Newest messages at the top, oldest at the bottom
**********
Markie
One for Mr S Nail and Robyn...
Perhaps the AA are liars too ????
Taken from BBC News... "Thousands of drivers are wrongly fined for speeding because of errors with speed camera evidence, according to a motoring organisation. The Automobile Association (AA) says that both computer and human error in processing data from speed cameras has prompted a recent increase in the number of drivers wrongfully accused of speeding. Among the cases it says it has uncovered is that of a vicar who was "caught speeding" in London while delivering a sermon in Wales. In another example, it says a Scottish dairyman received numerous tickets for "speeding" in his milk float. According to the organisation, many drivers have paid fines for offences they did not commit, because they wrongly believed they were at fault. The AA is now demanding an investigation into the speed camera system. Paul Watters, head of road and transport policy at the AA, said: "We certainly want some sort of change in the system, as it is not working as it should at the moment. "
John Power
Nice of you to respond Jack even if it did take you a few months to think up an answer!Try thinking a little bit more and you may realise that I am right in my comments. Speed Kills.
It does not matter what the reason is for a road accident, speed determines whether someone gets killed or badly injured or not. Sorry you haven't got the intelligence to realise this fact Jack-but there you go! Drivers who speed or tailgate and risk lives are just idiots! Perhaps one day Jack you will realise that!
As for the safety cameras--best thing that we have ever had to cut down on the annual road accident death rate. Faulty cameras-I don't think so! Just a load of sour grapes put out by the daft drivers who have been caught by them,right wing newspapers who will do anything to discredit the government's policies,loonies like un/safespeed and of course all the people making money flogging camera detectors whatever. Incidentally you haven't come up with anything constructive yet! Cookie
Mr S Nail I'm sorry you wish to call a senior officer in Staffs Police a liar. Even though I object to how I was treated, that is something I would never do. Markie
Jack, you have made a valid point about camera locations. Not all camera positions comply with Dft criteria. Only ones installed after 2003 were subject to this. The ones installed previously are noe refered to as "Legacy Sites" by the partnership and some are in locations which could be accused of being revenue generators rather than safety devices ! The partnership and government have an interest in keeping these !!!! Markie
PC... I have to correct you on one point, you say "speeding is the main contributory factor in any road accident, however caused" Look at the partnership's own data on collisions - only 28% of accidents recorded have been attributed to excessive speed. Whilst i agree that this figure is too high, your comment is misleading. Markie
Joe, you are absolutely right.. how could i possibly have doubted Mr S Nail or Mr Power...I do apologise and bow down to their superior knowledge...LOL I wonder if they work for the Partnership and their wages depend upon these devices ? Zippy
Oh dear Mr S Nail... You just dont get it do you... Yes camera's can be triggered by cars on the opposite side of the road, and yes i have done it myself before, either with or without cars actually going past the camera at the time.... If there are no cars passing the camera then it proves they can be set off by vehicles approaching them from the front. And i that case, what is to stop them also being set off from the front when a innocent vehicle is passing them at the time ? Answer... Nothing, it then relies on the diligence of the partnership to spot the mistake and prevent the driver having to defend themselves in court which does not always happen which has been proved.... Incidentally, if it happens to you, do you know how to prove you were doing the correct speed limit ? How many of the little white lines on the road do you need to count to prove your speed on the 2 photo's half a second apart ??? Jack
Mr Power, Considering I was making an observation about this site which I had only just found, a response such as yours would normally be considered to be over the top and somewhat uncalled for. However, after reading numerous replies you’ve made to other people on this site your comment to my posting does not surprise me at all. I am certainly not going to lower myself to your level by throwing insults. Constructive discussion has two sides to it, i.e. the pro camera people & the anti camera people. You do not appear to see anybodies point of view from the anti camera side what so ever. I’ve read some of the comments from these people and taking out the silly comments from people like Max Speeder some of these people have valid arguments such as mistakes by cameras (which has actually been proved), after all, technology is fallible! I do support cameras but not in there current form. The positioning of some cameras could be vastly improved in order to help reduce accidents. However, I’m sure you’ll find something in that comment to which you can rant and rave about. After all, two out your three postings on this page alone contain insults towards people who differ with you. Upon replying to this posting, try and put your brain into gear before your mouth and use some manners when discussing issues with people, you may find you get further with people who differ with your opinions. billy
speed cams are gr8 but we need to keep them secreat so you get more people Mr S Nail
Zippy: You say that you have seen cameras triggered by vehicles travelling in the opposite direction. How do you know they were? (perhaps it was a "rogue squirrel!). If your answer is: "I know because there were no vehicles passing the camera on the same side at that point', then that means that no one could have been wrongly prosecuted, doesn't it. And if there WERE vehicles (or A vehicle) travelling past the camera on the same side, how do you know it was a vehicle on the OTHER side that triggered the camera, and not one of the vehicles passing on the SAME side as the camera?
Cookie: Did the truck have a notice on the back saying 'This vehicle is carrying 18 scaffolding poles', or did you just happen to count them all whilst you were driving along behind at approximately 35mph in what I assume was a 40mph limit? Two vehicles travelling at 35mph in a 40mph limit! THAT in itself is extraordinary! All very elaborate Cookie, but I don't believe a word of it, and as Robyn pointed out, it's just a little bit too convenient that you should enter into the debate at this juncture. 18 scaffolding poles! Pull the other one!! But at least you've got Markie's sympathy! (which is more than can be said for the hundreds of thousands of families who have lost someone they love in a road crash).
But Markie's right - you Zippys and Cookies and Tuftys ARE in a minority! A very small minority indeed!! Les
Tailgaters are pathetic! Have they not got the sense to realise that if the car they are following so closely had to brake sharply for some reason or other then they would just plough straight into the back of it and probably kill themselves and, more importantly, other people. All tailgaters must be brain dead! WAYNE
If you break the law you have to pay for it. Speeding is breaking the law so why are these drivers moaning about having to pay up? Don't speed----end of problem! Brian Cowling
Anything that will stop stupid drivers from speeding unecessarily and risking lives must be a good thing. The safety cameras are essential when you have dopes like Max Speeder,Markie, Zippy and other bad irresponsible drivers who ignore the Highway Code and road safety campaigns. conrad
Max Speeder, I never get in the way of anyone who want's to get somewhere quick. Tailgating is just down right stupidity. If I find someone tailgating me and they do not make an effort to overtake me then i get out of the car at the next junction and have a quiet little word with the driver. It's normally some young haired brained fool in his 20's who's seen it, done it. been there before and always knows better. Now are you one of those hair brained fools..........? joe
Cookie, I'm afraid your totally wrong about speed cameras making mistakes........the don't make mistakes........ask John Power & Mr Nail.....if these two men say cameras don't make mistakes, then camras don't make mistakes. Cookie
Robyn Hope Yes, you only have my word for it. Plus the passenger in my vehicle who says that the speed was very slow, although cannot vouch for the actual mph. Plus the driver of the builders truck if I can find him. Your comment about convenience is noted, and I quote from a letter I received from David Swift, Deputy Chief Constable of Staffs Police.... 14th August 2003. "Three seconds ahead of you was a medium sized goods vehicle with a white cab and blue body carrying 18 scaffolding poles and a ladder" I take it we can believe him as he has the photograph. I also note your comments on my belated entrance to this message board. Between July and December 2003, I posted seven notices to this message board to attempt to seek this driver. I have also posted an advert in the local newspaper and in local shop windows. He must be local, and someone must know him. I trust this clears up any ambiguities. Please don't say "You should have gone to Court" Do the research and you will see why this would have been financial suicide. Markie
JJ, how do you know vehicles are not taking alternative routes ? answer is that you dont, and neither do i. The point I was making (and you know it), is that they may be other reasons for a significant drop in collisions around camera sites. A prime example of this is on the A51 southbound on the approach to Weston, there has been a excellent drop in collisions here. Why do you think this is, purely because of the camera ? Err No.... the fact is that they also installed traffic lights, therefore cars do not cross each others path now. Big reductions in collision data are not always down the the camera alone !!!! Dave
Millions of pounds are spent on the emergency services that have to attend road accidents that need not have happenned or have been as bad if it weren't for speeding drivers. Who pays for these services? Why should good drivers have to subsidise bad drivers who cause these accidents? Speeding fines should be increased to cover all this expense. Drivers who cause accidents or make them worse by speeding should be made to pay for the full cost of the emergency services that have to attend. Wendy
Road Safety Education is essential and this is why we have driving tests,road safety education at schools and road safety campaigns(that cost a fortune) on television. Unfortunately whilst we have idiots who break the law and risk lives by speeding we must have speed cameras too. Yes Tufty, in an ideal world, cameras should be used for nice things like wildlife photography but unfortunately with the world we live in now cameras are needed to detect morons who speed and commit other crimes. Chan
I would like to see far more safety cameras in Staffordshire. We need to hit drivers who speed where it hurts most-in their pockets. The present paltry £60 fine is ridiculous! John Power
There is no difference between speeding and tailgating Conrad. They are both classed as dangerous driving. PC.
Drivers seem under the impression that speeding is not a crime when in fact it is. Although treated, at present, far less seriously than it should be, by drivers, the police and the courts, speeding is the main contributory factor in any road accident, however caused, as to whether road accident victims survive. A driver who causes a road death by excessive speed can be charged with manslaughter which could mean a lengthy prison sentence. The crime of speeding is more responsible for death and serious injury than any other crime and with this in mind the penalties for speeding and other dangerous driving practices such as tailgating should be increased significantly. Zippy
Ok, what about having camera's in minimum speedlimit zones ? Why are they not positioned there ? As i am sure you are all aware being responsible drivers, there is such a thing as minimum speed limits, you know the ones, blue round sign with the min speed limit in white numbers. On these roads it has been deemed dangerous to go below this but i do not see camera's used here ! Why is that ? perhaps the funds generated would not justify it ? Max Speeder
Conrad, simple solution to your tailgating problem.... Get Out Of The Way ! You are obviously holding things up The Tufty Club
Firstly the views of Tufty are not necessarily those of the club.... The point we would like to make is that road safety education is the key. These have have always been the values of the Tufty Club. Stop Look Listen. If these simple rules were followed there would be no need for these camera devices. Cameras will not stop people like Willy Weasel walking out in front of cars. Camera's should be used for nice things like wildlife photography... Markie
Robyn.... OK, my point behind the statistics is that you need to look at the data behind them...
1. 82,256 people killed on hte roads, were these all road traffic accidents, how many were speed related, were some of them suicides, were some of them heart attacks at the wheel.
2. 94% of death or serious injury is caused by males... How many more males drive than females ? how many more miles a year do males travel than females, what was the age of the drivers, was it mostly boy racers or old drivers whose eyesight or reaction times are not what they should be ? With these taken into account it is perhaps not surprising that this is the case.
There are different ways of looking at them. The partnership claim a massive 6% decrease in vehicle speed around the camera locations in 60mph limits (sounds good), but when you look at this in terms of mph it is a reduction of 2mph but that does not sound so good does it ! Markie
Robyn... I'm sorry but it is still pure speculation on your part, you can not possibly know that the accident rate would be higher. The fact that the accident rate has increased in these camera locations just shows thier lack of effectiveness. Markie
Cookie.... you have my sympathy, unfortunately you are in the minority in here where everybody believes these devices are perfect. This is another example of NIP's being sent to innocent drivers and then having to defend themselves in court. Robyn Hope
Cookie: We only have your word for it that all you say happened happened and that "cameras make mistakes". And I for one find it just a tinsy winsy bit too convenient that *you* have just suddenly entered into the debate at this juncture. Are you sure it was eighteen scaffolding poles, and not seventeen?!
Conrad: I suppose it couldn't be that the morons who tailgate are the same morons who speed around endangering everyone's lives everywhere they go? Or could it? And if speeding drivers are killing and crippling thousands of people every year, year in, year out, I think we have every right to "keep going on about speeding drivers".
The reality is though that we spend much of our time on this forum countering the lies and distortions and disinformation that Markieavelli and his mates churn out week after week after week.
Think about it Conrad: Why are the tailgater morons tailgating? Because they wanna go faster! Conrad
you guys never cease to amaze me on here, keep going on about speeding drivers. There is a bigger crime than speeding and that's tail gateing. Even if your within the speed limit, if you do not have enough braking distance then you won't stop. Zippy
Oh dear Mr S Nail... You really should get your facts straight before you call someone a liar. Camera's can indeed be set off by vehicles travelling in the opposite direction. Whether or not the vehicles on the camera side get NIP's through this happening is open to question but the recent case of a motorcyclist who had to defend himself in court against one such instance would seem to prove this to be the case.... It could happen to you.... I have also seen camera's triggered by vehicles on the opposite carriageway. Cookie
I support speed cameras. If you speed, you deserve all you get.
BUT......they have to be accurate and fair..all the time.
I am now branded a criminal and a liar for travelling at below 35mph in a 40mph zone. On receiprt of the NIP, I informed Staffordshire Police of the error, but they are so blinkered, they took no action.
I am fortunate that I have a witness who was travelling at the same speed in front of me..he too was fined.
Staffs Police have been unhelpful, and will not contact this witness to test my report of malfunction. In fact, Staffs Police have been economical with the truth all the way through.
I am compiling a case against them through the County Courts and ask your readers to assist........
On 2nd June 2003, on the approach to Weston (Camera 181), were you, or do you know who was, driving a builders flat back truck, with a white cab, blue body and no tailboard carrying 18 scaffolding poles and a ladder. Your speed would have been recorded at 54mph. I KNOW your speed was approx 35mph, and am willing to give evidence of this.
Please don't say that I should have elected trial...if you want to know reasons for this, research the origins of the partnership involved, especially the relationship between the Courts and Staffs Police.
If you are, or if you know, the driver of this truck, I am willing to meet you at any place at any time. Leave a message on this notice board.
Thanks for reading this, and remember that cameras make mistakes. Tufty
There is actually evidence to suggest that camera's can be set off by rogue squirrels running at speed down the pavement.... Unfortunately i have no concrete data to prove this fact but then again neither do you about the effectiveness of camera's against such speeding rodents. Can any of you prove that this is not the case ? Wendy
I cant honestly see why some misguided drivers object to safety cameras when they save so many lives. Sandy
With all the bad drivers I see speeding every day I think that we need lots more speed cameras. Why do drivers have to speed? Max Speeder
Ok, time for some education, Max Speeder style !!! Camera's are haveing little effect... How do i come to this conclusion ? Well, if you look at the partnerships own information the average speed reduction in camera locations where there is a 60mph limit is a whopping 2mph !!!! Wow, what an achievement ! Travelling to work this morning on the A34, i could count on one hand the number of cars that stuck to the limit. I also do not believe for one minute that any of you on here can honestly say that you have never exceeded the limit, either knowingly or otherwise... come on, hands up.... No, i didnt think so. ian
Safety cameras have become an essential part of road safety and whether anyone likes it or not are here to stay. No other road safety methods such as ramps or flashing speed warning lights will ever have the huge success that the safety cameras have had in catching drivers who endanger other people and break the law with their bad irresponsible driving. I hope that the Government will soon realise that thousands more of these cameras are needed on our roads. Bas
Why all the fuss over speed cameras? These cameras are saving lives by stopping stupid drivers from speeding and killing or badly injuring other people. These drivers who moan about the cameras are just pathetic. If one of their kids or other member of their family were to get killed by a speeding driver they would soon change their minds about speed cameras. Daryl
Markie: The Criminal Justice System has its "flaws" and "faults", but does that mean we should abolish it. Get real, for heaven's sake! Cameras have prevented thousands of people from being killed and crippled and otherwise seriously injured over the past few years, and they will prevent thousands more in the next few years, and the next few years after that and so on. But you never comment on this do you. I wonder why! All you ever do is try to find fault with them and demonise them. I wonder why! Markie
John Power... I am glad you find my comments amusing, i will keep posting them for you...LOL. I am also glad you find it funny that people have to go to court to defend themselves against incorrect NIP's caused by another vehicle setting the camera off in the opposite direction.... Perhaps you wont find it so amusing if it happens to you ! Yes, there are secondary checks such as the two hoto's and the lines on the road but they should be checked by the partnership before it gets to court.... JJ
Markie. My point is - and you know it - that the reason why there is no data in relation to motorists taking alternative routes to avoid cameras is because it isn't happening, and as I said in my post, if it WERE, you/we can be sure that the ABD and SS and the anti-camera tabloids etc would have been on to it long before now. So I'm not assuming anything! If it were happening we would have heard about it, and the reason why we haven't is because it isn't. But I assume you agree that anyone who DID go to such lengths must be a tyresmokin', pistonheaded, roadracin' nutter. Yes? Or do you disagree? Markie
Stargeeer... You have not read my post correctly, 2 of the camera's are as you come into the 40 limit on either side of the village, these are located correctly and are indeed clearly visible.... Read my post again and you will see that i am refering to the one inbetween the other 2 in the middle of the village... Robyn Hope
In a post a couple of weeks ago - and in response to comments made by lie-detector and myself - Markie says the following (to lie-detector and myself): "...you say that in the areas where accident rates have gone up in camera locations that the accidents would have been even higher if the camera had not been there... how can you say this? you have no supporting data." Markie says this knowing full well of course that it is impossible to collate data in respect of something that may have happened under different circumstances (in this case, that there would have been even more 'accidents' - a word I am loathe to use - had the cameras not been there). But that doesn't stop him saying it anyway, just in case there are some dopes out there - you know, the type who gets clocked by a camera for speeding and then whinge and complain that cameras are a stealth tax etc - who are too dim to see through his ploy/disinformation - ie his non sequitur. Of course there is no data!, but most of us don't need data or statistical evidence to know that that would be the case and IS undoubtedly the case, because unlike himself and the other members of The Boy-Racer Mates Movement (BRMM) such as the ABD and UnSafe Speed, we have Common Sense, and our common sense tells us that there would of course have been even more collisions at these sites but for the cameras. And Markieavelli knows it too! Robyn Hope
Markie. Re your comment that "Statistics are wonderful things, you can make them say whatever you want", could you give me an example or two of what you mean. If I give you a couple of statistics could you demonstrate how they could be made to say whatever you want: 1) During the past twenty years - from 1985-2004 (2004 being the last year for which statistics are available) - 82,256 people were killed on the roads in Wales, Scotland and England; 2) 94 per cent of driving offences causing death and serious injury are committed by males. I'll be more than happy to provide you with more statistics Markie if you feel you need some. Peter(Cannock)
There you go again Markie talking silly! It is not a case of me and my "mates" as I do not know, personally, anyone who contributes to this forum. What you do not seem to realise Markie is that you are giving everyone the impression that you do not seem to have much idea what you are talking about. You seem to twist everything around to suit your unpopular views and are blaming the safety cameras of everything you can think of to discredit them whilst every good law abiding motorist knows that they are doing an excellent job of catching bad drivers who speed and that you are talking utter nonesense. Dave
Full marks Markie for being so insistant with your views even though they are a load of rubbish! Julie
We would welcome more safety cameras in Sandon Village. Any attempt to move the existing ones would cause a mass protest by villagers. We do not want speeding drivers risking our lives with their bad driving. Markie
Mr S Nail... Lets examine these lies shall we, there are at least 3 camera's that i know of locally that can be set off by vehicles going in the opposite direction and it can be easily proved, i can do it for you if you like ! A34 Stone southbound opposite the wayfarer pub,A51 Northbound into Weston, A51 northbound by Wolesley garden centre..... I can set any of these off for you if you like. The motorcyclist was national news, he was in court for allegedly doing 85mph past a camera, luckily in court by examining the two photographs he was able to prove it was nearer 18mph, the camera had surprisingly enough been set off by a vehicle going the opposite way. How many people will have to defend themselves in court because of the one in Stone ? I have no idea and neither do you ! As for joining Safe Speed, i dont think i will bother, i dont agree with their extreme views, cameras do have a part to play if they are used correctly... And it's too much fun on here being able to cast doubt on your views about these "perfect" devices. Data wise, all of the collision information and speed reduction info that i have quoted is freely available on the partnerships website, feedom of information is a wonderful thing ! Markie
Mr John Power... I was not stating that cars are using alternative routes... I was merely offering an alternative explanation to show that statistics are not always accurate... Nobody has yet explained the reason for accident rates going up in some locations.... I wonder why that is !!!! All they say is that they "think" thet it would have been higher if the camera would not have been there with no proof whatsoever LOL. Markie
Mr S Nail.... Unfortunately it is not lies... I can set the camera off on the A34 Stone regularly going in the opposite direction, i fact i did it again this morning... It is easy you should have a go yourself if you dont believe it ! You should see the surprise of the drivers passing the camera at the time !!! Brake lights all round.... Zappie
The DfT published provisional figures for the third quarter of 2005 today (Feb 2nd), and although not as good as the first two quarters for 2005, they show a 6 per cent fall in KSIs (Killed and Seriously Injured) compared to the third quarter in 2004. The DfT also published the provisional figures for the 'year ending third quarter' (as they describe it) - ie the provisional figures for the period from October 2004 to September 2005 - and they show a 9 per cent fall in KSIs compared to the same period a year before. The figures are subject to revision of course, but they are normally fairly accurate. So if the 'trend' continues in the fourth quarter of 2005 (the provisional figures for the fourth quarter will be published on May 4th), then hopefully we will see another large fall in the number of fatalities, as in 2004, when there were some 300 less fatalities than in 2003. Fingers crossed that the final figure (which is published in the DfT's Annual Report entitled Road Casualties in Great Britain 2005 at the end of September) will see the number of fatalities fall below the 3,000 mark. It's still way too many, but if the numbers keep falling at that kind of rate - ie 250-300 a year - it should and would be down to less than 1,000 in seven or eight years from now. On the down-side though, that still means that during the course of the next seven or eight years - IF the figures keep falling at that rate - some 18,000-20,000 people are going to lose their lives in road crashes, and as many families again are going to experience the profound shock and the devastation and heartbreak of losing someone they love, and in some cases, two or more people that they love. And any one of us could end up being in either group - ie a fatality or a sufferer. The odds against it are pretty long in one respect, but by my calculations they're about a hundred times greater than the chances of winning the lottery. (To veiw road casualty statistics in general on the DfT website click 'Transport Statistics' in column on left, then click 'Statistics (data, tables and publications)', then click 'Transport accidents and casualties', then either click on 'Road Casualties in Great Britain 2004', or on 'TSGB Chapter 8: Casualties by Type' for statistics for other years). stargeezer
Markie. Re the camera in Sandon Village, you stated a week or two ago that there have been no accidents in this location to support (justify) its use. Where did you acquire this information (and please be precise)? Does this also apply to the other two cameras in the village, or are you just making it up? And why should the one you claim is obscured be "a nice little earner"? In your post - the one I'm referring to - you actually say "...as you come into the 40mph limit", thus implying that the change of speed limit - as one would have imagined to be the case anyway - is signposted on both sides of the village. So how could it possibly be "a nice little earner"! I also assume that the camera (as with the other two cameras) has a sign beforehand warning drivers - those who are not already aware of its presence that is, which I expect the vast majority of people using the road are - that it is there. So with one thing and another, I doubt very much that very many motorists are flashed by the camera - very few indeed in fact - and that the one or two who DO get flashed not only deserve to be penalised, but deserve to be permanently banned from driving, as either they were driving with their eyes closed, or they have complete and utter disregard for other road users and those who live in the village. And JJ described and characterized such people perfectly at the end of his last posting. Mr S Nail
First Markie attempted to mislead people following this debate into believing that in the case of the 'tractor' it was the camera which was at fault. You will recall Markie's post where he begins by proclaiming: "Another attempted wrongful conviction...". No one "attempted" to convict anyone - it was a clerical error! - so how is/was it possible for Markie to construe it as an "attempted wrongful conviction". It isn't of course, and Markie was - as he so often does - trying to mislead people, and doing so for the obvious reason. He knew that it was just a case of someone inadvertently misreading the registration number on the form/document they were processing - no doubt just one of hundreds they process each and every day - but Markie twisted and distorted it into "Another attempted wrongful conviction", didn't you Markie. But having exposed Markie's mendacity and made it clear to everyone what actually happened - as I did - Markie then responds with: "Surely the fact that the notice of intended prosecution (NIP) was sent to the wrong driver shows a flaw". No it doesn't Markie, it merely shows that someone processing the paperwork misread an 'O' for a 'D'. Markie then says "What if he (the owner of the tractor) had not noticed the incorrect registration...". THAT is highly improbable of course, and Markie knows it, but that doesn't prevent him from saying it in the hope that some people might swallow such an unlikely scenario. Markie then asks: "How often does this happen...?", as if to imply/suggest that hundreds and thousands of people are being sent NIPs as a consequence of registration numbers being misread, and then - when they read the NIP - they don't notice that it's a different registration number to that of their own vehicle and, as such, they pay the fine. As if! *WE* live in reality Markie, and we're not taken in by your ludicrous and bogus assertions! In his latest post - at the time of writing - Markie persists with this line and - having (now!) acknowledged that it was a case of a misread number plate (because he had to of course!) - says that "it just shows that fines are being sent out to innocent people". No it doesn't! It shows that someone inadvertently misread a registration number! As for the motorcyclist that Markie mentions, in the rare instances where a camera reading is faulty, there is little or no chance of the wrong driver being penalised for speeding precisely because there ARE secondary means to establish whether or not they were - ie the photographs taken half-a-second apart. And every motorist has a right to see them if they believe they weren't speeding. pam
we need saftey cameras in wellington drive as we are over run with speeding motorists cannock JJ
Where exactly on the A34 is this camera you refer to Markie? And what is the speed limit there? And why didn't you report it to the local camera Partnership - ie why haven't you? Strange that nobody else has reported it either, or are you the only person that it happens to?! Markie
Peter (Cannock) there is nothing mixed up or irrational about it, it just just that you and you mates can't stand anybody with a different view or data to support a different argument. You dont like these arguments because you believe these devices to be perfect and can not accept they may have their faults. Markie
PC.... Fortunately you are wrong... The static Gatso cameras are not forward facing, they only take a picture of the rear of your car... but camera can still be set off by a vehicle going towards them if they are not set up correctly. The truvelo or specs are forward facing though... Markie
JJ.... You are also making assumptions beacause YOU dont know either.... You just assume...all you say is that it is "most unlikely" !!!where is your data or proof to back this up ? Chan
How can any normal person think that it is okay to speed and tailgate when there are so many deaths and injuries caused by road accidents each year? John Power
Markie. You say that some drivers find other routes to avoid safety cameras. I find this to be very doubtful especially if the alternative route is longer and with the high price of fuel nowadays. A driver who actually does what you say they do must be a complete idiot if they are not prepared to drive properly and safely within the law. Can any driver really be paranoid enough about safety cameras to put themselves out in this way? Peter(Cannock). Please do not ask Markie to join other forums such as Safe/UnsafeSpeed(There are enough idiots on there already) I really would miss his rantings and ravings which I find so amusing. The poor guy is a born comic! Wendy
I agree with Peter Markie. Please stop repeating the same things over again. I don't think that any sensible person would agree with anything you say. Dave
Markie you have named two isolated incidents when you say that the cameras were wrong. You have not provided any facts to prove these claims. The cameras are doing a great job in catching bad drivers who speed. June
Motorways are being widened. Toll motorways are being constructed to cut the traffic on ordinairy motorways. The amount of vehicles on our roads are reaching an all time high and therefore more accidents are happening. This is why speed limits must be cut. Mr S Nail
"Another attempted wrongful conviction...". Could you explain why you described it like that Markie? How can a genuine clerical error be described as "Another attempted wrongful conviction"? In your most recent post (which is actually the one before last now, as I see that a new batch of posts has now been added just as I came to post this one) you say the following: "What if he had not noticed the incorrect registration and just paid the fine....How often does this happen....surely it is wrong". Have you ever heard of it happening before*? And how can you say "surely it is wrong" given that it was a mistake? But the real point is this: In the rare event that a clerical error such as this is made (if in fact it ever has happened before), it is highly improbable that the person who mistakenly gets sent a penalty notice just happened to be in that area on that day (or even that week, or month, or year), or even ever goes to or passes through that area, so if someone, for example, who lives in Somerset receives a penalty notice saying they were flashed in Essex somewhere, or London, or Manchester etc, etc, etc, then they will immediately know that it wasn't them, and that's assuming that they hadn't already noticed that the registration number is different to their own anyway, which they more than likely would have done. So why do you still persist in saying it was "wrong", as if to say that the Partnership concerned deliberately sent it to the wrong person in the hope that they wouldn't notice and, as such, pay the fine. How absurd and irrational can you get Markie! It was an error, a mistake, and an understandable mistake to everyone except devious little propagandists like yourself who of course will jump on the tiniest little thing and blow it up out of all sense of proportion - after distorting it first of course! - so as to further try to inflame public opinion against the use of cameras. And the reason why you do so is because the last thing the motoring lobby - on whose behalf you disseminate your vile propaganda - want to see is a safe road/street environment where people can walk and cycle in relative safety. It was neither an "attempted" wrongful conviction OR "another" attempted wrongful conviction. Welcome to the world of the black propagandists everyone! * As I came to the point of sending this post I noticed that a new batch of letters has just been added, including one from Markie. Could you please give your source for the motorcyclist (story) you refer to Markie. And even if it is true, why do you say - as you do - "how many people don't have the resources to contest it...". If it was a case of someone misreading the reg no Markie, then there is no question that they WOULD have to contest it, is there, so why do you say that they would have to when you know that they wouldn't have to, and that they would in fact receive an apology. It is of course just more lies and distortion on your part, and no one is taken in by any of it. Mr S Nail
You just don't get it do you Markie! You lost all credibility a long time ago, and no one believes a single word you say any more, and that includes your most recent claim about the camera on the A34. Apart from the fact that we don't believe a single word you say anyway, it seems highly improbable that you would have posted a letter about a week or so before in which you say that: "These cameras can be set off by a vehicle speeding in the opposite direction..." etc, and yet NOT mention your own (alleged) experience with this camera on the A34 at the same time. But as we all know, it is all lies, and you just make it up as you go along. But the irony of course is - if we were to believe you, which we don't - that you imply in your most recent bunch of lies and distortion that YOU are always speeding when you pass this camera on the A34 going in the opposite direction! JJ
Markie. In one of your most recent postings you advance the argument - the possible explanation - that a reason why there have been significant reductions of fatal and serious injury collisions at camera-site locations is because there is now less traffic using the roads where they are situated because some motorists are taking alternative routes where there are no cameras. The fact that you say in the first place: "could it not be" (the fact there is now less traffic etc), implies of course that you yourself don't know whether or not there is any corresponding data, so why do YOU make such "assumptions"!The reality is that very few motorists , if any, are going to take alternative routes just because they know there is a speed camera (or two or three or more) on their route/journey. And if there were any substance to this possibility - ie if it were happening to any discernable degree - you/we can be sure that the anti-camera tabloids and the ABD and SS et al would have picked up on it long before now. Right? Agreed?! And why would anyone want to avoid such routes - ie avoid one or more cameras - unless they're a speedfreak motor-moron imbecile-type that is! There IS statistical evidence to show - as I'm sure you know - that road humps have had this effect to some degree (I think it's around 10-15% less traffic on such roads) - and I don't suppose the people who live in those streets are complaining! - but there is no evidence that it is happening in respect of cameras, and it would - as I've already pointed out - be most unlikely anyway that people are going to take alternative AND longer routes just because of a camera or two. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel Markie! And even if there were such people, then that says a lot about them, doesn't it, and how much they care about road safety, and how inconsiderate they are regarding other road users - ie self-centred, selfish, tyresmokin', pistonheaded, roadracin' psychos!! AGREED ?! Markie
I have already stated why these things are flawed.. They can be set off by a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction causing and innocent vehicle passing the camera to get an NIP... as recently happened to a motorcyclist who got the fine overturned as he was able to prove he was not speeding and the 85mph tractor !!!! this was a case of a misread number plate but just shows that fine are being sent out to innocent people.... How often does this happen !!!!! how many people dont have the resource to contest it and get fined unneccessarily ??? Peter(Cannock)
Markie you really are boring everyone on this forum with your mixed up and irrational messages. Is there any chance that you could start going on the Safespeed site? I am sure that there are a few like minded nut cases on there who will agree with everything you say. Hilary
You are so lucky Julie that you have speed cameras in your village. In our village, which is Hill Ridware on the B5014,we only have a flashing warning sign(when it works) which ia a complete waste of time and money. Drivers just ignore it and race through the village despite there being three blind bends and a school there. I suppose when some speeding nut case mows down a child we may get a speed camera. PC
I don't know if you realise it Markie but cameras on the other side of the road can film you too. I would think twice before you speed past one again. John Power
It works Colin because you are a sensible motorist who drives safely within the law. You know that only idiots speed and risk lives and you know that the only people that need fear safety cameras are the lousy drivers who couldnt care less about road safety. Well done Colin! Colin
I aint had a speeding ticket in 25 years of driving My idea is to stick to the speed limit not very interesting maybe but it seems to work now I wonder why that is ? Robyn Hope
The camera DIDN'T cause the sudden decrease in speed Markie! The driver did, because he is/was a reckless idiot who obviously has no regard for other people. As with the person who ran into the back of him. Be real Markie!! And in what way exactly are "some of these devices flawed"? Would you care to elaborate? As for your claim - in a previous post - that there "have been a number of instances when a camera has been mentioned in an inquest and listed as a contributory factor to [a] fatal accident..." etc, I have never once come across even one such report. Can you divulge your source(s) please? I doubt it somehow! And I'll tell you why: Because I have no doubt whatsoever that the media - and the anti-camera tabloids in particular - would have been splashing it all over their pages if it actually were the case, and the Association of Barmy Drivers and UnSafe Speed would have been shouting about it from the rooftops. Have an Illogical New Year, won't you Markie! PS And where did you hear about the collision Markie - from a friend, or a guy in the local pub perhaps! Dave
No Safety camera is incorrectly located Markie. As long as it is stopping drivers from speeding its location is justified. All this crap about having to wait until there are so many deaths or bad accidents before a safety camera can be located is a load of rubbish no doubt the idea 0f other politicaly correct people like you. Have you dopes never heard that prevention is better than cure? Julie
Markie. Reference the cameras in Sandon Village. I live in the village and before we had the cameras vehicles used to speed through at sometimes double the legal speed limit putting our lives at risk. We are very glad that we now have the cameras and if any drivers get caught speeding all I can say is--GOOD! Leave our cameras alone Markie! Markie
Mr S Nail... Surely the fact that the notice of intended prosecution was sent to the wrong driver shows a flaw ?? What if he had not noticed the incorrect registartion and just paid the fine.... How often does this happen....surely it is wrong ? I regularly set off a camera on the A34 going in the opposite direction, this generally happens when a car is passing the same camera on their side of the road, how many of them have had a fine even though they were doing nothing wrong ? It would not be the first time as instances like this have been recorded before.... Damion
All road accidents have speed as a contributory factor. Speed is responsible for how bad an accident is. Speeding is dangerous driving.Drivers who speed should lose their driving licences. Markie
Robyn, the camera location i belive to be incorrectly sited is the one in Sandon village A51 northbound.... It is halfway through the village on the lefthand side obscured by a hedge and round a corner.... It is not clearly visible from 60 metres as per dft criteria and there have been no accidents in this location to support it's use... There are already two camera's in the village, one on the northbound side and one on the southbound side as you come into the 40mph limit. these should be sufficient but i guess the obscured one halfway through is a nice little earner !!!! Markie
Lie-Detector and Robyn.... To address your points on the statistics quoted i would say the following... you say that in the area's where accident rates have gone up in camera locations that the accidents would have been even higher if the camera had not been there... how can you say this ? you have no supporting data. on the other hand in locations where there has been a significant reduction in accidents, how do you know this is purely down to the camera ? could it not be the fact that there is now less traffic using this road and choosing to use a route where there are no camera's ? Without corresponding data on volume of traffic you can not make these assumptions..... Statistics are wonderful things, you can make them say whatever you want..... Frances
I wonder why some drivers think that it is perfectly alright to break the law by speeding but not alright to break the law by committing other crimes such burglary or car theft. More people are killed each year by speeding than are killed by any other crime. Speeding is a crime that is taken far less seriously by drivers, the Police and the Law and when you think how many lives, both victims and relatives, are ruined by road accidents then a far more serious view of this crime should be taken by everyone. Markie
Lie-Detector.... I an not SS (i assume you mean safe speed) or ABD (not sure who they are). I am also not Anti-Camera. I just believe that these things are not perfect and in some cases not necessarily used for the correct purpose. Andy has summed up some good points quite well, but unfortunately once again you are not prepared to accept the fact that some of these devices are flawed... I fully accept that bad driving was the predeominant cause in the accidents i have mentioned as was the fact that the car behind travelling too fast and too close but if the camera had not caused the sudden decrease in speed then the accident may have not occurred, do you not accept this ? Chan
It doesn't really matter where the revenue from speeding fines goes to. The fact is that the speed cameras save lives. Jean
Sandra is right! Drink drivers and speeding drivers are as worse as each other and should be treated the same by the courts. Alan
As an ambulance driver may I suggest to some of the drivers who think that it is okay to speed and tailgate to come out on a call with us and watch firemen cutting up crashed vehicles to try to reach the dead and mangled bodies inside. Most of these road accidents need not have happened or would not have been so bad if the drivers involved had not been travelling so fast. Wendy
You are completely wrong Jack. If you can be bothered to read the comments left on this forum you will soon realise that there is a lot of constuctive discussion on road safety.For instance the vast majority of contributors realise that speed cameras are the most effective way of dealing with bad drivers who speed. We know by our own common sense that these cameras save lives and that a lot more people would be dead or seriously injured if speeding drivers were not caught and fined to prevent them from driving badly again. We know that many accidents have much worser consequences because of the speed of the vehicles involved. We know that the cameras are unpopular with drivers who because of their own fault have been caught and fined for breaking the law by speeding and want to blame everything or everyone else for their being caught. We know that other tried and tested road safety methods such as speed ramps, flashing lights, attempted driver education etc will never be as effective in reducing road traffic casualties as the safety cameras. We know that there are a lot of bog standard drivers who try to discredit the cameras because it interferes with their lust for speed. There is more constructive road safety discussion on this forum than any other including sites like Safespeed where they will not allow any conflicting views to their own to stay on view. Markie
Lie-Detector: In the camera locations where accidents have increased, how can you prove they would have been any worse if the camera was not there.... You can't, you just think they would. Robyn, The accident statistics are on the camera patnerships own website if you want to look, it shows the locations where accidents are increased. And as for me repeating instances of false claims, this shows the innaccuracy of these machines that you think are so perfect... how will you feel when you get wrongfully fined !!! These camera's can be set off by a vehicle speeding in the opposite direction resulting in an innocent vehicle that is unfortunate enough to be in front of the camera at the time to receive a fine. Unfortunately you and your friends on here have such a blinkered approach you believe these things to be the total solution to all our problems. Martin
Do you really think Andy that all the fools we have speeding around nowadays could be taught anything? I think not! The only way to deal with these people is to fine them---heavily! Peter(Cannock)
Are you talking about the Safespeed site Jack? David
If you like speed cameras try driving on the A34 /A51 between Stafford and Stoke on Trent. On a return jouney there are around 30 plus. Its fun the first time but when you have to travel this route daily. Why can these cameras be put near/next to schools on main raods? Zappie
'71 per cent of people are in favour of speed cameras.' Which? survey of 972 people in Britain aged 17 and over. Zappie
"I can't take seriously the arguments put forward by SafeSpeed and the Association of British Drivers unless they step into the scientific domain and produce data or arguments that are subject to scientific analysis. Everyone else does - I don't see why they don't." Professor Rod Kimber of the Transport Road Laboratory Sandra
So Andy. How many fatal collisions, each year, involve speeding or tailgating drivers? This too is undoubtedly also a 'Big Issue' for the victims families concerned. There are many people who would be alive today if they had not been in an accident involving speeding drivers and ther would also be a lot of people who would be leading normal lives if they had not been crippled for the same reason. In my view drivers should not speed at all. There is no difference between a driver who drinks and a driver who speeds/tailgates. Both are dangerous to other road users.How on earth can a driver who puts everyones life at risk by speeding/tailgating be hypocrital enough or have the audacity to criticise a driver who has been drinking? You maintain that figures for the last 100 years!! show that 20% of fatal road accidents were caused by drink driving but even if this rather exaggerated amount were true it would not account for the other 80% of fatal road accidents that could have been a lot less in number if the driver/s involved had not been speeding. As has been stated many times on this forum it does not matter how an accident is caused the speed of the vehicles involved determine the seriousness of the result. Speed is the difference between life and death so consequently SPEED KILLS. Daryl
Jack, would you care to say something constructive? Les, you didn't respond to my post. Do you have any proof? Obviously not! Mr S Nail
Markie never tires of distorting and misrepresenting and misinforming and fabricating. "Another attempted wrongful conviction..." he cries! And of course it goes without saying that his objective is to convey the impression that it was the camera which was at fault and, in so doing, lead people to believe that cameras are unreliable in general and, as such, many innocent people are being wrongfully prosecuted. But he says all this knowing what actually happened, don't you Markie, and this is what actually happened (as reported on the BBC News website): 'It turned out the letters FOT on the car which was photographed by the roadside camera had been mistaken for FDT, the letters on Mr Crossman's tractor.' "Another attempted wrongful conviction...". No, just another attempted lie! John Power
Sorry Jack but the truth hurts sometimes and the fact is that the people who contribute to this site are right when they say that speed kills and that cameras are neccessary to save lives. No good responsible motorist could possibly deny this fact. I am sorry that you have not got the brain power to realise that the vast majority of discussion on this forum is constructive. Perhaps,Jack, hopefully, you may be able to contribute something constructive to this site yourself one day, but unfortunately, with your mentality I doubt it! lie-detector
Markie: At the vast majority of camera-site locations the number of fatal and serious injury collisions has been reduced. Agreed? As for the handful where the number of collisions has increased, does that imply that they are ineffective, or could it mean - as Robyn pointed out to you two or three weeks ago - that the number of collisions would have been even higher had it not been for the cameras. What do you think? Be real Markie, for once in your life! Zippy: No one is hopping up and down and yelling anything, we are merely stating the obvious. But anyway, just out of interest, where did you find the data you refer to? And can I ask you both the following question: Do people have a choice about whether they choose to speed or not? We all know the answer, don't we, but the fact that you guys refuse to acknowledge the fact says all we need to know about you. lie-detector
Zippy: There have been a number of polls conducted over the past several years and they all show around two-thirds of people support the use of cameras and believe they save lives and reduce the number of collisions. And I'm talking about polls conducted by Gallup/Harris/MORI/NOP and ICM, the five full members of The Association of Professional Polling Organisations. Transport 2000 did a poll of polls which showed an average of 70 per cent of people supported the use of cameras. The DfT's own polls have shown similar results also. As for these forums you mention, do you mean like streetracersonline and tyresmoke and maxpower and pistonheads and roadracers and bikersweb etc, etc? And Zippy, if you actually KNOW that polls have shown what you say they have shown, then of course you couldn't possibly say - as you do - that "I suspect that you are wrong". You can only "suspect" that something is wrong if you DON'T know whether or not it is. We can all see exactly where you're coming from Zippy, and you're not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. And Markie, as for "the partnerships being told to use the money they generate for other measures instead of more cameras". They're not. And you know it. But that doesn't prevent you from trying to perpetuate the lie anyway, does it! Please give my regards to your mates at the ABD and SS won't you. Both of you! Markie
Another attempted wrongful conviction.... Speed camera bosses have apologised to a farmer after they tried to fine him for doing 85 miles per hour in a tractor. Steve Crossman, who farms in Wiltshire, was puzzled when he received a ticket saying he had been snapped by a camera in Wales. But he was even more surprised when he realised that he was being fined for speeding in his tractor. With a top speed of 26 miles per hour it would take Mr Crossman's tractor more than four hours just to cover the distance from his farm in Horningsham to Abergarwed, south Wales where the offence took place. How many innocent people have been fined by these things.... I guess those statistics are not available !!! jack
just come accross this site, it appears to have very little constructive discussion on road safety etc. All it seems is that it's a soap box for people saying "I'm right and your wrong" whatever your opinion may be. Markie
Slowcoach... you are wrong on at least two points and this could also be clessed as "Lying".... 1. Not all camera's comply with the Dft legislation, the guidelines for camera location were introduced in 2002, camera's installed before this did not have to comply with the new regulations and a considerable number of them don't.... 2. There have been a number of instances where a camera has been mentioned in an inquest and listed as a contributory factor to the fatal accident due to drivers braking heavily upon seeing the camera... i posted details of one such instance but it was not put on the board, perhaps we are not allowed to put details of specific cases with names etc... Whilst i agree fully that bad driving was the cause by all drivers involved, the camera shoulders some of the blame... FACT. Shaun Kirby
Just looked at some of the other forums you have mentioned Zippy--What a load of rubbish! I have never read such ridiculous hype as that put out by these forums especially the "Safespeed" (lol) one. The people who run that site are actually asking for money.The messages left on the site are crude and meaningless. I should imagine anybody who actually can be bothered to contribute to the site must be totally ignorant of road safety and has an axe to grind because they have been caught speeding by the speed cameras. Perhaps they think that because there are other like minded dimwits on the forum then the sentiments expressed by "Safespeed"(Lol) must be right which of course all GOOD drivers know is incorrect. Suggest you dont look at those forums Zippy. Andy
I'm not totally against the use of speed cameras but they should be independently reviewed. As long as they are not purely for revenue they can serve a real purpose. Too many people see speed as the root cause of accidents, when it actually causes far less accidents than some people on here think. It is a factor. To me as an advanced driver (IAM) greater improvements could be made by teaching people to be aware of their surroundings e.g use of mirrors and shoulder checks when changing direction, and also to get rid of the queing mentality in Britain where people leave no space for anybody to get past or to make use of the outside lane. JJ
I believe about 20% of fatal collisions each year involve drink/driving Sandra, which is undoubtedly a 'big issue' for the families concerned. In my view, people should not be allowed to drink any alcohol at all if they're driving and, in that event, there should be widely publicised guidelines as to how long you should wait before driving after drinking X amount or Y amount etc. If 20% of fatal collisions are alcohol related, which they are, then that means that around 100,000 people have been killed during the past hundred years or so on account of drink/driving and - I should add - somewhere in the region of 200,000 (probably more - a lot more!) have been permanently crippled and/or braindamaged on account of drink/driving. Anne
Hilary. Have you tried reporting the defective flashing speed restriction light in Hill Ridware to the Highways Dept. Mind you,you would probably be wasting your time.I agree with your sentiments when you say that a safety camera would have been much better. These flashing warning lights are pointless as drivers totally ignore them and carry on speeding. lie-detector
Markie: If you read my post - which you obviously did - then how can you continue to say: "....then why are the partnerships being told to use the money they generate for other measures instead of more cameras"? You've already been told about half-a-dozen times that that is not the case and that you are wrong, but you just go on repeating it anyway. What did the RAC Foundation say?! Shall I remind you: 'The Foundation welcomes the Government's decision to reform the funding system so that local authorities and local police have freedom to CHOOSE BETWEEN SPENDING ON CAMERAS, DRIVER EDUCATION OR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS' (my emphasis). I realise that the words 'choose' and 'between' might be a little bit difficult for you to understand Markie, but what it means is that the Partnerships can invest in more cameras if they want to. So given that I quoted this passage from the RAC (and another which said basically the same) in my previous post, can you please explain why you just go on repeating your false claims? What is the point when all you are doing is exposing yourself even more for what you really are - ie a propagandist for the road lobby. But the reason you and your colleagues do so of course is because you have no legitimate arguments to support your anti-camera stance. I realise that 'Repetition' was a favourite propaganda technique of Goebels and he regarded it as being very effective - ie as tantamount to brainwashing people - but the more you repeat such false claims, the more we will just continue to expose them. And by the way Markie, as I'm sure you are aware, you didn't give an answer to my question re the RAC "calling for all cameras to be de-activated" etc. Please either give us precise directions to the article you were referring to or quote us exactly what they said. But I strongly suspect you are just spreading disinformation - MORE disinformation that is - or trying to, just as you are paid to do of course. Are you ABD or SS?! I have the feeling it's ABD for some reason! Jimmy
It does not matter what the freaks who speed (or speed freaks as they are better known as) say the fact is speed does kill and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this. As is constantly repeated on this forum, "The faster you are travelling the worse the results will be when you have an accident". It does not matter how the accident happens the speed of the vehicles involved will make a difference as to whether someone dies or not. Any one who does not understand these facts should not be driving. As for the speed cameras-these are a necessary evil that are our main defence against bad, irresponsible,drivers who speed. At present there are no other,equally as good, worthwhile deterents. Obviously the cameras are open for criticism because they are so succesful and are bringing to heel a lot of drivers who have been getting away with breaking the law for years. The fact is these cameras are needed whilst there are still drivers who disregard the law and road safety. Sid
It is nice to know Markie that you are beginning to realise, at long last, that the safety cameras are effective. The Road safety Partnerships, have for the time being, been requested to try and find other ways of stopping drivers from speeding as well as using cameras. When these other methods fail dismally then we will see a return to safety cameras. The Government and Partnerships are experimenting with more sophisticated cameras which will, hopefully,be used extensively in the near future. Also in the pipe line are new cats eye type speed and anti tailgating cameras. All of this information has been published in the media. Safety cameras will not be replaced until every vehicle has a satelite beam device that will inform the police that the driver is or has been speeding. The Government is also concerned about the ozone layer and is considering lowering all speed limits to reduce exhaust gasses. In the future all cars will have to be fitted with speed inhibitors. Robyn Hope
Penelope. Could you give us a few examples of 'hazards' and what people can do to be aware of them, or more aware of them? What is the difference between someone who has "hazard awareness" and someone that doesn't? How do you differentiate between the two? And if, as you see it, the present driving test doesn't address this "hazard awareness" as much as it should, then how come we aren't all having collisions? And I gather from what you say about cameras that driving fast is only a problem if you don't have the sufficient amount of "hazard awareness" (or experience), and that if you do, then it's perfectly safe to drive as fast as you want. Is that how you see it? PS Les, why don't you phone the local Safety Cam Partnership and ask them. Markie, make that three letters now! Anyway, as per usual you are spreading lies. All fixed cameras are located at accident black spots, and can only be installed at any particular location if the DfT's criteria has been met. Perhaps you'd like to tell us where these cameras you mention are located. On the other hand, perhaps not, eh! ann
Zippy, if you mean forums like Safespeed and other such sites then all I can say is that these forums are full of silly hype. Have you noticed that a lot of them also advertise speed camera detectors and such like? Obviously it is in their interests to give the cameras bad publicity to increase the sales of their dubious products. I am glad to say that I have not been brainwashed by the hype put out by crap forums like those I have mentioned. Perhaps you have been. Robyn Hope
Markie: Re the camera, that wasn't the most precise description I've ever heard as to where something is located. Could you be as specific as you can please? And what do you mean when you say you came across the story because you live in the area. That is also rather vague, to say the least. Was it in the local press? Or are you implying that somebody told you about it? Anyway, you at least acknowledge that it was down to bad driving, and if they were both exceeding the limit (perhaps you could confirm whether or not that was the case), then surely it's the fault of the drivers and had nothing what-so-ever to do with the camera or its location. But whether they were above the speed limit or not, do you agree that it would not have happened if the driver behind had been keeping a safe distance and, as such, it had nothing to do with the location of the camera? If the situation was even remotely as you describe it, then wouldn't such 'accidents' be happening all the time? And why is it "unfortunate" that the two cameras you mention were commissioned before the guidelines were introduced ? And when you say "guidelines", I assume you're referring to the DfT criteria - ie four fatal or serious injury collisions etc? If so, then I would suggest that it is the DfT criteria which is unfortunate and, as such, a complete travesty which has undoubtedly cost many hundreds of lives. And as for these two cameras being "effective cash machines" Markie, just who exactly is to blame for that? DO DRIVERS NOT HAVE A CHOICE ABOUT WHETHER THEY EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT OR NOT? This is not so much a question as a statement of course, but will Markie - or any of the other anti-camsters for that matter - answer the question. I doubt it somehow! And how can you argue that because there may have been one or two more accidents at a camera site location, that THAT therefore means the camera is ineffective. You can't, can you, because you can't know that there wouldn't have been MORE accidents if the camera hadn't have been there. And where did you come across these statistics just out of interest? AT Ardvark
40% reduction has been admitted as a lie due to a statistical phenomena as regression to the norm. This was eminently explained on BBC radio recently using a dice. Roll two dice in 20 locations and put a camera in all locations that have a high return (11 or 12) and repeat the experiment. The resulting value will drop by between 20 and 40 % on average. I have a button that I press when ever it is too hot or too cold outside, without fail the weather improves, Is my button magic? Barry
Drivers who tailgate are just suicidal nut cases and should be treated as such.Heavy fines and endorsements should be given to these drivers and perhaps another driving test wouldn't be such a bad idea. Sandra
Why is such a big issue made out of drink driving when there are millions of drivers out there who deliberately risk lives by speeding. There are more lives lost due to speeding than any other type of accident. As every one should know the faster you are travelling at the time of an accident the worse the results will be when the collision happens.Drink drivers may be responsible for a few accidents but speeding drivers are responsible for the severity of nearly all road accidents. So why is it considered by some that it is okay to kill or injure people by speeding but not by having a drink before you drive. It just does not make any sense why drivers who deliberately speed are let off so lightly when they are no better than drivers who drink and lose their licences. Drivers who are caught speeding should lose their licences too. Davey
A lot of car insurance companies will no longer pay out for damage or accidents if the vehicle involved was speeding when these happened. I did not realise this until I was browsing through my new policy. May I suggest that you all check yours. Zippy
Ann... you need to look at national surverys, not just this forum, the vast majority on other forums are against the use of camera's Markie
Lie-Detector... Take a look at where the figure of 40% comes from.... Some camera's are admittedly very effective whereas a lot of them are not.. In some cases the number of accidents have increased. 40% is an average figure, not the same for all locations. If Camera's were so effective and the answer to all our problems then why are the partnerships being told to use the money they generate for other measures instead of more camera's ??? Ken
People who break laws should expect to get punished. Speeding is breaking the law! Brian Cowling
Drivers who have been caught breaking the law by speeding have only themselves to blame. They know it is illegal and unsafe to drive in this manner so why do they do it? When they do get caught they moan and cry like a bunch of babies and blame everyone else for their bad driving. They conveniently forget all the people who have been killed and injured by speeding drivers. I have no sympathy whatsoever for any driver who gets caught by a camera -it is entirely their own stupid fault. Hilary
The flashing 30mph warning sign in the village of Hill Ridware on the B5014 has not worked for a couple of months now despite having only being installed about 12 months ago at great cost. What a complete waste of money! A speed camera would have been much better! KEITH
I have always found that the best way to deal with tailgaters who annoy me is to slow right down and annoy them in return. P.C.
A lot of tailgaters aren't really interested in overtaking the vehicle in front of them they pursue this dangerous driving practice just for the fun of intimidating other drivers. Lorry drivers think that it is great fun to drive as close as possible to smaller vehicles in front of them.I suppose it relieves the monotomy of their boring job. The police should start pouncing on drivers who tailgate and charge them with dangerous driving. Damion
Some County Councils have already realised this fact Chan and have lowered speed limits on certain roads much to the dismay of the speed nuts who think that they should be allowed to speed as fast as they like regardless of road safety. I agree entirely with you and others who say that the present speed limits are set too high and should be reduced significantly with all the traffic about nowadays. MACK FROM CANNOCK
Nice to know that you have a "very clean" driving licence Markie--Did you leave it in the washing machine? Garry Davis
Chan is right when he states that speed limts are outdated. The volume of traffic is much higher now than it was 40 years ago and therefore accidents are far more likely. Speed limits should reduced and should be reinforced by more safety cameras. sandy
Why are drivers doing 35mph when the maximum speed limit is 30mph Steve? Hilary
There should not have to be any guidlines as to where cameras are located. Why on earth do we have to wait until accidents have occurred until a cameras are put in place? It does not make sense. Prevention is better than cure. Ann
You only have to look at this forum Zippy to know that the vast majority of drivers are in agreement with speed cameras and any other safety measures that will stop bad drivers from speeding and risking our lives. John Power
I suppose we must expect self righteous idiots like Max Speeder to come out with childish remarks like "Get out of the way" to drivers whom are concerned about the complete lack of road sense shown by stupid tailgaters like him. This pathetic person obviously should not be allowed to drive while he has this type of attitude towards other road users. The Government has indicated that it would like to educate drivers in road safety. I am afraid with this foolish individual it would be a complete waste of time! Stan
Zip up Zippy! The cameras are working fine. They certainly slow down daft drivers who have been caught speeding and have had to pay a fine plus have had their driving licences endorsed. Bet they will think before they speed again. steve
I cannot believe that mobile cameras continue to be deployed along west street Crewe.Whilst there have been +8deaths along middlewich road in 2005.I have never seen a speed trap from nantwich to middlewich A534!perhaps doing 35mph is easy revenue in west street! Bob the Gob
Message to HC Tappenden: Well if it IS a "hazard", as you say it is, it won't be a hazard to YOU anymore, because now you know that it's there. Have you got any sunglasses? PS 'Open verdict'! lie-detector
Markie. How can you say "....hopefully ones that work!" when cameras have reduced fatal and serious accidents by an average of 40% at camera locations? Could you explain? You are being disingenuous aren't you? Anyway, the only other road safety measures which are effective at reducing collisions and fatalities and serious injuries to any significant degree are road humps, so I assume you're all for them. Is that right? The only problem - and I'm just stating the obvious - is that you can't put road humps on busy thoroughfares and dual carriageways etc can you, so what is it you're proposing should replace the cameras on such roads? Have you got some new idea that the DfT haven't thought of yet, or are you just spouting garbage? And where did you come across this claim that you make - ie that the RAC is calling "for all cameras to be de-activated pending an inquiry about their accuracy" etc? I've had a look on the RAC website and I couldn't find anything to that effect, and the only thing I did find - which I was aware of already - is that the 'RAC Foundation welcomes (the Government's) review of speed camera funding'. That is the title of an article dated the 15th December (2005) in which it says: 'The Foundation welcomes the Government's decision to reform the funding system so that local authorities and local police have freedom to choose between spending on cameras, driver education or road improvements.' The article then quotes Edmund King, the executive director of the RAC Foundation, as saying: "The RAC Foundation has consistently campaigned for a broader and more flexible approach to road safety. While speed cameras have their place, they should not be the first and last resort for road safety. Road and junction layout, clearer signing of limits, and better driver education all have a role to play." Zippy
Question to the majority of you.... Where is your data or statistics to show that the "vast majority" of drivers agree with the use of speed camera's ? I suspect that you are wrong, most surveys conclude that the vast majority of drivers disagree with you !!! Chan
Paul Smith the self styled road safety analist? states on his website 'Safe speed' that the present speed limits were introduced 40 years ago. At this time 1965 there were far less vehicles using our roads and therefore far less chance of having an accident. Is it not now time that all speed limits, in view of the vastly increased number of vehicles, should be reduced significantly to cut down on the horrendous amounts of deaths and injuries caused mainly by speed. Gaz
I am really getting fed up of tailgaters and one day I can see myself giving one of them a good punch. No doubt I will be accused of road rage and recieve the relevent punishment but it will be worth it just to knock some sense into one of these prats! Rick
Well Dick. It may, as you say, be a persons choice and right to buy a fast car but it is certainly not their right to drive faster than the legal speed limit and risk lives. The Government should press for speed restrictors to be fitted on all new engines to stop people abusing the law. This would not be impossible legislation in fact it would be quite feasible and should be introduced as soon as possible to reduce accidents that are made worse by the speed of the vehicles involved. Daryl
Les, you imply that the Safety Camera Partnerships are hiding something and not accounting for all the revenue from speeding fines. Do you have any proof? Don't you think the media - ie the anti-camera tabloids and the Times and the Telegraph - would have been on to them long before now if they were? Of course they would! The Partnerships, as i expect you know, consist of the local police force and the local council, and it is totally unrealistic of you to imagine they would do anything untoward. But that doesn't stop you anti-camera folk from intimating that they are does it? slowcoach
One of the lies perpetuated by the anti-camera propagandists is that millions of "law-abiding citizens" are being "penalised" for driving - or drifting! - just a few mph over the limit. When the propagandists first started disseminating this lie about three years ago now, they did so in the knowledge that most people were not aware of the 10%+2mph 'rule'(many more people ARE now), and they also did it in the knowledge that the average speed of people being clocked by a camera was about 10mph above the limit in 30mph and 40mph zones, and 12-15mph above the limit in 50,60 and 70mph zones. They also knew that the Safety Camera Partnerships (SCPs) were unlikely to expose this lie by revealing the fact that the cameras are set to trigger at 10%+2mph above the limit because they knew the SCPs wanted for drivers to stay within the limit - ie they knew the SCPs wouldn't want to reveal that there was a threshold. Another one of their lies is that cameras cause drivers to have to keep looking at their speedos, and that the cameras are potentially dangerous because of this. But how many times does a driver need to look/glance at their speedo in reality. Just once if they are travelling within the speed limit, and a maximum of twice if they were above the limit prior to the camera. And how long does it take to glance at your speedo. About one-third of a second. But is it the fault of the camera if someone was driving above the limit and then had to check their speedo more than once to make sure their speed is now within it, or is that the fault of the driver for exceeding the speed limit in the first place? Another one of their lies is that drivers suddenly brake sharply when they see a camera, causing the driver behind to run in to the back of them. Even if this was true, which it isn't, and there is no evidence to support it, it would mean: 1) That both drivers were substantially above the speed limit; 2) That the driver behind was not keeping a safe distance from the driver in front; 3) That neither of them knew that a camera happened to be located there; 4) That neither of them saw the sign prior to the camera notifying/alerting drivers of its presence. Another one of the lies they disseminate is that a camera is obscured by a tree or whatever, but when they are asked - as in debates such as this - where the camera is located, they are either never heard from again or they don't post again for a couple of weeks or so and, when they do, they omit to respond to the question (presumably in the hope that the debate has moved on and no one will notice that they haven't). Another one of their lies is that some cameras are situated in locations where there is no history of accidents, so therefore the implication must be that the SCPs real objective is to make money - ie fleece motorists (as if motorists don't have a choice about whether they speed or not anyway!). They disseminate this lie in the full knowledge that cameras cannot be sited in any given location unless it meets with the DfT's criteria - ie four fatal or serious injury collisions during the previous three-year period. The propagandists know that the SCPs cannot erect a camera without first meeting these requirements and, as such, getting the DfT's approval, but they know that there are many people who don't know that, and that is why they dissemble this lie. Another one of their lies is that the road carnage has very little to do with speed and speeding, and that it is mainly due to "inattention" or lack of "hazard awareness", but when asked to explain how this fits with the fact that men commit 94%/95% of driving offences causing death and serious injury, they never respond of course. Speed kills and cripples and, in turn, devastates, but so do the devious lies of the anti-camera propagandists, and the last one in particular. John Power
Well done Bob Jenkins! for not driving at 120mph on the bad road surface that you have mentioned. I wonder how many idiots out there have? Jean --- Stafford
Tailgaters should be heavily fined and have their driving licences taken off them for good. They are nothing more than stupid, annoying bullies especially the lorry and van drivers who as professional drivers should know better that to drive so dangerously. What do these foolish ignorant people think that they will achieve by driving so close to the vehicle in front of them? Even in narrow country lanes they persist in tailgating other drivers. Have they not got the common sense to know what the consequences could be if the vehicle in front has to brake suddenly? It will be them or their passengers who are most likely to be injured or even killed if they, through their own fault, plough into the vehicle in front because of their bad driving. Zippy
Lets have a look at how effective these camera's are at reducing speed shall we..... Looking at the partnerships own data, in camera locations in 60mph limits the overall average reduction in speed over a 2 year period was... wait for it... a massive 2mph !!! Likewise in 50mph areas the reducing was also an astounding 3mph... Very effective ! You lot are hopping up and down yelling "speed kills" but the camera's are doing little to slow people down apparently. John Power
Yes Penelope many accidents do involve young people. The vast majority of these accidents, however they were caused, would have been less severe if the speed of the vehicles involved had been less. Speed cameras are not just 'Sticking Plasters' as you call them---THEY SAVE LIVES! The present driving test is much harder than the one we had to take years ago. It consists of two parts-Theory and Practical. Driving hazards are explained in the Highway Code but when passing their tests young drivers should drive appropiately until they gain confidence and experience.Unfortunately a lot of young drivers, despite their lack of experience and knowing full well about road hazards, tend to drive far too fast and this usually ends up in them or some one else getting hurt. I feel that drivers who have just passed their test should be made to wear distinguishing markings such as 'P' plates on their vehicles and should not be allowed to drive at the full speed limit for a period of 6 months or more until they have gained some of the neccessary experience that they need to drive properly and safely. You are right when you say that the safety cameras make a lot of money but whose fault is that? If bad drivers choose to break the law and endanger lives by speeding then they must expect to get fined and get endorsements on their licences.As for your rather stupid childish and and offensive remark "This forum is full of old fools who are more worried about dents in their cars than stopping young people dying" I think that you have an awful lot to learn about life Penelope. Perhaps when you grow up-!The people who contribute to this forum(not the speed freaks obviously)are against speeding and are trying to save lives of young and old alike. Max Speeder
You lot make me laugh.... Your hypocracy is astounding, i bet there isnt one of you that could honestly say you have never exceeded a speed limit !!!! Max Speeder
Here's one for you people concerned about tailgating... GET OUT OF THE WAY ! I bet you are the one's who sit in the outside lane of a dual carriageway with no intention of overtaking. You disrupt the smooth flow of traffic and block the roads. You have probably never been in an accident but have seen loads behind you. MOVE OVER and let the traffic flow properly, this way you will not get tailgated !!!! JJ
Penelope: I thought Robyn's appraisal of speeders and the anti-camera lobby and their slogans summed it all up perfectly. Don't you agree? If you don't, could you please explain what it is you disagree with and why? But even as I ask this of you, why do I have the feeling that we either wont be hearing from you again, or when you do post again, you will omit to respond to my question(s). And in that respect, will Denzil respond to Jake? Will Dick Dastardly respond to Mr S Nail's point about the lorry driver? Will Markie respond to Robyn's questions? Will Dan ever respond to my queries regarding his comments? (I could go on!). I doubt it somehow! As for a freeze on cameras, the man from the Ministry - the DfT that is - told me that it's all just media hype. Ring the DfT and ask them yourself if you don't believe me. And DO let us know what they said, wont you. Jason
Wrong again Markie!The government is not stopping cameras. They intend to invest the millions of pounds from fines to be invested in other road safety measures such as totally pointless flashing laser signs,speed bumps, more warnig signs, educating motorists(LOL). Experiments are at present being carried out on new type safety cameras and anti tail gating cats eye type cameras. All this has been in the newspapers Markie so perhaps u should get your facts right before you contribute any more mixed up comments. Shaun Kirby
I suggest Les that you read Garrys comments. Ken
The best way to deal with tailgaters is to slow down. It doesnt matter how fast you are going they will drive too close so the best policy is to slow right down gradually until they realise that you will not be intimidated by their foolish and dangerous driving tactics. Markie
Robyn, also, as for your comment on me being a "motor-moron" i would like to inform you that i drive within the limits myself and have a very clean licence thankyou. Just because someone has a different viewpoint to yours does not make them a moron.... I am actually very well educated and have worked in the automotive industry for over 20 years. As i have stated, i am NOT "anti-camera" but i do believe they should be used correctly and they are NOT the total solution. Markie
Robyn, the camera concerned is on the A51, it is located round a corner obsured by the hedge, guidelines give a minimum distance that the camera should be visible from and they should not be located on corners !i came across the story because i live in the area.... 2 camera's that do not comply with the guidelines for example are the one in Weston A51 south and the one halfway through Sandon village A51 south, neither are at positions where accidents were above the government threshold. These were unfortunately commissioned before the guidelines and have not been removed as they are effective cash machines. I am NOT "anti-camera" but believe they should be used in the correct manner !!! Look at the partnership's own data, a number of camera positions have seen an increase in personal injury or people killed... A444 Burton, 3 more accidents, A34 Cannock 2 more, A34 Stafford same amount.... These are hardly effective are they ??? As for your comments on bad driving Robyn then yes i agree, but i maintain that if the camera had not been in an obscured location then the first driver would not have braked so hard and sudden. Sid
Markie you are so mixed up it is unbelievable. Wendy
You are right Penelope when you say that many accidents involve young people. Most of these accidents are made much worse by speed. The safety cameras are an essential part of road accident prevention just the same as cameras in shopping areas are an essential part of street crime prevention.The facts are Speed Kills and has to be prevented, nothing to do with dents in cars, just saving lives! PETE
I should imagine that the majority of fines go towards the cost of the emergency services who have to attend accidents caused by bad drivers who speed Les. PC
Tailgating is dangerous driving Mr Clifford so please stop trying to make excuses for it. It does not matter what speed the vehicle in front of you is driving you keep your distance. You do not distract the driver in front just because you are a speed nutter and want to get around him. This is stupid and childish as well as being very dangerous. You keep a safe distance behind at all times. What do you call a safe speed on a motorway 90-100mph? Because if you stick to the legal speed limit of 70mph you will be tailgated by some nutcase. If you condone tailgating then I feel you must be yet another pea brained speedfreak. Anne
Cameras ARE effective Markie look at all the bad drivers who have been caught breaking the law by speeding. Look at all the accidents that have been avoided because of the cameras. We need more of these cameras with all the fools on our roads who cant keep their speed down. Ken
To H.C.Tappenden. The flashing road sign that you have mentioned is located on the A466 between Bassetts Pole and Junction 9 M42. The road is well marked with a red surface and the 30mph sign is neccessary because of the very bad bend located here. The warning light is no brighter than any other flashing light and would not present a hazard. The sign is usually ignored completely by the speedfreaks particularly HGV drivers who find it great fun to tailgate as close as possible behind the few drivers who do make an effort to stick to the legal 30mph speed limit. This road is notorious for speeding and motorcyclists are often seen speeding in excess of 100mph down it despite several accidents having occurred along this stretch of road. Safety cameras have been installed at some points in the hope of catching some of the dopes who speed and it is a pity that a camera could not have been put on the bend instead of the flashing warning sign. Drivers who are travelling at the correct speed would have no problem with the flashing light and good drivers would drive appropiately by driving slower if it is raining and the roads are wet. H C Tappenden
whilst driving towards coleshill this red and white round flashing sign saying slow down maximum speed 30 miles per hour due to the road bend ahead I was transfixed as it was very bright sign because of road conditions i could not press hard on the brakes also the traffic behind me was coming at speed My speed was dropping from 50 mph which was legal then out of the blue came this sign. the road was wet due to rain etc'as i approached the sign my speed was about 37 mph I think it flashed me This sign to me should have give people more warning not coming out of a fifty zone straight into a 30 mph flashing sign which dazzled me as I approached it was quite brightI am sure somthing could be done regards giving people a warning this sign was ahead. I think the road is the 461 the bassets pole road to coleshill but you would know which one it is i am sure. Is this camera speed a camera or a hazard to motorist. what is your verdict? les
why doesn't somebody come clean over how much revenue has been raised by speed cameras and more importantly where its been spent. All i've seen locally is that more speed cameras have been put up. i know these schemes were supposed to be self funding but the cost of new cameras has surely not mopped up all the cash generated? where's it all gone? Markie
Ray... It is not a case of being mixed up... I would like to see traffic calming that is effective in our area, camera's are NOT... Camera's generate cash and as such in some locations are positioned with this in mind and not in area's with high accident rates, thankfully new guidelines take this into account but unfortunately camera locations that do not comply are still there to generate cash... We need traffic calming on a main road near one of our schools, not on the run up to a dual carriageway where there are no houses and no accidents !!! But as i said before, because nobody has been killed outside the school yet nothing will be done, i guess it would not pay for itself. Markie
Beverly, sorry to disappoint you but the government HAVE put a stop on further camera's at last. They are concentrating on spendind the money from these cash machines on other road safety measures.... hopefully one's that work ! The RAC have also called for all camera's to be de-activated pending an enquiry about their accuracy due to the number of people wrongly convicted, more often than not by a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction to the camera !!!! One day, one of the wrongful convictions may be you ! Brian Cowling.
Speeding is a criminal offence just the same as housebreaking, shop lifting and other offences. The big difference is that a lot more people are killed by law breaking speeding drivers than any other crime. The Police and courts are far too soft on these drivers who deliberately break the law by speeding and risking other peoples lives. Penelope Greaves
As many accidents involve young people, I'd guess that inexperience plays a big part. Adding more speed cameras is therefore only a sticking plaster and does not address the real problem. I'd like to see a far better driving test introduced one that taught more hazard awareness, and instilled a greater sense of responsibility. The skills learned would last a lifetime. If you think back to the days in which we all did our driving test, it was a doodle which many of us passed first time. Don't kid yourself the new test is any better, go look at the written test and tell me you didn't laugh out loud. example question: “Motor vehicles can harm the environment. This has resulted in…..” But back in the real world, we all know cameras make lots of money; and this forum is full of old fools would are more worried about their cars getting dented than stopping young people dying. R. Clifford
I've seen a few comments on tailgating: The few times I've suffered from it have always been my own fault. Observation and Anticipation are important i.e. don't blindly pull out into fast moving traffic and then moan about it. When being tailgated, double the gap in front of you. That way if you need to brake you can 'pass back' some of your extra gap to the person behind (and they are less likely to rear-end you) The increased gap will allow the person to overtake you safely, i.e. they then only needs to overtake YOU, not a whole convoy of closely spaced cars You have better visibility, help them out and pull over slightly when you see a gap ahead. This will be their cue to overtake. I've seen some people also indicate left in this situation. Make sure you are doing a safe speed, driving too slowly on a motorway is an offense. Lorries tend to tailgate because they can't change speed as easily as a car, take advantage of having the outside lane all to yourself. If you think you are a good driver, then show it; make allowances for others inexperience and feel happy that you avoided another hazard. Remember that you always want a fool in front of you, not behind. Make sure they become someone else's problem and get out of their way ASAP. For the people who have suggested braking suddenly. You need to grow up... Bob Jenkins
The roads in Staffordshire would be a lot safer if someone would slap the idiots in the Stafford council highway department (again). Instead of making our roads safer, they prefer to top dress roads with gravel; this wears off in two days leaving a smooth layer of Bitumen to slide over - and on a bend no less ! Look out if you are approaching Weston from the south. ...and before John Power pipes up, >>I<< didn't slide on it on at 120mph, I'm simply pointing out the potential hazard. Sandra
I wonder if Paul Smith of the so called "Safespeed" web site is so self righteous and full of himself to realise that his crackpot negative views about the life saving safety cameras are not shared with the vast majority of good drivers. Garry
Millions of pounds are spent by this government on the fire, ambulance and police services having to attend road accidents that need never have happenned if drivers had not been speeding. The government should increase the number of safety cameras and the revenue generated from them, through fining bad drivers, should be used to install more cameras. There should be a zero tolerance for speeding and tailgating drivers who cause most of the accidents on our roads to be more serious than they need be. Jason
ANN is right! Why should we have to be told how much we can or cannot drink when driving?Speeding drivers cause far more road accidents than drivers who have been drinking. The law is an ass! It is drivers who are caught speeding who should be banned from driving not someone who slightly over the drink limit. Mr S Nail
Mr Dastardly: What I said in relation to cuts in traffic police numbers is that the vast majority of the cuts took place prior to the wide-spread use of cameras - ie prior to the years 2000/2001. I can't recall at this moment where I came across the information, but I'm sure I can dig it out. But if my memory serves me well, prior to the mid-eighties there were approximately 15,500 traffic police, but by the late nineties this had fallen to about 6,500. As for Iraq and Saddam Hussein, did you support the Government in the 1980s who were more than happy to do business with Saddam at the same time as he and his regime were killing the thousands of people you mention? As for the Government "changing its plans to introduce more cameras", they're not. They are in fact changing the funding guidelines so that the Camera Partnerships are not just restricted to investing the funds from speeding fines solely on cameras and their upkeep, which will mean many more road humps and 20mph zones hopefully. And given that cameras have reduced fatal and serious injury collisions by an average of 42% at camera-site locations, what grounds have you for saying what you said - ie "and start to improve road safety instead"? None whatsoever of course! (but never-the-less, I would be interested to hear your views on how road safety could be improved). And given that the average speed of speeders who are flashed by cameras is around 10mph above the limit in 30mph and 40mph zones, how can you possibly describe that as a "mistake"?! As for self righteousness, self righteousness has nothing to do with it of course, but consideration for others and compassion for the hundreds of thousands of bereaved family members does. I think there is a fundamental difference in the pro and anti camera factions, and I think it can probably be best summed up like this: If anyone belonging to the former group of people were to kill or cripple someone in a road crash, they would be completely mortified and their lives changed forever, but people belonging to the latter group would have no feelings of remorse whatsoever and be claiming to police at the scene of the collision - as so often happens - that: "They (the person they just killed or seriously injured) just came out of nowhere" and/or "I didn't see them" etc, etc, and of course maintain that they were driving within the speed limit when in fact they were travelling at 10mph or more above the stated speed limit. I think that's the fundamental difference Mr Dastardly. One group of people has respect for others and, as such, drive in a careful and cautious manner, and the other group of people don't. As for the driver you claim was travelling at between 40-50mph on a motorway, if they did have a problem but could keep going, then who can blame them given the risks of stopping on the hard shoulder. I think that is exactly what most people would do - ie get to the next lay-by or service station if they can. And who says that someone with a problem is not able to concentrate on the road. Only you. But whether they had a problem or not, it was the lorry driver who was at fault. Agreed? Dick
well rick, if we Engineers had our way we would build production cars that have the braking ability of an Aston Martin or a Ferrari and we would build box standard production cars that have active suspension. However, cost comes into the equation because i'm sure you'd object to pating £20,000 for a box standard ford focus with these advanced facilities. people unfortunatly buy fast cars so theycan go fast, thats there choice and there freedom to buy such a car! As far as Engines go, thats up to the government to introduce impossible legislation limiting engine capacity. Stupid! Robyn Hope
Markie: I hate to bring the matter up, but in a post several weeks ago you claimed that one camera in your area "caused an accident shortly after being installed in an unclear location", and you went on to say that "the driver braked unnecessarily hard upon seeing the camera at the last moment causing the vehicle behind to hit him". In a post that I sent in relation to this I asked you where you came across this story, but you completely ignored my request, despite having posted another letter since. I also pointed out that if the driver behind had been keeping a safe distance, then he/she would not have gone into the back of him no matter how hard he may have braked. In other words, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the camera and was solely down to bad driving, not only on the part of the driver behind, but also on the part of the driver who braked, and especially so if he was exceeding the limit and that is the reason why he braked unnecessarily hard. I pointed these things out to you but, yet again, you just ignored them and didn't respond (as you anti-casters so often do!). Do you agree with my assessment or not - ie that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the camera and was solely down to bad driving? And please don't forget to let me know where you came across the story, will you? Afterthought: You also said in your post that "Mobile enforcement cameras do not follow the guidelines in our area..." etc. Which area is that, and can you give some examples? You also say that "Fixed camera sites have not reduced the accident figures in our area...." etc. I wonder if the figures would have been higher than they were but for the cameras. What do you think Markie? Frank Lee
With ragards to flashing speed signs Denzil, you say that you agree that speedfreaks will just ignore them. But will they - and do they - ignore actual cameras? Surely it is the speedfreaks who pose the greatest danger to others, so assuming these "loads of people" you mention would also slow down for a camera (as I'm sure they already do), just as they do for a flashing speed sign, then isn't it safer to have cameras that slow down the really dangerous drivers as well (as opposed to flashing speed signs which don't)? But that said - and given their relatively cheap cost - I would be all for putting them in town centres - ie just prior to where any given road enters into a town centre. And I would also be for having them around schools. And in both cases a maximum speed of 20mph in force (at the relevant times for schools that is). As for speed ramps, whilst I agree with the other points made by Ray, generally speaking road humps are very effective at reducing the number of fatal and serious injury collisions, as has been shown in Hull and many other places. Even more effective than cameras. Jake
Denzil. Could you specify these "recent news reports" you mention and give your sources for them. As for the "biker" you cite, do you know if it was a fixed camera or a mobile camera? I'll assume it was a mobile camera, but if that was the case, then it seems odd to me that an operator would have reason to aim the camera at someone who was quite obviously travelling very slowly. Doesn't make sense to me. In your post you give the impression that you are referring to specific instances of people getting wrongly booked for speeding because of erroneous camera readings, and that is what anybody reading it would think, but are you in fact actually referring to the BBC programme and the Daily Mail and their so-called research? Could you verify what it is your referring to exactly? Harry
Yet another massive motorway pileup on the M6 this Christmas. Yet another accident caused by excessive speed in bad (fog) weather conditions. Whenever will these stupid drivers ever learn to drive appropiately? KEITH
The point is Denzil is that if the flashing sign was replaced by a safety camera the speedfreaks who race through would be caught by the camera and fined which they deserve. It is no good pussyfooting with these idiots they need hitting in their pockets or more hopefully banned from driving. PETE
What people do not seem to realise is that the present safety cameras may very well be moved to sites that are more dangerous but in future revenue gained from them will be ploughed back into road safety measures such as superior type cameras that will be far more accurate and can check car tax, stolen cars, tailgaters and other details as well as catch drivers speeding. Jan
I personally do not trust any anti speed camera comments in right wing newspapers as they will stoop to any level to discredit the government. I have yet to see a biker travel at 18 mph! most of them are just tin hatted nutters who race around as fast as they can until they get killed. The speed cameras are a modern day neccessity because of all the crap drivers who speed and risk lives. The sooner the Transport Minister realises his decision to cut down on the cameras is wrong and that they are welcomed by the vast majority of GOOD drivers the better Denzil
If the recent news reports about speed cameras giving false readings (Such as the biker who proved he was only doing 18mph and not the 46pmh the speed camera claimed he did.) then people who don't speed have got something to worry about; i.e. the fact they could be falsely accused of speeding. I'd sooner see current speed cameras sorted out so that they are 100% accurate before anymore are built. I disagree with those of you who think the flashing speed signs are a waste of time & money. There's one near where I live and, whereas I agree that speedfreak will only ignore it, I have seen loads of people slow down upon seeing it flash at them and surely that's the whole point. Len
Why do web sites and newspapers give camera locations? If a driver is driving with due care and attention he would see the signs and know where the cameras are anyway. Phil
The safety cameras should be increased in numbers not decreased. They are doing a wonderful job in weeding out the bad drivers from the good ones. Drivers know it is illegal and unsafe to break speed limits so why do they do it? Then when they finally get caught and fined they start crying to every one who will listen. They only care about themselves and conveniently forget about all the road accident victims who have had their lives ended or ruined by speeding drivers. Anne
You only have to read the stupid and foul mouthed comments left on the forums of Safespeed and Speed Camera.Org to realise what pathetic, low mentality, low life some of the people who contribute to those forums are. RICK
Dick, If you are supposed to be an automotive design engineer why don't you design a car that has a legal speed limit alarm sounding device that activates every time a motorist breaks the speed limit. Why are cars made that can travel at speeds well above the legal speed limit in this country.? Stupid! Harry
I wonder how many people are going to get killed or seriously injured over the Christmas period due to speeding drivers. Accidents that need not have happenned at all or could have been less serious if only the driver/s involved had been travelling slower. Frank Lee
Just about all the anti-camsters can do is call the pro-camsters "self righteous" or say they are being Politically Correct. And why do they resort to such tactics? Because their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and hold any water as such. First it was being Politically Correct, then it changed to being "self righteous". Is someone who says they have never murdered anyone or mugged anyone or ever stolen anything etc "self righteous"? No, of course they're not. You don't have to be self righteous to see the sense of driving within the speed limits, and I would submit that it is those who make such assertions who are in fact being self righteous - ie that they have the right to speed and endanger the lives of others. And isn't it odd how they themselves - or so they always claim - have never been booked for speeding. That, of course, is different to claiming that they never exceed the speed limits, which presumably they do, given their assertion - albeit bogus - that people who stay within them are "self righteous". Anyway, it would appear that there is only one way we can get out of this fix my fellow pro-camsters, and that is to exceed the speed limits and get clocked by a camera. I wonder what our anti-camster friends will be saying then! Frank
So how do you speedfreaks think that the Goverment should treat nut cases like you?Perhaps they could give you sweeties or chocolates in appreciation of your lousy driving standards. Lets forget all the people who have been killed in road accidents. Lets just let the barmy speedfreaks do what they like. Chan
The safety cameras are the most effective way of catching drivers who flout the law by speeding. Drivers who are caught should be dealt with more severly by the courts. These morons are risking other peoples lives as well as their own. They are not fit to drive. Beverly
Wrong Markie. You've obviously been reading the anti-camera tabloids! And cameras *DO* cut the number of so-called accidents. At camera site locations the number of fatal and serious injury collisions has been reduced by an average of 42 per cent (Source DfT), but then I expect you know this already. The point is Markie - given that that is the case - why would the Government/DfT put a stop on more cameras. They wouldn't, would they? And neither are they! Sorry to disappoint you and bring you such bad news. Hope it doesn't spoil your Christmas. Peter(Cannock)
Two deer were killed by motorists on Cannock Chase recently. The speed limit on all of the roads crossing the Chase should be lowered and enforced with mobile speed cameras. John Power
It is a pity, Dick Dastardly, that you are not on an anti-war march instead of boring everyone with your stupid ranting. You are the one who appears to be self righteous Dick. The trouble is you don't sound right at all! Frank
Speed camera detectors are just a money making gimmick Mark. You should not need to purchase one of these devices if you are a capable driver. There are plenty of signs around to warn you of speed limits, schools and safety cameras so why waste your money on a piece of equipment which may not, as you say, guarantee to work. Ray
What a mixed up person you are Markie. One minute you are criticising the safety cameras and then then in the same breath you are moaning about not having any traffic calming measures in your area! The safety cameras are the best traffic calming method we have ever had. They DO stop accidents and save lives by slowing speeding drivers down. Speeding is bad driving. You mention the Air Ambulance Markie. The main part of this service is attending road accidents usually made much worse by speeding drivers. Robyn Hope
I suppose the thinking of the propagandists behind much of the anti-camera propaganda is that there must be many people who are incapable of rational thought. Just take 'one' of their principle slogans/platitudes - ie that cameras - or should I say scameras! - are 'cash generators' and a 'stealth tax' etc. Is there any logic to this claim? No, of course not! The point is of course that people have a choice as to whether they choose to exceed/flout the speed limits or not, so how can cameras possibly be 'cash generators' unless they have chosen to exceed/flout the speed limit and, in so doing, got flashed and fined etc. And if that is the case, then surely they have only their own stupidity to blame. It's something akin to seeing a sign that says 'Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted' and choosing to trespass and risk being prosecuted, and then, when they ARE prosecuted, complaining about it and saying it's a 'stealth tax' etc. And how stupid is that! The sole purpose of cameras is to deter people from speeding on the one hand - and in most cases they do - and to catch the culprits who disregard any given speed limit on the other (and to reduce fatal and serious injury collisions as a consequence). It's like having CCTVs in banks and shops etc. On the one hand they act as a deterrent to potential robbers and thieves, and on the other hand they catch the robbers and thieves on camera/film. It would be farcical and absurd to imagine some group campaigning on their behalf and claiming that these CCTVs are just a 'stealth tax' etc (I suppose the 'slogan' would be: Cash Cow TVs!), but that is precisely what the ABD and SS and other such anti-camera propaganda groups do. They realise that people must be a bit stupid if they choose to exceed the limit and risk getting flashed and fined etc, so they know that many of them will swallow such illogical slogans and platitudes with relish and never give it a moments rational thought. Anyway, Merry Xmas one and all, and have a Logical New Year! Jake
I'm sure we all know what you meant Eddie, but shouldn't that have read "...more serious..."! Markie
At last.... The government are to put a stop on more camera's. It's about time, the other good thing is that the partnerships will be prevented from lining their pockets and forced to spend the money on improving road safety ! We have been asking for traffic calming measures in our area for some time but have been told that there is no money and we need to wait until someone is injured or killed before anything can be done ! Maybe this will change now. If the government were serious about saving lives then they ought to support something that does work like the Air Ambulance. Camera's do NOT cut the number of accidents or instances of bad driving. slowcoach
If you look at the DfT statistics regarding road deaths by age and gender, you will see that almost three times as many males were killed compared to females. But in the 15-19 age group - and bear in mind that people are not eligible to drive until they are seventeen, and that they don't acquire a full licence until they are seventeen or eighteen or older - there were almost four times as many males killed as there were females. In the 20-29 age group there were five-and-a- half times as many males killed compared to females, and in the 30-39 age group there were five times as many males killed. In the 40-49 age group it was four times as many, and in the 50-59 age group three times as many. Even taking into account that there are more male drivers than females (approximately one-third more in fact*) and that men tend to do more mileage per annum than women (approximately one-third more*), there are still two-three times as many males being killed in these age groups. (*Source DfT also). P.C.
I think that when Mr Alastair Darling, The Transport Minister, realises that he has made a big mistake by cutting down on speed cameras and there are even more accidents caused mainly by speed he will soon change his mind.We all know that his climb down is bare faced electioneering but he has gone too far when he starts to put lives at risk. There are no other road safety measures that are as successful as the safety cameras and I am sure that when this is realised and appreciated by ministers the decision to cull them will soon be reversed. RAY
The safety cameras are neccessary to catch criminal drivers just the same as cameras in our streets catch other criminals. Police manning levels have fallen to an all time low and cameras are essential because of this. The Transport Minister is wrong when he says that he is replacing some cameras with other so called road safety measures. What does he mean by this announcement? Does he mean more speed ramps? Complete waste of time. Most drivers just race over them. Or does he mean flashing warning signs? Just a joke. The speed freaks ignore them just the same as they ignore ordinairy speed limit signs. Lowering speed limits is pointless unless there are speed cameras. So how does our Transport Minister intend to cut down the deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Educating motorists has been suggested. Sorry, but speedfreaks are beyond educating. If they ignore all the other Road Safety Campaigns, High Way Code and other advice does the Minister really think that these people are really going to let themselves be 'educated' as to what is right and wrong with their driving. No way! Mark
Harry, John, how wrong you are about speed camera detectors. 1, They don’t guarantee to pick up every device.\ 2, They inform you of the speed limit in the area your driving when there are cameras around and SCHOOLS. Yes that’s right, they inform you of schools if your driving near them. 3, They actually make you more conscious about the speed your doing. I presume you 2 guys have one of these devices? Dick Dastardly
Ah Mr Nail. You say that the driver may have had a problem, if that’s the case why didn’t he pull over like a sensible driver would have done. If there is a problem your not concerntrating on the road are you! So all the major reductions in traffic police happened before cameras were introduced where do you get that info from? Was I on the Anti War march……….NO. Did I believe the government………..NO. However, I do support the removal of a man who has murdered thousands of people the same as Stalin and Hitler did. It’s good to see that the government is changing it’s plans to introduce more cameras and start to improve road safety instead. Perhaps it will then satisfy all the righteous people on here who have never once made a mistake by going over the speed limit. P.S Scientist……………No………………Automotive Design Engineer with 18 years experience…………YES. Dave (Hednesford)
Hurray, the government has finally seen sense in trying to make roads safer rather than keep sticking revenue raisers by the roads. Isn't this something that was started some 10 years ago then abandened because the government could see the revenue potential fom speed cameras? P.C.
There are hundreds of people alive today who would otherwise be dead if it were not for the speed cameras. The cameras play a significant part in the reduction in accidents. We need more cameras to catch bad drivers speeding and thus reduce road accidents even more. Chan
In an announcement made today,14th December, Mr Darling,the Transport Minister,said that there will be a requirement for all local authorities to review the speed limit on their A and B roads by 2011.Hopefully this will mean that speeds will be reduced on all of these roads. He also announced that an independant 4 year report shows that safety cameras have an important part to play in road safety with around 1,745 fewer people killed or seriously injured each year and that the safety cameras had led to a 42% annual reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured and that there is "Clear Proof" that safety cameras save lives -- need I say more? Norma
Markie should not assume that every other driver drives to his low standards. I always drive a few miles under the speed limit and I consider myself to be a good , safe driver by doing so. Only bad drivers speed! KEITH
The cameras should stay. Since having one put near where we live road safety has improved. Drivers have to slow down now instead of speeding past our house at excessive speed. KEITH
The cameras should stay. Since having one put near where we live road safety has improved. Drivers have to slow down now instead of speeding past our house at excessive speed. Eddie
The mobile speed cameras should be located in places where they will catch barmy drivers who break the speed limit. Drivers travel far too fast nowadays and need teaching a lesson to make them see sense. Harry
Think of all the speed detector businesses that will be put out of business if the speed cameras go. Davey
What a weak and pathetic Transport Minister we have. The cameras were doing a wonderful job of catching drivers breaking the law and endangering lives by speeding and now he has stated that no more cameras are going to be installed. He mentions other road safety methods will be used in their place---what a joke! Perhaps he means to use more flashing speed signs--- what a complete waste of time and money! The speedfreaks just ignore them. Perhaps he intends to increase the traffic police back to their original manning level---I doubt it! The Transport Minister is making a very big mistake by getting rid of the life saving safety cameras---now just you watch the road accident deaths and injuries rise! Brian Cowling
I would have thought it was very obvious Markie that the foolish drivers who were involved in the accident that you blame on a safety camera were both breaking the law by speeding and that the driver behind was travelling too close to the car in front. If the first driver had been driving safely within the speed limit he would not have had to brake at all. Also this driver must have been driving without due care and attention if he did not see the safety camera signs. Giving this example when trying to insinuate that cameras cause accidents seems rather silly. bob
good steve
what was the web address given out on beacon radio this morning about speed cameras. Anne
Now that the government has put a curb on road safety cameras why not go the whole hog and do away with the drink drive laws. After all there are far more people killed by speeding drivers than drivers who are over the limit. Glyn
I find it amazing that despite the facts most people on this here still believe that speed cameras actually save lives when in reality road deaths are on the increase. Surely it's time to look at the situation and get the good old traffic police back onto the roads. I t is my opinion that driving standards are now at an alltime low and are surely more responsible for deaths than speeding. Before Mr Power starts to whinge on I would like to know how many miles he covers a year? Robyn Hope
Cameras don't cause "accidents" Markie, motor-morons like yourself do! If the driver of the car you mention had been driving within the limit, then there would have been no need for him to brake at all (did he not see the camera warning sign?!), and if the driver of the vehicle behind him had been keeping a safe distance, then he or she would not have hit him would they, even if he HAD slammed the brakes on hard for some reason. But just where did you get to hear of this story out of interest? And the Government haven't put a curb on cameras, they have just put the introduction of new cameras on hold for the moment. Wendy
I am sure that the vast majority of drivers do not view the police as tax collectors as Paul Smith of Safespeed suggests. The police are saving lives by preventing accidents by using safety cameras. If drivers did not speed they would not have to pay fines. It is totally unfair of Smith to make statements like this when the views are just his and a few other other misguided drivers. John Power
All road accidents, no matter how they are caused, have a contributory factor of speed. The faster a vehicle is travelling at the time of an accident the more severe the impact will be and the more likely someone will die or be seriously injured. It does not matter what Paul Smith and his fellow loonies from the misnamed Safespeed site say the above facts are correct and understood by every good and sensible motorist. Eddie
Paul Smith on the Safespeed? web site says that"Speed cameras catch people exceeding the speed limit. No more than that." This statement is wrong! Safety cameras save lives by slowing drivers down and prevent accidents from being less serious than they would have been if the vehicles involved had been going faster. The cameras are very successful as a deterrect against stupid drivers who speed and cause accidents by doing so. Garry Davis
I have never read such a load of rubbish as that put out by Paul Smith of the so called Safespeed anti safety camera site. This dope thinks that it is perfectly safe for drivers to travel just as fast as they like when they like regardless of safety. He calls himself a road safety expert which the rest of us know is totally untrue. Please do not insult our intelligence by letting this pathetic individual make any more contributions to the BBC Stoke and Staffordshire Website. slowcoach
In urban areas, where the vast majority of safety cameras are situated, fatalities have DECREASED by approxamately 15% during the past eight years, whereas in rural areas fatalities have INCREASED by approxamately 5%. | 
Listen to the 
Watch the