Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?

[Jasandjules]

Right, given that it appears some feel that speed cameras are about safety whilst I believe they are about Revenue and that it is inherently illogical to suggest that sticking to a speed limit is "safe".

This Poll is, in all the circumstances, open to those members who have been here in excess of five years.

So, please vote.......

[Jasandjules]

Well I would hope that PH would be able to remove any votes from any member who has not been here over five years, given that is the hurdle we have set...

[Jasandjules]

Dammit said:

Make all fines £30, but payable in person, to an office in Aberdeen, within 14 days of receiving the notice?

It is a bit of a harsh punishment to make people go to Aberdeen

[Jasandjules]

LoonR1 said:

SPEED CAMERAS NOT SPEED TRAPS.

Thanks, but in this instance I am referring to any speed camera, including those hidden in horseboxes or otherwise. Any "Speed Camera" in whatever form is still a speed camera.

[Jasandjules]

singlecoil said:

It may not have been the root cause, but it is ALWAYS a factor. The higher the speed, the more serious the accident, and the lower the speed, the better the chance of avoiding an accident altogether.

So best we don't move at all?

[Jasandjules]

vonhosen said:

No because that's too extreme & damaging to other national interests, you need a sensible compromise (rather like what we already have in the main).

If we had a sensible compromise so many people wouldn't regularly break speed limits.

[Jasandjules]

vonhosen said:

If there is a reduction in a speed limit then surely it's sensible to carry out enforcement there in order to encourage compliance with it?

IF the limits were appropriate then you would not need to "encourage" compliance, because most people would consider it a reasonable limit and would obey.

Now, without wishing to digress into majoritarianism, this is a clear indicator as we can appreciate.

Going further, much of the enforcement that I've seen has not been in an area where there has been a reduction in a speed limit, except for one notable dual carriageway. Indeed, I've seen very sensibly placed speed cameras (hidden in vans) placed outside of schools. A pity they were only there on Saturdays and Sundays. Funny how when Monday came and the mad school run situation occurred, the scameras were gone. And I was overtaken a number of times by mothers in their 4*4s taken their brats to school (by the way of course this was whilst other people's children were walking beside the road).

[Jasandjules]

singlecoil said:

You surely don't need to be told that being struck by a car at 30mph is going to hurt more that being struck by the same car at 20mph?

Surely you don't need to be told that NOT being hit by a car at all because the driver was aware is better?

Or being hit at 5-10mph as the driver is hard on the brakes?

[Jasandjules]

v12Legs said:

Playing Devil's Advocate, but if you can't complete the overtake without exceeding the speed limit you shouldn't attempt the manoeuvre.

Only if you believe that exceeding an arbitrary number is inherently dangerous. To me it is safer to get past faster.

[Jasandjules]

hora said:

I'm late. Its for safety.

Explain to me how it was about safety outside of a school in Billericay?

[Jasandjules]

Devil2575 said:

Reducing the speed of a car increases the chance of a postive outcome when a mistake is made.

If you attempt to overtake a motorway, going a fair bit faster than the car coming up behind is a good idea. Slowing down is not, if a mistake is made and you pull out too close to the vehicle behind.

Many times it is better and safer to use a bit of power to get out of trouble. Pull onto a roundabout and oopps didn't notice that car screaming round - a bit of power and it is all good. Slow down or potter and risk being hit.

[Jasandjules]

Devil2575 said:

The key to this comment is the word "seems".

It seems like that to you but not others.

Well, with what little respect is due, 90% of those who voted would agree with him, and not you.

[Jasandjules]

turbobloke said:

However, criticism of a poll on a motoring enthusiasts' forum needs to consider the point that motoring enthusiasts are likely to be well-informed whereas general polls will be sampling the wider propagandised public who still, for admirable but flawed reasons, believe what officialdom tells them.

Or people who will sit at 65mph in the middle lane. Or those who will stop in the outside lane of the M25 when their fuel light comes on.

[Jasandjules]

allergictocheese said:

Ultimately this country is a democracy .

Which definition of democracy please?

[Jasandjules]

allergictocheese said:

When we choose to obtain a licence to drive and take to the roads, we accept speed limits exist and that they may be enforced. By all means campaign against speed limits or the level at which they're set, but don't bleat about enforcement of limits you have known exist all along.

Actually, whilst this thread was started as a result of another thread, I believe that cameras in fact are a causative factor in many accidents. Perhaps not the cameras themselves, but the unfortunate consequence of the rise in cameras and the sound bites which arise.

You see, many people actually think that if they obey the speed limit, they are a safe driver.

Regrettably, I know a couple of people with this view - one is a friend from school who has always been an appalling driver, he crashed into three cars in a car park one evening. That was bad, but what made it worse is that it was all our friends' cars, because we were all parking in the same place to get to a party..... He has driven at 4th gear up a steep hill, because "his speed required 4th gear". He didn't make it to the top. Well not the first time..He's had a few other minor knocks and to be frank I no longer ask about collisions..... BUT he KNOWS he is a safe driver, because he stares at the speedo like he will turn to stone if he looks away.

The second, well, she's driven into a ditch in heavy rain. Why didn't she slow down? Well, she was doing 30mph.... So must have been safe - her words.

I will bet that many people on here know similar people who firmly believe that they are safe/a safe driver as long as they adhere to speed limits.

[Jasandjules]

Dammit said:

^^So, if I read your argument correctly, it goes:

If that is at me, try re-reading it.

[Jasandjules]

singlecoil said:

If they believe that by not exceeding speed limits they are safer than a driver who does exceeds speed limits, then, all other things being equal, they are right.

Are you quite sure? What % of accidents are caused by Speeding?

Do you also believe that a person is a safer driver if they plough into a pedestrian at 28mph and don't apply the brakes, or if they were travelling at say 35mph, spot the person about to head into the road (the usual teenager on phone/ipod in ears) and emergency stop, avoiding the collision?

[Jasandjules]

Hungrymc said:

I haven't read all 47 pages but this is such an important point. The only issue I have with speed cameras is that they have brought such focus upon speed that a great deal of drivers really associate driving slowly with driving safely. They may be on the phone, unable to see, have little or no hazard preception.... To the majority, these things are minor offences compared to 80 on the motorway because of the amount of rhetoric about it.

They're an instrumental factor in declining driving standards.

Absolutely.

I've known people who have crashed to say "I don't know how I crashed, I wasn't doing more than 30mph" in the 30 and so on.

I've also never seen a speed camera in a place which I believe would be for safety. And I've seen them outside of schools many times....

[Jasandjules]

singlecoil said:

Recycled straw man argument. Just a bunch of unproven suppositions.

More likely to be observations made during driving on the UK roads.

[Jasandjules]

Devil2575 said:

Aside from the usual anecdotes there is mo evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that standards are declining.

I'm tired of explaining to people on PH why personal experiences are not good evidence so I'm not going to bother again.

No need to bother indeed.

I trust you don't drive either.