Speed Camera switch off sees fewer accidents

Exocet

What is wrong with you speed morons? You seem to think it is your God given right to drive cars as fast as possible, without regard to the laws, or more importantly, the safety and consideration of other drivers.

I don't want to be hassled by idiots driving as fast as they think are capable. It is not clever. It is immature and irresponsible. If you really think you are a 'good driver' why not go on an advanced driving course?

You are pathetic, dangerous, and as socially unacceptable as drink driving. Or perhaps you also think "a couple of pints and I'm actually safer because I slow down a bit".

Absolute rubbish from morons with small penises and over sized cars.

Graham_Devon

Most of us morons want more police on the roads. It's not like the funding isn't there to achieve it, its just spent on cameras.

Actually, it don't even have to be police. We see those highway patrols. Something like that could be done, a trained division of the police to deal with driving only. Stick them in the equivalent of an undercover cop car and let them catch people driving dangerously / drunk / in cars unfit for the road....and speeding.

As a moron, I'd find this far better. Would never know where they are. So long as they, like the police, don't stop you for doing 80mph on a clear motorway and use some common sense, I don't think any morons would have an issue.

Exocet

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Most of us morons want more police on the roads. It's not like the funding isn't there to achieve it, its just spent on cameras.

The argument from the speed junkies is that the cameras ARE self financing, that they rip off the poor speeding little boy as he races his brrm brrm up the road. There does seem to be a total nonsense in the way these cameras are funded and the fines then given to some other department, but that should be sorted so it is self financing.

Maybe I am being unfair. What speed do you think should be allowed? Would you be happy for all drivers, or all capabilities, of all ages and gender to be able to do that speed? I suggest it is a selective thing. It is OK for you to break the law because you are a safe and capable driver. But that other driver trying to overtake you is a nutter, he is the dangerous one.

So OK guys. What speeds are OK?

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Most of us morons want more police on the roads. It's not like the funding isn't there to achieve it, its just spent on cameras.

Actually, it don't even have to be police. We see those highway patrols. Something like that could be done, a trained division of the police to deal with driving only. Stick them in the equivalent of an undercover cop car and let them catch people driving dangerously / drunk / in cars unfit for the road....and speeding.

As a moron, I'd find this far better. Would never know where they are. So long as they, like the police, don't stop you for doing 80mph on a clear motorway and use some common sense, I don't think any morons would have an issue.

The only way to go, what is the point of fixed cameras (excluding areas like schools) when they even tell you where they are on their website and as a consequence where they aren't.

StevieJ

Exocet wrote: »

The argument from the speed junkies is that the cameras ARE self financing, that they rip off the poor speeding little boy as he races his brrm brrm up the road. There does seem to be a total nonsense in the way these cameras are funded and the fines then given to some other department, but that should be sorted so it is self financing.

Maybe I am being unfair. What speed do you think should be allowed? Would you be happy for all drivers, or all capabilities, of all ages and gender to be able to do that speed? I suggest it is a selective thing. It is OK for you to break the law because you are a safe and capable driver. But that other driver trying to overtake you is a nutter, he is the dangerous one.

So OK guys. What speeds are OK?

You are totally missing the point.

Exocet

StevieJ wrote: »

You are totally missing the point.

Ok. Seriously. What is the point. I have ten minutes. Go for it.

StevieJ

Exocet wrote: »

Ok. Seriously. What is the point. I have ten minutes. Go for it.

The point is fixed speed cameras are neither use nor ornament in cutting road casualties, traffic calming should be used near sensitive areas and unidentified mobile cameras should be used for the rest.

andykn

nembot wrote: »

Not in direct response to your query, but the Gatso's were priced at 100k each if I remember correctly, compared to internet capable HiDef video option by a competitor for 20k per camera.

However, as the manufacturer of Gatso's were a friend of the Labour Party, history shows who's technically inferior product was implemented, thus screwing the tax payer out of yet more money!

This is a two fingers up at the Labour Party and rightly so, as the f00kwits made a right mess of the economy and people's expectations.

I sincerely hope many other borough's follow their example.

Gatso's were first implemented by the Tories in large numbers. They were widespread in Greater London by 1997.

andykn

Sibley wrote: »

Anyone who wants to keep them must want their heads tested. Why give the government more money?

Because then we get more schools and hospitals paid for by other people instead of us observant drivers.

Win win.

andykn

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7931842/Speed-camera-switch-off-sees-fewer-accidents.html

Excellent news.

Scameras switched off, accidents and fatalities fall, everyone's a winner.

Road deaths dropped by 12% in 2009 compared with 2008. So, compared with national statistics, road deaths in Swindon seem to have fallen less than the rest of the country. A comparative rise.

Edit:

http://www.rospa.com/news/releases/detail/default.aspx?id=864