Anti-Speed Camera Petition

[doubleup]

I think that revenue raising plays a large part.  When I travelled down to Newcastle a few weeks ago, there was a camera sited at the end of a 30mph stretch just when the national speed limit sign came into view i.e. to catch anyone accelerating b4 the change.  The road down to prestwick from glasgow was 60mph and covered by average speed cameras, they have reduced this to 50 without any notices saying there was a change (presumably they weren't catching enough).

[Colchester Kev]

Boshi, gonna have to pull you up there ... speeding/drink driving within the speed limit ... both equally as bad, and both liable to cause death.

I realise 70 on a motorway is a fkin drag at silly o'clock when there is no traffic about, and its different to driving at 45 in a 30 zone ... but both are criminal offences.

Kev, that's nonsense. 

There's speed, and there's inappropriate speed.  Going 30mph near a school is far more dangerous than going 85mph on a clear motorway in dry weather - FACT.

Drink-driving is far more dangerous than exceeding the speed limit on a motorway (conditions permitting).  With all these people speeding on motorways, how come they are by far the safest places to drive a car?

If drink-driving and speeding were both as bad as each other, then why are people sent to prison for it, whereas someone exceeding the speed limit is given a £60 fine and 3 points?

I think there should be far MORE cameras and speed checks in residential areas, where far more people are killed and injured by inappropriate speed.  I also think there should be far more patrols and stops to test people for drink-driving, driving without insurance, etc. 

From the Department for Transport's published figures, the top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%

But let's concentrate on 'speeding' as public enemy no.1 .  Also, although the figures for drink-driving and exceeding speed limit are both at 5%, three times as many fatalities are due to accidents involving drink-drivers compared to those involving speeding.

Also notice that 12% of the accidents were attributed to 'going too fast for the conditions' - not speeding.  Going 85pmh on a clear, dry motorway is far safer than going 65mph on the same motorway in torrential rain.  But as it's below the speed limit, it must be OK...

Fuck statistics, when you have lost someone close to you, and the cause of death is put down to the actions of a dick speeding in a car, you dont need any figures to convince you that its wrong.

I hope you never have to experience that.

[kinboshi]

Boshi, gonna have to pull you up there ... speeding/drink driving within the speed limit ... both equally as bad, and both liable to cause death.

I realise 70 on a motorway is a fkin drag at silly o'clock when there is no traffic about, and its different to driving at 45 in a 30 zone ... but both are criminal offences.

Kev, that's nonsense. 

There's speed, and there's inappropriate speed.  Going 30mph near a school is far more dangerous than going 85mph on a clear motorway in dry weather - FACT.

Drink-driving is far more dangerous than exceeding the speed limit on a motorway (conditions permitting).  With all these people speeding on motorways, how come they are by far the safest places to drive a car?

If drink-driving and speeding were both as bad as each other, then why are people sent to prison for it, whereas someone exceeding the speed limit is given a £60 fine and 3 points?

I think there should be far MORE cameras and speed checks in residential areas, where far more people are killed and injured by inappropriate speed.  I also think there should be far more patrols and stops to test people for drink-driving, driving without insurance, etc. 

From the Department for Transport's published figures, the top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%

But let's concentrate on 'speeding' as public enemy no.1 .  Also, although the figures for drink-driving and exceeding speed limit are both at 5%, three times as many fatalities are due to accidents involving drink-drivers compared to those involving speeding.

Also notice that 12% of the accidents were attributed to 'going too fast for the conditions' - not speeding.  Going 85pmh on a clear, dry motorway is far safer than going 65mph on the same motorway in torrential rain.  But as it's below the speed limit, it must be OK...

Fuck statistics, when you have lost someone close to you, and the cause of death is put down to the actions of a dick speeding in a car, you dont need any figures to convince you that its wrong.

I hope you never have to experience that.

I understand what you're saying, but was it due to speeding (as in exceeding the speed limit), or someone going at an inappropriate speed for the road and conditions?

There is a difference.

[thediceman]

Why should society be defined by the worst case scenario. Should we all dress up in cotton wool and never go outside our houses in fear of something bad happening to us. Then again don't most accidents happen in the home. F***, what is a person meant to do.

Statistics are of value in respect that they can help us identitfy and define what the real issues are. It is indeed a tragedy when a person losses their life to the actions of a reckless, speeding driver but does that mean the benefits of speed cameras surpass there negatives???.

[The_duke]

Boshi, gonna have to pull you up there ... speeding/drink driving within the speed limit ... both equally as bad, and both liable to cause death.

I realise 70 on a motorway is a fkin drag at silly o'clock when there is no traffic about, and its different to driving at 45 in a 30 zone ... but both are criminal offences.

Kev, that's nonsense. 

There's speed, and there's inappropriate speed.  Going 30mph near a school is far more dangerous than going 85mph on a clear motorway in dry weather - FACT.

Drink-driving is far more dangerous than exceeding the speed limit on a motorway (conditions permitting).  With all these people speeding on motorways, how come they are by far the safest places to drive a car?

If drink-driving and speeding were both as bad as each other, then why are people sent to prison for it, whereas someone exceeding the speed limit is given a £60 fine and 3 points?

I think there should be far MORE cameras and speed checks in residential areas, where far more people are killed and injured by inappropriate speed.  I also think there should be far more patrols and stops to test people for drink-driving, driving without insurance, etc. 

From the Department for Transport's published figures, the top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%

But let's concentrate on 'speeding' as public enemy no.1 .  Also, although the figures for drink-driving and exceeding speed limit are both at 5%, three times as many fatalities are due to accidents involving drink-drivers compared to those involving speeding.

Also notice that 12% of the accidents were attributed to 'going too fast for the conditions' - not speeding.  Going 85pmh on a clear, dry motorway is far safer than going 65mph on the same motorway in torrential rain.  But as it's below the speed limit, it must be OK...

Fuck statistics, when you have lost someone close to you, and the cause of death is put down to the actions of a dick speeding in a car, you dont need any figures to convince you that its wrong.

I hope you never have to experience that.

Looking at all these reasons, they have one common denominator -- Human Error

[Jon MW]

I think there should be far MORE cameras and speed checks in residential areas, where far more people are killed and injured by inappropriate speed.  I also think there should be far more patrols and stops to test people for drink-driving, driving without insurance, etc. 

Petition signed. I do love the good old argument of the law is the law. Being oh so compliant is really what makes this country great. Allows authorities to implement what the f*** they like after sighting the worse case scenario with it gaining mass support and only receiving limited challenge. 

Kin, I agree with much of what you wrote but re: speed cameras in residential areas why would a council put them there, people won't be happy with a big FO gatso sitting understand their house. Let alone it wouldn't generate half the money of existing main road cameras.

If you don't agree with the law then shouldn't the petition be to change the speeding laws?

Cameras are just the tool used - what's the problem with making money with them as well as upholding the law, or is it only morally right to uphold the law if it costs a huge amount of money?

I do love the good old argument of the law is the law. Being oh so compliant is really what makes this country great

Also I've never in my life advocated following a law just because it is the law - what I'd argue is:

(a) Don't get caught
(b) Don't complain about ways they try to catch you - that's 'their' job.
(c) Don't complain if you do get caught.

[thediceman]

I think there should be far MORE cameras and speed checks in residential areas, where far more people are killed and injured by inappropriate speed.  I also think there should be far more patrols and stops to test people for drink-driving, driving without insurance, etc. 

Petition signed. I do love the good old argument of the law is the law. Being oh so compliant is really what makes this country great. Allows authorities to implement what the f*** they like after sighting the worse case scenario with it gaining mass support and only receiving limited challenge. 

Kin, I agree with much of what you wrote but re: speed cameras in residential areas why would a council put them there, people won't be happy with a big FO gatso sitting understand their house. Let alone it wouldn't generate half the money of existing main road cameras.

If you don't agree with the law then shouldn't the petition be to change the speeding laws?

Cameras are just the tool used - what's the problem with making money with them as well as upholding the law, or is it only morally right to uphold the law if it costs a huge amount of money?

I do love the good old argument of the law is the law. Being oh so compliant is really what makes this country great

Also I've never in my life advocated following a law just because it is the law - what I'd argue is:

(a) Don't get caught
(b) Don't complain about ways they try to catch you - that's 'their' job.
(c) Don't complain if you do get caught.

I have neither the need or desire to respond to your somewhat silly a,b,c comments other than if I wish to complain about a system then that is my right. Didn't realise you are the guardian of informing people what their rights are. As for "their job", it really depends on what you see as their projected "job" being opposed to what you may believe their real motive are. Of course, what with good old British apathy it seems to allow hinden agendas to be seeked in though the back door  supported by certain members of society with their "oh so superior moral attitudes". That and your silly "don't" complain stance.

[Ironside]

i got caught by a camera the other week heading to the casino

the only time i had been early to casino (45 minutes) in months

no one else to blame but myself

i think we need more not less cameras

[Newmanseye]

I feel the need to pont out that in the UK Speed cameras only make around £30 million in profit per year, Thats a miniscule amount of money in the grand scheme of the nations coffers.  Infact, Simon Cowel pays more than £30 million in a year on income tax alone.

When some have made the point "its all about money" I simply dont agree, its not exactly a great ROI is it?

Now as for where cameras are situated, A speed camera will only be erected when there have been 3 "incidents"  at that area.  Not a bad Idea IMHO.

Dont get me wrong, I drive fast, I quite often exceed the speed limit, I try to limit my risk to others when i do so atleast.

If a petition is to be started, lets start one to reduce the taxation on fuel or to castrate all paedo's.

[Newmanseye]

Further to my last post it seems the rules have changed since i looked last, I got this info from the speedcameras UK website.

 Speed camera rules change as quick as a flash

A high number of motorists have no idea that the rules regarding the positioning and colour of speed cameras changed in April 2007.

Speed, or "safety" cameras, as the Government calls them, no longer have to be painted yellow, or be visible from 60m (200ft), and no longer have to be sited only where there is a history of road accidents. The regulations were relaxed in April after the Government had announced in December that camera partnerships would no longer be able to keep the money generated by speeding fines to pay for more cameras; instead, they'll get grants from a yearly, central road-safety fund of £110million.

As part of the new autonomy for the local partnerships, the Department for Transport handed over the regulation of the cameras, saying "the Department does not want to be prescriptive about the conditions to be met for the use of safety cameras." It now merely issues guidelines as to how the cameras should be operated. The guidelines still state that cameras should be painted yellow or covered with "retro-reflective" sheeting, and that they should be visible at up to 60m where the speed limit is 40mph or below, and 100m at all other speed limits. They also still recommend siting the cameras where at least three people were killed or seriously injured in the 36 months prior to the camera proposal being submitted, although the guidelines now state: "While the primary objective for camera deployment is to reduce KSIs [collisions where the person was killed or seriously injured] at known collision locations, cameras can also be beneficial where there is community concern - ie the local community requests enforcement at a particular site because traffic speed is causing concern for road safety, or where there are engineering factors that cannot be implemented in the short term and enforcement is being used as an interim measure."

But all the DfT stipulations are guidelines only, and some local partnerships have already said that they find the DfT regulations too restrictive. Meredydd Hughes, head of Roads Policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers (who appeared in court this week after being flashed by a speed camera doing 90mph in a 60mph zone), told a national newspaper in June that covert speed cameras would help cut road casualties, and when the proposal to deregulate speed cameras was first aired, Lee Murphy, speed camera manager for Cheshire, said: "If the rules weren't compulsory, we could use cameras to tackle emerging trends rather than waiting for the minimum number of collisions." Road safety charities, including Brake, also welcomed the possibility of more covert enforcement.

The DfT meanwhile says that if local partnerships are found to be abusing their autonomy, it will consider bringing back enforced regulation.


Given this new information it does seem to leave the system open to local Profiteering, something to be monitored for sure.

[Jon MW]

...
The DfT meanwhile says that if local partnerships are found to be abusing their autonomy, it will consider bringing back enforced regulation.


Given this new information it does seem to leave the system open to local Profiteering, something to be monitored for sure.

It is, but I think your previous point still stands - there is no actual evidence (so far) that anywhere is using them purely for revenue generation.

[kinboshi]

...
The DfT meanwhile says that if local partnerships are found to be abusing their autonomy, it will consider bringing back enforced regulation.


Given this new information it does seem to leave the system open to local Profiteering, something to be monitored for sure.

It is, but I think your previous point still stands - there is no actual evidence (so far) that anywhere is using them purely for revenue generation.

..and none that shows that KSIs have been reduced since the widespread introduction of speed cameras.

[totalise]

Diceman,

it would have been much better if you stuck to this:

I have neither the need or desire to respond

With regards to the point in hand, in some places the speed limit is too low, and in some places the speed limit is too high... on certain motorways you could very easily raise the speed limit and my hand waving analysis thinks that it would make those roads safer!  Local Councils spend too much time planting trees and renaming roads for local dignitries to care too much about such pithy things as speed limits.

[thediceman]

Diceman,

it would have been much better if you stuck to this:

I have neither the need or desire to respond

TY for your worthless statement. Some people just can't help themselves 

It would have been much better if you had just said nothing as it contributed FU.

[tikay]

Diceman,

it would have been much better if you stuck to this:

I have neither the need or desire to respond

TY for your worthless statement. Some people just can't help themselves 

It would have been much better if you had just said nothing as it contributed FU.

We are having a corking debate here, one which is very interesting, as there are such a wide range of views, & I hope runs a lot further. Let's keep it civil, please.