[Archived] Speed Camera's Again

[yoda]

According to the reports, he wasn't speeding.

You can work it out using the times given versus the distance travelled.

If he was driving at the correct speed and paying attention he would not have crashed

[colin]

The cameras didn't stop Lord Ahmed!

There are no speed/safety camera on motorways except at maintenance.

[dave birch]

If he was driving at the correct speed and paying attention he would not have crashed

According to the court transcripts, he was travelling at about 55 MPH. 1.86 miles in 2 mins equals 55.8 MPH. Now what is the legal limit on a motorway?

[thenodrog]

According to the court transcripts, he was travelling at about 55 MPH. 1.86 miles in 2 mins equals 55.8 MPH. Now what is the legal limit on a motorway?

55mph? Getting tedious this but have I read it wrong or was he on the outside lane at the time? The outside lane is for overtaking only so he should get 10 years just for that imo.

[gillibrand]

55MPH is very fast if you are not looking where you are going!

[yoda]

55MPH is very fast if you are not looking where you are going!

especially when you are writing text messages that have not been sent yet, at 55 mph and paying attention there is no way you should hit another car

[den]

55MPH is very fast if you are not looking where you are going!

15 MPH is very fast if you hit a brick wall.

[blue phil]

The good Lord was not done for killing a pisspot motorist - he was done for using his mobile phone . It was proved by the police that he had been consistently texting someone for about 20 minutes prior to the accident . He had stopped a few minutes before the accident . He got what he deserved .

The motorway was not lit and speed cameras would have been ineffective . It seems in this case it might have proved effective if some of the millions raked in by cameras had been used to actually light the motorway .

Of course , that would have meant cutting down on street furniture and paying police to stand on bridges above the M6 near J 34 for months and months on end pointing their silly cameras on a perfectly harmless stretch of road . In fact the greatest danger I've noticed here is watching daft drivers brake from a safe 80 odd mile an hour to about 65 in a couple of hundred yards in order to avoid them .

[blue phil]

Speed kills the innocent and the guilty. Speed camera's slow down traffic. They make the roads safer - not only where they are situated - but where they aren't situated. They are the best thing we have to combat the drivers who see no real danger in driving fast. They are the only thing we have to combat those people who think they can drive safely at any speed.

The argument that speed cameras are the best thing we have to slow down traffic is absolute nonsense . Patently untrue .

Sleeping policeman every hundred yards on every road would be much more effective . So would road surfaces that make it impossible for people to speed . So would speed limiters in all cars . New technology could make cameras redundant in years to come .

I suspect though , that such new technology (like the other measures I mentioned ) will not be eagerly embraced by the government simply because they cost money and do not raise money .

If the government is interested in saving lives cameras would already be obsolete .

They are still with us though . Go figure .......

[thenodrog]

Sleeping policeman every hundred yards on every road would be much more effective . So would road surfaces that make it impossible for people to speed .

These so-called speed bumps are a joke. If anything, they slow you down!

[thenodrog]

The cameras didn't stop Lord Ahmed!

New World record set by Ahmed for the fastest entry into the Freemasons imo.

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

These so-called speed bumps are a joke. If anything, they slow you down!

........

I'm assuming that was tongue in cheek?

[colin]

The motorway was not lit and speed cameras would have been ineffective . It seems in this case it might have proved effective if some of the millions raked in by cameras had been used to actually light the motorway .

There are no speed/safety cameras on motorways except where there are road repairs. Please will you repeat this to yourself as you go to sleep tonight.

[thenodrog]

There are no speed/safety cameras on motorways except where there are road repairs. Please will you repeat this to yourself as you go to sleep tonight.

Don't be pedantic.

1. Money from safety cameras can be spent anywhere. It doesn't have to be spent on the road the camera is operating on as well you know.

2. Saying that manned mobile camera's sited on M Way bridges and set pointing down the carriageway is not a speed camera sited on a mway is just plain stupidity on your part.... And you know it.

[colin]

1. Money from safety cameras can be spent anywhere. It doesn't have to be spent on the road the camera is operating on as well you know.

Eh, what on earth has that got to do with anything I posted?

2. Saying that manned mobile camera's sited on M Way bridges and set pointing down the carriageway is not a speed camera sited on a mway is just plain stupidity on your part.... And you know it.

Again, what has that got to do with anything I posted. Please read, digest and understand. Thanks.

[jim mk2]

The argument that speed cameras are the best thing we have to slow down traffic is absolute nonsense . Patently untrue .

Sleeping policeman every hundred yards on every road would be much more effective . So would road surfaces that make it impossible for people to speed . So would speed limiters in all cars . New technology could make cameras redundant in years to come .

I suspect though , that such new technology (like the other measures I mentioned ) will not be eagerly embraced by the government simply because they cost money and do not raise money .

If the government is interested in saving lives cameras would already be obsolete .

They are still with us though . Go figure .......

Sleeping policemen are excellent in built-up areas for slowing down traffic and speed limiters should be fitted to cars but I cannot see any government taking the political risk because of the backlash from the motoring lobby.

On major trunk roads average speed cameras are the best and most effective way of slowing down traffic ; that and taking your foot off the accelerator.

Speed cameras are here to stay and they save lives by penalising dangerous drivers. Figured ... simple innit ?

[Paul]

So would speed limiters in all cars . New technology could make cameras redundant in years to come .

I think there are many benefits to speed limiters other than as a replacement for cameras. However surely the lobby which objects to speed cameras would find the same or similar arguements to oppose speed limiters. Many of the points rehearsed here could be set against speed limiters, to take one I'm sure that would come - "the extra power / acceleration in a modern car allows me to overtake more safely. What happens if my speed is limted to 70 mph as I overtake" etc etc.

[thenodrog]

h

[Al]

I think there are many benefits to speed limiters other than as a replacement for cameras. However surely the lobby which objects to speed cameras would find the same or similar arguements to oppose speed limiters. Many of the points rehearsed here could be set against speed limiters, to take one I'm sure that would come - "the extra power / acceleration in a modern car allows me to overtake more safely. What happens if my speed is limted to 70 mph as I overtake" etc etc.

And that is a perfectly sound argument Paul. In fact it is a point I made earlier in the thread.

[dave birch]

I take your point Al, and Pauls earlier point about limiters, however, there is the psyche of the driver to take into consideration.

It might be better to have a limiter that slows a car down, to the point of stopping and stays stopped for say, five minutes, if a driver exceeds the limit for a certain duration. It would cause some frustration, but would make sure that people stayed under the limit. Imagine stopping for five minutes everytime you hit an excess speed time.

Yep, there are problems and issues, but nothing that couldn't be worked out.

[MCMC1875]

I take your point Al, and Pauls earlier point about limiters, however, there is the psyche of the driver to take into consideration.

It might be better to have a limiter that slows a car down, to the point of stopping and stays stopped for say, five minutes, if a driver exceeds the limit for a certain duration. It would cause some frustration, but would make sure that people stayed under the limit. Imagine stopping for five minutes everytime you hit an excess speed time.

Yep, there are problems and issues, but nothing that couldn't be worked out.

No point in having a motor in the UK that does more than 70mph then.

[dave birch]

Why do you need to go faster?

[ABBEY]

Sleeping policemen are excellent in built-up areas for slowing down traffic and speed limiters should be fitted to cars but I cannot see any government taking the political risk because of the backlash from the motoring lobby.

On major trunk roads average speed cameras are the best and most effective way of slowing down traffic ; that and taking your foot off the accelerator.

Speed cameras are here to stay and they save lives by penalising dangerous drivers. Figured ... simple innit ?

do tell us your qualifications on speed limiters? have you ever driven with these or is just you rambling on again..youve still not answered the questions i asked you 3 weeks ago....oh i beg your pardon its selective hearing

[Al]

I take your point Al, and Pauls earlier point about limiters, however, there is the psyche of the driver to take into consideration.

It might be better to have a limiter that slows a car down, to the point of stopping and stays stopped for say, five minutes, if a driver exceeds the limit for a certain duration. It would cause some frustration, but would make sure that people stayed under the limit. Imagine stopping for five minutes everytime you hit an excess speed time.

Yep, there are problems and issues, but nothing that couldn't be worked out.

You're not kidding there would be problems Dave! Can you imagine the motorways littered with imoblle vehicles? It's bad enough when you get one car doing 40mph on a two lane motorway. Better just to forget the idea of limiters. All 'traffic calming' devices cause problems. We have had those disasterous mini roundabouts for years but how confident are you that the other drivers know whose got the right of way at them. I know but does the barsteward on my left know? I'm never sure!

[ABBEY]

I think there are many benefits to speed limiters other than as a replacement for cameras. However surely the lobby which objects to speed cameras would find the same or similar arguements to oppose speed limiters. Many of the points rehearsed here could be set against speed limiters, to take one I'm sure that would come - "the extra power / acceleration in a modern car allows me to overtake more safely. What happens if my speed is limted to 70 mph as I overtake" etc etc.

they are bloody dangerous at times paul I assure you.