[Archived] Speed Camera's Again

[colin]

I do stick to the speed limit. It's just another nail in the coffin of being able to go about your life without continuously being monitored by remote cameras. Be careful Colin. Big Brother is watching you!

Al,

You are perhaps mudding the water here. General survelance cameras which monitor the high street and everyone who walks down it are one thing. They are connected only to speed/safety cameras by the word "camera." If you try and link the two you are possibly making a mistake.

Safety cameras are there to try and deter drivers from exceeding the speed limit. Drivers who exceed the speed limit are dangerous people. I'd rather not walk, cycle, or drive down the public highways while there are some people, for reasons unknown, think that they are impervious to the law, and want to treat the highway as their own private racetrack.

Please don't go into this "privacy" & "big brother" stuff. I just want to be able to use the public highway without having to account for people driving a ton or more of metal at above the speed limit. All of us are entitled to this right.

BTW, please do me the courtesy of not starting your messages with "Still BS Colin."

Cheers

[colin]

Whilst speed is one of the contributing factors to road traffic accidents, anyone who thinks speed cameras are anything other than revenue generators is either deluded or naive.

Call me deluded or naive, but how much revenue do speed cameras raise per annum throughout the UK and how does that amount compare to (say) the annual funding that DfT puts into Blackburn With Darwen's transport fund? That's just an example by the way.

I look forward to you backing up your observation. I'm really interested.

Thanks

[Al]

Al,

You are perhaps mudding the water here. General survelance cameras which monitor the high street and everyone who walks down it are one thing. They are connected only to speed/safety cameras by the word "camera." If you try and link the two you are possibly making a mistake.

Safety cameras are there to try and deter drivers from exceeding the speed limit. Drivers who exceed the speed limit are dangerous people. I'd rather not walk, cycle, or drive down the public highways while there are some people, for reasons unknown, think that they are impervious to the law, and want to treat the highway as their own private racetrack.

Please don't go into this "privacy" & "big brother" stuff. I just want to be able to use the public highway without having to account for people driving a ton or more of metal at above the speed limit. All of us are entitled to this right.

BTW, please do me the courtesy of not starting your messages with "Still BS Colin."

Cheers

OK Colin I have resisted and will continue to do so if you will stop telling me that all unsolicited observation is not all part of the same ever increasing survelance of our everyday lives. That is what bothers me not each individual method of spying. The police are now insisting that quiet country pubs install CCTV. You cannot go anywhere now without being observed. As I said I have no objection to being pulled over by a police car if I have done something wrong. It's the dehumanisation that I object to.

[colin]

OK Colin I have resisted and will continue to do so if you will stop telling me that all unsolicited observation is not all part of the same ever increasing survelance of our everyday lives. That is what bothers me not each individual method of spying. The police are now insisting that quiet country pubs install CCTV. You cannot go anywhere now without being observed. As I said I have no objection to being pulled over by a police car if I have done something wrong. It's the dehumanisation that I object to.

OK Colin I have resisted and will continue to do so if you will stop telling me that all unsolicited observation is not all part of the same ever increasing survelance of our everyday lives.

Sorry, I didn't think I did that. Can you quote me a bit of what I said that lead you to draw that conclusion? I'll be happy to correct it.

I agree with you. Unsolicited observation is one thing. Safety cameras that click only speeding drivers are another kettle of fish altogether. I'm all for the latter, I'm ambient about the former at the moment. But this thread is about safety cameras.

[thenodrog]

I agree with you. Unsolicited observation is one thing. Safety cameras that click only speeding drivers are another kettle of fish altogether. I'm all for the latter, I'm ambient about the former at the moment. But this thread is about safety cameras.

Thats good. No need for you to make any further comment then Colin.

[yoda]

Sorry, I didn't think I did that. Can you quote me a bit of what I said that lead you to draw that conclusion? I'll be happy to correct it.

I agree with you. Unsolicited observation is one thing. Safety cameras that click only speeding drivers are another kettle of fish altogether. I'm all for the latter, I'm ambient about the former at the moment. But this thread is about safety cameras.

Actually this thread is "Speed Camera's Again, legal ruling" not safety cameras'

[Stuart]

Call me deluded or naive, but how much revenue do speed cameras raise per annum throughout the UK and how does that amount compare to (say) the annual funding that DfT puts into Blackburn With Darwen's transport fund? That's just an example by the way.

I look forward to you backing up your observation. I'm really interested.

Thanks

Revenue isn't the same as profit and I don't expect it to outweight other costs. And I didn't say they were profitable which is what you are trying to imply.

You've also said "Safety cameras that click only speeding drivers... I'm all for". It's not the fact that they click only for speeding drivers, it's the deliberate locating of them in areas where it would be safe (and reasonably easy) for a safe driver to drive faster than the Highways Agency decided speed limits*. Also that in many locations where speed would be a factor, there are very rarely speed traps either fixed or mobile.

* I won't even go into the inconsistency of speed limits - particularly when crossing a town boundary. Another trick used in association with speed cameras.

Many of your posts on this subject come across as very smug and you are obviously pro-speed camera. So either you don't drive or you are (or are related to) a traffic cop. Either that or you work for Gatso or one of their competitors.

Oh, and let's get it right, they are not safety cameras, they are speed cameras - as you have said yourself they are designed to do one thing. The former is a product of our "policitally correct" culture; the latter a very simple way to fill the council (and government) coffers.

[Paul]

It's not the fact that they click only for speeding drivers, it's the deliberate locating of them in areas where it would be safe (and reasonably easy) for a safe driver to drive faster than the Highways Agency decided speed limits*. Also that in many locations where speed would be a factor, there are very rarely speed traps either fixed or mobile.

I speak as someone who has a very fine photo collection held by Lancasire police! By implication you are suggesting decisions on speed should be left to the driver, presumably we could extend this to other areas of the law? You're either breaking the law or not. Speed limits could well be wrong but it is not difficult to keep within them. If, to use your implied example, you move from a 40 down to a 30 the 30 mph sign will be visible for long enough to adjust your speed to 30 as you reach the zone. If you are not aware of the change in speed limit you're clearly not driving safely as you failed to observe the warning signs ahead of you. Which other warning signs might you have missed? The child running along the pavement behind parked cars? The one you didn't observe and prepare yourself for an emergency stop when he / she veers off the pavement to cross the road?

Try taking a speed awareness course you will be very surprised but what it can teach you. It changed my views and my driving habits

[Stuart]

I speak as someone who has a very fine photo collection held by Lancasire police! By implication you are suggesting decisions on speed should be left to the driver, presumably we could extend this to other areas of the law? You're either breaking the law or not. Speed limits could well be wrong but it is not difficult to keep within them. If, to use your implied example, you move from a 40 down to a 30 the 30 mph sign will be visible for long enough to adjust your speed to 30 as you reach the zone. If you are not aware of the change in speed limit you're clearly not driving safely as you failed to observe the warning signs ahead of you. Which other warning signs might you have missed? The child running along the pavement behind parked cars? The one you didn't observe and prepare yourself for an emergency stop when he / she veers off the pavement to cross the road?

Try taking a speed awareness course you will be very surprised but what it can teach you. It changed my views and my driving habits

you've completely missed the point. i said reasonable.

[Paul]

you've completely missed the point. i said reasonable.

No you didn't, read your own post. You said "reasonably easy" which I presume you mean it is easy for a driver to unknowingly exceed the limit. If you break the speed limit without realising it you are not driving safely because you are unaware of the surrounding signs. It is "reasonably easy" to drive faster anywhere so you'd best explain yourself clearly.

[tony gale's mic]

I do enjoy the arguments of those who say these speed cameras are just there to fill government coffers and not anything remotely to do with wanting to keep the roads safer. For christ's sakes it's so easy to not have to pay the fines. All you need to do is keep your speed down. Hell, you can even get sat navs which tell you where they are.

If you want to speed within reason then fine, but don't whinge when a camera catches you because it's entirely your own fault.

[jim mk2]

Revenue isn't the same as profit and I don't expect it to outweight other costs. And I didn't say they were profitable which is what you are trying to imply.

The money raised by speed cameras each year wouldn't pay for a new bypass.

You've also said "Safety cameras that click only speeding drivers... I'm all for". It's not the fact that they click only for speeding drivers, it's the deliberate locating of them in areas where it would be safe (and reasonably easy) for a safe driver to drive faster than the Highways Agency decided speed limits*. Also that in many locations where speed would be a factor, there are very rarely speed traps either fixed or mobile.

If you want to exceed the speed limit and break the law, that's your choice. Only don't complain when you are caught by a camera. Funny how speed merchant always consider themselves to be "safe drivers".

Many of your posts on this subject come across as very smug and you are obviously pro-speed camera. So either you don't drive or you are (or are related to) a traffic cop. Either that or you work for Gatso or one of their competitors.

Perhaps he's just a sensible motorist who is happy to drive within the speed limits. Not a difficult concept is it ? Are you a chav in a souped-up Astra by any chance ?

Oh, and let's get it right, they are not safety cameras, they are speed cameras - as you have said yourself they are designed to do one thing. The former is a product of our "policitally correct" culture; the latter a very simple way to fill the council (and government) coffers.

Nothing "politically correct" about saving lives. The vast majority of law-abiding people welcome speed cameras because they reduce the number of serious accidents caused by speeding.

For your information a high speed serious injury crash costs the NHS up to £100,000 in emergency, hospital and after-care services. But whatever the monetary saving there is no way of quantifying the pain, suffering and grief of the friends and relatives of casualties.

Apart from that, good post. Well done.

Beep, beep. Happy motoring.

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Why are you posting up pictures like this? If you stick to the speed limit, you wouldn't need to worry about ever being caught, would you?

You are supposed to stick to the speed limit at all times on the road. Not just when you see a camera and brake sharply.

[Al]

Sorry, I didn't think I did that. Can you quote me a bit of what I said that lead you to draw that conclusion? I'll be happy to correct it.

I agree with you. Unsolicited observation is one thing. Safety cameras that click only speeding drivers are another kettle of fish altogether. I'm all for the latter, I'm ambient about the former at the moment. But this thread is about safety cameras.

Not worth arguing with you any more. You just don't accept that 'safety' cameras are part of the whole concept of surveillance (which they are) to support your own argument and I cannot change that. So just carry on in your own delusional world.

Actually looking back on your posts it seems that you only come on to this site to be controversial and provoke arguments. I only realised this too late after I had foolishly been drawn into an argument with you.

I will not fall for it again!

[thenodrog]

The money raised by speed cameras each year wouldn't pay for a new bypass.

Can't you get one on the Nash Jim? I bet you could when St Margaret was in charge!

[thenodrog]

Why are you posting up pictures like this? If you stick to the speed limit, you wouldn't need to worry about ever being caught, would you?

You are supposed to stick to the speed limit at all times on the road. Not just when you see a camera and brake sharply.

Cos it shows how sneaky plod can be. They complain cos the public have no faith on em and then wonder why? I've been so sickened by em that I wouldn't p1ss on one if he were on fire!

Tell you what I've reported a couple of local thefts over the past couple of years. Nothing much just £200-£300 on each occasion. I've found out who the culprits are, I've got very reliable witnesses to the thefts, I've even got documentary evidence on the first. Guess what? Every policeman that I contacted simply couldn't have given a flying (Please don't use that word again)! No one was prosecuted. The stolen goods were not returned (apart from the first lot that I personally found and had to arrange transport for) and the dozy idle @#/?ing superintendent on duty at eastern Div would not even accept my call! They are a (Please don't use that word again)ing shambles. Their priorities are skewed. They are imo nowt but bloody lazy idle wasters who are constantly guilty of dereliction of duty. Yet they spend so much time and effort going for the soft target. The soft underbelly of society that will not beat em up that will not report em for racism/sexism/ageism/queerism etc etc that will cost little in time cos most of the paperwork is automated but will simply stump up the fine and put a positive slant on plods performance statistics. They do not know the effin meaning of the phrase 'public servants'!

So there you go.

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Cos it shows how sneaky plod can be. They complain cos the public have no faith on em and then wonder why? I've been so sickened by em that I wouldn't p1ss on one if he were on fire!

My point still stands. You don't need to worry about plod hiding in the bushes if you are driving at a legal speed. They only hide because everybody brakes whenever they see plod, giving the impression that they always drive at 30mph.

[stuwilky]

Not worth arguing with you any more. You just don't accept that 'safety' cameras are part of the whole concept of surveillance (which they are)

Surveillance you can easily avoid.

Now, those ANPR camera's - they really are vehicle tracking devices. And those "traffic camera's" - you have no possibility of avoiding those.

[blue phil]

I'm rather surprised that you are OK to do 90mph on the outside lane of a motorway and yet you disapprove of doing 35mph near a school.

Speed limits are set by local highway authorities and The Highways Agency. They are set according to the conditions on the roads. There is little excuse for not knowing what the speed limit is unless the signing is faulty.

Ha! I'm always amused by the phrase "the powers that be." It's a cracker. "Common sense" is also another one. If you beleive that "they" have superior knowledge then why don't you just tip your hat and take the advice.

Then again you (not you Phil) could be just a very poor driver who does not have the skills and application to stay within the speed limit. Is it really so hard? I suppose it might be if you're not a good driver.

Oh dear . I think you've missed all the points I was trying to make . I'll try again.........

Yes , I think it's OK to do 90 in the fast lane of the motorway if the traffic is moving fine - as opposed to the road outside the school . Now if there were schools and kids on the central reservation then maybe I'd change my mind and you might finally grasp the point I'm trying to make ....It's all about the APPROPIATE use of speed in different circumstances

Yes , yes , I know who makes the rules and regulations and speed limits etc etc ....It's just that I and many others believe that in the case of speed cameras (or safety cameras as you call them) the motivation is NOT based on saftey principles but on revenue raising principles . How you have worked out that I believe "they" have superior knowledge is beyond me ....unless , of course , you're too dim to see the irony and sarcasm in some of my comments !!

As many have said before , the cameras - or rather the idiots with "superior knowledge" who determine their use - are only interested in raising money . If I were to be caught speeding I could pass the fine and points on to any willing third party and emerge relatively unscathed . The authorities don't give a toss who was driving or who was endangered ; they've got their money - and that's the end of the incident as far as anyone's concerned.

The thing is , Col ; a good driver is not one who necessarily drives around at 28mph all the time . As someone who drives more than 1000 miles every week on every kind of roads I can assure you that the main issue is not speed per se . It is the INAPPROPIATE use of speed .

The most dangerous drivers are old fogeys wearing trilbys crawling along dual carriageways at 25mph whilst chewing on the steering wheel ; lady drivers who are travelling at much the same speed but are attempting to control their brats in the back seats or are doing their make-up in the mirrors ; boy drivers who are within the speed limit but are nonetheless struggling to keep on the correct side of the road because they are texting their mates whilst under the influence of god knows what ; and , especially common in Blackburn , ladies who have very restricted viewing to the fact that they are wearing burkhas or veils .

All of the above are menaces to the sensible drivers on our roads . But they are not targeted because they require the police to get off their arses and actually get out onto the road themselves and do some work .

Cost effectiveness and raising revenue is what it's all about . Safety doesn't come into it . It's so much easier simply to target the driver doing 40 in a 30 zone - even when it's 5 o clock in the morning and there's no one else about .

To conclude I'm afraid I'll have to use those two words which seem to cause you so much offence . Road safety is all about the use of COMMON SENSE .

[colin]

Oh dear . I think you've missed all the points I was trying to make . I'll try again.........

Yes , I think it's OK to do 90 in the fast lane of the motorway if the traffic is moving fine - as opposed to the road outside the school . Now if there were schools and kids on the central reservation then maybe I'd change my mind and you might finally grasp the point I'm trying to make ....It's all about the APPROPIATE use of speed in different circumstances

Yes , yes , I know who makes the rules and regulations and speed limits etc etc ....It's just that I and many others believe that in the case of speed cameras (or safety cameras as you call them) the motivation is NOT based on saftey principles but on revenue raising principles . How you have worked out that I believe "they" have superior knowledge is beyond me ....unless , of course , you're too dim to see the irony and sarcasm in some of my comments !!

As many have said before , the cameras - or rather the idiots with "superior knowledge" who determine their use - are only interested in raising money . If I were to be caught speeding I could pass the fine and points on to any willing third party and emerge relatively unscathed . The authorities don't give a toss who was driving or who was endangered ; they've got their money - and that's the end of the incident as far as anyone's concerned.

The thing is , Col ; a good driver is not one who necessarily drives around at 28mph all the time . As someone who drives more than 1000 miles every week on every kind of roads I can assure you that the main issue is not speed per se . It is the INAPPROPIATE use of speed .

The most dangerous drivers are old fogeys wearing trilbys crawling along dual carriageways at 25mph whilst chewing on the steering wheel ; lady drivers who are travelling at much the same speed but are attempting to control their brats in the back seats or are doing their make-up in the mirrors ; boy drivers who are within the speed limit but are nonetheless struggling to keep on the correct side of the road because they are texting their mates whilst under the influence of god knows what ; and , especially common in Blackburn , ladies who have very restricted viewing to the fact that they are wearing burkhas or veils .

All of the above are menaces to the sensible drivers on our roads . But they are not targeted because they require the police to get off their arses and actually get out onto the road themselves and do some work .

Cost effectiveness and raising revenue is what it's all about . Safety doesn't come into it . It's so much easier simply to target the driver doing 40 in a 30 zone - even when it's 5 o clock in the morning and there's no one else about .

To conclude I'm afraid I'll have to use those two words which seem to cause you so much offence . Road safety is all about the use of COMMON SENSE .

Go on then, what's the answer.

[Stuart]

Go on then, what's the answer.

First of all excellent post Bluephil.

Colin, there isn't a simple solution this but for me it could begin with visible policing at known accident blackspots or where there have been reported near misses. Better and more appropriate road signage. Let's start by restoring some respect in the police force and go from there.

[den]

First of all excellent post Bluephil.

Colin, there isn't a simple solution this but for me it could begin with visible policing at known accident blackspots or where there have been reported near misses. Better and more appropriate road signage. Let's start by restoring some respect in the police force and go from there.

So you have no objections to speed control, just the hardware involved?

There aren't enough policemen available to park by all the black spots all day and night, so how else do we keep speeding down?

[Stuart]

So you have no objections to speed control, just the hardware involved?

There aren't enough policemen available to park by all the black spots all day and night, so how else do we keep speeding down?

Id rather you phrase it that I have no objection to reducing accidents on our roads.

Speed is only one factor in accidents. Although as I've mentioned earlier, it's not just about speed (in fact it's usually careless driving), and my problem is with the cynical way speed cameras are used in order to maximise revenue - not the hardware itself.

Aren't enough policemen to park by the black spots? Strange argument considering there are enough to man speed cameras. But fine, start at the top 10 (or even 5) worst areas for accidents raise the awareness of those, and move on from there. That's got to be better than sitting in a lay-by (or behind some trees) alongside a straight open stretch of road in a non-built up area. I'm not saying create more police, just put them in the right places.

The police are either serious about reducing road accidents or they aren't. Surely your average PC can't be happy sat in a van pointing a camera at passing cars. Is that really why he/she got into policing? Therefore if they have to do it I would have thought they'd want to be somewhere where they are making a real difference to road safety than just hitting a cash register button.

[den]

Id rather you phrase it that I have no objection to reducing accidents on our roads.

Speed is only one factor in accidents. Although as I've mentioned earlier, it's not just about speed (in fact it's usually careless driving), and my problem is with the cynical way speed cameras are used in order to maximise revenue - not the hardware itself.

Aren't enough policemen to park by the black spots? Strange argument considering there are enough to man speed cameras. But fine, start at the top 10 (or even 5) worst areas for accidents raise the awareness of those, and move on from there. That's got to be better than sitting in a lay-by (or behind some trees) alongside a straight open stretch of road in a non-built up area. I'm not saying create more police, just put them in the right places.

The police are either serious about reducing road accidents or they aren't. Surely your average PC can't be happy sat in a van pointing a camera at passing cars. Is that really why he/she got into policing? Therefore if they have to do it I would have thought they'd want to be somewhere where they are making a real difference to road safety than just hitting a cash register button.

So apart from making the public aware of the "5 or 10 worst areas for accidents", you have no other suggestions of how to slow down traffic? Or don't you believe that speed is a problem?

[dave birch]

Jisty, speeding IS careless driving.