|  | Add your comment More comments 
| Phil, Stevenage | Monday, 20-Jun-2005 11:15:26 BST | | | Well what are they .... speed or safety? I for one am outraged by the amount of these things. The revenue generated from these is just disgusting and if we are to believe that they save lives then show me some evidence. Speeding kills only if you hit something and even at 30 mph in a 30 limit you can still kill. My car was stolen last year but the police don't seem concerned as it was insured. So are we to assume that REAL crime is a secondry issue where as an offence where NOBODY was hurt or injured (38 in a 30)is deemed highly anti-social and of great concern to the general public. The police need to get their house in order and determine exactly what their priority really is ..... make money or stop crime. |
| Sue , Borehamwood | Tuesday, 01-Feb-2005 13:18:07 GMT | | | The speed camera in Elstree Way Borehamwood, has been in use for over two years but the warning sign and the speed limit sign were only errected in November 2004, and where did they errect the signs, right behind the Borehamwood sign so they are partially hidden? A second camera in Allum Lane is just over the brow of a hill so you have to brake to slow down. |
| Chris, Harpenden | Friday, 26-Nov-2004 14:10:34 GMT | | | The main reason that I break the speed limit is simply that I want to get somewhere quickly. With the terrible traffic problems around the country, I feel I have to make up for time spent in jams by speeding when I can. I break the speed limit every time I travel somewhere (if possible!), but on average, my speed is below the limit, so I don't feel particularly gulity. So, sort the roads out, and I won't speed! Also, I think that "safety cameras" actually make people like me less safe, as when I speed, I spend more time looking for police cars and cameras, and less time concentrating on my driving. |
| Nick, Hatfield | Saturday, 27-Nov-2004 23:37:09 GMT | | | Mobile speed cameras serve no purpose other than to earn revenue for the local authority. I am a D. Cllr and have arrange the placement of fixed speed camera's (sorry saftey camera). They do work but the mobiles are a cynical abuse of the regulations. Stop the mobile camera but not the fixed. |
| Craig, Luton | Wednesday, 03-Nov-2004 13:43:46 GMT | | | Speed cameras are just a front of a money making sceme, It is said that where ever you see a camera its there because a person died/crashed due to speeding, If they were about saftey then why not scrap the fine, keep the points and instead put everybody that is caught onto a sceme to better there driving / curb there speeding, but no what do you get.... I cant justify that £30 + 3 points is helping myself become a better driver, or that it slows me down. I drive along the M1, M25, M11 and other roads into London on a daily basis now I see what moslty causes accidents its people falling asleep, lack of concentration, rubber necking, or reading maps / newspapers etc. I dont feel that speeding is a major cause of accidents so long as the speed suits the road that you are driving on then there is no danger driving 70mph on a dual carrage way, but no we are slowed down to 40mph!!! |
| Paul Carleton, Buntigford | Wednesday, 03-Nov-2004 16:43:48 GMT | | | If speed kills a few people why is the health service allowed to kill thousands though filth> |
| J, Colliers End | Friday, 24-Sep-2004 10:52:18 BST | | | We could do with one in Colliers End to slow people down enough so that I get a sporting chance of pulling out on to the road. Let's hope the bypass opens soon. |
| Flic, Knebworth | Thursday, 19-Aug-2004 19:10:54 BST | | | A new 30mph speed limit has just been introduced as you come into Stevenage on the road coming from Knebworth. This is fair enough as new houses have just been built. However I was following a police car the other day and as I came into the speed limit I dutifully slowed to 30 but the police car got ahead of me by a long margin. And no he didnt have flashing lights and a siren at the time. I'd like to see the police obeying the limits, surely they should set an example. |
| Patricia Clegg, Stotfold | Friday, 20-Aug-2004 09:22:37 BST | | | I would like to see more emphasis on educating pedestrians and cyclists regarding road safely and - where appropriate - prosecutions for jaywalking and cyclists ignoring the Highway Code. As a motorist, I get fed up of being constantly targetted regarding road safely. Sure, cars have the potential to kill or injure other road users if driven badly but the vast majority of motorists are perfectly law-abiding. Most will have no problem with police prosecuting the idiots who do 50 - 60 mph in built-up areas or who are drunk or on drugs but not a little old lady who's doing 33mph on her way to church on a Sunday morning! Unfortunately, motorists are a cheap and easy target. It takes more effort and resources to actually catch pedestrians ignoring proper crossings and wandering around in the middle of the road or cyclists riding through red traffic lights or not giving way at junctions. But I wish the police would just be honest about this rather than harp on about motorists always being at fault for road accidents. |
| nick, london | Monday, 16-Aug-2004 10:37:21 BST | | | When are some people going to realise that its all about educating drivers on how to observe and understand road signs and be aware of other drivers and driving conditions on the road.Adding more speed cams,more road humps and narrowing roads etc. only leads to 'gridlock'which leads to frustration ,anger and eventually 'bad driving'!its the 'driver' who is dangerous not 'speed'!! |
| Roger Cox, Chesham | Saturday, 14-Aug-2004 11:21:06 BST | | | My understanding of the current regulations for the use of ‘Speed cameras’ is that they have to be located within a mile of a know accident black spot that has had three or more fatalities over a period of three years. Checking on the ‘list’ of cameras in the “Bucks” area there are 62 cameras, but over a two year period 154 fatalities so how can the relationship between the existing locations and the required link to accidents relate as the situation must be constantly changing and how can these locations listed be checked to meet with these regulations as they currently stand? How can a member of the public check that any camera location complies with the current regulations as they stand? |
| Al Jay, Baldock | Wednesday, 11-Aug-2004 14:43:48 BST | | | There should be three or four sets of camera's along Weston Way, Baldock. The majority of traffic using this road speed. There will be nothing done until a child is badly injured or killed on his/her way to one of the schools located along that road and near in nearby St. Mary's Way. |
| Trevor , Little Wymondley | Wednesday, 11-Aug-2004 13:59:12 BST | | | I think cameras are very good. |
| gary, bedford | Monday, 09-Aug-2004 15:33:43 BST | | | they are an easy way to make money,its more dangerous looking at your speed all the time, they should be out catching the real criminals |
| Howard Culley, Bedford | Monday, 09-Aug-2004 17:28:30 BST | | | The problem with speed limits is that they take no account of road and weather conditions or time of day. It can be quite safe to drive a modest degree over the limit on a fine night with little or no traffic or people about. It can be unsafe to drive at or near the legal limit in poor visibility and when there are a lot of other people about. Spped cameras are unable to take any account of this, except for a few variable ones such as those on part of the M25. I would like to see more of these variable limits. Cameras are quite unable to catch those who flout the law and drive without insurance or a licence. I suggest that there is too much reliance on cameras and not enough on traffic police. Speed cameras can only catch those who break the law by speeding; surely we should be concentrating more on those drivers who are the real criminals. |
| Daniel Morrison, London | Thursday, 05-Aug-2004 09:56:54 BST | | | Speed Cameras placed in dangerous areas such as schools that can be seen cleary are a reasonable enforcement measure. Cameras placed on empty national speed limit roads, SPECS on motorways (where tailgaiting trucks are the major problem, not people driving 80-90mph) and cameras plasced at the bottom of hills are not saving lives. As people say you can prove anything with statistics- since the intorduction of speed cameras fatalities have increased NOT decreased. Most probably as everyone drives looking at the speedo not the road.. |
| sharon, hertfordshire | Thursday, 29-Jul-2004 09:53:43 BST | | | i agree to speed camera's only in places like school's and built up area's,there are so many that are in the wrong place,what is the point of having a car that can go fast if you cant use it for what its ment for,may be we should go back to horse and cart.I think bell lane in london colney needs a speed camra as there are houses along that road with many kids playing over the school holidays.So my point is put them where there needed not on open roads where you can blow the cob webs from you car. |
| Filippo, Wokingham | Monday, 26-Jul-2004 09:46:23 BST | | | Speeding is a crime. I don't think anybody disagrees on that. What people disagree on is how much above the arbitrary speed limit constitutes as "speeding". Sure 70 in a 30mph zone sounds like speeding to me. But so does 20mph near a house where children are playing. If we admit that speed is not the only, and by any means the main, factor of "Speeding", we can see that Speeding is in fact misjudgement of speed. But no camera in the world can detect misjudgement of speed. Besides, when I passed my driving test, I was given a licence, which obviously means I am able to judge road conditions in a way which is safe. Why then I am being "done" for going faster than the recommended speed limit if the conditions allow? Only a real policemen can tell the difference. Since they can not stop everybody for just speeding, they can concentrate on stopping "dangerous drivers", which may not be speeding, but may be going around with bald tyres, broken headlights, and so on. The real reason accidents happen is not speed, is misjudgement. I woudl have no problem in having to pass a much tougher driving course if that meant to be safer. I don't understand why they give a driving licence to so many people (in any country) and then they catch them with speed cameras. Why not limiting the number of licences issued? why not actually building a sense of responsibility in drivers? The answer is simply "money". They make more money, so it is a good thing. I will now have an accident, because I will be looking at my speedo more than at the road. Don't let the real criminals fool you! |
| Mohammad Mehdi, Aylesbury | Monday, 26-Jul-2004 07:18:22 BST | | | I am lucky that haven't been caught on camera. However, I have a couple of speed control rules. 1. While driving in 30 zone drive your car in 3rd gear. You will never exceed 30 mph. 2. likewise in 40 zone drive in the 4th gear. Try it on it at least works on my 5+R gear box. |
| Jim Donachie, Sydney Australia | Sunday, 18-Jul-2004 21:09:49 BST | | | In Australia they have installed camera's to monitor speed camera's. Also (this is my favourite) They install speed camera's outside schools. When school ceases speed limits drop 20 KPH usually 60 - 40 KPH for one hour. If you are driving you obvesiously are aware of: 1) The exact time of day... to the minute/nay/second/(you are dealing with a computer.. .) 1) Starting Time and Finishing 2) The schools exact location. 3) School calender terms imprinted in subconscious. |
| paul, flitwick | Thursday, 15-Jul-2004 09:07:08 BST | | | I find it extremely irritable to find drivers that are still on moblie phones, especially builders/businessmen/contractors also smokers and genreally drivers whom filddle around with otherthings whilst trying to drive at the same time. How they can have there full concentration on the road? It's all down to careless attention and not paying attention as to whats going on around you that causes half of the accidents in the first place. If drivers concentrated on driving and to conditions then there should be no need for speed cameras in the first place. Its all down to common sense. |
| Tony, Tempsford | Sunday, 18-Jul-2004 12:53:57 BST | | | Pretty well every week the mobile camera is shown as visting the A1 at Sandy and the A421 at Great Barford. Have you noticed that there are fixed cameras covering these sites? Why not either move the fixed cameras or position the mobile eslsewhere? Otherwise it would seem that this apparent duplication is just helping to increase the Police precept. |
| Dale, Leighton Buzzard | Thursday, 15-Jul-2004 00:05:54 BST | | | Just thought I'd let people know that the speed camera on Grovebury Road, Leighton Buzzard is now Live. It has finally been 'plumbed in' and has already caught a lot of drivers out. |
| Derek, Luton | Saturday, 17-Jul-2004 08:57:40 BST | | | Why do drivers think that they are so special that they alone are allowed to fill the air with dangerous fumes. Put lives at risk and break the law. after all speed limits are backed by LAW. Putting the blame on cameras or the police cannot excuse their criminal behavour. |
| Mike Strand, Leicester | Thursday, 01-Jul-2004 13:21:07 BST | | | Speed limits are required. However common sense must also prevail! I recently drove from Bradford to Leicester and was travelling at 60 then 70mph on the different roads. trying to keep to the limit is not easy; a change in road surface, the incline of the road, safely overtaking, all affect the speed you are travelling and unless one is constantly looking at your speedo, it is very easy to inadvertently break the law. Travelling at those speeds you need to keep your eyes on the road, not constantly checking to make sure you haven't passed the magic number!! |
| Anon | Thursday, 01-Jul-2004 18:01:21 BST | | | Camera 105 - A411 Hempstead Road j/w Langley Way, Watford definitely doesn't work as it never seems to go off when cars in the rush hour so blatantly jump red. |
| Tony Brightman, Ampthill | Tuesday, 29-Jun-2004 11:12:15 BST | | | On single carriage main roads the HGV vehicle statuatory national speed limit is 40mph. Any HGV vehicle travelling at 19 mph over which is 1 mph inside the legal car limit will not be caught by fixed speed cameras. Because of the lack of resources for proper policimg of our roads car drivers are the easy target. When is the last time you have followed a HGV on a single carriageway A road below 40mph? There is a serious problem here as fixed safety cameras are a waste of time in this case, unless they check the speed against the registration of every vehicle that passes but that would be too expensive wouldn't it?. I firmly beleive that the term safety camera is totally misleading, in many situations they will not deter or catch a HGV going 19mph over the limit. |
| Ozcan, watford | Tuesday, 29-Jun-2004 20:13:32 BST | | | Although there are many speed cams in this area why do people still dying of traffic accidents? I think this cams are just for regular income of police. |
| Malcolm Ford, Lane End | Monday, 28-Jun-2004 15:46:24 BST | | | I like most sensible drivers agree that 30mph limits should be observed as should 40mph in built up areas. When dual carriagways are restricted to 50mph for no reason other than to provide the local Chief Constable with his salary bonus for reducing costs it is a disgrace. As in the earlier comment I would far prefer traffic police who are allowed to use their judgement to catch me exceeding the limit. I use the Stokenchurch to Marlow road every day and the biggest danger is Mr Magoo driving at 30mph in a 60 zone forcing normal drivers to attemt overtaking manouvers that are dangerous. |
| Darren, Biggleswade | Saturday, 26-Jun-2004 17:24:20 BST | | | I think speed cameras are a good idea in built up areas, especialy near schools or other areas where pedestrians or cyclists are likely to be. Are they really necessary on open roads? I think more effort should be put into takling bad and aggressive driving. I often drive on the Autobahns in Germany, I think the standard of driving there is far higher than on our roads - and if you have an accident, you have to call the Polizei who do prosecute ! |
| Bill Groves, Dunstable | Saturday, 26-Jun-2004 18:54:28 BST | | | They give you advance warning, place it on a 7 foot pole and paint it bright yellow. If I were stupid enough to get caught I certainly wouldn't be brave enough to admit it, or defend being fortunate to escape a due care & attention charge. |
| ian, cambridge | Tuesday, 22-Jun-2004 09:57:46 BST | | | speed and danger are two different variables when driving. There is not an inextricable link between the two, there is however a correlation of sorts between the two. What this country needs to do is to educate all drivers how to drive safely, for example our fastest roads are our motorways - yet you do not need to learn how to drive on them. We need to be taught how to maneouvre a vehicle, how to react in certain situations - perhaps using simulators, and also taught how to drive responsibly. The police should concentrate their efforts on stopping bad driving and discussing this with the driver, and if necessary booking them, rather than their current high handed attitude of penalising a mesdemeanour without looking at what the root cause was! |
| With held, UK | Thursday, 17-Jun-2004 17:29:22 BST | | | Having worked for several Government departments, I for one can quote that, Speed Cameras statistically in the UK - DO NOT lower accidents - in fact accidents have INCREASED, year by year. Secondily, the revenues captured by Cameras are a welcome source of income - in some other countries Accidents have reduce not with FINES but with Driver re-education. The camera's are linked directly traffic lights switching them to red if you speed, then your journey will take longer. By travelling at slower legal speed, this reduces accidents and re-educated drivers to keep a steady legal pace - rewards them with a faster journey time. The UK ignores the positives and is blinded by the revenues. The UK model is leading the World as the most over-jealous over-fined, anti-safety system in Europe. The French system of tripping red lights, instead of issuing fines - is more successful. Another case of unco-orindated Government project in Rip-off Britian. Driver use your vote & remove Counsellors who ignore successful French Camera systems. |
| Cameron Robbins, Luton | Tuesday, 15-Jun-2004 12:26:19 BST | | | Regarding the mobile camera site on the Stuart Street flyover.....WHY....there are no footpaths and no houses. The camera is concealed untill you drive round the corner. All locations like these do is irritate people who otherwise agree that cameras are a good idea. There is NO pedestrian safety issue on this road at all. We are not stupid and no one believes that this location is for safety, it's purely to generate cash. |
| Bill, St Albans | Thursday, 10-Jun-2004 23:38:13 BST | | | Nice one, Craig of Tring. You can't be serious. 70mph over the short stretch of dual carriageway while my children are walking to school? I think not. |
| Andrew, Luton | Wednesday, 09-Jun-2004 15:15:01 BST | | | If the purpose of cameras is to encourage people to drive more safely (and not to raise money) as claimed, why do the police publicise where they are going to be? Are those locations considered dangerous for that week and not others? Surely it is the element of uncertainty that will persuade people to stick to speed limits more consistently. Having said that, I do think some limits are unrealistic. Some of the 30mph limits should probably be 25, some should be 35. Motorways are often perfectly safe at 80. Like a previous contributor, I sometimes worry that I spend so much time looking at the speedo (because I would feel comfortable driving faster than the legal limit) that I'll miss something on the road. |
| Matthew, Lymington | Monday, 07-Jun-2004 21:28:06 BST | | | I had an accident on an A road due to a saftey camera. the car infront of me broke hard to avoid getting cought and, with no reaction time i ended up in the back of him. Nearly had a broken neck and the car was a write off |
| fred finch, milton keynes | Friday, 23-Apr-2004 17:07:08 BST | | | why don't drivers pay attention to motorbkes on the road. give us more space and know your road signs, ALL OF THEM! |
| Ray, Milton Keynes | Wednesday, 21-Apr-2004 18:42:18 BST | | | Quite simply the arguments about continually needing to look at your speedo to appreciate your speed are laughable. And if you cant see a speed camera painted yellow or have not paid attention to the speed limit signs then you deserve paying every penny of the fine. Speed limts are there for the safety of all road users, be they motorists, bikers, cyslists or pedestrians. Get used to it and stop moaning. |
| Duncan, Hemel Hempstead | Wednesday, 21-Apr-2004 15:57:53 BST | | | I don't see how people can be judged as "criminals" over a speed limit. The quality of car, weather, type of music/radio, temperature, your age, etc all contribute to your ability to handle incidents. So how can anyone judge a safe speed for you? I've seen people drive "safely" under the speed limit and then run over peoples toes on padestrian crossings, oblivious to their crime. So all you pro-speed camera people should realise it is the quality of driving that needs to improve not the speed of drivers. |
| Georgi Hart, Chesham | Friday, 16-Apr-2004 10:32:40 BST | | | Everyone knows how to play the speed cameras, where to slow and where to speed up and the fact that only some of them have film or even work makes it even easier for drivers to gamble with their speed. Speed bumps are a sure fire way of slowing people down as you have no other choice. They should be put on the B485 immediately following the accident on Easter Monday. |
| Martin, Hemel Hempstead | Saturday, 20-Mar-2004 23:40:41 GMT | | | I know of at least two of these cameras in Queensway do not appear to work anyway so there does not seem to be any point them being there really is there? |
| Alan, Bedford | Thursday, 18-Mar-2004 08:43:10 GMT | | | Could you publish some scientifically substantiated statistics from actual events on this web page to confirm the emotive "facts" shown under Essential info? The most analytical and scientific study that I have come across was the Leeming report, which seems to have been gently filed away because it does not conform to today`s politically correct thinking that speed in itself is a criminal offence and is the sign of an unsafe driver. Further, I do not believe any of the drivers(?) who, in the views column, by their comments imply that they never break the speed limits. The safest roads in this country are the motorways, despite the high traffic density. The majority of accidents occur at speeds below the speed limits on ordinary roads. Anybody who hits a child or any other person is either not concentrating on driving correctly, or is given no chance by the person they hit! . What has happened to all the heavy advertising on teaching children how to cross the road? Instead of spending vast amounts of money on so called traffic calming, why is it not being spent on making roads safer to drive along by removing obstacles and separating traffic from pedestrians? Is it a fact that the traffic partnerships expect to make a profit? If so they have absolutely no credence. |
| A Toms, colchester | Wednesday, 10-Mar-2004 10:03:07 GMT | | | All this talk about speed cameras and fines misses the point entirely. Speed limits should not be compulsory. Speed limits should only be advisory. What is important is sensible driving. Drivers need proper information to assist them with judgment of teh conditions and this inlcudes warnings of poor raod alignment or other hazards ahead, which if clearly available and not confused by a welter of other nonsensical signs along the highway, will enable good driving decisions to be made. The advertisement claims that "If drivers reduced their speed by just 1mph there is up to 7% less risk of being involved in a serious crash." This is complete nonsense. All roads are different and conditions vary dependent upon traffic flows, weather etc. Next the advert makes claims about the likelihood of a child dying if hit by a motorist at various speeds. Absolute nonsense. If the author of that article actaully beleived such rubbish he or she should place a dummy in font of an HGV travelling at 10 mph and see what happens when the dummyis struck by the vehicle, who then is the dummy? Separation of pedestrians from all travelling vehicles is the only way to avoid injury accidents from impact of moving vehicles. Most irresponsibly, many authorities are making orders to apply fixed speedlimits at locations where they thinkthat the mere erection of speed limit signs would cause drivers to slow to that limit. I would like to know if the persons responsible for such decisions would be prepared to drive a small car along the particular highway and then slow to the designated limitwhen they are being followed by an articulated HGV and there is a heavy rainstorm in progress, or the road is icy, having not been gritted and temeratures are below zero centigrade. I hope I have made my point that all driving must be responsible and speeds should be appropriate to the conditions of the road and the observed potential hazards. I am very keen that safety standards should be raised, and this should particulary include carrying out improvements to roads, their alignments, surfacing and advisory signing. Some authorities are knowingly increasing teh risk of accidents by changing the roads by introducing humps, bumps and head on chicanes. The latter alterations especially are a deliberate attempt to create a higher risk of a head on collision or accident between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian and as such I beleive that should anyone be involved in such an accident at a site where chicanes have been deliberately introduced, then the persons responsible for introducing such a change must be prosecuted for their intent to cause accidents. I do not object to cameras being used to record motorists speed, that information should be used, together with information on the road alignment, traffic conditions, weather conditions etc, for the police to decide whethera motorist is "driving without due care and attention". I have been a juror in a court case where teh police have stated they have driven at speeds of over 50 mph in a 30mph limited urban area "where they considered it safe to do so". the police drivers are sensible and are trained to drive responsibly, thus they can judge whether motorists are driving with due care and attention. The police could use their judgement to prosecute reckless drivers, and soon the message would spread amongst the motoring population. Currently the public has lost respect for the police because the use of "safety cameras" is seen merely as a revenue gathering exercise with the money being used to hand out to endless "big brother" surveillance. David Begg, a non elected political extremist, is deeply involved with trying to force further surveillance techniques upon the population. Regrettably his and other likeminded peoples continued activity is not going to help improve peoples safety, but is more likely to be detrimental to the economy of the UK. |
| A. Painter, Bedford | Tuesday, 09-Mar-2004 16:27:50 GMT | | | With the enormous increase in speed traps everywhere, I have found that my driving safety has detiorated. Instead of being able to concentrate on driving for the conditions, far too much of my attention has now to be concentrated inside the car on the speedometer and instead of driving smoothly, I find that constant attention to speed makes for jerkier driving. I do not deliberately exceed speed limits, particularly in built up areas, but even so, I feel that it is only a matter of time before one of these devices clocks me while I am concentrating on driving safely rather than slavishly watching my speedometer. There has to be something wrong with a system that totally ignores safety for the simplicity of penalising speed above an arbitrary limit. To bring monetary reward into the equation is to take away any credence these measures might have. |
| Steve Smith, Bushey Herts | Tuesday, 02-Mar-2004 10:19:27 GMT | | | The Secret Life Of A Speed Camera, coming to a town near you SOON……….. I have just seen (1st March) one of the best kept secrets of our High St Bushey, suddenly over-night if by magic a tall one legged grey robotic box partly painted yellow has appeared at the side of the main road, which has just been the subject of numerous road repairs but now has that go for it motorway look, it’s all very mysterious. It’s location is apparently an accident black spot, the new “cash point” is wonderfully sited so proudly next to the listed buildings of the High Street junction with London Road looking towards the Bushey Arches. It’s certainly in keeping with the architecture of the surrounding churches, cottages and shops but maybe not so with the duck pond. Normally one would be refused permission if wanting to erect such a thing as the imposed restrictions on property development or change in this type of environment is normally forbidden and thoroughly enforced by our beloved local councillors. But, if you want one, apparently there’s no planning application required certainly no need for consultation with the council tax paying residence just stick one up on the Q.T. and cash in all the way to the bank, lovely stuff !!! |
| Sue Wright, High Wycombe | Tuesday, 02-Mar-2004 13:21:04 GMT | | | I was caught on one of these Dick Turpin speed cams in Main Rd Naphill. I fully agree with speed control BUT can someone please explain to me who decides where these cams are placed.Where I live cams are all around but none where any blackspot accidents have occured. New Rd one static and very often a mobile unit Chapel Lane West Wycombe Rd Hamilton Hill going up all these I know of no fatal accidents. But what about Bradenham or the road from Hazlemere to Amersham where there have been many many fatal accidents and do I see a speed cam there NO I DO NOT please exlain this to me.Also I was doing 37mph £60 fine and 3 points but a friend of mine 36mph she had £60 fine but no points as she was offered a 2 hour lecture at Banbury instead now don't get me wrong good luck to her but I feel this is unfair and unjust. |
| Mike, Luton | Saturday, 28-Feb-2004 10:02:36 GMT | | | To all the people who keep writing in and saying “if you speed and get caught, what is the problem?” I will try to explain. It is a case of does the punishment fit the crime. For example I saw a Police programme on TV last week where they had arrested someone who was kicking someone else in the head, the punishment was a £50 fine. For the motorist who left it a bit late to slow from 60 mph to 40 mph only to find a Policeman with a laser gun stood behind a bush, £60 fine, 3 points, increased insurance premiums for 5 years. It seems that causing someone actual bodily harm is considered more acceptable than a slight loss of concentration that caused no harm to anyone at all. Or could it be that the motorist is an easy target? |
| Gary, Baldock | Friday, 27-Feb-2004 12:05:30 GMT | | | Lets Have Some Facts: There has been NO drop at all in the avarage number of road deaths in the UK since cameras have been introduced. Regional figures which naturally fluctuate are often quoted but are in fact just used for spin. More people die from accidents in there own homes than die on the roads. The UK has the Lowest accident rate per 100,000 cars almost bar none. When you look at the increase in the number of cars we should be proud of ourselves. IF you really want the accident rate to lower then try driving with your eyes fully open! The Motorist is the govermnets favourite cash cow. What a shame theres no money to be made from burglers and muggers. If your a motorist these days you will eventully be fined for something. If your a aspiring burgler you chances of geting done are virtally zero. Goverment mugging is still OK is it? |
| Jeanette Kisby, Hemel Hempstead | Thursday, 26-Feb-2004 13:20:22 GMT | | | I don't drive and rely on public transport in Herts which can be unreliable. If they made the buses cheaper and more frequent and accessible to more areas then I am sure a lot of drivers would ditch their car and use the bus. Hence less drivers on the road and less chance of speeding cars - keep the cameras!!!! |
| Chris, Luton | Tuesday, 24-Feb-2004 09:38:00 GMT | | | I was intrigued to see a mobile ‘safety camera’ situated on Airport Way on the curve in the road into Luton just before the small roundabout. There can’t be too many speeders there as everyone is slowing down to stop at the roundabout. Then I realised what is going on. They are catching people who exit the dual carriageway at 70 mph and are probably still doing 65 mph as they go past the detector. Alternatively they are catching you as you come up the hill out of Luton where you are increasing speed having left the roundabout and are about to join the dual carriageway. In either case you cant possible have travelled for more than about 50 yards at a speed over the limit which is 60 mph. Are they doing this because of concern over your safety? Of course not, if that were the reason the speed limit on this section of the road would be reduced to 50 mph, it is clearly a money! g! athering exercise. I hope the people concerned sleep easy at night. |
| matt, bedford | Monday, 23-Feb-2004 16:38:00 GMT | | | i completely agree with speed cameras but not in such force, on my way to work a 15minuite journey down the A6 i pass atleast 7 camers which is obsurd. the main problem is that people se a camera and instantainously slow down regardless of the speed they are traveling i have followed people who see a camera and slow down from 60 to 30 i ask why? surely they know that the national speed limit is 60mph this causes others to get irate and overtake. adding more cameras wont solve any problem but cause more. |
| Lynne, St Albans | Friday, 20-Feb-2004 13:15:26 GMT | | | Yes, we should all drive at the legal speed limit, but lets face it, a large majority don't. We are all in a big hurry to get somewhere and, at times, this can end in tragedy (this does not include the horrendous amount of wildlife killed on the roads each year). So I would say please THINK and regulate your speed, but speed camera's? I don't think they are the answer. I believe many are in inappropriate places and it does seem many are there soley to rip off motorists and anyway people who know where the camera's are speed inbetween each camera. It's a shame people can't be responsible, then we wouldn't need them anyway. |
| Alan Jefferys, Luton | Tuesday, 17-Feb-2004 09:33:10 GMT | | | It has been said many times before, speed alone is not dangerous, but bad driving is always. The soloution more Police in cars, and the power to stop all cars on a random bases. |
| Kathryn, Milton Keynes | Wednesday, 11-Feb-2004 01:27:27 GMT | | | Speed cameras are there to slow people down. If you're doing the legal speed, then what's the problem? |
| Colin Batchelor, Luton | Friday, 06-Feb-2004 17:16:29 GMT | | | I agree that speed cameras are a good idea when they are used correctly, and sited at known accident blackspots, NOT on stretches of road where there have never been any accisents or where there is no possibility of accidents. Many are there just to fundraise. I have seen mobile units parked on the pavement, thus forcing pedestrians to walk in the road, must be safer cos there is a speed camera there? |
| Andy, Stevenage | Thursday, 05-Feb-2004 13:55:38 GMT | | | I will admit to being caught twice for speeding. Once was by a motorway traffic patrol on the A1 nr Stevenage over two years ago and the other just over a year ago nr Sandy. Currently with 6 points on my license I am now what you might class as a very cautious driver, if not "over" cautious. I have been driving for just over 14 years now with no accidents at all. I now drive under or just on the speed limit, even when the road ahead is clear etc.. and even though I know I am not speeding I am always on the look out for the "Cameras" as I do travel alot around the UK. My eyes constantly looking from the speedometer and road. I must say that I used to be a very confident driver but now most of my confidence has gone. I just know sooner or later like most people there is going to be the day when I exceed the road limit by a few miles on hour and then "done" again. The mobile speed camera's in my experience and opinion tend to site themselves just out of sight, on a bend etc and most of the time bang in between the speed limit say, changing from a 40 to a 60. I have even passed a police person with a speed gun pointing at drivers "hidden" in a bus shelter in Stevenage, and no it was not raining... Anyway if you speed you're going to get caught just like me ! So just do not bother it isn't worth it at all. |
| Randy, Wycombe | Wednesday, 04-Feb-2004 16:43:28 GMT | | | Let's have a recognition by drivers and motor-cyslists that speed causes more accidents and more severe injuries before they bleat about being caught on camera. It's a no-brainer about speed. It's simple Physics but there's a load of whiners out there who get caught and then claim a higher intelligence on the matter. And that attitude alone is enough reason to have cameras to monitor their dangerous, selfish and, let's face it, quite uneccesary anti-social behaviour. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't be out there with a large lump of powered metal. |
| Lee, Borehamwood | Monday, 26-Jan-2004 22:38:18 GMT | | | I agree with speed cameras if they were for the right reason - and thats to slow traffic down. If it works then great but figures show that even though there are MORE cameras, there are MORE accidents. I only passed my driving test 18 months ago so obviously I'm still on probation (6 points and I lose my license). I only took driving lessons so that I could get promoted @ work and lucky for me I got that promotion. I consider myself to be a good driver and I barely go over the speed limit but everyone does and anyone who says they don't are lying. I got caught 2 weeks ago by the police who were hiding round a bend with their 'guns' on a steep hill going down. Obviously you pick up a bit of speed when you go downhill and I was caught. They done me for doing 37mph in a 30mph zone and now I have 3 points on my license. Cameras (especially in Herts) are everywhere and ! I'm constantly on the lookout for them (considering most of the cameras are hidden in the most unlikely areas (behind trees, lamposts, roadsigns etc)and if I get caught again then not only do I lose my license, I lose my job. Which is why I drive 27-30mph just so I don't get caught again. |
| John Odell, Leighton Buzzard | Sunday, 11-Jan-2004 11:45:58 GMT | | | Why do we always attack a problem from the wrong end in this country? Surely it would be better for the money spent on traffic cameras to be used to better educate parents in the supervision and teaching of road sense to their children. If children were better supervised and taught road sense about playing and crossing near roads we would reduce accidents much more drastically than by always blaming and penalising the driver. |
| Graeme Sheridan-Wallis, Blunham | Sunday, 11-Jan-2004 11:57:17 GMT | | | Cameras are appropriate in appropriate places.They are inappropriate where their positioning is patently to increase revenue in low risk areas.It is the latter which is causing so much rebellion and it will continue to do so because people resent the increase of the Police State.. |
| Brian Hilton, Bedford | Sunday, 11-Jan-2004 12:46:41 GMT | | | I have no problem with speed limits where necessary, but I feel we are quite entitled to have misgivings when speed limits are lowered and immediately followed by speed cameras, or placed on open roads with no justification.lets be sensible, if you want less accidents then lets get police back in traffic cars catching the most dangerous motorists including the ones with no tax and insurance or even no driving licences, cameras do not catch these people. and how about children and pedestrian education schemes, what happened to the "green Cross Code" or teaching children that roads are dangerous and not meant as a playground. Italian drivers are probably sonme of the worst drivers around in their own country, but their record of accidents to children are better than ours mainly because children are taught roads are dangerous. How about dealing with the cyclist mafia who seem to think no laws whatsoever apply to them, can we have Cyclist cameras to deal with those who ride on pavements knocking old people down Finally,unfortunately there will always be accidents with anything involving moving machinery, if we're not happy with that, then lets go back to the horse and cart and forget the benefits of technology,but beware, accident figures in the days of the of the horse and cart were also a cause for concern. |
| Bob, Stevenage | Friday, 21-Nov-2003 11:49:32 GMT | | | i think that speed cameras are deathtraps because if you exceed the speed limit by at last 10mph the speed camera will take a photo and if there are no warning signs that there is a spped camera ahead you will hit the brakes and freak the driver out behind you who may not react in time and end up crashing into you |
| Brian, Ware | Wednesday, 27-Aug-2003 22:42:32 BST | | | It is strange to see that all signs that had "speed camera" signs have now been changed to read "safety camera" now. Is this to take some of the pressure off being a money making object or is it a genuine safety feature? Something I cannot work out - with all other close police areas, Beds, Bucks and Essex provide details of their mobile camera positions. Why not Hertfordshire? A new hardstanding on the Broadhall Way section into Stevenage is being laid this week. Just before Broadwater Crescent. Typically hidden behind the trees. How much money has been made so far on these fines have to my knowledge has never been published either!! |
| Mick O'Donnell, Milton Keynes | Wednesday, 27-Aug-2003 16:43:03 BST | | | If the police were really interested in accident reduction, they should turn their blue lights OFF at accident scenes. Seen it many times, people slowing because of the blue lights, causing traffic pile-ups, NOT to have a look. Few drivers rubber neck, but most will slow for a bluey, even when it is not neccessary. Some emergency vehicles do have directional blue lights, and are used to the advantage of all. However, there are those who do not, and then cause more grief by incorrect control and application of the blueys. Speed cameras should be marked with the speed limit that they are monitoring, e.g 30 for a 30MPH zone. All road speeds should be signposted, not relying on the number of lamp posts or trees in the correct shade of green. |
| Derrick, Ware | Monday, 25-Aug-2003 10:36:50 BST | | | If the Police put half the effort into Pro-active Crime related actions that they put into chasing motorist for one thing or another, then we would all benefit and enjoy a way of life that what we should all be entitled to expect. - Some hopes !!!! |
| Richard Collins, Chesham | Tuesday, 17-Jun-2003 13:50:33 BST | | | despite all the safety PR about accident reduction the cameras are still hidden behind trees or signs in supposed accident blackspots. If anyone ever disagrees with the road safety people then the same old safety excuse is trundled out and you are not meant to argue with that . I'm all for total visible enforcement outside schools and through villages but unless these cameras are clearly marked then most people view this with a great deal of suspicion that the Police are lining their pockets. What were the Sunday times figues |Speeding - up 200% all other offences -100% Ones easily policed - the other is harder stands out like a sore thumb doesn't it |
| John, Baldock | Thursday, 05-Jun-2003 16:00:22 BST | | | Use the camera's only in built up areas and especially near schools and I would 100% support the initiatve, after all, cars and pedestrians dont mix well. However,stick them in the middle of nowhere and it just devalues the sceme. I remember when I lived in stevenage Rd Hitchin, asking the local police why they didnt install them on that road. Eventually I got phoned by a liaison officer whose conversation opened with 'they are not installed for revenue purposes' and then went on to explain they could not justify Stevenage Road. That after I had almost been mown down by a Nova at somewhere approaching 50mph. |
| Dave Cordy, Baldock | Wednesday, 02-Apr-2003 11:21:06 GMT | | | There are two new cameras being installed on the Leighton Buzzard Road, Hemel Hempstead, just south of the Potten End Turn - The Boxes are established but the white lines have not been painted on the road yet |
| Anon, Luton | Monday, 10-Mar-2003 13:01:03 GMT | | | There's a solution to all this whinging - STOP SPEEDING! If you all got off your high horses and concentarted on driving properly and withing the law, you wouldn't have to worry about the number, or position of cameras. |
| Chris, Dunstable | Saturday, 08-Mar-2003 23:15:34 GMT | | | After 24 years of driving without 1 speeding ticket I have received 2 in 4 months, 1 for 61 in a 50 limit (Dual Carriageway in Warwickshire A 45), and another for 42 in a 30 limit from a mobile camera in Caddington as you come down the hill past Wyevale Garden Centre. The first offence was because the road speed limit unexpectedly changed for the national speed limit to 50 for a short stretch. For the second I was actually slowing down at the time. I feel that I am being tricked out of my money and we all need to find a way to oppose this method of taxation which is one of the main reasons the people on this message board have posted their comments |
| radical, bedford | Friday, 07-Mar-2003 09:32:35 GMT | | | Fixed cameras now seem to have specific advance warning signs from, say 0.5 miles from the site, provided of course that you are willing or able to divert your attention from what the authorities seem to regard as irrelevancies i.e. traffic, pedestrians, children etc. There is a van operating in Bedford which parks and operates a camera from the rear doors. There are camera warning signs on the rear of the van, but none are erected at a distance from the tax trap. Therefore, there is no effective warning and unless you completely concentrate on spotting the van and let the car drive itself, it is invisible until it's far too late. Is this legal? As a second question, is it a positive contribution to road safety? NB I've noticed IT doesn't stick to the speed limits when it's being driven about! |
| Mr.V, stevenage | Wednesday, 05-Mar-2003 22:38:05 GMT | | | I'm lead to believe that mobile speed cameras have to have a valid calibration certificate re-tested every day of use, without this the speeding conviction cannot stand(but you have to ask the question when caught). Does this same little known law apply to the Gatso cameras? |
| Richard Knight, edlesborough | Wednesday, 05-Mar-2003 14:54:42 GMT | | | I was picked up by a mobile speed camera on leighton buzzard road billington on 12 February According to my perception of the photograph supplied by the police the camera was hidden in a side road (Hill View Lane) As I understand it the use of mobile cameras is only approved by the government in locations where the vehicle and or the camera is highly visible and in an area where there is a high risk to other road users - this particular location is just a 100 metres from an unrestricted stretch of road and therefore does not comply with the guidelines. 388 other drivers according to the police notice displayed were caught on the same day thus in my view indicating that a) the camera was hidden and b) contrary to guidelines the location is being used to boost police funds and not to contribute to road safety. If anyone knows how best to deal with Bedfordshire police on this matter I should be grateful. |
| jim morris , royston | Saturday, 01-Mar-2003 11:29:40 GMT | | | I object to some cameras especially in the luton area that are operating 24hs a day, Surely there should be a reserved time limit. I went to pick up my wife and son, whom had returned off holiday and I was in a hurry to pick them up on time. The aircraft for once was running ahead of time. I had to be at Luton Airport by 4:05 in the morning, all in darkness just outside Luton on the A505 Dual Carriageway and I admit speeding at about 45/50mph But you naturaly accept no traffic front or rear foot down over the limit and I do point out again 4:05 AM.. The point I attack on ths speeding Camera is It FLASHED me HEAD ON not at my rear. This frightend the daylights out of me, (although not daylight) I feel all Cameras should be made by Law to Flash from your Rear not forward motion as this could have caused a considerable accident. and at 4:05 AM Were is this country coming fr! om in this stupid day and age. more do gooders and more financial intake from us.. Yes I paid my £60 out of my £73 pw pension. I wish I was an immigrant.. |
| steve, stevenage | Friday, 28-Feb-2003 08:04:32 GMT | | | I see from the ever growing list that speed camera numbers are on the increase in Hertfordshire. Surely not all the sites can be justified in terms of speed related accidents that cannot be addressed by other engineering measures. Come on people of Herts, wake up and start asking questions. Its very clear in the way that the new speed camera team for Herts has been set up that they need to install as many cameras as possible because they have to be self financing. And there was me thinking they only went in at accident sites!! |
| JOHN FIELD, PENRYN AVENUE | Thursday, 27-Feb-2003 14:14:44 GMT | | | HI I AM SCARED OF THE CAMERAS BECAUSE I DRIVE A VAUXHALL 2.0 WHICH IS HARD TO HANDLE |
| radical, bedford | Thursday, 27-Feb-2003 09:43:48 GMT | | | Normal drivers are actually driving LESS safely because of the various "safety" measures which are being forced upon us. Near where I live is a large estate which is, I admit a ratrun. Multiple chicanes and humps have been introduced, which is particularly awkward, as the local residents continue to park as close as possible to their houses, irrespective of these obstacles. The chicanes look like zebra crossings, but aren't, thus creating additional confusion. Whilst trying to negotiate one of the chicanes around a parked car I had the shock of my life when a small child (aged 3 ish?) came running into vision from behind a parked car by my nearside wing, albeit still on the pavement. Looking back, the child's mother with a pram and another woman were 10 to 15 feet behind the child, but not in a position to control the toddler. I was doing 15 mph I'd guess, well below the 30 mph limit. There was no drama, the child didn't step out, but if he had there would have been a disaster. I know I hadn't seen him or registered the woman with the pram. I also know that if it hadn't been for the chicane, I might have been going a bit faster but I'd have been paying a whole lot more attention to what was going on around me. Okay, that's so called traffic "calming" but the same is true of cameras - the vast majority of drivers are having their attention diverted by trying to spot these things, often in areas which are not otherwise dangerous. |
| Lisa, Luton | Wednesday, 26-Feb-2003 10:07:24 GMT | | | Is there a legal time limit that you have to receive your speeing fine from a mobile speed camera. I was told you have to be informed within 2 weeks, is this a legal time limit or can they issue it to you months after the aledged offence. Thanks |
| Ben, Milton Keynes | Monday 24
February, 2003 | | | I am sorry - I feel that many people are making excuses for not using Speed Cameras. Indeed they can be excessively used and sometimes in ridiculous places but at the end of the day - are designed to save lives. Remember this next time you drive past a school at 50mph instead of 30mph. For those that feel it breaches their personal space - you wouldn't be saying that if someone speeding killed someone you loved - you would be asking why a camera had not been placed on the road. It also seems to me that people are for more concerned with being caught and forking out the fine than they actually learning to drive safely. |
| Steve, Sandy | Sunday 23 February, 2003 | | | Whilst not a professional driver, do have to drive around much of the country and so far do not appear to have been caught by speed cameras. Tend to keep to 30 mph in villages, maybe 35 on the main roads, but on the dual carriage ways and motorways 70-85. If it's a clear road and the traffic clear, then don't see the problem in that. But when the speed cameras come up, have to slow down and take my eye off the road to make sure the speed is below the limit. Have almost been rear ended once or twice, lastly by some juggernaut who was about 2 feet away from my boot on the A14. There is usually a mobile camera on the biggleswade to sandy run, but often use the side roads to avoid them. |
| gerald, symonds yat west | Saturday 22 February, 2003 | | | speed camras can only be seen as a revenue creating excersise.gwent appears to be the most active in the use of mobile detector vans normally situated at the end of roadworks just as you approach the deregulation sign revenue collection is not only done by the authorities but the insurance industry put its nose in the trough by putting up premiums based on the number of points on your licence the loonies are running the asilum.......... |
| John, Biggleswade | Saturday 22
February, 2003 | | | Reading some peoples views, does make me chuckle... As a professional driver for one of the big food retail shops the things i see on the roads have to be seen to be believed. As Mark from Sandy said, the 'in thing' seems to be to race between the speed cameras on the A1 between Sandy & Biggleswade, only to slam on their brakes when the Man in the White Van suddenly appears. This surely is dangerous, not to mention stupid? I often get 'tailgated' along that stretch to & from work, so i pull in to let the driver behind, who is obviously in such a rush to get somewhere past, only to see them hit the brakes at the next camera... again, dangerous and pointless. I wish we had some cameras on London Rd in Biggleswade. The limit is 30mph but still drivers race down the road way above that. As my children have to cross this road to school, it makes my blood boil to see drivers exc! eeding the speed limit all the way into the Town. I'd like to see more cameras & more and bigger signs down this road to try to stop the speeding cars that use it. At the end of the day, invasion of privacy, revenue raisers, call them what you will - if you're not speeding, what's the worry about speed cameras?? Better to be 5 minutes late in this life, than 5 minutes early in the next... bare that in mind next time you're either 4 feet from the car infront or 10mph over the speed limit. |
| John, Little Chalfont | Thursday 20
February, 2003 | | I have several problems with speed cameras: 1.Whenever I drive past one, I feel as though I am being unjustly accused of a criminal offence. This feeling is directed against the police, in whom I have now lost all trust.
2. When passing a camera, virtually all my attention is devoted to my speedometer. If a child were to run out in front of me, I would be far less likely to see it.
3. I have ben unable to find any evidence of radiation safety tests being carried out on Gatso type cameras. In our local village (Little Chalfont), school children and the crossing warden are actually forced to wait in the radar beam of the thing. Surely this is a significant health hazard.
4. On one occasion, I witnessed an accident caused directly be the flash of a speed camera on the other carriageway on the M25. A driver in the outside lane braked sharply, causing the driver behind to smash into him. I offered my statement to the police, who, once they had heard what I would say, decided they did not need it. |
| Chris Jenkins, Dunstable | Thursday 20
February, 2003 | | | Speed Cameras are illegal as they take away the Human Right of being innocent until proven guilty. At the moment if a camera photographs a car the registered keeper of the vehicle is sent a fine, with no eveidence of who the driver was. If your car is stolen, or someone clones the number plate and uses it on their identical car, then you get the fine. As I said this is breaking your human right to be innocent until proven guilty. This is the Polices job. The fact that speed limits are too low, and that the cameras are introduced to raise revenue is neither here nor there compared to that overriding fact. |
| Stewart, Luton | Wednesday 19 February, 2003 | | | Useful website http://www.abd.org.uk/ Gives views and analysis of "safety" figures. |
| Chris Clarke, Swindon | Wednesday 19 February, 2003 | | | I recently found myself guilty of not spotting the reduction in speed limit from the 40 to 30 mph on the Luton Road in Dunstable as discussed by other motorists here. I feel frustrated as it was my first time to Dunstable and was keeping up with the flow of traffic (whilst looking for my turning) as can be clearly seen by the photographs sent to me. It makes me wonder whether all the other 4 drivers in the picture were also caught. A nice easy £120 for 10 seconds work. I simply can't understand why the dual carriageway changes to the 30mph, when clearly in the photographic evidence there are no pedestrians or housing to be seen. I can't think of many places where a 30mph limit is imposed upon a dual carriageway and can draw the only conclusion that this is a revenue generating exercise. Surely this shows how useless the road signage is for the drop to 30mph and was purely ! looked upon as a money making scheme by catching us so called dangerous driving motorists out! Also if this part of the road is such a dangerous hotspot wouldn’t other more permanent measures be sensible as opposed to the cloak and dagger mobile camera method. If the sole aim is to slow the motorist, surely the best way would be to introduce those flaming speed humps that have recently proliferated by the hundreds around my home in Wiltshire. As annoying as they are one has simply no option other than to drive slowly over them or suffer the possibility of a spinal injury!!! |
| Richard, Flitwick | Wednesday 19
February, 2003 | | | Safety/Speed cameras are purely a tax on the car driver and nothing else. Forward facing cameras do not catch all speeding motorists, they can not catch motorcycles as they have no front plate. Therefore it is a clear anti car policy and that is all. If we want to see our roads safer, have them in good condition, have the salt available and laid when icy, have clear, visible markings on the road. All these factors make the roads safer. Additional police on the roads are more of a deterrant than cameras, they are also able to make intelligent decisions about someones driving, if a motorist is travelling at 85 on a motorway and sees a police vehicle ahead or behind, this motorist will slow down, showing that they are observant. If the motorist is doing 60 in the middle lane and does not see a police vehicle approaching from behind, the slower driver is more hazardous as they are not aware of their surroundings and the road. I know which vehicle I would rather be a passenger in. Come on people, we cannot let ourselves be taxed more and more on a daily basis. I am all for road safety, cameras do not concern the car robbers out there and there are more of them today than ever before. More police will deter these most dangerous of all drivers. Please fine me for speeding if you must, but let me see that my money is spent on making the roads safer, it currently is not. |
| radical, bedford | Wednesday 19
February, 2003 | | | Some speed limits (largely the ones set up years ago in thoroughly built up areas) are there for very good reason but a good proportion (mostly the newer ones in semi rural locations)are plainly stupid. In the latter, one never sees a pedestrian and vision and driving conditions are often good. I have a feeling that a lot are established by lily livered councillors in response to very small numbers of well-to-do inhabitants who like to live in rural areas but don't like traffic passing the houses they choose to buy. If it's not about money in the form of highwaymen extracting speeding taxes, then it's about property values. Laws shouldn't be just handed down from on high to be meekly obeyed. It's our country and our opinions should set the laws. There isn't a majority support for the anti-car dictatorship we have in place at present. |
| Cei Whitehouse, Arlesey | Tuesday 18
February, 2003 | | | Speed limits are there for a reason, and speed cameras are just another way of enforcing that law; people will slow down near speed cameras in order not to get caught, so even if people are only in the limit around speed cameras, they are obviously a good deterrent. |
| Bob, Dunstable | Tuesday 18
February, 2003 | | If I may quote:- Source: BBC Last year there were 39 people killed on the roads of Bedfordshire. The Bedfordshire and Luton Casualty Reduction Partnership is working to reduce this - one way is with the use of speed cameras. Source: Luton & Dunstable on Sunday: In Bedfordshire, 53 people have been killed in road accidents in 2001 compared to 39 the previous year. Previously in an article from the same newspaper quoted a Police road safety expert who said that road deaths had rocketed in the last two years from 36 to 52 this year. (Published January 2003 – referring to 1999 and 2001 statistics). |
| radical, bedford | Tuesday 18
February, 2003 | | | Yes, all very well, but what are we going to do about the unrepresentative, dictatorial, sandal wearing tax gluttons who are doing this to us? What will make them listen to us? |
| Kevin Miller, Eaton Bray | Saturday 15 February, 2003 | | | Bedfordshire district council are deliberately using cameras to appease local people that at least they are doing something, albeit too little. They have positioned cameras on the A505 at the junction with Eaton Bray - Tottenhoe junction, in my view this is not what is required, a roundabout would be far more effective and save lives! However, roundabouts cost more than speed cameras. I feel this is appeasement on the cheap!! |
| Charles. U. Farley, Central england | Friday 14 February, 2003 | | | Speed cameras. Why do we need them? We need them so as the police( gwent are the absolute worst) can make lots of money from otherwise law abiding drivers. Its so easy for them to do. It dosent require them to work at the job at all. Which is the hardest, sitting in the back of a van pointing your pathetic laser toy at drivers and raking it in, or dealing with pushers, rapists, murderers or burglars? There ya have it in a nutshell, money motivated greed. If they catch by gatso alone, 2 million drivers in one year, thatll be 120 million pounds of profit. Wonderful plan, are we just going to let them do this to us? |
| Paula Moss | Friday 14 February, 2003 | | | Did you know: according to people working in Bletchley one of the speed cameras for Princes way is supposedly on the old Halifax building, How's that for dodgy business for the errant motorist? |
| John, MK | Thursday, 13 February, 2003 | | | Oh!Oh! Naive and gullible motorists, can this be true!!!You are questioning the statistics, on the value of speed camaras?You have at last woken up, from the Brainwashing.The Government and Police, use whatever numbers they want which will prove what they are determined you WILL believe.The speed camara"Demolition Teams" who have been active, in Bedfordshire, Cambridge and Essex in the past few days, do not appear to have been convinced of the value of such Police determination.£2000 rewards being offered, someone is really getting upset about the lost revenue!!.If as much cash and effort was invested in Driving training and drink/Drug related accidents, we could relate to it.Why have traffic police patrols been superceeded by camaras? |
| David, Potten End | Wednesday 12
February, 2003 | | | Speed Camaras should be sited in villages and residential areas and not on the open road. Meanwhile with the reduction or total loss of Police traffic divisions, you can drink or drug drive to your hearts content providing you keep below the posted speed limit. |
| Radical, Bedford | Tuesday 11
February, 2003 | | | They are doing that sort of thing all the time Bob. In Bedford, they site a van at the end of the "Biddenham straight" on the A428. The 40mph limit comes down to 30mph about 50 yards before a sharp left hand bend. Nobody but an idiot would take the bend significantly faster than 30mph, so they are catching motorists slowing from 40mph to 30 mph but who don't quite get down to the lower limit at the sign. If they really wanted to catch dangerous drivers, they'd park the van after the blind corner, not before. Safety or revenue raising? |
| John, Letchworth | Tuesday 11
February, 2003 | | | The TRL say 7% of crashes are due to speed, this 7% is made up of 3 sub-categories (in excess of limit, for type of vehicle, for conditions) a speed camera detects one of these (excess of limit). The government add the following causes: sudden braking, careless driving, reckless driving, driving too close, impatient driving, poor control and poor overtaking, to get the much quoted statistic ‘speed is a contributory factor in 33% of accidents’. If the government was honest and said speed camera were targeted at the 1 in 20 accidents where speed in excess of limit was the cause rather than making up statistics to justify speed cameras. |
| Bob Solly, Flitwick | Tuesday 11
February, 2003 | | | I have recently been caught by a mobile camera on a stretch of the Dunstable Road going towards Dunstable from Luton. I knew the speed limit from the M1 was 40 mph, but new 30 mph signs have been erected at the entry to the roundabout at Halfway House. As there is so much traffic on the roundabout (and three lanes to think about) I concentrated on not having an accident and did not see the 30 mph signs. The dual carriageway is exactly the same in nature as before the roundabout. As a consequence I was driving at 39mph and havehad a clean licence for 35 years until now. The 30mph signs need resiting, otherwise it is a licence to print money and penalise a law abiding citizen who will now spend all his time looking at the speedometer instead of concentrating on the traffic conditions. This cannot be right. |
| Scott, Dunstable | Tuesday 11
February, 2003 | | | If, as we are led to believe, cameras are put up in accident blackspots, what is the point of mobile cameras that change their position each week? |
| Radical, Bedford | Tuesday 11 February, 2003 | | | It's been announced today that speed cameras have reduced road deaths by 30%, and so consequently more are to be introduced. Who knows what the scam is here? Are they only measuring 25 yards either side of the cameras? Are the very few justifiable cameras causing all of any improvement and the rest are just subsidising the police and the local councils? The are politicians, so we know they are lying whenever their lips are moving. Bad driving causes accidents, not speed! |
| Phil, Redbourn | Monday 10 February, 2003 | | | There can be no dispute that speed contributes to death, but analysis of what happens leading up to a major accident shows that other driver behaviour, such as overtaking and simply bad driving is probably the more significant contributor and cameras do not help. Like speed humps, they often contribute to eratic driving with drivers accelerating between cameras in the known safe zones. |
| Robin, Dunstable | Sunday 9 February, 2003 | | | I did hear that these speed camera vans had be easily seen ie painted in day glow yellow similar to static cameras. I have also seen these same vans parked on a pedestrian crossing Island opposite the Luton & Dunstable Hospital, this cannot be legal can it ? or do Bedfordshire Police Authority make up there own rules as they go along such as Police vehicles turning on blue lights so they can jump traffic lights and turning them off when they have completed their objective. Tea getting cold is it? I think the Police should set examples to the public especially the Traffic Police who are exceptionally bad. |
More comments |
