Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads

[Carmine 10]

Sorry, Carmine, but you've just confirmed my point - these 'ideas' do not just happen to fall out of the committees or reports or whatever noun that is used to describe them.

 

Not really, you've just stated your opinion of my position, which is that you see the exercise as inherantly cynical while I don't.

 

Of course these ideas don't just happen to fall out, they're part of a published report that the media sift through and sink their teeth into the meaty bits!

[Berberis 10]

One of the problems is (and the fact so many people seem incapable of noticing the pattern) is the government has lied to us over and over again!

 

- The money from speed cameras will never go to the government - FALSE, it now does!

- Speed cameras reduce accident significantly - FALSE, they only prevent approx 4% of accidents according the police’s own data.

- Speed cameras are more cost effective, than vehicle activated signs - FALSE, Department for Transport's figures failed to take into account the cost of the camera. If the data was correct, vehicle triggered signs would be considered 50 times more cost effective.

 

Stop being a sheep and start to think for yourself! Who benefits from these cameras? Not us, but the government!

 

Excessive speeding, is and always should be a criminal act. My grudge is with fining people for doing no more than a few mph over the limit, or driving safely at speed. If speed did kill, then the police, ambulances and fire engines should also be restricted, but they are not, because it is not dangerous!

[Bloomdido 10]

all they are making money get rid of them

 

Is this where we have to rearrange the words into a legible sentence?

[jeremyjh1 10]

Not really, you've just stated your opinion of my position, which is that you see the exercise as inherantly cynical while I don't.

 

Of course these ideas don't just happen to fall out, they're part of a published report that the media sift through and sink their teeth into the meaty bits!

 

Politics - cynical? Surely not!

 

Is it not practised by the virtuous, the great and the good, who have benevolence and magnanimous blood flowing through their veins, whose every act is for the greater good of the people?

 

Oh, how nice it would be to live in a world of pure virtue, where nothing was ever done with any form of ulterior motive.

 

Trouble is, nothing that comes from Whitehall is ever done by accident, despite how it is presented. Reports that are 'published', weighty or otherwise, are presented to 'friendly' journo's with a little guidance (just in case the message or the intent is over-looked).

 

The point of any government is to control by whatever means possible. One very effective method is to drown us with meaningless, pointless information, while 'burying' the real stuff so we don't see it.

 

It is nothing new - Blair/Brown did not invent it. Neither did Major or Thatcher. You can go right back to Rome or Athens, or even Mesopotamia.

 

Control the masses and you prevent rebellion (whatever form that may take).

[alchresearch 214]

Excessive speeding, is and always should be a criminal act. My grudge is with fining people for doing no more than a few mph over the limit, or driving safely at speed. If speed did kill, then the police, ambulances and fire engines should also be restricted, but they are not, because it is not dangerous!

 

The limit is the MAXIMUM - you're not obliged to do the speed marked on the signs. If you can't keep to 30mph, drive a bit slower so you don't 'creep over'.

 

Police, ambulance and fire engine drivers undergo advanced driver training to handle speed.

[alchresearch 214]

re point 2 - a hidden camera is NOT a deterrent. The Speed limit is/should be the deterrent. A hidden camera is a statement that people will speed and therefore we will catch them, fine them (very important - oh, and despite what you say, you HAVE to pay the fine) and you will have points put on your

licence.

 

Yes, the limit SHOULD be the deterrent. But it isn't. So if cameras start appearing, it's only because of people flouting the law.

 

It might be a 'cash cow' but it will soon die if you stop feeding it!

[alchresearch 214]

According to police data exceeding the speed limit is the cause of only 4% of accidents. Why not refocus resources on the other 96% of causes? Because there is no money in it!

 

Speed cameras are not measured for success by the number of lives they save, but by the amount of money they generate (£120,000,000 in 2003)

 

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!

[jeremyjh1 10]

'Speed Kills' - I recall the slogan/ad campaign vividly.

 

I have driven at speed on a number of occasions in my life (sometimes a few mph over the limit, when I was much younger [and probably less concerned about the possibility of dying!] I drove much faster than the maximum speed limit).

 

I could be wrong, but in 22 years of holding my licence I do not recall ever having killed anyone or myself.

 

'But for the grace of God' I hear you cry.

 

Well, all I can say is I was in control of my vehicle at all times. When it was wet or icy or foggy or the road was in poor condition, I drove much, much slower. Where it was dry, where the road conditions were good, where there were few (if any) other road vehicles, I drove faster.

 

All the while, I was in total control of my vehicle.

 

I have, before you say it, had 3 accidents in my driving life.

 

1. Driving across a notorious crossroads in Mitchum, South London. It had been raining, the road was wet and, rather than slam my foot on the accelerator, I pulled away slowly. Bam, car smashed in to the side of my vehicle. (A car I did not see coming from the right as it was 'lost' in the blind spot created by the windscreen stave).

 

2. Turning around a 90 degree bend in Attercliffe, the car slipped on a patch of frost and hit the opposite kerb. I had just managed to get the car into second gear as I tried to make the turn (so I was doing around 15 mph, if that).

 

3. There is a stretch of road in Halifax that is one-way, single lane and the suddenly it becomes two-way, with two lanes. It was late at night, I could not see the road markings very clearly and, by the time I realsied that I was now driving on the wrong side of the road, I was hit by a car coming in the opposite direction. Speed I was doing? About 35 mph (in a 40 mph zone).

 

So, in the case of all three accidents, I was not driving at excessive speed (and I was not breaking the speed limit) and nor was I driving without due care and attention to the road or weather conditions (in fact, in the first incident, the adverse weather conditions affected the way I would normally have driven across that junction and probably lead to the accident).

 

Speed does not kill - it is the person behind the wheel who is not fully in control of his/her vehicle or it is just senseless driving.

 

I have been issued with speeding offences for being 4 miles and 6 miles over the limit (in 30 mph zones). I got fined, I got points, but I do not consider that, at any point, I was driving dangerously or excessively.

[Berberis 10]

The limit is the MAXIMUM - you're not obliged to do the speed marked on the signs. If you can't keep to 30mph, drive a bit slower so you don't 'creep over'.

 

Police, ambulance and fire engine drivers undergo advanced driver training to handle speed.

 

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

[jeremyjh1 10]

Yes, the limit SHOULD be the deterrent. But it isn't. So if cameras start appearing, it's only because of people flouting the law.

 

It might be a 'cash cow' but it will soon die if you stop feeding it!

 

Visible police cameras at the side of the road are an additional deterrent.

 

Hidden cameras are simply there to catch you - why hide them if this is not the case?

 

This is a form of entrapment (which is illegal).

[newvanandman 10]

That would be Portsmouth - and as far as I can tell it seems to be working

 

how do you describe working? and on what basis do u come to the conclusion?

the only thing ive seen in portsmouth is endless traffics jams if thats the aim then i agree its working.is it a safer place? i dont think so!!

 

well soon have to reduce our working hours to allow for getting there.pay more for goods,because of the exra costs.im sure we will al be happy then.or maybe we should all walk to work,which great if you live nearby,but most dont,so lets tax the *Astards trying to get there and make them miserable as they do it!!

[jeremyjh1 10]

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!

 

Yes, let's plough all the money and effort eliminating the reason for 4% of road deaths and leave the reason/s for the other 96% well alone.

 

That's what you call a proper distribution of resources.

 

Why don't the police focus all there attention on the kind of crimes that they can actually solve (and thus, improve their relative performance) rather than try to tackle the crimes that are committed?

 

Let's all be selective. Brilliant.