BBC Home

Explore the BBC


23rd October 2019
Accessibility help
Text only

BBC Homepage

Channel Islands
Guernsey
Jersey


Contact Us


Like this page?
Send it to a friend!

 

or register to join or start a new discussion.


Discussion:

What do you think of speed cameras?

Messages  101 - 116 of 116

 
First | < Previous 1  2  3  4  5  6  Next > | Last
 

Message 101 - posted by U4445838, Jan 7, 2008

www.dailymail.co.uk/...

Golfers 'driving' their balls 'too fast' will be the next 'victims'.

<laugh>

Quoted from this message


Why do you call people who break safety laws 'victims' when the get caught? Use your comoon sense - people playing golf will not be caught
Complain about a message      

Message 102 - posted by U4445838, Jan 7, 2008


Well, there aren't that factors that are bigger than speeding. They are:
* going too fast for conditions (17%)
* failed to look properly (17%)
* loss of control (35%)
* careless, reckless, or in a hurry (18%)

Quoted from this message


Going too fast for the conditions - SPEEDING
loss of control - usually caused by SPEEDING
careless, reckledd or in a hurry - SPEEDING
Complain about a message      

Message 103 - posted by U4357578, Jan 7, 2008


Well, there aren't that factors that are bigger than speeding. They are:
* going too fast for conditions (17%)
* failed to look properly (17%)
* loss of control (35%)
* careless, reckless, or in a hurry (18%)

Going too fast for the conditions - SPEEDING
loss of control - usually caused by SPEEDING
careless, reckledd or in a hurry - SPEEDING

Quoted from this message

You're wrong lancs and the cameras that you support don't pick up the above.

If a driver is passing by a speed camera set at 30mph and he's travelling at 28 mph he isn't speeding. Now, if he's driving over ice then he's going too fast for the conditions. He isn't speeding and the camera will ignore him.

If a driver loses control of his badly maintained car as he passes a camera, as long as he's below the limit, he isn't speeding. His tyres may be bald, his brakes may not work but as far as the camera is concerned, he's ok.

If a driver passes a camera whilst overtaking a convoy that's stuck behind a tractor whilst approaching the brow of a hill, in foggy weather at dawn then as long as he's below the legal limit, he isn't speeding.

A police officer would successfully charge and convict any of these drivers.

Your precious cameras won't even activate.
Complain about a message      

Message 104 - posted by patsy, Jan 7, 2008

jonah,

If only we lived in an ideal world.<erm>

But in the absence of those officers, safety cameras do have a part to play.

A police officer would successfully charge and convict any of these drivers.

Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 105 - posted by U4357578, Jan 7, 2008

Pats, I don't deny it but camera are not the be all and end all. They are being used to replace patrols and whilst speeders are being successfully prosecuted there are lots and lots of people getting away with other crimes as a result.
Complain about a message      

Message 106 - posted by VeryTrue, Jan 7, 2008


A police officer would successfully charge and convict any of these drivers.

Quoted from this message


And if he isn't wasting his time with a speed gun now that the automated camera is doing that for him, then he can concentrate on checking cars' tyres, seeing if they are driving too fast for the conditions, etc, etc. Not to mention getting on with catching criminals and detecting the other "real crimes" that drivers used to complain he should be pursuing when he used to spend his time pulling motorists over for speeding...
Complain about a message      

Message 107 - posted by patsy, Jan 7, 2008

Very True,

Very true! <smiley>

And if he isn't wasting his time with a speed gun now that the automated camera is doing that for him, then he can concentrate on checking cars' tyres, seeing if they are driving too fast for the conditions, etc, etc. Not to mention getting on with catching criminals and detecting the other "real crimes" that drivers used to complain he should be pursuing when he used to spend his time pulling motorists over for speeding...

Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 108 - posted by U4357578, Jan 7, 2008

Traffic patrols are there to police traffic.
Complain about a message      

Message 109 - posted by patsy, Jan 7, 2008

jonah,

Yes that's right, but they can be diverted to other duties if they are in the vicinity.

Traffic patrols are there to police traffic.

Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 110 - posted by U4357578, Jan 7, 2008

Not if they have been replaced by a camera, they can't.
Complain about a message      

Message 111 - posted by patsy, Jan 7, 2008

jonah,

But they haven't been, we do still have traffic patrols.

Not if they have been replaced by a camera, they can't.

Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 112 - posted by U4357578, Jan 7, 2008

Yes Pats there are traffic patrols but they have been reduced as cameras have increased. This reduction means that drivers are getting away with other traffic offences. It also means that there is a reduced chance of a patrol 'just happening to be in the vicinity'.

Don't believe me?

www.timesonline.co.u...
Complain about a message      

Message 113 - posted by patsy, Jan 7, 2008

jonah,

I do believe you, and I will agree that there are not enough traffic police, and I for one have never said that safety cameras are the 'be-all-and-end-all'
But they do have a part to play.

Don't believe me?


Quoted from this message

Complain about a message      

Message 114 - posted by VeryTrue, Jan 7, 2008

So your argument is that there should be more police traffic patrols? I don't think anyone is arguing against you. But why not have both and double your chance of catching a speeding motorist?
Complain about a message      

Message 115 - posted by U4357578, Jan 7, 2008

VT, you're welcome to check out my posting history on cameras. I've never been against them.

What I object to is the reduction, by CPO's of traffic patrols because they see cameras as an alternative, they aren't.

Now, I believe that that policy puts me in danger from idiots on the road that know where cameras are and drive within the speed limit at that point only. The rest of the time they drive like loons. Ok so they are in the minority but they are there and the deterrent has been reduced.

Cameras can't tell if a driver is drink driving, if he's driving a roadworthy car, if he's driving dangerously, if he's in a stolen car, etc.

Cameras that work are average speed (SPECS) cameras. Put them everywhere if you like but don't reduce patrols.

Just for the record, I have no points on my licence.
Complain about a message      

Message 116 - posted by VeryTrue, Jan 7, 2008


Cameras that work are average speed (SPECS) cameras. Put them everywhere if you like but don't reduce patrols.

Quoted from this message


In that case, we are entirely in agreement.

Just for the record, I have no points on my licence.

Quoted from this message


Me neither. Are you sure we aren't the same person?
Complain about a message      
First | < Previous 1  2  3  4  5  6  Next > | Last

This discussion is tagged with:
- Stoke&Staffs
- cars
- transport
- travel

getting involved How to reply to messagespopup icon
complain  Alert us about a messagepopup icon
online safety Are you being safe online?popup icon

Messages  101 - 116 of 116

 


About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy