Andy West Malling
Have the speed limit sign stuck to the rear of the camera. Some drivers over compensate and brake too hard as they are not aware of the speed limit.
Fri Aug 12 14:20:19 2005

Tim, Chatham.
I have been driving for 20 years and never had an accident or any driving offence against me.The other day i got a £60 fine and 3 points on my licsence for supposedly going through a red light. This was allegedly caught on camera.Can we dispute this as i am sure i never commited this offence. I like many others am sure these cameras have nothing to do with safety,it's all about making money.
Wed Aug 10 11:16:49 2005

Kirsty, Maidstone
Watch out everyone! There is a "SPECS" camera system being installed on the London bound carriageways of the M20 between (I think) junctions 4 to 2. These are the cameras which work out your average speed over a certain distance. They will be used to enforce a 50MPH limit when road resurfacing work starts shortly. This kind of thing makes me want to vomit - I understand the need for the workforce to be protected, but WHY do it using such expensive equipment? Surely a common-or-garden GATSO could do the job - though as it has now been PROVEN that cameras do absolutely nothing to reduce accidents in roadworks, why are they being deployed at all? Yet another stealth tax on the already over-burdened motorist.
Tue Aug 9 13:18:01 2005

Jan, Wingham
Daily Mail today, page 29 states ....speed cameras make 'no significant difference' to road safety. Apparently a study by Motorcycle News showed that, in Hertfordshire, camera numbers rose by 24% and the road deaths went up by 34.2% and in County Durham, which has just one mobile camera unit, deaths fell by 24%. I think that says it all. I think a flashing sign to remind you of the speed limit is far mor effective personally. I tend to automatically look at my speed when these things flash at me, and if I am over, alter my speed accordingly.
Mon Aug 8 14:27:49 2005

Jan, Wingham
I dont think speed cameras save lives because people slow down just before they hit the lines and then carry on again. I believe that they are there purely for government revenue.
Tue Aug 2 17:06:51 2005

Martin,Medway
Speed cameras do nothing to curb bad driving. Local drivers know where the cameras are and make sure that they approach them at the right speed. If a camera takes an image then it has not worked to reduce the speed. Perhaps the way forward is to have Accident Black spot cameras so obvious that no one can miss them (no revenue thought!)resulting in a fine and points and to have traffic calming cameras (should also be clearly marked where there is a fine only, like a parking ticket. Ltes also overhaul the complete road system, lower speed limits out side schools and in narrow villages etc, but also increase in speed on motorways with variable limits allowing for traffic volumes and weather conditions, 85mph is not dangerous if the conditions are right.
Mon Jul 18 13:25:11 2005

james from medway
Speed cameras are not proven to reduce accidents in blackspots. Fact. This is why the governments studies into their legitimacy has over-run by months, resulting in the suspension of further installation of gatsos around the country. This sounds like it would upset quite a few of you slower people. I however spped almost everywhere. I find it hard to travel at the spped limits because they are just too slow. Thats not to say I'm not a curtious and conscientious driver. I have no points, no convictions, maybe beacause I'm too careful when it comes to the old bill and my motor. Touch wood I've never had an accident and never will but drivers doing thrity which I get stuck behind regularly infuriate me. The motorways are ok because there are virtually no restrictions so I can go as fast as I like without jeapardising anyone. We need less speed cameras and more traffic cops if you want any hope of catching me!
Fri Jul 15 15:33:05 2005

Sue in West Sussex
I would like a speed camera outside my house to catch those doing 20 - 30 mph above the speed limit at night. The noise wakes me up! This isn't just about safety - there are other health issues! those speeding are awake (I hope) but they should consider those who should be asleep. How many accidents are caused by sleepy motorists who haven't have enough kip?
Mon Jul 11 13:55:08 2005

Chris Dartford
Hello Mick from the Medway area, you should live up here in Dartford I was out tonight 28/6 and one of your 9-5 camera vans was in Barn End Lane Wilmington at 8 o`clock! I also saw one on the roadworks near Rochester about 5.30am!! so much for their 9-5 hours...
Tue Jun 28 21:57:33 2005

Paul Deal
I like Chan's comment's but would it not be better if all vehicles were fitted with speed restrictor's that automatically activate when in a certain area? An electronic chip in the car's computer that is triggered when it arrives in urban district and also on the Motorway? Then if a vehicle is caught going fast and the computer chip has been tampered with then this would be better evidence than a picture ?
Tue Jun 28 11:06:15 2005

Paul Deal
Sam your last comment dated 13 june saying that the speed camera should have been located near a school, well if you know that the road willington street is in a built up area, where people live then that is a good enough reason to have a speed camera, or mobile camera located as kids have to travel to the school just over the road from willington street. In fact there are 2 schools in that area, but even if it was at 06:15 hrs in the morning there are still paper round boy's and girls travelling in that area in the morning. As I was saying to Brain if he knows of the Fcc He will know that I know that he may have worked in the FCR of which I too worked in while I was training to join the FCC.Kent Police Headquarters landsdown Avenue Maidstone. We see and hear all about road traffic incidents every day. The aftermath it causes to people who lose loved one's. So cut your speed do make a difference it may be you who may pass away or a member of your family because of speed.
Tue Jun 28 09:16:10 2005

chan - kent
they should abolish speed cameras and put roads about where there should be a certain speed like an electronic road and if the speed limit is gone over the road should somehow stop the vehicles movement and actions this way nobody gets hurt and nobody has to worry about going over the limit
Mon Jun 27 22:43:14 2005

Spike, E Sussex
Keith. You use the example of your niece in a supermarket car park, but it's highly unlikely that you would ever find traffic police patrolling such a location anyway. We are all agreed that there should be more traffic police on the roads, and I personally think there should be many, many more mobile camera units who can be anywhere, anytime - ie 'covert' units. THAT *WOULD* be a deterrent to the vast majority of 'speeders'. And I think you're wrong about cameras. When people get a fine and two or three points on their license, most of them 'learn' not to exceed the speed limits again.
Thu Jun 23 11:23:15 2005

mick.medway
speed cameras can be a good :big brother: in the right place.they do work 24 hours a day, whether they have film in them or not.they do make you realize that 30 miles an hour can be fast if you hit someone at that speed,although it may seem like your not moving hardly.but they do cause bunching and they do cause accidents by drivers braking hard and someone following to close behind,but what of the mobile cameras.do they only work office hours maybe 9.00am till 3.00pm. never seen them out of these hours.and a lot of accidents happen out of these hours through drivers belting to work half asleep, on the phone down narrow roads.jumping traffic lights.jumping lanes,not indicating, all adds up to an accident waiting to happen.yes I think some cameras are a good deterant in the right place,and maybe mobile ones ; out of hours;could be a good addition if it makes roads safer to drive on for everyone.
Wed Jun 22 20:44:02 2005

keith Ashford
Spike E, speed cameras are not a panacea. They dont educate people how to drive properly. There have been many accidents around Bethersden where the speed limit is 60 but several fatal accidents havent been caused by people going over the speed limit just not taking into consideration the nature of the road. I can drive 79 miles a hour on a motorway because im allowed 10% plus 2 miles of the the speed limit when a camera is present. Take this as an example of poor driving that is dangerous but not involving excesive speed; my niece was with my sister in a tesco car park when a woman reversed out whilst using her hand held mobile phone and not looking in her mirror. It was only the quick thinking of my sister that stopped my niece being knocked over by a massive 4x4. When my sister told the female driver that she shouldnt be on the phone whilst driving she was told to f off. She didnt think there was anything wrong with what she was doing. I actually agree with a lot of speed cameras but not just not in replacement of road police who can spot things like tailgating, using a hand held phone etc.
Wed Jun 22 14:38:13 2005

Spike, E Sussex
If I multiply 7 by 7 and get 48, then THAT is an error Keith. Driving like a moron is NOT an "error".
Tue Jun 21 15:14:18 2005

Sam, Rochester
In response to my post a few weeks back, Ive now got my 3 points and have been fined. I agree with both Paul and Brians comments but what I still cant comprehend is what good is that van doing at 06:15am other than making money? I totally, 110% agree with them if they were positioned around schools or built up areas where the extra 8-10mph does make a difference but on the road I was on, and the time of day I was on it, I cant see any justification for it at all.....
Mon Jun 13 15:34:53 2005

keith Ashford
Speed isnt the only cause of accidents. Its is a major cause but itsnt the only cause. On a roundabout people pull out when there is no gap in the traffic, speed doesnt play a part when they crash into a oncoming car. Speed cameras are just lazy policing. A speed camera doesnt stop someone driving with a hand held mobile does it?. The law says a policeman has to catch a person using a mobile whilst driving. I find people doing that just as dangerous as people speeding but there isnt a camera that can catch them at it. Im sure the more educated among you would have heard of the saying; lies, damned lies and statistics. Ive been in 3 accidents, none of which were my fault and none were caused by people driving too fast. One was a women on her phone changing lanes and not looking at her mirrors, one was a man tailgating and going into the back of me and the other was a man clipping my back end whilst changing lanes. All driver error. I speed on motorways if they are clear but i take into account the conditions and the type of road. I certainly wouldnt speed on a country lane if fact i would go 10mph under at night because of the risk involved. Motorway speeds need to be changed to take into account the time of day, the volume of traffic. I find one thing on motorways very dangerous - that is trucks overtaking each other using the middle lane to do so. This causes most of the traffic to go into the fast lane and can cause major tailbacks. Most of the trucks can only go 60mph, why do they need to overtake each other?.
Sat Jun 11 21:19:07 2005

Spike, E Sussex
Keith. If "accidents are caused by driver error on the whole", then how do you account for the fact that 90% of driving offences are caused by men? For example: Men commit 97% of dangerous driving offences, 84% of offences involving neglect of traffic signs and directions or of pedestrian rights, and 83% of speeding offences. The reality is that the vast majority of fatal and serious injury collisions are caused by excessive speed, whether within a given limit or above it (but mainly above it!). To have a 60mph limit on country lanes, for example, is a recipe for death and destruction, and it should be reduced to a maximum of 40mph, and a maximum of 20mph when and where any given road passes through a village or hamlet.
Fri Jun 10 12:42:43 2005

Greg, Sheppey
Mich is right about the Sheppey signage overload, but there is an additional context. 18 of them went up 2 months after the camera, INCLUDING both of the 30mph speed limit signs. This limit is a revised limit (down from 40) which the Kent Speed Camera partnership didn't seee fit to inform us. Didn't catch me out (thanks geodesy).
Fri Jun 10 12:09:35 2005

Mich, S London
"Cameras we all know are to make MONEY", so says John. Even if that were the case - which it is not - you, and anyone else who is of the same opinion, know what to do about it, don't you. Drive within the speed limits. Or is that too difficult to understand?
Thu Jun 9 16:39:15 2005

Mich - Minster Sheppey
This has got to be a record! After the installation of a speed camera in Chequers Road, Minster, there are now 20 warning signs in the space of a mile. It appears that there may have been a surplus of signs that needed disposing of.
Thu Jun 9 16:14:07 2005

Neil Rainham
I support speed cameras, but would also like to see the use of more mobile cameras, and at times other than 8 - 4pm. I consider the attitude of people that do object to them, is simply a case of putting two fingers up to the law, and that this reflects their general attitude to life. They are unprofessional, and incapable of adhering to protocols and procedures. Recently I was about to buy some batteries from a well known high street retailer, when I saw that they were selling a speed trap detector. I consider this to be immoral, and refused to continue with my purchase. Other supporters of cameras should adopt the same approach.
Wed Jun 8 17:45:55 2005

AC, Gravesend
The Gatso Speed Camera on A2026 Victoria Road/Burnham Road facing Dartford is SO badly placed when it flashes speeding traffic it BLINDS drivers driving towards Erith. Well done on the brilliant placing of the camera whomever is responsible!!!
Tue Jun 7 08:47:19 2005

brian maidstone
Yes Paul, in my days it used to be part of the main complex overlooking the main road at the front left of the main block that is before the big concrete monstrosity was built now replaced by the fcc!
Sun Jun 5 09:18:43 2005

John Westgate-on-Sea
Its sods law really. Back in 1964 we killed 9,600 people on the roads and we didn't know what to do with body parts. In 2004 we killed 3,500 people on the roads and we know what to do with body parts but there is a great shortage of them! We are one of the best countries in the world for road safety and good driving, Hard to believe but its true. Cameras we all know are to make MONEY, A bit more courtesy on the part of the Police and other authorities, Thoes wonderful signs that flash up and tell you that you are doing over the speed limit are great and I respect them, we should replace all cameras with these great signs, OOPS!! I forgot, They dont make money. For interesting reading about cameras go to www.notsoacurate.co This will make your hair curl.
Sat Jun 4 20:19:33 2005

Paul Deal
Brain I used to work in the FCC so if you know what that is then you may know who I am.
Wed Jun 1 12:37:01 2005

brian,Maidstone
Hi Sam, Sounds like you have been slowing down for the Willington Street Speed Camera then speeding up after or before it. It was in the local paper that people were just slowing down for the camera and then speeding up going down the dip beyond and that the police were going to back up the cameras with the mobile units a short way down the road...am I right? It pays to read the local paper...
Tue May 31 19:35:52 2005

Paul Deal
Sam well you should not speed at 6;15 in the morning or at any other time of the day in a 30 mph limit, 3 points and a lesson learned I hope. Why try and get away from the fact that you broke the law and you should learn from your mistake. Next time you speed you could be on the slippery road on killing someone. If you want that on your mind for the rest of your life then do carry on driving like a speed merchant. I travel by train now gave up driving because people do not care anymore.
Tue May 31 11:07:56 2005

Sam, Rochester
Going through Maidstone on the way home after a night shift at approx 06:15am, I was greeted by a mobile speed camera....(as in the vans with the back doors open)The road was clear...hardly any motorists on the road and next to no-one walking around and yet there they were trying to catch us. In my books they are the biggest waste of time and are nothing but money spinners. Im now awaitin points and a fine when I was doing no more than 40 in a 30 zone. This countrys ethics seem to be all wrong and motorists get nothing but grief from the government
Fri May 27 03:34:59 2005

Si Herne Bay
Interesting stuff Brian - I don't claim to be the best driver on the road, but Kents motorways are starting to annoy now, try the new M2 stretch any tea time for a good example of why I think there should be more police around. 4 lanes and guess where everyone is, crammed into the outside two! I don't think ive seen a car or lorry (don't get me started on them) on the inside lane ever. I am also not a slow driver but im no speed demon either but that road is like a racetrack most nights. I know its not there fault but please lets have some police on the roads and not grey boxes that people slow down for then speed up once clear!
Thu May 26 21:29:39 2005

Brian, Maidstone
Si, You are wrong.. The traffic police were decimated BEFORE cameras were even thought of in Kent. In days gone by there were 6 Traffic Bases with bucket loads of experienced Police Officers manning them. They were at the following locations: Sevenoaks,Swanley,Maidstone Chatham,Canterbury and Ashford. Each Base run at least half a dozen cars and motorcyclists as well (with the exception of Swanley which was a offshoot of Sevenoaks)on each of three basic shifts covering the 24 hour period. Their primary job was to enforce the traffic law throught Kent...not as it is now. One central Base at Maidstone where the traffic cars travel out of each shift to the extremes of Kent just manning the Motorways and the A2 corridor. The cuts went way back over 15 years+. Traffic Police were regarded as a "Optional Extra" by the Chief Constables encouraged on by the Government who wanted the Chief Constables to put resorces back into solving "Crimes" So all the experienced traffic officers looked on as a stregic reserve by most town patrols when trouble hits ie Friday Nights and Saturday nights were told that they were going to be re-deployed solving crimes! No one actually looked at the statistics which showed that the traffic division were one of the best at "solving crimes!" Beleive it or not even in the 80`s and early 90`s when all this started criminals actually used cars to get around...its true! Traffic Officers stopped suspicious cars!! Guess what...they turned up many many good arrests of the burglers/rapists/muggers and the like. No Si, Cameras didn`t start appearing until the late 90`s in Kent..We had one of the first ones near my house in Loose Road Maidstone. By that time the Traffic Police was as it is now...with one base at Maidstone. On this occasion the cart did go before the horse.
Tue May 24 18:51:18 2005

Mike, Kent
Quote: "Are you not just both being self-indulgent?"... this proves my point completely, even yourself appears to lack the knowledge of self regulating speed limits and situation assessment. Yes, the unexpected CAN happen. How are your hazard perception skills? Most people are clueless about the topic! By the way, an interesting fact, there has been a dramatic increase in HGV crashes since all the trucks were governed to 60mph.. simply because such a low speed creates boredom..
Mon May 23 12:00:58 2005

Si - Herne Bay
Forget cameras get more police on the roads, doing what should be doing, IE stamping on driving that does not comply with the laid down rules. As a daily motorway user (M2/M25) I am convinced that the introduction of cameras has led to a reduction of police patrols (anyone care to prove me wrong) and a subsequent drop in driving standards. Oh and my own personal gripe - lane hoggers - those that sit in one of the outer lanes, when the inside one is empty - should be shot (only kidding)
Sun May 22 21:44:39 2005

keith Ashford
Mike i agree with all you say and find what you say is just what is needed is this country. Accidents are caused by driver errors on the whole. Of course speed is a factor but when im driving, im amazed at some drivers in their 40's, 50's and older, who i would assume have been driving for many years, fail to drive correctly. I myself am not perfect when driving, but when i make a mistake, id like to think i learn from it. The worse sorts of drivers are the ones who seem to think they havent done anything wrong when for example; they dont indicate round roundabouts, dont indicate when coming off motorways, tailgating, driving when using mobiles, cutting people up when 2 lanes merge into one. At the end of the day, driving is a complex skill and just because you pass a test doesnt mean you know everything. Speed cameras can be very useful but there is no way they should replace traffic police. I believe driving while on a hand held mobile is just as dangerous as driving 20 miles above the speed limit, yet unless a traffic cop catches you in the act, you will not be prosecuted.
Mon May 16 22:52:53 2005

Jennifer, Canterbury
Huck. And how many people - mainly men of course - do you think had exactly the same mindset prior to killing or crippling themselves or somebody else? Tens and tens of thousands over the years no doubt. It doesn't matter HOW observant you are, the unexpected is always going to happen sooner or later, and the faster you're driving the less time you have to react. And are you sure it was a 'cyclist', and not some young idiot on a pushbike, the likes of whom go on to buy their brmm brmm machines and race around endangering peoples lives everywhere they go. But like Mike, you just don't get it do you. You could be the two best drivers in the world, but what does THAT matter! You both acknowledge that the roads are full of morons, so putting certain limits up is just going to encourage them to drive even more recklessly, with the result that even MORE people will be killed and maimed. Are you not just both being self-indulgent?
Mon May 16 22:45:36 2005

Steve, Tunbridge Wells
I also agree with James although not entirely. The idea of banning someone without tax and insurance is a good idea although it is possible that sometimes people forget to renew their insurance and tax. I definitely think a lifetime ban would be in order for repeat offenders who blantantly do it on purpose. But then again these are the type of people who get given a ban but then simply go straight from court and into another vehicle!
Mon May 16 17:05:05 2005

Paul Deal
I totally agree with JAMES FROM MAIDSTONE your idea's are perfect to get people to be wary of the conciquences of their actions when driving. When a person has lost their live's then the person responsible should be punished within the law and human right's. But I know what human right activists will say. ( you cannot lock up someone). But they should be for taking someones life! As Jame's correctly point's out all those with no insurance or tax or license should be banned for life and (if we could) brand them with a hot iron across there forehead the letters F W . make your own mind up what those letters stand for but you would keep away from them. Why can we not bring back the stocks as a means of a punshisment and throw all that rotten school food at the one's caught and branded. We could take all our agression out by throwing rotten tomatoes and veg at them !!!
Mon May 16 15:15:44 2005

James, Maidstone
Driving is a privilege, not a right so it's high time driving standards were improved. New drivers should face a minimum of 6 months basic driver training including skid control and motorway driving. There should be a limit to the number of attempts at passing the driving test. All drivers should face assessments every 5 years - if they fail to meet the required standard a period of mandatory retraining should be undertaken. All drivers involved in any kind of road accident should undergo a driving assessment. Any driver caught without a licence or insurance should be banned for life with harsh sentences for reoffending. If these draconian measures were taken, our roads would be much safer because all drivers/motorcyclists would be aware of the implications if things went wrong and so drive/ride at a suitable speed for the road and conditions - which might mean 100mph on an empty motorway or 5mph in a built-up area.
Sun May 15 23:07:37 2005

sioux swale
Speed enforcement cameras are there just to raise revenue. To reduce accidents there should be a police presence. End of argument.
Sat May 14 16:27:26 2005

Paul Deal
As announced on capitol gold 10 05 05, No foriegn drivers will be prosecuted as their number plates cannot be traced. that's of thousands of driver's. Just proves to me what a stupid country we live in. Our law's are draconion, out dated and the C P O are stupid. If the people coming into this country have to fill in forms through the travel companys to gain tickets to get into our country I am sure that their number plates could be traced through that system and if these travel companys have a data base then the law's will have to be changed so that this information will have to be given to the police DATA PROTECTION IS Disfunctional. What if a foriegn person commits a serious crime over here? What then?
Tue May 10 09:15:37 2005

Mike, Kent
I whole-heartedly agree with 'Huck, London'. I too am an experienced rider and rarely stick to the speed limits. A good driver/rider knows what is a safe speed.. ie. while passing a school entrance during chuck-out time, even 20mph can feel to fast. However, on a motorway on a clear dry day, then 70mph is proposterously slow. I regularly pass police cars on the motorway at around 85mph and they don't bat an eyelid. What needs to happen, is a change in driver education. I ride around 300 miles a week on motorways and some of the most dangerous driving I see, is tail-gaiting. If they want to stop fatal pile-ups, then the cameras should be fitted with an extra system that photographs cars closer than '2 seconds' (if you drive and don't know what the two second rule is, then find out!). And this should be doubled in the wet. Also, speed limits for open roads is rediculously low and hasn't changed in decades and I think that motorway limits of 80mph for dry conditions and 60mph for wet is far more realistic (France quite happily enforces a dual-limit system like this). An extra system that could work is an incentive scheme, whereby drivers with nil penalty points get a 50% discount on the tax disk and that in turn could be carried onto insurance. And for those of you who think that 70mph is fast, you must have no real idea about speed at all. If you drive a car that is capable of a 100mph max at 70mph, then you are driving at 70% of its limits, on tyres that are not high performance and you probably have no idea of what to do, should the worst happen. My bike can do 150mph (potentially) and even at 100mph I am still pushing less hard than most small car drivers push thier little cars, but I have expensive sticky tyres and huge brake disks that can out-break a wasp! I think this whole debate is more complex than just '70 is the limit, period!'.. the driving test is too easy and too many people have no idea how to drive. Bottom line.
Mon May 9 21:50:59 2005

Jennifer, Canterbury
Sam. Between 1994 and 2003 the number of fatalities on urban roads DECREASED by 15.5%, but on rural roads the number of fatalities INCREASED by 5.2% (source: DfT). Do you have an explanation for why that happened? Could it be anything to do with the proliferation of road humps (in urban areas) in the early 1990's, and the proliferation of safety cameras (in urban areas) since 2000/2001?
Tue May 3 11:42:08 2005

hannah bromley
In Spain there is a percentage rule so you can exceed the speed limit by a certain amount for the short distance it needs to overtake. Seems sensible. I'm happy to have lots of cameras, especially if they are the ones which pull a smiling face to congratulate you. It seems unfair though if one man is penalised for being 5 miles over, while overtaking, and another gets the same penalty for tearing down the whole length of the road at 20 over.
Wed Apr 27 15:21:03 2005

Sam... Margate
Being an Advanced motorcyclist and car driver. I feel that Speed Camera placement is one of cost effectiveness for Councils, revenue collection, and accident figures are being massaged to justify their installations. Maybe the question should be asked: and ANSWERED! What was the cause of the alleged accidents? Was it speed? Or some other factor? Was the vehicle legally on the road, was it stolen, was the driver tested for drink or drugs? What were the road conditions that prevailed at the time of the; alleged speed induced accident? Was the road in perfect order. Was the lighting adequate? etc etc. Yes...instead of making criminals of most of the decent law abiding Drivers or riders. Should we not be asking more questions into the complete Facts! and not the unqualified, and in my opinion, massaged figures for the camera installations? I know that most people do try to stay to the reccommended speed limit. But as we are all human. We do sometimes creep over it from time to time. No-one is perfect! So are we to assume: BLINDLY! that we have to be made criminals off to ensure we adhere to these regulations? When, if the real reasons were honestly known. That speed is not the full reason to the alleged accidents! I agree to cameras positioned at schools, hospitals, and areas were there is a need. Even in areas that the authorities can proove has a definite SPEEDING! accident problem: But not positioned with ambiguity, and massaged to justify their exsistance. I ride a motorcycle and have had various near misses through poor 4 wheeled and more so-called drivers. Road furniture is another problem. Such as the positioning of Man-hole covers. Even line paint can cause problems, especially in the wet! Ruts and gouges in the roads, un-even surfaces, and stupid drivers unnessessarily braking on seeing a speed camers. These all can be the cause of an accident! NOT JUST SPEED! So...come on lets get it right. Stop trying to justify the reasons, and be up-front and honest! We dont want to be maimed or die out there on the road. Lets educate the riders and drivers. Stop persucuting and prosecuting the decent road users! Put more traffic police out there who have a knowledge of what is required. NOT! inanimate, non thinking objects. Stop reducing the real professionals: The Traffic Police, who can, and do the job better than Cameras. Justifying the need to cover the country in cameras is not good house keeping, and poor road management. Educate all road users, stop allienating them. Be cognisant of the facts; that sooner or later, the decent road users will see what is happening, and WILL! start to ask the right questions. Lets get it right now, and everyone will feel that there isn't an alternative motif. Thankyou. Lead by example.
Tue Apr 26 13:14:26 2005

Phillip Maidstone
We all won't be going anywhere if there is going to be a blockade at these fuel depot's.I think the farmers are starting this all ready. Oh what are we going to do!!!! No more speeding no more driving.No more car's lorry's motorcycles. Emergancy service vehicles will not be able to get to their destination's people while suffer.As annouced on Capitol gold today 25.04.05.
Mon Apr 25 14:25:18 2005

Huck, london
I have been riding a motorcycle for over 30 years. I have police 1A standard. I have taken every advanced lesson there is, and I speed everywhere. But, I beleive that I am observant and am able to judge for myself how to drive to prevailing conditions. I slow down for school times and speed up on motorways. I, obviously, slow down for cameras, but why should I crawl along at 2am on a dry empty motorway? I have only had one accident in over 30 years: a pushbike jumped a traffic light and hit me side on. Speed: me about 10 mph him: about 15mph. If only there had been a 'safety' camera there for the red light! Instead I was out of pocket for being hit by an uninsured 'driver'. Personally I would like to see the book thrown at anyone speeding in 'high-risk' areas and more leniency for speed elsewhere. At the same time, it would be nice to have more police precence on the roads to tame the irresponsible morons amongst us: the tailgaters, the lane hoggers, the 'I'm safe because I have my blinding fog light on', those who drink coffee, make phone calls, bend down to pick up the dropped cd and even the absolute moron, a salesman driving at 80mph in the middle lane of the M2 whist doing his paperwork on his lap. You can imagine how he was driving. And not a 'safety camera' anywhere
Sat Apr 23 16:41:37 2005

Donut, Sheppey
Phil - why must we all be lemmings and do 7omph on the motorway ... apart from the fact its the law (is this your obsession?). M'ways are incredibly safe roads, limits were set a number of 'technology' generations ago (even tho' Dept Transport refuses to update its 'braking distances info and other so called facts), plus vehices are infinitely safer and more capable at sustaining safe higher speeds.... and it's sooooo dull? Also, if its so dangerous to travel at 80, 90 +, how come they're still the safest places to be when everyone but you flagrantly speeds on them?
Sat Apr 23 09:00:10 2005

Phil, London
Firstly, no one should complain about speed cameras. If you can't drive at the correct speed then you should be punished. If you haven't seen a sign you should assume 30, it's in the highway code. But my main point is motorways. I drive at 70 but I seem to be one of very few people who do. I used to travel between Gilligham Kent and Cambridge frequently and on some occasions every other vehicle on the road (except HGV's and some caravans) sped past me. The highways agency needs to put distance speed cameras over motorways to keep people at 70 throughout.
Thu Apr 21 13:05:30 2005

keith ashford
I agree there are a need for cameras but first you need clear signs telling you what the speed limit is and not speeds that constantly change every mile. Im just as concerned with people driving with mobile phones and people not signaling. I see it all the time in Ashford, the worst time is down mace lane when the mums pick their kids up from school. ive had 3 near misses with driver using their phones and not paying attention but they only ever get done when a policeman catches them in the act. I think this is just as dangerous as speeding, but its harder to enforce than "lazy" speed cameras who do all the work for the police.
Mon Apr 18 17:41:23 2005

Phillip maidstone
To chris Guilford, I am all for speed camera's and traffic police. We need more. If people drive with no due care and attention then they should be punished. I used to be a Driving instructor/Examiner for a certain business. I used to fail many pupils through their ignorance of the rules and regulations set down by Law. Then they turn around and say "yes but I passed my civillian road test". My driving instructions and exams involve high speed pursuits and response times have to be followed by the book or you lose your career.Lot's of skills should be taught to civillian drivers on lot's of aspects,correct speeds regard the highway code and much much more. Then we would not need traffic police. The police should then crack down on real criminals but untill we the genral public respect the laws of the road we need to have traffic police.
Fri Apr 15 12:49:59 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Sorry to contradict you Phillip, but regarding the severity of the injuries sustained in the event of a collision, it DOES matter how fast or how slow a motorist was travelling, and generally speaking, the faster the speed the more likely it is the injuries will be fatal or serious, and the slower the speed the less likely it is the injuries will be fatal or serious. That is just plain common sense. And the faster the speed the more likely it is that a serious injury collision will occur in the first place, and the slower the speed the less likely it is. The implication of what you are saying - as other contributors to this debate have done before you - is that if a motorist is "trained to respect the roads", he or she can drive as fast as they like. I think not. The unexpected is always going to happen sooner or later, and it is a combination of the unexpected and unsafe speed that causes the vast majority of the carnage. And just how do you propose 'training' the motorists who don't have any respect for other road users? And what is your view regarding motorists who exceed speed limits? And what is your view regarding speed cameras? As regards the "impatient motorist" who overtook you etc, we all see people driving dangerously every day, but no matter how many traffic police there were, they cannot be everywhere all the time. I wonder how much it would cost to fit all vehicles with video cameras, as many police vehicles have now. Combined with penalties that really DO deter, THAT would discourage the vast majority of motor-morons.
Thu Apr 14 23:54:50 2005

Phillip maidston
To chris guilford. I was making a statement that to the effect of, that it does not matter how slow or fast a vehicle is going it is the Human being behind the wheel that needs to be trained to respect the roads. The vehicle is a man made object and we control them. It is us humans that need mind training. Like a chimpanzee that has no idea how to cook. So we as a society must start to realise that we all should respect the law's that have been agreed by the rest of human society. This morning I was overtaken by an impaitent motorist in a built up area, school kids crossing the road. The bloke was even on his phone! Why is there no police anymore?
Wed Apr 13 08:35:29 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Phillip. Whilst it's true in theory that cars/vehicles can kill at any speed, in practice it mainly happens when they are travelling at a fast speed. Or to put it another way (in view of your comments), if all vehicles travelled at 5mph all of the time, the annual toll of road deaths would probably amount to about three or four, if that! Bob. How can cameras be used "purely for revenue earners"? You make it sound as if people don't have a choice about whether or not they exceed speed limits. And (fixed) cameras ARE all located at collision black spots, so there's really no need to be "fed up" Bob. And what is this "case" you refer to? And in what sense are you "being held to ransom by backdoor methods of raising revenue" Bob? Do you mean cameras? As for cameras v traffic police, we've already been over that ground about twenty or thirty times or more during the course of this debate Bob, and given that cameras have reduced speeding by an average of 70% at camera sites and that in turn has reduced fatal and serious injury collisions by an average of 40%, most of the contributors to this debate are agreed that we need more cameras AND more traffic police.
Mon Apr 11 18:56:20 2005

Bob Adcock Medway
I have no objection to gatso cameras in accident black spots and in sensitive areas(schools etc) but am absolutely fed up with them being used purely for revenue earners. It is about ime that drivers had a voice in government ,both local and national,to put thier case.Without good public transport there is no other options and we are being held to ransom by backdoor methods of raising revenue. A police presence is a far better deterrent to speeding and can also detect unroadworhty vehicles ,not to mention dangerous drivers who can simply ignore cameras as they do not register the vehicle in the 1st place.
Sun Apr 10 00:54:15 2005

Jim Maidstone
Hi Ted, Sounds like you have a real problem there on the A28 in Kennington,why don`t you contact your loacal police station (in writing) and ask them when they last got out and did a speed enforcement check there on the A28. I am talking about the local police not the Kent and Medway Safety Cameras as their hands appear to be tied because of Government criteria...They are ther NOT to catch people speeding but to reduce casulties. As you say in your posting (not quite right) there has to be 4 fatal OR serious injury accidents in a stretch of 1km in 3 years for a stretch of road to "qualify" for speed cameras. This does not apply to police enforcement. This is where the local police can help. I understand that Kent is divided into "Areas" and each of the areas have a speed gun either radar of laser which they can respond to complaints from the public. So get writing to your local police station and get your friends and neighbours to write in too.. It works, I did this in the Maidstone Area about a stretch of road where no-one kept to the speed limit and someone took out my fence and hit a lampost down the road. The local police now come here and do speed checks at least once a week usually with a book full of tickets to give out. It certanly has some effect.
Sat Apr 9 20:36:22 2005

Ted Prangnell Kennington Ashford
We only have one speed camera in the whole of Ashford, and we had to fight to get that. I was hit by a car and knocked 25 meters down the A28. The Police recorded the incident as a 'FATAL' It is supposed to be a 30 mph. limit. Cars regular travel at 50 mph and a lot more. There have been numerous crashes, but no one has been killed YET! However we need to have 4 fatalities within 3 years! This is outrageous. We have elderly people, children., mothers with prams, disabled, all of whom have great difficulty getting across our road. Motor cycles travell at excessive speeds often overtaking cars which arte already sppeeding. Why isn't there a speed canmera or two? why isn't there a pedestrian crossing. This is a residential area for God's sake. The cost of my 3 months in hospital, and years of after care must be very considerable, why don't we try and stop these casualties happening? The motor vehicle is a potentially lethal weapon. Imagine if anyone was seen waving a sub-machinegun around the streets, and acting recklessly, there would be panic staions. But if it is a car driver, then there isn't, yet the latter can do far more damage. We bought a mobile community speed camera a year ago, but, as yet, the police have not let us use it! AND we were taught atbtraining that we are not allowed to record vehicles unless they are travelling above 36 mph! Why?
Fri Apr 8 21:59:43 2005

Phillip maidstone
The year 1807 Benz (mercedees) brought the first production car into britain. The speed limit was 5mph max. The motor man walking in front of the car with his little red flag to warn other people to get off the road. The first reported RTA resulting in a Fatal Death of a Red Flag man being run over by a 5mph car. All cars at any speed can kill.So get rid of car's and have more planes!!!!!
Mon Apr 4 16:52:09 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Iain. You said in your post that the speed limit was lowered from 50mph to 40mph on the A13, "thus ensuring a steady income from the cameras". Are you implying that there weren't any signs erected so as to make drivers aware of the change in the speed limit? Or are you implying that a lot of drivers aren't concentrating on what they are doing? As regards to the "design speed" of the A278 in Gillingham being "120mph", who exactly said this? (sounds preposterous to me given that the national speed limit is 70mph). You finish your post by implying that all motorists are good, safe, and capable drivers, who know exactly what they are doing, and that their "instinct" knows best. Does that include the "instinct" of the hundreds of thousands of boy racers, and the hundreds of thousands of zippies? You also state that the reduction from 70mph to 50mph was "against the wishes of the local police". Where did you hear this - ie what was your source? As regards to the speed limits being set at a "reasonably high level in the first place", I'm sure many people would agree that most limits are in fact set too high, and always have been, and thank heavens for a bit of common sense at long last.
Sun Apr 3 21:06:31 2005

Jane, Rochester
Barbara, try driving at 28 in a 30 camera zone, and 38 in a 40 zone. If someone tailgates you, drop your speed gradually by 10mph, that always does the trick for me.
Sat Apr 2 22:59:12 2005

Jim Maidstone
Babera, I beleive your (and many other peoples) problem arises from a lack of understanding of the law concerning what is a "restricted road" In the Highway Code (I think it is rule 103) what makes a road subject to 30mph be it a single carriageway or dual carriageway all depends on the distance between the street lights! Yes this is the way to see if the limit is 30 40 50 or anything else...It is quite simple really if the steet lignts are within 200yds apart then the speed limit is automatically 30mph UNLESS there are repeater signs to show another speed limit. No repeater signs = 30mph repater signs are a smaller version of the big ones that you pass when entering a different limit they are usually put on lamposts at regular intervals. For me a good example is the A228 going out of Maidstone Town centre towards Chatham. In the centre of Maidstone there are no repeater signs so the speed limit is 30mph. The road is a dual carriageway througout. As you go out along the A228 Fairmeadow the limit changes alomost opposite the new House Of Fraser store to 40mph. The steet lights are the same except you have now passed the 40 signs. If you now look on the lamposts you will now see 40 repeater signs in the 30 limit there are NO repeater signs ...the lamposts are the indication its a 30 limit unless you see signs to the contary. The road stays 40mph for about a mile then you pass big 50mph signs. You then see repeater signs on the lamposts saying 50mph. You then go under the M20 motorway still in a 50mph limit, the lighting is exactly the same as in the town centre...big lamposts with yellow lights on. You then start to climb up Bluebell Hill the 50 finishes and you get the white signs with the black bar on them this is the end of speed limit signs which on a dual carriageway means that you can go up to 70mph. You will see again smaller versions of the white circle and black bar on, fixed to the lamposts up the hill. You then get up the top of the hill just before the M2 slip road off when the limit drops to 50mph again big 50 signs followed by smaller repeater signs on the lamposts. If you go off the slip road to the big roundabout it drops to 40mph for the roundabout at the top. As you can see its not the type of road that you can tell what the speed limit is it is the street lamps AND the repeater signs that tell you what the speed limit is..The rule of thumb is Street lights = 30mph unless you can see signs saying a different limit.. Does this help?
Sat Apr 2 20:24:08 2005

Barbara, Rainham
Having been 'caught' on a speed camera last year I'm now very conscious indeed of my speed and sticking to the speed limits. There are two points I would like to raise. (1) Sometimes it is hard to determine exactly what the speed limit is (i.e. I was caught doing exactly 40 on a dual carriageway stretch which turned out to have a 30 limit) and (2) when doing 30 in a 30 zone (or 40 in a 40 zone come to that) why am I constantly feeling 'buzzed' by other drivers who virtually have their nose in my boot. Pull back guys, I'm not going to risk another 3 points just to please you lot! I have no problem with speed cameras, provided that the roads are clearly marked to show what the limit is then we all have a choice!
Thu Mar 31 17:11:37 2005

Jim ,Maidstone
To Chris and Jim, I have seen the cameras since day one on the Thursday before Easter Bank Holiday. I questioned the Kent and Medway safety Camera Partnership as they were at the Medway Maritime show over the weekend and I was told that the cameras were there because Kent Police and the Highways Agency put the contra flow in to help the flow of traffic to Dover if Oeration Stack was put in over the bank Holiday. The one lane coastbound against the flow on the Londonbound carriageway was to prevent the bottlenecks occouring on the A20 through Harrietsham and Charing areas where all the cars going abroad would be sent if the contraflow was not set up. Because there were only a set of cones (no temporary crash barrier 13 miles long is in existance in this country) between the 2 lanes london bound and the 1 lane contraflow coast bound, then for the health and safety of the road users a 40 limit had to be applied to the length of affected road. This speed limit had to be enforcable so speed cameras were placed along its length. This was the responsibility of Kent Police and the Highways agency and NOT the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership ie this camera scheme will not be run by the partnership and no application can therefore be made for reinbursement of any costs for the running of the scheme can be made from the monies paid in fines by the motorists caught. What this I think means is that the running of all this is borne by local ratepayers and or the government which I think is not exactly fair... why not let the people caught speeding through the contra flow pay for it and not us in the form of Council tax (The Police bit of it) I wonder what all this cost? perhaps someone who knows where to ask under the freedom of information act might do this...
Wed Mar 30 22:13:13 2005

Iain, Gillingham
Speed camera's aren't necessarily a bad idea. However the speed limits themselves should be set at a reasonably high level in the first place. The A13 in London was mentioned - this road has had a multi-million pound overhaul to make it safer and increase it's design speed but the legal speed limit was lowered from 50mhp to 40mhp thus ensuring a steady income from the cameras. Similarly the A278 in Gillingham has recently gone from 70mhp to 50mhp overnight (against the wishes of the local police). The design speed of this road remains at 120mhp so the drivers instinct is to drive faster than the law allows. I expect cameras to appear here very soon as this will be another good revenue stream against the nasty dangerous drivers.
Wed Mar 30 12:55:31 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Sorry Jim, but I don't follow. Are you saying there is a proposal to put speed cameras all along the motorway between Ashford and Maidstone? It's the first I've heard about it, and there is nothing on the Kent and Medway Camera Partnership's website about it. But even if that were to be the case - which seems most unlikely - in what way are they rubbing "salt in the wounds" and making "us" pay for it? (could you direct me to the source of the story).
Tue Mar 29 15:08:59 2005

Jim Folkestone
Ido not really mind speed cams if for instance they are erected at say an accident black spot but what i do object to is when as has just happened on the m20 they introduce operation stack to make us late for work and late for getting home(i work in maidstone)but just to rub salt in the wounds they want us to pay for it by installing them all down the motorway between ashford and maidstone
Fri Mar 25 18:06:44 2005

Jennifer, Canterbury
The number of British military personnel killed and missing in action in WW11 was 306,213 (Source: The American War Library - see 'Casualty Lists'). The number of people killed on the roads in Britain from 1945-2003 was 329,101 (Source DfT).
Wed Mar 23 21:57:43 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Baz: Why don't YOU stop pretending that speed cameras DON'T make the roads safer! As for giving road-users a say, they have had a say, and 75%-80% of them support the use of cameras and agree that they save lives and reduce the number of serious road crashes, and 90% of people in rural communities want to see speed limits reduced. The only people who are opposed to cameras - apart from a few hotheads - are those in the motoring lobby, but they don't say so publicly of course, and leave that up to their 'front' groups such as the abhorrent Ass. of British Drivers and Safe - "cameras are a virus" - Speed, who actually seem to revel in referring to themselves as SS. And I don't see much by way of a "grown up discussion" coming from the anti-camera camp in this debate - including yourself Baz - just distortion and misrepresentation and smears, not to mention a patronising arrogance. And by the way, could you explain what a 'non-genuine' road user is please?
Sat Mar 19 00:33:51 2005

Bumble,Dartford
Perhaps we should think more about the victims of speeding,the lucky ones get a second chance and are others less fortunate.I do get tied of those drivers moaning about how mch the fine is,it is very cheap compared to a loss of life.
Fri Mar 18 07:00:25 2005

Jane, Rochester
I'm amazed by selfish people who don't want speed cameras. Nobody likes to be fined, so don't speed when you see those camera signs! It's not too tricky for even male 20 something drivers to figure is it? I was on the A13 this week, stuck in a jam. The camera on the other side flashed several times per minute! Is that a world record for the number of idiots in a confined space?
Thu Mar 17 15:32:48 2005

Jennifer, Canterbury
"For those in favour of speed cameras to constantly try to hold the moral high ground by stating that, anybody against is clearly a car killer...". And when was that Baz? It's just the same old lame tactics, isn't it? And I should point out that cars can't be 'killed' Baz, it's cars - and other vehicles - that kill people, in their thousands, every year, year in and year out. It's funny really, but I was just thinking to myself a couple of days ago how none of the anti-camsters in this debate (as far as I am aware) have resorted to using the "anti-car" tactic, which I found quite surprising once I'd thought of it, and low and behold, Baz, in his desperation, pulls it out of the bag of old dirty tricks. If you can't beat them, smear them! If people don't exceed the limits, then they won't get flashed and fined. It's as simple as that. Or do you think they have some divine right to travel at whatever speed they want to?
Wed Mar 16 19:13:12 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Neil. Given that "We probably aren't too far apart" regarding cameras - as you said in your post of March 2nd - and given that we agree about the need for more traffic police, why do you say the following things in your post of March 12th: 1) "So we will have to stand by our own views"; 2) "I am sure you won't change your position as I can see you have strong convictions on the subject"; 3) "...as you have such a fixed position on the subject...." In other words: 1) In what respect do our views differ, apart from the fact that you think some stretches of road are safe and I don't? 2) What is this "position" that you are sure I won't change? 3) In what respect is my position "fixed"? By the way, I had a look at the DfT's Three-year Evaluation Report on speed cameras, but I couldn't see where it says that "urban fixed (cameras) perform better than mobile rural (cameras)". Could you explain what you meant Neil?
Wed Mar 16 17:32:30 2005

Phillip,maidstone
to Baz, Kent, What you said just say's what a careless thoughtless person you are. ALl vehicles are killing machines, no matter how safe they could be. The only safe vehicle is a none excisting 1, even a stationary vehicle can be a potential killer.Being an unexploding fireball to a vehicle blocking an escape route from a burning building. But what is really the matter is people us so called humans who do not follow the Highway codes or parking law's or even genral comman sense. Give a child a loaded gun it will fire if the trigger is pulled. Just like the case in the church that happend in georgia usa. The 7 year old brother used his mums hand gun found in her bag to shoot his 2 yr old brother in the temple inside a church! That's right, give a human a car who know's what they will do with it! So the argument continues about car's, it is not the car's but us careless human's.
Wed Mar 16 11:02:08 2005

Baz, Kent
Let’s all stop pretending that speed cameras are intended to make the roads safer, its an easy band wagon for all of the anti-car lobby to jump on. Clearly speeding cars can kill or injure but this is by no means the only way that a car can be dangerous. Speed cameras are only effective if they are part of the comprehensive road users strategy. This government has had a strong anti-car policy since it arrived and this is only one area in which it attacks the motorist. Cars have advanced tremendously in terms of safety over the last 20 years but this has not been taken into account by this or any previous government. While the car driver remains an easy target, successive governments will hold them high on the revenue raising list! If you really want to reduce deaths and injuries on the road then let all interested parties sit around the table and have a grown up discussion. For those in favour of speed cameras to constantly try to hold the moral high ground by stating that, anybody against is clearly a car killer is just immature and divisive. You need to understand the reason why people speed or drive poorly and be honest with the method that you use to tackle the problem. Forget the preaching, I don’t need it, focus on the issues and give genuine road uses a say in the road network across the country.
Tue Mar 15 20:32:39 2005

Matthew, Deal
Phillip hit the nail bang on the head. People buy Brmm Brmm cars because they want to drive in a Brmm Brmm fashion, and neither 'education' or 'nice lenient traffic cops' or a £60 fine and two or three points on their license is going to stop them. These are the hard-core speed merchants of course (and there are hundreds of thousands of them), and just below them in the hierarchy of ego-centric motor-morons we have the 'zippies' (as Julia aptly christened them). It's all about ego and self-image and, most of all, a complete absence of the ability to empathise, until they maybe kill two or three of their best mates (and/or their girlfriend) and/or end up permanently crippled themselves, that is. But not always, by any means. "Education"! Who are these people kidding?! "Leniency in the way speeding tickets are issued"! Huh! The only people who get consistently shown leniency are the road killers - ie those that devastate families, as they do ,week after week after week, year in and year out, and who receive a fine and perhaps, PERHAPS, a driving ban for a year or two. And in the coming ten or twenty years, tens of thousands more families will suffer the untold pain and devastation and deep, deep shellshock of suddenly having a loved one taken from them for ever, just as tens of thousands of families have in the last ten/twenty years, and hundreds of thousands of families before them. And all in the name of corporate greed!
Sun Mar 13 18:45:04 2005

Christopher, Guildford
It's not a "view" Neil, it's a logical conclusion. In the past twenty years alone there have been around five million personal injury collisions on UK roads, and probably as many collisions again in which there were no injuries - apart from a few bumps and bruises - in which one or more vehicles sustained relatively serious damage. That averages out to more than one collision per kilometre of road per year. And as I said in my previous post, no road/street is safe when we have hundreds of thousands of boy racers and hundreds of thousands of zippies driving around endangering other road-users lives everywhere they go, and if you add to this the millions of motorists who regularly drive at up to 10mph above the limits, then I don't see how you can assert and maintain that there are "safe stretches" of road anywhere. As regards to replacing traffic police with cameras, if the process of reduction has been going on for twenty years (as I pointed out in a previous post), and the speed camera programme only really took off about five years ago, and 90% of the 'cutting' of traffic police numbers happened BEFORE the advent of cameras, then isn't your basic concern somewhat misplaced and misguided. And I must say that I find it rather odd that you haven't commented on this since I first mentioned it a couple of weeks ago, and you just continue to voice your 'concern' that traffic police are being replaced with cameras. Are you not concerned with the 90% of reductions which happened before cameras came into the picture? Or does that not suit your agenda?
Sat Mar 12 19:10:32 2005

Jennifer, Canterbury
Neil: In your post you imply that speed cameras are pretty much ineffective on rural roads. But if they are as good as none-existent on rural roads, then how can they be ineffective? (Could you give me directions to the DfT report you are referring to please). And in response to the question you asked in your post of March 8, Christopher said that he would like to see covert mobile camera units in every region of the UK etc (March 9), so it's difficult to understand why you then ask - in your post of March 11 - if "there are any thoughts on the best way of enforcing the speed limit". No wonder this debate is going round and round in circles! Surely the most effective and efficient way of deterring motorists from speeding is to have a situation where they: 1) Never know when and where they may get caught; 2) Know they will pay a heavy penalty if they do.
Sat Mar 12 16:32:36 2005

Neil Lewisham
Christopher Agree with you about residential roads. I certainly can't prove that there are any safe roads (i.e ones without accidents for a long period of time) I can think of longish stretches of road where,as far as I am aware, there have been no crashes. I doubt you could prove the contrary either. So we will have to stand by our own views Thanks for laying out your views so clearly (especially on the Dft guidelines). I am sure you won't change this position as I can see you have strong convictions on the subject. I have stated my thoughts enough on here - particularly my concern about cameras replacing traffic police and, as you have such a fixed position I don't think there is much mileage in continuing the debate with you I'll take this opportunity to withdraw from this forum May I wish everyone safe and happy driving I'll withd I agree with you about the need in residential areas.
Sat Mar 12 15:39:21 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Put it this way Neil, do the hundreds of thousands of boy racers race around on some roads/streets but drive at a safe and considerate speed on others? And do the hundreds of thousands of 'zippies' zip around on some roads/streets but drive at a safe speed on others? As far as I am concerned, those neighbourhoods that want cameras should have them, and the DfT criteria is a complete nonsense. As for motorways, where ARE these "very safe parts" you refer to, and how do you know that they are anyway? Regarding the point I made about covert mobile camera units who can be anywhere, anytime, I would also like for each 'district' to have a well-publicised phone number that anyone can ring and leave a message if their street has a speeding problem. Just because a road has no "accident history" - and I doubt there are many that fall into such a category - doesn't mean that they are safe for the residents who live there.
Fri Mar 11 18:49:35 2005

Neil Lewisham
Jennifer It certainly does seem that rural roads are a cause for concern and lowering the speed limit I, am sure, would help. From what I have seen more fatalities happen on rural roads (head on smashes)and the Dft report indicated that speed cameras are less successful in these areas. Are there any thoughts on the best way of enforcing the speed limit (maybe traffic calming and flashing warning lights as well as cameras at blackspots) Christopher So you would then have cameras on roads with no history at all of accidents etc?
Fri Mar 11 06:22:56 2005

Eve, Chilham
To Geoff, Ashford, I'm glad you were caught. I live in a road with a 30mph limit, and I wish we had a speed camera. The no-brains who drive along it at 40mph should be put in the stocks and have eggs thrown at them. (maybe that's a better answer than fining people?)
Thu Mar 10 17:11:55 2005

Phillip,Maidstone
Why are we allowed to buy a vehicle that can do 200mph? Why does the government allow these vehicle manafactures to build these killing machine's to go these speeds? If we need to stop speed camera's then all the vehicles should not be able to go over 70 mph on our roads, and some electronic device that slow's the vehicle down to 30 mph in built up area and records your speed at all times, so that the law court's can prove what speed we are doing. Oh those devices are coming in to force. Sorry had to read up on the new guidelines that are being looked at.My prayers have been answered. All the speed merchant's beware. But while we wait those speed enforcement officers are doing a fine job. We have been warned but do we hear?
Thu Mar 10 15:28:28 2005

Carol, Faversham
Ho hum Geoff.....Well you won't be doing that again in a hurry, will you?
Thu Mar 10 12:51:08 2005

Jennifer, Canterbury
Ninety per cent of people support the introduction of 40mph speed limits on country lanes. Sixty-five per cent of people feel threatened by traffic on these routes (Source: Council for the Protection of Rural England).
Wed Mar 9 21:40:24 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Neil: In answer to your question, and as I have said on more than one occasion before, I would like to see covert mobile camera units in every region of the UK who can be anywhere, anytime (as well as many more traffic police), combined with deterrents that really DO deter the vast majority of motorists - ie deter them from exceeding speed limits, as well as drink-driving, tailgating, failing to indicate etc, etc. Edward: But speed cameras DO "help", and if you have read a number of the posts in this debate, as you implied that you have, it's hard to comprehend how you can assert, and why you assert, that you "do not agree that speed cameras help"?
Wed Mar 9 20:53:33 2005

geoff ,Ashford
ive just got fined for doing 36 mph (by a camera) in a 30mph limit, ho hum what a lovely country to live in!
Wed Mar 9 13:41:04 2005

Steve, Tunbridge Wells
I know that breaking the speed limit is against the law but there must be some leniency in the way speeding tickets are issued. There are certainly times where road conditions and other factors mean that it would not be dangerous to break the speed limit, whereas other times it wouldn't be safe to get anywhere near the limit. I have a motorcycle and admit that I speed, however the only places I will speed on are open country lanes and clear dual carriage way/motorways. Any built up areas, or busy roads mean a definite no to speeding. The policing of road users need to focus on those drivers who irresponsibly speed and turn their attentions more to the other more serious driving problems such as not indicating or not paying attention.
Wed Mar 9 11:29:28 2005

Neil Lewisham
Christopher I was responding to your double and double again the number of speed cameras question I was trying to make the point about places where speed cameras may not be necessary. So tell us Christopher where you would put speed cameras and where would you not put speed cameras? I
Tue Mar 8 18:25:13 2005

Edward Gravesend
Unlike most of the people writing in reply to this question I do not agree that speed cameras help. As I used to ride a motorbike I liked and enjoyed riding fast and did so with a reasonable level of skill. I believe that most people who speed do so for the enjoyment. Speed cameras will never stop those who enjoy that thrill. Laws against drugs have never stopped addicts taking those drugs and I do not believe they ever will. Those people who speed will purchase the detectors and learn where the fixed placements of cameras are put. They will then do exactly as previously stated and slow down for the camera speeding up immediately after. I learnt that speed was dangerous and that was the only thing that stopped me riding and speeding. It's education that is needed not fines. The most ridiculous piece of legislation change that I heard recently was a woman driving on roads she had driven on for 35 years. The council changed this road from a 60mph to a 40mph for no particular reason. Then 6 months after the change they caught her with a mobile speed camera doing 52mph. How they justify penalising an old lady close to retirement whose never had an accident before I will never know.
Tue Mar 8 15:46:47 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Andy. Could you explain why it is that "as soon as you sit behind the wheel of a vehicle, you're a sitting duck"? I often sit behind the wheel of a vehicle, but I've never been a sitting duck. I would suggest that it's only 'flying' ducks that get shot down in this case, and given the 10% + 2mph 'allowance', there really is no excuse. Howard. Why should the number of cameras be reduced? Why can we not have more traffic police AND more cameras? (we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket) Neil. How do you know that cameras are being installed on sections of motorways where "there is no accident history"? And can any of the new posters answer the following question: If speed and exceeding limits isn't really the problem, then how do you account for the fact that fatal and serious injury collisions have been reduced by an average of 40% at camera-site locations? Do motorists just happen to be more vigilant and attentive at camera-site locations? 'Falling hurts least those who fly low' - Old Chinese Proverb
Mon Mar 7 21:26:43 2005

Neil Lewisham
Indeed Graham And I agree with you about speed killing which is why I said "to reduce fatalities (of which I understand the top cause is speed)" in my last post I would just like us to look beyond speed cameras (which I have continually said I support in many cases) at other areas of traffic policing
Mon Mar 7 11:13:52 2005

Jennifer, Canterbury
Given the arrogance of an ever-increasing number of drivers in recent years who think they are above indicating - not only left, but right also - isn't it time the Government/DfT started running an ad campaign along the lines, for example, of: 'Not everyone is psychic - PLEASE INDICATE YOUR INTENTIONS'. Not only are people killed and injured as a consequence - and particularly the most vulnerable road users - but those that do it are prolonging the journey-times of other motorists, and causing them to become frustrated also (which isn't conducive to good driving). And when you add it all together, it probably amounts to tens of thousands of hours of lost time every day, and probably costs the economy £millions every year. And then there's the cost of collisions that happen as a consequence - ie damage to people and damage to vehicles - which probably costs the economy tens of £millions every year. Does anyone know if there is a penalty for not indicating? If there isn't, then there should be, and a hefty one at that.
Sun Mar 6 14:23:26 2005

Graham, Tenterden
Neil. The DfT may very well have speed as the 5th highest cause of collisions, but you can be sure it is by far the highest cause of collisions in which people are killed and seriously injured (as opposed to slightly injured). And if 50% or 60% of motorists regularly exceed speed limits, as they do, then it must follow that 50% or 60% of collisions - at the very least - happen at speeds above the given limit, and had they not been exceeding the limit by 5mph or 10mph or 15mph (speeds which are not regarded as excessive), as many motorists do, then the collision may never have happened in the first place or, in the event of a collision, the injuries sustained would have generally been less serious than they were. And if cameras reduce fatal and serious injury collisions by an average of 40%, which they do, then they ARE a panacea in respect of that 40%. That IS a statistic Neil, and a statistic that DOES validate and justify the use of speed cameras. And if it's "a shame that any side needs validation of a view by (using/quoting) statistics/reports" etc, then why do you then go on to use a misleading statistic (in a misleading way) later in your post - ie that the DfT has excessive speed as the 5th highest cause of collisions?
Sat Mar 5 18:38:09 2005

Christopher, Guildford
How is it that those in this debate who are anti-camera continually misrepresent the pro-camera contributors. And that is exactly what a 'batch' of new posters have done. Linda (from Medway): "It is of great concern to me......" etc, etc. Do you not think Linda that we are just as concerned as anyone about other dangerous forms of driving behaviour, such as not indicating when turning or changing lanes? To imply that we're not is just another desperate ploy by the anti-camsters, who have to resort to such measures because their arguments do not stand up. And to state - as you do - that driving behaviour has become worse because of cameras beggars belief, and is straight out of the anti-camera lobby's repertoire. Who on earth but a complete moron would say to themselves - as you suggest - "I drive within the limits, therefore I am a good driver and need think no further about anything else". What an absurd statement (but typical!). Motorists who drive within limits do so because in general they are people who take into consideration that there are a lot of vulnerable road users - ie pedestrians and cyclists and motorcyclists - on the one hand, and that there are a lot of maniacs who drive around at excessive speed everywhere they go endangering everybody on the other. If men are responsible for 90% of driving offences - which they are - then it must be something they are doing that women aren't doing that is causing the problem. Perhaps you would care to explain what that is Linda?
Fri Mar 4 20:49:47 2005

Neil Lewisham
Christopher When I entered this discussion I was posting from my own feelings and not from any stats/reports that I was aware of. It was only much later that I started doing some research to see "what was out there" Clearly it has never been as detailed as the research that, say, Martin has done. If I was being honest I would say that it is a shame that any side needs validation of a view by statistics/reports etc rather than listening to the actual argument. Indeed Rebecca used the words "eyes in our heads" in one of her recent posts I would like to say what a lot of sense there is in the posts by Linda and Phil - as with many things I don't agree with thenm 100% but I do agree with a lot of it Speed cameras on motorways a) speed cameras are expensive to install, run and maintain. The DfT say that in the report. Sorry but cynical me says that the finance for this would come from traffic police numbers b) why put them on parts of the motorways where there is no accident history? Think we are getting caught up in cameras as panacea here. Interestingly a DfT report on causes of accidents had speed (and that includes excessive speed for the situation) as the 5th highest contributory factor in accidents. Inattention etc was top. Given that speed cameras are working at blackspots etc to reduce fatalities ( of which, I understand, the top cause is speed) then I would like to see us broaden the way we try to stop accidents too. To me that is more traffic police and better driver education concentrating on these areas and including driving while under the influence. Cameras at blackspots etc is a definite yes by the way - and more in these places c) It is my personal view that unless the caneras were so close as to be unviable you would get the speeding between cameras and braking that happens now in certain places. I think that could be more dangerous than sensible driving on very safe parts of the motorways
Fri Mar 4 15:31:13 2005

Phil, Gillingham
"Speed is only a question of money;how fast can you afford to go". I have no objections to speed cameras being placed near residential areas, schools, known accident blackspots, roadworks etc., as a real deterrant to speeding. It is obvious, however, that this is low down in the list of criteria for choosing the location of speed cameras. The revenue received seems to motivate the decision to place cameras in areas where there are no discernable risks and in some places the speed limits have been reduced at the same time the cameras were installed. Time would be well spent in reviewing speed limits in general with a view to considering criteria such as the ability of modern cars in terms of their technological advance; braking and handling ability, with some areas having the limits reduced and others increased.
Fri Mar 4 10:00:07 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Neil: Regarding the reduction in traffic police, I read in the article by Professor David Begg - presumably the same one as you read - that "In the 1980's around 15 per cent of police resources went into traffic duties - now that has been cut to 5 per cent". In other words, the reduction in traffic police has been going on for twenty years, from somewhere in the region of 15,000 to around 5,500 now.
Thu Mar 3 19:48:52 2005

Howard. Frittenden
I have never been caught by a camera despite driving a very high milage for many years, I observe the road and surroundings carefully. However, I think that the number of cameras should be reduced and the money spent on putting more Police patrols on the road. They are a deterant and detect other offences that are just as dangerous or more so than speeding.
Thu Mar 3 17:15:55 2005

andy, sittingbourne
The day they open up the operation of speedcameras to private contractors on a 50/50% split of fines collected, will be the day I change careers. Lets face it, as soon as you sit behind the wheel of a vehicle, you're a sitting duck. You can't beat 'em, might as well join 'em!
Thu Mar 3 14:14:01 2005

Pat Hoath, Canterbury
Why don't we all deprive"them" of any income from camera's by staying inside the speed limit?
Thu Mar 3 09:41:01 2005

Albert Littlebourne
As you arrive at Littlebourne from Canterbury at the top of the hill. There is a sign which lights up if you are doing more than thirty miles an hour. I every case that I have seen a car will slow down when the 30 flashes at them. There is no fine but it is a timely reminder to the responsible motorist. This is the way we should be going not towards making money for the government. The days when something is given to society in the widest sense should return. We all can be self riteous about what we want from the government but a simple transgression should not be fined but put to the transgressor simply and honestly. The 30 flashing lights are an example of how in very simple terms we can be reminded and not punished for evry thing in life. I have also seen this system work on motorists in the Birmingham area and it DOES work.
Thu Mar 3 09:32:33 2005

Neil Lewisham
Sure Christopher The Evaluation report in June 2004 on speed cameras. The 5215 comes from an analysis I read of this report - The report says that urban fixed perform better than mobile rural. I was surprised too as I thought that (good or bad) mobiles would have had more of an element of surprise and therefore catch people more! We probably aren't that too far apart as we are both pro speed cameras - me not as much as you. And I think we both want to see more traffic police out there Sorry - but I am not quite sure how I got so far into this debate. It all started with one comment about a driver in Birchington and I have sometimes felt that the debate has been more heated than necessary. I think I may quietly retire soon!!
Wed Mar 2 19:01:28 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Neil: I should just add that I was never quite sure whether you were pandering to the anti-camera camp when you spoke in terms of "some cameras being unnecessary" - ie pandering to those who complain about the location of a specific camera for this reason or that. Had you mentioned in any one of your many posts that the reason for you saying this, and holding this view, was as a consequence of the research carried out for the DfT, then given that we all want to see the best possible system in place to reduce fatal and serious accidents, I don't think anyone on the pro-camera side of the debate would have disagreed with you. But, that said, as far as I am aware, the DfT conducted a review of all cameras and concluded they were all in the right place. And as regards to 'believing' in traffic police, it has been stated on numerous occasions that we want to see more traffic police - on motorways or wherever - but the difference is that we want to see more cameras as well. Could you explain why you don't? (on motorways, for example).
Wed Mar 2 17:07:58 2005

Mike Kent
Speed cameras are nothing more than a stealth tax on drivers ,why the Home Office guide lines for speeding are 10% +4 MPH. I heard about was set at 51mph in a 50 mph zone. Now no 2 cars speedometers read the same and their can be a + or - 10% factor on what the driver actual reads on his/her dash. I passed my test 6 weeks ago and have just bought a car in Norwich. I am a little worried as I have not driven for the last 6 weeks and I will be driving this car back via the M11 & M25 " There is a report(RAC) show that accidents have not dropped markedly in camera area in most case they have risen. They slow the natural flow traffic those that say they are a good thing would in my opinion be those who have never had a accident but seen 1000's in there rear view mirror I wounder why.
Wed Mar 2 15:12:29 2005

Linda Medway
It is of major concern to me that so many members of this forum seem to believe that the only thing required to drive safely is to drive slowly or within the posted speed limit. The standard of driving in this country is appalling and seems since the advent of speed cameras to have become worse. Drivers frequently drive with no headlights on in periods of heavy rain and fog whilst others have fog lights on in sunny weather. Signalling at roundabouts and junctions seems a minority interest, and correct posiitoning in the road using the appropriate lane is something very few people understand. What is missing is a basic understanding of observation and cause and effect. Many speed limits are in fact too low for the road conditions, dual carriageways in non urban areas set at 50 for instance. And motorways should have higher legal speeds given the safety of modern vehicles. The effect of the speed camera age has been to lull many into a simplistic view that speed is bad and will cause an accident - if I drive within the speed limit I am good and I need not think any further about anything else as I will not have an accident - only speeding drivers have accidents. We need a proper debate about the ability of people to drive ( I believe many do not actually possess the required mental skills e.g observational skills and ability to assess and act upon the observations within a the appropriate timeframe), how to improve vehicle safety in relation to collisions with those outside it i.e. pedestrians and cyclists, improve peoples aility to take responsibility for their safety e.g. pedestrians and cyclsits (what happened to initiatives like the Tufty Club and cycling proficiency), and debate the use of appropriate speed controls and speed limits.e.g. 20mph outside schools when pupils are arriving and leaving. Unrestricted speed on motorways in the early hours.
Wed Mar 2 12:46:13 2005

Phil Canterbury
Speed cameras have their place.Identified areas which have a high accident rate or schools etc are legitimate places for siting cameras. We seem to use the term "dangerous road" a lot these days. What is dangerous are drivers who think they have the skill to drive at speed when they havent and are inadequately trained or aware. Speed in the right place in an appropriate vehicle in the hands of an appropriate person is not neccesarily dangerous in its own right. There is a lot of dangerous driving that occurs under any given speed limit, speed cameras cannot detect or prevent these incidents. I would prefer a system of better driver training, more emphasis on the responsibility of drivng a vehicle, and with some good old fashioned traffic policing. With the the increase in the quality of some roads and the quality of vehicles, a rise in limits on certain main roads and motorways would not be a bad thing. This of course needs to be combined with more awareness and responibility, eg it may not be not safe to travel at 70mph in heavy rain where it may be so in good dry conditions. Change driver attitude and responsibility, and get more traffic police to enforce against dangerous drivers. Mobile safety cameras are nothing to do with safety, most people dont know they ve been caught until te fixed peanalty or summons drops on their mat days later. That does nothing to improve safety, but being stopped by a police officer, advised, cautioned or prosecuted, maybe with attendance at a course that opens ones eyes to road safety does. These days we are obsessed with statistics, and our rights. So many problems with traffic use could be resolved by better driver training, good common sense and taking more personal responsibility.
Wed Mar 2 12:08:05 2005

RICHARD, SEVENOAKS
I find the whole speed camera idea unworkable in terms of controlling speeds, but very workable in terms of generating revenue. We've all seen it, you are travelling along at the mandatory speed approaching a camera. You dont have to take any special actions because you are already doing the correct speed. Then in your mirror you see the idiot who believes the road laws dont apply to them. They approach the camera in excess of the speed limit, slam on the brakes at the camera and then speed off again once past it. This behaviour is endemic in a large proportion of the driving public. What is required is less cameras and more police patrols actually out on the roads. This would serve two purposes, 1. a higher presence would deter people from speeding overall (not just around cameras), 2. A higher visibility of police would go some way to reducing other forms of crime as well (gang culture roaming the streets etc.) The various entities who claim the fines generated would obviously object to this but where does this money actually go anyway?
Wed Mar 2 10:20:31 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Can you direct me to the DfT report you mentioned Neil. I've seen a couple of their reports re cameras, but I haven't seen one that mentions a figure of 5,215 cameras, and I certainly haven't come across anything to the effect that fixed cameras are more effective than mobile units (for sure, logic tells you the complete opposite). I don't understand why you say in your post: "and neither side is going to change the perception of the other side". I thought we WERE on the same side - ie pro-cam. The difference between us is barely perceptible. By the way, the vast majority of cameras - as you probably know - are situated in urban areas.
Tue Mar 1 19:23:31 2005

Neil Lewisham
Hello Christopher Speed cameras are more effective in certain areas. The DfT report on speed cameras agreed with this - generally saying that they are more effective in urban areas rather than rural areas. And fixed cameras are more effective than mobile units. There was still an average reduction at rural sites but it was less and given it is an average this probably means that some cameras aren't reducing speed/crashes etc The Dft report was based on 5215 cameras - figures were down at 80-85% of these which is excellent. There may be myriad reasons why the others were not so effective. Not been there long enough, insufficient data or maybe a speed camera is not the answer. Maybe a differnt road layout - other calming measures. To an extent we are all going to go on personal experience. Mine is that where there are a number of fixed cameras on a road drivers slow down where they know they are and then speed up again. Indeed when I have driven in these areas you know where the cameras are by the brake lights going on ahead of you. So they may indeed be effective at slowing speed at that point - but not anywhere else on that road. At an accident black spot yes - oustide schools yes at traffic lights yes but as a measure for reducing speed in other places I am not so sure. This is where I believe in traffic police rather than cameras I don't know about doubling - depends where. If it is at blackspots etc yes I do agree with that but I don't think it may be necessary in other areas Editor I am sorry if we are going back over old ground. I think this subject is pretty much worn out here now - and neither side is going to change the perception of the other side.
Tue Mar 1 13:53:43 2005

Neil Lewisham
Sorry editor if I helped get stuck in a rut! In response to your questions. Yes we should have more police on the road Speed cameras are usually in the right place. As has been pointed out there are guidelines about number of accidents etc which dictate where they can be placed. I believe 85% are sited under these rules - there is some discretion for the other 15% Indeed speed cameras should be placed near schools - not so sure about all shopping centres - guess it could depend on the road layout I think the speed limit on motorways of 70 mph is correct. I would prefer that it was policed (whatever the word is) by more traffic police and not by more cameras Totally agree with Neil Rainham about mobiles. I see that so often in London and on the motorways. And maybe a bit controversial but what about people smoking and driving - thats one hand off the wheel which could be dangerous too.
Mon Feb 28 16:51:07 2005

Christopher, Guildford
Neil: You say you are "pro camera in most cases". In which cases are you not? Is there a certain criteria that you use for judging certain cameras to be ineffective, or are you just referring to individual cameras which you are personally familiar with and deem ineffective. Whatever the case, what is your criteria for judging them to be ineffective? And as long as they're not used as an excuse to down-size traffic police numbers, are you agreeable to increasing the number of cameras - ie doubling the number, and then doubling it again, and so on?
Mon Feb 28 15:02:49 2005

Roger, Newington
With a straight road either side of the village, the A2 through Newington is like a racetrack for cars and HGVs alike. After years of campaigning and protests a camera has finally been installed, and though not operational yet, the effect is marked with an immediate drop in vehicle speeds as soon as the camera is spotted. You suddenly realsie how slow 30mph is compared to the speed of the traffic beforehand. Lets have few more!
Sun Feb 27 11:38:03 2005

Christopher, Guildford
So we're all agreed then? Cameras are good and save lives. And we're all agreed that cameras shouldn't be used to replace traffic police. And we're all agreed (except Neil from Lewisham perhaps) that we need more cameras (as well as traffic patrols). So here endeth the story. But just in response to the points the editor raised: Yes, we need more cameras on motorways, and No, it's not acceptable to drive at 85mph or raise the motorway limit, and it should in fact be lowered to 55mph, or 60mph at the most. And strictly enforced. And limits on rural roads should come down significantly too.
Fri Feb 25 16:36:29 2005

Neil, Rainham
Not a speed camera topic - but a topical issue directly related to road safety - the use of mobile phones whilst driving. Perhaps the BBC could start a new topic? The use of handheld phones is still rampant, in spite of clear legislation, that people do know about. Van drivers are particularly prone to this, and I have many examples where a driver has left a parking bay, and is on the phone immediately. If these examples are so obvious to myself, then why are the police not taking positive action. You only need stand at a busy juntion, and then you can witness numerous examples of blatant infringement of the legislation. Perhaps legal road users should 'hoot' their horn and flash their headlights upon sighting such drivers. This is acceptable as a means of warning. And van drivers, you can still be legal, and not lose business, by stopping. After all, how did such businesses survive before mobile phones came along.

We also have a "bad driving" message board. Click on Message Board on the left hand side and then on "more message boards". Ed.
Fri Feb 25 14:46:39 2005

Editor, BBC Kent
Please can we move this debate on a bit. We rather seem to be going round in circles.

Would we be better off with more police on the roads? Are speed cameras usually in the right places, or just where they make most money? Should there be speed cameras next to schools and shopping areas? Do we need cameras on motorways, or is it acceptable to drive at 85mph in today's vehicles?


Fri Feb 25 10:32:14 2005