Features

Tim
It's ver clear that speed cameras are NOT just money making devices. Would you happily let people drive around at 90mph? i thinbk not... and also, if i were driving on a motorway, would the 10% leeway still count, therefore changing the speed limit to almost 80?

kay
there onlt to make money and aslo most of the time they dont even work they are just there to shake up drivers, recently one flashed the front of my car and nearly blinded this should not of happened as it was illegal

Haydn Robinson
Firstly the camaras are there to measure speed with the intention of detecting offences. The effect of detection is that roads become safer. The fact that is that there has to be a deterent and the only deterant that drivers seem to understand is a monetry penalty and the threat of losing their licence. All three go hand in hand biut any financial gain should go towards further road safety measures and if required more camaras. Law abiding drivers should have no concern with this

steve mutton
they are there to make money nothing else they cant judge good or bad driving and those who are caught on camara how many did have an accident at these sites.i bet none

Andrew
If the police are so concerned about road speed safety why are there no cameras located near to schools where the safety of our school children is paramount..

Nigel
Can you please clarify the following, on the A605 near to Thrapston there is very often a Camera van parked on the hard shoulder of the road, this to my mind is illegally parked, so how can a police vehicle that is illegally parked prosecute anyone who is speeding, can you please clarify

Steve Manson
Many of my friends agree that there is no rhyme or reason to the steadily increasing new speed limits that are mushrooming up and down the country other than to trap unwary motorists and make money. There used to be national speed limits which we could all understand, but it seems that these can be arbitrarily changed to suit the so called road safety partnerships money making agenda. I along with many others are now deeply cynical about this situation, and it must have impacted heavily on the driving populations goodwill towards our police.I have also seen two accidents caused directly by the presence of speed cameras and numerous close shaves due to heavy breaking.

steve
i came towards a speed camera two cars in front of me and at night there was two flashes i nearly died and i mean that literally as the shock and light made me veer off the road !!!!!!!!!!!

A E PROOST
there are speed:traffic lights:buslane cameras. so lets call them law enforcement cameras. but keep money local.

Laurence
This is a classic sales ploy, confuse the issues so that customers are always talking about versions of your product and will purchase one or other of them whilst ignoring the competitor who does not have any options to discuss. The competitor of course is 'no cameras'. Wake up and stop discussing the options and just buy the no cameras product.When I am driving on strange roads 50% of my attention (at least) is spent looking for cameras just in case. I am absolutely fed up with it.

james white. oxfordshire
if they the government know the accident black spots on roads why do they not alter the road layout they get road tax money.....where is it all going....no matter how you dress it up speed cameras is another tax...hospitals saves lives but no tax in them also firemen etc..

Dave
It is very easy to agree with the safety principle of speed cameras when you have a clean license and perhaps self-righteously believe that you always keep to the speed limit. However, once you get 3 points on your licence for speeding at 33mph in a 30mph zone - by a mobile camera - on a downhill stretch leading on to a dual carriageway - you start to question them a bit more!

pruta man
they are there to make money. i sell potatoes at the side of the road and the council say i have to move but why when the police are using the side of the road to use the speed cameras, do the local council not tell them to move.

Alan Leeks
Part of the problem is the loaction of so many that cannot be justified on the measuring criteria given by the authority. An example of this is the one on Elizabeth Bridge in Cambridge. I am not aware of 4 deaths or serious accidents on this bridge within the last 7 years,

Serg
cameras are good for everybody if placed in right places (ex. near school). but cameras on the motorways are unnecessary. much better is to have flexible policies, ex. 90mph allowed if there is no any other car 300m ahead

Bill
It always makes me smile when I read peoples complaints about speed cameras. When some one complains “What happened to the good old days, the days you had speed zones...adhering to them and not having to look on the side of the road , distracting you as a driver away from the focus of the road itself.”. As a driver you have to look at the whole road including the verge, pavement, side turnings, etc. Processing all this extra information requires more time and so you have to drive at a lower speed. If you can't see the speed cameras or police cars at the speed you are driving at then you are going to fast, are not looking far enough ahead and will eventually have or cause a collision!! So lets keep the seed cameras as hopefully after the 4th time (12 points) it will result in one less unobservant dangerous driver off the road for a few months.

Mark
I have just read the 4 year safety report published on the Cambridgeshire Safety Camera Partnership Site; a few interesting statistics below:45.2% reduction in number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites – Are people still getting killed at camera sites????? 1.3% reduction in injury collisions at camera sites - 1.3% doesn't sound like very much – I calculate the minimum number of crashes involving injuries at sites would be 77…. How many were we having before everyone started braking heavily to avoid getting a £60 fine and 3 points? 4.6mph reduction in average speeds at camera sites – is that it... ... a measly 4.6mph, I walk faster than that!55% reduction in number of vehicles breaking speed limit at camera sites - bit of a no brainer – I imagine this is a result of drivers not wanting to get caught twice?76% reduction in number of vehicles breaking speed limit by more than 15mph at camera sites - please refer to my earlier comment.It would seem a large amount of drivers reducing their speed, however, a very small reduction in accidents – I leave you to draw your own conclusions… … Incidentally I have never received a speeding ticket, and have decided to ditch the car and use my bicycle to travel the 11 miles to work (I average 20mph and hit a top speed of 30mph weaving through the cars); this takes about the same amount of time as it would if I travelled by car on the A14 and I have a heavy right foot! How can the person responsible for making the decision to erect SPECS cameras on the A14 justify his or her salary this year?

PETE
Money makers pure an simple the real nutters will have cloned number plates anyway.

Claire
I was flashed by one of the cameras that faces the drivers. They are supposed to take infrared photos but this one flashed very brightly right in front of me. This is very dangerous, i agree with speed cameras but why make them dangerous

marc
**edited comment**it seems there are a few mis-understood people posting on here regarding HGV's and that speed cameras cannot detect the difference between them and a car.. and so the HGV gets away with travelling at the limits set for cars....this is not the case, i am a HGV driver and let me assure you that the cameras can indeed detect the difference, i know many drivers with tickets from cameras on roads that have a 60 limit for cars, yet they were doing circa 50 in a HGV.also HGV drivers seem to get a very bad press, and some deservedly so, but dont put all of us into the same mold.i myself am 33years old, have averaged 145,000 miles a year since passing my hgv test at 21, and have had a totally accident/incident free history, how many car drivers have covered almost 2 million miles without incident? not many i guess, and its purely down to training... hgv drivers are trained to a far higher skill level than your average car driver. every car driver should spend a day in the cab of a hgv - if you want to see what bad driving is all about, simply watch the amount of idiots i encounter daily, and the risks they take in order just to be 'in front' of the slower hgv. to me taking a position straddling 2 lanes to make a left turn before a junction / roundabout is defensive driving, to average motorist with zero training im hogging the road/carving them up etc.whilst ANY motorist deserves what they get if caught speeding, the vast majority of incidents are caused by bad driving, nothing will be a substitue for more traffic police, cameras are just cash cows under the banner of 'improving safety' they are often poorly sited, and in many cases add to the risk of accident due to people taking action to brake before it or simply being fixed on the camera - not the road ahead, if i could have a pound for every accident ive seen near one... theres bad drivers from every road user group, but before you moan about the next guy, ask yourself what have YOU done to improve YOUR road skills and training?? - a little education would go a long, long way to reducing accidents.so, the next time one of you may be sat behind me travelling at 40mph on a single carriageway road, dont complain - before you take your own, and other road users lives into your hands with some extreme manoevring just to pass me, just take a moment to assess if its really essential to pass me at all costs, just to save a few minutes on your journey time, whilst i might forgive you for driving dangerously, sadly 44 tonnes of hgv wont.please, drive with care.

Simon
Most accidents are caused by 'Driving without due care or attention' and speed serves to reduce reaction time of drivers and increases the severity of the accident. I drive on the A14 most days and see a lot of reckless, and quite positively scarey driving e.g. driving to close to vehicle in front, weaving between lanes without indication, reading maps/newspapers/letters, doing makeup, shaving, useing mobile phones, eating breakfast and drtivers turning towards rear passengers for a chat etc Speed cameras do have their place but to a much lesser extent than current useage - to educate the real culprits we need more Traffic Cops on the Roads

Cliff
Very, very few road accidents are directly attributable solely to speed. The Governments own statistics prove this. I have no doubt that "safety cameras" have a legitimate use - perhaps on roads near to school entrances as an example - but the perception is that they are being used as a cheap, money making alternative to traffic police. A camera CANNOT catch somebody driving recklessly or under the influence of drink or drugs, or in a stolen car, but a traffic policeman can. Trouble is, traffic cops cost more, and processing a drunk driver costs even more in terms of time and paperwork.

Tom Heavey
Both

Danny
Do you relise in Co-durham Speed cameras are banned, instead cars dont need to speed, and if they do they always seems to be a Patrol car or two to conter-act that problem. What happened to the good old days, the days you had speed zones...adhering to them and not having to look on the side of the road , distracting you as a driver away from the focus of the road itself..i will tell you Durham has the lowest counts for accidents and this is mainly because they dont use speed cameras. Ok take A1 north to Scotland..how many accidents happen there?? It reminds you 32 people were killed on that stretch of road last year and 1 sheep, yea simply because they had to keep looking for a Darn speed camera, What ever happened to police cars..Ask yourself in this day and age is mobile/Fixed cameras taking the policing off the roads or is police just not sick of catching joy-riders taking them to court to get a slap on the hand and then let off again...I take that question to the public and the police. Ask yourself why cars speed on 30 mile zones, we all hate it and if that was your child on the road , how would you feel. But most importantly what if that child was knocked over..The reason for Speed cameras was meant to be for safty..Put them on Urban areas, not Duel carageways or motorways.

Andy B
Speed cameras represent a dereliction of duty by the police, they are arbitrary items dealing with speed only. They do not catch speeding HGV drivers whose speed limit is 10mph below a cars, nor do they pick up idiots on the phone, reading books, shaving, doing lipstick and reading a paper! and yes i've seen them all. A good stiff reprimand from a traffic officer would have a more far-reaching effect than a NIP dropping on your doormat, i know i've been there, i just pay the fine take the points and think !!!! and carry on as before, which shows the speed/greed cameras don't work. Put the bobby's back out there and watch the statistics then, common sense will reign.

Clive Hollins
I regularly walk or cycle from Kings Hedges on Milton Rd. to the Science Park off Milton Road. I regularly see vehicles driving at 40-60 mph in both directions. Only those approaching the speed camera near the Ford dealership brake hard to avoid a ticket. Often the camera flashes for cars and motor-cycles going the other way, and of course captures nothing. Definitely a money maker and not a safety device, as it only captures those unfamiliar with the route to Cambridge.

Mike
'Safety cameras' is a laughable phrase. If the government (and councils via the police committees) had a true interest in road safety rather than revenue generation then there would be more police in visible patrol cars (like the rest of Europe) to stop tailgating, undertaking, moving without signals, middle lane hogs on motorways etc. An improvement in driving standards would do far more to reduce accident rates than speed cameras ever do.

ian
people are being fooled into thinking cameras are saving lifes most fatal crashs are hgv related which travel at 56mph or less. most drivers have never drove anything bigger then a car and are totally unaware how big hgv are.small roads and laybys joining or leaving a14 should be shut off between huntingdon and cambridge stopping slow moving joining a two lane road its a joke

ian hosie
Speed cameras are moneymakers in most cases I have driven HGV s for forty years and have seen many crashes.Crashes are caused by thoughtless driving such as tailgating,pulling out in front of oncoming traffic,driving too fast even within the speed limit on bumpy rural roads,overtaking a lorry just before a roundabout and cutting its stopping distance in half (it may be 30 tonnes wally how do expect it to stop). Do the country lane stirling moss es realise that two cars at 50 mph approaching each other with perhaps three feet between them have a potential 100 mph head on collision? Also when a hgv driver does the limit of 40 mph on a single carriageway he will have a line of angry motorists behind him taking the most amazing risks to get past.Try slowing to 25 mph to go over the speed ramps in offord,you will get overtaken,making the ramps more dangerous,the answer is more police traffic cars on the road.

Mark Boughen
I see the new specs cameras are being erected on the A14. I don't really see the point. When travelling along the A14 twice a day I would estimate my average to speed to be about 55mph. It is hardly ever possible to go much faster than this. The real problem on the A14 (and many other multilane roads) is the fact that 80% of drivers sit in the outside lane. This causes problems for the lorries which then undertake the outside lane because the inside lane is clear. Why not put a few signs up in the central reservation that say 'Keep left unless overtaking' or 'Use both lanes'? This would have a far greater impact on safety on the A14 than making drivers obssesively monitor their speedometers to ensure they are not going too fast as will be the case with the specs cameras.

jimmyb
As a motorcyclist, I ofter ride close to the speed limit, and lots of motorcyclists complain about speed cameras, but as said if you brack the law and get caught then expect the penalty

craig
how much do speed camers cost i dont know can u tell me please [Edited comment]

mr tickle
mr bump - how can ice make you speed up? If you were flashed at 32mph then you were doing 32 mph before hitting any ice. Ice is not the secret to perpetual motion. What a laugh! Drive slower.

Steve W
The only problem I see with the camera is the "speeder" suddenly breaking when he sees this yellow box. Dangerous or what?

Anthony
They have started erecting average Speed Cameras down the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge. Why? I use it every day and probably only get anywhere near the maximum speed limit for 50 yds if I’m lucky; the rest of my journey is spent crawling at 10 mph. What evidence exists to suggest that accidents on this stretch of road are caused by people travelling at speeds in excess of the speed limit? The road just isn't designed for the volume of traffic that uses it on a daily basis. Which Idiot thought this one up? Perhaps it’s the same person that thought putting traffic lights up at the Barhill round about...... They were active for one day because they gridlocked the road! Incidentally I wonder if the same person was responsible for the redesign of the same junction on the other side of the road. Where is the funding coming from to pay for these decisions? Answer: You and I. I have no objection to paying Tax, but object to it being wasted by people who are probably still struggle to pass wooden blocks through holes which are the correct shape. Time for the decision makers to give up their day job I think!

Andrew Moore
Speed limits exist as a safety measure. This relates to the increased destructive force of a vehicle at higher speeds, it also reflects that we as humans have reaction times that cause a delay between seeing a hazzard and reacting to it. At higher speeds a vehicle will travel further during the reaction time. Therefore out of respect to the laws of Physics we have speed limits. It then makes sense to enforce them, and if the only way that the message can be got through to those who bunked off their lessons at school is through the wallet then so be it. Although I didn't bunk off school I was stopped for speeding once and given a fixed penalty fine. I have taken far more care about speed limits since. QED

Tony M
Why-O-Why don't 'we' look around the world and see how things are done better/wiser? Outside schools, these days we often have a 20 MPH limit, whether children are present or not. In California, they have a sign which states; '40 MPH, 25MPH when children are present'. If you are caught doing so much as 2 MPH over the limit you stand to get a ticket. Good common sense. And 'we' think the Americans are dumb. I work in the NHS, in Rehab. The last thing I want to do is hurt or kill someone and yet I speed every time I use the roads. So why is my record is impeccable after 32 years of driving and riding! Because, like most good drivers, I'm looking at the road conditions and situation or as a police friend of mine would say, "if you're constantly looking at your speed and other road furniture, you're probably not concentrating on the road as much as you should". Good common sense again I think...

Jordan
The cameras are there for the motorist to be robbed time and time again..the cameras do not slow the drivers,the education,common sense and care does!I have been collecting points for a while now-as I am a courier driver and do 10-12 hours of continious driving each day for 6 -days a week for the last 7 years.i have had more experience than even a police advanced driver can amass-and they get their papers thrown out of court when they drive at upt to 140 miles p/h-as the case was recently!-but we get banned when i have not even had a scratch on my vehicle for the last 15 years! nevertheless when one drives as long and continiuously as i do,sooner or later -a human being`s concentration being only 20 mins long at most on an undisturbed basis-of course i go over the speed limit occasionally and et i am put in the same category as a housewife who spends probably 35 mins a day on the roaddriving..how can that be fair? i shall put anybody`s careful driving skill from any walks of life against mine and still come out smelling of roses but i am absolutely sick and tired of the lies of any government and the police that these cameras are there for safety--some perhaps are, but not most!

Godfrey Waller
I am not qualified to pass judgment, but I suspect strongly that the Speed Enforcement Camera on the A14 westward near Lolworth may be illegal in that it is `behind' a more recently placed large sign for the Cambridge Services at Jct 28. What I DO know however is that due to its sudden appearance virtually all traffic, in my experience, hits the footbrake when they spot it, whatever speed they are doing. I have been even a proper distance behind a number of vehicles, quite often `out-of-towners' who have sudden and inexplicably braked at 60 or even less miles an hour. It's an automatic reaction. And I believe this is what causes most accidents on this particular stretch of the A14: it must be dreadful for the lorry drivers. Considering this part of the A14 is busy enough to regulate its own speed limit (whether 70 or 5 mph), I believe this SEC should be removed. It's worth trying ?

Denis
Whist I agree with the principle of road safety and speed control, I have a problem with revenue being collected as a means of punishment. There is a clear conflict of interest. Some might say that if a speeding offence has not been committed then there is no need to worry. This is not a case of worry but one of civil liberties. Does it suggest that if you are a law abiding citizen, it is ok to have a police officer follow you around all day because you will commit no crime and you have nothing to worry about? Food for discussion.

bob elton
we should increase speed limits at night on motorways from 70mph to 100mph at least

Paul
Its simply, you speed, you break the law. If you get caught its entirely your fault. Speed cameras are a money making scheme and are dangerous in that they make drivers brake suddenly which at least causes a 'ripple effect' eventually creating a jam, at worst cause an accident due to an inattentive driver ploughing into the back of the driver who just slammed on his brakes. There should be a clearly visible warning before the camera to enable you to slow down slowly therefore avoiding the above results.

Richard
Why not have flashing speed lights situated before the cameras to give the speeding motorist time to slow down before he gets flashed. Then I would believe they are not just a way of making extra money for the Council

John
The standard of driving in this country has deteriorated to an all time low. Very few people respect the laws of the land. What with ignorance, ignorance of the law, bad manners,impatience, no tolerance. Those speed limit signs are of no use what so ever. I live in a village of but a few houses. It has a speed limit of 30 MPH. The above mentioned morons are driving through it at speeds of 50, 60 and 70 MPH on one of the most rurals roads you could ever come across. There are those that think they shouldn't be at the back of the queue and proceed to use thier vehicle as a weapon to bully all before them. There are those, that when your overtaking on a dual carriageway doing the legal limit are trying to park themseleves inside your boot. What it really needs is a 100% encrease in traffic patrol cars working on the ground to be bringing the full arm of the law down on the morons who are really anti-social and take them of our roads. In my opinion there is no substitute for the police patrols.

Ryan
I agree with having a speed camera outside a school, and bust anyone going even slightly over the limit, but get this...I was on my way home at 12.30 at night, came through a speed camera, then a traffic light camera, then 100ft up the road got done for doing 43mph (apparently) by a cop with a radar gun. Why I ask, are they out at that time of night, and why was there 3 cameras withing 200ft of each other?! Safety, my foot... its just tax on tax. sort it out!!

Mukkinese
If this is a 'tax', it is one anybody can avoid paying - don't speed. I'm sick and tired of those who break the law and then whine about it when they are caught.

Dylan
All in all its just another way to tax us, we already pay road tax but obviously this doesn't generate enough money. i am all for speed cameras but begrude the fact that the money is not regenerated into the safety of the roads instead we pump into all other sorts of schemes

Arnie
Just a quick point to Richard regards speeding HGV's. Yes cameras are clever enough to differentiate bewteen HGV's and cars. What he also needs to remember is the speed laws in this country are outdated, remember car technology has improved weel HGV braking systems are far superior to cars thay have to be. As an HGV driver why should a car be able to go down a sigle carriage at 60mph and the lorry at 40mph causing tailbacks that car drivers get annoyed about. I say this holding my ticket for doing 50mph on a road with a 60mph limit for cars!!! Now I broke the law and will pay my fine but is it really right???

Chris Suffolk
Lets be honest here these are speed cameras there sole purpose is to raise funds for the safety camera partnership. How many time have you been in a speed camera zone and found people braking heavily and causing holdups even from low speeds such a 50 to 30 in 50 zones because they have seen a camera. A much better method is to by all means have the cameras but then educate motorists with the speed limit signs which light up when speeding is detected. Not fine people as an underhabd tax for the sake of it.

Lets stick to the facts.
TO DALE : you ask "Why is it that the German Autobahns with no speed limits have a lower death rate than our roads?" - er 'cos they don't Dale - Autobahn are 30% more lethal than UK motorways and trunk roads (EuroRAP figures 6.1 vs 8.1 deaths per 100k pop'n) and incidentally 50 % of the network now has limits. However don't worry, your factual errors are well placed with all the other self-pitying drivel ("poor me....I should be able to pick and choose laws to abide by as I want") on the page.

Nick
The camera on the A1123 is a perfect example of just trying to make money. Anyone who knows the road also knows there is a camera and just after it a nasty bend. Anyone who doesn't could be flashed by the camera particularly at night and still take the bend too fast so how does the camera slow down people who don't know the road? Why not put up a speed activated warning sign like we see so many of these days in our villages to properly warn people of the coming bend? The reason is that such a sign won't make any money but I'm sure it would make people slow down more than a camera they might not even see.

mr bump
ok clever people work this out i was coming back home one night and i hit a huge patch of ice. i was doing 30mph in a 30mph limit but the ice increased my speed to 32mph and i got flashed.. £60.00 fine and 3 points where is the sense in that a good police officer would have noticed what had happened, but as a camera is just a mechaincal eye it can not. where is the justice so the goverment make £60.00 out of a patch of ice fair? i think not!

John Claydon
I have noticed that mobile camera units seem to sited during quite periods, ie early morning, when the roads are generally clear of traffic and visibility is good. During peak times, we do not normally see these cameras, is this because when traffic is heavy it moves slower? so little chance of catching any offenders. Also, these mobile cameras only tend to be used during good weather, when road conditions also tend to be safer, why are'nt they used during icy,wet or foggy conditions where they would genuinely serve to enhance safety. I believe like many others that so called safety cameras do very little to make our roads safer but meerly a means of stealth tax, it appears that this government also wants to reduce the number of licence holders on our streets, the penalty points awarded for minor speed infringments groosly outweigh the offence. Similary, many insurance companies use these points as an excuse to force motorists to pay higher preniums for 5 years after the event, how many times must a motorist pay for a minor misdeneaner?. Criminals pay far less.

Tom
I disagree with a lot of speed cameras. All they encourage people to do is speed up to them, slow down to the limit for them and once past think "It's all safe now, nothing to worry about". But I swear some of them must take incorrect readings. Just last night I was driving down a road I've driven down probably 1000-1500 times, checked my speed by the camera as usual (30 mph limit, I was for some reason doing only about 25 mph) and it flashed me... Only time can tell if it did actually think I was speeding, but... as for red light cameras, they are a good idea. The number of times in just a week that people almost cause major accidents by jumping red lights...

Ewart
I am not convinced by speed cameras but am greatly in favour of speed triggered advisory signs that we see in the villages. The former just put drivers backs up and serve no real purpose as far as safety is concerned and I believe can cause accidents due to heavy braking. Who knows the camera outside the Swiss Laundry in Cherry Hinton Road in Cambridge? What muppet decided to put that in? Accident black spot "my R's". Get it removed and save us the eyesore and tax payers money. Cameras are for revenue collection and everyone knows it.

Geoffrey Reed
I am not too sure of the viability of some camera positions! Not many weeks ago my wife and I set off in our Camper (Motor-caravan) for the 'Peak District' for a few days. Unfortunately and for no apparent reason my "SatNav" sent me on a short detour (a route never taken before). This route took us close Thrapston (without actually entering the town or any other town or built-up area). At no stage did we visibly enter a built up area. Imagine my surprise to find, some time later, a summons on my doorstep for speeding at a roundabout/junction near to Thrapston. Apparently I was doing 51mph in a restricted 40mph area. Because the vehicle is Motor-Caravan and I am a good "old" age - speeding is rarely an option for us. I was somewhat astounded and bemused to find this summons. I have not had a summons for more than 25 years! The vehcile, registration number and make were correct so I had no doubt it was us! But I have yet to return to the same route to see where this camarea was cited! I remain bemused because neither of us have any recollection whatsoever of entering any speed zone (other than the National speed limit) in that area!

Roger
My car has cruise control. I have lost track of the number of times I can be following a car doing 60mph in a 60mph zone at a safe distance. Then, as we approach a speed camera, the car in front will brake sharply down to 30->40mph in order to pass the camera before accelerating up to 60mph once past. WHY?? He was already doing the speed limit!!! This isnt a one off, it happens nearly every single time. Its as if people are paranoid and have to slow right down for them. The obvious effect though is that all that sharp braking can cause accidents if people are driving too close.

Geoffrey Reed
It would appear to me, judging by my recent experiences at traffic lights in Cambridge City, that cameras at red lights would be a VERY good idea and much needed.

Mark Johnson
I drive the a14 every day. My average speed from Huntington to Cambridge is always around 20mph->30mph. Its a 70mph zone. I pass around 12 speed cameras on my journey. How can the police say that fitting the new specs speed camera system on that road will improve things, when SPEED CLEARLY IS NOT THE CAUSE OF ALL THE ACCIDENTS?

Mike
I think the public at large would take a much more sympathetic view to speed cameras if you didn't get clobbered with a fine AND penalty points. If you are really daft or unlucky, you could lose your license in a week and not know about it. I believe the Dutch simply fine motorists for camera infractions, providing the offence is within 30%of the limit.

Andy
I have nothing against speed cameras, they slow you down yes.. so fair enough... However, I live in HISTON which has now been destroyed by SPEED BUMPS, There must be atleast 60 within the village. What a waste of time and money, not to mention all the wear and tear on the poor vehicles. I have to drive over Seven of them on the way to work and the same seven on the way home. UTTERLY REDICULOUS. Around school areas - thats fine. but one every fifteen meters through every road in the village, i mean who the hell approved such a devastation.

John
I have no problem with speed cameras but would like to see the cameras marked with the speed. I very often see people brake sharply to 50 mph from around 70 because they don't realise that the limit is 60.

Phil
Speed limits are based on the cars of the 1970's no representation of current day. Werent they going to make motorways 100mph aa few years back? Scamera partnership

Marmaduke
If you don't break the speed limit they have absolutely no effect on you and can be ignored! Those who witter on about them being revenue generating are missing the point - if we all kept to the speed limits there would be no fines and therefore the cameras wouldn't be self funding and would therefore become defunct. The problem is the perception that speed is sexy and this speed sells cars. The maximum speed limit in the UK (yes, excluding the Isle of Man) is 70mph so why on earth are cars made that can go faster than this? Not only would the roads be safer, the fuel savings would be significant. Incidentally, if you want the thrill of high speed just wind down ALL the windows in your car and see how long you can drive above 50mph!

Richard
It's a bit of both. They generate revenue, but then if we didn't speed we wouldn't need to worry about them. My main concern is speeding lorries with their much greater momentum and damage potential. How many people realise that the maximum speed for an HGV on a single carriageway is 40mph? Certainly not the Eddie Stobart driver who I followed along the single-carriageway A10 this morning towards Royston doing 55mph. That's 37% over the speed limit, and not at all unusual for HGVs! It may also explain why his numberplate was flapping about on a chain upside down so that it's not picked up by a camera. Not that it would have triggered anyway since the cameras aren't sophisticated enough to pick up speeding HGVs.

Dee
Both, if we all drove at the correct speed then the cameras would not be needed - so the driver is to blame not the Goverment or any other body.

Stuart
A perfect example of a speed camera being used solely for money making purposes only is the one by B&Q on Newmarket Road. It is situated just before a set of traffic lights that have a long delay on them. The traffic coming from the side roads is minimal (exept from B&Q on weekends), and very few pedestrians use the crossing. I know it's not right, but I can't be the only person who accelerates a little to avoid being sat stationary (burning fossil fuel) for a minute while no traffic what-so-ever comes from the side road. Incidentally, it's worth checking the facts when sent a fine. I was sent a speeding fine for doing 40mph at this junction. When I checked the photograph, it appears I'm doing 32-33mph. I travelled less than 8 metres in the half a second between the flashes. You do the maths! this case is on-going.

colin
These cameras are all about making money the mobile ones are the wost they hide behind signs or trees and park between other cars I think anyone who see them should flash there lights so they can olny get a few

gail
Speed cameras are simply there to generate money for the government.Being fined and 3 points for going down a slight incline at 32mph at 3.00am in the morning which I corrected, is an unrealistic penalty, incidentally there was another car beside me who overtook and must have been doing about 37/40mph so who triggered the camera? admittedly i had exceeded the speed by 2mph in an unfamiliar area to me surely sometimes common sense must prevail.

Martin
I think in general most people agree that the cameras are there to make money, the road deaths are going up not down. The Government will not allow an independent test of any camera even though they have been proved to be faulty at times. Perfect example: A Notification of Prosecution issued to a driver for travelling at 800mph, must have been a low flying fighter. Lets show our disapproval of this Dictatorial Government by voting for another party, the problem is which, they all make promises which they forget when in office. Maybe the general public will wake up now they are fining people who drop a ciggy butt and one person who dropped a Wotsit fined £75. by a civilian Community Officer. I just hope that we maybe get some of our freedoms back, but, I dont hold out much hope

Emma Rowley
they are there as a good money maker.

Tim
Safety Camera Partnerships love to claim that cameras have saved 'x-many' lives or accidents have dropped by 'y %'. But if you look at things objectively, what often happens is that a 'dangerous' junction gets lighting, remodelling AND a speed camera. The lighting or remodelling alone would have an accident reducing effect, but the Camera Partnership try to claim all the credit. This could also imply that where there is no change in the accident rate, there is an underlying rise, hidden by the other measures. Then throw in the global effect of airbags, protection cells and other improvements in car technology and you realise that the standard of driving is probably getting worse (e.g. the rise in drunk driving). I would put this down to the dwindling body of traffic police who look at the whole picture. It's telling that the only real effect on A14 driving has been when the police have a mini-campaign that floods the road with a visible presence. Yes, cameras have their place, but their effect is overated and funds would be better put into active policing, which would also address general criminality. Surely a vote winner that would be supported by most drivers?

JIM - Peterborough
Safety camera, the description is a joke, even the £60k didgital is cheaper than a police car and driver, the police are turning a blind eye to the drug affected, unsafe vehicles, bad driving and drunk drivers, the last of which has been remarkably low in recent years could that possibly be due to the fact that Gatso cannot pick up this? or am i being cynical that this is not only cash generating but a cut in public services.

Samantha
At the end of the day no amount of speed limits, speed cameras, fines or points are ever going to stop people being killed and injured on the road. Driving is a risk just like leaving the house in the morning is a risk why should we be controlled and watched in everything we do to prevent a minimal amount of deaths each year. In my experience the people who speed are there n then gone causing no trouble at all its the people who don't know where they're going, people who go in and out of lanes without indicating, and those who hold people up going unecessarily slow lead to people becoming frustrated and cause acidents.

anthony
speed cameras should play a part in traffic safety in reisdential areas and around public places. But on motorways the sudden braking of cars as they approach a camera is a recipe for accidents. Remember cameras cannot catch drink driver, uninsured, untaxed or cars with no MOT. Roads need to be policedrather ny than a single use device

Clive
The Speed (Safety) Cameras have been used as an excuse to cut the number of Traffic Police on the roads. Yes the cameras will detect speeding vehicles at the point they are sited but they will not detect dangerous driving or Drink/Drug driving. The Killed or seriously injured figures are a farce, they could be reported as 100 KSI. that could be 1 killed and 99 seriously injured. A serious injury is anyone who requires Hospital Treatment. A far better indicator is to report the figures seperately like they used to be before speed (safety) cameras.

Andy
I agree with everyone that says they are only there for the financial benefit!! The cameras don't stop anybody from speeding, the number of people you see speeding up when they pass them is incredible so surely they are just pointless bits of equipment.

Ben
Well i think they are there to improve saftey and to keep an eye on unlicenced drivers

Baz
Mark: Safety cameras do record HGV offences!

alisha
most of the camears do not work and are in places were accidents do not happen something needs to be done to stop peoplr speeding.

Lenny
Nobody minds a speed camera outside a school, but on a 40MPH limit on a dual carriageway to protect the workforce when they went home 2 days ago is not about safety

Mattello
I think its safe to say now as we have all established that speed cameras in important areas such as schools and such but the leeway they give you is what needs to be approached. Statistic may say these cameras are stopping the accidents happening but many times i have seen drivers concentrating on looking out for them than on the road, hence more accidents. Money is being made and a lot of it. Whether we like it or not is not the point as we know there is nothing we can do now unless we put a stop to this inefficient service the police say they are providing. On a road near my house there is a camera before a set of traffic lights, it, at first, was suppose to catch the criminals and blend into the background. We as a community took this to the council and we thought we had a success story but we where mistaken as the next day it was painted a bright colour and that is all what we got. I feel cheated as I stick to the speed limit and very rarely decide to speed. (Like when i was on my way home from Staford and lived in Middlesbrough, it was also 3 o'clock in the morning when i was flashed.) We need to sort the tweaks out and we need to stand up for what we think is right, until then, the police are raking in the cash.

Cliff
I think that speed cameras should not give any points. reason being is you might be going 70 on a 60 fair enough..."M4 for instance" but if gov wants to make some money they might aswel bump it up to 200 quid rather than 60 quid and a 3 point fine. because after a couple of times their licence would be writen off Oo

John
Simon is wrong when he suggests that speed cameras do not catch dangerous or drunk drivers. They do. People who drink or take drugs or those who drive dangerously on the roads are more likely to be caught by a speed camera. People like him devote much time creating red herrings about speed cameras. The hard fact is that speed cameras work. They do their job of catching speeding drivers fantastically well. Speed cameras are the most effective tool known to man for catching speeding drivers. The alternative is very costly and of greater danger to the community. If it were not for the speed cameras, we would have more police chasing speeding drivers on our roads. At the end of the day, if you do not speed other than beyond the reasonable leeway given by the speed cameras, you cannot be caught. The only people who are concerned about speed cameras are those who routinely speed on the road. The rest of the drivers go about their business on the road without worrying too much about speed cameras.

simon
it has been independently proven that after an initial reduction in accidents / injuries / fatalaties in locations where speed cameras are installed - the rate very soon returns to the levels pre-camera. In the counties where they have removed cameras and re-introduced police partols and are concentrating on working with the public - there has been a significant reduction in accidents / injuries / fatalaties. Cameras do not "catch" bad, inconsiderate or dangerous driving. Cameras do not catch drunk drivers. Cameras have been introduced to raise money and enable councils & government to reduce the number of police patrol vehicles. Ask the police - they cannot cope with the demands on the roads because they are understaffed and under-equipped. Every police officer I have spoken to says the same thing. Morale is at an all-time low because of it. Cameras in towns,villages, outside schools etc are a good thing - most people would agree. Cameras on open roads are a hazard and actually cause accidents. Drivers spend too much time looking out for them when they should be concentrating on the road ahead, and accidents are caused by drivers braking suddenly when they see a camera at the last minute. The camera doesn't capture the driver who was too close behind to educate him / her on their poor driving ! To pretend that cameras are universally a good thing is at best misguided, at worst cynical.

Paul
The police claim that their statistics for "safety" cameras prove that they reduce accidents. This is simply untrue. If you don't believe me, then I suggest you read the explanation at http://ex-parrot.com/~pete/notverygoodatstatistics.html. [The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites] Since it seems inconceivable that the police statisticians would make such a basic schoolboy error, I can only believe that the statistics are nothing more than propaganda aimed at deceiving the general public. Speed cameras raise revenue – fact. Speed cameras save lives- debatable. I have no doubt what the true purpose of speed cameras is, others (for various reasons) will want to believe the official line.

Gaz
Speed cameras have there place outside of schools and places of high risk. But they will never stop drink/drug drivers or speeding stoling cars or uninsured drivers or unroadworhty cars. road saftey is a huge issue and cameras are only a small part of the solution.

Des Bowen (IAM Member)
I would say they all three. Road Safety can only be observed by drivers being more responsible. If they are not then there must be a deterent. Speed or Safety cameras are there to save money for the police authority by not needing to be paid and also they make money, which is a good thing for them. But ultimately if drivers were more responsible and kept their speed to the limit then these cameras would soon become obsolete.

Alan Waldron
Few people are aware that camera partnerships are now required to factor in a 5% surplus for return directly to the Treasury. *source Notts Partnership minutes Jan 2005

James Williams
I was on the M25 the other day and i saw someone get flashed by a speed camera and he swurved across 2 lanes after he saw the flash. Now can you honestly tell me speed cameras are safe!!!!!!

Mike Sewart
I believe that speed cameras are not there in the interest of safety but in the interest of making money for the goverment!!

Graham
The only way to make the roads safer is to ban the VW Golf drivers and the Lorry Drivers. Both groups are aggressive and dangerous drivers, especially on the A14

Robert Mumford
They are here to make money. We live in Ramsey Mereside where the speed limit is 30 mph. The police prosecute people who are doing 45 and over. Thats when they do turn up. As a village we have just purchased our own speed gun, we have recorded speeds of 98mph through our village. In just 15 hours we caught 835 cars speeding over 38 mph. We have asked Cambridgeshire County Council if they could pay a visit with the Mobile Van...guess what....the answer was no. This is why you see it on motorway / dual carriage bridges, they are easy targets.

Joe
I was followed into Cambridge down Trumpington road by a car driven by a man reading his newspaper. Did the safety camera catch him? Of course not. Did they slow him down? of course not. Did they make him drive any safer? of course not. Not safety cameras, but speed cameras to make money easily.

jason
everyone would agree 90mph in fog is dangerous, but from his comment, by implication, stuart clarkson must therefore agree in good conditions 90mph is safe. but on a clear day in good conditions when 90mph would be safe, thats usually when the mobile van is on the a14 since it can easily read plates. ive yet to see a camera van in bad visibility conditions. the limits need reappraising to protect the sensible majority (from poorly applied points). the idiotic minority will still be doing 90 either side of the camera

Colin
Whilst I agree that speed cameras have their place in road safety I would much prefer to see real police on the roads. I drive 50,000 miles per year and see the results of bad driving every day. I would welcome ths sight of police stopping drivers who tailgate, use a mobile or read a map whilst driving ratehr than just seeing yellow camera vans picking off otherwise safe drivers. I was recently overtaken by someone with a cigarette in one hand and a phone in the other, he was doing at least 90mph and I don't think the £60 and 3 points should apply both to him and someone else doing 80mph on a clear road.

Dale
May be if the cost of living wasn't so high then the pace of life would slow down and so would he drivers! Everyone is so stressed these days and always under pressure to perform at their best; lower the cost of living and take the burden off people a little more then may be they wouldn't all be in such a rush and be so stressed all the time and vent that stress on the roads! Why is it that the German Autobahns with no speed limits have a lower death rate than our roads? 'Answer' because people are free to give 100% attention to the road and not on the mirrors and surroundings looking for police!

Richard
There are a good number of valid points made here - speed limits are there for a reason but many were set when cars were slower, had poorer brakes and tyres and did not stop or go round corners as well as they now do. Some limits seem stupidly low in relation to the abilities of modern cars. Having said this we must remain aware and make others aware of why speed limits are set at the levels they are - 30mph can be too fast in some villages yet unneccesarily slow on osme goopd quality country roads. Indeed some country lanes might find 30 mph too fast depending upon the conditions. What has not changed is the attitude of drivers - there are some very bad drivers around who will never be caught by the cameras - what about the drunk going home from the pub at 25 mph every night? The cameras do have a place in road policing but NOT to the exclusion of traffic patrols and an application of the flexibility of the "old" method of a quiet word - this can be very effective in making someone mend their ways. Speed cameras destroy this flexibility and are alienating very many otherwise law abiding folk. Incidentally I understand from a very knowledgable source that speed cameras can be set to differentiate between lorries and cars and in some cases are set up this way.

Mark
I saw on Top Gear that the Institute of Advanced Motorists have tabled the idea of marking the speed limit on the back of the camera concerned. What a great idea! Also, the AA were recently knocked for puttnig the location of these cameras in a map - another great idea. A recent camera placed on the Eastbound A14 just after the A11 on slip keeps me on my toes. Not because of my speed but because of the drivers braking excessively and without warning after noticing the camera. Seems to me they deserve every peeny they get. I feel the money should be put towards speed reducing measures including additional traffic police officers to further reduce accidents, deaths and criminal activity!!

Mark
Given the amount of carnage HGVs cause on the roads, why do these "safety cameras" only target the smaller vehicles? Surely a speeding HGV is just as much of a hazard (if not more so) than a car? The only place where an HGV may drive at it's limiter is on a motorway (check the highway code!). However, it is plain to see that HGVs are driven at the limiter on most roads of the UK. If they are not causing carnage through accidents, they are causing severe congestion by blocking dual carriageways while trying to overtake each other at slightly varying limiter speeds. Sorry, but "safety" should encompass ALL vehicles, rather than discriminate.

Mike Bromley
i am sure safety is a big factor in siting speed cameras however i think if the local authorities look into their heart the fact that it is revenue raising will not be a bad thing. the best method of slowing people down is the flashing signs which shame us when we are not doing the proper spped i always take notice of these. if the speed cameras are to slow people down then they must be highly visible. also how many mobile cctv units do you see in your town or village on a friday or saturday night to stop loutish behaviour, these dont raise money. It seems to me its all a bit hypocritical

Dan Ward
When you talk of the average gatso speed camera in a city costing around £20,000 each and the alternative digital gatso at £60,000 it is clear to see that the government already has the idea of how much they are going to make from it and whether they will make profit from it or not. Maybe if the money weren't spent on more police officers catching people speeding in their mobile vans and radar guns, they could then actually do something about the roads with the money instead of having us drive along roads with bottomless pits in them. But no, instead of the government actually spending on what matters, it seems as though Peterborough with its very few busses needs its own bus lane to completely confuse drivers and bring the city to a stand still at peak times. Well done Gordon Brown for your completely innovative thinking.

nigel
they sould call them speed tax cameras as that is really what its about. the speed limits no longer represent the max. safe speed, so why should we thing it is unsafe to exceed the limit in the right conditions. The vast majority of drivers do it every day

Michelle
I think they cause more accidents we have one in our Town as soon as motorists are passed it they speed up, there have been plenty of accidents becuase of the camera ! I agree that the signs that flash up your speed are a better idea

darryl anderson
the cameras are only there to make money nothing else if they wearent why no just give u points

JG
Speed cameras are there for a reason. If you don't want to pay a fine then the simple answer would be 'Don't speed!'

John
I agree with practically all Guy's statements, and in particular the reference to lorries. Its time that fixed roadside cameras had height detectors fitted, to catch the multitude of speeding lorries on our roads, the height of, triggering an alternative electronic speed scale, as on the A1, the majority of these lorries can be seen merrily passing through roadside cameras with complete impunity, as the drivers know that the camera makes no distinction in what it's looking at. If, by any chance, a high sided camper van, or similar, triggers the alternative limit, then the picture from the camera can be cancelled during processing by the authorities.

hayley 15 yrs old
Speed cameras are there for saftey not to measure speed or money people want a better enviroment.

Ken
Driving through built up areas means frequent glances at the speedometer,at30mph this means for a 1 second glance the car has travelled 44 feet and even further if you have to adjust your speed. Which makes for safer driving looking at the speedo or paying full attention to the road conditions all the time?

Mal
Regarding the Needigworth Road "Safety" camera why is it that the police are regularly operating their mobile van on the opposite straight and clear section of road? It would seem collecting revenue is more important than 'safety' otherwise there would be a proper campaign to re-educate speeding motorists rather than to earn revenue. I also believe the 'safety' cameras on the A14 near Fen Drayton are more of a cause of accidents along with the dreadful junctions. They don't improve safety they result in motorists jamming on their brakes because they don't know what speed they should be doing more often and therefore potentially creating accidents.

Simon
I'd suggest speed limits laws need to be reconsidered for modern environments and vehicle ability (particularly representing an increase on motorways and a reduction near schools and in urban areas). Furthermore, I'd suggest 'speed cameras' be replaced with more traffic officers that remains better equipped to evaluate whether a vehicle's speed is inappropriate (regardless of whether it is above or below the national speed limits), together with being able to pull-over and prosecute individuals for other offences, such as careless or dangerous driving, stolen vehicles, unfit/damaged vehicles, driving whilst disqualified, road rage incidents etc. – they could perhaps also be encouraged to educate drivers demonstrating poor driving skills, such as incorrect lane selection, lane hogging, maintaining distance, poor signalling, etc. [This is an edited comment]

Graham
Speed cameras hmmm for safety, well I disagree surely there cant be as many accident blackspots as there are cameras sited, otherwise we would have carnage on the roads. Instead of some of the safest in the world. But how many times have you been looking at your speedo instead of the road or not using your mirrors as you should because a speed camera was around, far more dangerous I feel than a few mph over the limit. If only the effort was put into real traffic cops ones which can stop tailgaters undertaking and all the other daily awful driving you encounter and catch uninsured drivers, you perhaps could respect the police more. I have heard police saying that speed cameras make their job harder because they ask a member of the public for help they get told to get lost... joe public remembers its speeding fines. We all need to use ours cars in todays society so lets have a proper joined up safety and policing poilicy.

Guy
Point 1: New speed camera - cost c18K+ Pity they can't spend just a few quid extra for some extra repeater signs reminding drivers what the limit is. Point 2: How many councils have been prosecuted for applying stupid speed limits. Point 3: Which is more dangerous 30mph outside a school or 80 mph on an empty motorway? Point 4: A collision occurs when a driver fails to drive according to the prevailing road conditions and make correct observations. It is a fact that <7% of accidents are CAUSED by speed (even though most are made more severe by excess speed) most accidents are caused by drivers not anticipating others and driving so close to the vehicle in front as not to give themselves a chance to react. Point 5 Try enforcing: All drivers deemed to be responsible for an accident should be required to complete a mandatory advanced driving training and test. This would seem to be a pro-active method of improving driving whilst inconveniencing the culprit no end. Point 6: How many HGVs get nicked for doing more than 40mph (yes that's the limit folks - check your highway code) on a single carriageway A road??? er- and than imagine the chaos if this was rigorously enforced. Point 7 How many pillocks have you seen on a 60mph A road) slamming their brakes on at a camera because they think the speed limit is 50 - only to cause an accident behind them. Saw an HGV sent off the road this way once - how much did that cost? Speed camera yes - SAftey camera twaddle - but obscene given the disproportionate punishments and neglect of the real issues btw - I've never had a speeding ticket and I drive >30,000 miles/year -so I've haven't got a personal axe to grind (yet?)

Mary
I think the signs that flash up your speed as you are entering a restricted area are more of a deterrent because they show your speed to everybody who can see it. This would then leave the police to deal with more serious crime and reduce the real crime figures.

Dave (Cambridge)
I would welcome the mass introduction of Saftey Cameras. However Speed Cameras are NOT Safety Cameras! Police should introduce "Safe Distance" cameras. It is far safer to travel the correct distance behind someone at 80mph than it is to tailgate the car in front at a "legal" 70 mph. Come on - bring technology uptodate, and make roads SAFER, not just slower.

col
If speed camera's are not there to raise revenue, why not prove it by removing the fine and increasing the points awarded to offenders, which is the thing drivers fear most anyway.

Peter
This is about all three and also about boosting statistics. Someone caught by a camera results in a Crime Detected, a Crime Prosecuted and a Crime punished with almost no effort required. How does that compare to finding say, a burglar and enough evidence to prosecute. What I cannot understand is why we still do not have the speed limit clearly displayed with every camera and camera warning sign. The implication here is that money is the key factor not safety.

Terry clyburn
speed cameras are just money making tools for the police

Faith
I believe they improve safety, which is a good thing.

stuart
I know the theory is to create safer roads for driving, but if thats the case - why not do the same for cars as they have for lorries - fit compulsary speed limiters? then at least on the nice fast bits of road they worry about it will not be so much of an issue and the police would be able to concentrate on the areas that matter more. And for thos who flout the speed limiters and manage to disable them - a nice lengthy jail term or a very hefty fine (much like those faced by lorry drivers and the owners)would put people off. B.T.W. for those people who moan about lorries travelling at 45 - 50 mph on our main single carriageways think on this - the drivers are actually breaking the law on your behalf as they are only allowed by law to travel at 40mph on single carriageways - and the speedometers in their cabs are calibrated and checked regularly - so they cant use the 10% +2mph arguement.. so dont swear at them they are trying to help by going as fast as they dare OK?

Ted
Speaking personally, rather than speed cameras which can catch you without warning if you inadvertently go a few mph over the limit (and it doesn't take many...), and do not cause you to reduce your speed (even if you're way over the limit), I favour the use of the flashing warning signs that tell you you're over the limit as you approach. I think many people would welcome the warning and be happy to slow down. I personally find them relatively "friendly". By all means follow them up with a real camera a few hundred yards further on ... one has been warned, after all! But in terms of persuading people to stay within the limit, I think they might be more effective than the cameras. Of course, they don't pay for themselves ... ! Another purpose they could serve (since they have built-in speed detection) is to monitor speeds and record data for analysis. This would also contribute to informed debate.

Paul Landry
Speed cameras are used to raise revenue to plug treasury deficits

Carol
Stuart is absolutely right - cameras are about safety. Too many drivers think it is their right to break speed limits, and then complain when they are caught. Often they are only enjoying the thrill of driving at speed, or seeking to save a few seconds on a short journey. Anybody that has been involved in a serious car crash, or who knows somebody whose life has been devastated by the consequences of crash knows through bitter experience how a high price to pay. And the saddest and most frustrating thing of all is knowing that, whilst accidents will happen, so many crashes could have been avoided.

Kynson
In my opinion, the cameras are there for all those reasons, but primarily to reduce deaths and serios injuries. Although speed limits are there for a reason, people should remember the Highway Code and drive slower when conditions require it. As a more general note, perhaps everyone should go an read the Highway Code again. In particular, since moving to this area I have been shocked at how little and inappropriately people use their indicators, particularly at roundabouts.

Gary
Yes, I can see that these camera's are there to punish law breakers but it must be said that if the same zeal and police man hours were put into normal policing to catch other offenders such as vandals , conmen and crooks in general I think the general public would not have such a problem with cameras, For example in Sawtry where I live we share a PC with ( I think) 16 other villages, the reason given is " No funding" but speed cameras or Haircoarsing - no problem how many men would you like!

Juliet Dixon
Cameras are there to 'make money BY measuring speed!'

C Catterick
sadly, cameras do all three things they make money for the manufactures and government. They measure speed, but safety must be the last on my list as it is easy to see the domino effect when drivers spot a camera then break to kill their speed. The best way to deal with speed is a vehicle sensor that will not allow the driver to excede the speed limit. The sensors would need to be weather sensitive to be effective.

gordon
Surely speed cameras are going to cause accidents because drivers will be so busy "taking their eyes off the road" to check thier speedometers, that they're not watching what's going on around them. It takes ONE second to cause an accident if you take your eyes off the road.

Michelle
If the cameras pay for themselves - then great, why should I have to pay extra taxes if someone else is speeding. What's the problem here? No one goes on about how much money is raised from fines for drunk drivers !!

Kelly
If you don't speed you won't get detected by a camera. seems fairly simple. If you break the law, then you run the risk of being caught.

David
Why don't they spend the 1.2 million pounds on mandatory advanced driver, including training for those caught "speeding"? Stuarts argument of placing cameras only in dangerous stretches is a load of pants. Too often I see speed camera vans on straight sections (before and beyond) of dual carriageway on Sunday mornings when traffic density is very light and actual danger low. The speed camera / police enforcement is a simply a driving a wedge between the responsible public and the police force. The effect being that many friends and I will no longer go out of the way to help an officer now, be it volunteering information or making it that little bit easier for them to pass.

Mike
As the man says - they wouldn't make any money if people didn't break speed limits. There's a very simple way not to have to pay anything for them. And if everyone did, it would improve safety. Those who complain they are only there to raise money seem to overlook this point, or perhaps feel that this law doesn't really count and shouldn't be enforced, when there seems to be plenty of good reason for it!