Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads

[alchresearch 215]

I can accept if I had been doing 50 or 60 in a 30 mph zone - but I was doing 34, 36 and 36 mph!!!! Is that really that dangerous?

 

Dangerous or not, you were still breaking the limit for the road, regardless of whether you were 1 or 100mph over.

 

There is and should be no leniency (well, actually there is a small percentage). But, if you can't (or won't) keep your car at a fixed speed then i'm afraid you have to take your punishment and stop whining about it.

[Mathom 10]

 

Of course burglar alarms do not stop burglaries - they act as a form of deterrent, just like fitting good locks on doors and windows, not leaving valuables in clear view, putting keys in safe places (not easy to find. Having a dog, varying your comings and goings etc., etc.

 

To those who steadfastedly maintain that speed camera's stop speeding, I bet they are not sitting in their homes with crappy locks, poor security and a CCTV camera thinking - 'well, my CCTV camera will stop my house from being broken in to and if it doesn't, then I'll have a photo of the burglar so the police can catch him/her'.

 

Seems the only means the govt feel will really, really stop people from speeding is to put more camera's on the road side (hidden or otherwise).

 

.

 

You've kind of answered my point in a way here. This is why we have speed cameras, to catch people in the act and to act as a deterrent. It's all very well trying to prevent a crime from happening in the first place but we can only go so far without being silly.

 

If you take CCTV in town centres as an example, it is there not to prevent drunks from attacking passers by, it is there to catch them doing it, and hopefully to deter them from doing it as they know they will get caught - the only way to *prevent* them from doing it would be to ban them from drinking or have a curfew, neither of which is good. Of course, the CCTV also catches images of innocent people, just as speed cameras affect those who normally drive responsibly, but don't blame the authorities, blame the idiots who cannot behave responsibly who have caused us to have laws introduced and then blame those who cannot obey the law!

 

And yes, the logical conclusion is that one day we will have speed cameras on all roads.

 

My argument here is simply that the law is there for a reason, and it's not a 'sinister' reason, it's due to people who don't understand when to go fast and when to go slowly - and going down densely packed residential streets is one time when everyone should show respect and drive more slowly. If people can't do that, then bring on the cameras and the fines. It sucks, but blame the idiot drivers for it.

[Cyclone 10]

CCTV is a good choice. There's no evidence that it deters or helps to stop/detect crime.

Most CCTV images are of no use after the fact due to low quality. The only benefit it does have is allow officers to be directed to the scene very quickly.

 

The law is there for many reasons. But the 30 mph limit was introduced in the 1930's and the 60 and 70 limits in the 1960's. Neither have been reviewed since. Maybe if the laws were reviewed and made relevant to today then people would be more inclined to follow them and less upset at draconian enforcement of laws of only minor importance.

[jeremyjh1 10]

CCTV is a good choice. There's no evidence that it deters or helps to stop/detect crime.

Most CCTV images are of no use after the fact due to low quality. The only benefit it does have is allow officers to be directed to the scene very quickly.

 

The law is there for many reasons. But the 30 mph limit was introduced in the 1930's and the 60 and 70 limits in the 1960's. Neither have been reviewed since. Maybe if the laws were reviewed and made relevant to today then people would be more inclined to follow them and less upset at draconian enforcement of laws of only minor importance.

 

Can't speak for all, but I dislike the mobile camera's that are conspicuously placed so as not to be visible until the last possible moment (long after the speeding offence has been registered).

 

Quite simply, that is not a deterrent - it is simply a means to make money/raise revenue. Otherwise, why obscure the camera?

 

Isn't a deterrent supposed to be visible so as to act as a deterrent.

 

If it does not deter a crime being committed, then it is not a deterrent.

 

I slow when I see fixed camera's. I slow when I see mobile camera's when clearly visible. I slow when going from one speed zone to another - granted I do not often drive at 30 or below in a 30 mph, but I do not drive excessively or dangerously fast in built up areas - that is, I drive between 30 and 40 mph in a 30 zone and more often than not it's midway or just above midway.

 

I am consciously aware of all that is going on around me - such as vehicles behind me, vehicles in front of me, potential hazards on the road or on the pavement (such as children running from behind parked cars or a passenger getting out of a parked vehicle and so on).

 

I consider myself to be a very safe and completely aware driver. I have often said to my wife (who does get distracted when driving, usually when talking) that if she cannot talk and drive at the same time, shut up!

 

I am painfully aware that the car is the most lethal weapon man has created and being behind the wheel we are all potential murderers.

 

And yet, despite my record, I have been caught speeding on 3 instances, two of which were mobile camera's hidden from view.

 

Yes, I broke the law, but I was not driving in any sense dangerously.

 

That is the problem I have with mobile speed camera's. Yet, for many on this thread, I am a criminal and should shut my trap and accept my punishment.

[prioryx 10]

For the speeders. Today I drove on the A59 from Harrogate almost to Skipton, A 59national speed limit road.

I was part of a line oh vehicles, about seven in front and maybe the same behind. The speed we were travelling at varied between 50 and 60. In the 17 miles that I drove no one tried to overtake. Gaps of three car lengths were certainly between the vehicles in front of me and by most of the cars behind. There was no jamming on of breaks because some one was racing about. It proves that at a reasonable speed on a not straight road which has it's share of shrines to the mad driver that it is possible to keep all traffic moving with a little bit of thought and consideration.

[BlackVelvet 10]

Well of course, we could do that. But why should we? Why should we drive at 20mph?!?! Seriously, I will not drive at 20mph everywhere I go. It will take hours upon hours to get to work

 

stopping distance at 20mph: 40feet

stopping distance at 30 mph: 75feet (nearly double what it is at 20mph)

 

would have thought a child stepping out in front of you would have made the reason for 20mph obvious, and 20mph zones are invariably in residential areas, speeding through which is a blatantly reckless and selfish act.

[alchresearch 215]

Isn't a deterrent supposed to be visible so as to act as a deterrent.

 

I do not often drive at 30 or below in a 30 mph, but I do not drive excessively or dangerously fast in built up areas - that is, I drive between 30 and 40 mph in a 30 zone and more often than not it's midway or just above midway.

 

Surely the speed limit of the road is deterrent enough? Just like the thought of me going to prison for theft stops me from doing bank raids.

 

Can you explain why you feel the need to break the speed limits?

 

I think you need to watch the videos or view the material on this site:

 

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdownmedia.htm#video

 

This poster has some very good points:

 

http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/images/advert.jpg

 

"It doesn't matter how good a driver you are. The faster you go, the longer it takes to stop. 30mph might feel slow, but only until someone steps out in front of you".

 

If you can't see this, you really shouldn't be on the road. I'd much prefer you change your ways now, rather than after you've killed someone's son or daughter.

[jeremyjh1 10]

stopping distance at 20mph: 40feet

stopping distance at 30 mph: 75feet (nearly double what it is at 20mph)

 

would have thought a child stepping out in front of you would have made the reason for 20mph obvious, and 20mph zones are invariably in residential areas, speeding through which is a blatantly reckless and selfish act.

 

It's 11.00 pm in a residential area. There is no one about (no children, no adults). I 'speed' through this area doing, for arguments sake, a break-neck 25 mph (that's beyond the apco 10%+2 rule). So, I am breaking the law.

 

But, question is, in your mind, as you have so defiantly put it, I have been blatantly reckless and selfish - or have I?

 

You can be general in your condemnation, but the reality is, nothing is ever truly that black and white.

 

Am I a reckless, selfish person because I speed when I deem it is safe to do so (and I do not speed to the point that I double the speed limit on any given road)?

 

It is so clear cut in your world - he/she who breaks the speed limit (1mph or 2 or 3 - do you have any tolerance) is reckless and selfish.

 

Well, at least you're consistent - hope you're as consistent in all aspects of your life. There is black and there is right; there is right and there is wrong; there is good and there is bad; there is no grey area, eh?

[Guest Mod_Man]

It's 11.00 pm in a residential area. There is no one about (no children, no adults). I 'speed' through this area doing, for arguments sake, a break-neck 25 mph (that's beyond the apco 10%+2 rule). So, I am breaking the law.

 

But, question is, in your mind, as you have so defiantly put it, I have been blatantly reckless and selfish - or have I?

 

You can be general in your condemnation, but the reality is, nothing is ever truly that black and white.

 

Am I a reckless, selfish person because I speed when I deem it is safe to do so (and I do not speed to the point that I double the speed limit on any given road)?

 

It is so clear cut in your world - he/she who breaks the speed limit (1mph or 2 or 3 - do you have any tolerance) is reckless and selfish.

 

Well, at least you're consistent - hope you're as consistent in all aspects of your life. There is black and there is right; there is right and there is wrong; there is good and there is bad; there is no grey area, eh?

 

What point of the "speed limit" being the law do you not get? It's not about what speed you can handle and how good a driver you are, it's about the law, nothing more, nothing less. If you speed and are caught speeding you should be charged.

 

It's like saying because you can control a gun you should be allowed to shoot anyone you want. I wonder if I would get away with stabbing someone because the knife only went half way in. Maybe we should let professional Boxers beat anyone they want up, after all they know what they are doing and could gauge the punch accordingly.

 

Speed cameras are there to catch people who speed, you have a tolerance level given to you. What is it? 10% +2 yet you still think you're being badly done to. The day they make a law which states drivers should judge their own speed according to the road is the day you will have a point. At the moment they don't though, they have speed limits, break them and accept the consequences.

 

I remember the old joke about the driver who slowed down at the STOP sign then drove straight on because he thought the way was clear. A policeman saw him do this and challenged the driver. Excuse me sir, said the policeman, did you see the stop sign? Yes, said the driver, and I slowed down. The policeman said, it was a stop sign though sir. The driver interrupted and said "yes and I slowed down". The policeman pulled out his truncheon and started hitting the driver over the head. The driver shouted STOP, STOP, STOP. The policeman said "Are you sure you want me to stop sir or would you like me to slow down?".

[Cyclone 10]

stopping distance at 20mph: 40feet

stopping distance at 30 mph: 75feet (nearly double what it is at 20mph)

 

would have thought a child stepping out in front of you would have made the reason for 20mph obvious, and 20mph zones are invariably in residential areas, speeding through which is a blatantly reckless and selfish act.

 

And then again in a real car with real brakes.

[Cyclone 10]

What point of the "speed limit" being the law do you not get? It's not about what speed you can handle and how good a driver you are, it's about the law, nothing more, nothing less. If you speed and are caught speeding you should be charged.

 

It's like saying because you can control a gun you should be allowed to shoot anyone you want. I wonder if I would get away with stabbing someone because the knife only went half way in. Maybe we should let professional Boxers beat anyone they want up, after all they know what they are doing and could gauge the punch accordingly.

You get the award for worst analogy of 2007, plus the completely not getting it award.

Lets try a challenge, point to the victim in each of your scenarios. Good, that was easy. Point to the victim in the 25 mph driving incident in a 20 mph zone at 0400 in the morning. What, no victim. Well I guess that's what makes your analogies rubbish.

 

Speed cameras are there to catch people who speed, you have a tolerance level given to you. What is it? 10% +2 yet you still think you're being badly done to. The day they make a law which states drivers should judge their own speed according to the road is the day you will have a point. At the moment they don't though, they have speed limits, break them and accept the consequences.

Well in that case the person driving on the 20 mph road at 20 mph in heavy fog at school home time is perfectly alright aren't they. At least you seem to think so.

[prioryx 10]

And then again in a real car with real brakes.

It is still the same selfish driver behind the wheel of the real car.