Discussion
just been thinking, if the police say that speed cameras are there to slow traffic down at accident black spots, then why not have a big sign say 200 yards before every camera saying ACCIDEBT BLACK SPOT CAMERA AHEAD SLOW DOWN NOW. that way everyone will have time to slow down where the police say its a dangerous area and not get a speeding fine.
the trouble is peolpe who live local to where the cameras are know where theY are and slow down just before they get there, its the people who are from out of town who get caught and are not aware that that area is an accident black spot and dont check their speed, so in that way of thinking the current policy does not really slow traffic down at accident black spots at all cos by the time they see the speed camera its to late.
So if the police want everyone to know where the black spots are and to check your speed through that area then why not have a big sign say 200 yards saying ACCIDENT BLACK SPOT AREA AHEAD SLOW DOWN??
maybe its a bad idea but just a thought
the trouble is peolpe who live local to where the cameras are know where theY are and slow down just before they get there, its the people who are from out of town who get caught and are not aware that that area is an accident black spot and dont check their speed, so in that way of thinking the current policy does not really slow traffic down at accident black spots at all cos by the time they see the speed camera its to late.
So if the police want everyone to know where the black spots are and to check your speed through that area then why not have a big sign say 200 yards saying ACCIDENT BLACK SPOT AREA AHEAD SLOW DOWN??
maybe its a bad idea but just a thought
speedfreak said:
just been thinking, if the police say that speed cameras are there to slow traffic down at accident black spots, then why not have a big sign say 200 yards before every camera saying ACCIDEBT BLACK SPOT CAMERA AHEAD SLOW DOWN NOW.
Because people are muppets and wont slow down.
Ask any police officer who has put a road closure up. I've had signs, lights and a car parked across the road and this bloke drove up, went up the central island on the junction and tried to get past. Me and a mate watched and couldn't believe it. Went up to him and said, whats are you doing? he said "i want to go straight ahead". MUPPET
318ti said:
Because people are muppets and wont slow down.
Ask any police officer who has put a road closure up. I've had signs, lights and a car parked across the road and this bloke drove up, went up the central island on the junction and tried to get past. Me and a mate watched and couldn't believe it. Went up to him and said, whats are you doing? he said "i want to go straight ahead". MUPPET
Haha, yeah I've had plenty of those types, I had one at a code blue (fatal) a few months ago, he needed to get to a meeting & couldn't get it into his head that someone had lost their life on the road ahead & we were looking at what at the end of the day is a potential murder scene, dozy b@stard!.
well i dont think the signs that are already there are good enough, sometimes its miles after a sign that the camera appears or on a lots of roads where i live there are signs but no speed camera.
and if the reports are correct 1 millon people get flased every year then surely this current policy of having camera at accident black spots without a better warning is not working. the whole idea behind this scheme is not to make money for the police [really?] but to slow people down where that area of the road has a recorded high accident toll.
So let me just ask you all one thing if 200 yards before every camara there is a massive sign say SPEED CAMARA 200 YARDS AHEAD, would that not slow people down going past that area? i think so and if the answer is yes problem solved. but then again the police will have a another problem on their hands, coming up with another way to get honest tax payers money.
and if the reports are correct 1 millon people get flased every year then surely this current policy of having camera at accident black spots without a better warning is not working. the whole idea behind this scheme is not to make money for the police [really?] but to slow people down where that area of the road has a recorded high accident toll.
So let me just ask you all one thing if 200 yards before every camara there is a massive sign say SPEED CAMARA 200 YARDS AHEAD, would that not slow people down going past that area? i think so and if the answer is yes problem solved. but then again the police will have a another problem on their hands, coming up with another way to get honest tax payers money.
Well, it's a no-brainer really. I know i'm preaching to the converted, but the primary reason these speed cameras exist is almost purely to create revenue. There is no arguement here. Cameras are placed primarily NOT in accident blackspots, but in areas most likely to catch speeding motorists, regardless or whether it's safe or not. Witness the lack of cameras near schools and in residential areas, yet the proliferation of cameras on faster NSL roads and dual carriageways.
If cameras are only ever placed in accident blackspots (ie. stretches of road that have had an unusually high number of KSL's), why build them alongside the construction of totally brand-new stretches of dual carriageways then? Even more damning, why is it that the safety camera partnership's own guidelines recommend rotating gatso's from lower performing sites, or even removing them altogether?
Surely if a camera in a known accident blackspot is saving scores of lives and helping prevent drivers from speeding, these should be the most rigourously enforced? No. Even the most cursory of investigations reveals the simple fact that, however honourable the initial intent was, it's simply become a case of how much money they can screw out of otherwise law-abiding people. It's an abhorrent form of mass criminalisation for nothing more than a trifling technical infringement.
It's just a shame that the Think-of-the-childrenist's and the If-it-saves-one-life-then-its-worth-it's have total majority over our personal freedom.
If cameras are only ever placed in accident blackspots (ie. stretches of road that have had an unusually high number of KSL's), why build them alongside the construction of totally brand-new stretches of dual carriageways then? Even more damning, why is it that the safety camera partnership's own guidelines recommend rotating gatso's from lower performing sites, or even removing them altogether?
Surely if a camera in a known accident blackspot is saving scores of lives and helping prevent drivers from speeding, these should be the most rigourously enforced? No. Even the most cursory of investigations reveals the simple fact that, however honourable the initial intent was, it's simply become a case of how much money they can screw out of otherwise law-abiding people. It's an abhorrent form of mass criminalisation for nothing more than a trifling technical infringement.
It's just a shame that the Think-of-the-childrenist's and the If-it-saves-one-life-then-its-worth-it's have total majority over our personal freedom.
i agree, i think that this blatent scam by the police to get money off honest taxpayers is actually causing massive resentment against the police force, i sometimes wish i would get stopped just to give them a piece of my mind. i suprised people just dont go out and smash up all the speed cameras in the country. we can only pray.
I'm sure the government actually want more deaths.
The more road deaths there are, the more cameras they can put in, the more money they make.
It's sort of like a new version of the death-duty, but rather than the 'family' pay the new death-duty, the duty is paid by 1 million drivers.
The more road deaths there are, the more cameras they can put in, the more money they make.
It's sort of like a new version of the death-duty, but rather than the 'family' pay the new death-duty, the duty is paid by 1 million drivers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff