous fatal crashes on this stretch of road and the authorities have tried everything apart from cameras to stop people using excessive speed but nothing else works

 

[turbonutter69]

The Gatso camera was originally invented to photograph fast moving rally cars on timed stages, since then people have put it to better use stopping irresponsible drivers killing innocent people,

The number of fatal RTC's has significantly dropped in the most accident prone blackspots the fact that the average across the country hasn't is irelevant because it never will

There is a road on the outskirts of weymouth that follows the coast for about 30 miles passing through several small villages and hamlets round blind bends and summits, over the past ten years there has been numerous fatal crashes on this stretch of road and the authorities have tried everything apart from cameras to stop people using excessive speed but nothing else works

Agreed I was gonna say more or less the same.
And also same as OG. I've been driving years now and I have never been flashed by a camera.
As said if you can't see the bright yellow box then you need an eye test.

 

[HDi fun]

I've never been caught on camera either. I have been flashed a couple of times by a faulty one in Slough - 30mph limit and driving at sub 15mph.

 

[Big Fat Fatty]

I've never been caught (touch wood) by a fixed or mobile camera because they are so easily spotted from quite a distance, i've had a couple of scares driving around the M25 but only because i don't go up there that often and the variable speed limit,

the debate about them being used as revenue collectors has been going on for years and won't calm down until they are all removed and we start to see a rise in fatalities again

 

[old-git]

Old git, take a chill pill!...& did you even watch the videos?

I'm sure that the initial intention & invention of speed cameras was good. But in realilty the number of RTC's has been virtually uneffected. But since they are reelling in revenue, they have not been removed & the public are still paying for them.

Me? Take a chill pill? Whatever for? They should be taken by the people who get so wound up by safety cameras

Seen both before. The second one is irrelevant to the discussion.

The first one is a classic case of lies, dammed lies and statistics. According to the official figures produced by the Office for National Statistics, 3598 people were killed on the roads in 1996 and 3431 in 2001. This is around a 10% reduction, hardly 'virtually constant' as claimed by Clarkson. Also the simple chart didn't take into account the rise in vehicles during that time so the actual reduction based on the number of vehicles or miles travelled is even greater.

By doing a little research, EVERY road that I can make out on the chart (couldn't see one in the bottom right hand corner) has at least one camera site. This highlights the danger of putting forward out of date information as evidence to support a case. As data is usually available within a year of its collection, this programme must be around 8 years old!!!!!

They didn't mention why those roads were considered to be the most dangerous. Cameras only work where the underlying problem is excessive speed for the conditions. the fatalities on these roads may have had very little to do with speed, but that would be an inconvenience and ruin a good story. As a famous newspaper owner said many years ago' Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story'

Only the public that break the law pay for the cameras, the rest of us pay nothing (we may even pay slightly less if you believe they are just for raising tax revenue!) If no one sped past the cameras they would be removed

 

[jc denton]

“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., Retired police sergeant, Northumberland.
In a letter to the Daily Telegraph 2007-08-25


PS:I've never been flashed either. I just have the balls to speak the truth.

 

[HDi fun]

“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., Retired police sergeant, Northumberland.
In a letter to the Daily Telegraph 2007-08-25


PS:I've never been flashed either. I just have the balls to speak the truth.

Let's look at this another way. Speed cameras are not erected with sole intent to catch out observant, cautious and purposeful drivers such as you. I put myself in that same category. I suspect many here at Torque Cars are also in that category.

We are here because we are interested in motoring excellence in all forms. and that includes attention to our driving and making every drive a learning experience.

As you say, you've never been clobbered by one. So clearly you're not doing anything badly in terms of observation and attitude to driving in general. This is something for which you should applaud yourself.

You have to consider that most drivers have no interest in your levels of driving excellence and attitude to it. Straying a few mph over the limit on main de-restricted roads is not a problem, especially when persuing a quick overtaking move safely. In towns, and I think you've already touched on this, low speeds are a good idea so you're unlikely to get clobbered by a camera anyway.

I suspect that you, like me, maintain your car up to the eyeballs and drive it with equal alcarity. I don't mean slowly, and I know that simply and blindly obeying a speed limit maketh not a safe driver.

But for unsafe and clumsy drivers, of which there are plenty in the UK, I'd rather they stuck to the limit so that if they crash into me they'll do less damage if the speeds are lower as a result of mandatory enforcement.

I generally stick within the speed limit, although I have strayed here and there (by quite some margins) in quick overtaking moves in quick cars. But then none of us would overtake in a dangerous place anyway, so there's not going to be a camera in that place, is there?

Don't take the camera thing personally - they're not put there to punish you exlcusively.

 

[jc denton]

Speed cameras do not present a problem for me - I mean they are not annoying or enything (like pot holes & poorly maintained roads). I just dissaprove that the public pay for them & they have little effect on road safety.

I think our money should be put too better use.

 

[HDi fun]

Speed cameras do not present a problem for me - I mean their not annoying or enything (like pot holes & poorly maintained roads). I just dissaprove that the public pay for them & they have little effect on road safety.

I think our money should be put too better use.

But if you're not getting clobbered to pay fines and not having points appended to [or adorned upon] your driving licence then it's not an issue for you, is it?

Also, if you want to make a serious point then please do so with grammatical accuracy. Poor grammar hardly lends support to your cause.

 

[jc denton]

Running out of interesting comments HDI? Take it easy on the insults! I don't want my threads to become Ego wars.

& what happens in this country is everyones issue!

 

[HDi fun]

Running out of interesting comments HDI? Take it easy on the insults! I don't want my threads to become Ego wars.

& what happens in this country is everyones issue!

To which insults do you refer?

 

[turbonutter69]

Speed cameras do not present a problem for me - I mean they are not annoying or enything (like pot holes & poorly maintained roads). I just dissaprove that the public pay for them & they have little effect on road safety.

I think our money should be put too better use.

Only people who speed pays for them.
This is getting beyond a joke now. What is the actual point in this thread anyway????
Speed camera's are there for a reason, several mph over the posted limit can be dangerous regardless of where you are.
The easiest way to avoid paying a fine is not to speed full stop.

 

[jc denton]

Its not the fines that pay for them its tax, especially road tax.

 

[turbonutter69]

When was the last time someone got hit by a speeding car on the dual carragway?

Only just seen this but since you ask I can tell you that a girl was killed on the A38 around Sept last year through some muppet speeding and running a red light.
So now try and tell me 1.speeding doesn't kill and 2.that people don't get hit on dual carriageways.

 

[HDi fun]

Only just seen this but since you ask I can tell you that a girl was killed on the A38 around Sept last year through some muppet speeding and running a red light.
So now try and tell me 1.speeding doesn't kill and 2.that people don't get hit on dual carriageways.

What you're missing, jcd, is that no one here is saying that you're any more likely to kill someone in the absence of speed cameras.

All we're saying is that some people require that deterent threat to keep their driving half sensible.

There will always be some outright idiots who flout every rule, including simple common sense and a sense of self preservation. For those it's a long ban and eventually a prison sentence if they continue to re-offend.

 

[Jakeymd]

There is a horrible speed camera near where i live, must be the minimum distance after the speed limit change and over the brow of a hill. Then another about 100yards down the road. But if i get caught it's my own fault. I know it's there so why shouldn't i slow down in time?

 

[HDi fun]

Thankfully most of the cynical placement seems to have been nipped in the bud now.

Sounds like this one's a little close to the line perhaps, but then, as you say - there's a speed limit sign ahead so as long as that is properly lit, maintained then it's probably fair.

 

[jc denton]

Take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fLg8eQaPyE

I don't know how old this episode is but at the time (according to 5th gear) correctly posisioned speed cameras can reduce the risk of RTC's by up to ten percent. But improved road markings (much cheaper to the tax payer), reduces risk by up to thirty-five percent.


I say: safer drivers (better driving test), safer roads (we pay enough road tax don't we?), & nothing that is to be used to penalise drivers, but rather to protect them & make them safer for others.


I've had a lot of insulting comments on this thread, but who on torque cars does not agree with the above sentiments?

 

[turbonutter69]

Take a look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fLg8eQaPyE

I don't know how old this episode is but at the time (according to 5th gear) correctly posisioned speed cameras can reduce the risk of RTC's by up to ten percent. But improved road markings (much cheaper to the tax payer), reduces risk by up to thirty-five percent.


I say: safer drivers (better driving test), safer roads (we pay enough road tax don't we?), & nothing that is to be used to penalise drivers, but rather to protect them & make them safer for others.


I've had a lot of insulting comments on this thread, but who on torque cars does not agree with the above sentiments?

I say. Your asking for a miracle that is never ever going to happen.
You can lengthen/make harder the test, You can try (at great cost) to replace most of the road in the UK, But you will still get the muppets who drive like they are on a track.
You cannot change someones mind or intention just by making the test harder.
How you can get "A BETTER TEST" is beyond me.
The accident I was on about on the A38 is a new layout with brand new road marking and sign's and the muppet still didn't take any notice of any of it and ran a red light and killed a girl on a bike that was crossing the road.
In some cases like the one i've mention road markings or red lights don't stop people like this.

 

[Torquetom]

Thats interesting!!
I've never been caught speeding either.