Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads

[Cyclone 10]

He said a survey by the Transport Research Laboratory of 20mph zones across the UK and in other European countries found ... traffic flow [fell] by 27%.

Yeah that sounds wonderful.

[jeremyjh1 10]

Tis extroadinary that people are prepared to kill/die just for the sake of making haste.

 

Tis extraordinary that anyone who drives a vehicle is prepared to kill/die just for the sake of.....

 

I have been driving for 24 years.

 

For the last 15 years I have driven on average around 60,000 miles per year.

 

Average mileage is between 8 and 12 thousand miles per year.

 

Thus, per year, I have driven the equivalent of 5 years of an average drivers mileage.

 

So, in the last 15 years I have effectively driven around 45 years worth of an average person's driving.

 

I have been caught speeding 3 times in all that time (Terrible, I know, I should be shot).

 

I have had 3 accidents - none of which were down to speeding. One was skidding on a patch of ice on a sharp bend in second gear (doing around 15 mph). The second was crossing a junction in the pouring rain and being hit by a car that was 'lost' in the blind spot caused by the chassis between the windscreen and the car door.

 

The third and, touch wood, final accident was, again, when there was ice on the ground and I was driving from one side of a hotel carpark to the other, over a hump in the carpark caused by a tree root. The car slid on the ice and it crashed in to a low brick wall.

 

In all that time, I have never killed anyone nor have I killed myself.

 

I have driven at speed, I have driven at a speed that I was in total control over. I have driven at speed whilst taking in to account the weather and road conditions.

 

Either I am incredibly lucky or speed does not kill.

 

The idiot driving the car at a speed they cannot handle or that is too fast for the road conditions or weather and loses control or is not paying attention to the hazards around him/her - they kill or die.

 

Sadly, those idiots are the ones that kill, but rarely do they die.

 

If you want to have speed camera's - fixed and mobile - all over the place. Fine.

 

Then don't stop there. Let's all have electronic tags and have out DNA taken and registered with the police so that if we commit any crime (knowingly or unknowingly) we can be instantly caught, charged and convicted.

 

If you want a nanny state, then go the whole hog; don't do it piece-meal.

 

But, before you jump on that bandwagon, think of your freedom and how you will be giving up almost all the freedom's you enjoy.

 

Let's all live like the Truman Show.

[jeremyjh1 10]

Our roads' unsuitable for most traffic calming unfortunately. Speed bumps are no good because of the severe gradient. Restricting parking just hurts residents, and they're the ones who should benefit from any measures. The roads is already single track because of parking but this doesn't slow people down. It can't be one-way as it's a vital bus route.

 

So a speed camera may extract money out of speeders? Extract enough and their depleted bank accounts will hurt enough to stop them doing it again. They also get points, so with enough of these they'll soon be prevented from speeding in the most effective way possible, by not allowing them to drive at all!

 

But one of these new long distance jobbies would be best of all. Bring 'em on. I've not been averse to driving like a demon myself in the past but on wide open roads, drive like a loon past houses in a narrow street, and you deserve to get fined.

 

I'd like you to go and suggest speeding is a humane cull to the mothers who've lost children. You might lose your balls.

 

Restricted parking just hurts residents. Well, if it prevents lunatics speeding down their street, is that not a hardship they could live with?

 

Restricted parking = no speeding motorists.

 

Speed camera's do NOT prevent speeding - they just fine those that do.

 

So, let's think of it like this. Let's not do anything that hurts the residents (parking). Let's install a speed camera so that speeding motorists get caught and fined.

 

Now, one day, a motorist speeds down your road and kills a small child crossing the road.

 

Child dies, speeding motorist gets a fine (probably more than £60 given the outcome of the offence), points or loss of licence. Parent of child killed can walk the short distance to their car to follow the amubulance to the mortuary.

 

Yep, I can see how that restricted parking would really hurt the residents.

 

Like I say, prevention measures to cut speeding are a better option, in residential areas, than speed camera's.

 

One prevents, the other catches after the event (with the potentially tragic consequences).

[alchresearch 208]

Speed camera's do NOT prevent speeding - they just fine those that do..

 

I'd say that the sting from a speed camera - fine and points - will prevent the offender from speeding again!

 

If it doesn't then it shows they don't have the skills to be on the road and should re-take their test or hand in their licence.

 

Like someone earlier said, it's an idiot tax, but I'd prefer to call it an incompetent tax.

[DynoDon 10]

There's little prevention by going down to 20mph. There's almost as much deaths with children being knocked over by cyclists, which makes allowing cycling on surburban roads as a proportion, many times more dangerous.

 

Of course, speed cameras don't stop drink drivers and dangerous driving either on surburban roads There's no prevention there, just money grabbing persecution.

[beckelina 10]

Restricted parking = no speeding motorists.

 

 

How does that work? Not having a go, just intrigued...

[jeremyjh1 10]

uh no.. you criminalise yourself when you decide to go faster than the speed limit - there is no way you can blame anyone but yourself if you get caught for speeding

 

On the issue of the speed cameras, this is exactly the place they should be - it is on the motorways and the roads without pedestrians or houses that the speed cameras are out of place.

 

 

Have you ever 'borrowed' a pen or pencil or some other item of stationery from your place of work?

 

Have you ever taken longer for lunch than you are entitled to?

 

Have you ever taken a days sick leave when you weren't actually sick?

 

We each of us commit criminal acts every day without either realising it or by reasoning 'well, it's only a pen'!

 

As for NOT putting speed camera's on motorways and roads without pedestrians.

 

1. Where can you legally drive at a very high speed (70mph)? And what is it that kills (we are repeatedly told)?

 

2. No pedestrains? So, killing someone who is a pedestrian is not on, but it's alright to drive excessively on the motorway, smash into a MPV carrying a family of 5 and wiping them out?

 

I think you should consider what you are saying before you say it.

 

Speed camera's, wherever they are placed, DO NOT prevent someone from speeding. They may deter someone from speeding (as they pass by them) or they may, if the driver sees the camera, cause the driver to slow down. But why? To prevent a potential loss of life? Or to prevent getting fined and points on the licence?

 

Speed camera's catch speeding motorists.

 

Other measures, such as humps in the road, narrowing of the road, width restrictions, give way to on-coming traffic, mini-roundabouts and so on - these PREVENT speeding (or make it difficult or even pointless trying to speed.

 

Ask yourself this, do you want to prevent the speeding motorist from running over your son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or neice? Or do you want to fine them and disqualify them AFTER running the child over?

 

I know which one I would choose (and no amount of fines, points, disqualifications will bring back a dead child).

[alchresearch 208]

Speed camera's, wherever they are placed, DO NOT prevent someone from speeding.

 

You're wrong there. I don't want to blemish my clean driving licence or good driving history or be stung by a fine or increased insurance premiums by speeding, so the idea of a camera - be it hidden or not - prevents me from speeding.

 

Speed cameras are there to catch people breaking a law, just like CCTV cameras in shops or on buildings. I tend not to steal from shops, or break into buildings, so the cameras don't record me doing anything wrong. The same applies to the road.

 

As for speed killing, let me hit you with a car at 20mph and then again at 40mph and see which you prefer!

[jeremyjh1 10]

I'd say that the sting from a speed camera - fine and points - will prevent the offender from speeding again!

 

If it doesn't then it shows they don't have the skills to be on the road and should re-take their test or hand in their licence.

 

Like someone earlier said, it's an idiot tax, but I'd prefer to call it an incompetent tax.

 

A number of points (one of which I have made later on in this thread.

 

Would you prefer to prevent the motorist from speeding in the first place?

 

Or, would you prefer to catch them AFTER they have exceeded the speed limit (and, maybe, they have hit and killed a child)?

 

Unless you're truly an advocate of fines over prevention, then I think you need not answer.

 

A speed camera, unless they exist every ten or twenty yards on EVERY road in the UK, will NOT prevent someone from speeding. They will only cause them to slow down whilst approaching or passing a camera. Once they have passed the camera, they will put their foot down (usually as an act of defiance 'get me to slow down, will you!? *%$£!!!').

 

Like I have said, I have been caught speeding 3 times in my life thus far (all offences were exceeding 30mph, the most excessive being 36mph! - quick, ship me off to Oz...). I have driven the same total mileage it would take a average mileage driver 45 years to clock up. I have driven beyond the speed limit many, many times - often excessively on motorways and dual carriageways and more often than not when the roads have been light on traffic). And I have had 3 accidents in all that time, only one of which involved another vehicle and none of which resulted in any injury to either myself or the other driver.

 

Whether you like it or not (and I suspect you do not like it - I am a criminal, an idiot, incompetent and should be fined to the point of bankruptcy) I think my driving record suggests that I am a good driver. As they say, the more you drive, the more likely you are to have accidents.

 

I have driven 60,000 miles a year for the last 15 years and have had 3 minor accidents and 3 speeding offences in all that time.

 

If that's the record of a dangerous driver, then that is what I am, I guess.

[alchresearch 208]

You might think you're a good driver, just because you've not had an accident or killed anyone but I'm sure many others will think otherwise.

 

If you cannot stick to the limits specified then you are incompetent, anti-social and breaking the law.

 

Obviously, the prevention of a death is preferable to a fine after the event, so what is your solution? Hidden cameras and bigger fines is the obvious choice - hit the motorist where it hurts - their wallet.

 

It's now commonplace for untaxed cars to be taken and crushed, pretty soon it will be the cars of speeding motorists with a bit of luck.

[jeremyjh1 10]

You might think you're a good driver, just because you've not had an accident or killed anyone but I'm sure many others will think otherwise.

 

If you cannot stick to the limits specified then you are incompetent, anti-social and breaking the law.

 

Obviously, the prevention of a death is preferable to a fine after the event, so what is your solution? Hidden cameras and bigger fines is the obvious choice - hit the motorist where it hurts - their wallet.

 

It's now commonplace for untaxed cars to be taken and crushed, pretty soon it will be the cars of speeding motorists with a bit of luck.

 

So, 45 years worth of average driving equates to 3 minor accidents with no inuries does not equate to being a good driver?

 

Then I must be one heck of a lucky person. Shame my lottery numbers never come up. Can't be that lucky, then.

 

What do you constitute as being a good driver? Someone who observes the speed limit, yet has had half a dozen accidents in a dozen years?

 

I have friends who do not drive anywhere near as many miles per year as I do, who have never had a speeding ticket, yet have had many more accidents than I have - are they good drivers?

 

I guess, as you say, I am incompetent, anti-social and breaking the law.

 

I accept the 'breaking the law' bit. Incompetent? Hmm, think you need to check the definition of that one. Anti-social? Hmm, if I pass wind at home on my own is that anti-social? If I drive at a speed higher than the legal limit on a motorway with few cars on it, who are also speeding, is that 'anti-social'?

 

Probably in your perfect world it is. Oh well, I'm anti-social - excuse me while I pick my nose!

 

What's my solution? Well, more camera's and bigger fines will NOT prevent motorist's from speeding. Taking away the keys to their car, taking away their car, putting speed bumps in the road and so on - those measures WILL prevent or make it difficult for a motorist to speed. And that may prevent the child from being run down.

 

Why is it so difficult to accept that something that imposes a fine and points penalty AFTER the 'crime' is committed does NOT PREVENT the crime from being committed in the first place.

 

If speed camera's had some kind of remote technology that could detect a speeding vehicle and send a signal to it to force the car to slow to a legal speed, then it cannot ever prevent anyone from speeding.

 

We have a choice - prevention or penalty.

 

One will reduce fatalities (caused by speeding) the other will fine and penalise motorists (and may, eventually, have the effect of causing the motorist to lose his/her licence - which does not mean they will not be able to drive a car, just that they will not be able to drive it legally).

 

You choose and then live with that choice.

 

Me, I prefer prevention.

[Mathom 10]

Restricted parking just hurts residents. Well, if it prevents lunatics speeding down their street, is that not a hardship they could live with?

 

Restricted parking = no speeding motorists.

 

Speed camera's do NOT prevent speeding - they just fine those that do.

 

So, let's think of it like this. Let's not do anything that hurts the residents (parking). Let's install a speed camera so that speeding motorists get caught and fined.

 

Now, one day, a motorist speeds down your road and kills a small child crossing the road.

 

Child dies, speeding motorist gets a fine (probably more than £60 given the outcome of the offence), points or loss of licence. Parent of child killed can walk the short distance to their car to follow the amubulance to the mortuary.

 

Yep, I can see how that restricted parking would really hurt the residents.

 

Like I say, prevention measures to cut speeding are a better option, in residential areas, than speed camera's.

 

One prevents, the other catches after the event (with the potentially tragic consequences).

 

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.