Destory all Gatso Cameras

[Tommy B]

I'd much rather be pulled over and fined by a cop than a god damn machine.

To be honest if they weren't such idiots setting the speed limits in the first places, people wouldn't speed. Some roads are 40 and you're just thinking "Why the hell isn't this an NSL?"

 

[The_Dark_Side]

I just think machines are soulless and a lot more officers would be much better.

in some situations yes, but i believe cameras are the best solution in some situations as well because they're on duty on the same stretch of road 24/7.

either way, a significant increase in the number of plod just isn't going to happen due to the massive costs it would incur.

 

[Bobbler]

The speed camera is simply a gateway product into getting us used to being monitored while driving.
Its a case of government want to charge us for using our vehicles, however they do not want to fund alternative transport that we would like to use. Hence you pay to use your private transport, the government will decide how and where you can use it. Everyone wins.
Call me a tinfoil-hat wearer if you like, but I see its the way it will be within 5 to 10 years

 

[Antecer]

Personally speaking, I don't have issue with the cameras, you get caught by one you have no reason to these days with Satnav or the "person in front who thinks he is the law" etc.

However, I will put to you my standard argument against their site criteria which has got to be flawed and is what makes them nothing more than a money grabbing system from an already heavily taxed source and is a large driving factor in the damage I am sure.

If indeed (as you claim) that speed is the killer (not the use of it when you are not paying proper care/attention) and that the worst place you could possibly want to have the potential to be a killer is where there is a highly vulnerable group of people that are likely to wander into the road.
Why is it that outside every single school crossing, busy out of town area, playpark, old peoples home or hospital that there is no speed camera?
Why is it that cameras are consistently re-sited due to their lack of income? I can show you two sites just on roads that I drive frequently to show this to be the case.

If it was indeed that SAFETY is the primary driving force behind camera placements then why are they only put in MONEY generating areas.
If it was indeed that SAFETY is the primary reasons for cameras then why are they often hidden from view on blind bends. Surely the idea of a visable deterent against speeding is what makes them safety devices? How does it help the person who drives through an area on a one off visit (and therefore the pedestrian who cant be bothered to look after their own safety anymore - but thats a different matter entirely) that he should be careful here because its possibly an accident blackspot if the camera is not sited in that location because it brings no money in? Only when he arrives home and gets his NIP does he realise, ah right there was a camera hidden on that bridge inside the unmarked transit van, wonder why that was there? Road was clear, straight, wide etc?

Sorry for the ramble, but I felt it needed it to get the point across.
No I dont care about cameras, I care about their badging as "Safety" devices when they are not. I care about the roads being safe, but not through deceitful tactics, stick a bloody sign up that just says "You drive over 40mph here, you are going to die!"

Thanks, theres some good points there, it's definitely the cheekyness of that that i'd hate, hiding them and re-citing them in money making areas is taking the p**s. More of them are needed or to be re-positioned near areas where there are pedestrians.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

i don't think anyone could argue that some, maybe even a large number, of them are sited in the wrong places and as such are used pretty much solely as revenue generators.
but even so it remains that you as the driver have the choice as to whether you're nabbed or not.
it's not like being pickpocketed where you have no choice in the matter, with speeding you know it's against the law and you weigh up the odds of being caught and make a decision. as with all games of chance, sometimes you win sometimes you lose.

 

[Tommy B]

i don't think anyone could argue that some, maybe even a large number, of them are sited in the wrong places and as such are used pretty much solely as revenue generators.
but even so it remains that you as the driver have the choice as to whether you're nabbed or not.
it's not like being pickpocketed where you have no choice in the matter, with speeding you know it's against the law and you weigh up the odds of being caught and make a decision. as with all games of chance, sometimes you win sometimes you lose.

It's more of a hassle making sure you are doing 30mph exactly for the cameras.

I usually float around 30-35mph in a 30mph, but when I see the camera I make sure it says exactly 30mph on my speedo.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

It's more of a hassle making sure you are doing 30mph exactly for the cameras.

it's a limit, not a target.
if you have trouble keeping your car at 30mph then aim for 28mph, then at least if you stray over your intended speed and hit 30/32 mph you'll still either be under or at the limit due to the speedo in your car reading fast.

 

[nutcase]

Civil disobedience at its best to be honest. So many are poorly sited, just to make money and impede safe progress.

Yes, cameras outside schools, on stretches of roads with houses etc. can have cameras, a large chunk of cameras are not mounted in positions to reduce accidents.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

Civil disobedience at its best to be honest. So many are poorly sited, just to make money and impede safe progress.

but again, they'd make bugger all if the drivers chose not to break the limit.
and cameras don't impede safe progress at all. they impede more speedy progress.

 

[JAzz]

There are no GATSO's on Motorways are there?

There is one on the M4 between junction 3 and 4. Speed limit of 60mph IIRC.

 

[Cupra]

theres no nsl here and no speed cameras although the police sometimes stand with them.. they have to be on a tripod to fine ya though and they never are

rock on the isle of man

 

[nutcase]

but again, they'd make bugger all if the drivers chose not to break the limit.
and cameras don't impede safe progress at all. they impede more speedy progress.

Bull. Try driving along the A14. People doing the limit will slow down "just to be sure". You end up doing 30mph as each person who sees brake lights on the car in front slows down that little bit more. I've had to do more hard braking because of speed cameras causing tailbacks than anything else.

 

[jimblowscash]

One in a near by village got shot in the lense with a shotgun last year which seemed a little extreme

The "must drop to at least 5mph under the speed limit" approach that most people seem to adopt with them is starting to wear a little thin I must admit

he must have been using one hell of a load ive heard they take quite a few rounds to damage them as there armour plated and the lenzes are very thick...
the best one ive seen was car body underseal sprayed carefully on the lens, that stuff is almost imposibile to get off

 

[stoofa]

Bull. Try driving along the A14. People doing the limit will slow down "just to be sure". You end up doing 30mph as each person who sees brake lights on the car in front slows down that little bit more. I've had to do more hard braking because of speed cameras causing tailbacks than anything else.

This is very true to a degree.
Scientists have shown that by reducing the speed of flowing traffic for no apparent reason they can actually keep traffic moving better.
So on a motorway, you may see a 60mph zone for no reason, the idea is that if you slow traffic down in this zone then the flow of traffic will be more constant.
Does this actually work in reality?
No, because far too many people see the 60mph signs, don't see any danager in speeding and then simply don't slow down.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

Bull. Try driving along the A14. People doing the limit will slow down "just to be sure". You end up doing 30mph as each person who sees brake lights on the car in front slows down that little bit more.

right.
so in other words you're journey took longer due to the presence of a camera?

I've had to do more hard braking because of speed cameras causing tailbacks than anything else.

why did you have to brake hard due to a tailback?

 

[nutcase]

right.
so in other words you're journey took longer due to the presence of a camera?

Yes.

why did you have to brake hard due to a tailback?

See above about free flow of traffic being inhibited by a chain-reaction effect.

 

[Ring Peace]

This is very true to a degree.
Scientists have shown that by reducing the speed of flowing traffic for no apparent reason they can actually keep traffic moving better.
So on a motorway, you may see a 60mph zone for no reason, the idea is that if you slow traffic down in this zone then the flow of traffic will be more constant.
Does this actually work in reality?
No, because far too many people see the 60mph signs, don't see any danager in speeding and then simply don't slow down.

I would suggest you have a journey on the M42 before/after the M40 junction, this area of road has changing speed limits imposed by average speed cameras. At high traffic flow times they reduce the speed limit and traffic does flow much better, instead of one crowded lane trying to overtake duelling lorries you have 3 sometimes 4 (the hard shoulder is sometimes used as a lane) lanes making progress at 50mph.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

so in other words you're journey took longer due to the presence of a camera?

Yes.

which is what i said in the first place.

cameras don't impede safe progress at all. they impede more speedy progress.

you weren't any less safe because there was a camera nearby, your journey just took longer than you'd have liked it to.

why did you have to brake hard due to a tailback?

See above about free flow of traffic being inhibited by a chain-reaction effect.

braking hard is a good sign that the driver has poor observational skills and/or isn't very good at reading that particular traffic situation. with few exceptions, an act of god or an act of lunacy worthy of it's own appearance on TV for example, hard braking means you were going too fast for the situation.

 

[nutcase]

you weren't any less safe because there was a camera nearby, your journey just took longer than you'd have liked it to

braking hard is a good sign that the driver has poor observational skills and/or isn't very good at reading that particular traffic situation. with few exceptions, an act of god or an act of lunacy worthy of it's own appearance on TV for example, hard braking means you were going too fast for the situation.

Do you define this as too fast for the situation?

Obstruction free road, dry weather, free flowing traffic travelling at 70mph, reasonable gaps between vehicles.

Or are you a rolling roadblock travelling everywhere at 50 "just in case"?

Speed cameras on NSL dual carriageways (and other major roads) cause delays and create hazardous conditions.

End of.

 

[Entai]

Do you define this as too fast for the situation?

Obstruction free road, dry weather, free flowing traffic travelling at 70mph, reasonable gaps between vehicles.

Or are you a rolling roadblock travelling everywhere at 50 "just in case"?

Speed cameras on NSL dual carriageways (and other major roads) cause delays and create hazardous conditions.

End of.

If you know the area, and are aware of the cameras, and how people drive when around them, then just slow down anyway, you will only be a few seconds later to the same point, so how is that a problem?

The A6 I mentioned earlier between Luton and Bedford, I try to avoid, but if I know I am on that road then I drive accordingly, I keep my spped up but am aware of where the cameras are, so if I see traffic building up near a site I know to lift off and slow somewhat, to see what is happening, if traffic is moving freely I can accelerate again to NSL, otherewise I just join the queue at a safe distance and go with that.

People seem to think it is their god given right to always travel at the or (most likely) over the limit in any situation. Driving is a priviledge not a right, as The_Dark_Side said, speed limits are exactly that, limits, they are not targets that you have to drive at.