First |
< Previous 1
2
3
4
5
6
Next > |
Last |
|
|
|---|
Message 1 - posted by Happyme, Jun 26, 2006 What do you think of the cameras?
Are they an effective means of controlling traffic speed or are they just a means of taking more cash from the motorist? |
|
|
|
Message 2 - posted by U4623931, Jun 26, 2006 Just another means of collecting more money if you or I was to do 5 or 6 mph over the speed limit with a police car behind us chances are you wouldnt even get pulled over, and if you did you would get let off with a warning which to me proves that they are just a money makeing device. |
|
|
|
|
Message 3 - posted by youngconburtlady, Jun 26, 2006 Just another means of collecting more money if you or I was to do 5 or 6 mph over the speed limit with a police car behind us chances are you wouldnt even get pulled over, and if you did you would get let off with a warning which to me proves that they are just a money makeing device.
Quoted from
this message
plus locals know where they are and just slow down on that stretch |
|
|
|
|
Message 4 - posted by BobStoned, Jun 29, 2006 Many of the statistics often quoted, where speed cameras are concerned, have been comprehensively debunked by independent analysis of the raw data. I, personally, don't trust any of the figures quoted by the Safety Partnerships. In fact, having read many articles in various publications, there's enough evidence to strongly conclude that the stats are spun so much to be utterly meaningless. A recent leaflet issued with speeding notices in Greater Manchester has been ruled untruthful by the Advertising Standards Authority. The factors involved in road accidents are numerous, speed included, but there needs to be an end to the obsession with speed alone. |
|
|
|
|
Message 5 - posted by nothing to declare, Jun 29, 2006 I think on the whole speed cameras are a good thing, though a visible police present is a better deterent. the one problem with speed cameras is if you pull over to let traffic from a slip road on to the carriageway, you may need to speed up to find a safe place to move back into the left hand lane, now a police officer witnessing this would out of commonsense and possibly shared experience would understand this a camera would merely be triggered by the increase in speed. |
|
|
|
|
Message 6 - posted by lancsdb, Jul 6, 2006 If you do not want to have money 'taken' from you by these cameras the solutions is simple - DO NOT SPEED, or is that too complicated for you (and the rest of the road lobby) to comprehend? Just another means of collecting more money if you or I was to do 5 or 6 mph over the speed limit with a police car behind us chances are you wouldnt even get pulled over, and if you did you would get let off with a warning which to me proves that they are just a money makeing device.
Quoted from
this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 7 - posted by John of Paddington, Jul 6, 2006 They are 'Piggy Banks' for the Council. Mind you if you have a foriegn, forged, fouled up or ficticious plate, then you will not be bothered. |
|
|
|
|
Message 8 - posted by lancsdb, Jul 10, 2006 No-one is forced to speed - if speed cameras ar just 'piggy banks', then it's the motorists' own fault - all they have to do is STICK TO THE SPEED LIMIT. Whay is that concept to confusing for many people to understand? They are 'Piggy Banks' for the Council. Mind you if you have a foriegn, forged, fouled up or ficticious plate, then you will not be bothered.
Quoted from
this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 9 - posted by kknodd, Jul 18, 2006 Having been caught twice in radar traps I initially had a great hatred of them. However they are the current law and I was stupid enough to break it.I have always found that in a restricted area where there is a sign denoting speed restrictions that the ones referring to " an average speed " are the ones that get taken more notice of. |
|
|
|
|
Message 10 - posted by dawn-39, Jul 22, 2006 well my dad is sick at the age of 73 keep getting speeding fines? but of course its never him the cameras are always set wrong  |
|
|
|
|
Message 11 - posted by Enoch_P (2), Jul 25, 2006 I believe speed cameras have a use, we all know this has nothing to do with safety it's about revenue raising for local partnerships.
I drive over a thousand miles a week and the honest fact is the majority of people speed. Why place speed cameras on the M4? Outside schools, hospitals etc yes, but don’t try and say placing cameras on the M4 is not a money raising exercise.
The massive problem in this country is the lack of police stopping dangerous driving, Tail gating, undertaking, jumping lights and then proper fines and bans, A few months ago I watched an unmarked police car pulling over people as they undertook on the M25, yes more of this, less of the revenue raising. Almost all bmw drivers I see on the motor believe it there right to undertake everyone, its this attitude we need to end, cars kill not speed.
|
|
|
|
|
Message 12, Jul 27, 2006
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.
|
|
|
|
|
Message 13 - posted by lancsdb, Jul 28, 2006 The following is taken from the RoSPA website and is a guide to sticking within the speed limits. I hope this helps the people who say it is impossible to stick to speed limits.
Drivers are responsible for the speeds at which they choose to drive, but there are some simple and practical things drivers who find it difficult to stay with speed limits can do to help themselves.
1 Check your speedometer regularly, especially when leaving high speed roads
2 Know the limits – look for signs, especially at junctions
3 Assume lamp posts mean 30 mph, until signs say otherwise, but remember it could be 20 mph
4 Remember, speed limits are a maximum, not a target
5 20’s plenty when kids are about – and may even be too fast
6 Try no higher than 3rd gear in a 30 mph limit
7 Recognise what makes you speed - keeping up with traffic, overtaking or being tailgated
8 Concentrate – distracted drivers speed
9 Slow down when entering villages
10 Give yourself time – there’s no need to speed and you won’t get there quicker
|
|
|
|
|
Message 14 - posted by formerly-warning, Aug 10, 2006 Since 85% of the revenue raised from speed cameras goes back into funding the speed camera programme, it's a remarkably inefficient way to make money. If the Government was principally concerned with raising revenue from motorists it would tell them all to drive faster: they would make a lot more from the extra highly-taxed petrol that would be used as a result! |
|
|
|
|
Message 15 - posted by blueMODPLOD, Sep 4, 2006 A little Iwas travellingdown the A34 from HANFORD to STONE and noticed many cameras half of the partially of fully covered by roadside foliage. Surely this is against the spirit of the accommodation between motorists and the local council who have a duty to make all cameras overt. Still a nice one if they can get away with it. |
|
|
|
|
Message 16 - posted by lancsdb, Sep 5, 2006 A little Iwas travellingdown the A34 from HANFORD to STONE and noticed many cameras half of the partially of fully covered by roadside foliage. Surely this is against the spirit of the accommodation between motorists and the local council who have a duty to make all cameras overt. Still a nice one if they can get away with it.
Quoted from
this message
What IS against the spirit is the way these pathetic little speed freaks claim they're being victimised when all that's happening is they're being caught breaking the law. Do you expect police waiting to catch some bank robbers to stand around in full view of everyone? No. Then why should brainless motorists be treated differently? |
|
|
|
|
Message 17 - posted by Lizziedripping, Sep 5, 2006 I'm all for brainless speed cameras catching brainless speeders like me. Mind you, I don't think that, that last camera who caught me testing the speed of my Honda 125 on a non potholed road going 37mph in a 30 mph zone was that brainless. You can't tell me it didn't know that 3 of my last 9 penalty points acquired in my 4 wheeled vehicle, was over 3 years ago. Yes, let's economise, replace policeman who do sweet fanny all, with cameras and our equally reluctant to work teaching force with P.C's and televisions I say. The dinner ladies will watch our precious children at break times. |
|
|
|
|
Message 18 - posted by lifeguard55, Nov 22, 2006 Dear Moderator, It doesn't matter what I do, when I go to preview my letter the username of the person that I am responding to mysteriously vanishes. I am completely at a loss as to why this is happening.And of course my letter will not make any sense if it isn't there. The gist of 's argument appears to be that travelling at five or six (or seven or eight?) mph above the speed limit is not a problem and is acceptable as such. As I expect you know, cameras are set to trigger at 10% + 2mph above the given limit. In other words you would have to be doing 35mph (in a 30mph zone) or 46mph (in a 40mph zone) etc before you were flashed and penalised. That seems pretty generous to me, and if people can’t drive within 5mph above a 30mph limit then they deserve to be flashed and fined. The reality is that the average speed of people caught speeding in 30mph zones is 39mph. The additional five or six (or seven or eight?) mph that these imaginary traffic cops in your imaginary scenario would turn a blind eye to could very well mean the difference between someone being fatally injured in a collision and surviving a collision. Personally I think that the vast majority of quieter residential streets should be incorporated into Home Zones with a strictly enforced limit of 12mph, and that the vast majority of other roads/streets in built-up areas should have a strictly enforced limit of 20mph. If that were to happen, the number of fatal and serious injury collisions in built-up areas would be reduced significantly - ie by 75-80%. And who would argue with that except the road lobby and its minions and the boy-racer morons. Just another means of collecting more money if you or I was to do 5 or 6 mph over the speed limit with a police car behind us chances are you wouldnt even get pulled over, and if you did you would get let off with a warning which to me proves that they are just a money makeing device.
Quoted from
this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 19 - posted by Member 2511856, Nov 22, 2006 Do you notice similarities between the arguments of the anti-camera lobby and the arguments of this equally well respected organisation: Press Release - Immediate
The Association of Burglars and Deceitors (ABD) have spoken out about the spread of burglar alarms across the country and are insisting that these are painted yellow to alert their members before breaking and entering. They have accused authorities and householders of secretly hiding the familiar boxes found on the front of buildings and trying to outwit burglars. A spokesperson said “This is just another example of the courts trying to fleece the burglar with these revenue devices. There is too much focus on burglars when they are not the main cause of crime in the UK – just look at the number of motorists breaking the speed limit for example”.
The ABD insist that they firmly back crime reduction measures but installing burglar alarms and using the slogan “Kill burglary” was too simplistic an approach and is thaving little effect on the overall crime figures.
The ABD have stated that there is no link between burglary and crime and have disputed all evidence to the contrary. They have made it quite clear that
• Burglars vote
• Every day more burglars are being harassed
• Every month more draconian legislation is proposed
• Every year heftier fines are imposed
• This is victimisation against a small minority.
<ENDS>
Quoted from
this message
|
|
|
|
|
Message 20 - posted by loudcommonsense, Nov 26, 2006 Hi,
I was caught on camera the other day, I do agree with cameras and I do think they reduce speed in key areas especially the fixed cameras. I have a problem with the mobile camera van that caught me as he was parked right next to a forty sign pointing out at the 30mph traffic heading into the forty on a Saturday afternoon on an open A road. Just like all humans I'm not perfect, but in general, I don't speed and think the camera van was after easy targets rather than improving road safety. I know these people do a worthwhile job in the right places but unfortunately I think parking where they did they have lost my confidence. Now I'm starting to think they're hiding behind a good cause making money and upsetting the public rather than improving road safety.
On a separate point, I have to wonder what example the law is making when a police officer apparently on driver training can basically gets away with doing 159mph I think on the M40. I'm sure a happy family travelling down the motorway wouldn't have known much about it as they change lanes into his path heading to the airport as some dipstick is doing these kind of speeds on a public road. I would have to commend officers that stood up to this man. |
|
|
|
|
First |
< Previous 1
2
3
4
5
6
Next > |
Last |
Home
