RE: Speed Cameras Come Down After Accidents Go Up
Discussion
broncoupe said:
They will wake up in a minute, the goverment needs money and fines bring in 100 millon a year. Do the maths.
There was a guy from Oxfordshire County Council on the news this morning who spilled several beans about speed cameras. The following facts surprised me:-Local councils are charged with maintaining the scameras, but all revenue generated goes to central government. As a result, in terms of your local taxation, the council are left with a fixed cost, running at a loss. The Oxfordshire representative said that it was preventing them spending money on schools and hospitals and as a result they were going to be systematically scrapped.
-Due to the high cost of running these cameras, only a minority of the orange boxes actually had cameras installed in them. Apparently the units 'were kept moving around' to convince the public they were all active and to prevent word getting around that certain cameras didn't work, but in the average county, there are fewer Gatso units than there are, in effect, mounting brackets.
-Swindon Town Council got rid of theirs for two reasons. Firstly, on similar cost grounds, and secondly because according to their statistics, accidents had actually gone up in areas where they were used, mainly because people either jammed their brakes on when they saw them, or spend all the time looking at their speedometer instead of the road.
Vipers said:
thomashenry said:
I'm not really sure why people are so pleased about this. Presumably because they will now be able to speed (ie drive illegally) without fear of being caught?
Also, if they really are a 'money making scheme' as the motoring lobby tell us, why on Earth is the government getting rid of a money maker at a time when it desperately needs money?
If you drive at the speed limit, then speed cameras are irrelevant to you.
+1.Also, if they really are a 'money making scheme' as the motoring lobby tell us, why on Earth is the government getting rid of a money maker at a time when it desperately needs money?
If you drive at the speed limit, then speed cameras are irrelevant to you.
Although obviously a lot of drivers have been zapped speeding, there are an awful lot who havn't, either by being cunning one way or another, or as you say, "Drive at the speed limit", taint hard to do.
Which is why so many drivers fail to observe them perhaps??
Setting of arbitrary limits, thus removing the need for the driver to actually asses the driving conditions and drive appropriately for said conditions, leads to a drop in concentration.
Which I would argue is the reason for the majority of accidents.
Least we forget, that they are set for the worst case driver scenario.
Like the guy who just follwed me along the A25 - 40 through the 30 (until he nearly hit my bumper) 40 through the 40 and then 40 through the 60 and than yet again he was 2 foot off my bumper as we drove through the 30 into town.
Perhaps we should have a numpty camera on EVERY lamp post?
Twincam16 said:
-Due to the high cost of running these cameras, only a minority of the orange boxes actually had cameras installed in them. Apparently the units 'were kept moving around' to convince the public they were all active and to prevent word getting around that certain cameras didn't work, but in the average county, there are fewer Gatso units than there are, in effect, mounting brackets.
Chester City Council bought 8 housings and 1 camera.The housings still flash though, and when they were first installed they were set to flash at random, so people would notice them. They had to turn that off after a few days as it caused mayhem at Police HQ with irate locals saying they'd been flased as sub-30MPH.
VPower said:
Vipers said:
thomashenry said:
I'm not really sure why people are so pleased about this. Presumably because they will now be able to speed (ie drive illegally) without fear of being caught?
Also, if they really are a 'money making scheme' as the motoring lobby tell us, why on Earth is the government getting rid of a money maker at a time when it desperately needs money?
If you drive at the speed limit, then speed cameras are irrelevant to you.
+1.Also, if they really are a 'money making scheme' as the motoring lobby tell us, why on Earth is the government getting rid of a money maker at a time when it desperately needs money?
If you drive at the speed limit, then speed cameras are irrelevant to you.
Although obviously a lot of drivers have been zapped speeding, there are an awful lot who havn't, either by being cunning one way or another, or as you say, "Drive at the speed limit", taint hard to do.
Which is why so many drivers fail to observe them perhaps??
At home time, I bet that stretch of road is busier and faster than a lot of motorways in the UK.
Anyway I fully support getting rid of the cameras.
VPower said:
"Obviously" a lot of arbitrary speed limits are not actually appropriate for the roads they are on.
Which is why so many drivers fail to observe them perhaps??
Setting of arbitrary limits, thus removing the need for the driver to actually asses the driving conditions and drive appropriately for said conditions, leads to a drop in concentration.
Which I would argue is the reason for the majority of accidents.
Least we forget, that they are set for the worst case driver scenario.
Like the guy who just follwed me along the A25 - 40 through the 30 (until he nearly hit my bumper) 40 through the 40 and then 40 through the 60 and than yet again he was 2 foot off my bumper as we drove through the 30 into town.
Perhaps we should have a numpty camera on EVERY lamp post?
It sounds like your gripe is more with inappropriate speed limits rather than cameras.Which is why so many drivers fail to observe them perhaps??
Setting of arbitrary limits, thus removing the need for the driver to actually asses the driving conditions and drive appropriately for said conditions, leads to a drop in concentration.
Which I would argue is the reason for the majority of accidents.
Least we forget, that they are set for the worst case driver scenario.
Like the guy who just follwed me along the A25 - 40 through the 30 (until he nearly hit my bumper) 40 through the 40 and then 40 through the 60 and than yet again he was 2 foot off my bumper as we drove through the 30 into town.
Perhaps we should have a numpty camera on EVERY lamp post?
Inappropriate speeds can be annoying, but I just stick CC on, and concentrate on what's in front of me, without having to worry about going over the limit. It really doesn't bother me that much.
One poster above says that they got caught in the 50 zone coming up to the Severn Bridge. It could be argued that if you missed the repeated roadsigns informing you of the 50mph limit, you were perhaps not paying enough attention whilst driving.
Edited by thomashenry on Monday 26th July 17:12
Vipers said:
But if you know its 30, why take the chance and do 40, may well be inappropriate not disagreeing with that, but then again the A90 southbound from Aberdeen is a NSL road, but if you step off the bus on the southbound lane, and live on the other side, you have to cross a NSL dual carriageway, you could argue that the NSL is not appropriate for that stretch of road!.
At home time, I bet that stretch of road is busier and faster than a lot of motorways in the UK.
Anyway I fully support getting rid of the cameras.
Can't agree with you more!! At home time, I bet that stretch of road is busier and faster than a lot of motorways in the UK.
Anyway I fully support getting rid of the cameras.
There are cases where I agree the limit should be lower as well.
Outside schools during certain times of the day, for instance.
But most drivers know the problem here and respect the situation without being bludgeoned into it??
Dangerous driving is never caught on a speed camera, unless it is a joy rider who don't care anyway!
Everybody either knows where the fixed ones are or has a satnav with them all on now anyway.
So I would suggest they are becoming rather redundant technology as cash raisers these days.
I do agree with better training being required and that allows 17 year olds who are therefore better trained to continue to get a licence.
Although even my son agrees that 17 year olds should only be allowed to carry one teenage passenger at a time.
So I'm firmly in the 95 percentile bracket for speed limits.
Even hypocritical counsellors who set the limits drive in that bracket most of the time.
thomashenry said:
VPower said:
"Obviously" a lot of arbitrary speed limits are not actually appropriate for the roads they are on.
Which is why so many drivers fail to observe them perhaps??
Setting of arbitrary limits, thus removing the need for the driver to actually asses the driving conditions and drive appropriately for said conditions, leads to a drop in concentration.
Which I would argue is the reason for the majority of accidents.
Least we forget, that they are set for the worst case driver scenario.
Like the guy who just follwed me along the A25 - 40 through the 30 (until he nearly hit my bumper) 40 through the 40 and then 40 through the 60 and than yet again he was 2 foot off my bumper as we drove through the 30 into town.
Perhaps we should have a numpty camera on EVERY lamp post?
It sounds like your gripe is more with inappropriate speed limits rather than cameras.Which is why so many drivers fail to observe them perhaps??
Setting of arbitrary limits, thus removing the need for the driver to actually asses the driving conditions and drive appropriately for said conditions, leads to a drop in concentration.
Which I would argue is the reason for the majority of accidents.
Least we forget, that they are set for the worst case driver scenario.
Like the guy who just follwed me along the A25 - 40 through the 30 (until he nearly hit my bumper) 40 through the 40 and then 40 through the 60 and than yet again he was 2 foot off my bumper as we drove through the 30 into town.
Perhaps we should have a numpty camera on EVERY lamp post?
Inappropriate speeds can be annoying, but I just stick CC on, and concentrate on what's in front of me, without having to worry about going over the limit. It really doesn't bother me that much.
One poster above says that they got caught in the 50 zone coming up to the Severn Bridge. It could be argued that if you missed the repeated roadsigns informing you of the 50mph limit, you were perhaps not paying enough attention whilst driving.
Edited by thomashenry on Monday 26th July 17:12
Totally as said above in the 95 percentile rule camp - which actually has been agreed that it would reduce accidents!
Just no politician has the balls to seriously propose it.
When driving through average speed cameras the drivers attention naturally focuses on the speedo and road awareness suffers consequently..I have lost count of the number of times Ive braked late because Ive been obsessed with staying under the average..essentially they should only ever be used in roadworks as was originally intended...Im sure there have been many RTAs as a result of these cameras but doubt the figures will be recorded because it may not be deaths.
Likewise the fixed cameras also have the effect of getting the driver to accelerate and brake..if you feel the limits are wrong for the road conditions there is a natural propensity to speed up after a camera and, again, Ive witnessed this occuring daily..and many near misses as a result..speed cameras are not the answer..THEY CANNOT USE JUDGEMENT AND DO NOT CATCH DANGEROUS DRIVING WHICH IS THE REAL KILLER ON THE ROADS...PEOPLE TAILGATING AND UNDERTAKING..BUT TO CATCH THESE MUGS REQUIRES TRAFFIC POLICE NUMBERS AND INCREASED SPENDING..ITS NOT ABOUT SAFETY..IT CANT BE..ITS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE MONEY AND MAYBE ALSO AN ELEMENT OF POLICING THE ROADS ON THE CHEAP.
A CASE STUDY..Currently my Dad (who is a professional University professor who drives his Saab slowly everywhere) has more points on his licence than me..purely because I am more camera aware and slow down for them, whereas my Dad has been done at 36mph in a 30 twice! To compare our driving styles is ridiculous..hes never had a crash in 40 years of driving whereas Ive had several..probably due to my greneral driving style
Likewise the fixed cameras also have the effect of getting the driver to accelerate and brake..if you feel the limits are wrong for the road conditions there is a natural propensity to speed up after a camera and, again, Ive witnessed this occuring daily..and many near misses as a result..speed cameras are not the answer..THEY CANNOT USE JUDGEMENT AND DO NOT CATCH DANGEROUS DRIVING WHICH IS THE REAL KILLER ON THE ROADS...PEOPLE TAILGATING AND UNDERTAKING..BUT TO CATCH THESE MUGS REQUIRES TRAFFIC POLICE NUMBERS AND INCREASED SPENDING..ITS NOT ABOUT SAFETY..IT CANT BE..ITS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT THE MONEY AND MAYBE ALSO AN ELEMENT OF POLICING THE ROADS ON THE CHEAP.
A CASE STUDY..Currently my Dad (who is a professional University professor who drives his Saab slowly everywhere) has more points on his licence than me..purely because I am more camera aware and slow down for them, whereas my Dad has been done at 36mph in a 30 twice! To compare our driving styles is ridiculous..hes never had a crash in 40 years of driving whereas Ive had several..probably due to my greneral driving style
CC is the answer, suits me just fine, even in 20. Is there a down side? yes there is, someone comes up behind you, pulls out and passes, then a few hundred metres further down the road, they slow down, (Obviously on manual), so you pull out to pass them again still on cc, gets some funny looks sometimes, on long runs this can go on for hours.
McAndy said:
kbee540 said:
Note: the argument that you're more likely to hit someone whilst staring at the speedo starts to lose its effectiveness at such low speeds.
Really? It may affect how hard you hit an object, but every second you are not observing the road and its surroundings when driving increases the chance of hitting an object.That said I'm certainly not going to miss the scameras!
RTRobbie said:
McAndy said:
kbee540 said:
Note: the argument that you're more likely to hit someone whilst staring at the speedo starts to lose its effectiveness at such low speeds.
Really? It may affect how hard you hit an object, but every second you are not observing the road and its surroundings when driving increases the chance of hitting an object.That said I'm certainly not going to miss the scameras!
Twincam16 said:
Vipers said:
All stop every one, cameras must be good, Brake just said on on telly. 
And - don't tell me - there was no opposing opinion from SafeSpeed as, guessing from your time of posting, it was The Televised Guardi...sorry, Channel 4 News.On the basis of this thread title there are some cameras in Lancs that need to come down.
ABD PR:
"Lancashire has been one of the first counties to publish its speed camera statistics under new government rules and locals are horrified. The Lancashire Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed (countywide analysis may reveal more). According to the Evening Post those same three cameras raked in £18,000 in fines from motorists in 2010."
ABD PR:
"Lancashire has been one of the first counties to publish its speed camera statistics under new government rules and locals are horrified. The Lancashire Evening Post has found three speed cameras in Preston alone where the number of accidents and casualties has increased since the cameras were installed (countywide analysis may reveal more). According to the Evening Post those same three cameras raked in £18,000 in fines from motorists in 2010."
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff