Destory all Gatso Cameras

[NickK]

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

One of the technologies that's been developed in a US university monitors a camera feed of a 6 lane highway under it. It then maps the path of all the cars (it tracks all of them) and then allows (a) alert at any odd change of paths such as a mass of changing lane indicating an accident or broken down vehicle, or (b) if deployed with number plate recognition could track you down to the speed and lane change nice if someone pulls out on you as they see their change of direction and your deceleration - fine anyone?

Personally I think they'll keep with the spot check gatso as average speed cameras would need to have roads where you don't have changes in path length (ie doing 100 then drifting around a each roundabout would result in a 60 average!).

As to CCTV, the german autobahn already has it and the road system works fine.. pity the UK government feels the need to fine us for using them.. I suppose the number of cars has risen to a point where perhaps the government should actually create a package to push people to work a portion of their time from work..
I know this doesn't not suit everyone but you have to start somewhere.

Incidentially my average commute speed is ~30mph. Considering a major portion of that is motorway.. either my car's measuring wrong or the pauses in traffic are killing the travel time.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

firstly let me thank you for the rollseyes, its been a while since I last had one of them thrown at me. that's because most of the members I've had discussions with are capable of constructing a counter argument...but never mind eh? well done!

secondly, your argument is about as water tight as a sponge. you failed to show any evidence to back up your claim or even disagree constructively with my point, namely that a speed camera will merely increase the time your journey will take.

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.

studies have shown the optimum speed on motorways is less than 70mph, personally I'd like to see a lot of motorway limits raised but that's a different argument.

you forgot to mention why you have to brake hard though. if you're not tailgating the car in front that is.

 

[Tommy B]

Saw about 3 completely demolished when driving back from London through Lewisham yesterday.

 

[NickK]

well it's a pointless exercise taking out your frustration caused by your inability to control your speed. All they'll do is place the cost of replacement in the road tax burden.

Don't get me wrong - I hate the fact that some placements are designed to collect additional revenue.

 

[Tommy B]

Don't get me wrong - I hate the fact that some placements are designed to collect additional revenue.

The ones in Lewisham are placed on the entry/exit roads on to the main A road which for some bizarre reason has a speed limit of 50mph. What's worse, is they only put up the 50mph sign post about 100 metres before the speed cameras. It's disgusting and I know for fact I would have got caught had the TomTom not started going ballistic I was doing 70mph when the SL was 50mph.

 

[Entai]

The ones in Lewisham are placed on the entry/exit roads on to the main A road which for some bizarre reason has a speed limit of 50mph. What's worse, is they only put up the 50mph sign post about 100 metres before the speed cameras. It's disgusting and I know for fact I would have got caught had the TomTom not started going ballistic I was doing 70mph when the SL was 50mph.

It has been a while since I have been through Lewisham, so cannot be totally sure, but isn't Lewisham a built up area, and as far as I can remember, the main road through, (the A20), is single carriageway so how come you would have been doing 70mph.

Anyway, there is an area near me, where a new 50mph limit was put in so that people would drive more carefully where they may be pedestrians etc around.
A speed camera was then put up near there to make sure that people obey the 50mph limit and do not just carry on as normal at 60 as the limit used to be.
There are several other areas near where 50 limits have been put in but the vast majority ignore them and still drive at 60mph, "because that is what it used to be and I don't see why it has changed".

The reason for why it changed does not matter in the slightest, it has changed so stick to the new limit, it only shows your lack of observation if you ignore the new limit.

 

[nutcase]

firstly let me thank you for the rollseyes, its been a while since I last had one of them thrown at me. that's because most of the members I've had discussions with are capable of constructing a counter argument...but never mind eh? well done!

secondly, your argument is about as water tight as a sponge. you failed to show any evidence to back up your claim or even disagree constructively with my point, namely that a speed camera will merely increase the time your journey will take.

studies have shown the optimum speed on motorways is less than 70mph, personally I'd like to see a lot of motorway limits raised but that's a different argument.

you forgot to mention why you have to brake hard though. if you're not tailgating the car in front that is.

Eh? Show any evidence? Just go for a drive on an NSL dual carriageway with cameras - or for that matter any road with cameras. Or do you want me to go out with a videocamera or something? Where's your evidence then to counter? And remember studies, like statistics, can say whatever you wanted them to say when you first started the study.

Speed cameras when positioned badly (as the majority are IMO) do not make roads safer, they cause congestion to free flowing roads.

You seem to think that I am having to do emergency braking because I'm tailgating? I said hard braking. Big difference. I've already said above about leaving a reasonable distance between cars. I won't lie and say a 2 second gap, because no one ever leaves that gap, except learners. But a reasonable gap for the speed. When there is no obstrucion in the road, no reason for slowing except a camera, THAT camera is causing a hazard by itself.

No point continuing this, mr Brunstrom. You must drive on different roads to me if you can't see the effect.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

Speed cameras when positioned badly (as the majority are IMO) do not make roads safer, they cause congestion to free flowing roads.

which AGAIN backs up my original statement.
you said cameras impede safe progress, whereas i corrected you by saying they make a given road no less safe, they just stop you from shortening your journey time.

You seem to think that I am having to do emergency braking because I'm tailgating? I said hard braking. Big difference.

so why are you having to brake hard if you're not too close to the car in front? by definition, if you were a safe distance behind the car in front you'd be able to stop comfortably and NOT have to brake hard.

But a reasonable gap for the speed.

a resonable gap in your world seems to be one that requires hard braking should the car in front do the same thing. you may find that an experienced drivers definition of a "reasonable gap" is significantly different from yours.
incidentally, how close to the car in front DO you consider to be a safe gap? you've said it's less than 2 seconds already so...?

When there is no obstrucion in the road, no reason for slowing except a camera, THAT camera is causing a hazard by itself..

WRONG.
if morons brake hard because they didn't see a speed camera at the side of the road after driving past signs informing you that you're in a camera area, then those very same morons would've done exactly the same thing if a traffic car was parked in the same place as the camera.
the only hazard here is drivers who have zero observational skills.

No point continuing this, mr Brunstrom. You must drive on different roads to me if you can't see the effect.

ah, more veiled insults...nice touch.
as for driving on different roads, it's extremely unlikely you spend as much time on the UK's roads as i do. it's extremely unlikely you're more qualified than i am and it's unlikely you have more competition experience as i do...so my opinion is perfectly valid thank you.

Yes i see people braking hard for cameras sometimes, but the reason they do this is because they didn't see it until the last minute. now unless their brain is target-specific this means that they wouldn't have seen an "insert other random road object" here either.

you stated previously that speed cameras hadn't reduced road accidents at all, well they certainly haven't INCREASED them have they? so if you're right and speed cameras are so dangerous, howcome the accident figures haven't shot up at camera locations since they were installed?
it makes you wonder howcome every car that drives into a camera area isn't involved in an accident doesn't it?

the answer is simple, bad drivers or bad driving causes almost all accidents.