Drivers want more scamera warnings
Survey finds sensible demands from British motorists
Gatso ahead? Tell me about it!
Nearly nine out of ten drivers (88 per cent) say every roadside speed camera should carry a sign on it, advising motorists of the speed limit. And more than eight out of ten (82 per cent) also want vehicle-activated signs placed ahead of cameras to provide an early reminder of the speed limit.
Overwhelming support for a range of changes in the rules governing cameras are revealed in a nationally representative NOP survey of 550 drivers carried out for the IAM, the UK's leading organisation for improving driving standards.
More than seven out of ten drivers (76 per cent) want all roadside cameras painted yellow, including traffic light and yellow box cameras. And more than six out of ten (62 per cent) would like to see the money left over after covering the cost of speed camera enforcement used to pay for hundreds more traffic police.
John Maxwell, IAM Chairman, said: "Speed cameras should be about compliance, not capture. Posting speed limits on cameras and putting up early warning signs would leave drivers in no doubt about what maximum speed they should be doing.
"If the government wants to make speeding as socially unacceptable as drinking and driving, it has to raise public support for cameras. It should make all cameras conspicuous, not just some. And it should consider using the money from fines on what most people are calling for - more traffic police - instead of giving it to Gordon Brown.
"More than £20 million a year from fixed penalties is going to the Treasury. That money could buy more than 600 extra traffic constables, who can exercise more of the discretion that motorists want."
The survey also reveals that an overwhelming majority more than eight out of ten drivers (84 per cent) think speed limits should be varied according to weather and traffic conditions.
John Maxwell said: "The thinking behind the speed limits on many roads simply isn't clear to many drivers, causing widespread frustration and disobedience. We need a national review so that speed limits are set at levels which are sensible, understandable and acceptable."
The survey shows that drivers are equally split over whether speed cameras are mostly or all about saving lives (48 per cent), or about raising money (45 per cent). And one in ten drivers (11 per cent) are dishonest enough to say that, if they knew someone who was caught by a speed camera, it would be acceptable to cover for them by accepting the fine and taking the points on their own licence.
The IAM also said the survey shows that most drivers are unaware of the dangers of speeding, especially in built-up areas. Drivers were first told that an adult pedestrian hit by a car at 30 mph had a 20 per cent of chance of being killed, and were then asked what they thought the chance of death was at 40 mph. Only a third (35 per cent) gave the correct answer of 90 per cent.
Having said that, the survey, conducted by NOP World Consumer, interviewed 550 drivers which may provide a good indication of national opinion although 1,000 is generally held by statisticians to be the lowest number of samples needed for statistical validity.
I think having the limit displayed on the back of the scamera is a pretty good idea. No more wondering, or having to travel at 30 when the limit is actually 40.
But what I really like are the LED signs that tell you "30, slow down". I don't quite know why, but I find myself very ready and willing to comply with their request. Maybe it's because they've asked me and, being a generally co-operative citizen, I am more than happy to comply with the request.
Or maybe I just like the flashing lights.
>> Edited by ubergreg on Monday 18th July 14:18
All too often I've ended up standing on the breaks not sure if an area is 30 or 40 to pass the camera and then see 100yds down the road a 40 sign.
Obviously if the camera is there to make money and not enforce a limit then higlighting its prescence and making the limit clear wouldn't make sense atall!
Just think how many times the limit changes on some roads, do you want to see signs flashing up the limit every time someone exceeds it?
I'd rather I and others were not distracted by such devices and could concentrate on all the other things that need to be concentrated on when driving.
When it's icy, or there is a crowd of people and animals by the side of the road, for example, you may not trigger a flashing sign (or camera) but you may need to travel more slowly.
A set limit is rarely of relevance and devices reminding us of it or enforcing it can be a dangerous distraction.
>> Edited by james_j on Monday 18th July 16:24
How can anyone suugest that this is an improvement ??.
Think it'll ever happen?
.......I doubt it. 'Safety' cameras - Safety my Arse.
The flashing light warning is a good idea too, and they actually have them before cameras in some areas, but the purpose of warning of an upcoming camera would be served by just NOT HIDING THEM!! I think that's the problem with cameras and the reason why a lot of people hate them, it's okay if you're on a stretch of road you're familiar with, and you know where the cameras are, but it's when you go somewhere new that you're gonna get busted.
I know the arguement behind hiding them, which is to create the mindset in the driver that there could be a camera anywhere so you should never speed. But the fact is they are so scarce that it's just not a credible threat. The only way that will work is once you've been caught by a camera that you didn't notice, then you might behave differently in future.
We're actually fairly lucky in West Yorkshire. Whilst there are a LOT of Gatsos and the Tallivan's are fairly active, the Gatsos are all fitted with reflective yellow panel and (generally) not hidden, and the Tallivan has a website that says which roads it will be on each week. Consequently nobody speeds on any of those roads or past any of the cameras.
cjbolter said:
...I have even seen one BMW driver cross over to the opposite side of the road as he went through the camera !!!!.
Does that work? Does the SPECS system only monitor a single lane and not the whole road width? If so, it's the stupidest loophole for the system that you could imagine! All I have to do is to be "overtaking" at the beginning or end of the monitored stretch to be in the clear. Doh!
Oh! No.... that won't work will it? It wouldn't make any money. Christ I'm stupid sometimes.
"Does that work? Does the SPECS system only monitor a single lane and not the whole road width? If so, it's the stupidest loophole for the system that you could imagine!"
Ive got a better one.....theres a stretch on the A1 on the Scottish borders where one side is dual-carriageway and the other is single with no barrier between.If you overtake on the dual bit doing 75 the camera on the other side of the road triggers and flashes in your face!!....and they call them "safety cameras"...how dangerous is that ?
xxplod said:I prefer them to cameras, but both sorts of street furniture merely serve to take you eyes off the road as you enter a village or other residential area where one might expect pedestrians to be crossing the road.
The flashing signs are good. There is one on the Portsmouth Road out of Guildford. It flashed at me last week. I was doing an outrageous 33 mph.
It doesn't help that in some areas the flashing signs are set to go off at 5 or even 10mph below the limit! God alone knows what that is supposed to achieve (apart from causing people to ignore all of them).
james_j said:
I don't want revenue devices, nor do I want signs flashing away all over the place.
Just think how many times the limit changes on some roads, do you want to see signs flashing up the limit every time someone exceeds it?
I'd rather I and others were not distracted by such devices and could concentrate on all the other things that need to be concentrated on when driving.
When it's icy, or there is a crowd of people and animals by the side of the road, for example, you may not trigger a flashing sign (or camera) but you may need to travel more slowly.
A set limit is rarely of relevance and devices reminding us of it or enforcing it can be a dangerous distraction.
I pretty much agree with you on all points, but it's unlikely Big Brother will dismantle all scameras anytime soon, so if many of them are to stay for the foreseeable future, surely it would be helpful to have the limit posted on the back of them - especially if it's all about, um, you know, saving lives.
Like you, I'd rather do without scameras as well as LED signs, but if I had to choose between the two, I'd rather have the warning sings, just out of principle. The truly irresponsible people will never be deterred by bright orange boxes anyway IMHO, but they do criminalise good judgement and common sense, so having warning signs go up in blackspots (instead of scameras - and not merely when when the speed limit changes, of course) would go down better with me, personally.
I would much rather these big yellow boxes (some reflective, others not -- what's up with that?) remained highly visible to reduce the amount of brake stamping (what are you all thinking of admitting that you drive badly like that?)
Far better would be more of the little flashey signs. They do not distract motorists under the limit, and they are obvious (and effective?) to those over the limit.
Let's not have any more of those huge speed bumps we're getting -- I need to drop to 5 mph to avoid killing the sump.
Guess which one came out top??
http://thenewspaper.com/news/05/530.asp
puggit said:
http://thenewspaper.com
I love the article telling of how Ukraine's President sacks the entire traffic police force for its dodgy use of speed cameras.
But of course they wont,the "losses" would be unacceptable.They act like its their money that pays for them,its not,it's ours as taxpayers,and its the taxpayer who then gets fined.Its like getting a mortgage from the Bank to buy a house,then paying them rent to live in it.When are we going to wake up ?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff