Discussion
I was driving back to London from the Isle of Wight yesterday. As I exited the city (Portsmouth), away from the last junction before the M275 starts, I was acclerating in my usual and safe manner to motorway speeds just prior to the blue motorway commences sign, when I see a new yellow box on my side of the road. Hmmm....tum, tum, tum.....Truvelo...ahhhhhhh, BRAKES. Now I don't think I got caught, as I mananged to dump enough speed, but this is taking the piss. This road is in all but name a motorway (3 lanes, no roundabouts/tricky junctions etc.) but I suppose the prevailing limit is 40 upto the motorway sign. The Truvelo was no more than 100 metres from the start of the Motorway. WHY put a Truvelo here? I was driving at a perfectly safe speed, but was forced to perform an emergency proceedure, as was a Saab which was paying a little too much attention to the name badge on my car. This camera WILL cause accidents and cost lives.
Now, I have pretty relaxed views on "safety" cameras, compared to a number on here, but this is really taking things too far.
Also, to the driver of the blue Tuscan on the A3 just north of the M25 - did Sir reach warp speed?
Matt
>>> Edited by Beasty on Monday 7th April 16:47
Now, I have pretty relaxed views on "safety" cameras, compared to a number on here, but this is really taking things too far.
Also, to the driver of the blue Tuscan on the A3 just north of the M25 - did Sir reach warp speed?
Matt
>>> Edited by Beasty on Monday 7th April 16:47
Ah, I think that you will find that entrance to a motorway is an accident blackspot and needs to be heavily policed! I mean, we need to prevent those drivers that accelerate dont we?
What a load of toss - rubbish and crap. Why oh why do we allow monkeys to do this to our roads? If we must have them put them in sensible locations - that is pretty bloody obviously a scamera designed to catch the unwary motorist who is accelerating to speed to match the prevailing road conditions.
Safety cameras - phah.. just another form of tax....
Cheers,
Paul
What a load of toss - rubbish and crap. Why oh why do we allow monkeys to do this to our roads? If we must have them put them in sensible locations - that is pretty bloody obviously a scamera designed to catch the unwary motorist who is accelerating to speed to match the prevailing road conditions.
Safety cameras - phah.. just another form of tax....
Cheers,
Paul
Blimey, I'm a moderate! 
I must be getting old.
Oh well, if I'm a moderate already, here goes.
The "moderate's" view:
Inappropriate use of speed is a significant factor in road deaths - which are a bad thing. Speed cameras can be a useful deterrent against inappropriate speed in certain high risk areas, schools, known black spots and the like. There are well established signs indicating the presence of these risks and if we are doing more than 30mph in such areas, we deserve to get caught and fined. However they cannot in my view be usefully employed in more variable environments such as trunk roads, motorways and other major roads, where it can be safe to travel at 100mph under certain conditions and only 40mph under other conditions. What is needed there is (i) driver education and (ii) sensible policing based and an expert (policeman's)assessment of the driving exhibited in the prevailing conditions.
My conclusion therefore is this. By all means use properly placed speed cameras in locations where there is a clear danger, under any conditions, associated with excessive speed. The revenue from these locations, and only these locations, should be used to properly sign the risks in appropriate areas, fund more marked police patrols and provide more driver training for inexperienced drivers or those caught driving unacceptably. Any improperly sited cameras, especially those that are more likely to be the cause of accidents rather than prevent them should be removed.
I regret that this view will not find favour with either those that view cameras as a panacea solving all the dangers of our roads in one fell swoop, or those that wish to be able to drive at unsafe speeds with impunity. So I guess that makes me a moderate.
Matt
I must be getting old. Oh well, if I'm a moderate already, here goes.
The "moderate's" view:
Inappropriate use of speed is a significant factor in road deaths - which are a bad thing. Speed cameras can be a useful deterrent against inappropriate speed in certain high risk areas, schools, known black spots and the like. There are well established signs indicating the presence of these risks and if we are doing more than 30mph in such areas, we deserve to get caught and fined. However they cannot in my view be usefully employed in more variable environments such as trunk roads, motorways and other major roads, where it can be safe to travel at 100mph under certain conditions and only 40mph under other conditions. What is needed there is (i) driver education and (ii) sensible policing based and an expert (policeman's)assessment of the driving exhibited in the prevailing conditions.
My conclusion therefore is this. By all means use properly placed speed cameras in locations where there is a clear danger, under any conditions, associated with excessive speed. The revenue from these locations, and only these locations, should be used to properly sign the risks in appropriate areas, fund more marked police patrols and provide more driver training for inexperienced drivers or those caught driving unacceptably. Any improperly sited cameras, especially those that are more likely to be the cause of accidents rather than prevent them should be removed.
I regret that this view will not find favour with either those that view cameras as a panacea solving all the dangers of our roads in one fell swoop, or those that wish to be able to drive at unsafe speeds with impunity. So I guess that makes me a moderate.
Matt
Blimey, I'm a moderate! I must be getting old.
Oh well, if I'm a moderate already, here goes.
The "moderate's" view:
Inappropriate use of speed is a significant factor in road deaths - which are a bad thing. Speed cameras can be a useful deterrent against inappropriate speed in certain high risk areas, schools, known black spots and the like. There are well established signs indicating the presence of these risks and if we are doing more than 30mph in such areas, we deserve to get caught and fined. However they cannot in my view be usefully employed in more variable environments such as trunk roads, motorways and other major roads, where it can be safe to travel at 100mph under certain conditions and only 40mph under other conditions. What is needed there is (i) driver education and (ii) sensible policing based and an expert (policeman's)assessment of the driving exhibited in the prevailing conditions.
My conclusion therefore is this. By all means use properly placed speed cameras in locations where there is a clear danger, under any conditions, associated with excessive speed. The revenue from these locations, and only these locations, should be used to properly sign the risks in appropriate areas, fund more marked police patrols and provide more driver training for inexperienced drivers or those caught driving unacceptably. Any improperly sited cameras, especially those that are more likely to be the cause of accidents rather than prevent them should be removed.
I regret that this view will not find favour with either those that view cameras as a panacea solving all the dangers of our roads in one fell swoop, or those that wish to be able to drive at unsafe speeds with impunity. So I guess that makes me a moderate.
Matt
I must be getting old. Oh well, if I'm a moderate already, here goes.
The "moderate's" view:
Inappropriate use of speed is a significant factor in road deaths - which are a bad thing. Speed cameras can be a useful deterrent against inappropriate speed in certain high risk areas, schools, known black spots and the like. There are well established signs indicating the presence of these risks and if we are doing more than 30mph in such areas, we deserve to get caught and fined. However they cannot in my view be usefully employed in more variable environments such as trunk roads, motorways and other major roads, where it can be safe to travel at 100mph under certain conditions and only 40mph under other conditions. What is needed there is (i) driver education and (ii) sensible policing based and an expert (policeman's)assessment of the driving exhibited in the prevailing conditions.
My conclusion therefore is this. By all means use properly placed speed cameras in locations where there is a clear danger, under any conditions, associated with excessive speed. The revenue from these locations, and only these locations, should be used to properly sign the risks in appropriate areas, fund more marked police patrols and provide more driver training for inexperienced drivers or those caught driving unacceptably. Any improperly sited cameras, especially those that are more likely to be the cause of accidents rather than prevent them should be removed.
I regret that this view will not find favour with either those that view cameras as a panacea solving all the dangers of our roads in one fell swoop, or those that wish to be able to drive at unsafe speeds with impunity. So I guess that makes me a moderate.
Matt
Sorry mate, didn't mean to offend I took you to be a 'moderate' based on :- "Now, I have pretty relaxed views on "safety" cameras, compared to a number on here," Your assessment pretty much tallies with mine although recently I find myself becoming more intolerant of them as driving standards plummet and revenue escalates
when i lived in selsey,i used the a27/m and the 275 to go into pompey to see mates there.as was said earlier,there is no need for the scamera being there.
fair enough,there are a few accidents there,but like most accidents they are due to lack of concentration or just plain old fashioned bad driving(alot more in the latter)(especially going toward chichester!!!)
fair enough,there are a few accidents there,but like most accidents they are due to lack of concentration or just plain old fashioned bad driving(alot more in the latter)(especially going toward chichester!!!)
Beasty said:
The "moderate's" view:
Inappropriate use of speed is a significant factor in road deaths - which are a bad thing. Speed cameras can be a useful deterrent against inappropriate speed in certain high risk areas, schools, known black spots and the like. There are well established signs indicating the presence of these risks and if we are doing more than 30mph in such areas, we deserve to get caught and fined. However they cannot in my view be usefully employed in more variable environments such as trunk roads, motorways and other major roads, where it can be safe to travel at 100mph under certain conditions and only 40mph under other conditions. What is needed there is (i) driver education and (ii) sensible policing based and an expert (policeman's)assessment of the driving exhibited in the prevailing conditions.
My conclusion therefore is this. By all means use properly placed speed cameras in locations where there is a clear danger, under any conditions, associated with excessive speed. The revenue from these locations, and only these locations, should be used to properly sign the risks in appropriate areas, fund more marked police patrols and provide more driver training for inexperienced drivers or those caught driving unacceptably. Any improperly sited cameras, especially those that are more likely to be the cause of accidents rather than prevent them should be removed.
Agree 100%, now write to the transport secratary abnd tell him that.
I did it, got no response (of course) but every little helps!!!
When every square foot of this country is camera patrolled I want to be able to put my hand on my heart and say "I tried".
I know the spot very well, can't think of any fatal accidents there 
it'd be interesting to see the offical 'stats' for it and how many accidents are down to plain bad driving, oh sorry thats speeding isn't it .
This is the end for Hampshire
with the BiB having installed numerous Truvelos(sp?) over the last week or so all over the county for the first time
.
Harry
it'd be interesting to see the offical 'stats' for it and how many accidents are down to plain bad driving, oh sorry thats speeding isn't it . This is the end for Hampshire
with the BiB having installed numerous Truvelos(sp?) over the last week or so all over the county for the first time. Harry
No offence taken Apache - I just had a moment of dawning realisation, that's all!
Alan 420, you are right of course, but if I wrote a letter about every element of government policy I don't agree with, I'd not get any work done! Of course, if we lived in a representative democracy I could rely on my MP to convey my opinions, however given the temporal dictatorship we find ourselves subjected to, I fear that is not the case.
Don't get me started on that though
Matt
Alan 420, you are right of course, but if I wrote a letter about every element of government policy I don't agree with, I'd not get any work done! Of course, if we lived in a representative democracy I could rely on my MP to convey my opinions, however given the temporal dictatorship we find ourselves subjected to, I fear that is not the case.
Don't get me started on that though
Matt
Beasty said:...The revenue from these locations, and only these locations, should be used to properly sign the risks in appropriate areas, fund more marked police patrols and provide more driver training for inexperienced drivers or those caught driving unacceptably.
I disagree.
All revenue generated from fines enforced by the judicial system should go to the exchequer centrally, and any expenditure required should be applied for by the relevant departments in competition with each other.
There should be no areas of the judicial system which generate revenue for any part of the self-same system, be it judiciary or executive. The temptation is just to great to then focus excessive attention on those elements which generate this revenue.
As ably demonstrated by the current exponential increase in scameras.
I think you are probably right Size Nine Elm, if the revenue/expenditure I spoke of was managed at the adminstrative level responsible for siting and operating the remaining cameras.
What I would prefer is for the siting and operation of cameras to be left at local authority level whilst the revenue and expenditure should be managed by the Home Office thus ensuring that the conflict of interest you spoke of does not occur. Which I think is basically what you were saying.
What I would prefer is for the siting and operation of cameras to be left at local authority level whilst the revenue and expenditure should be managed by the Home Office thus ensuring that the conflict of interest you spoke of does not occur. Which I think is basically what you were saying.
Beasty said: Blimey, I'm a moderate!
Oh well, if I'm a moderate already, here goes.
The "moderate's" view:
Inappropriate use of speed is a significant factor in road deaths - which are a bad thing. Speed cameras can be a useful deterrent against inappropriate speed in certain high risk areas, schools, known black spots and the like. There are well established signs indicating the presence of these risks and if we are doing more than 30mph in such areas, we deserve to get caught and fined. However they cannot in my view be usefully employed in more variable environments such as trunk roads, motorways and other major roads, where it can be safe to travel at 100mph under certain conditions and only 40mph under other conditions. What is needed there is (i) driver education and (ii) sensible policing based and an expert (policeman's)assessment of the driving exhibited in the prevailing conditions.
My conclusion therefore is this. By all means use properly placed speed cameras in locations where there is a clear danger, under any conditions, associated with excessive speed. The revenue from these locations, and only these locations, should be used to properly sign the risks in appropriate areas, fund more marked police patrols and provide more driver training for inexperienced drivers or those caught driving unacceptably. Any improperly sited cameras, especially those that are more likely to be the cause of accidents rather than prevent them should be removed.
I regret that this view will not find favour with either those that view cameras as a panacea solving all the dangers of our roads in one fell swoop, or those that wish to be able to drive at unsafe speeds with impunity. So I guess that makes me a moderate.
Matt
I hear what you are saying m8... but the Police will not there are under instructions by Labour to cut road speeds at any cost under the misguided view that it will actually save money, safety is just the banner they are hiding their real intentions under, The Hiden Agenda hear is Labour attempts to drive us onto public transport a much easier option than forking billions on roads to reduce congestion charging
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff