|  | Add your comment More comments
Latest comments 
| Tony, Luton | Friday 24
January, 2003 | | | I would like a hidden camera installed soon after the visible one to catch the drivers who slow for the camera and then imediately speed-up above the limit. |
| Naheem, High Wycombe | Friday 24
January, 2003 | | | the speed camera on london road covers three lanes and it flashes at 37mph that is more than unfair we should at least do about 40mph and then get flashed. all the cars under 1990 should be dumped and the prices for the new cars should drop down and people buy new cars. when you come from another town you don't know what is the speed limit and it should be 40mph. |
| Simon H, Bedford | Friday 24 January, 2003 | | | Interesting stuff in this forum. Half of you despise cameras as money spinners, the other half believe that they're good - some say speed doesn't kill. If more money/time was spent on driver training perhaps we wouldn't have the conflict of opinion. I join the Institute of Advanced motorists, passed and now am more than 50% LESS likely to have any accident at all. For less than £70 it was the best money I ever spent......BUT - if I have an accident - I'm out of the IAM and the cheaper motoring I have stops. Makes you think eh! How many people have had NO more training since they passed their test originally? And how long ago was it? |
| John, Letchworth | Thursday 23
January, 2003 | | | Does anyone know if speed cameras are programmed to detect the size (and by implication the class) of the vehicle? On a normal single carriageways national speed limit 60 mph for cars, but only 40 for HGVs, 70 & 55 on dual carriageways. I suspect HGVs can drive at up to 50% over the limit without fear of automatic speed cameras Can anyone confirm or correct this. |
| Phil , Luton | Wednesday 22
January, 2003 | | | Yes its me again! I know this is about speed cameras, but what about them speed humps, why oh why do they make them so that you have to slow down to 5-7 mph to ride them without knocking Granny's teeth out???(!). The hump should really conform to some British Standard in such a way that the hump is ridden smoothly and safetly at say....20 mph. And while I am on this subject, how does an ambulance carrying a critically ill patient is supposed to get to a hospital quickly over speed humps???? |
| Trevor Sayer, Aylesbury | Wednesday 22
January, 2003 | | | I agree totally with Phil of Luton re. why are mobile speed cameras being put on the bit of dual carriageway between Office World roundabout and the end of Park ST - I was done for doing 38mph in a 30 on this stretch before Xmas - yet this a elevated dual carriageway with only one access road and no likelhood of any pedestrians crossing, cars coming out in front of you, etc - yet it is 30mph! But the Bicester Rd as it goes out of Aylesbury is dual track each way, but goes over roundabouts, has houses & businesses fronting onto it and is much more busy than the road in Luton due to the fact that there is a large Tescos & retail park further along it - yet this is 40mph limit; could someone explain the logic of this to me? |
| Graham, Cambridge | Wednesday 22
January, 2003 | | | I think speed camera are very dangerous, having an external agent moderating your speed prevents that all important concentration on the driving. Additionally the number of camera's in 70, 60, 40 and 30 zones means that quite often when travelling in strange places I'll go down to 28 if I'm not sure what the limit is. How about posting a big number on the camera - information that the driver might need perhaps. Getting caught is a lottery, I know slow old people who have been done for 37mph on big sweeping roads and tearaway teens who have never been caught. Perhaps a policeman using his brain instead of a scalar measurement might be better for safety, because currently sliding past a speed camera sideways at 28mph is not an offence, but driving safely by at 37mph is. Perhaps road layout and education would help road safety, but it wouldn't generate anough cash for this money grabbing greedy government who takes more and more while giving less and less in order to smash up foreign countries. Safety implies a decent fire-service - so no one is going to convince me that this government is interested in safety, it's only interest is in money, power and conquest. |
| John Pacey, luton | Wednesday 22
January, 2003 | | | drive within the correct speed limits, presto no tickets.although i know of 3 "speed cameras" in luton that have been forgotten about and are not painted in a bright colour.there the dummy ones anyway. |
| Mike, Stevenage | Wednesday 22 January, 2003 | | | Yes, I would be happy to travel at 60mph on the main roads (A507, A600), but then there is the dawdler who sits at 40-45mph, and causes the long tailback. Find the chance to overtake, accelerate to past as quickly as possible (per the Highway Code), and get done for going too fast.... Did the slow person get done for causing "an obstruction to other road users", or "driving without due care and consideration". Answers on a post card... The limit is arbitrary, and the test should be what is a safe speed for the conditions. Road engineering actually dictates the speed limits: 60 on the Henlow bypass is very comfortable. On the Barton-Hitchin road 60 is excessive. Do not forget, most roads were built a long time ago, and when I passed my test in 1976 the National speed limits on a main road were 70mph. This was reduced to 50mph for fuel economy reasons, then increased to 60. The 60 is purely an expedient compromise measure, and should be treated as such. Instead, it is managed as an absolute dictate, for the convenience of the administration of the country. |
| Phil, Luton | Wednesday 22 January, 2003 | | | Why the hell are the police putting a mobile speed camera between the Office World roundabout and the lower roundabout at the end of the dual carriageway? There are no pedestrians and the road is elevated.I am all for putting cameras in accident prone spots..but here??? |
| David, Cambridge | Wednesday 22 January, 2003 | | | I agree with Martin, Kempston. When you return from the Continent at Dover it's like a third world Country. We ARE overcrowded - our NHS, Road, trains and Cities cannot cope and there is NO solution. Roads are dangerous places and speend cameras are a lazy way around the problem. One idea which they have in Germany, on the motorway is where the motorway is 2 lanes only then lorries and anything with trailers are not allowed to overtake. On our roads slow lorries pull out and hold up cars, making the drivers irate etc. But then it's this God forsaken damn Country and weak Government. |
| Mike Melbourne, Bedford | Tuesday 21 January, 2003 | | | Cameras will cause drivers to drive within the speed limit,however they will not catch people who are over drink the limit. |
| Steve, Stevenage | Tuesday 21 January, 2003 | | | Linda - if, as you state, you have been stupid enough to get caught speeding twice in two days on the same camera, surely you must be one of the idiots you refer to!!!! |
| Rob, Harpenden | Tuesday 21 January, 2003 | | | Why hide speed cameras? So drivers can slow down for a few yards and then speed up? Pointless. Need a reminder not to speed? Look at the speed limit signs. So what if they are there just to raise revenue? No speeding=no revenue=removal of the cameras. It's as simple as that. |
| Linda, Dunstable | Tuesday 21 January, 2003 | | | Having got caught twice in two days on the same camera, doing very little over the limit - I have to say that I am now over cautious. I spend most of my driving time with other drivers right on my bumper as I try to stay with the speed limit. I also find that I am forever glancing down at my speedometer to ensure that I don't go over the limit. I feel that I am probably more of a danger driving like this, but I really don't want any more points on my licence. I also get really cross when I see people flying off ahead of me.... doing at least 30mph over the limit. It's because of these idiots that we have speed cameras in the first place. |
| Tony, Stotfold | Tuesday 21 January, 2003 | | | Why Oh Why is there a Speed camera controling a 30 speed limit on the new bridge in Arlesey. This is pure proof that speed cameras are there to get cash from us. (No I haven't been caught but how sad.) |
| Andy, Hemel Hempstead | Sunday 19 January, 2003 | | | Speed cameras should be SEEN not hidden behind signs as they are on the St.Albans road in Hemel Hempstead.They should be there as a VISABLE reminder to keep to the speed limits not used as a money making machine for the local authorities.By hiding cameras this can also cause a traffic hazzard as people brake heavily and suddenly when seeing them, usually when the road is clear and you are already within the speed limit so not anticipating such actions.I agree you should drive within the limits on the roads but most cameras are not in the best areas eg. BLACKSPOTS I just wish the use of the cameras was for the purpose of reducing accidents and not, as in many cases, to trap drivers and raise revenue. |
| Paul, Luton | Sunday 19 January, 2003 | | | Well, I have read with great interest the preceeding articles, some for, some against and I would like to add my views. First off I would just like to mention that my licence is clean. Camera's were originally for accident black spots which is fair enough, but, as already mentiones, there are cameras appearing in stupid places which are without doubt there to make money, there can be no doubt about it. OK, cameras in residential areas are fine, but more people are killed through bad driving than speeding. Modern cars stop a lot quicker, but yet the speed limits were set years ago. If camera continue to appear has anyone actually thought of the impact on the motor industry? Why bother with a BMW M3 or an MR2 and forget a Porche or Ferrari! I am not for one minute suggesting that you drive at 150+ but please make speed limits more sensible. How about after 11pm and before 5am on the motorways making the limit 100mph. I would still be able to stop much quicker than a car from the 60's when these limits were set! Also set a minimum speed of 60mph. Those whom want to drive slower should not use the motorways, maybe these would ease congestion! Finally, soon road tolls will be introduced on motorways, on top of our road tax, congestion charges, hiked up insurance, high fuel costs, all on bad roads! Hey, but thats another debate? Get a motorcycle - no front no. plate - less chance of being caught on cam! |
| Cheryl, Luton | Sunday 19 January, 2003 | | | Speed camara's are not all that good as all of them don't flash when someone speeds |
| Ian Beet, Birmingham | Saturday 18 January, 2003 | | | Any decent driver should be able to judge their speed without staring at the speedo. Plus most speed cameras aren't set to the exact speed limit it is usually 10% + 3mph, ie 36mph in a 30. |
| Chad Bond, West Drayton | Friday 17 January, 2003 | | | I think that speed cameras are sometimes set up in totally the wrong places. i understand if they are in built up places ie.towns and villages. dont understand why they have them on dual carriage ways in the country side. where the risk to public is lower.it seems to me that if they are trying to slow traffic, why dont they just build more speed humps? its just another way for the goverment to make more revenue. |
| Michael Smith, Harpenden | Friday 17 January, 2003 | | | I notice with interest that there are no cameras in Harpenden. No need the traffic is at a stand still from morning to night. Who needs cameras?? Maybe we would qualify for a camera if the council stopped thinking about St. Albans and started building a ring road around us. We would welcome the chance to get a speeding ticket. |
| Bridget, Iver | Friday 17 January, 2003 | | | Keith this is not about manpower or how many pc's are doing what. They are out tackling issues like what we are debating about. You speed you're stupid, you slow down you're sensible, what is so hard in that? I sat in an Inquest today and you would not believe what these investigators can do, so just accept they are there and remember we put them there. |
| Keith, Newport Pagnell | Wednesday 15 January, 2003 | | | I would rather be free to concentrate on looking out for road hazards than speed cameras. Has anyone noticed the amount of roads that have their speed limits reduced to far too slow speeds when a camera appears, and the notices on lampposts from the police boasting about how many speed tickets they have issued get right up my nose, What I want to know is how many burglars or car thieves have they caught? None I expect because if your car is broken into, all they will do is give you a crime number. |
| Jamie Connors, MK | Wednesday 15 January, 2003 | | | A couple of points I'd like to mention after reading all of the enties in this section. Speed cameras will catch those who are breaking the law ... is this a bad thing?? Only those who break the law should be complaining ... even then, do they have a right to complain? Second point ... can someone driving on a road suddenly brake and cause an accident?? I think not.... it's the driver behind the braking car that has caused the accident, as they were driving too close to the car in front - true or not? At 30mph you should leave a gap of at least 5 car lengths thus leaving room for safe and smooth braking in case of situations involving slowing cars. Even a bus can manage this kind of distance to come to a complete stop, therefore a car should be able to stop with ease. It's not the cars fault in any of the matters disscussed in this issue. The drive is/should be in complete control of the car and therefore should be held responsible for their actions, not the car! nor the speed camera!! |
More comments
Latest comments |
