Speed Cameras

Found on MSN, the full article is very long so I have taken a short passage and supplied the url for the full article.

Everything you did'nt want to know about speed cameras.


More than 6,000 new speed cameras, which are expected to triple the number of speeding fines issued, are on their way under a new scheme announced earlier this year by the Labour government.
More than 6,000 new speed cameras, which are expected to triple the number of speeding fines issued, are on their way under a new scheme announced earlier this year by the Labour government.
The new system will enable police forces and local councils to pay for the thousands of new cameras by allowing them to keep part of the money raised from the fines. However, local schemes have to be approved by the government and will be subject to various rules. They are expected to increase Britain’s roadside camera population from 3,000 to 9,000 over the next three years. Around half of Britain’s police forces have so far expressed their support.

Full article at http://cars.msn.co.uk/carnews/speedcameras/

David

 

Speed cameras don't go off, and a fine can't be issued, if you don't go over the speed limit.

If you go over the speed limit, you are breaking the law and may kill someone through your actions.

Should we let lawbreakers, and potential murderers, get away with it or try to catch them?

Cheers,

Matt.

 

Of course speeding is illegal, and rightly so. However, when some police forces are setting speed cameras to catch drivers at speeds lower than the permitted inaccuracy of their speedometer, you have to question their motivation. Similarly, where I live in the West Midlands/Warwickshire, there are numerous examples of cameras being hidden behind road signs etc when they are required to be clearly visible (painted yellow). Hiding them really defeats the object of making them a visible deterrent. Suddenly the term 'revenue cameras' seems rather more appropriate.

 

I'm with matt molly, if you don't drive over the speed limit then you've got nothing to worry about.
I've personally been done at 37 in a 30 zone and 80 on a motorway, I'm a bit pee'd off at that, as I can't afford to insure my car anymore but it means I get to cycle to uni everyday, which I am enjoying.
Mev.

 

speed cameras aren't being deviously placed the fact is if you're in a 30 limit zone you should not be doing 35 or 40mph. It shouldn't matter whether you can see the speed camera or not, you should be obeying laws that are there for public safety. Where the money from the speed camera goes isn't really the point, if it stops people speeding even if only because they don't want to lose money they are a good thing.

 

Firstly, this is rubbish. If you have proof then I would dearly love to see it.

You seem to be saying that you should only be obeying the law when you can see the camera. You should be obeying the law (speed limit) even when you can't see them. If you do this, they can't generate revenue.

The deterrent is the possibility of a fine if you break the law, not a yellow box.

Cheers,

Matt.

 

I wonder if someone killed a close member of your family through speeding would you be saying its not murder its just an unfortunate accident.

You could argue that someone who speeds is wilfully showing a lack of concern for others peoples lives. Although, maybe callous disregard is a better word than intent.

 

Patronising and rather silly nonsense. If you're doing 80 mph on a motorway then you ARE a law breaker and a criminal. The law states that you do 70 mph. If you don't like it, try to get the law changed. If you get caught breaking the law, don't whine. As to the comments about generating revenue, if you don't want to give them money, don't speed.

If you go over the speed limit you are doing it intentionally. If it isn't intentional then it would appear that you cannot control your car and should hand in your licence at the first opportunity.

Thanks to the people agreeing with us on this.

Cheers,

Matt.

 

Er, shouldnt be speeding then?!

True, but it doesnt change the fact that it is the law. We all make our own decisions about whether or not to obey a particular law, but it is under our own responsibility, cant complain if you get caught, becasue you knew it was illegal when you did it.

With you on this one, definately, although if you've lost a loved one to some moron who was driving like an **** it might be difficult to see it that way.

On the whole I'm with Matt on this one. My boyfriend cycles in Edinburgh (a supposedly cycle friendly city) and every day I try not to think about how many times he's nearly been killed due to arsey drivers. I know that speeding in itself doesnt constitute arsey driving, but round here it certainly has an effect!
I have a good friend who's a salesmen, has 6 points on his licence due to speeding. 3 more (or is it 6, not sure) and he'll be banned. 'Oh but I need the car otherwise I cant work', he says. So dont speed, simple!
Break the law if you like, but dont complain about the unfairness of it all if you get caught. The speed limits are there because people have died. Personally I think there should be a low speed limit too. Driving at 15 mph on a straight bit of country road causes accidents too.




EDIT: Too slow with my typing, since I started this most of the points I made have already been covered. Apologies for repitition..

 

Am with you on this. Till I tried cycling to work, I didn't know that it should be regarded as an extreme sport.

They need to sort out the cycle lanes in this town.

Go well and go safely.

Cheers,

Matt.

 

A worrying trend would be where the number of cameras go up and the number of traffic police go down. After all a camera cant help you out in a serious crash.

Personally I dont care how many cameras they put up. Its been said earlier that if your not speeding then its not a problem. Anyways you can remember where they are and speed between them. And its people who dont know the area that are caught. Persistant speeders will slow down then speed up *Fact*.

So long as cameras are not a replacement for actual police officers then cameras are fine!

 

Not going to directly disagree with you on 'safety' matters, but this 'law change' line keeps getting trotted out. How practical is this? And what criteria are used to decide on existing laws or new ones???

When I was taught to drive, my dad insisted on me getting up through the gears to 4th smoothly and quickly. I now find that I cannot keep down to 30 in 4th gear and need to stick in 3rd (which feels unnatural). I'm still the slowest driver around on the motorways (slow and middle lane at about 70-78mph) and that is frustrating when you can see the road straight and clear for miles ahead. I think that increasing the motorway speed limit and punishing bad lane use would improve driving, but that cannot be policed by camera - so it's easier to criminalize people and bring in the money.

My current objection is the new law on mobile phones. Have there been any figures that state that xxx number of accidents were caused due to talking on the phone (as opposed to the driver just being a bad driver)? :woo:

Since I have little money, and don't like being ripped off, it took me long enough to spend £50 replacing my phone without being told I need to spend another £70+ for a decent hands-free kit. I also think I have enough self knowledge to know when it is safe to use the phone and when it is not.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant - I just don't think 'just change the law' is a viable option.

 

You won't get any argument from me on the issue that all bad driving should be tackled. Speeding also counts as bad driving.

Speed limits are, at least in part, about stopping distance and reaction time also. If you think about this then the technology argument doesn't seem quite so persuasive. When thinking about this, you might also remember that speed limits are general and so have to cater for the lowest common denominator, both human and (legally) mechanical.

So how do you feel about a person with not particularly good reflexes and a not particularly fine car screaming up the motorway at 100 mph?

I know it doesn't make me feel good.

Cheers,

Matt.

 

Oh come on. I honestly can't believe that people try and make this kind of argument. Is it essential to your life that you use your mobile phone in your car? I doubt it and even if it was then you are able to use your mobile phone in your car you just have to use the afore mentioned car kit! Anyone who tries to say that holding a mobile to your ear with your hand or the crook of your shoulder in no way would impair your driving ability seems to be lacking common sense.

Honestly if car kits stop just one person from being killed by one muppet who thinks he can use a mobile phone and not impair his driving ability they are worthwhile. And Jang Bong you do know its quite often the people who think they are the 'good drivers' that actually are the bad ones?

 

Get involved in politics. Laws are changed all the time.

The first bit of this just sounds like you need more practice in 4th. To the last I repeat, you won't be criminalized if you don't go over the speed limit.

When you can pass a driving test one handed whilst doing something unrelated then the government will probably agree with you.

Cheers,

Matt.

PS. Also as Ckava said. Was posted whilst I was still typing.

Cheers.

 

Speed alone is not a huge issue. Ask a traffice policeman and he'll tell you that the problem is inappropriate use of speed.
Attempting to stick to the national speed limit on many of the country roads near where I live will end in tears.
Unfortunately, it is quicker and more simple to clamp down automatically on any speed above the set limit than to assess what is appropriate for the prevailing road conditions.

I'm all for cameras in areas of high accident rates that will provide enough of a deterrent to reduce speeds and therefore the risk of accidents. I'm against the use of speed cameras for pure revenue generation on straight and open roads. But these types of camera tend to be quite clearly visible so they are easy to avoid if that's what you want.

The big downside in my opinion, is that the use of automated devices is reducing the number of traffic units out of the road. As a result, drivers of unsafe vehicles being badly driven within the speed limit are not being stopped until it is too late.

But like Mat said, if you don't want to get caught by a camera, don't speed.

 

jang bong you must be kidding, of course chatting on a mobile whilst you drive is going to decrease your awareness, reactions and general safety on the roads. Not all laws are made just to annoy you, they are for YOUR SAFETY.

 

Agreed. We need both. Not either or but a co-ordinated approach.

Cheers,

Matt.