Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads

[newvanandman 10]

So how slow should I drive in a 30mph limit area? 27mph, 25mph? How slow do you drve in a 30 zone?

 

Speedos are set fast by law most at 30 would be a realistic 27,we would end up doing 25 and under,lets hope we dont need to go far!

[alchresearch 214]

So how slow should I drive in a 30mph limit area? 27mph, 25mph? How slow do you drve in a 30 zone?

 

If you need to ask, maybe you shouldn't be on the roads, or perhaps need more lessons?

 

Personally, I drive at a speed reflecting the unique conditions of the road and time of day - and take into account road conditions (is it wet or icy?), and whether there are obstructions (parked cars etc.)

[newvanandman 10]

Originally Posted by alchresearch

If those 4% of accidents is reduced, then that is better than nothing.

 

If speed cameras took in that amount of revenue, then it clearly shows that they are needed if so many people are breaking the law - supply and demand!

 

No in actual fact it shows they are a cash cow and nothing else.none of the people getting fined for speeding have caused an accident! millions of people speed every day without incident, 96% to be exact!!

[jeremyjh1 10]

Actually, here's are two stories that are 100% true.

 

1. I have recently been issued with a speeding notice (doing 35 mph in a 30 mph zone - photographed as I 'left' a 40 mph zone and entered the 30 mph zone - the speed limit sign can be seen about 30 yards behind my car). 3 points, £60 fine.

 

2. The tearaway son of my wife's friend had an accident in his car, smashing in to the car of a woman who was/is 5 months pregnant. He was speeding, he has no licence and no insurance. He gets a caution.

 

He gets a caution because he doesn't have a licence to add any points to (apparently, these will be held in lieu of a licence being given to him, but he's driven for years without one, so why bother now?). He does not work, so they cannot fine him (what's the point - he'd never be able to pay, despite the fact that he has been arrested and released without charge for growing pot [oh, the police took away his plants!!!]).

 

And he can't actually be given community service or a custodial sentence, because no one actually harmed in the accident, so the offence does not carry such a punishment. Of course, if the pregnant women had lost her baby or ended up in hospital, that would be something entirely different.

 

Oh, and the woman whose car he smashed in to cannot claim on his insurance (he hasn't got any) and she can't claim on her own, it was only third party, fire and theft.

 

I get fined and 3 points for being 5 mph over the legal speed limit - he gets, well, to carry on as if nothing happened.

 

Don't you just love the way justice is so fair to all?

[jeremyjh1 10]

If you need to ask, maybe you shouldn't be on the roads, or perhaps need more lessons?

 

Personally, I drive at a speed reflecting the unique conditions of the road and time of day - and take into account road conditions (is it wet or icy?), and whether there are obstructions (parked cars etc.)

 

So do I - but it seems this does not matter if I am driving between 4 and 6 mph over the legal speed limit.

 

Being a safe driver is not the same as driving within the law, so it seems.

 

If you drive faster than the legal limit you are, by definition, an unsafe driver and should not be on the road.

[alchresearch 214]

No in actual fact it shows they are a cash cow and nothing else.none of the people getting fined for speeding have caused an accident! millions of people speed every day without incident, 96% to be exact!!

 

This actually proves my point that the argument against speed cameras is flawed.

 

But look at it this way - if just one of those caught speeding learns his lesson and drives a little bit slower and it prevents a future accident, then some good has come out of it.

 

Maybe introducing regular driving tests would improve standards? But then i'm sure the naysayers would claim that it's just another cash cow for the government.

[newvanandman 10]

So do I - but it seems this does not matter if I am driving between 4 and 6 mph over the legal speed limit.

 

Being a safe driver is not the same as driving within the law, so it seems.

 

If you drive faster than the legal limit you are, by definition, an unsafe driver and should not be on the road.

 

And there much more dangerous pastimes being taken within the speed limits, i see them every day!!

[jeremyjh1 10]

This actually proves my point that the argument against speed cameras is flawed.

 

But look at it this way - if just one of those caught speeding learns his lesson and drives a little bit slower and it prevents a future accident, then some good has come out of it.

 

Maybe introducing regular driving tests would improve standards? But then i'm sure the naysayers would claim that it's just another cash cow for the government.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this proves that the argument against speed camera's is flawed.

 

Speed is responsible for 4% of accidents on the road (Police data). So, why spend time and money on reducing just that 4% and leave the other 96% alone?

 

To put it in another context - for every 100 accidents on the roads (with or without fatalities) speed camera's will only prevent 4 of those accidents.

 

The other 96 accidents will still occur.

 

Tell you what, you give me a pound and I'll give you 4 p back, if you think that's a good return on your money.

[Berberis 10]

If you need to ask, maybe you shouldn't be on the roads, or perhaps need more lessons?

 

Personally, I drive at a speed reflecting the unique conditions of the road and time of day - and take into account road conditions (is it wet or icy?), and whether there are obstructions (parked cars etc.)

 

 

I am merely asking if you take your own advice or just dish them out from your horse. OOhh that is a tall horse isn't it.

 

OK, so it’s the law, fair enough, so if it where tje law to jump off a cliff would you do it?

 

Unquestioned obedience to the law is by far scarier than the possibility of having an accident while speeding.

[Berberis 10]

This actually proves my point that the argument against speed cameras is flawed.

 

But look at it this way - if just one of those caught speeding learns his lesson and drives a little bit slower and it prevents a future accident, then some good has come out of it.

 

Maybe introducing regular driving tests would improve standards? But then i'm sure the naysayers would claim that it's just another cash cow for the government.

 

So with your thinking here, would you agree that bikes should be banned from the roads as by doing so one accident may be prevented? Why not go all in and stop cars all together as banning all will in effect stop all accidents.

 

Spending so much, £7,000 for the box and £35,000 for the camera to catch people who only cause 4% of all traffic accounts is plain stupid. They are targeting the easy to catch, not those causing the problem. Speed cameras do not detect drunk or bad drivers, those without license or those without insurance.

[alchresearch 214]

Speed cameras do not detect drunk or bad drivers, those without license or those without insurance.

 

No, but it does leave the police free to catch those that do. Cameras are not a replacement for the police, but a countermeasure to speeding.

[krooner 10]

Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads? Err-Mmmm:huh:mm. C-could it have something to do with too many speeding over too many years--- and something to do with RTAs? Huh, yea , that c-could be it