|  | Add your comment More comments
Latesst comments 
| Alan, Dunstable | Tuesday 14 January, 2003 | | | Speed cameras are obviously sited on the roads where most money can be made; often on fast, straight roads with unnecessarily low speed limits for a modern car. They were orignally supposed to be placed at accident blackspots only, yet now they are appearing everywhere. It is not about reducing accidents, it is about raising revenue. |
| Anon, Luton | Tuesday 14 January, 2003 | | | Bridget, I'm the idiot that got caught 4 times in 6 months and I couldn't agree with you more. I'm just sorry it took a ban, fine and all the other associated things for me to realise it. The speed limit is the law. Break the limit and you break the law - simple as that. Moaning about the use of speed cameras is stupid. No one would seriously follow the same argument for any other crime - an unseen crime is ok. Would they? |
| Bridget, Iver | Tuesday 14 January, 2003 | | | Well done Chris, its so funny to hear people try and defend their speeding reasons. The point is drive within the specified limit dont speed cos if you do you will get photographed, caught by the Traffic Police or you will crash. I know I would rather just abide the rules the rest is not even tempting. I laugh when people overtake me near lights or just to get one car in front, whats the point? Different if its a tractor or a very slow moving vehicle because they will normally let you pass but if its me driving within the speed limit and you're in a rush and you're in my boot (may as well be) all you make me do is slow down cos you're sad. So get to where you're going in one piece not with points on your licence or a criminal record for death by dangerous driving, I know I couldn't live with myself. |
| Chris, Knebworth | Saturday 11
January, 2003 | | | Oh dear Herrick, I think you have missed my point. The assumption that you have to sit staring at the speedo to keep within the limit is quite different from having the occasional glance. I do drive down hills, but by understanding your vehicle, selecting the right gear and using the middle pedal it is possible to modulate one's speed (ever tried it....). When you appear in front of the Beak to explain you ran someone over because you gained 10mph 'going down the hill', please let me watch, as I don't think the response will be 'Perfectly understandable, do not go to jail, pass go and collect £200'. Hopefully a Speed Camera will catch you before you have the opportunity to ruin someones life. We have to be responsible for own actions behind the wheel, and to be able to control our vehicles, otherwise they do become 'killing machines'. |
| Tony, Bedford | Friday 10
January, 2003 | | | I thought cameras were only for accident blackspots. Why is it then that the new Clapham bypass had a camera at the Milton Ernest end before it was opened. Did the planners see this as a potential danger area, if so surely they could have designed the road better. more than likely it's yet another easy way to generate cash! |
| Herrick, Princes Risborough | Friday 10
January, 2003 | | | Im glad Chris from Knebworth doesnt need a speedo in his car... has he ever driven down a hill? Cameras should be positioned where there is a safe margin of error so, even if you are a law-abiding citizen like myself, you can safely check your speed... not just for avoiding getting caught, but to ensure you are respecting the reason for them being there in the first place! |
| Dave Hyde, Leighton Buzzard | Thursday 09
January, 2003 | | | I think that speed cameras are a good idea as long as they're in apropriate places, if they were put on roads where there is a obvious danger from speeding i.e uneven road surface or a blind corner just ahead then thats fine but not just put in stupid places for the fun of it. Also mobile speed cameras the officers should wear high vis jackets and stay in view as when one got myself for speeding i nearly ran him down as it was dusk and he lept out in frount of me and i could not see him. |
| Bridget, Iver | Thursday 09
January, 2003 | | | Speed Cameras were introduced for a reason and whether you like it or not the law is the law and you have to abide by this so, drive sensible because unfortunately none of us realise the impact until it hits us personally. |
| Paul, Biggleswade | Thursday 09
January, 2003 | | | Anon of Luton, caught 3 times in 6 months, well he deserves a ban then if he's that bad at controlling his car (Assuming its a he!) |
| Bridget, Iver | Wednesday 8 January, 2003 | | | Loads of suggestions but no conclusion to the complete "balls up" made by so called intelligent people. I do agree with so many of your comments as I do drive myself but since this happened I actually believe that wherever I am going I would like to arrive safely than not arrive at all. Thanks |
| John, Baldock | Wednesday 8 January, 2003 | | | I am sure that speed does contibute to some accidents, however I also think just old fashined BAD DRIVING contributes more. We all know the kind of thing - someone doesnt indicate, people who clearly drive looking at the road 10 feet dead infront of them who then miss the person pulling out 30 yards in front etc. I think the problem is proving it as there is a degree of subjectivity in bad driving, speeding is very much open and shut (not to mention the useful revenue and the fact that Mr Angry from Bornemouth is made to think something is being done !! |
| Chris, Knebworth | Wednesday 8
January, 2003 | | | I chuckle at those people who suggest that you are more likely to hit someone because you are looking at your Speedo checking you are within the limit. If you are unable to judge the speed of your car (to drive within the limit, i.e. 28-30mph) then you ought not to be on the road... Speed Camera's exist because we are unable to comply with basic laws (The big round signs with foot-high letters give a hint). Yes, we can all find evidence of a stupid location for a camera, but at the end of the day there is enough guidance on the locations of speed cameras. In case anyone is interested, I ALWAYS stick to 30, 40 and 50mph speed limits, but may break 60 & 70 limits. If I am caught, I am aware that I am breaking the law. If I find a ticket come through my letter box I only have myself to blame |
| Oliver, Beds | Wednesday 8
January, 2003 | | | What would be good to see is more distance cameras - that is where they take your registration at one point and measure the time it takes for you to get to a second point. If you manage to do that quicker than the 60mph or whatever speed limit would allow; you get booked. It will stop the sudden-braking culture and actually make people think about their speed over a longer distance. It's been used in other parts of the country and makes a lot more sense than catching you simply because you hit the gas a little too hard. |
| Anon, Luton | Wednesday 8
January, 2003 | | | I served a 3 month ban last year, imposed after being caught 4 times in 6 months by cameras. But I am not against the use of cameras. As as been said many times during this debate they should be placed where there are genuine risks to safety. I broke the limit (never more than 39mph in a 30 zone) so I can hardly argue with the law. However, what I do object to is the inconsistent sentencing one can expect to receive. I was told by my solicitor that had I had children I wouldn't have been banned - why? Why should my speeding be considered worse than a parent's. I was then told that I should have "exagerated" my outgoings by claiming for regular expenditure on alcohol and playing the lottery. Because I was scrupulously honest I recieved a larger fine than most. But, what's even worse is the insurance companies might have suffered losses on the stock excahnge but they are making up the shortfall by increasing premiums. Mine TRIPLED this year - and yet In 21 years of driving over 100 miles a day I have NEVER claimed. If the police are serious about stopping people from speeding I suggest they highlight the true cost to the convicted motorist. Many drivers have no idea what they're letting themselves in for when one of those cameras flashes. Every penny of my savings has gone - at least £25 a day for fares on public transport, a hefty fine & a huge insurenace bill. Let drivers know this and I guarantee they'll slow done. I have! |
| Terry, Bedford | Wednesday 8
January, 2003 | | | As a retired fireman l have probably attended more RTA's than the police/civilains operating these things. Governement says they will be placed on accident black spots etc. but Beds Police operate mobile units hidden behind shrubs, usually on downhill roads at the point where a 30 becomes 40 and trap you. I saw a police officer hiding behind a telegraph pole in Renhold at seven thirty in the morning. This has little to do with accident reduction but everything to do with fund raising and crime statistics. Alienate law abiding motorists - as the others don't care about points, the car isn't even n their name or they don't have a licence and job to lose - at your peril |
| Guy, Royston | Wednesday 8
January, 2003 | | | My local library will probably close due to lack of funds - but there are plenty available to put up speed cameras and car wrecking humps. This is nothing to do with safety and everything to do with jumping on politcal bandwagons and raising revenues (which isn't even put back into local communities). |
| Larry Ward, Bedford | Wednesday 8
January, 2003 | | | I thought I left speed trap town behind me when I left the US to live here. Anyone noticed that the new cameras on the A1 south of Beeston enforce 50mph travelling north and 60mph travelling south? Northbound you come to a speed limit sign that says 60, shortly thereafter there's a sign to slow you down to 50, 10 yards later there's a camera. Unless you're alert, you'll probably struggle to slow down in time. So much for safety. Bedfordshire is becoming more like some Midwest hick town every day!! |
| Peter, Bedford | Tuesday 7 January, 2003 | | | In most cases, speed cameras only slow down traffic in the very short stretch of road in which they are used. Drivers travel at speed up to within a few metres of the camera, slow down as they pass through the beam and then speed up again. This is proven by the large number of skid marks you see on the tarmac approaching a camera beam in the summer. If the driver behind is not prepared for the sudden reduction in speed, then rear end shunts can occur - I have seen this happen twice, in both cases when an older driver over-reacted to the presence of the camera and suddenly decelerated from 40+mph to 20mph without warning. So, aside from being a cynical way of collecting revenue, they don't work, and they can cause accidents. |
| Mark, Luton | Tuesday 7 January, 2003 | | | I live on the A6 near the town, in a 30mph zone. Frequently drivers take the most stupid risks passing traffic already travelling at 30mph. If the police wanted to put a camera outside my house, I'd be delighted. |
| John , Letchworth | Tuesday 7 January, 2003 | | | To Peter (Flitwick), and other who think it is fair to prosecute drivers for driving at a safe but illegal speed. Dropping litter is also illegal and can be prosecuted, jay walking I am not sure about, but is more dangerous. So maybe the CCTV cameras in the town centres can be also be made to turn a profit, but would that be political acceptable? |
| Anon, Dunstable | Tuesday 7
January, 2003 | | | If Speed kills Humans in the road, we must first ask ourselves, what is the person doing in the road in the first place? I can accept that the cameras are a good idea, for those who persistantly break speed limits, but it is penalising us drivers who are already taxed to the neck whether it be fuel, road tax, and lets not forget the insurance that us 'younger' and 'inexperencied' drivers HAVE TO PAY. Its stupid. They are basicaly a means and an end to gaing higher revenues for the Government ... |
| Phil, Stevenage | Tuesday 7
January, 2003 | | | I do feel that these cameras are only there to provide additonal revenue. After driving now for a little over 13 years, I now more than ever spend most of my driving time looking at the speedometer rather than on the road..... |
| Craig, Harpenden | Tuesday 7
January, 2003 | | | Speed traps used in conjunction with sensible speed limits would not be a bad thing. As it is they are used together as a source of revenue for the police in such a blatent way that it's impossible to respect them. Case in point: the dual carriageway between St Albans and Chiswell Green. 30mph limit despite the road being as wide as a motorway, excellent visibility and few residential turnings. Driving along at 30mph causes an irate traffic jam behind you-- understandable, and surely more dangerous than driving at a sensible (for this road) 50mph. And now we have the new 50/40 limit and lethal traffic islands installed on the fast, wide A4147 St Albans to Leverstock Green Road, supposedly in the name of safety! Sometimes I wonder why I pay council tax at all... |
| Bridget Wade, Iver, Bucks | Tuesday 7
January, 2003 | | | My daughter was killed in September down a road that at present holds a 60mph speed limit. Quite highly populated area with cycle paths and horse tracks everywhere and yet its still 60mph and no cameras arent they lucky. Next time your speeding try and imagine killing someones daughter and living with that for the rest of your life. Unimaginable, well it happens every day and had done 3 times down this same road. |
| Simon, Great Missenden | Monday 6 January,2003 | | | A revenue based incentive for the local council/government. This isn't about speeding at all, it's about £££'s. 4% of accidents are caused by speeding. Why not spend more time on catching real criminals. I PAY MY TAXES!! |
| Peter, Flitwick | Sunday 5 January 2003 | | | No one has to fear the speed cameras and or the ridiculous fines. Keep within the speed limit at all times. It is easy to do. If everyone kept within the limit there would be no fines taken and the cameras would soon be either removed or switched off. |
| Andrew Kirk, Hemel Hempstead | Sunday 5 January 2003 | | | Speed cameras are a joke. If we really wanted to save lives we would put cameras out of sight. This would make drivers observe speed limits. We have a distorted sense of fairness where lives are less important than fair play. |
| Martin, Kempston | Friday 3 January 2003 | | | Most people I talk to who are over 40, seem to be thinking of leaving the UK and going to France, Spain or Ireland. Speed cameras, and councils making road ramps (Elstow Road, Kempston) to calm the traffic. The country is over populated, but I never heard that mentioned when they talk about traffic, house prices etc. Are we the UK heading in the same direction as Japan? (Yes) Yet, in Canada they scrapped Speeding cameras - I think likewise. Lots of reasons - but it could soon be best to leave the UK. |
| Jo, Herts | Tuesday 31 December, 2002 | | | I totally agree to, "Speed DOES NOT kill, innapropriate use of speed does." also what about the type of car?? Stopping distances and handling very so dramatically from car to car. I've always driven in the age of power assisted braking, EBD, ABS and all that "malarkee". I recently had to drive this old Nova which had drum brakes all round for the first time. IT WAS HORRIFIC! How did people survive!! I drove it slowly and had to stop at this junction. First thing I thought was "WHERE'S THE BRAKES!! IT'S NOT WORKING!!". Luckily the owner of the car was with me and said brake twice as hard. Phew! I didn't want to think what is was like at 70 on the motorway. How about adopting the Japanese/Netherlands approach. Renew your car every couple of years! Safety is good, handling is good and everyone lives! oh and so kind to the enviroment! Old cars kill! |
More comments
Latesst comments |
