|  | Add your comment More comments 
| Simon Rampley, Stevenage | Saturday 8 February, 2003 | | | Why are there no cameras in 30mph areas in Stevenage,or mobile ones at least? |
| Tim Kingham , Bedford | Friday 7 February, 2003 | | | 'Speed is the major cause of accidents' how about 'speed is the easiest cause to put down on the report sheet' think about the police leg work and public money for 'poor road condition',poor lighting','drugs other than drink','listening to radio''looking at damm fool map display' etc etc,if speed is such a major cause how come Germanys unlimited motorways have a lower accident rate than UK??, |
| Sandra, Dunstable | Friday 7 February, 2003 | | | The best money-maker for the authorities is on Luton Road where the dual carriageway changes from the Luton side of 40mph to Dunstable side of 30mph...nobody can keep to 30mph on a dual carriageway, so they must be raking it in with these new mobile cameras. If the cameras were erected at entrances to schools, then it would be sensible, but that is rarely the case. Did anyone watch Jeremy Clarkson last week on his tour of Holland when they (the inventors of speed cameras) have a website of recent pics of totally destroyed cameras - they even give the police a pink painted warning that the camera is "doomed" beforehand! |
| Jim, Barton | Friday 7 February, 2003 | | | Speed doesn't cause accidents but inappropriate use of speed certainly can be a cause. A camera cannot analyse subjectively. More traffic police would provide an effective deterrent to erring motorists. It would also mean that motorists needing further education could be identified and circumstances could be considered rationally. A grey box can't do this. |
| Clive, Northampton | Friday 7 February, 2003 | | | There is a Speed Camera hidden behind a sign on the A41 at Kingswood, which is halfway between Bicester & Aylesbury. I thought under the new rules that either the signs or the camera would have to be moved. In Nothampton there is a camera in Talevera Way which is a 60mph road no houses, no pedestrians, no accident blackspot history, yet there is still a camera. Another trick they pull is on the A43 at Blisworth, (Bad Blackspot) between Northampton & Towcester, There is a fixed camera on the approach to this crossroads (70mph) but what they do is sit on the bridge about half a mile before the fixed camera with a moblile camera and get vehicles that are speeding before they slow down for the fixed camera. |
| Clive, Northampton | Friday 7 February, 2003 | | | HG, Northampton. Yes there are signs and also camera signs with the speed limit displayed. |
| D J Bavister, Royston | Thursday 6
February, 2003 | | | When are Police Forces going to be honest with the public? They refer to these pieces of equipment as "Safety Cameras" when in fact they do nothing to catch those guilty of such offences as Dangerous Driving, Driving while Under the Influence of Drink or Drugs, Driving Without Due Care and Attention, Driving Without Insurance or MoT, etc. etc. Please, please just be honest and refer to them as what thewy are - Speed Cameras. Before you ask - No, I don't have any particular grudge against Speed Cameras. Just against Police Forces that don't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
| HG, Northampton | Thursday 6
February, 2003 | | | Can any one tell me if there are any warning signs on the A508 Kingsthorpe Road, Northampton warning the motorist of speed cameras? If there are no signs and you are photographed speeding, are you still liable for the speeding fine? |
| Bernie Mcfarlane, Luton | Monday 3 February, 2003 | | | Education is what is Required machines will never achieve this by catching the behavior of a motorist for a fraction of a second |
| John, Aylesbury | Monday 3 February, 2003 | | | These camera's like many things are subject to abuse. The urban clearway's on the main routes into London were "made safe" by reducing the speed from 70 to 50 and even 40, at the time the money went to the local authorities and tht was their motive. No one is going to put the speed back up, yet there are no pedestrians and the road was designed to do 70. I have no objection to speed control near schools, sleeping policemen are very effective for this. Cameras are often cynically placed just after a dual carriageway, usually it is in the one spot where you can overtake that slow vehicle. but the speed only drops from 70 to 60. The current speed limits were introduced in response to the oil crisis in the 70's. They are not fair and reasonable which is why most people exceed them. If you are going to enforce speed limits with camera's then make them appropriate. e.g. 90 on motorways, where only 7% of accidents occur. The long term solution has to be to not allow cars to be manuafactured that can exceed 90mph. Better still let's move towards electric cars and remove the dependency on oil. |
| Mark, Sandy | Sunday 2 February, 2003 | | | The speed camera on the A1 at Beeston is there to protect the residents. The houses are right on the A1 and I do not envy them having to live there. However, there would appear to be a game played by drivers on this difficult stretch of road, and that is to go as fast as possible on the tight bends, then slow sharply as they go past the speed camera, and then of course to see who can accellarate away from the camera the quickest. You would think the authorities might want to stop this happening by putting in another speed camera, but instead they have put two camera's further down this stretch of the A1. There are no houses at this new trap, so I can only assume that they have been placed there for reasons of revenue. Also this stretch of road seems to have a regular visitor, a man whose salary is paid by us to sit in the back of a white van all day and take lovely pictures of us. Unlike Thorpe park, I havent been given the opportunity to purchase my photo, perhaps they are missing a trick!! |
| Paula, Bucks | Sunday 2 February, 2003 | | | Even though i don't condemn speeding.I was doing 37mph in a 30mph zone in Chalfont-St-Peter on the A413.I think its disgraceful that in this day and age,it takes 58 days(not including weekends,christmas)to receive notice of offence.I was informed by Thames Valley Police that because it was a hired vehicle that there is no limit of time.I think the law should be changed in this specific field. |
| radical, bedford | Saturday 1 February, 2003 | | | That is the precise point, these things are DANGEROUS DISTRACTIONS from safe driving. They are also a tax in disguise. There is no doubt that the assertion that the cameras only cover their costs is a nonsense. The basis of costing will have been progressively changed over time so that hidden subsidies are passed into other parts of the police budget. Given the temptation put in their way by the rules, if the police and local politicians haven't done this, then we need smarter public "servants", if that's the right word! Believe me, an astute accountant can make figures say whatever you want them to say. I wonder the relevant authorities would agree to an independent audit of costing methods and apportionments going back to the inception of cameras to prove their case? Don't hold your breath. |
| Phil , Luton | Friday 31 January, 2003 | | | Further to my comments on speed bumps,this is a quote from the Daily Express Friday 31st Jan (page 13) "This week, Sigurd Reinton, the chairman of the London Ambulance Service, confirmed that speed bumps are responsible for hundreds of deaths a year. For every life saved throught traffic calming said Mr Reinton, more are lost because of ambulance delays. Another quote further on says "........the obession with speed cameras. Once again, the justification is they save lives but that's also open to question. Motoring experts as eminent in their field as Mr Reiton is in his, insist that cameras on dual carriageways and motorways cause more accidents than they prevent because driver brake suddenly. Never mind it's a handy source of revenue even if it is derived from motorists who have brought taxed cars with tax discs out of taxed incomed and filled them with taxed petrol and it shows us who's boss. Of that, sadly there is no doubt" hmmm interesting reading, there'e more, it goes on to talk about a group called MAD (Motorists Against Detection) who are not afraid to go outside the law, - they "take out cameras". |
| Tim , HH | Friday 31 January, 2003 | | | Why cant we adopt the American way as one comentee says, when school children are about speed is reduced. In the state of Florida the yellow bus should not be passed atall. Speed pimples are the worst offeneders. I drive a small car which does not go over these atall easily and frequenlty irate van drivers and especially 4x4 drivers overtake as if nothing was in the road, and a fat lot of good they are against moterbikes. In reply to Jo from Herts. When I learnt to drive there were no disc brakes ABS or any other fancy device in fact heaters were only just being introduced as standard. The average car struggled to reach 60mph and one tended to drive in more leaserly manor. Modern car design has I think a lot to answer for, they may be safer but they also accelerate and go a lot faster. But have our reaction times got faster? |
| Chris Whittington, Shillington | Friday 31 January, 2003 | | | I heard a minister refer to cameras as 'safety cameras on BBC this morning. Surely he meant 'Revenue Camera's'? |
| David, Harlington | Friday 31 January, 2003 | | | My objection to cameras is mainly with reference to safety. While many people would question these words I feel that the way in whixch I was taught to drive, by a profesional driver, a chauffer, allowed more margin for safety. This driver used to tell me that the most dangerous part of the road was that which would be occupied by oncoming traffic. Therefore, providing that your overtaking manoeuver was carried out in a correct maner if you exceeded the speed limit for a short duration it enabled a swift return to your own lane. In fact the poluice in those days used to exercise judgement. It is really sad the way this country is developing. In the USA WHILE SCHOOL IS SESSION there is a mandatory 15mph speed limit outside schools. Outside of this time the normal speed limit is in force. Why can't we be this sensible. Or are people right speed cameras are really only another tax? |
| Radical, Bedford | Friday 31 January, 2003 | | | I don't want to hog this, but Helen, the point is we should be able to use our own judgement within reasonable bounds, not have a nanny state inflicted on us by a lot of politically correct, unrepresentative extremists. There are some situations where 30mph (or any other speed limit) is far far too fast - take the driving conditions today for example - or when the schools are starting or emptying. But we don't need 24/7/365 electronic surveillance for that, we need intelligent policing that lets the majority get on with their lives in a sensible way. By the way, these cameras are supposed to be self financing. I would bet my mortgage that the figures used to justify that wouldn't stand an audit. |
| Scott, Dunstable | Friday 31 January, 2003 | | | I got 3 points on my licence for travelling at 49 in a 40 zone on the A5 just north of Dunstable. I cannot think of one reason for that camera being there other than revenue generation. It is not an accident 'blackspot' or residential. Maybe the camera is there because the council know that people will be speeding up coming out of the Dunstable hell-zone and it just happens to be downhill, or am I being too cynical? Put the cameras in 30mph zones and stop the idiots speeding down small residential streets, not 'A' roads where risks are marginal. And why are the Bedfordshire police putting mobile camera vans on the A5 into Hockliffe. People are slowing down before the lights anyway, or are they trying to catch out those that havne't slowed below the 40mph quick enough for them? Surely the least we can expect is a justification from those we pay and elect? Somehow I can't imagine this is why people join the poilce force or is there a policeman / woman willing to justify their forces behaviour in criminalising ordinary tax payers. |
| Radical, Bedford | Friday 31 January, 2003 | | | Let's start a list of crimes we worry about and see how long it is before we get to doing 35 mph in a 30 mph limit in good driving conditions, on a hazard free road (good visibility, few pedestrians, proper pavements)in a well maintained car in light traffic. We have: 1) Gang inspired gunfights I'll add: 2) Protecting children from paedophiles - we've heard this week the police don't have the resources for this AND tracking child porn on the internet. I know where they could get a few officers who are otherwise wasting their time. By the way, who saw the story on tonight's news about the OAP's who are having to buy their own CCTV to protect their homes from hooligans? I know where we could get a few cameras too. |
| Steve Gilbert, Radlett | Friday 31 January, 2003 | | | I spent quite a number of years as an instructor of advanced driving. Tony Blairs' government is constantly out to control us - more and more. The members of this government are control freaks. In Canada speed cameras were installed everywhere just as they have been here in Britain. The Police in Canada met with such hostility from motorists and public opinion of policing in Canada that Canada's government was strongly requested by the Police to destroy all the speed cameras. Apparently Tony Blair was aware of this at the time he made the decision to have all these cameras installed. For his government it is a good way of increasing the crime "clear-up" rate so that he can quote success at the next election. The truth however, is that his government has so far failed in all its promises without exception. He is desperate for some sort of success which he can boast. There are other ways he is also desperately trying to achieve some success - the abolition of the "innocent until proved guilty" principle (which is the backbone of our legal system which has not changed since William the conquerer) is another example. The destroying of peoples' cars by customs officers at Dover where people were prosecuted for bringing beer and cigarettes into Britain, is an example of what is to come, under this "Big brother" control freak government. The recent situation of people being invited to report their "drink-driving" friends for a reward of £500 is worrying. These were the things employed by Stalin in communist Russia. |
| Jimbo, Luton | Friday 31 January, 2003 | | | I like many others I assume have been caught by the mobile unmarked speed camera hiding on the dual carageway between office world and park st roundabout.How can this be only 30 mph on a dual carriageway with no pedestrains they even have the cheek in supplying you with a bit of paper explaining the reasons why giving you 3 points on your licence and a £60 fine is justified.By the way you only find out about this several weeks later when a letter drops on your doorstep explaining when and where you have been caught and what speed (which by the way was 40mph) What is more frustating is since the letter i have driven along this road many times at under 30 mph and have been passed by everything including a police car (doing at least 40mph) perhaps i am unlucky and was in the wrong place at the wrong time but as a lutonian it make you wonder where it is all going to end. |
| Helen, Bedford | Friday 31 January, 2003 | | | Speed restrictions are for a purpose. Why should we flout them and risk life and limb of ourselves and other people. If the cameras serve to remind people to slow down if only to avoid a fine and points on the licence, then they are a good idea |
| Jack, Bury | Thursday 30 January, 2003 | | | I am more concerned about drug gang shootouts, than someone doing 35 miles an hour, but that would take some real policing wouldn't it! |
| Radical, Bedford | Thursday 30 January, 2003 | | | I spend half my time looking at the speedo, trying to spot cameras and avoiding idiotic traffic calming obstacles. That makes me a far less safe driver than I could otherwise be. I don't believe that 99% of the drivers caught by cameras are driving dangerously - there is a a hardcore who are dangerous and we all know who they are - shall I just say Vauxhall Novas, large bore exhuast pipes and padded rally seatbelts? Most so called road safety measures are introduced either by the policically correct eco-extremists or NIMBY householders pressure groups. Has anyone actually seen a pedestrian near most of the things we are talking about? The police would be far better off devoting themselves to real crime and not alienating law abiding, sensible and responsible citizens. The only places we need traffic calming and speed cameras are near schools and in the few genuine residential roads which happen to carry a lot of traffic. It is said speed kills. I'm sure it does, but very rarely and then only at truly excessive levels. What kills is aggressive, careless or reckless driving. Cameras don't catch that, but there is a lot of it about. Find out your local councillor's attitude to traffic and vote out the unrepresentative anti-car extremists! |
| Kaye, Bourne End | Thursday 30 January, 2003 | | | Cameras are excellent in the right situations but bumps do worry me. As i drive a car which is quite low to the ground,I'd like to know who pays for the damage to my exhaust etc. when i go over those particular high ones. I try to go really slowly to avoid damaging my car but this usually means i have a convoy of irate drivers behind me. Another problem is car parks and bumps. Once again as i have a low car i was quite happy using the multi storey in High Wycombe, then one day i went in, parked and did my shopping only to find as i came out some new bumps had been laid on the slope of the exit. Now firstly it was a nightmare trying to get out (there is no other way out!) and secondly WDC have just lost a regular customer! This is a standard car , not a deliberately lowered one so there must be a lot of people in my situation...moan moan moan, well it has to be said!! |
| Clarkey, Luton | Wednesday 29 January, 2003 | | | Why are people complaining about sudden breaking? Keep well back from the rear end of the car in front and it poses no danger to anyone following - whatever the reason for breaking; speed camera or child! |
| Amy, Kempston | Monday 27 January, 2003 | | | The traffic 'calming' methods this country has adopted makes me far from calm, in fact they make me furious! Speed cameras and speed bumps are extremely dangerous. people who use the roads regularly know where they are anyway. It is easy to go as fast as you like and brake just before you reach them. As we all know sudden braking is exactly what we need on our roads in order to prevent tragedy. Genious. In light of the current complaints by paramedics about speed bumps, I'm sure that those of you who are in favour of speed bumps would change your minds if you were going over these bumps in a critical state in an ambulance. I guess you are willing to die for your cause? |
| Paul, Aylesbury | Monday 27 January, 2003 | | | Speed cameras are indeed a problem...let's face it why would you need one on a country road in the middle of nowhere (A41 near Bicester)..not only is it unnecessary but it's hidden behind road direction signs that completely hide it from view. Spending many hours as a sales consultant driving I see so many people panic, slam on the brakes to avoid the dreaded flashes, no regard for the following drivers...I totally agree that they should be in areas of real danger to children such as schools but it would appear that the government (local) seems more concerned at revenue generation from these to boost funds. Why not stop spending money on housing asylum seekers in hotels, providing them with all the comforts of home and spend the money on our own homeless and less fortunate and keep the roads flowing where they can...after all it's bad enough without big brother waiting to pounce ! |
| Linda, Dunstable | Monday 27 January, 2003 | | | Well I'm sure that I was an idiot to get caught Steve from Stevenage, but this was the first time in all of the 37 years that I have been driving. I was doing well under 40 mph on both occasions in a 30mph limit. I really didn't realise and of course I was in the wrong and have now got 6 points on my licence to prove it. I still get cross at all the people who charge past me doing well over the 30mph limit (you know, 40 -50 etc.etc.). Of course they never seem to get caught anyway. |
| John, Hemel Hempstead | Monday 27 January, 2003 | | | The posted speed limit is the maximum allowed on that stretch of road. You are not forced to drive at it! You will be prosecuted (that is "done" for illiterates) by the police for driving too slowly if you are causing a hazard. Stop whinging and learn to drive properly and safely. |
| Dave, Maulden | Saturday 25 January, 2003 | | | As an HGV driver trvelling throughout the UK and western europe doing 100,000 miles per year, experience has proved to me that the fixed speed camera causes far more problems than it solves. In Europe cameras are only used in limited numbers at danger spots such as schools etc. where the standard of driving is far better. A lot of drivers are not aware that HGVs are restricted to 40mph on single carriageway roads and you only have to get near a Tesco lorry doing 40 to see the frustration this causes by creating a long tailback resulting in other drivers making mistakes. Experience has shown me that the vast majority of motorists exceed the speed limit but drive in a safe manner although most of them have very little lane sense and do not appear to know where the indicater switch is, especially at roundabouts. The Dept. of Transport by its own research shows that speed is only a contributary factor in 6% of accidents' (Not the cause). When I am driving I like to constantly look out of the window and make safe judgements on the conditions not having to avert my sight to the speedo for fear of being caught exceeding the speed limit. No, speed is not the main cause of accidents but the the easy option to appear that the authorities are doing something to reduce them. |
More comments |
