|  | Add your comment More comments
Latest comments | Dave, St Albans | Sunday 29 December 2002 | | | Speed cameras at accident black spots are clearly useful deterrents. But I am totally against the majority of them in my county of Northants, as they are placed for maximum revenue. What are we all trying to achieve? If it is to make the roads safer for everyone, the majority of speed cameras must be having a detrimental effect. And, if they are as successful as the police claim, how come the car insurance in not cheaper in Northants and the 3 counties? I have now been caught twice on the blessed things. Neither time would the average person say I was "speeding", yet I had to take my punishment and am now half way to a ban. So I now drive with my eyes watching the speedometer or the speed limit. And I know I have my eyes off the road much more than previously and am much more dangerous as a result. I know that the anti-car lobby will say that I am a dangerous and criminal driver. But I really am not. After 40 years and nearly one and a half million of fairly incident free driving, I feel I am as safe as the next driver. I do hope the police will place these cameras in places that will deter speed. The new game seems to be to go as fast as you can up to a camera, bang your foot on the brake as you pass it, then scream away the other side. Who does that help? Which pedestrians can feel safer? |
| Dave, Luton | Saturday 28 December 2002 | | | Why put cameras where they will hit normal drivers. The bottom of Crawley Green Road, they know lorries need to build up speed to get up steep hills. Hitchin Road just before the open road, people see the national speed limit sign and increase speed only to be hit by a camera 100 yards before hand. It's obviously designed to make money and not to decrease speed. |
| Paul, Luton | Saturday 28 December 2002 | | Speed Cameras - The Cons.
1.They don't stop poor drivers speeding, they just slow them down for 100 metres
2.They don't educate drivers.
3.They penalise experienced drivers with good driving skills who make small lapses
4.They take drivers attention from the road. 5.They make drivers drive in a artificial manner, with some accidents being caused by drivers slowing sharply for them even when BELOW the limit
6.Speed camera detectors are available to those who can afford them creating a kind of driving subclass (Tony Blair has encouraged all schools to get computers so they are not IT deprived, perhaps he should provide every vehicle with a detector)
7.They are put on main roads where higher speeds are acceptable within reason.
8.They encourage apathy and resentment towards the people who have to use them, the Police
9.If the government hasn't already got enough money from Road Tax and fuel pump prices etc, they want MORE!
10.They make generally law abiding people feel like criminals
11.Speed DOES NOT kill, innapropriate use of speed does.
12.They are taking the fun out of driving .
Speed Cameras - The Pros.
1.In some cases they MIGHT have saved a life or two (but encouraging training would save more) 2.I've joined The Association Of British Drivers ( www.abd.org.uk ) because of them
3.Some small campaign groups like them |
| Lee Jones, Aylesbury | Saturday 28 December 2002 | | | I do agree that speeding needs to be stopped. Everyone does it at some time or another and with todays powerful cars with increased occupant protection, its easy to get carried away. However, I don't agree that speed cameras are the answer and neither are speed bumps. People will always speed because they can. Technology, could be the answer combined with education of the motorist. Cars could be equipped with a speed limiter that automatically reduces the cars speed to that of the permissible speed limit when entering a controlled zone in a manner that does not cause problems for other motorists. The car would pick up a signal from a road sensor that sets a limiter until another limiter in another zone increases it. The limiter should be tamper proof and prevent the vehicle exceeding the limit whilst not restricting acceleration up to the permissible limit. Education of the motorist is also important. If you are shown some very nasty pictures of accidents caused by speeding this in many cases would be a bigger deterrent than a fine. Couple this with advanced driving tuition and it would greatly improve the driver, the single biggest controlling factor in the speed kills equation. Advertising is also to blame. Motor manufactures market cars as fast, macho driving machines, with 0-60 acceleration times and top speeds figuring highly in advertising. It sells cars and nets the government a nice slice of revenue in terms of tax to boot. With big powerful companies influencing the finances of government, its little wonder there is no insensitive to really tackle to root cause of the problem! Does anyone agree? |
| steve, luton | Monday 23
December, 2002 | | | speed cameras are a good idea if kept in builtup areas and controled by police not private companys.as this the same with wheel clampers will become a money spinner rather than a safty issue.also a fine is hard enuogh but not to add pionts as well, |
| John, Wisbech | Monday 23
December, 2002 | | | When are we going to have true justice for the citizen protecion against robbery mugging and murder and not wasting police time on speed cameras? |
| Andy North, MK | Monday 23 December, 2002 | | | As you can see from the official police statistics copied from thier own website. Despite being only able to clear up 20% of REPORTED crime leaving approximately 14900 unsolved crimes. The powers that be still seem to think that the best use of resources is to target the motorist.... Is it any wonder that middle england is sick to the back teeth with this deliberate money making scheme.. It doesn't take a genius to work out why the public have no support for the police force A total of 187,987 offences were recorded in Thames Valley, 3,890 less than in the previous 12 months. Of those 88% were property offences (e.g. burglaries; car crime) with 10% being violent crimes (e.g. fights outside pubs; sexual offences; robberies). The biggest reduction was in the theft of vehicles which dropped from 14,492 to 11,479 - a fall of almost 21% |
| Stewart Anderson, Letchworth | Sunday 22 December 2002 | | | I am in favour of using any technology to make the roads safer, and I wonder why we never hear any proposals to introduce the system I have seen used to great effect in parts of Europe (Spain and I think France at least). Any vehicle coming towards an area where the speed limit is reduced, such as approaching a town or village or other hazard,will cause traffic lights to switch to red if his vehicle is travelling above the speed limit! It works well once drivers are used to it, although I confess it was only after cursing many times at the lights always turning red when I approached that the penny eventually dropped for me and I realised that my speed was causing the problem!! |
| Earl, Sandy | Friday 20
December, 2002 | | | I think speed cameras are fine when used in the right places like danger black spots, schools and small villages etc., but we all know of speed cameras going up on clear straight roads with no hazards for miles. We're aware that speed limits are there for a reason and should be adhered to, but most drivers attention is required looking at what's happening beyond the windscreen not within the dash board. A neighbour of mine has recently been nicked for doing 32 MPH in a 30 limit! That kind of punishment will force all drivers to stare at their speedos more and draw their attention away from the road, thus potentially causing more incidents (albeit within the speed limit), and surely that's not what we want. Bad driving needs to be addressed, and speed cameras will not always catch bad drivers, police will. There's no substitute for good old fashioned (sensible) policing. |
| John, Letchworth | Friday 20
December, 2002 | | | A few of the correspondence equate a reduction in speed with an increase in safety. This is a fallacy, speed cameras do reduce speed, speed cameras do raise revenue, speed cameras KILL !! Statistical Evidence Proves it, since the increase in speed cameras on a per county basis death have also increased on the per county basis. This has actually reversed the long term drop in fatalities which was being achieved . |
| Peter Oram, Australia | Friday 20
December, 2002 | | | In Australia we have the same debates all the time on speed cameras. If a camera saves one life they become very valuable. People here use two way radios to warn other motorist of speed camera. Would they do the same thing if they saw a murder take place. In my opinion put the every where and make the fines at least a 1000 pounds for the minimum offence and have them on an increasing rate as the speed goes up. |
| John, Bristol | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | One fact i think most people dont seem to understand is that the speed limits were set many many years ago when cars were slower at accelerating and stopping. My car does 100 - 0 in less distance than the highway code states from 50 - 0 . So when are the limits going to be adjusted accordingly? |
| Matthew, London | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | Speed cameras are purely revenue based devices, there is no evidence whatsoever that state they cut down on accidents, unfortunately it isn't speed that kills (as said in all the adverts) . Its the misuse of spped that kills, and one camera sitting on a road is not going to stop a person speeding except on that 100 metres where the camera is placed |
| Jules, Northampton | Wednesday 18
December, 2002 | | | Re-educate the pedestrian! If they bothered to cross the road correctly there would be far less accidents, fatal or otherwise. Legally a car can drive past a school at 30mph, but would you? Children who can't wait to get out of school & get home as quickly as possible, the last thing on their mind is "STOP, LOOK & LISTEN". Put those adverts back on tv. Put some of the onus back onto the pedestrian, make them take responsibility for themselves and their actions. |
| Katie, Milton Keynes | Tuesday 17
December, 2002 | | | I am only 15,in the past 3 weeks i have seen 4 fatal accidents in MK,speed cameras are a good idea and at least something is being done but i dont think more cameras is the solution, something more drastic needs to be done. |
| John Swindon, Wickford | Thursday 12
December, 2002 | | | Unfortunately there is more evidence suggesting that accident figures have nothing to do with the placement of speed cameras, than there is evidence supporting the Governments assertions. GPRS enabled technology is readily available which could be fitted to cars to physically prevent them speeding, automatically limiting the car to the prevailing speed limit. A simple bit of legislation pushed through by the government would see that all new cars sold could never speed in the UK. The obvious reason that this has not been pursued is that it is not in the Governments interest ... Are they really concerned about saving lives or raising revenue ? |
| sabrina, luton | Monday 9
December, 2002 | | | Speed cameras these days are stupid. they are supposed to catch motorists exceeding the speed limit right? so why make them clearly visible like some places have? as soon as you see one, you slow down so this is defeating the whole point. they shouldnt be seen at all. I can guarantee that more people will be caught. |
| Maurice, Bedford | Monday 9
December 2002 | | | I am basically in agreement with speed cameras as long as they are used to control speed at dangerous spots. I live in Wilstead, very near the A6, and am very aware of the number of accidents and the resultant injury and loss of life that has occurred along this stretch of road. The new cameras that have been installed near my home will certainly have some effect in slowing most vehicles, but as they are forward facing they cannot catch the worst offenders, namely motorcyclists who, particularly during the summer months, scream past at speeds well in excess of the limit. Their number plates are on the back of their machines and thus cannot be seen by the cameras. I am not a 'Bike Basher' but feel that they should be subject to the same controls as other road users. |
| John, Letchworth | Friday 6
December, 2002 | | | If the government would admit speed cameras are revenue raising device, a sort of voluntary road toll (say £30 & no points) this would be accepted, reluctantly, by drivers. However the government claims these are just safety devices and refuse to accept the statistical evidence that they do not work. |
| John, Wembley | Thurs 5 December, 2002 | | | Why should speed cameras only be for "safety"? What's wrong with using them to rake in some revenue?I say put them up all over the place, hide them, don't tell people they're there. if motorists CHOOSE to break the law by speeding, then they pay up. Simple. Excellent. What's the problem with that? If they improve road safety that's a bonus. |
| Mo, Watford | Tuesday 3
December, 2002 | | | There are a lot of countries that have less speed cameras and the accidents rate is much lower than the uk's, it's ok for them to drive fast! |
| Ernie, Bedford | Tuesday 3
December, 2002 | | | 1) A camera is listed for the new Clapham Bypass. As there are no stats for this unused road to show that it is an accident area. What logic can they advance for installing one at it's opening? 2) How many officers are allocated to mobile cameras, and if instead they were reassigned to beat duty, how many attacks could they save happening to the general public. |
More comments
Latest comments |
