Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads

[newvanandman 10]

So to all the people that think we shouldnt use any common sense anymore and be plagued with cameras and stupidly low speed limits,over the last five year they have vastley been introduced all over the country.

My question is this:

who thinks that the roads are a safer place because of them?

 

i dont i think the roads have never ever been as dangerous as they are now.And it has nothing whatso ever to do with speed but ATTITUDE!!

[prioryx 10]

On a road near where I live there were two or three accidents a month mostly caused by speed. Speed cameras have been in place for a year now and because there are warning signs telling drivers that the cameras are there not one accident and very few caught speeding. Something must be working.

[Cyclone 10]

What road is that?

[Cyclone 10]

I really cannot see how removing the one thing which does make people slow down, the dense parking on both sides, would reduce speed??? That's just perverse. But then I always expect twisted logic on this one.

 

Speed cameras do cut down on speeding because hit the speeder with enough fines and points and the idiot will eventually be banned and off the road. So get even more speed cameras and they'll be off our roads within days. Sorted. Oh yes, and get some ANPR cameras too and the very worst of the idiots, the ones who drive while banned, will be collared and banged up.

 

If you don't like having to watch for speed cameras, well I don't like it either as driving quickly happens to be enjoyable in safe conditions, but we have to do something to punish people who can't obey the laws that have been put there because so few people are capable of driving according to variable road conditions. It's tough.

 

You're probably right, speed cameras are effective in cutting speed (at the exact location of the camera).

Unfortunately speed is unrelated to most accidents, or at most a minor factor.

Cameras are of no use catching most types of bad driving, which is what actually causes most accidents.

[Olec 10]

Speeding is bad driving, there's no need for it, better safe than sorry.

[Cyclone 10]

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

Using inappropriate speed is bad driving. The speed limit is not the ultimate arbiter of what speed is appropriate as the limits are set by mortals not some higher authority.

[Biffo 10]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Using inappropriate speed is bad driving. The speed limit is not the ultimate arbiter of what speed is appropriate as the limits are set by mortals not some higher authority.

Indeed - and those limits are often arbitrary with little common sense applied when they are decided.

 

I often wonder if the German authorities who decide autobahn speeds must be twisted psychopaths, and if Germans who travel at well over 100mph on such roads must be evil murderers. Neither is the case, it would seem, because those roads are safe. The Germans simply treat speed sensibly.

 

What I find fascinating is that the anti-speeding types (who as Cyclone implies wrongly associate speed with bad driving, rather than inappropriate speed) are actually conning the masses into thinking that speed is so dangerous. It is not - the wrong speed in the wrong place is of course a very bad thing, but the relationship between safety and speed is dependent on many factors which neither an aluminium sign nor a camera can evaluate. An experienced and competent driver can.

[jeremyjh1 10]

I really cannot see how removing the one thing which does make people slow down, the dense parking on both sides, would reduce speed??? That's just perverse. But then I always expect twisted logic on this one.

 

Speed cameras do cut down on speeding because hit the speeder with enough fines and points and the idiot will eventually be banned and off the road. So get even more speed cameras and they'll be off our roads within days. Sorted. Oh yes, and get some ANPR cameras too and the very worst of the idiots, the ones who drive while banned, will be collared and banged up.

 

If you don't like having to watch for speed cameras, well I don't like it either as driving quickly happens to be enjoyable in safe conditions, but we have to do something to punish people who can't obey the laws that have been put there because so few people are capable of driving according to variable road conditions. It's tough.

 

OK, so let's not try to prevent the speeding motorist. Let's just fine the ba*tard and hope to God he/she doesn't mow down our children in his/her act of criminality, eh?

 

Tell me - how does a roadside camera (fixed or hidden) actually prevent me from speeding?

 

Does it have a force field that operates to physically slow my car down?

 

Does it have a holographic hand that reaches out and pushes my car back?

 

If I am determined to speed and hang the consequences, just how the **** does a camera stop me?

 

As opposed to a speed bump that could wreck the suspension of my car?

 

Or narrowed roads, so that two cars coming in opposite directions are forced to slow down?

 

Or width restrictions or give way to on coming trafffic encroachments in the road or raised mini-roundabouts make it dangerous or difficult to speed?

 

I must be completely stupid, but I fail to see how something that effectively catches a speeding motorist (excluding those that spot the camera and think or take action [for whatever reason]) can prevent them from speeding in the first place?

 

Answer me this, then - if fining a motorist and taking away his/her licence does not prevent them from getting behind the wheel of a car and driving (with no licence, no insurance) does not prevent them from driving (and stats have shown this to be the case), how can a speed camera stop them?

 

Like I say (over and over and over - to the dense, who fail to see the reality of the argument) - you have two options:

 

Fine the 'criminals'

 

Or,

 

Try to prevent the crime in the first place (and the potential consequences).

 

Seems everyone is in favour of fines and points (and can accept the potential casualties as being, well, inevitable).

 

As long as you can look yourself in the face and say, 'sorry Mrs So and So, about your son/daughter, but at least you can take comfort in the knowledge that the person who killed your child has been fined and has had points on their licence/their licence taken away'.

 

I;m sure they will be very happy about this - knowing other measure could have been taken, but you felt cashing in was the best option.

[Mathom 10]

 

I must be completely stupid, but I fail to see how something that effectively catches a speeding motorist (excluding those that spot the camera and think or take action [for whatever reason]) can prevent them from speeding in the first place?

.

 

Shall I answer that?

 

You get fined and points and then banned because you have broken the law. The law is there because most people do not have the driving skills/respect for other people to adjust their driving according to road conditions. If people automatically drove slowly past homes then there would be no need for a law, but they don't, so there is.

 

So it catches people after they have committed the crime. That's how The Law works, until such a time as we enter the Minority Report world and can nick people when they start to think about doing naughty things. Innocent until proven guilty. Get caught speeding you are guilty.

 

Unfortunately in the real world we simply cannot prevent every crime, it's not possible. The only effective way to prevent speeding 100% is to ban driving, which is silly. So we punish those who do it in the hope that they have enough respect for their fellow man not to do it again. The other option is we do not punish those who speed, what do you think will happen? That people will magically start to slow down? Er, no. They will speed even more. Simple logic then tells us that the risk of a fine stops most people from doing this.

 

Funny how we fine people for smoking in the pub or stealing our purse and we expect them to learn from this but drivers who wish to break the law think they are martyrs. You may not like that law, and I wish we didn't have to have it too, but it's there because some people, in fact most people, don't have the sense to self-regulate.

[Mathom 10]

Indeed - and those limits are often arbitrary with little common sense applied when they are decided.

 

I often wonder if the German authorities who decide autobahn speeds must be twisted psychopaths, and if Germans who travel at well over 100mph on such roads must be evil murderers. Neither is the case, it would seem, because those roads are safe. The Germans simply treat speed sensibly.

 

What I find fascinating is that the anti-speeding types (who as Cyclone implies wrongly associate speed with bad driving, rather than inappropriate speed) are actually conning the masses into thinking that speed is so dangerous. It is not - the wrong speed in the wrong place is of course a very bad thing, but the relationship between safety and speed is dependent on many factors which neither an aluminium sign nor a camera can evaluate. An experienced and competent driver can.

 

This is the problem. People don't know when it's safe to do which speed so we have to have limits to apply to average situations for average drivers in average vehicles. It's the Idiot Law

 

I know a road within Sheffield where it can be safe to do 100, but likewise, I know it's often only safe to do 20 on my road, but the morons who do 50 or 60 don't have that sense. Still, I drive my own car, nobody else does, I'm responsible if I hit anyone, and if I know 20 is the safe limit then I'll do it.

 

Inappropriate speed is dangerous, I know, because it almost killed me once (not me who was doing it!). It's the one aspect of bad driving that's easy to catch and punish. A pain yes, when you also see people driving on the phone and they don't get collared, and you get a fine for doing 32, but until technology catches up then that's the way it is. We currently punish people for smoking in pubs, but they can easily drop an E undetected - likewise that seems bizarre, but that's the way it is. Just because one crime is easier to detect and punish than another doesn't mean we should stop detecting it.

 

With speed cameras, I find it ironic that on the roads where the most hazards i.e. people are, residential and shopping streets, we have no cameras, and people speed as much as they damn well like, but on big wide bypasses, we find all the cameras? That's where it's going wrong I think.

[newvanandman 10]

So to all the people that think we shouldnt use any common sense anymore and be plagued with cameras and stupidly low speed limits,over the last five year they have vastley been introduced all over the country.

My question is this:

who thinks that the roads are a safer place because of them?

 

i dont i think the roads have never ever been as dangerous as they are now.And it has nothing whatso ever to do with speed but ATTITUDE!!

 

 

So we all think cameras and lower speed limits have left our roads safer then?

Rubbish!!!

[prioryx 10]

So we all think cameras and lower speed limits have left our roads safer then?

Rubbish!!!

 

Safer for the majority but then along comes the I don't care driver and the whole system goes to pot. It has been proved that if drivers on motorways kept at 5 mph below the speed limit, it would leave a margin of speed to overtake. Traffic moves smoother, fewer hold ups and oddly enough the journey times are not extended by much. Better to travel for one hour at 50 mph than twenty minuets 90 the 20 minuets at 35, the 20 minuets in a traffic jam at 3 mph