Scamera poll

There are far better ways to help people remain within the speed limits. I have (on other fora) suggested that instead of a camera, there should be a sign warning you a) what the limit is and b) the speed at which you are travelling.

Cameras are not going to stop TWOCers or criminals or people who don't care about losing their license and continue driving anyway.

As a motorist, I feel that standards are applied to me that are not applied to any other road users. If you look at the road safety adverts, for every one advert saying look left, look right, there are ten that say "motorists are at fault for every accident and speed is the root cause of everything."

You never see adverts saying "if you're stupid enough to walk out into the road without looking, you might get run over." Yes, I am in the big, heavy thing that will kill people if they walk in front of it while it's moving, I am the one who pays for that black stuff that I drive around on. I am the one who has to comply with government regulations that define what the state of my car should be. I am the one who subsidises everyone with the outrageous tax on fuel. But I am also the one who has to automatically carry the can for those people who choose to use the road in something other than a car.

I rail against cameras because I see blatant abuse of the safety message with cameras placed on dead straight roads behind bushes or road signs. This weekend, I saw cameras cunningly placed behind signs in two villages at the entry points. These signs were in a forest of multi-coloured road signage, INCLUDING SEVERAL ITEMS WHICH WERE BRIGHT YELLOW. So easy to miss the camera until you see the flash. Now, while I believe that you should drive extra carefully in built up areas (because children are not taught to worry about running into a busy road), if those cameras ARE there to deter speeding, why are they not visible? People DO slow down at cameras (often when they don't even need to.)

But no, they're practically invisible until you're past them, so if you're late in slowing down (which I agree is unforgivable!) you will be penalised. You will not be given the extra incentive to slow down first.

I can honestly say that I have spotted cameras in several places where I can understand the justification, even though I would still provide an information display, rather than a penalty-based revenue-gathering device. However, for every ONE camera like that I see, I see TEN that make me seethe as they are obvious scams.

If the government was serious about road safety, they would address the causes of 87% of all accidents, before taking our money for the 13%. I see plenty of the latter, and absolutely NONE of the former. Even if the 33% statistic is correct, they are making hay about one-third of accidents, and doing nothing about the other two-thirds.

Speed cameras are portrayed as a panacea for road safety. They are not. Given all the other abuse I have to suffer as a motorist, I feel that they are part of an orchestrated campaign to deprive me of my mobility by discouraging me from using my car.

There is a law against travelling over 70MPH on an open motorway on a clear sunny day. A camera will penalise you for doing that. If the camera doesn't get you, then in future, a black box will. Speed is a factor in between 13% and 33% of RTA's depending on whose lies you believe. I am sure on occasion I have strayed to 71MPH on a motorway, especially in cars that don't have cruise control. I am therefore a potential murderer. (Although I'm only a potential murderer in the UK. And not on the Isle of Man. In France, I can drive about 85MPH before I suddenly become a potential  murderer. In Germany, on certain roads, I can never be a potential murderer, although I could suddenly become an actual murderer.)

Similarly, there is a law against actual murder. If between 13% and 33% of those murders occur in a home, then perhaps in future, they could put camera in everyone's house to stop those actual murders from occurring or at least automatically provide proof of the crime. After all, if you don't actually murder people in your house, then you've got no reason to rail against the idea, do you? You want those lives to be saved, don't you? It could be your child's life that gets saved, after all. And if those cameras happen to catch you fiddling on your taxes, well, you should be doing that either, should you. And they can start serving automatic ASBO's for things like picking your nose or scratching your privates. So we'll all be better behaved, and the world will be a better place.

Sounds wonderful. Sign me up.

I'm saying we may miss it due to other factors, and assuming we don't have local knowledge of our entire road network, this is forgivable.

So, if scameras are not there to make money, repeaters every hundred yards or so would be good wouldn't they ?

So where are they ?

Nigel wrote: I'm saying we may miss it due to other factors, and assuming we don't have local knowledge of our entire road network, this is forgivable. So, if scameras are not there to make money, repeaters every hundred yards or so would be good wouldn't they ? So where are they ?

It's 2 (or maybe 3!) against one here Nigel - is that fair???

 

Even if livvy is wrong!  

Edited by thepits

livvy wrote: I do travel at a speed that I can process that information in the first place though.

So that's 70mph on a motorway / dual carriageway then?

thepits wrote: livvy wrote: I do travel at a speed that I can process that information in the first place though. So that's 70mph on a motorway / dual carriageway then?

That's the maximum where posted as such (not all dual carriageways are National Speed limits after all). Also depend on whether I'm driving other vehicles to which different limits apply.

Nigel wrote: I dissagree with you entirely Livvy. One of my local area's stunts is to put speed limit changes right at  traffic islands, busy ones at that, the last thing you should be looking for here is road signs.

Well I disagree Nigel. I don't think Safety is negotiable & if you can't take in all the important details (which includes signs) & you are getting information overload, then you must slow down. It is folly not to.

spokey wrote: Yes, because the signage is always 100% accurate and believable, isn't it? I mean, I've never wasted 15 minutes in one lane because a sign warned of a lane closure ahead which never materialised. Similarly, I have never come over a blind rise to find a bunch of workmen in the road with no warning. I'll just keep my eyes on the signage then!

Have I said that you must only observe signage ?

Of course you mustn't, but you have to consider what it says & build it into your driving plans, that is prudent. Any signs missed are an opportunity for information missed. The more information we have the more accurate & well considered our driving plans will be.

If I gave you a briefing sheet as we are going out on a track day & I said you've got to read it between here & the car, you wouldn't rush to the car, you'd slow yourself down to take in all the information. If you don't you are putting yourself & others at risk, it's no good then complaining but I didn't have time because I rushed to the car & wanted to get out on the track.


Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: Nigel wrote: I dissagree with you entirely Livvy. One of my local area's stunts is to put speed limit changes right at  traffic islands, busy ones at that, the last thing you should be looking for here is road signs. Well I disagree Nigel. I don't think Safety is negotiable & if you can't take in all the important details (which includes signs) & you are getting information overload, then you must slow down. It is folly not to.

I agree safety is not negotiable. Unfortunately, the only person responsible is the motorist. The Highways Agency or whoever can put up as much road signage as they want, wherever they want, and it's up to the motorist to decode it. I would have thought it would be far better to provide the motorist with useful information at a managed pace that allows the motorist to also consider things like kids running into the road from between parked cars, etc.

If the Highways Agency (or whoever) posts a bunch of spurious signage, then we have to slow down AND get distracted from watching out for other road users.

If I have to be a careful driver, why can't they employ careful  sign-putter-uppers?

spokey wrote: I agree safety is not negotiable. Unfortunately, the only person responsible is the motorist. The Highways Agency or whoever can put up as much road signage as they want, wherever they want, and it's up to the motorist to decode it. I would have thought it would be far better to provide the motorist with useful information at a managed pace that allows the motorist to also consider things like kids running into the road from between parked cars, etc. If the Highways Agency (or whoever) posts a bunch of spurious signage, then we have to slow down AND get distracted from watching out for other road users. If I have to be a careful driver, why can't they employ careful  sign-putter-uppers?

In my experience lack of signage poses a greater risk than over signage on our roads.

livvy wrote: In my experience lack of signage poses a greater risk than over signage on our roads.

More twaddle! How can you possibly say that?

There have been numerous reports about the amount of useless signage on our roads leading to confusion...

How long is your "experience" anyway?