Want to get rid of speed camera's??

[Slinwagh]

I'll take that as a hint that you think I speed when there isn't a camera around? Ok then, nice assumption from very little information.

The use of the word "You" was very generic at not aimed at anyone.

"If" they are there to generate cash then it stands to reason that if people don't break the speed limits then the won't generate any revenue and maybe they won't keep installing them.

 

[Slinwagh]

Example of someone following someone else, crusing along and spotting one at the last minute, he brakes guy or gal behind him goes right into the back of him or her in front..

Shouldn't the person behing be travelling at a safe distance to avoid this sort of incident?

 

[Dolph]

Why the hell do all these petitions keep appearing?

If you abide by the law, then there's no reason for you to hate speed cameras, as they shouldnt affect your life

So if they suddenly change the speed limit to 10mph on the M1, should I abide by it solely because it's the law, even though it makes no sense?

The real issue with cameras is that they changed the way speeding laws were enforced. When actual police officers enforced the law, they used speeding as a means to punish bad drivers, they used discretion, that's why points used to mean something. A policeman wouldn't (and still won't generally) pull you for going too fast, they'll pull you for driving like a chump. Although the law was not written in a discretionary way, the old style enforcement was.

When cameras were introduced, they stopped the discretion, they suddenly made it black and white where it never was, and it's become apparent that the law is an ass. The government's determination to carry on down this path because there's money to be made has compounded the problem.

Safe speed has nothing to do with the number on the dial or at the side of the road, it's far, far more complicated than that. The police used to recognise this, and most of them still do. It's the scamera partnerships that don't.

 

[eidolon]

If you abide by the law, then there's no reason for you to hate speed cameras, as they shouldnt affect your life

Do you agree that doing 30mph past a school at 3.30pm is ok? A speed camera thinks that it is.

Do you agree that doing 70mph on a motorway, when it's foggy, raining and visibility is bad? A speed camera thinks it is.

Do you honestly think that it's safer for somebody to constantly monitor their speedo rather than the hazards outside because that's effectively what speed cameras achieve.

 

[Slinwagh]

So if they suddenly change the speed limit to 10mph on the M1, should I abide by it solely because it's the law, even though it makes no sense?

The real issue with cameras is that they changed the way speeding laws were enforced. When actual police officers enforced the law, they used speeding as a means to punish bad drivers, they used discretion, that's why points used to mean something. A policeman wouldn't (and still won't generally) pull you for going too fast, they'll pull you for driving like a chump. Although the law was not written in a discretionary way, the old style enforcement was.

When cameras were introduced, they stopped the discretion, they suddenly made it black and white where it never was, and it's become apparent that the law is an ass. The government's determination to carry on down this path because there's money to be made has compounded the problem.

Safe speed has nothing to do with the number on the dial or at the side of the road, it's far, far more complicated than that. The police used to recognise this, and most of them still do. It's the scamera partnerships that don't.

I agree with you but we can't pick and choose which laws we abide by and also if there was a large increase in police road patrols targeting poor driving would we not soon descend into the age old "You should be out catching real criminals not targeting the innocent motorist" debate.

 

[chesterstu]

This is, by no means, a black and white subject. Yes some cameras cause crashes and no cameras are not the answer to all our road problems. I would put my name to a petition to reduce the number of them and resite them but not to remove them all together.

For example, on the A56 in Frodsham leading to Helsby there is a NSL road that then drops to a 40 as there is a large high school. Before a camera was put there people came into the 40 still doing +=50 past a busy school (including me), now the camera is there everyone does 40 and very few speed up once past it (during school times). This to me is a well placed camera. However, on Speke leading to Runcorn Bridge there is a 70mph camera that routinely slows traffic to less that 50, due to idoits not knowing the actually speed limit on that road, causing more traffic problems and a few near misses, badly placed camera.

Driver education and training is answer to cutting rood deaths but i do believe well placed cameras can play there part aswell.

 

[VeNT]

I have no issue with them being placed in areas where speeding/RTAs are an issue.
what I DO have an issue with is them dropping the speed limit on a dual carriageway down to 40 for no reason then setting up speed traps every 500 yards.

 

[Dolph]

I agree with you but we can't pick and choose which laws we abide by and also if there was a large increase in police road patrols targeting poor driving would we not soon descend into the age old "You should be out catching real criminals not targeting the innocent motorist" debate.

The laws need a fundamental overhaul, but that's not likely while they are making loads of money.

As for targetting poor driving, I'd happily support it, as I've said, I want safer roads, I want less accidents. No doubt there'd be loads of people complaining because they believe that they can drive, their observation and anticipation is acceptable and so on, and it isn't, but that's the price.

 

[Slinwagh]

The laws need a fundamental overhaul, but that's not likely while they are making loads of money.

Maybe the laws would be looked at if the camera generated less revenue. And there is only one reason the cameras generate revenue, people break the speed limit and get caught.

 

[Dolph]

Maybe the laws would be looked at if the camera generated less revenue. And there is only one reason the cameras generate revenue, people break the speed limit and get caught.

Well, I suppose in your world everyone must spend all their time watching the speedo then, rather than concentrating on the road...

 

[Visage]

Speed limits have little to do with road safety though, especially strict adherance to them.

Even if you disagree that lower speeds = less accidents, surely you would accept that lower speed = less severe accidents?

 

[i know nothing]

What a complete waste of a petition.

If anybody is looking for a more worthwhile cause, then click here.

 

[Dolph]

Even if you disagree that lower speeds = less accidents, surely you would accept that lower speed = less severe accidents?

I would accept that, but argue that it's more important to prevent the accident happening in the first place.

Very few accidents are inevitable, most are entirely avoidable, and that's what we should concentrate on.

 

[phill9800]

Driving training I think is the key..

When someone flies up behind you doing 70mph to overtake something and then flies past you, dont you think thats a bit wreckless? I mean if a speed camera saw that, it wouldnt know other than if he/she is over the preset limit, then thats that... smile for the picture...

But its when your in a single carriage way, stuck behind lorrie/s that have to do 40mph on the roads and some idiot is dodging in and out of the traffic to get to overtake the long queue of traffic he/she has in front of them just so they can pass and go faster down the road??

Now to me, if they where sorting the roads out, making them safer etc, surely with this single carriage way as a good example, wouldnt it be easier to put some money in making it a dual carriage way so people could pass freely and easly without having to play dodgems?

I think we dont put enough into the countries roads and this is why we have grid locks at times and bad traffic queues.. If one road gets blocked up, everywhere else seems to have no choice but to either slow down or come to a complete stop....

 

[Slinwagh]

Well, I suppose in your world everyone must spend all their time watching the speedo then, rather than concentrating on the road...

Surely part of the skill of driving is being aware of your speed and the current linit for that road?

 

[RDM]

Do you agree that doing 30mph past a school at 3.30pm is ok? A speed camera thinks that it is.

Do you agree that doing 70mph on a motorway, when it's foggy, raining and visibility is bad? A speed camera thinks it is.

No it doesn't. All the speed camera thinks is "This person is not breaking the speed limit". Nothing more, nothing less. It is still up to the driver to determine the safe speed to drive up to the speed limit. It always has been.

Do you honestly think that it's safer for somebody to constantly monitor their speedo rather than the hazards outside because that's effectively what speed cameras achieve.

If you cannot keep to a steady speed then you are not a very good driver. It was certainly one of things I was taught when learning to drive. Do you really have problems driving along at a constant speed without having to check your speedo?

 

[Dolph]

Surely part of the skill of driving is being aware of your speed and the current linit for that road?

Part of the skill of driving is being able to judge the correct speed for the conditions... the problem comes when that differs dramatically from the official speed limit.

If you remove speed limits from a stretch of road entirely (or simply don't enforce them), you'll find that a road will pretty much always 'flow' at a certain speed, it's the speed where most drivers feel comfortable and safe, some will go faster, some will go slower, but on average, traffic will move at a certain pace, and everything is good. In fact, this phenomenom used to be used as part of the speed limit setting process, usually using the 85th percentile rule.

What's been happening more and more recently is that councils have been dropping speed limits on roads far below this level, and slapping cameras on them. Because the natural speed of the road (average driver taking all hazards/conditions into account) is higher than the limit, it requires specific effort to keep to it, because it's not natural at all.

The other thing that's happening is that some people have stopped judging the road, and started judging things by the speed limit, as in "if I'm under the limit, I'm driving safely", when in many cases the limit might not be appropriate at that point, for that traffic level, or for the amount of attention the driver is paying. (the faster you travel, the larger your sphere of responsibility needs to be)

 

[wedgie]

Want to scrap speed camera's??

Nope.

Maybe lose the odd pointless one, but the vast majority do an important job.

They're unmissable tbh, if you get caught out by one, blame no one but yourself.

 

[SB118]

What's been happening more and more recently is that councils have been dropping speed limits on roads far below this level, and slapping cameras on them. Because the natural speed of the road (average driver taking all hazards/conditions into account) is higher than the limit, it requires specific effort to keep to it, because it's not natural at all.

*cough* Embankment Road? *cough*

 

[Dolph]

*cough* Embankment Road? *cough*

A perfect example... A 3 lane dual carriageway, with a cliff on one side, a river on the other and two junctions in 4 miles... Yet they dropped it from NSL to 40mph and filled it with 3 permanant cameras, and the camera van can normally be found on there as well...

I wonder why