OK, well you know my opinion on speeding but I just thought I would make a few of you aware of some recent news stories you have failed to discuss for more than obvious reasons (if not obvious to you; you didn't because they make you wrong ) I just replied to another post RE: gatsos and made me think how such a big news story past FF by.

First take a look at this please:
http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/040308/4/1wclo.html

I.e. they are correctly positioned to improve road safety and NOT maximise income. If you think about this is obvious, if they stuck them on the motorway/a lot of nice B roads etc. they would be able to cut tax on fuel by 30p the amount of speeding on those. It's also important to note that soon NONE of the money will go anywhere BUT road safety.

And secondly, and most importantly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1239544,00.html

Oh and a few key points:

- Independent audit, NOT the government saying "yes, we're right!"
- 100 deaths prevented per year
- 221 million towards public services by people being stupid and breaking the law - that's less tax for law abiding people to pay if you want to look at it like that
- Only 1/20 failed to reduce accidents, just 5%!
- 870 deaths and serious injuries prevented annually


A key quote is:

Prof Begg, who chairs the Commission for Integrated Transport, said: "Today's report proves that speed kills, that cameras reduce speeds at accident spots and that, most importantly, they prevent injuries and save lives.

Click to expand...

So bull when somebody says they don't work! What more proof do you want? Or would you rather one of your family to be one of the 100 extra killed each year for the sake of going a few mph extra? Didn't think so.


----------
Uno 1.0ie Start. Standard.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Given some time i'm sure i could find all the stats that were in the papers a few months back showing that introducing cameras had no effect on accidents.

And i seriously doubt that the 100people would be killed for going a few mph extra, they'd probably be the result of the idiotic speeders. I do actually agree that speeding is wrong, 30+ in a built up area is moronic but out on the roads well away from people where cameras are hidden behind signs, don't try and tell me they're not, speed cameras imo have no place there.

The key quote says they reduce speed at accident spots, fair enough. However we all know that cameras are not only at accident black spots, and what was it less than 6% of accidents are attributed to excess speed.

Summarising what i think; cameras in towns on twisty residential areas are a good idea. Cameras out in the middle of no-where at the bottoms of hills, or hidden behind signs etc are not.


Cinq Sporting - and yes, its broom yellow!

This topic can be easily concluded in one statement.

Speed cameras are only there for one reason, to raise revenue for the local authorities and Government.

Anyone who thinks differently is either very niave or stupid!

Full stop!

Rather be stupid and niave than kill somebody through speeding, that's full stop.

Since 2001 ALL speed cameras have ONLY been allowed in areas that have had a high density of accidents. No longer are they "hidden" since last year they decided all cameras (permament) must be as visible as possible to be as much as a deterent as possible.

100 people is their figure, an independent auditors, not mine or the governments, if you can't believe that you can't believe much!

TC: the revenue will soon be no longer going to ANYTHING but safety on the roads, so that argument is dead.

----------
Uno 1.0ie Start. Standard.

Paul, shh.

Steve...

Go on the Fiats...

Paul, as I said you are very niave.

Do you believe everything you are told by the media and polititians?

Next you'll be telling me you believe everything that Tony Blah says, and you believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy!

Last post on this topic, we'll agree to disagree on this!

no no no! I don't believe them, I.e. i never believed about WMD and actively protested against the government, BUT this is an independent audit, not your normal "scratch mine and i'll scratch yours" system.

I believe my arguments answered most your questions so far...

----------
Uno 1.0ie Start. Standard.

Blackpool has a very high number of speed cameras, its been in trouble for using too many. The cameras are not all visible, ok they're supposed to be but they're not, fact, full stop, whatever.

If all the revenue is now going back into road safety (read more cameras so the police don't have to trouble themselves with being on the road) then why did you quote in the key points about the £221 million towards public services if its not going to happen anymore. On the subject of that, do you honestly belive that the revenue generated from cameras has had any impact on the level of tax that anyone in this country pays? Maybe it increased slightly so the cameras could be bought in the first place?


Cinq Sporting - and yes, its broom yellow!

The key point of revenue gained was stated because it was a key point, the fact it will no longer happen is irrelevant, that's what it raised and it was in the document so I pointed it out. A gatso is much more cost effective than a traffic copper which is why they like them a lot.

The fact is the government needs X billion, it doesn't matter where they get it from they need that amount, so yes, of course, VERY VERY indirectly, that will mean that amount was saved from other taxes. Of course I honestly believe that, the government ISN'T a PLC and doesn't have share holders to pay, so the 200 odd million went into the coffers like the rest of the income and hence X - 200 million was needed.

I can't talk about individual areas, just discuss specific government procedures/independent reports. For instance I could tell you about how well sited they are in Nottingham, but that would be pointless....

----------
Uno 1.0ie Start. Standard.

My opinion on speed cameras is that they are useful - in accident blackspots on main routes and in 30 zones near schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other places where vulnerable road users and pedestrians can be found. I don't mind at all - I drive at 30 in these areas but I do believe there should be a slight margin of error as there is with some cameras and police forces ie. going at 31mph should not be punished because it is very easy for any law abiding driver to go from 29 to 31 by accident. On the subject of traffic cops well cameras should not be replacing them but enhancing their work - leaving them more time to spend looking for uninsured, unlicensed, drunk, dangerous or generally dodgy drivers (who should be punished much more heavily when caught). However I don't think there should be points for every offence - maybe a fine for the first time caught, followed by points is caught for a second or third time. It is now getting far too easy to lose your licence for relatively few and relatively minor traffic offences.

Interestingly here in Cumbria we have no fixed cameras, only the mobile ones which are able to detect a range of offences and introduce human discretion as in the case of the guy who stuck his fingers up at one this week only to get fined for taking both hands off the steering wheel. This is one system which works well as they can move to the worst problem areas at short notice.


<font color="violet">

haha, i laughed my head off at finding out about that guy, what a twit! I am so glad they got him for driving without due care and attention (i think?)

Maybe all speed cameras should do TAX/MOT/Insurance checks too - then would people like them more? (before you say you can't check all those from a car going past, true, but if they issued a single TAX like disc for the three then yes, you could!)

----------
Uno 1.0ie Start. Standard.

Well since you do need an MOT certificate and insurance in order to get your car taxed then I don't see the need for anything else.

<font color="violet">

Theres always accidents on my road, last year alone one boy was seriosly injured and another teenager killed, there are always minor accidents, but we have no camera, but on the main road into town from ipswich end of the A12 there are 3. they don't realy work because people know where they are and only slow down for that little bit of road, so they will only stop accidents in that few meters that people are slow in.
if we had more mobile cameras held by police hidden in bushes this would be more effective because people would never know where they are going to be, and the police holding the cameras would also spot any other ileagle activity aswell.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not Email or PM me asking for support. Post on the forums instead. Your reply may help someone else. Thank you

Paul, it depends who you ask as to what the stats will be. There were some published recently to suggest that road deaths have actually increased.
Personally, I think Helz has it spot on.
You might not agree, but there's nothing unsafe about doing 180 along a straight empty motorway with no traffic there if the car is capable of doing it.

Not everything in this life is a case of black or white, fella.

Pete.

Links: 1242cc cinq, turbo cinq, Cinqs&Seis Yahoo group, Clubcento

And I do agree with that point (although 180 is a little excessive!) but there aren't exactly many speed cams on motorways...

----------
Uno 1.0ie Start. Standard.

The mobile cameras spend a lot of time on bridges over the M6 ooop norf Mr Hottie. Although usually on busy sections in the daytime when you struggle to do 70.

<font color="violet">

Speed cameras are a pain in the ass.

I recently did 106mph on the M6 toll road..but as there were only 2 other cars on the road and they were both doing similar speeds, there was no danger to anyone (except myself in the event of a blow out, tho in that case, 70mph would be just as bad).

I also got stopped for speeding once (58 in a 40 zone), but again, as there was no-one else around, the officer just told me to calm down atnd let it go.

I agree on speeding in built up areas...(ie it's v bad) but on open roads and motorways, it's pure money making.

p.s. It's 'naive', not 'niave'...sorry

Disclaimer: Any incorrect lexicography or grammar is entirely the fault of your eyes​

Speed cameras should be mandatory in residential areas. When I take the dogs to the in-laws in the morning, the road is like a race track. It's been just luck that no children have been killed, although I did see a BMW doing at least 45 run over my neighbour's cat. And the f**ker didn't stop [!]

The poor tortoiseshell cat was completely disembowelled and he took nearly ten minutes to die [xx(]

Steve the geriatric Panda and Beagle freak, but can't see no problem in running a Brava in the meantime ...

Originally posted by pghstochaj
And I do agree with that point (although 180 is a little excessive!) but there aren't exactly many speed cams on motorways...

Click to expand...

There was a case a little while ago where a blokey in a Honda NSX was caught doing over 140 (on the M4, I believe) - they tried to do him for dangerous driving even though he was the only car on the road at the time.

Got fined for speeding, but they couldn't make the dangerous bit stick as the car is designed to handle those speeds.

This 'Speed Kills' hysteria is utter rubbish. Inappropriate use of speed is what kills - 20mph in a 30 limit can be inappropriate and dangerous, depending on the conditions.

Pete.

Links: 1242cc cinq, turbo cinq, Cinqs&Seis Yahoo group, Clubcento