Scamera poll

spokey wrote: You are the Reverend A. J. Blair, and I claim my £5.

Thanks for the warm welcome.

Nice, really nice.

I didn't think I was being rude or dismissive in posting my thoughts or questions, but clearly it is what I deserve for daring to question the obvious majority view here.

As I said I am struggling to understand how the government, Police or whoever are to blame for any of us speeding & my questions were an offer for me to be educated in this.

Clearly though posing questions on such matters labels me as a Blairite which could not be further from the truth actually.

livvy wrote: Thanks for the warm welcome. Nice, really nice. I didn't think I was being rude or dismissive in posting my thoughts or questions, but clearly it is what I deserve for daring to question the obvious majority view here. As I said I am struggling to understand how the government, Police or whoever are to blame for any of us speeding & my questions were an offer for me to be educated in this. Clearly though posing questions on such matters labels me as a Blairite which could not be further from the truth actually.

Livvy - for once it wasn't me that replied to your post in such a manner - nevertheless I will apologizs on their behalf for any offence made

We all accept - I think - that speeding is an offence.

The issue here is the prolification and location of cameras.

No sensible person would object to them outside schools - but on a motorway? Well????????

The current speed limits - out of town - are stupid. 70mph on a motorway where we are all going the same way??

Speed does not kill - FACT

Inappropriate use of speed DOES!

discuss........... 

livvy wrote: Unfortunately there are very strict rules over signage . If the limit is not clearly posted as per the regulations then the limit is invalid & you can't be prosecuted. If it's a correctly posted limit any reasonably observant driver should be aware of the limit they are in. It was after all a basic requirement for our driving tests, as was complying with that limit.

I'm sorry I'm not having this! There are many many roads where the limit changes time and time again, so there becomes a very real danger that - no matter how good a driver you are - you find a camera, and are not sure what the limit should be, so slow down to what it could be.

If - as you say - there are strict rules on signage then they need to be changed, otherwise we will always say that the majority of cameras are there for only one reason - to make money.

thepits wrote: Livvy - for once it wasn't me that replied to your post in such a manner - nevertheless I will apologizs on their behalf for any offence made We all accept - I think - that speeding is an offence. The issue here is the prolification and location of cameras. No sensible person would object to them outside schools - but on a motorway? Well???????? The current speed limits - out of town - are stupid. 70mph on a motorway where we are all going the same way?? Speed does not kill - FACT Inappropriate use of speed DOES! discuss...........

Thank you thepits , perhaps it isn't all unfriendly here after all


6,000 cameras on all or miles of network. Not that many really is it when you think of how many miles of road we have at our disposal.

Interesting that you suggest them being outside schools. This is a common view stated, but I personally think that cameras are best placed where the fatal collisions actually occur. Nobody likes to see a knee jerk reaction to a problem & rather than acting on a gut feeling on where cameras should be sited (they are expensive after all & there is a limited number available) they should surely be placed where the evidence shows that collisions do actually occur in greatest numbers.

That evidence shows that very few primary school aged children are killed on or to the journeys from school, but are instead killed in the roads in which they live. As children grow older they are killed further from home & on busier faster roads.

livvy wrote: Thank you thepits , perhaps it isn't all unfriendly here after all

 Ah shucks...

 

livvy wrote: Interesting that you suggest them being outside schools. This is a common view stated, but I personally think that cameras are best placed where the fatal collisions actually occur.

I quite agree - so how come they appear on motorways - which are proven to be the safest roads in the country?

livvy wrote: I'd have thought persoanlly that a reduction in speed just prior to a hazard might be a good thing.

Define!  

Motorway - hazard??

Edited by thepits

You get my vote Nigel I live in Co.Durham (think) Dave has said this,and my other half work's in the police "Ticket" office.
Durham only have 1 mobile camera and no "Fixed" ones, they only use this (normaly) outside School's, built up area's etc.
What they do have is a "ANPR" van "automatic number plate reader" this tell's them all the drivers on the road without Tax, M.O.T and ins. They then take the car and,after 10 day's if the driver can't ins/tax it they "crush" it, this to me makes more sence

Livvy

Not if concentrating on the hazard causes you to miss the sign, then a lack of repeaters, then flash, oops £60 3 points etc etc

livvy wrote: I was replying to Nigel's post about councils putting them in just before hazards. I didn't take that to mean motorways because it would be the Highway's Agency placing them there not council's wouldn't it?

But why on motorways at all?

We all agree that speed should be reduced when there is danger, don't we?

And no-one should object to cameras where there is a known hazard?

But they are regularly positioned in places for no apparent reason.

Other than to make money?

http://www.speedcameras.org/index.php?poll_show_results=bene fits&option_select=16&Submit=Submit&page=poll&am p;view_type=results

 

thepits wrote: Other than to make money?

I'm still struggling on how they can do this if we are obeying the law & the limit as we all should be. Surely it is our choice on whether we put ourselves up for giving them money or not. I choose not to by obeying the limit, if somebody else chooses to speed, are they not giving the government tacit permisssion to fine them knowing full well the rules ?

http://www.speedcameras.org/index.php?poll_show_results=bene fits&option_select=16&Submit=Submit&page=poll& amp; amp;am p;view_type=results

I don't see that 3,500 road deaths should be dismissed as not important & shouldn't be addressed because 5,000 people die in hospital. Surely both should be addressed by the agencies concerned, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

Edited by livvy