"Speed Cameras Save Lives"
Discussion
Dunwoody said:
It is clear that cameras are effective
True, they are very effective at catching people exceeding the posted limit. Not a lot else mind you....
Dunwoody said:
good value for money
Also true, they cost about £40k to install I think. Only have to scam 700ish people and you've paid it back. Sounds like good ROI to me. You could pay one back in a fortnight or less.
Dunwoody said:
and well accepted by the public
Who the hell have you been asking??
P.S. You're being too kind. The payback quoted ignores the fact that nearly all the revenue goes in expenses. Let's face it, these cameras are utterly pointless. They also have the reverse effect, in that if a driver receives points for what they regard as a minor infraction, they will be more likely to ignore the limits when there is no camera present, as shown in countless studies. It's baffling. What do we, as democratic citizens, have to do to get these half-wits - who call themselves democratically elected politicians - to see sense?
Encouraging careful and responsible driving will save lives. Taking an interest in lunatics driving too fast in residential areas ( instead of tooling about in squad cars, standing like spare dicks at failed traffic lights and 'policing' football matches) will save lives. A stiffer driving test will save lives. Speed cameras? No. I would be interested to know, who has the safest motorways, Carry on Nanny Britain or the Fatherland?
Politicians are more feather bedded and out of touch with reality than at any time in British history.
It will end in tears.
Politicians are more feather bedded and out of touch with reality than at any time in British history.
It will end in tears.
It's clear that those in power could not care less about road safety. If they really wanted to lower road deaths there is a host of positive ways they could do this. Harder driving tests, better regulation of unroadworthy vehicles, Lighting on motorways, etc etc. Can we really believe that government ministers really care about people getting killed in accidents. Of course they dont! Cameras are just a great way for them to exert their control over us and further disolve our freedom.
cardigankid said:
I would be interested to know, who has the safest motorways, Carry on Nanny Britain or the Fatherland?
If you compare only those two countries, Nanny state Britain actually.
See www.abd.org.uk/motorwayspeedlimit.htm
about half way down.
fidgits said:
Bring me just ONE person who you can prove their life was directly saved by a speed camera
speed cameras don't directly save lives, they are a passive safety device (i.e by slowing down, you give yourself more chance to avoid an accident).
I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm not saying they aren't cash generators. Just politely pointing out that this argument is flawed
Edited by graebob on Saturday 20th January 16:27
graebob said:
speed cameras don't directly save lives, they are a passive safety device (i.e by slowing down, you give yourself more chance to avoid an accident).
do you not think that a driver paying close attention going a bit over the limit has more chance of spotting and avoiding an accident than some muppet daydreaming at just under the limit? Or a drunk doing just under the magic number?
negative creep said:
graebob said:
speed cameras don't directly save lives, they are a passive safety device (i.e by slowing down, you give yourself more chance to avoid an accident).
do you not think that a driver paying close attention going a bit over the limit has more chance of spotting and avoiding an accident than some muppet daydreaming at just under the limit? Or a drunk doing just under the magic number?
I think anyone paying attention has plenty of chance to spot a hazard at probably +10 of any limit. I'm just pointing out why cameras are there in the first place, and for the average spaz on the road, they work. The problem is they unfairly penalise people who know what they're doing. I tried to make this clear in my post but I guess I didn't
No hard feelingsgraebob said:
negative creep said:
graebob said:
speed cameras don't directly save lives, they are a passive safety device (i.e by slowing down, you give yourself more chance to avoid an accident).
do you not think that a driver paying close attention going a bit over the limit has more chance of spotting and avoiding an accident than some muppet daydreaming at just under the limit? Or a drunk doing just under the magic number?
I think anyone paying attention has plenty of chance to spot a hazard at probably +10 of any limit. I'm just pointing out why cameras are there in the first place, and for the average spaz on the road, they work. The problem is they unfairly penalise people who know what they're doing. I tried to make this clear in my post but I guess I didn't
No hard feelingsnot at all, no hard feelings were meant. The reason why speed cameras don't work is people slow down, then just resume whatever speed they were doing afterwards (c'mon, we've all done it!)
motorwise said:
this is why there need to be more average speed cameras
The day safety is simple enough that it can be measured
in MPH then they will be useful.
In reality, safety is considerably more complex,
which is why simple adjustment of MPH won't work.
But provides a useful revenue stream.
We know it can't be done in this country but why don't we play them at their own game! Why don't we have a nation-wide stick to the limit week? With all the new lower limits on our roads it would soon show! This would make them all sit up when they find out that the said week has just cost the economy X amount of lost revenue! But we can't stick together can we?
notthehamster said:
Let's face it, these cameras are utterly pointless. They also have the reverse effect, in that if a driver receives points for what they regard as a minor infraction, they will be more likely to ignore the limits when there is no camera present, as shown in countless studies. It's baffling. What do we, as democratic citizens, have to do to get these half-wits - who call themselves democratically elected politicians - to see sense?
Agreed, my approach to speed cameras is to waste attention on looking out for them, and to continue driving 'normally the rest of the time. I can just about stomach speed cameras in built up areas, but the relatively new trend of hounding motorists on our arterial routes (posh term for motorways), is just shooting £60 fish in barrel realy.
How could a speed camera save my life?
Could I make a lifeboat out of it?
no
Could I make a parachute out of one?
Probably not.
Does it sit in my dash board and control the ABS, ESP ect?
Didn't notice it in the glove box this morning.
Do they use then in hospitals?
Only to catch people in a hurry to get to the hospital so as to make a bad day even worse.
Perhaps if you needed a resuss' machine you could use the charge from the flash to jump start someones heart?
No the box is always locked!
No I give up!
How do they save lives?
Someone infinately wiser than I , please explain with absolute cast iron proof!
Could I make a lifeboat out of it?
no
Could I make a parachute out of one?
Probably not.
Does it sit in my dash board and control the ABS, ESP ect?
Didn't notice it in the glove box this morning.
Do they use then in hospitals?
Only to catch people in a hurry to get to the hospital so as to make a bad day even worse.
Perhaps if you needed a resuss' machine you could use the charge from the flash to jump start someones heart?
No the box is always locked!
No I give up!
How do they save lives?
Someone infinately wiser than I , please explain with absolute cast iron proof!
Edited by odyssey2200 on Wednesday 7th February 16:36
I signed the "No Speed Cameras" petition and here's the link to the response from No. 10 :
www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10844.asp
So now we know.
www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10844.asp
So now we know.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff