RE: Cameras cut death in Scotland, continue in England
Discussion
timewatch said:
rick.e said:
timewatch said:
Quote*
Over on the south side of Hadrian's Wall, meanwhile, the RAC Foundation says that English councils are maintaining their commitment to speed cameras despite funding cuts.
When Scotland get's it's Independance can we re-build Hadrians wall and charge you English and Welsh to cross the Border?
TW>>>
What on earth does Hadrian's Wall have to do with separating England from Scotland? It is not, and never has been the border between England and Scotland. Hadrian's Wall runs through the middle of Newcastle. The Scottish border is about 60 miles further North (not even close timewatch!), being just North of Berwick on Tweed.Over on the south side of Hadrian's Wall, meanwhile, the RAC Foundation says that English councils are maintaining their commitment to speed cameras despite funding cuts.
When Scotland get's it's Independance can we re-build Hadrians wall and charge you English and Welsh to cross the Border?
TW>>>
And a land grab!!!!!!!
TW>>>
Hellbound said:
I only try to comment on things I know to be true after witnessing them with my own eyes (ok that's not at all true but my point here is 100% justified).
A road I regularly walk along on the way to my gym (and have done for 3 years) had in the last 6 months, speed cameras placed on it which also act as traffic light cameras too. The area of road where these are in operation has caused a very noticeable slow down in traffic. Traffic on that stretch has been forced to travel within the legal limit of 30mph which then goes onto a 40mph stretch which merges into a 60mph road.
The stretch of road where there are no cameras whatsoever can be described as dangerous, in that the danger presented to pedestrians and other road users are vehicles traveling above the speed limit along that part of road. Not all vehicles of course, just enough to warrant mentioning here and my heightened attention while walking along the pavement. To a pedestrian, it is very noticeable.
This was highlighted to me just the other week where a police accident sign was placed near a set of traffic lights asking for witnesses to a road accident involving a pedestrian. No speed cameras were in use in this section of road.
So, for me it really is as simple as that. Take one stretch of road, split it into two and place speed cameras on one half while leaving the other half alone. The result is undeniable. Traffic travels within the legal limit in the half with cameras. Whereas the half without cameras means you get a lot of tw@ts in a range of vehicles bombing up and down at twice the legal limit.
I write this because the difference is like night and day, it's almost comical.
I really hope the council wakes up and puts more cameras on this bit of road. I'm not an advocate of cameras, but on this piece of road I've seen quite a few near misses with pedestrians and between cars. On a lot of roads like this, there's no denying it's a common sense measure.
Thats where we all want to see s-cameras and that was the point of having them IN DANGER AREASA road I regularly walk along on the way to my gym (and have done for 3 years) had in the last 6 months, speed cameras placed on it which also act as traffic light cameras too. The area of road where these are in operation has caused a very noticeable slow down in traffic. Traffic on that stretch has been forced to travel within the legal limit of 30mph which then goes onto a 40mph stretch which merges into a 60mph road.
The stretch of road where there are no cameras whatsoever can be described as dangerous, in that the danger presented to pedestrians and other road users are vehicles traveling above the speed limit along that part of road. Not all vehicles of course, just enough to warrant mentioning here and my heightened attention while walking along the pavement. To a pedestrian, it is very noticeable.
This was highlighted to me just the other week where a police accident sign was placed near a set of traffic lights asking for witnesses to a road accident involving a pedestrian. No speed cameras were in use in this section of road.
So, for me it really is as simple as that. Take one stretch of road, split it into two and place speed cameras on one half while leaving the other half alone. The result is undeniable. Traffic travels within the legal limit in the half with cameras. Whereas the half without cameras means you get a lot of tw@ts in a range of vehicles bombing up and down at twice the legal limit.
I write this because the difference is like night and day, it's almost comical.
I really hope the council wakes up and puts more cameras on this bit of road. I'm not an advocate of cameras, but on this piece of road I've seen quite a few near misses with pedestrians and between cars. On a lot of roads like this, there's no denying it's a common sense measure.
Edited by Hellbound on Friday 3rd August 19:45
But we rarely if ever see them used properly, do we?
The dirty council place them on the busiest roads specifically at places where peoples attention needs to be (and usually is) focussed on driving safely and not on their speedo's.
Councils do not put them around schools, or parks, or in the estates where kids play, and rarely are they along the known and usually busy pedestrian areas (unless several people have been killed/injured).
The current cash grab system is dreamed up by corrupt c***s who are intent on 1 thing,,,,, ensuring revenue streams are as high as possible.
Ican said:
I predict next year when road deaths jump back up to the norm they will all come out saying we need more speed cameras to stop the unprecedented rise in road deaths!! 
This.Regression to the mean will make a laughing stock of their post hoc fallacies.
Maybe they should produce a graph to explain why all politiciunts seem to believe we are all in the left half of the intelligence bell curve - maybe they all are & that's why.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff