Speed cameras can be a very good idea
Discussion
Cameras can be a very good idea - but how they are applied is the problem.
E.G. Blackpool (full of drunken pedestrians and boy racers) has them liberally scattered in built up busy areas - not problem well done that man!
The prat on the motorway bridge nicking people on a free flowing triple carriageway in dry conditions for 80+ needs (edited to say) 'to see the error of his ways'
Are we fighting the wrong argument one that cant be won ?
All mums and 'non motoring people will say yes to the camera outside the little darlings school - just fine by me a big yellow box that every one knows is there, miss it and I'm sorry but you deserve to get nicked.
Cameras are here to stay; but the use of them (fixed and mobile) by many SCPs is questionable, underhand & counter productive to safety, undermining respect for Police, UK Law & government.
Used well - they could actually save lives.
Sould our campaign be for the guidelines to be enforced and not cameras to be abolished?
E.G. Blackpool (full of drunken pedestrians and boy racers) has them liberally scattered in built up busy areas - not problem well done that man!
The prat on the motorway bridge nicking people on a free flowing triple carriageway in dry conditions for 80+ needs (edited to say) 'to see the error of his ways'
Are we fighting the wrong argument one that cant be won ?
All mums and 'non motoring people will say yes to the camera outside the little darlings school - just fine by me a big yellow box that every one knows is there, miss it and I'm sorry but you deserve to get nicked.
Cameras are here to stay; but the use of them (fixed and mobile) by many SCPs is questionable, underhand & counter productive to safety, undermining respect for Police, UK Law & government.
Used well - they could actually save lives.
Sould our campaign be for the guidelines to be enforced and not cameras to be abolished?
I think that in reality what you say is the best we could hope for. We're never going to see all cameras removed.
I believe that there are certain places where it is legitimate to place cameras simply for speed control rather than KSI reduction. These would include residential areas (prevent boy racers, reduce noise from traffic) and outside schools (set for certain times only, as per 20mph limit suggestions).
Of course I would prefer that drivers moderate their driving in such places so that there is no need for cameras, but realistically this doesn't "always" happen.
What is true is that cameras on non-residential, open roads should be removed along with the speed limits that they're there to needlessly enforce. Let's get rid of the government BS and have a reasoned argument.
OK, not holding my breath.
I believe that there are certain places where it is legitimate to place cameras simply for speed control rather than KSI reduction. These would include residential areas (prevent boy racers, reduce noise from traffic) and outside schools (set for certain times only, as per 20mph limit suggestions).
Of course I would prefer that drivers moderate their driving in such places so that there is no need for cameras, but realistically this doesn't "always" happen.
What is true is that cameras on non-residential, open roads should be removed along with the speed limits that they're there to needlessly enforce. Let's get rid of the government BS and have a reasoned argument.
OK, not holding my breath.
Want to explain to me how a nip in the post is saving a life?
The cameras save lives argument is a load of old codswallop. Speeding isnt the cause of accidents, its just a pereception of simple minded fools.
A speed camera cannot save a life, because all it does is measure speed, and if i go past one at under the speed limit and have a fatal rta with an outa control truck, then explain how it did sweet F/a to save my ass!!!
Some folks on here are getting right up my chuff with this crap.
edited to add the following: Theyre only a "good" idea until YOU get
ed over by them, then your opinions of em will change.
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 17th June 17:49
The cameras save lives argument is a load of old codswallop. Speeding isnt the cause of accidents, its just a pereception of simple minded fools.
A speed camera cannot save a life, because all it does is measure speed, and if i go past one at under the speed limit and have a fatal rta with an outa control truck, then explain how it did sweet F/a to save my ass!!!
Some folks on here are getting right up my chuff with this crap.
edited to add the following: Theyre only a "good" idea until YOU get
ed over by them, then your opinions of em will change. >> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 17th June 17:49
plotloss said:
Keep 'em in 30 zones and you'll hear no argument from this side...
even in pointlessly restricted, ex nsl, dual or single carriageways? maybe if speed limits were set more sensibly. ie, a flexible lower limit in town centres at kicking out time coupled with higher speed limits where sensible, then people might be happier to obey. as it is though, all i can see are limits set by the lowest common denominator that force everybody to drive at pointlessly low speeds when the majority of the motoring population are quite capable of travelling safely.
to me, the cameras are symptomatic of the wider problem of over control on the roads. the real danger is that by removing more and more control and thought from the driver, the drivers become deskilled, standards decline, so, more controls are brought in and the whole thing sprials. if the govt was serious about road safety, surely theyd address the fundamental issue - ie - driving skill rather than taxing those (who actually bother to) register run and tax roadworthy cars.
recently i read in a paper (or possibly on here) that someone jokingly (or not) suggested an IQ test instead of a driving test to be allowed to drive. quite funny, but i found it tinged with more than a little relevance. can you imagine how enjoyable, safe and efficient motoring would be if drivers were of a high standard and actually thought about what they were doing, rather than treating driving as something to be tolerated between a and b?
im rambling a little, but back at last to my point that no amount of roadside countermeasures will address what i believe to be the most fundamental problem surrounding road safety. if only people were trained to a high standard and could be trusted to 'read' a situation and apply speed appropriately. is it such a dream? how can people be made to think when driving?
* apologies for the somewhat rambling nature of this post, but when id finished it i wanted something to show for my efforts!
>> Edited by paolow on Thursday 17th June 18:23
deltaf said:
Want to explain to me how a nip in the post is saving a life?
The cameras save lives argument is a load of old codswallop. Speeding isnt the cause of accidents, its just a pereception of simple minded fools.
A speed camera cannot save a life, because all it does is measure speed, and if i go past one at under the speed limit and have a fatal rta with an outa control truck, then explain how it did sweet F/a to save my ass!!!
Some folks on here are getting right up my chuff with this crap.
edited to add the following: Theyre only a "good" idea until YOU get
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 17th June 17:49
Please dont get side tracked
My argument is - we have them they are not going away so lets fight an argument we can win!
Gfun said:
Want to explain to me how a nip in the post is saving a life?
The cameras save lives argument is a load of old codswallop. Speeding isnt the cause of accidents, its just a pereception of simple minded fools.
A speed camera cannot save a life, because all it does is measure speed, and if i go past one at under the speed limit and have a fatal rta with an outa control truck, then explain how it did sweet F/a to save my ass!!!
Some folks on here are getting right up my chuff with this crap.
edited to add the following: Theyre only a "good" idea until YOU get
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 17th June 17:49
Please dont get side tracked
My argument is - we have them they are not going away so lets fight an argument we can win!
IMHO the only thing cameras are good at is fining people who do not adhere to an artificially low speed for a road. Dont get me wrong, im not entirely cynical - there are times when this is desirable. take for instance a motorway - often safe up to and exceeding 3 figures in the right conditions. now add roadworks and there is scope for all kinds of problems if a loose car goes through them. so, cameras here can be a good idea. similarly, outside kindergarten (what do the germans call it?) at 3 pm, a 20 limit could be relevant as young children have no speed perception etc that most pedestrians need when around roads.
where people get the arse with cameras is where there is either little justification, or, they do not address the real issues involved. sadly we are all too aware of how they are now just about everywhere to the trumpeting of 'safer roads'
plotloss said:
Keep 'em in 30 zones and you'll hear no argument from this side...
So you think all 30 zones should be 30? That's a bit of an assumption.
Oh, and why should things be "safer" just because everyone is trundling along at 30?
Cameras are not necessarily "here to stay". That's plain defeatist. Time and time (and time) again, it's been proven (not by government studies of course) that there is no "OK" place for a speed camera.
There should be concentration on quality of driving, not speed - how many times does it have to be said?
Have a look at www.safespeed.org.uk/ for a deeper understanding.
plotloss said:
Keep 'em in 30 zones and you'll hear no argument from this side...
agree!
i actually saw a speed camera outside a school for the first time EVER yesterday (in Morley, Leeds)... my only argument with these are...it was still a 40 zone!!
Yet there are 30 zones with cameras nowhere near school on wide, long, straight roads......
Logical? no
way..... 
paolow said:
Keep 'em in 30 zones and you'll hear no argument from this side...
even in pointlessly restricted, ex nsl, dual or single carriageways? maybe if speed limits were set more sensibly. ie, a flexible lower limit in town centres at kicking out time coupled with higher speed limits where sensible, then people might be happier to obey. as it is though, all i can see are limits set by the lowest common denominator that force everybody to drive at pointlessly low speeds when the majority of the motoring population are quite capable of travelling safely.
to me, the cameras are symptomatic of the wider problem of over control on the roads. the real danger is that by removing more and more control and thought from the driver, the drivers become deskilled, standards decline, so, more controls are brought in and the whole thing sprials. if the govt was serious about road safety, surely theyd address the fundamental issue - ie - driving skill rather than taxing those (who actually bother to) register run and tax roadworthy cars.
recently i read in a paper (or possibly on here) that someone jokingly (or not) suggested an IQ test instead of a driving test to be allowed to drive. quite funny, but i found it tinged with more than a little relevance. can you imagine how enjoyable, safe and efficient motoring would be if drivers were of a high standard and actually thought about what they were doing, rather than treating driving as something to be tolerated between a and b?
im rambling a little, but back at last to my point that no amount of roadside countermeasures will address what i believe to be the most fundamental problem surrounding road safety. if only people were trained to a high standard and could be trusted to 'read' a situation and apply speed appropriately. is it such a dream? how can people be made to think when driving?
* apologies for the somewhat rambling nature of this post, but when id finished it i wanted something to show for my efforts!
>> Edited by paolow on Thursday 17th June 18:23
Yes, keep the cameras in 30 limits (I personally believe we should have more 20 limits past schools etc.). However some 30 limits are plainly stupid. Most of rural Oxfordshire seems to be a 30 limit nowadays. Not that I take much notice once I'm ovbiously in the middle of nowhere with no houses for miles
Dear oh deary me. Have IQ's suddenly dropped on here in the last few weeks or something?
Whats the point of a scamera in a 30 zone, or in fact ANY zone, when most accidents occur WITHIN the speed limits which means they aint speed related??????????????
So we all drive around happily (not) within the artifical, PC inspired, "Save the kiddies" speed limits still having our fatal rta's and the scameras CANT deal with that.
Just how has a scamera done anything to make it SAFER in an area, when the above is true?
Now you see (or maybe you dont) the folly of a "scams are ok by me in a 30 limit" argument........
You HAVE to get past the screwed up idea that a box on a stick will influence the outcome of an accident that occurs within the limits, as thats precisely whats happening. ITS POINTLESS THEREFORE TO HAVE SPEED CAMERAS!!!! They dont accomplish anything for inproving safety as they dont affect the outcome of an accident happening BELOW the limits as most of the accidents occuring fall into that category.
Now, someone tell me theyre ok in a 30 zone...................
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 17th June 19:56
Whats the point of a scamera in a 30 zone, or in fact ANY zone, when most accidents occur WITHIN the speed limits which means they aint speed related??????????????
So we all drive around happily (not) within the artifical, PC inspired, "Save the kiddies" speed limits still having our fatal rta's and the scameras CANT deal with that.
Just how has a scamera done anything to make it SAFER in an area, when the above is true?
Now you see (or maybe you dont) the folly of a "scams are ok by me in a 30 limit" argument........
You HAVE to get past the screwed up idea that a box on a stick will influence the outcome of an accident that occurs within the limits, as thats precisely whats happening. ITS POINTLESS THEREFORE TO HAVE SPEED CAMERAS!!!! They dont accomplish anything for inproving safety as they dont affect the outcome of an accident happening BELOW the limits as most of the accidents occuring fall into that category.
Now, someone tell me theyre ok in a 30 zone...................
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 17th June 19:56
Gfun said:
Please dont get side tracked
My argument is - we have them they are not going away so lets fight an argument we can win!
So when was the last time
someone from Brake T2000 Reclaim the Streets etc said:
Please don't get side tracked
My argument is - we have cars, they are not going away, so lets fight an argument we can win!
plotloss said:
Keep 'em in 30 zones and you'll hear no argument from this side...
That's certainly the type of road they are most appropriate to.
I have to take pity with the fine folks in Lincolnshire who pay good money to have Speed Cameras put on the A1, FFS !!
Also the fine folks in Cambridgeshire, who have them on the equally dual carraigeway A14.
What were they thinking of ?
dcb said:
That's certainly the type of road they are most appropriate to.
Dont wish to be rude, but have you visited Earth recently?
Has the point been missed entirely? I think it must have been.
Please re-read the reasons why scameras are inappropriate in ANY situation.
Not trying to brow beat anyone (i know it sounds that way) but to me at least it all seems so blatantly obvious.
Please think again.
The fundamental issue here is that all the legislation about motoring could be scrapped and it would not make a blind bit of difference to the numbers killed and injured.
There are 3 important factors
Car design
Road design and useage
Road user skill
The pontifications of failed barristers and teachers, together with the various groups with a vested interest in preserving their jobs, (including the traffic police) are of absolutely no significance whatsoever. The existance of speed cameras will only ever serve 1 purpose and that is to generate cash. Even if they were placed wholly ethically and there positions determined by Deltaf and myself not a single life would be saved.
There are 3 important factors
Car design
Road design and useage
Road user skill
The pontifications of failed barristers and teachers, together with the various groups with a vested interest in preserving their jobs, (including the traffic police) are of absolutely no significance whatsoever. The existance of speed cameras will only ever serve 1 purpose and that is to generate cash. Even if they were placed wholly ethically and there positions determined by Deltaf and myself not a single life would be saved.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff