Speed cameras cut injuries by a quarter - RAC research

Steve Smith said:
That would be impossible to enforce. As speed cameras are out in public, it is common knowledge where they are so you cannot legislate against that information.


Steve.
Click to expand...

If you get pulled over by the Police or Gendarmerie and they see you have a satnav they check if it is capable of showing speed cameras. If it ca - even if the feature is turned off - your nicked!

Sorry, posted this before I saw others had already addressed the subject ... ignore me :)
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
I do several hundred and sometimes thousands of miles a week, all over the country.
And yes I agree most of the speed camera's are now quite well "sign-posted"
and again the majority of them have the speed limit, with the camera warning
a few yards before the camera.

But I do remember a time and not so long ago, two local ones I will cite,
but it wasn't uncommon either, for them to be disguised in such a way.
One just within the 30MPH from a 60MPH,
as you approached the "camera" you were greeted by a huge round-about
direction sign probably 10 feet x 10 feet, inc. the "legs"
and the camera strategically
placed slap bang in the middle on the far side of the sign.

And before the camera "heads" were painted yellow, from the battleship grey
one, just inside a 30MPH from a 40MPH was place behind an overhanging willow, completely obscured
from behind, needless to say the willow was neatly trimmed
away from the lens / front of the camera ;)
No warning signs were ever posted at both these locations.

The galling part, from my point of view is that the cameras were always
"sold" as being speed deterrent, not revenue collectors.

These two certainly weren't a speed deterrent as they were invisible to
approaching traffic.
Click to expand...

then there was the one I saw hiding behind a telephone exchange in Rotherham resting his speed gun on top of it,(must have been heavy) or the one I saw in Horncastle hiding behind a "meal deal" sign outside a petrol station or the ones on motorcycles I have seen also in Rotherham and at Ollerton roundabout in Nottinghamshire who park them with the back facing the traffic while stood in front with the camera on a tripod, or the one I saw in Darley Dale poking the speed gun through a hedge from a hotel car park, not forgetting the one just outside Howden in North Yorkshire hiding behind a hedge with a portable camera on a stand only visible once you have passed it. Tell me now its about safety
 
Cobra

From what you said, the speed limits are correctly signposted?
If thats the case, then there's only one fault here, and thats the drivers.
The original idea of deterrence was you wouldn't know where the cameras were, so you decided the risk of exceeding the limit. In that way yes, it was a deterrent.
Which is what led to the petulant "It's not fair...." attitude from some drivers.
So, now they are obvious, and are still catching people....Which defies belief.
If you're going to drive at speed you should be looking between your bonnet and as far as you can see. If you aren't, you aren't safe. Clearly people aren't because they are getting caught so often. In other words drivers are self justifying the need for these cameras.

Dave, I'm not sure how you get 'trap'? The speed limits are correctly posted, the signs are visible. Drivers choose to ignore them,. If it is revenue earning, then it's a self imposed tax on stupidity. Sorry, no sympathy for people caught whatsoever.
 
BarryDawsib said:
What's the sample time period, did they sample before and after the installation of speed camera?
Did they take into account road layouts and signage?
Did they sample individual driver habits?
Have they taken into account advancements in car building?
Did they take into account what time of day incidents occurred?
How many of the drivers were quoted as "not knowing what happened"?
The differences in locations aka rural road and built up areas?
Did they cross reference anything like this?

I've said it before, show me the data. Or else they might as well say squirrels are hypnotising people.

Oh and to the Sat Nav thing, I tend not to use them but street maps and atlases have speed camera locations, what's the laws on them?
Click to expand...

A few years ago, wilts partnership used figures to declare that they had cut accidents on the m4 by a significant amount because they had cameravans on bridges over the motorway. When the figures we finally released, they'd used all sort of accident figure, including 3 suicides (jumping from bridges), then used only incidents requiring a hospital visit as the after figures. they'd also ignored 9 months of roadworks with an enforced 50mph limit.

Swindon have withdrawn cameras some years ago and found no difference in accident figures.
 
Bernie174 said:
Cobra

From what you said, the speed limits are correctly signposted?
If thats the case, then there's only one fault here, and thats the drivers.

Dave, I'm not sure how you get 'trap'? The speed limits are correctly posted, the signs are visible. Drivers choose to ignore them,. If it is revenue earning, then it's a self imposed tax on stupidity. Sorry, no sympathy for people caught whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Twice you go on about "correctly posted" speed limits but you fail to get the point of inappropriate speed limits.

How can you justify (without your blue tinted glasses that mean you like to defend anything you perceive as anti-police, no matter how ridiculous) dropping the speed limit for a straight stretch of newly improved motorway when it is NSL both north and south of the stretch for at least 40 miles?

Only the stretch in the local authority who happens to be a partner in the camera safety partnership suddenly needs to be 50mph?
 
Possibly because whether they're inappropriate or not is not his concern.
Whilst they are in place and speed limits are there, you have to obey them if you dont want to get fixed penalty notice or whatever.

I agree that every problem being "solved" by slapping on lower speed limits on long NSL empty stretches of dual carriageway is annoying though. I think the inevitable progression means that in the not too distant future we will be driving everywhere at 30mph maximum.
 
Bernie174 said:
Cobra

From what you said, the speed limits are correctly signposted?
If thats the case, then there's only one fault here, and thats the drivers.
.
Click to expand...
At the time they were the "minimal sized circular signs"
So yes the speed limits were "posted"
BUT this is going back a couple of years,
since then the obscuring round-about sign
has been reduced in size and moved out of the way of the
now painted yellow, speed camera.

The one behind the tree has also now been painted yellow
and the tree "hacked back" so both cameras can now be seen.

Make of that what you will.


Byker28i said:
Swindon have withdrawn cameras some years ago and found no difference in accident figures.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, one on the A420, I remember it well.
Regularly burnt, spray painted and finally had its "head removed"
by cutting disc or other cutting tool :D
 
DorsetDude said:
Possibly because whether they're inappropriate or not is not his concern.
Whilst they are in place and speed limits are there, you have to obey them if you dont want to get fixed penalty notice or whatever.
Click to expand...
They might not be his concern, but he is obviously concerned by them. With regard to obeying them, I would make it plain I have been driving for 30 years and have yet to receive a speeding fine (or points for any motoring offence).

I have as much of a problem with drivers and inappropriate speed (which can actually be a driver travelling at a speed under the speed limit but inappropriate to the road conditions as I do with speed limits being manipulated to also being inappropriate to a road (and then banging a speed camera in for "safety" purposes).

DorsetDude said:
I agree that every problem being "solved" by slapping on lower speed limits on long NSL empty stretches of dual carriageway is annoying though. I think the inevitable progression means that in the not too distant future we will be driving everywhere at 30mph maximum.
Click to expand...

Probably true, but they should be truthful, it isn't "road safety" it's punishment for breaking an arbitrary rule for the purpose of revenue generation.

I feel the same about the new "road safety" crackdown with regard lane discipline, mobile phones, tailgaters and seat belts. If it was all about road safety the financial part of the fine would be untouched or even reduced to just covering costs and the points awarded increased.

What would be more of a deterrent? £200 and 3 points or £40 or £50 and 4 points (or even 6 points for dangerous offences like tailgating)?

Same for speeding, whether its 7mph over the motorway limit or 25 mph it's 3 points, how many people (even rich footballers) would be less inclined to speed if the points were on a sliding scale (from maybe a single point for really minor transgressions to 9 points for serious cases).

As long as money is the primary punishment, the suspicion of revenue generation will remain.
 
Dave
I am not seeking to justify or otherwise why a speed limit is as it is. I don't know the road, any more than you know the reasoning behind the decision.
Thats the problem, you've assumed you know, and that reasoning be to make money.
All I've done, is to tell you what is blatantly obvious, speed limits are a fact of life, you stick to them you don't get fined. If you don't, and it is obvious that there's a camera there, it being big and yellow and in a signed area, then you are A. Stupid and B. Have no right to complain.
No blue tinted glasses, simply common sense.
If you don't like speed limits write to your MP.
If you want to know the decision making process behind a particular limit, write to your local council, and ask them using the FOI.
If you want to know why a camera is there, then again, ask the right people. But whatever the outcome, but the simple facts remain, if you consider it a tax, it's a completely voluntary one.

On your further 'reasoning'. The FPN is a fixed amount simply because it's a fixed penalty, and was fixed by Parliament. You're right, it could, and I'd agree should be variable depending on degree of offence. But much higher to start with. Although that will simply feed the 'revenue generator' theory as it's easier to do that than work out that no one ever needs to pay it.
 
Last edited:
DorsetDude said:
I think the inevitable progression means that in the not too distant future we will be driving everywhere at 30mph maximum.
Click to expand...

I have to say that I attended an induction for the M25 and the guy running it (who works for the nice folk who now 'own' the M25) told us that he thought all motorways should have a max speed of 50mph. :puke:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top