Are we about to see a change of focus from the Tories regarding the use of these cash generators?
This morning on breakfast news (Kate Silverton looked hot as, BTW) there was a repeating hourly report on Swindon 1 year after removing their fixed speed cameras. Guess what, there was no rise in accidents – surprise?
They then went to the email bit where they read out the viewers comments. After stating that the views were fairly evenly split All the emails were anti ‘safety’ cameras???
They then went on to say that the budget for this area of ‘policing’ had been cut from £76 million to £50 million leading to some local authorities, such as Devon & Cornwall to question the viability of these units.
Is this the beginning of the end of ‘safety’ cameras?
Don't get me wrong, I think they probably do work to some extent but I think the places they do are pretty few and far between. The current use of them is nothing more than revenue raising in the vast majority of cases.
I like sabotaging the cameras near home.
The bit I like most was the woman from the scamera partnership who prattled on about increased accidents when it was obvious that what she was worried about was her P45.
The initial arguments by my fellow law breakers at the course was " Speed cameras are mainly to generate cash".
At anyone time only one quater of speed cameras will have film loaded and are active. If this was a money making operation why would you just operate at 25%.
Speed cameras are mainly installed in areas where there have been x-amount of serious injuries or deaths and should be viewed as big orange tomb stones.
I was snapped outside my childrens primary school (Duel carriageway ). I sat on the fence and took my punishment.
I think as mentioned, in some areas they work but for example, every 200 meters on the M25 is just not cricket.
The speed limit is there for a reason and motorists should be made to respect it in the interests of road safety. Having said that, I agree that speed cameras should never be used primarily as a means of generating cash. Personally if the government want to make money out of motorists they should come down hard on those driving without road tax or insurance - ideally by confiscating their vehicles.
The problems with this are..
- Even if accidents were distributed perfectly randomly, you could still pick out 'blackspots' from normal clustering. Put a speed camera at these 'blackspots' and from sheer randomness, you expect your 'blackspot' to have a normal number of accidents - which looks like the speed camera has an effect. It's called 'reversion to the mean' and it is a statistical artifact. Strangely enough, camera partnerships don't bother correcting for it..
- Fixed cameras need a straight bit of road with enough viability to catch people. Accidents are more common on low visibility bends.
- There is little correlation between strict observance of speed limits and car safety. It is far more dangerous to do 70 on a motorway in heavy rain and fog with dense traffic than 85 on a clear, bright day with little traffic. Driving to the conditions is more important than driving to a number.
- And finally.. average speed cameras in roadworks on motorways are frankly scary. I'd love to see the impact they have on accidents, but surprisingly the data is hard to track down..
Its effectively a matter of taking responsibility for ones actions. Anyone who has insufficient self-control to observe a speed limit has no business complaining about being fined - irrespective of whether the purpose of the fine is revenue generating or not..
You've only yourself to blame if things go wrong for you.
The problem is that the speed limit cannot be set by someone who knows the current actual road conditons or the capibility of the car or driver.
I hate speed cameras with a passion but I've got no problem with average speed checks. What's your issue with them?
With speed cameras people just slow down and speed up when passing them. I think the Average speed check cameras really do deter speeding. They are often used during long strecthes of roadworks. This protects the workforce and other road users especially when using contraflow.
It will be highly unlikely that I will ever be caught by these as I feel compelled to stay within said limits. I have no issues with these at all but would object if they covered every single road in the uk.
... and generally the driver doesn't know those things either.
Generally the fact that it takes a fair amount of concentration to remain at an exact speed for an extended length of time, and since everyone is doing the same speed you can get very unpleasantly boxed in. If someone could point me to the numbers showing significantly reduced accidents as a result, of course, I'd stop whinging..
The speed cameras are there to promote the safety of pedestrians, not cars. Most speed cameras are located in areas where cars and pedestrians mix (ie not on motorways) and there is a very clear correlation between pedestrian survival rates and the speed of the vehicle that hit them. In many cases the collision is entirely the pedestrian's fault (such as a child running out into the road) and even the most alert and competent driver may not be able to avoid them, irrespective of their speed. The vehicle's speed is incidental to the accident but entirely relevant to whether the accident is fatal or not.
The speed limits on the motorways are there to protect workmen repairing the road (which seems entirely reasonable to me) and to regulate the flow of traffic. It is the constant accelerating and decelerating of vehicles that cause many traffic jams - along with the rubbernecking of mangled wreckage left by over-confident drivers. Sometimes the faster everyone tries to drive the longer it takes for them to get where they're going. I know the UK is never going to be like Switzerland but there everyone drives at the same speed and I've never encountered a motorway traffic jam. The Swiss enforce their motoring regulations with eye-watering fines that make our speed cameras look like a slap on the wrist.
Personally id rather have speed humps outlawed. At least you know where you stand Scameras - although i will admit many are in places with nothing other than revenues in mind. But with speed humps you never know just how severe they are. Some (in a 30mph i might add) you only need slow down to 20mph, some 10mph, some walking speed. Surely the aim should be to keep you under 30mph, not to get down to walking speed. Numerous times ive damaged my car because theyll put one pretty tame hump first, then the next one will be many times worse, but look the same. I dont have a low profile car or anything, so id guess many have had this happen.
Either get rid of speed humps or mandate a specific design so we know what to expect.
So you are OK with the government setting arbitrary limits on people's behavior and fining them for breaches, when there is no evidence that setting this limit improves the general good?
The problem here is that if people say 'They are there to improve safety' then they have a duty to demonstrate that safety is improved; if you are saying 'They are there to enforce an arbitrary rule' then I think that many people would have a philosophical problem with that.
Yes, but the question I'm asking is 'Do speed cameras actually protect workmen/pedestrians'?
You are assuming this to be the case. Yet I have never seen the stats that would back it up.
Speed humps are there encourage the use of off-road vehicles, in areas where you didn't need them before!
A recent road safety advert spells it out. 80% of children are killed when hit by a car travelling at 40mph. This figure falls to 20% if the car is travelling at 30mph. Even if speed cameras do not reduce the number of accidents a small reduction in vehicle speed can dramatically reduce pedestrian fatalities.
That's not answering the question, though.
10% of all road users are said to have no insurance so if you do survive a collision as a predestrian you then stand a one in 10 chance of not being able to claim compensation if you have genuine life changing injuries. On the news last night.
au contriare. I have a problem with people whinging about the fines being a tax, revenue generating, unfair etc.
If people believe speed limits are an unnecesary/arbitrary limit on thier behaviour they can, and should, campaign for speed limits to be abolished or reformed. When the complaints instead focus on the method of enforcement it leads me to suspect they might be self-serving rather than principled.
IMO any argument that amounts to 'people ought to do X but I should be free to get away with it' has no merit, and it seems to me lots of the complaints about speed cameras fall into this category..
I feel your pain! I've had vehicles which are a bit on the low side! Tends to be the older vehicles. Modern ones are high and egg-shaped, or a truck shaped!
The driver will have more of an idea than some PS worker sitting in an office counting his days to his pension.
Yes speed humps are barbaric. As you say either get rid of them or a specific design, far too much variation.