speed cameras at night?

thegriffmiester

Very well said Queenie

Jim

tonys_3

Where to start Queenie....where to start.....

The cabbie gets done for doing 65mph on a four lane 70 mph limit road,with a temporary 50mph limit because of road men working on the road.At the time he was on the road, the workers had gone.I know what the Law says,but to do him for that was
solely for profit.And your holier than thou response smacked of a pedestrian.

As a driver,I would have thought that you would have some notion about the disquiet
abounding about speed cameras and their related problems.The BBC report was not an isolated case.Go to Google and type in "inaccurate speed cameras" to get some idea
of how poor they are.Even a Judge castigated their results in his Court.

That was the point I was trying to make about the unfairness of speed cameras for long distance drivers,since they run greater risks of being prosecuted whilst DRIVING
WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT.With many radar guns,the first time you know you have been clocked is when you receive the NIP from the Police.What chance do you have of disproving the charge?

I really don't understand your comment about the 400 cameras.If he found that four
out of five were wrong,why do you assume that all the others he didn't check were
right?Seems to fly in the face of reason that he chose the only ones that were wrong!
Taradiddle even.lol

The fact that any are wrong means that there are many drivers wrongly accused and
fined who are innocent.The fact that so many are wrong should mean that they ought to be withdrawn until their accuracy can be improved.

I am yet to be convinced that there is any point in speed cameras.THey do slow down traffic over a few hundred metres but that's all.And despite the claims that accidents,
deaths etc have been reduced by miraculous amounts,these figures are not reflected in the annual statistics.In fact the Department of Road Safety's figures for 2002-2003 show that casualties increased at over 500 of the camera sites.

Do speed cameras slow joy riders down?Can they identify a drunken driver doing 30 mph?Since their inception,have the Police reneged on their patrol duties?And if they have cut down on their patrols,have their arrest figures increased elsewhere?
An RAC [or AA] report recently stated that 55% of drivers admitted exceeding speed limits so that doesn't seem to indicate that cameras are very effective,except at raising revenue.
Queenie,it isn't speed that is the problem apart from an irresponsible few,and they can only be identified by regular police patrols.They can also pick out the drunks,the disqualified etc etc and they cover all the roads not just a few metres here and there.

Queenie

Where to start Queenie....where to start.....

~ your holier than thou response smacked of a pedestrian.
Ooooh, personal and .... mistaken

~ As a driver,I would have thought that you would have some notion about the disquiet abounding about speed cameras and their related problems.
Who's to say I don't? In fact, I have more than a mere "notion"

~ I really don't understand your comment about the 400 cameras.
That's ok, it's called a "hypothetical example"

~ If he found that four out of five were wrong,why do you assume that all the others he didn't check were right?
Mr Edgar is stating that 80% of the one's he tested were inaccurate based on the one's he selected to test. *Some* people may then "assume" from his figures that "most speed camera's are inaccurate". I was merely presenting an example of how figures can be used to give a completely different angle.

~ Seems to fly in the face of reason that he chose the only ones that were wrong! Taradiddle even.lol

His study (which you provided) quoted "a number" were tested. To me, it "flies in the face of reason" that I should accept his study at face value when he neglects to qualify his research with full facts and figures. But, hey, if there are people out there that wish to take his "results" with only half the facts available and interpret that as most speed camera's being inaccurate then that is there choice!

~ The fact that so many are wrong should mean that they ought to be withdrawn until their accuracy can be improved.
But we don't KNOW that "so many" are wrong . We only *know* that 80% of an unknown number of the one's Mr Edgar selected were inaccurate!

~ I am yet to be convinced that there is any point in speed cameras.
It would appear by your quoting it that you have been convinced by Mr Edgar's ambiguous study.

derrick

You will notice that the majority of complainers are the ones who have 6-9 points on their licence,(they don`t learn) I see a lot of drivers doing over the speed limit,knowingly, who then slow down for the camera and then go back above the speed limit, knowingly, until the next camera, then slow down, speed again,etc,etc, I have no sympathy, if you don`t want them to be "stealth taxes" then use the dial on your dashboard, it is called a speedometer
and if you keep it within the speed limits, hey, no fine and no points, it`s a no brainer, and don`t tell me this means taking your eyes off the road,because whilst it does,it is for a split second, you should be checking your rear view mirror every 10 seconds and that again is a split second,it can be more but no one says that is dangerous, although the camera haters probably don`t check mirrors anyway
I don`t believe the one by silverfoxdude re the lorry driver being booked for going 3mph over in a 40mph zone,there is a 10% discrepancy allowance for speedometers, so he would have had to be doing at least 44mph and probably,knowing "proffessional lorry drivers" a damn sight more than 43mph.

If you don`t want the points and fine, don`t speed, it is the drivers decision to speed, so if you want to continue, pay the penalty.

burbs_2

there are many LEGAL ways to get around a speeding ticket, even if you receive the summons through the court, nobody tells you this but there are.

as for the people getting on their high horse about people slipping over the speed limit, anybody who says that they have never been over a spped limit is lying. I dont care whether thats personal, thats fact.

As for saying it is a priviledge not a right to drive, thats rubbish. I pay enough for the right to drive thanks. Im not condoning speeding but all these do gooders who have never done anything wrong in their perfect lives annoy me so much

Baz_Bee_2

Queenie wrote:

....................

I respect the fact you have not injured someone while driving/speeding - kudos! But, you cannot escape the statistics that show the majority of fatal accidents are caused by drivers travelling at speed!

Speed is associated with a majority of fatal accidents? But what the statistics do not say is that it is inappropriate speed that is the problem

The argument that speed contributes to accidents is often trotted out and is often true. But, speed and exceeding the speed limit are not the same thing and should not be confused, which they often are by many people. Doing 20 mph outside a school at 3.15 pm would, I suggest, be too fast and if a chjild was killed the cause would be attributed to the speed of the vehicle in the situation and circumstrances concerned. However, if the speed limit was 30 mph the driver would not have been speeding! There are lots of examples similar to this if you want them trotting out.

What is needed is a more flexible and responsive systems that varies limits according to prevasiling conditions and circumstances. To suggest that a one size fits all is fair and reasonable is not a sustaiable argument. Yes, it will be difficult to implement, but then with all the ring fenced money cvoming in to the finances of the various road Authorities via the Safety Partnerships it should not be ignored due to the usual money argument.

One of the major problems is the motorist is used as a cash cow and revenue generating schemes will twist and warp stats to suit there means to an end.

Finally, often pedestrian deaths are used to justify cameras being installed in urban areas. I think I would be correct in saying that most of these pedestrians were probably in the road when they were struck by the vehicle. Now surely whether the vehicle was travelling too fast or not is irrelevent? Surely the question that should be asked is why was the pedestrian in the road in the first place if it was not safe to be there? But no, the poor old driver will be the scapegoat for going too fast. How many times have you ever seen it reported that the pedestrian would have beeen prosecuted, had they survived, for walking without due care and attenetion or causing death by dangerous walking? Never? Why? Because it is easier to hit the driver of the car with a nice big fine and a few more points.

And remember its is usually not exceeding speed limits, that are often set at unrealistically low levels to catch motorists and increase revenues, that is the real problem, but driving at speeds that are not appropriate for the prevailing conditions.

polar_low_2

At the risk of going a bit OT here, what is the point of speeding, especially on the motorway? It seems that people are complaining when they have been caught doing say 10 or 15 mph over the limit. That is you would have covered another 10 to 15 miles every hour than the car that was obeying the speed limit and therefore arrive at your destination about 10-20% quicker. I accept that for some, time is money and that for example a taxi driver may have the opportunity to earn more money by traveling at a faster speed. But for most who are speeding, will they really benefit by saving 5 to 10 minutes on a 1 hour journey?

In fact, isn't driving at a boring but sensible speed (again especially on the motorway) adhering to the principles of money saving...

* Lower fuel consumption
* Very little chance of getting caught by a speed camera saving the £60 fine
* Probably lower car maintenance costs
* Lower insurance premiums

silverfoxdude

like burb says everyone who drives has slipped over the limit now and again now i drive my taxi around my city always sticking to the speed limit because i know i drive my car eight hours a day the odds of my having an accident is way higher than anyone else if i speed . but when there is a tempory camera on the motorway to protect workmen during the day remember this is a four lane motorway 3.30am no other cars only one lane was closed the camera should be off at night. i agree that people should not speed there is nothing worse than some !!!!!! up your !!!!!! in the fast lane because he wants to drive his expensive high powered car at speed . even when the camera flashed me i thought they might have taken the time of day into consideration but i guess i should remember this is the year 2005 the human touch has long gone from the police . i live in the city of york alot of the streets are rather narrow and tight. the only times i have nearly crashed is when a police car is pushing me out the way racing through traffic lights ect now these guys are maniacs this happens nearly every night i ask myself why are they doing this for what reason perhaps there has been a danger to someones life a big car crash a murder a bank job but when i read the paper the next day there is no sign of any such event so next time your nearly pushed into a lampost by a cop car ask yourself where are they going

dougk_2

Todays news that the M4 between junctions 14 and 18 cameras are in operation and ALL drivers travelling above the speed limit will be fined just compounds the fact that the cameras are not there for "safety" but for revenue.

The same report said over 50% of the population exceed the 70MPH limit so is it not targeting money rather than the cause of accidents?

Speed in itself is not a safety issue - its inappropriate speed combined with poor driving. Watching the speedo constantly is going to cause more accidents not less.
People will drive at 60MPH to be sure that they don't get caught out leading to longer delays and fustration from other drivers.

Accidents would be cut if police were on patrol more and stopped people for bad driving - in particular lorries that drive about 2 feet from your ar*e, or that of another lorry, people who constantly change lanes and undertake and people who drive too slow on motorways (they are more dangerous than vehicles driving fast in my view).

The fact that the news indicated that exceeding 70MPH will get you a ticket means that there is no tollerence for the cars inaccurate speedos, the fact that it is very easy to stray over the limit if you are concentrating properly on the traffic and the fact the cameras do not allow for conditions when its not safe to travel at 70MPH....human police officers (assuming police are human! ) have this ability to judge and make reasonable conclusions - electronics do not.

If the government want to cut speeding then cars should be restricted to 70MPH at manufacture and cars electronically governed in "slower zones". The technology is there to do this.

If safety is a key issue on our roads I would like to see the government also introduce a study to see how many lorries are directly or indirectly involved in accidents - I suspect a high percentage do due to various reasons including driver frustration getting stuck behingd one and taking risks to get past. I would also like to see the government BAN lorries from using anything but the inside lane on duel carriageways and motorways to stop the tailbacks they cause by overtaking at 0.5MPH faster than the other lorry! - but thats a personal wish becuase it annoys me so much.

KrazyFool

technology available to electronically restrict speed of an engine therefore technology to remove it....