Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Poll: Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Total Members Polled: 478
Discussion
RobinOakapple said:
Devil2575 said:
I don't actually think it matters what word you use.
I agree, but it was him that said they don't call them accidents any more.Phatboy317 said:
2013BRM said:
vonhosen said:
2013BRM said:
£284 million? that's a good incentive to encourage safety
http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/nearly-700-d...
Only 700 drivers from all those on that section of M25 in two months.http://www.perrys.co.uk/car-news/news/nearly-700-d...
Seems like it's working in encouraging compliance with the limit then because that's a small percentage of drivers who would have driven past in two moths.
This might serve to put a further dent in the figures.
I think this topic is losing its way, so let's get back on track..
Shadow transport secretary & The Conservatives...
"The Government is waging a war on drivers by using speed cameras to make money rather than to save lives"
"safer driving by introducing realistic speed limits and targeting dangerous drivers"
"the partnership between police and councils in charge of speed cameras are cash-guzzling bureaucracies"
"audit the position of all cameras and remove those where accident rates have not dropped"
Ahh the good old days.Win a few votes, throw it all back in your face? It's not all about the money, though!!
Site any cameras where they could catch 'businessmen in the morning and school-run mums in the afternoon (not at accident blackspots)
"There will be so much money coming in you won't know what to do with it" - Chief executive of Tele-Traffic (supplies cameras to virtually every
police force in Britain)
How's the poll going, anyway?
Shadow transport secretary & The Conservatives...
"The Government is waging a war on drivers by using speed cameras to make money rather than to save lives"
"safer driving by introducing realistic speed limits and targeting dangerous drivers"
"the partnership between police and councils in charge of speed cameras are cash-guzzling bureaucracies"
"audit the position of all cameras and remove those where accident rates have not dropped"
Ahh the good old days.Win a few votes, throw it all back in your face? It's not all about the money, though!!
Site any cameras where they could catch 'businessmen in the morning and school-run mums in the afternoon (not at accident blackspots)
"There will be so much money coming in you won't know what to do with it" - Chief executive of Tele-Traffic (supplies cameras to virtually every
police force in Britain)
How's the poll going, anyway?
singlecoil said:
Digby said:
"There will be so much money coming in you won't know what to do with it" - Chief executive of Tele-Traffic (supplies cameras to virtually every
police force in Britain)
And yet that has turned out to be untrue.police force in Britain)
although £248 million in 2 years ain't too shabby
singlecoil said:
2013BRM said:
although £248 million in 2 years ain't too shabby
And none of the drivers who paid in needed to. If it's a tax, it's an optional one.It offers up the perfect opportunity to show those who are lacking adequate knowledge(or choose to ignore it) that lower limits were often set by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, just to catch more drivers and secure budgets etc.
Digby said:
singlecoil said:
2013BRM said:
although £248 million in 2 years ain't too shabby
And none of the drivers who paid in needed to. If it's a tax, it's an optional one.It offers up the perfect opportunity to show those who are lacking adequate knowledge(or choose to ignore it) that lower limits were often set by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, just to catch more drivers and secure budgets etc.
singlecoil said:
Digby said:
singlecoil said:
2013BRM said:
although £248 million in 2 years ain't too shabby
And none of the drivers who paid in needed to. If it's a tax, it's an optional one.It offers up the perfect opportunity to show those who are lacking adequate knowledge(or choose to ignore it) that lower limits were often set by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, just to catch more drivers and secure budgets etc.
2013BRM said:
SC, a personal question you can ignore if you want but, has your life been affected by a speeding driver? it,just, seems a little personal to you
No, it hasn't, and no, it isn't.If you are wondering why I participate in these threads, it's because I am both appalled and amused at the quality of arguments put forward by those who either want no speed limits, or who want no enforcement (which, of course, amounts to the same thing).
I hope that has put your mind at rest on that point.
And btw, not that it matters, I have from time to time broken the speed limit, especially on the motorway. I have been caught by cameras in the past, and I may well be in the future.
The one thing I won't be doing is bhing about cameras.
Rovinghawk said:
singlecoil said:
those who either want no speed limits, or who want no enforcement (which, of course, amounts to the same thing).
How about those that want reasonable limits & proportionate enforcement?As for 'proportionate enforcement', that's a completely meaningless concept.
singlecoil said:
2013BRM said:
SC, a personal question you can ignore if you want but, has your life been affected by a speeding driver? it,just, seems a little personal to you
No, it hasn't, and no, it isn't.If you are wondering why I participate in these threads, it's because I am both appalled and amused at the quality of arguments put forward by those who either want no speed limits, or who want no enforcement (which, of course, amounts to the same thing).
I hope that has put your mind at rest on that point.
And btw, not that it matters, I have from time to time broken the speed limit, especially on the motorway. I have been caught by cameras in the past, and I may well be in the future.
The one thing I won't be doing is bhing about cameras.
There was talk recently of raising motorway speed limits, some think that a good thing some don't I think it's for the main irrelevant because most roads without SPECS see traffic moving at 80ish anyway, but once the network has been completely populated with SPECS this thread will be irrelevant as speeding motorists will either slow down or lose their licence.
I don't bh about the things either, you pays your money you takes your chance
2013BRM said:
singlecoil said:
2013BRM said:
SC, a personal question you can ignore if you want but, has your life been affected by a speeding driver? it,just, seems a little personal to you
No, it hasn't, and no, it isn't.If you are wondering why I participate in these threads, it's because I am both appalled and amused at the quality of arguments put forward by those who either want no speed limits, or who want no enforcement (which, of course, amounts to the same thing).
I hope that has put your mind at rest on that point.
And btw, not that it matters, I have from time to time broken the speed limit, especially on the motorway. I have been caught by cameras in the past, and I may well be in the future.
The one thing I won't be doing is bhing about cameras.
There was talk recently of raising motorway speed limits, some think that a good thing some don't I think it's for the main irrelevant because most roads without SPECS see traffic moving at 80ish anyway, but once the network has been completely populated with SPECS this thread will be irrelevant as speeding motorists will either slow down or lose their licence.
I don't bh about the things either, you pays your money you takes your chance
J
jith said:
You're wasting your time BRM. There are none so blind, etc.......
J
When I was younger I used to come out with all the same arguments about why speed cameras were wrong and all about money. I used to listen to what people like Paul Smith said and repeat stuff posted on the Safe Speed website. I used to speed all the time but i'd never been in a crash caused by speed so I knew that it wasn't dangerous in the slightest. In fact I knew that I concentrated better when I was putting my foot down and accidents were actually caused by drivers dithering/women/old people etc. J
Then one day when I was ranting to my then girl friend about Brake she questioned what I was saying. What she actualy said was that it sounded like I'd just made some stuff up to justify why I was right and they were wrong. I dismissed her at first but it sowed a seed of doubt in my mind and as time went by I started to question why I believed some of the stuff that I did. Working in Science and engineering I regularly have to look at data and determine what it is actualy telling us and I started to notice that I was not applying the same rigour to my opinions on speed and road safety as I would to a problem at work. At the same time I also started to learn about cognitive biases and had experienced people at work who 'already knew the answer' and seemed to be blind to any data to the contrary.
Eventually I started to see that a lot of what I believed was not based on evidence but on my own desire to justify why something that I enjoyed a great deal, driving fast, was perfectly acceptable.
I'm not saying that the other side of the argument has bulletproof evidence to support the case, but at least there is some data. Also while correlation is not causation, it certainly helps the case if the data is moving in the desired direction, even if you can't prove conclusively what is causing it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff