|  | Add your comment Latest comments
| Neil Thompson, Luton | Monday 2
Decmeber, 2002 | | | Last week, on the breakfast show, it was mentioned by one of the campaigners for speed camera safety that speed cameras were being put up at various locations on the A6. These were designated as "accident black spots". I have lived in Luton for 28 years and I can honestly say that I have yet to see an accident at one of these locations!!! This is merely a ruse to make more money from the average motorist. Furthermore, the accidents that do happen are generally caused through sudden speed fluctuations. These cameras are more of a hazard than a safety cushion!!!! |
| James, Northampton | Monday 2
December, 2002 | | | I wonder how many people realise that being caught on the speed camera will cost you more than the three points and the £60 fine. When I got caughtI found that by declaring it to my insurance company ( as one is required to do ) my annual premium went up by £12. I'm sure many motorists conveniently forget to declare their endorsements but they could risk having their policies declared void in the event of a claim. I think that these speed cameras must be raking it in for insurance companies. |
| Barry Riley, Newport Pagnell | Friday 29 November, 2002 | | | Speed cameras will never stop people speeding. Whats needed is Education not Taxation. If you stand by any speed camera you will always see brake lghts before it and a plume of exhaust smoke after the lines end ! Motorists will always be an easy target and a nice cash cow for the powers that be. It`s a shame they cannot fit numberplates to Muggers Rapists and Burglars ! |
| David Sechelt, Canada | Thursday 28
November, 2002 | | | The cameras were tried over here and were not successful at all. Those that were caught in the cash cow did not pay anyway. And it cost thousands of dollars to purchase and maintain!! THEN THEY WERE SCRAPPED. Please use this money for other worthwhile prodjects.Thanks for your time.ttfn |
| Chris Zaremba, Bedfordshire | Tues 11 November, 2002 | | | I think I was caught last week on a dual carridgeway in Luton that had 30 limit but everyone was moving at 40. It is a very wide road with no hidden turns and should not be used as a money maker. |
| Neil, Biggleswade | Tue 11 November, 2002 | | | MK is a new town and was designed to keep cars and pedestrians seperate, many of the smaller towns and villages were built before motor vehicles were invented. I can't understand why people think that speed cameras are unfair. There are always speed limit signs when you are entering and leaving a zone if you can't see the signs you shouldn't be on the road, if you choose to ignore the sign then you can expect to get a fine or a ban if you are caught. Why should drivers need additional speed camera warning signs and brightly painted cameras? |
| Robin Brough Jr, Baldock | Tue 11 November, 2002 | | In general there is nothing wrong with speed cameras at accident black spots and hazard areas such as schools. However placing them on dual carriage ways operational at all times is just earning revenue as are the new breed of mobile units. Northants, West Midlands and other police authorities publish the whereabouts of mobile cameras on their web sites and over local radio traffic news - obviously using them as a safety mechanism. Beds police do not tell anyone where they are - they just want money and to hell with safety!
Comment from BBC Beds, Herts and Bucks
Bedfordshire Police DO publish the whereabouts of both their fixed and mobile safety/speed cameras in both the local press and also on this website.See where they are>> |
| Fred Norwood, Luton | Tuesday 15 October, 2002 | | | Speed cameras in general are a beneficial conception. They keep us scrupulous! The number one justification in favor of speed limits is for our safety. I surmise we all have seen someone going a bit too fast and thought, "where are the police when we need them!?!" Well these cameras well help enforce the laws. But on another note we need to be careful about how much the government gets involved. I use the book "1984" by George Orwell as an example of what we don't want to transpire! Big Brother is good in some cases, but too much of a good thing can be bad and leads to totalitarianism . Cheers! |
| Anon | Wednesday 9
October, 2002 | | | I have just noticed on your web page about speed cameras, under essential information - "If you are driving at 40mph and hit a child, you are likely to kill that child." Most emotive, why just a child? If anybody gets hit at any speed by a vehicle and it is going to hurt. But my question is, what are they doing in the road? In this country 'jay walking' is not an offence. Perhaps it should be? I see it most days in Dunstable, there are pedestrian crossings everywhere, but some people will not walk the extra few yards to one and would rather play in the traffic. |
| Peter, Hemel Hempstead | Wednesday 9
October, 2002 | | | The statistics say that around 4 percent of accidents are directly caused by speed. But it is so very easy to measure, and with the law as it is now, an easy source of revenue. Get your car photographed and you are guilty, you are a criminal, even if you don't know who was driving (as the deputy chief constable of Hampshire found out). |
| Neil, Stevenage | Saturday 5 October, 2002 | | | I find it strange that fixed cameras have warning signs and have been painted yellow or a colour that stands out yet mobile one's are not hi vis and they hide their cars and have been known to hide themselves behide things and there are no signs or if there are it says speed camra area (these signs should read mobile camera area) so surely there is a contradiction in the law here between fix and mobile cameras. |
| Joanne Deveau, Caddington, nr Luton | Wed 18 September, 2002 | | | I think that a mobile speed camera should be set up in the Cresent Caddington (leading to Five Oaks School). My neice now goes to this school and walks from home. She has to go along an alleyway which leads directly onto the Cresent. The parents of children are the violators of the speed restrictions which infuriates me. The mother of my neice spoke to someone in the county council about having a lollipop lady attend this dangerous site and she was informed that a child would have to be knocked down before anything could be done. This is outrageous and I wish someone could help us get a good resolution. As for the parents who drive their children to school, they need to be caught and taught a lesson too. |
| john, dunstable | Tues 17 September, 2002 | | | I agree with Gerry from MK, in that it is bad road planning which is far more likely to cause deaths than pure speed alone. Also, road surfaces vary widely and affect braking incredibly, though we have no info whilst driving on them. I also feel that many children (and a surprising number of adults) seem to have absolutely no concept of road sense as a pedestrian, the emphasis these days being ALL on the driver. If you look at the location of many speed cameras, it is nothing to do with anything other than raising revenue, as the majority do not coincide with accident blackspots, though there are a lot which do. I'd rather the money was spent on repeater speed signs and those countdown to 30mph bands/coloured bars on the road which work a treat in my opinion. |
| Tom, Bedford | Friday 13
September, 2002 | | I realised the other day what it is I object to so much about speed cameras. Most times when you get accused of breaking the law, you have a reasonable chance of proving your innocence. If you are accused of stealing something then you'll be able to prove, by showing a reciept, that you had actually bought it. If you get accused of assault then there are usually witnesses or DNA evidence that can get you off. But with speed cameras there is no way that you can proove you weren't doing the speed limit the police claim you were.
If I'm doing 58mph in a 60 zone, all it takes is slightly wrongly set equipment or a nudge on the accelerator and bang that's three points on my licence and a fine to boot. And that's why people always slow down when they see speed cameras - they don't want to take the risk of being caught even if they are doing the speed limit. And as most experts will tell you it's often not just speed that causes traffic accidents, but sudden changes in speed.
Perhaps what is needed is a tachograph fitted to all cars, or a LCD display 50 metres after the camera telling you what speed you recorded, at least it's peace-of-mind that you won't get a nasty letter through the your letterbox in a couple days. |
| Gerry Huke, Milton Keynes | Friday 13
September, 2002 | | | I am not knocking the idea of speed cameras. But one thing puzzles me. Milton Keynes has no speed cameras and traffic can legally travel at a much higher average speed than other towns in the area. Occasionally like all other places accidents do happen, so is it always speed that kills? It appears to me down to bad road planning and poor safety installations, such us underground/overhead passes that are needed if we want to keep injuries and death to a minimum. |
|
