Speed camera switch-off sees fewer accidents

#2
I heard something on local news that Lancashire Constabulary are going to be reviewing the speed cameras in the county and removing those that have not shown a cut in accidents.

I'd say that speed cameras cause accidents after seeing the number of people that slam on when they spot the yellow box.
 
#3
Errr one study in one place...Swindon. So a number of councils jump on the bandwagon and decide to remove the cameras. Personally as a car driver I'm happy. Will they also be removing the mobile camera teams that surreptitiously park in unexpected places to catch me speeding. Oh joy if they're going aswell.
 
#4
Errr one study in one place...Swindon. So a number of councils jump on the bandwagon and decide to remove the cameras. Personally as a car driver I'm happy. Will they also be removing the mobile camera teams that surreptitiously park in unexpected places to catch me speeding. Oh joy if they're going aswell.
Ah yes, the TaliVans, run by the Council, not the Police and purely intended to raise revenue. My local plod don't agree with them and their hiding behind bushes tactics.
 
#5
I'm sorry but there is NO WAY speed cameras are used only to elicit cash from the motorists of the UK for the benefit of the Local Authority. Each single camera is placed with great care and diligence, sited in correlation to areas where accident rates are highest in an effort to reduce said accidents.

Especially those cameras placed yards within a reduced speed limit area.

Especially those really well marked ones hidden by this summer's plant growth.

Especially those motorway/dual carriageway ones at pedestrian crossing points...

I hate to think I am cynical, but things like this just go to show that underneath it all - I am!
 
#7
Oxfordshire is getting rid of their fixed and mobile cameras as of er well actually they have been gone a week, they complained that the money raised didn't go to them but central government even though they had to pay for the services out of their own pockets. I wonder how long it will be before providing speed cameras is compulsory by order of central office?
 
#8
er...actually lucille many drivers slam on their brakes because they are momentarily panicked by the sight of a yellow box, fail to remember the speed limit so slow down just in case - happens a lot on a stretch of road near me, it's a 60 but people panic and slow to 40 because there's no readily apparent reason why the box should be there in the first place
 
#9
If they werent speeding in the first place they wouldnt have to 'slam on' would they?
And of course your car is fitted with a special device that ensures it never so much as goes 1mph over any speed limit?
 
#12
#13
I heard something on local news that Lancashire Constabulary are going to be reviewing the speed cameras in the county and removing those that have not shown a cut in accidents.

I'd say that speed cameras cause accidents after seeing the number of people that slam on when they spot the yellow box.
Yeah right Lancashire was/is the county with the most speed camera's in the UK even had one 150 mtrs or so up the road from another outside a school to catch motorist's who sped up a prize bunch of twats.

And I totally agree with Maples comments not sure how the camera funding is managed here in Scotland as I'm sure the police run them as the vans are normally parked in the main vehicle yard in Glasgow
 
#15
I'd say that speed cameras cause accidents after seeing the number of people that slam on when they spot the yellow box.
How many accidents did you see then? Anything that slows drivers down, irrespective of how many 'perceived accidents' and the unproven rhetoric which accompanies these tales, save lives. If people drove responsibly, there would be no need for measures to slow them down. The problem is, that a bloody good number of drivers on British roads today are too self assured about their driving skills and couldn't care less about anything or anybody which exists outside their tin box. If the punishment also fitted the crime in relation to speeding and accidents caused by speeding, perhaps the same people may hesitate before breaking the law.

Alternatively, we can listen to voices like your own.
 
#16
Actually I've been in a car on the stretch of road by me with 60 limit at 90-100 with no ill effects*

*there might be a trap there for the unwary poster who complains at my recklessness

If people drove responsibly, there would be no need for measures to slow them down.
Most road limits in the UK were brought in some time in the 1930s and have not been reviewed since then - are we paying for the sins of our grandfathers and have driving standards and technology not moved on since then?
 
#17
Hm. And there absolutely, positively, definitely isn't a revenue-raising aspect to this, then why were radar warning devices declared illegal? If you have one, and you detect a speed camera and so slow down then surely the speed camera's job is done. Except, of course, there's no revenue raised because they don't catch ya.

It is NOT absolute speed which kills. It is inappropriate use of speed. For instance, 120mph at 3am on a brightly lit, deserted motorway in good weather is probably safer than 70mph because you're likely to concentrating more and less likely to become a drowsy driver casualty.

I've seen official documents describing speed cameras, where where the find and replace tool has been used to replace 'speed camera(s)' with 'safety camera(s)'. All the funnier when they've missed a few. Says it all, really.
 
#18
How many accidents did you see then? Anything that slows drivers down, irrespective of how many 'perceived accidents' and the unproven rhetoric which accompanies these tales, save lives. If people drove responsibly, there would be no need for measures to slow them down. The problem is, that a bloody good number of drivers on British roads today are too self assured about their driving skills and couldn't care less about anything or anybody which exists outside their tin box. If the punishment also fitted the crime in relation to speeding and accidents caused by speeding, perhaps the same people may hesitate before breaking the law.

Alternatively, we can listen to voices like your own.
If the cameras worked to consistently slow people down, then yes, they've done a good job. But they don't. Drivers speed up to the point that they see the camera, slow down for the duration of the white markings on the road, and then speed up again! It's only been a deterrent in that small area, granted, if the camera is placed somewhere like on the approach to a dangerous bend or school, etc that's a good thing. And I agree with you, those caught out speeding shouldn't complain, if you weren't speeding, you wouldn't have been caught etc.

There are far too many drivers out there relying on the advanced technology of their car's brakes, wheels, alert system whatever and taking less and less care about what they are doing. Anyone who rides two wheels can testify to that.
 
#19
How many accidents did you see then? Anything that slows drivers down, irrespective of how many 'perceived accidents' and the unproven rhetoric which accompanies these tales, save lives. If people drove responsibly, there would be no need for measures to slow them down. The problem is, that a bloody good number of drivers on British roads today are too self assured about their driving skills and couldn't care less about anything or anybody which exists outside their tin box. If the punishment also fitted the crime in relation to speeding and accidents caused by speeding, perhaps the same people may hesitate before breaking the law.

Alternatively, we can listen to voices like your own.
What a sanctimonious cúnt you are.

Me driving a decent car at 150mph on the motorway am a dámn sight safer than a chav in a 10 year old Micra doing 40 in a 30 zone. Me doing 40 in a 30 zone am still a lot safer than a chav in his old Peugeot 106 doing 30 in a 30 zone with black ice and freezing rain...

...but a camera cannot tell the difference.

The stopping distances of my cars are less than 1/2 that of the "official" stopping distances. When I drive a friend's 599 my stopping distance is truly minute: it digs into the tarmac, yet a camera cannot tell the difference between me in a car that is serviced correctly at least every 6 months and has new tyres and brakes fitted every year (just before the Gumball3000 or CarbonBlack rallies), and a 12 year old Discovery still on its original tyres and brakes that just scraped through its last MOT 11 months previously, driven by a drugged up loser.

Cameras are cráp.

Much better would be to have a fully funded plod presence on the road, ready and able to pull people over for poor driving, being able to spot people driving in an unsafe manner (e.g. 70mph on a motorway in heavy rain or dense fog) and take appropriate action. They also have a much, much better deterrent effect

Police patrols are good.

And you are still a cúnt.
 
#20
Considering Britain's network of motorways were designed to have a speed limit way in excess of 70 miles per hour, which is the current artificially imposed limit set upon motorists by that Arch Red Bitch Barbara Castle, I have a very dim view of speed limits in general.
By all means cut speeds in front of schools, hospitals, clinics and such, but in less sensitive areas, increase the limits.

Tam
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads