|
|
 |
Add
your comment
More
comments
| Phil,
Stevenage |
Monday,
20-Jun-2005 11:15:26 BST |
|
| Well
what are they .... speed or safety? I for one am outraged by
the amount of these things. The revenue generated from these
is just disgusting and if we are to believe that they save lives
then show me some evidence. Speeding kills only if you hit something
and even at 30 mph in a 30 limit you can still kill. My car
was stolen last year but the police don't seem concerned as
it was insured. So are we to assume that REAL crime is a secondry
issue where as an offence where NOBODY was hurt or injured (38
in a 30)is deemed highly anti-social and of great concern to
the general public. The police need to get their house in order
and determine exactly what their priority really is ..... make
money or stop crime. |
| Sue
, Borehamwood |
Tuesday,
01-Feb-2005 13:18:07 GMT |
|
| The
speed camera in Elstree Way Borehamwood, has been in use for
over two years but the warning sign and the speed limit sign
were only errected in November 2004, and where did they errect
the signs, right behind the Borehamwood sign so they are partially
hidden? A second camera in Allum Lane is just over the brow
of a hill so you have to brake to slow down. |
| Chris,
Harpenden |
Friday,
26-Nov-2004 14:10:34 GMT |
|
| The
main reason that I break the speed limit is simply that I want
to get somewhere quickly. With the terrible traffic problems
around the country, I feel I have to make up for time spent
in jams by speeding when I can. I break the speed limit every
time I travel somewhere (if possible!), but on average, my speed
is below the limit, so I don't feel particularly gulity. So,
sort the roads out, and I won't speed! Also, I think that "safety
cameras" actually make people like me less safe, as when I speed,
I spend more time looking for police cars and cameras, and less
time concentrating on my driving. |
| Nick,
Hatfield |
Saturday,
27-Nov-2004 23:37:09 GMT |
|
| Mobile
speed cameras serve no purpose other than to earn revenue for
the local authority. I am a D. Cllr and have arrange the placement
of fixed speed camera's (sorry saftey camera). They do work
but the mobiles are a cynical abuse of the regulations. Stop
the mobile camera but not the fixed. |
| Craig,
Luton |
Wednesday,
03-Nov-2004 13:43:46 GMT |
|
| Speed
cameras are just a front of a money making sceme, It is said
that where ever you see a camera its there because a person
died/crashed due to speeding, If they were about saftey then
why not scrap the fine, keep the points and instead put everybody
that is caught onto a sceme to better there driving / curb there
speeding, but no what do you get.... I cant justify that £30
+ 3 points is helping myself become a better driver, or that
it slows me down. I drive along the M1, M25, M11 and other roads
into London on a daily basis now I see what moslty causes accidents
its people falling asleep, lack of concentration, rubber necking,
or reading maps / newspapers etc. I dont feel that speeding
is a major cause of accidents so long as the speed suits the
road that you are driving on then there is no danger driving
70mph on a dual carrage way, but no we are slowed down to 40mph!!!
|
| Paul
Carleton, Buntigford |
Wednesday,
03-Nov-2004 16:43:48 GMT |
|
| If
speed kills a few people why is the health service allowed to
kill thousands though filth> |
| J,
Colliers End |
Friday,
24-Sep-2004 10:52:18 BST |
|
| We
could do with one in Colliers End to slow people down enough
so that I get a sporting chance of pulling out on to the road.
Let's hope the bypass opens soon. |
| Flic,
Knebworth |
Thursday,
19-Aug-2004 19:10:54 BST |
|
| A
new 30mph speed limit has just been introduced as you come into
Stevenage on the road coming from Knebworth. This is fair enough
as new houses have just been built. However I was following
a police car the other day and as I came into the speed limit
I dutifully slowed to 30 but the police car got ahead of me
by a long margin. And no he didnt have flashing lights and a
siren at the time. I'd like to see the police obeying the limits,
surely they should set an example. |
| Patricia
Clegg, Stotfold |
Friday,
20-Aug-2004 09:22:37 BST |
|
| I
would like to see more emphasis on educating pedestrians and
cyclists regarding road safely and - where appropriate - prosecutions
for jaywalking and cyclists ignoring the Highway Code. As a
motorist, I get fed up of being constantly targetted regarding
road safely. Sure, cars have the potential to kill or injure
other road users if driven badly but the vast majority of motorists
are perfectly law-abiding. Most will have no problem with police
prosecuting the idiots who do 50 - 60 mph in built-up areas
or who are drunk or on drugs but not a little old lady who's
doing 33mph on her way to church on a Sunday morning! Unfortunately,
motorists are a cheap and easy target. It takes more effort
and resources to actually catch pedestrians ignoring proper
crossings and wandering around in the middle of the road or
cyclists riding through red traffic lights or not giving way
at junctions. But I wish the police would just be honest about
this rather than harp on about motorists always being at fault
for road accidents. |
| nick,
london |
Monday,
16-Aug-2004 10:37:21 BST |
|
| When
are some people going to realise that its all about educating
drivers on how to observe and understand road signs and be aware
of other drivers and driving conditions on the road.Adding more
speed cams,more road humps and narrowing roads etc. only leads
to 'gridlock'which leads to frustration ,anger and eventually
'bad driving'!its the 'driver' who is dangerous not 'speed'!! |
| Roger
Cox, Chesham |
Saturday,
14-Aug-2004 11:21:06 BST |
|
| My
understanding of the current regulations for the use of ‘Speed
cameras’ is that they have to be located within a mile of a
know accident black spot that has had three or more fatalities
over a period of three years. Checking on the ‘list’ of cameras
in the “Bucks” area there are 62 cameras, but over a two year
period 154 fatalities so how can the relationship between the
existing locations and the required link to accidents relate
as the situation must be constantly changing and how can these
locations listed be checked to meet with these regulations as
they currently stand? How can a member of the public check that
any camera location complies with the current regulations as
they stand? |
| Al
Jay, Baldock |
Wednesday,
11-Aug-2004 14:43:48 BST |
|
| There
should be three or four sets of camera's along Weston Way, Baldock.
The majority of traffic using this road speed. There will be
nothing done until a child is badly injured or killed on his/her
way to one of the schools located along that road and near in
nearby St. Mary's Way. |
| Trevor
, Little Wymondley |
Wednesday,
11-Aug-2004 13:59:12 BST |
|
| I
think cameras are very good. |
| gary,
bedford |
Monday,
09-Aug-2004 15:33:43 BST |
|
| they
are an easy way to make money,its more dangerous looking at
your speed all the time, they should be out catching the real
criminals |
| Howard
Culley, Bedford |
Monday,
09-Aug-2004 17:28:30 BST |
|
| The
problem with speed limits is that they take no account of road
and weather conditions or time of day. It can be quite safe
to drive a modest degree over the limit on a fine night with
little or no traffic or people about. It can be unsafe to drive
at or near the legal limit in poor visibility and when there
are a lot of other people about. Spped cameras are unable to
take any account of this, except for a few variable ones such
as those on part of the M25. I would like to see more of these
variable limits. Cameras are quite unable to catch those who
flout the law and drive without insurance or a licence. I suggest
that there is too much reliance on cameras and not enough on
traffic police. Speed cameras can only catch those who break
the law by speeding; surely we should be concentrating more
on those drivers who are the real criminals. |
| Daniel
Morrison, London |
Thursday,
05-Aug-2004 09:56:54 BST |
|
| Speed
Cameras placed in dangerous areas such as schools that can be
seen cleary are a reasonable enforcement measure. Cameras placed
on empty national speed limit roads, SPECS on motorways (where
tailgaiting trucks are the major problem, not people driving
80-90mph) and cameras plasced at the bottom of hills are not
saving lives. As people say you can prove anything with statistics-
since the intorduction of speed cameras fatalities have increased
NOT decreased. Most probably as everyone drives looking at the
speedo not the road.. |
| sharon,
hertfordshire |
Thursday,
29-Jul-2004 09:53:43 BST |
|
| i
agree to speed camera's only in places like school's and built
up area's,there are so many that are in the wrong place,what
is the point of having a car that can go fast if you cant use
it for what its ment for,may be we should go back to horse and
cart.I think bell lane in london colney needs a speed camra
as there are houses along that road with many kids playing over
the school holidays.So my point is put them where there needed
not on open roads where you can blow the cob webs from you car.
|
| Filippo,
Wokingham |
Monday,
26-Jul-2004 09:46:23 BST |
|
| Speeding
is a crime. I don't think anybody disagrees on that. What people
disagree on is how much above the arbitrary speed limit constitutes
as "speeding". Sure 70 in a 30mph zone sounds like speeding
to me. But so does 20mph near a house where children are playing.
If we admit that speed is not the only, and by any means the
main, factor of "Speeding", we can see that Speeding is in fact
misjudgement of speed. But no camera in the world can detect
misjudgement of speed. Besides, when I passed my driving test,
I was given a licence, which obviously means I am able to judge
road conditions in a way which is safe. Why then I am being
"done" for going faster than the recommended speed limit if
the conditions allow? Only a real policemen can tell the difference.
Since they can not stop everybody for just speeding, they can
concentrate on stopping "dangerous drivers", which may not be
speeding, but may be going around with bald tyres, broken headlights,
and so on. The real reason accidents happen is not speed, is
misjudgement. I woudl have no problem in having to pass a much
tougher driving course if that meant to be safer. I don't understand
why they give a driving licence to so many people (in any country)
and then they catch them with speed cameras. Why not limiting
the number of licences issued? why not actually building a sense
of responsibility in drivers? The answer is simply "money".
They make more money, so it is a good thing. I will now have
an accident, because I will be looking at my speedo more than
at the road. Don't let the real criminals fool you! |
| Mohammad
Mehdi, Aylesbury |
Monday,
26-Jul-2004 07:18:22 BST |
|
| I
am lucky that haven't been caught on camera. However, I have
a couple of speed control rules. 1. While driving in 30 zone
drive your car in 3rd gear. You will never exceed 30 mph. 2.
likewise in 40 zone drive in the 4th gear. Try it on it at least
works on my 5+R gear box. |
| Jim
Donachie, Sydney Australia |
Sunday,
18-Jul-2004 21:09:49 BST |
|
| In
Australia they have installed camera's to monitor speed camera's.
Also (this is my favourite) They install speed camera's outside
schools. When school ceases speed limits drop 20 KPH usually
60 - 40 KPH for one hour. If you are driving you obvesiously
are aware of: 1) The exact time of day... to the minute/nay/second/(you
are dealing with a computer.. .) 1) Starting Time and Finishing
2) The schools exact location. 3) School calender terms imprinted
in subconscious. |
| paul,
flitwick |
Thursday,
15-Jul-2004 09:07:08 BST |
|
| I
find it extremely irritable to find drivers that are still on
moblie phones, especially builders/businessmen/contractors also
smokers and genreally drivers whom filddle around with otherthings
whilst trying to drive at the same time. How they can have there
full concentration on the road? It's all down to careless attention
and not paying attention as to whats going on around you that
causes half of the accidents in the first place. If drivers
concentrated on driving and to conditions then there should
be no need for speed cameras in the first place. Its all down
to common sense. |
| Tony,
Tempsford |
Sunday,
18-Jul-2004 12:53:57 BST |
|
| Pretty
well every week the mobile camera is shown as visting the A1
at Sandy and the A421 at Great Barford. Have you noticed that
there are fixed cameras covering these sites? Why not either
move the fixed cameras or position the mobile eslsewhere? Otherwise
it would seem that this apparent duplication is just helping
to increase the Police precept. |
| Dale,
Leighton Buzzard |
Thursday,
15-Jul-2004 00:05:54 BST |
|
| Just
thought I'd let people know that the speed camera on Grovebury
Road, Leighton Buzzard is now Live. It has finally been 'plumbed
in' and has already caught a lot of drivers out. |
| Derek,
Luton |
Saturday,
17-Jul-2004 08:57:40 BST |
|
| Why
do drivers think that they are so special that they alone are
allowed to fill the air with dangerous fumes. Put lives at risk
and break the law. after all speed limits are backed by LAW.
Putting the blame on cameras or the police cannot excuse their
criminal behavour. |
| Mike
Strand, Leicester |
Thursday,
01-Jul-2004 13:21:07 BST |
|
| Speed
limits are required. However common sense must also prevail!
I recently drove from Bradford to Leicester and was travelling
at 60 then 70mph on the different roads. trying to keep to the
limit is not easy; a change in road surface, the incline of
the road, safely overtaking, all affect the speed you are travelling
and unless one is constantly looking at your speedo, it is very
easy to inadvertently break the law. Travelling at those speeds
you need to keep your eyes on the road, not constantly checking
to make sure you haven't passed the magic number!! |
| Anon |
Thursday,
01-Jul-2004 18:01:21 BST |
|
| Camera
105 - A411 Hempstead Road j/w Langley Way, Watford definitely
doesn't work as it never seems to go off when cars in the rush
hour so blatantly jump red. |
| Tony
Brightman, Ampthill |
Tuesday,
29-Jun-2004 11:12:15 BST |
|
| On
single carriage main roads the HGV vehicle statuatory national
speed limit is 40mph. Any HGV vehicle travelling at 19 mph over
which is 1 mph inside the legal car limit will not be caught
by fixed speed cameras. Because of the lack of resources for
proper policimg of our roads car drivers are the easy target.
When is the last time you have followed a HGV on a single carriageway
A road below 40mph? There is a serious problem here as fixed
safety cameras are a waste of time in this case, unless they
check the speed against the registration of every vehicle that
passes but that would be too expensive wouldn't it?. I firmly
beleive that the term safety camera is totally misleading, in
many situations they will not deter or catch a HGV going 19mph
over the limit. |
| Ozcan,
watford |
Tuesday,
29-Jun-2004 20:13:32 BST |
|
| Although
there are many speed cams in this area why do people still dying
of traffic accidents? I think this cams are just for regular
income of police. |
| Malcolm
Ford, Lane End |
Monday,
28-Jun-2004 15:46:24 BST |
|
| I
like most sensible drivers agree that 30mph limits should be
observed as should 40mph in built up areas. When dual carriagways
are restricted to 50mph for no reason other than to provide
the local Chief Constable with his salary bonus for reducing
costs it is a disgrace. As in the earlier comment I would far
prefer traffic police who are allowed to use their judgement
to catch me exceeding the limit. I use the Stokenchurch to Marlow
road every day and the biggest danger is Mr Magoo driving at
30mph in a 60 zone forcing normal drivers to attemt overtaking
manouvers that are dangerous. |
| Darren,
Biggleswade |
Saturday,
26-Jun-2004 17:24:20 BST |
|
| I
think speed cameras are a good idea in built up areas, especialy
near schools or other areas where pedestrians or cyclists are
likely to be. Are they really necessary on open roads? I think
more effort should be put into takling bad and aggressive driving.
I often drive on the Autobahns in Germany, I think the standard
of driving there is far higher than on our roads - and if you
have an accident, you have to call the Polizei who do prosecute
! |
| Bill
Groves, Dunstable |
Saturday,
26-Jun-2004 18:54:28 BST |
|
| They
give you advance warning, place it on a 7 foot pole and paint
it bright yellow. If I were stupid enough to get caught I certainly
wouldn't be brave enough to admit it, or defend being fortunate
to escape a due care & attention charge. |
| ian,
cambridge |
Tuesday,
22-Jun-2004 09:57:46 BST |
|
| speed
and danger are two different variables when driving. There is
not an inextricable link between the two, there is however a
correlation of sorts between the two. What this country needs
to do is to educate all drivers how to drive safely, for example
our fastest roads are our motorways - yet you do not need to
learn how to drive on them. We need to be taught how to maneouvre
a vehicle, how to react in certain situations - perhaps using
simulators, and also taught how to drive responsibly. The police
should concentrate their efforts on stopping bad driving and
discussing this with the driver, and if necessary booking them,
rather than their current high handed attitude of penalising
a mesdemeanour without looking at what the root cause was! |
| With
held, UK |
Thursday,
17-Jun-2004 17:29:22 BST |
|
| Having
worked for several Government departments, I for one can quote
that, Speed Cameras statistically in the UK - DO NOT lower accidents
- in fact accidents have INCREASED, year by year. Secondily,
the revenues captured by Cameras are a welcome source of income
- in some other countries Accidents have reduce not with FINES
but with Driver re-education. The camera's are linked directly
traffic lights switching them to red if you speed, then your
journey will take longer. By travelling at slower legal speed,
this reduces accidents and re-educated drivers to keep a steady
legal pace - rewards them with a faster journey time. The UK
ignores the positives and is blinded by the revenues. The UK
model is leading the World as the most over-jealous over-fined,
anti-safety system in Europe. The French system of tripping
red lights, instead of issuing fines - is more successful. Another
case of unco-orindated Government project in Rip-off Britian.
Driver use your vote & remove Counsellors who ignore successful
French Camera systems. |
| Cameron
Robbins, Luton |
Tuesday,
15-Jun-2004 12:26:19 BST |
|
| Regarding
the mobile camera site on the Stuart Street flyover.....WHY....there
are no footpaths and no houses. The camera is concealed untill
you drive round the corner. All locations like these do is irritate
people who otherwise agree that cameras are a good idea. There
is NO pedestrian safety issue on this road at all. We are not
stupid and no one believes that this location is for safety,
it's purely to generate cash. |
| Bill,
St Albans |
Thursday,
10-Jun-2004 23:38:13 BST |
|
| Nice
one, Craig of Tring. You can't be serious. 70mph over the short
stretch of dual carriageway while my children are walking to
school? I think not. |
| Andrew,
Luton |
Wednesday,
09-Jun-2004 15:15:01 BST |
|
| If
the purpose of cameras is to encourage people to drive more
safely (and not to raise money) as claimed, why do the police
publicise where they are going to be? Are those locations considered
dangerous for that week and not others? Surely it is the element
of uncertainty that will persuade people to stick to speed limits
more consistently. Having said that, I do think some limits
are unrealistic. Some of the 30mph limits should probably be
25, some should be 35. Motorways are often perfectly safe at
80. Like a previous contributor, I sometimes worry that I spend
so much time looking at the speedo (because I would feel comfortable
driving faster than the legal limit) that I'll miss something
on the road. |
| Matthew,
Lymington |
Monday,
07-Jun-2004 21:28:06 BST |
|
| I
had an accident on an A road due to a saftey camera. the car
infront of me broke hard to avoid getting cought and, with no
reaction time i ended up in the back of him. Nearly had a broken
neck and the car was a write off |
| fred
finch, milton keynes |
Friday,
23-Apr-2004 17:07:08 BST |
|
| why
don't drivers pay attention to motorbkes on the road. give us
more space and know your road signs, ALL OF THEM! |
| Ray,
Milton Keynes |
Wednesday,
21-Apr-2004 18:42:18 BST |
|
| Quite
simply the arguments about continually needing to look at your
speedo to appreciate your speed are laughable. And if you cant
see a speed camera painted yellow or have not paid attention
to the speed limit signs then you deserve paying every penny
of the fine. Speed limts are there for the safety of all road
users, be they motorists, bikers, cyslists or pedestrians. Get
used to it and stop moaning. |
| Duncan,
Hemel Hempstead |
Wednesday,
21-Apr-2004 15:57:53 BST |
|
| I
don't see how people can be judged as "criminals" over a speed
limit. The quality of car, weather, type of music/radio, temperature,
your age, etc all contribute to your ability to handle incidents.
So how can anyone judge a safe speed for you? I've seen people
drive "safely" under the speed limit and then run over peoples
toes on padestrian crossings, oblivious to their crime. So all
you pro-speed camera people should realise it is the quality
of driving that needs to improve not the speed of drivers. |
| Georgi
Hart, Chesham |
Friday,
16-Apr-2004 10:32:40 BST |
|
| Everyone
knows how to play the speed cameras, where to slow and where
to speed up and the fact that only some of them have film or
even work makes it even easier for drivers to gamble with their
speed. Speed bumps are a sure fire way of slowing people down
as you have no other choice. They should be put on the B485
immediately following the accident on Easter Monday. |
| Martin,
Hemel Hempstead |
Saturday,
20-Mar-2004 23:40:41 GMT |
|
| I
know of at least two of these cameras in Queensway do not appear
to work anyway so there does not seem to be any point them being
there really is there? |
| Alan,
Bedford |
Thursday,
18-Mar-2004 08:43:10 GMT |
|
| Could
you publish some scientifically substantiated statistics from
actual events on this web page to confirm the emotive "facts"
shown under Essential info? The most analytical and scientific
study that I have come across was the Leeming report, which
seems to have been gently filed away because it does not conform
to today`s politically correct thinking that speed in itself
is a criminal offence and is the sign of an unsafe driver. Further,
I do not believe any of the drivers(?) who, in the views column,
by their comments imply that they never break the speed limits.
The safest roads in this country are the motorways, despite
the high traffic density. The majority of accidents occur at
speeds below the speed limits on ordinary roads. Anybody who
hits a child or any other person is either not concentrating
on driving correctly, or is given no chance by the person they
hit! . What has happened to all the heavy advertising on teaching
children how to cross the road? Instead of spending vast amounts
of money on so called traffic calming, why is it not being spent
on making roads safer to drive along by removing obstacles and
separating traffic from pedestrians? Is it a fact that the traffic
partnerships expect to make a profit? If so they have absolutely
no credence. |
| A
Toms, colchester |
Wednesday,
10-Mar-2004 10:03:07 GMT |
|
| All
this talk about speed cameras and fines misses the point entirely.
Speed limits should not be compulsory. Speed limits should only
be advisory. What is important is sensible driving. Drivers
need proper information to assist them with judgment of teh
conditions and this inlcudes warnings of poor raod alignment
or other hazards ahead, which if clearly available and not confused
by a welter of other nonsensical signs along the highway, will
enable good driving decisions to be made. The advertisement
claims that "If drivers reduced their speed by just 1mph there
is up to 7% less risk of being involved in a serious crash."
This is complete nonsense. All roads are different and conditions
vary dependent upon traffic flows, weather etc. Next the advert
makes claims about the likelihood of a child dying if hit by
a motorist at various speeds. Absolute nonsense. If the author
of that article actaully beleived such rubbish he or she should
place a dummy in font of an HGV travelling at 10 mph and see
what happens when the dummyis struck by the vehicle, who then
is the dummy? Separation of pedestrians from all travelling
vehicles is the only way to avoid injury accidents from impact
of moving vehicles. Most irresponsibly, many authorities are
making orders to apply fixed speedlimits at locations where
they thinkthat the mere erection of speed limit signs would
cause drivers to slow to that limit. I would like to know if
the persons responsible for such decisions would be prepared
to drive a small car along the particular highway and then slow
to the designated limitwhen they are being followed by an articulated
HGV and there is a heavy rainstorm in progress, or the road
is icy, having not been gritted and temeratures are below zero
centigrade. I hope I have made my point that all driving must
be responsible and speeds should be appropriate to the conditions
of the road and the observed potential hazards. I am very keen
that safety standards should be raised, and this should particulary
include carrying out improvements to roads, their alignments,
surfacing and advisory signing. Some authorities are knowingly
increasing teh risk of accidents by changing the roads by introducing
humps, bumps and head on chicanes. The latter alterations especially
are a deliberate attempt to create a higher risk of a head on
collision or accident between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian
and as such I beleive that should anyone be involved in such
an accident at a site where chicanes have been deliberately
introduced, then the persons responsible for introducing such
a change must be prosecuted for their intent to cause accidents.
I do not object to cameras being used to record motorists speed,
that information should be used, together with information on
the road alignment, traffic conditions, weather conditions etc,
for the police to decide whethera motorist is "driving without
due care and attention". I have been a juror in a court case
where teh police have stated they have driven at speeds of over
50 mph in a 30mph limited urban area "where they considered
it safe to do so". the police drivers are sensible and are trained
to drive responsibly, thus they can judge whether motorists
are driving with due care and attention. The police could use
their judgement to prosecute reckless drivers, and soon the
message would spread amongst the motoring population. Currently
the public has lost respect for the police because the use of
"safety cameras" is seen merely as a revenue gathering exercise
with the money being used to hand out to endless "big brother"
surveillance. David Begg, a non elected political extremist,
is deeply involved with trying to force further surveillance
techniques upon the population. Regrettably his and other likeminded
peoples continued activity is not going to help improve peoples
safety, but is more likely to be detrimental to the economy
of the UK. |
| A.
Painter, Bedford |
Tuesday,
09-Mar-2004 16:27:50 GMT |
|
| With
the enormous increase in speed traps everywhere, I have found
that my driving safety has detiorated. Instead of being able
to concentrate on driving for the conditions, far too much of
my attention has now to be concentrated inside the car on the
speedometer and instead of driving smoothly, I find that constant
attention to speed makes for jerkier driving. I do not deliberately
exceed speed limits, particularly in built up areas, but even
so, I feel that it is only a matter of time before one of these
devices clocks me while I am concentrating on driving safely
rather than slavishly watching my speedometer. There has to
be something wrong with a system that totally ignores safety
for the simplicity of penalising speed above an arbitrary limit.
To bring monetary reward into the equation is to take away any
credence these measures might have. |
| Steve
Smith, Bushey Herts |
Tuesday,
02-Mar-2004 10:19:27 GMT |
|
| The
Secret Life Of A Speed Camera, coming to a town near you SOON………..
I have just seen (1st March) one of the best kept secrets of
our High St Bushey, suddenly over-night if by magic a tall one
legged grey robotic box partly painted yellow has appeared at
the side of the main road, which has just been the subject of
numerous road repairs but now has that go for it motorway look,
it’s all very mysterious. It’s location is apparently an accident
black spot, the new “cash point” is wonderfully sited so proudly
next to the listed buildings of the High Street junction with
London Road looking towards the Bushey Arches. It’s certainly
in keeping with the architecture of the surrounding churches,
cottages and shops but maybe not so with the duck pond. Normally
one would be refused permission if wanting to erect such a thing
as the imposed restrictions on property development or change
in this type of environment is normally forbidden and thoroughly
enforced by our beloved local councillors. But, if you want
one, apparently there’s no planning application required certainly
no need for consultation with the council tax paying residence
just stick one up on the Q.T. and cash in all the way to the
bank, lovely stuff !!! |
| Sue
Wright, High Wycombe |
Tuesday,
02-Mar-2004 13:21:04 GMT |
|
| I
was caught on one of these Dick Turpin speed cams in Main Rd
Naphill. I fully agree with speed control BUT can someone please
explain to me who decides where these cams are placed.Where
I live cams are all around but none where any blackspot accidents
have occured. New Rd one static and very often a mobile unit
Chapel Lane West Wycombe Rd Hamilton Hill going up all these
I know of no fatal accidents. But what about Bradenham or the
road from Hazlemere to Amersham where there have been many many
fatal accidents and do I see a speed cam there NO I DO NOT please
exlain this to me.Also I was doing 37mph £60 fine and 3 points
but a friend of mine 36mph she had £60 fine but no points as
she was offered a 2 hour lecture at Banbury instead now don't
get me wrong good luck to her but I feel this is unfair and
unjust. |
| Mike,
Luton |
Saturday,
28-Feb-2004 10:02:36 GMT |
|
| To
all the people who keep writing in and saying “if you speed
and get caught, what is the problem?” I will try to explain.
It is a case of does the punishment fit the crime. For example
I saw a Police programme on TV last week where they had arrested
someone who was kicking someone else in the head, the punishment
was a £50 fine. For the motorist who left it a bit late to slow
from 60 mph to 40 mph only to find a Policeman with a laser
gun stood behind a bush, £60 fine, 3 points, increased insurance
premiums for 5 years. It seems that causing someone actual bodily
harm is considered more acceptable than a slight loss of concentration
that caused no harm to anyone at all. Or could it be that the
motorist is an easy target? |
| Gary,
Baldock |
Friday,
27-Feb-2004 12:05:30 GMT |
|
| Lets
Have Some Facts: There has been NO drop at all in the avarage
number of road deaths in the UK since cameras have been introduced.
Regional figures which naturally fluctuate are often quoted
but are in fact just used for spin. More people die from accidents
in there own homes than die on the roads. The UK has the Lowest
accident rate per 100,000 cars almost bar none. When you look
at the increase in the number of cars we should be proud of
ourselves. IF you really want the accident rate to lower then
try driving with your eyes fully open! The Motorist is the govermnets
favourite cash cow. What a shame theres no money to be made
from burglers and muggers. If your a motorist these days you
will eventully be fined for something. If your a aspiring burgler
you chances of geting done are virtally zero. Goverment mugging
is still OK is it? |
| Jeanette
Kisby, Hemel Hempstead |
Thursday,
26-Feb-2004 13:20:22 GMT |
|
| I
don't drive and rely on public transport in Herts which can
be unreliable. If they made the buses cheaper and more frequent
and accessible to more areas then I am sure a lot of drivers
would ditch their car and use the bus. Hence less drivers on
the road and less chance of speeding cars - keep the cameras!!!! |
| Chris,
Luton |
Tuesday,
24-Feb-2004 09:38:00 GMT |
|
| I
was intrigued to see a mobile ‘safety camera’ situated on Airport
Way on the curve in the road into Luton just before the small
roundabout. There can’t be too many speeders there as everyone
is slowing down to stop at the roundabout. Then I realised what
is going on. They are catching people who exit the dual carriageway
at 70 mph and are probably still doing 65 mph as they go past
the detector. Alternatively they are catching you as you come
up the hill out of Luton where you are increasing speed having
left the roundabout and are about to join the dual carriageway.
In either case you cant possible have travelled for more than
about 50 yards at a speed over the limit which is 60 mph. Are
they doing this because of concern over your safety? Of course
not, if that were the reason the speed limit on this section
of the road would be reduced to 50 mph, it is clearly a money!
g! athering exercise. I hope the people concerned sleep easy
at night. |
| matt,
bedford |
Monday,
23-Feb-2004 16:38:00 GMT |
|
| i
completely agree with speed cameras but not in such force, on
my way to work a 15minuite journey down the A6 i pass atleast
7 camers which is obsurd. the main problem is that people se
a camera and instantainously slow down regardless of the speed
they are traveling i have followed people who see a camera and
slow down from 60 to 30 i ask why? surely they know that the
national speed limit is 60mph this causes others to get irate
and overtake. adding more cameras wont solve any problem but
cause more. |
| Lynne,
St Albans |
Friday,
20-Feb-2004 13:15:26 GMT |
|
| Yes,
we should all drive at the legal speed limit, but lets face
it, a large majority don't. We are all in a big hurry to get
somewhere and, at times, this can end in tragedy (this does
not include the horrendous amount of wildlife killed on the
roads each year). So I would say please THINK and regulate your
speed, but speed camera's? I don't think they are the answer.
I believe many are in inappropriate places and it does seem
many are there soley to rip off motorists and anyway people
who know where the camera's are speed inbetween each camera.
It's a shame people can't be responsible, then we wouldn't need
them anyway. |
| Alan
Jefferys, Luton |
Tuesday,
17-Feb-2004 09:33:10 GMT |
|
| It
has been said many times before, speed alone is not dangerous,
but bad driving is always. The soloution more Police in cars,
and the power to stop all cars on a random bases. |
| Kathryn,
Milton Keynes |
Wednesday,
11-Feb-2004 01:27:27 GMT |
|
| Speed
cameras are there to slow people down. If you're doing the legal
speed, then what's the problem? |
| Colin
Batchelor, Luton |
Friday,
06-Feb-2004 17:16:29 GMT |
|
| I
agree that speed cameras are a good idea when they are used
correctly, and sited at known accident blackspots, NOT on stretches
of road where there have never been any accisents or where there
is no possibility of accidents. Many are there just to fundraise.
I have seen mobile units parked on the pavement, thus forcing
pedestrians to walk in the road, must be safer cos there is
a speed camera there? |
| Andy,
Stevenage |
Thursday,
05-Feb-2004 13:55:38 GMT |
|
| I
will admit to being caught twice for speeding. Once was by a
motorway traffic patrol on the A1 nr Stevenage over two years
ago and the other just over a year ago nr Sandy. Currently with
6 points on my license I am now what you might class as a very
cautious driver, if not "over" cautious. I have been driving
for just over 14 years now with no accidents at all. I now drive
under or just on the speed limit, even when the road ahead is
clear etc.. and even though I know I am not speeding I am always
on the look out for the "Cameras" as I do travel alot around
the UK. My eyes constantly looking from the speedometer and
road. I must say that I used to be a very confident driver but
now most of my confidence has gone. I just know sooner or later
like most people there is going to be the day when I exceed
the road limit by a few miles on hour and then "done" again.
The mobile speed camera's in my experience and opinion tend
to site themselves just out of sight, on a bend etc and most
of the time bang in between the speed limit say, changing from
a 40 to a 60. I have even passed a police person with a speed
gun pointing at drivers "hidden" in a bus shelter in Stevenage,
and no it was not raining... Anyway if you speed you're going
to get caught just like me ! So just do not bother it isn't
worth it at all. |
| Randy,
Wycombe |
Wednesday,
04-Feb-2004 16:43:28 GMT |
|
| Let's
have a recognition by drivers and motor-cyslists that speed
causes more accidents and more severe injuries before they bleat
about being caught on camera. It's a no-brainer about speed.
It's simple Physics but there's a load of whiners out there
who get caught and then claim a higher intelligence on the matter.
And that attitude alone is enough reason to have cameras to
monitor their dangerous, selfish and, let's face it, quite uneccesary
anti-social behaviour. If you can't drive responsibly, you shouldn't
be out there with a large lump of powered metal. |
| Lee,
Borehamwood |
Monday,
26-Jan-2004 22:38:18 GMT |
|
| I
agree with speed cameras if they were for the right reason -
and thats to slow traffic down. If it works then great but figures
show that even though there are MORE cameras, there are MORE
accidents. I only passed my driving test 18 months ago so obviously
I'm still on probation (6 points and I lose my license). I only
took driving lessons so that I could get promoted @ work and
lucky for me I got that promotion. I consider myself to be a
good driver and I barely go over the speed limit but everyone
does and anyone who says they don't are lying. I got caught
2 weeks ago by the police who were hiding round a bend with
their 'guns' on a steep hill going down. Obviously you pick
up a bit of speed when you go downhill and I was caught. They
done me for doing 37mph in a 30mph zone and now I have 3 points
on my license. Cameras (especially in Herts) are everywhere
and ! I'm constantly on the lookout for them (considering most
of the cameras are hidden in the most unlikely areas (behind
trees, lamposts, roadsigns etc)and if I get caught again then
not only do I lose my license, I lose my job. Which is why I
drive 27-30mph just so I don't get caught again. |
| John
Odell, Leighton Buzzard |
Sunday,
11-Jan-2004 11:45:58 GMT |
|
| Why
do we always attack a problem from the wrong end in this country?
Surely it would be better for the money spent on traffic cameras
to be used to better educate parents in the supervision and
teaching of road sense to their children. If children were better
supervised and taught road sense about playing and crossing
near roads we would reduce accidents much more drastically than
by always blaming and penalising the driver. |
| Graeme
Sheridan-Wallis, Blunham |
Sunday,
11-Jan-2004 11:57:17 GMT |
|
| Cameras
are appropriate in appropriate places.They are inappropriate
where their positioning is patently to increase revenue in low
risk areas.It is the latter which is causing so much rebellion
and it will continue to do so because people resent the increase
of the Police State.. |
| Brian
Hilton, Bedford |
Sunday,
11-Jan-2004 12:46:41 GMT |
|
| I
have no problem with speed limits where necessary, but I feel
we are quite entitled to have misgivings when speed limits are
lowered and immediately followed by speed cameras, or placed
on open roads with no justification.lets be sensible, if you
want less accidents then lets get police back in traffic cars
catching the most dangerous motorists including the ones with
no tax and insurance or even no driving licences, cameras do
not catch these people. and how about children and pedestrian
education schemes, what happened to the "green Cross Code" or
teaching children that roads are dangerous and not meant as
a playground. Italian drivers are probably sonme of the worst
drivers around in their own country, but their record of accidents
to children are better than ours mainly because children are
taught roads are dangerous. How about dealing with the cyclist
mafia who seem to think no laws whatsoever apply to them, can
we have Cyclist cameras to deal with those who ride on pavements
knocking old people down Finally,unfortunately there will always
be accidents with anything involving moving machinery, if we're
not happy with that, then lets go back to the horse and cart
and forget the benefits of technology,but beware, accident figures
in the days of the of the horse and cart were also a cause for
concern. |
| Bob,
Stevenage |
Friday,
21-Nov-2003 11:49:32 GMT |
|
| i
think that speed cameras are deathtraps because if you exceed
the speed limit by at last 10mph the speed camera will take
a photo and if there are no warning signs that there is a spped
camera ahead you will hit the brakes and freak the driver out
behind you who may not react in time and end up crashing into
you |
| Brian,
Ware |
Wednesday,
27-Aug-2003 22:42:32 BST |
|
| It
is strange to see that all signs that had "speed camera" signs
have now been changed to read "safety camera" now. Is this to
take some of the pressure off being a money making object or
is it a genuine safety feature? Something I cannot work out
- with all other close police areas, Beds, Bucks and Essex provide
details of their mobile camera positions. Why not Hertfordshire?
A new hardstanding on the Broadhall Way section into Stevenage
is being laid this week. Just before Broadwater Crescent. Typically
hidden behind the trees. How much money has been made so far
on these fines have to my knowledge has never been published
either!! |
| Mick
O'Donnell, Milton Keynes |
Wednesday,
27-Aug-2003 16:43:03 BST |
|
| If
the police were really interested in accident reduction, they
should turn their blue lights OFF at accident scenes. Seen it
many times, people slowing because of the blue lights, causing
traffic pile-ups, NOT to have a look. Few drivers rubber neck,
but most will slow for a bluey, even when it is not neccessary.
Some emergency vehicles do have directional blue lights, and
are used to the advantage of all. However, there are those who
do not, and then cause more grief by incorrect control and application
of the blueys. Speed cameras should be marked with the speed
limit that they are monitoring, e.g 30 for a 30MPH zone. All
road speeds should be signposted, not relying on the number
of lamp posts or trees in the correct shade of green. |
| Derrick,
Ware |
Monday,
25-Aug-2003 10:36:50 BST |
|
| If
the Police put half the effort into Pro-active Crime related
actions that they put into chasing motorist for one thing or
another, then we would all benefit and enjoy a way of life that
what we should all be entitled to expect. - Some hopes !!!! |
| Richard
Collins, Chesham |
Tuesday,
17-Jun-2003 13:50:33 BST |
|
| despite
all the safety PR about accident reduction the cameras are still
hidden behind trees or signs in supposed accident blackspots.
If anyone ever disagrees with the road safety people then the
same old safety excuse is trundled out and you are not meant
to argue with that . I'm all for total visible enforcement outside
schools and through villages but unless these cameras are clearly
marked then most people view this with a great deal of suspicion
that the Police are lining their pockets. What were the Sunday
times figues |Speeding - up 200% all other offences -100% Ones
easily policed - the other is harder stands out like a sore
thumb doesn't it |
| John,
Baldock |
Thursday,
05-Jun-2003 16:00:22 BST |
|
| Use
the camera's only in built up areas and especially near schools
and I would 100% support the initiatve, after all, cars and
pedestrians dont mix well. However,stick them in the middle
of nowhere and it just devalues the sceme. I remember when I
lived in stevenage Rd Hitchin, asking the local police why they
didnt install them on that road. Eventually I got phoned by
a liaison officer whose conversation opened with 'they are not
installed for revenue purposes' and then went on to explain
they could not justify Stevenage Road. That after I had almost
been mown down by a Nova at somewhere approaching 50mph. |
| Dave
Cordy, Baldock |
Wednesday,
02-Apr-2003 11:21:06 GMT |
|
| There
are two new cameras being installed on the Leighton Buzzard
Road, Hemel Hempstead, just south of the Potten End Turn - The
Boxes are established but the white lines have not been painted
on the road yet |
| Anon,
Luton |
Monday,
10-Mar-2003 13:01:03 GMT |
|
| There's
a solution to all this whinging - STOP SPEEDING! If you all
got off your high horses and concentarted on driving properly
and withing the law, you wouldn't have to worry about the number,
or position of cameras. |
| Chris,
Dunstable |
Saturday,
08-Mar-2003 23:15:34 GMT |
|
| After
24 years of driving without 1 speeding ticket I have received
2 in 4 months, 1 for 61 in a 50 limit (Dual Carriageway in Warwickshire
A 45), and another for 42 in a 30 limit from a mobile camera
in Caddington as you come down the hill past Wyevale Garden
Centre. The first offence was because the road speed limit unexpectedly
changed for the national speed limit to 50 for a short stretch.
For the second I was actually slowing down at the time. I feel
that I am being tricked out of my money and we all need to find
a way to oppose this method of taxation which is one of the
main reasons the people on this message board have posted their
comments |
| radical,
bedford |
Friday,
07-Mar-2003 09:32:35 GMT |
|
| Fixed
cameras now seem to have specific advance warning signs from,
say 0.5 miles from the site, provided of course that you are
willing or able to divert your attention from what the authorities
seem to regard as irrelevancies i.e. traffic, pedestrians, children
etc. There is a van operating in Bedford which parks and operates
a camera from the rear doors. There are camera warning signs
on the rear of the van, but none are erected at a distance from
the tax trap. Therefore, there is no effective warning and unless
you completely concentrate on spotting the van and let the car
drive itself, it is invisible until it's far too late. Is this
legal? As a second question, is it a positive contribution to
road safety? NB I've noticed IT doesn't stick to the speed limits
when it's being driven about! |
| Mr.V,
stevenage |
Wednesday,
05-Mar-2003 22:38:05 GMT |
|
| I'm
lead to believe that mobile speed cameras have to have a valid
calibration certificate re-tested every day of use, without
this the speeding conviction cannot stand(but you have to ask
the question when caught). Does this same little known law apply
to the Gatso cameras? |
| Richard
Knight, edlesborough |
Wednesday,
05-Mar-2003 14:54:42 GMT |
|
| I
was picked up by a mobile speed camera on leighton buzzard road
billington on 12 February According to my perception of the
photograph supplied by the police the camera was hidden in a
side road (Hill View Lane) As I understand it the use of mobile
cameras is only approved by the government in locations where
the vehicle and or the camera is highly visible and in an area
where there is a high risk to other road users - this particular
location is just a 100 metres from an unrestricted stretch of
road and therefore does not comply with the guidelines. 388
other drivers according to the police notice displayed were
caught on the same day thus in my view indicating that a) the
camera was hidden and b) contrary to guidelines the location
is being used to boost police funds and not to contribute to
road safety. If anyone knows how best to deal with Bedfordshire
police on this matter I should be grateful. |
| jim
morris , royston |
Saturday,
01-Mar-2003 11:29:40 GMT |
|
| I
object to some cameras especially in the luton area that are
operating 24hs a day, Surely there should be a reserved time
limit. I went to pick up my wife and son, whom had returned
off holiday and I was in a hurry to pick them up on time. The
aircraft for once was running ahead of time. I had to be at
Luton Airport by 4:05 in the morning, all in darkness just outside
Luton on the A505 Dual Carriageway and I admit speeding at about
45/50mph But you naturaly accept no traffic front or rear foot
down over the limit and I do point out again 4:05 AM.. The point
I attack on ths speeding Camera is It FLASHED me HEAD ON not
at my rear. This frightend the daylights out of me, (although
not daylight) I feel all Cameras should be made by Law to Flash
from your Rear not forward motion as this could have caused
a considerable accident. and at 4:05 AM Were is this country
coming fr! om in this stupid day and age. more do gooders and
more financial intake from us.. Yes I paid my £60 out of my
£73 pw pension. I wish I was an immigrant.. |
| steve,
stevenage |
Friday,
28-Feb-2003 08:04:32 GMT |
|
| I
see from the ever growing list that speed camera numbers are
on the increase in Hertfordshire. Surely not all the sites can
be justified in terms of speed related accidents that cannot
be addressed by other engineering measures. Come on people of
Herts, wake up and start asking questions. Its very clear in
the way that the new speed camera team for Herts has been set
up that they need to install as many cameras as possible because
they have to be self financing. And there was me thinking they
only went in at accident sites!! |
| JOHN
FIELD, PENRYN AVENUE |
Thursday,
27-Feb-2003 14:14:44 GMT |
|
| HI
I AM SCARED OF THE CAMERAS BECAUSE I DRIVE A VAUXHALL 2.0 WHICH
IS HARD TO HANDLE |
| radical,
bedford |
Thursday,
27-Feb-2003 09:43:48 GMT |
|
| Normal
drivers are actually driving LESS safely because of the various
"safety" measures which are being forced upon us. Near where
I live is a large estate which is, I admit a ratrun. Multiple
chicanes and humps have been introduced, which is particularly
awkward, as the local residents continue to park as close as
possible to their houses, irrespective of these obstacles. The
chicanes look like zebra crossings, but aren't, thus creating
additional confusion. Whilst trying to negotiate one of the
chicanes around a parked car I had the shock of my life when
a small child (aged 3 ish?) came running into vision from behind
a parked car by my nearside wing, albeit still on the pavement.
Looking back, the child's mother with a pram and another woman
were 10 to 15 feet behind the child, but not in a position to
control the toddler. I was doing 15 mph I'd guess, well below
the 30 mph limit. There was no drama, the child didn't step
out, but if he had there would have been a disaster. I know
I hadn't seen him or registered the woman with the pram. I also
know that if it hadn't been for the chicane, I might have been
going a bit faster but I'd have been paying a whole lot more
attention to what was going on around me. Okay, that's so called
traffic "calming" but the same is true of cameras - the vast
majority of drivers are having their attention diverted by trying
to spot these things, often in areas which are not otherwise
dangerous. |
| Lisa,
Luton |
Wednesday,
26-Feb-2003 10:07:24 GMT |
|
| Is
there a legal time limit that you have to receive your speeing
fine from a mobile speed camera. I was told you have to be informed
within 2 weeks, is this a legal time limit or can they issue
it to you months after the aledged offence. Thanks |
| Ben,
Milton Keynes |
Monday
24
February, 2003 |
|
| I
am sorry - I feel that many people are making excuses for not
using Speed Cameras. Indeed they can be excessively used and
sometimes in ridiculous places but at the end of the day - are
designed to save lives. Remember this next time you drive past
a school at 50mph instead of 30mph. For those that feel it breaches
their personal space - you wouldn't be saying that if someone
speeding killed someone you loved - you would be asking why
a camera had not been placed on the road. It also seems to me
that people are for more concerned with being caught and forking
out the fine than they actually learning to drive safely. |
| Steve,
Sandy |
Sunday
23 February, 2003 |
|
| Whilst
not a professional driver, do have to drive around much of the
country and so far do not appear to have been caught by speed
cameras. Tend to keep to 30 mph in villages, maybe 35 on the
main roads, but on the dual carriage ways and motorways 70-85.
If it's a clear road and the traffic clear, then don't see the
problem in that. But when the speed cameras come up, have to
slow down and take my eye off the road to make sure the speed
is below the limit. Have almost been rear ended once or twice,
lastly by some juggernaut who was about 2 feet away from my
boot on the A14. There is usually a mobile camera on the biggleswade
to sandy run, but often use the side roads to avoid them. |
| gerald,
symonds yat west |
Saturday
22 February, 2003 |
|
| speed
camras can only be seen as a revenue creating excersise.gwent
appears to be the most active in the use of mobile detector
vans normally situated at the end of roadworks just as you approach
the deregulation sign revenue collection is not only done by
the authorities but the insurance industry put its nose in the
trough by putting up premiums based on the number of points
on your licence the loonies are running the asilum..........
|
| John,
Biggleswade |
Saturday
22
February, 2003 |
|
| Reading
some peoples views, does make me chuckle... As a professional
driver for one of the big food retail shops the things i see
on the roads have to be seen to be believed. As Mark from Sandy
said, the 'in thing' seems to be to race between the speed cameras
on the A1 between Sandy & Biggleswade, only to slam on their
brakes when the Man in the White Van suddenly appears. This
surely is dangerous, not to mention stupid? I often get 'tailgated'
along that stretch to & from work, so i pull in to let the driver
behind, who is obviously in such a rush to get somewhere past,
only to see them hit the brakes at the next camera... again,
dangerous and pointless. I wish we had some cameras on London
Rd in Biggleswade. The limit is 30mph but still drivers race
down the road way above that. As my children have to cross this
road to school, it makes my blood boil to see drivers exc! eeding
the speed limit all the way into the Town. I'd like to see more
cameras & more and bigger signs down this road to try to stop
the speeding cars that use it. At the end of the day, invasion
of privacy, revenue raisers, call them what you will - if you're
not speeding, what's the worry about speed cameras?? Better
to be 5 minutes late in this life, than 5 minutes early in the
next... bare that in mind next time you're either 4 feet from
the car infront or 10mph over the speed limit. |
| John,
Little Chalfont |
Thursday
20
February, 2003 |
|
I
have several problems with speed cameras: 1.Whenever I drive
past one, I feel as though I am being unjustly accused of a
criminal offence. This feeling is directed against the police,
in whom I have now lost all trust.
2. When passing a camera, virtually all my attention is devoted
to my speedometer. If a child were to run out in front of me,
I would be far less likely to see it.
3. I have ben unable to find any evidence of radiation safety
tests being carried out on Gatso type cameras. In our local
village (Little Chalfont), school children and the crossing
warden are actually forced to wait in the radar beam of the
thing. Surely this is a significant health hazard.
4. On one occasion, I witnessed an accident caused directly
be the flash of a speed camera on the other carriageway on the
M25. A driver in the outside lane braked sharply, causing the
driver behind to smash into him. I offered my statement to the
police, who, once they had heard what I would say, decided they
did not need it. |
| Chris
Jenkins, Dunstable |
Thursday
20
February, 2003 |
|
| Speed
Cameras are illegal as they take away the Human Right of being
innocent until proven guilty. At the moment if a camera photographs
a car the registered keeper of the vehicle is sent a fine, with
no eveidence of who the driver was. If your car is stolen, or
someone clones the number plate and uses it on their identical
car, then you get the fine. As I said this is breaking your
human right to be innocent until proven guilty. This is the
Polices job. The fact that speed limits are too low, and that
the cameras are introduced to raise revenue is neither here
nor there compared to that overriding fact. |
| Stewart,
Luton |
Wednesday
19 February, 2003 |
|
| Useful
website http://www.abd.org.uk/ Gives views and analysis of "safety"
figures. |
| Chris
Clarke, Swindon |
Wednesday
19 February, 2003 |
|
| I
recently found myself guilty of not spotting the reduction in
speed limit from the 40 to 30 mph on the Luton Road in Dunstable
as discussed by other motorists here. I feel frustrated as it
was my first time to Dunstable and was keeping up with the flow
of traffic (whilst looking for my turning) as can be clearly
seen by the photographs sent to me. It makes me wonder whether
all the other 4 drivers in the picture were also caught. A nice
easy £120 for 10 seconds work. I simply can't understand why
the dual carriageway changes to the 30mph, when clearly in the
photographic evidence there are no pedestrians or housing to
be seen. I can't think of many places where a 30mph limit is
imposed upon a dual carriageway and can draw the only conclusion
that this is a revenue generating exercise. Surely this shows
how useless the road signage is for the drop to 30mph and was
purely ! looked upon as a money making scheme by catching us
so called dangerous driving motorists out! Also if this part
of the road is such a dangerous hotspot wouldn’t other more
permanent measures be sensible as opposed to the cloak and dagger
mobile camera method. If the sole aim is to slow the motorist,
surely the best way would be to introduce those flaming speed
humps that have recently proliferated by the hundreds around
my home in Wiltshire. As annoying as they are one has simply
no option other than to drive slowly over them or suffer the
possibility of a spinal injury!!! |
| Richard,
Flitwick |
Wednesday
19
February, 2003 |
|
| Safety/Speed
cameras are purely a tax on the car driver and nothing else.
Forward facing cameras do not catch all speeding motorists,
they can not catch motorcycles as they have no front plate.
Therefore it is a clear anti car policy and that is all. If
we want to see our roads safer, have them in good condition,
have the salt available and laid when icy, have clear, visible
markings on the road. All these factors make the roads safer.
Additional police on the roads are more of a deterrant than
cameras, they are also able to make intelligent decisions about
someones driving, if a motorist is travelling at 85 on a motorway
and sees a police vehicle ahead or behind, this motorist will
slow down, showing that they are observant. If the motorist
is doing 60 in the middle lane and does not see a police vehicle
approaching from behind, the slower driver is more hazardous
as they are not aware of their surroundings and the road. I
know which vehicle I would rather be a passenger in. Come on
people, we cannot let ourselves be taxed more and more on a
daily basis. I am all for road safety, cameras do not concern
the car robbers out there and there are more of them today than
ever before. More police will deter these most dangerous of
all drivers. Please fine me for speeding if you must, but let
me see that my money is spent on making the roads safer, it
currently is not. |
| radical,
bedford |
Wednesday
19
February, 2003 |
|
| Some
speed limits (largely the ones set up years ago in thoroughly
built up areas) are there for very good reason but a good proportion
(mostly the newer ones in semi rural locations)are plainly stupid.
In the latter, one never sees a pedestrian and vision and driving
conditions are often good. I have a feeling that a lot are established
by lily livered councillors in response to very small numbers
of well-to-do inhabitants who like to live in rural areas but
don't like traffic passing the houses they choose to buy. If
it's not about money in the form of highwaymen extracting speeding
taxes, then it's about property values. Laws shouldn't be just
handed down from on high to be meekly obeyed. It's our country
and our opinions should set the laws. There isn't a majority
support for the anti-car dictatorship we have in place at present.
|
| Cei
Whitehouse, Arlesey |
Tuesday
18
February, 2003 |
|
| Speed
limits are there for a reason, and speed cameras are just another
way of enforcing that law; people will slow down near speed
cameras in order not to get caught, so even if people are only
in the limit around speed cameras, they are obviously a good
deterrent. |
| Bob,
Dunstable |
Tuesday
18
February, 2003 |
|
|
If
I may quote:- Source: BBC
Last year there were 39 people killed on the roads of Bedfordshire.
The Bedfordshire and Luton Casualty Reduction Partnership
is working to reduce this - one way is with the use of speed
cameras.
Source:
Luton & Dunstable on Sunday: In
Bedfordshire, 53 people have been killed in road accidents
in 2001 compared to 39 the previous year. Previously in an
article from the same newspaper quoted a Police road safety
expert who said that road deaths had rocketed in the last
two years from 36 to 52 this year. (Published January 2003
– referring to 1999 and 2001 statistics).
|
| radical,
bedford |
Tuesday
18
February, 2003 |
|
| Yes,
all very well, but what are we going to do about the unrepresentative,
dictatorial, sandal wearing tax gluttons who are doing this
to us? What will make them listen to us? |
| Kevin
Miller, Eaton Bray |
Saturday
15 February, 2003 |
|
| Bedfordshire
district council are deliberately using cameras to appease local
people that at least they are doing something, albeit too little.
They have positioned cameras on the A505 at the junction with
Eaton Bray - Tottenhoe junction, in my view this is not what
is required, a roundabout would be far more effective and save
lives! However, roundabouts cost more than speed cameras. I
feel this is appeasement on the cheap!! |
| Charles.
U. Farley, Central england |
Friday
14 February, 2003 |
|
| Speed
cameras. Why do we need them? We need them so as the police(
gwent are the absolute worst) can make lots of money from otherwise
law abiding drivers. Its so easy for them to do. It dosent require
them to work at the job at all. Which is the hardest, sitting
in the back of a van pointing your pathetic laser toy at drivers
and raking it in, or dealing with pushers, rapists, murderers
or burglars? There ya have it in a nutshell, money motivated
greed. If they catch by gatso alone, 2 million drivers in one
year, thatll be 120 million pounds of profit. Wonderful plan,
are we just going to let them do this to us? |
| Paula
Moss |
Friday
14 February, 2003 |
|
| Did
you know: according to people working in Bletchley one of the
speed cameras for Princes way is supposedly on the old Halifax
building, How's that for dodgy business for the errant motorist?
|
| John,
MK |
Thursday,
13 February, 2003 |
|
| Oh!Oh!
Naive and gullible motorists, can this be true!!!You are questioning
the statistics, on the value of speed camaras?You have at last
woken up, from the Brainwashing.The Government and Police, use
whatever numbers they want which will prove what they are determined
you WILL believe.The speed camara"Demolition Teams" who have
been active, in Bedfordshire, Cambridge and Essex in the past
few days, do not appear to have been convinced of the value
of such Police determination.£2000 rewards being offered, someone
is really getting upset about the lost revenue!!.If as much
cash and effort was invested in Driving training and drink/Drug
related accidents, we could relate to it.Why have traffic police
patrols been superceeded by camaras? |
| David,
Potten End |
Wednesday
12
February, 2003 |
|
| Speed
Camaras should be sited in villages and residential areas and
not on the open road. Meanwhile with the reduction or total
loss of Police traffic divisions, you can drink or drug drive
to your hearts content providing you keep below the posted speed
limit. |
| Radical,
Bedford |
Tuesday
11
February, 2003 |
|
| They
are doing that sort of thing all the time Bob. In Bedford, they
site a van at the end of the "Biddenham straight" on the A428.
The 40mph limit comes down to 30mph about 50 yards before a
sharp left hand bend. Nobody but an idiot would take the bend
significantly faster than 30mph, so they are catching motorists
slowing from 40mph to 30 mph but who don't quite get down to
the lower limit at the sign. If they really wanted to catch
dangerous drivers, they'd park the van after the blind corner,
not before. Safety or revenue raising? |
| John,
Letchworth |
Tuesday
11
February, 2003 |
|
| The
TRL say 7% of crashes are due to speed, this 7% is made up of
3 sub-categories (in excess of limit, for type of vehicle, for
conditions) a speed camera detects one of these (excess of limit).
The government add the following causes: sudden braking, careless
driving, reckless driving, driving too close, impatient driving,
poor control and poor overtaking, to get the much quoted statistic
‘speed is a contributory factor in 33% of accidents’.
If the government was honest and said speed camera were targeted
at the 1 in 20 accidents where speed in excess of limit was
the cause rather than making up statistics to justify speed
cameras. |
| Bob
Solly, Flitwick |
Tuesday
11
February, 2003 |
|
| I
have recently been caught by a mobile camera on a stretch of
the Dunstable Road going towards Dunstable from Luton. I knew
the speed limit from the M1 was 40 mph, but new 30 mph signs
have been erected at the entry to the roundabout at Halfway
House. As there is so much traffic on the roundabout (and three
lanes to think about) I concentrated on not having an accident
and did not see the 30 mph signs. The dual carriageway is exactly
the same in nature as before the roundabout. As a consequence
I was driving at 39mph and havehad a clean licence for 35 years
until now. The 30mph signs need resiting, otherwise it is a
licence to print money and penalise a law abiding citizen who
will now spend all his time looking at the speedometer instead
of concentrating on the traffic conditions. This cannot be right. |
| Scott,
Dunstable |
Tuesday
11
February, 2003 |
|
| If,
as we are led to believe, cameras are put up in accident blackspots,
what is the point of mobile cameras that change their position
each week? |
| Radical,
Bedford |
Tuesday
11 February, 2003 |
|
|
It's been announced today that speed cameras have reduced road
deaths by 30%, and so consequently more are to be introduced.
Who knows what the scam is here? Are they only measuring 25
yards either side of the cameras? Are the very few justifiable
cameras causing all of any improvement and the rest are just
subsidising the police and the local councils? The are politicians,
so we know they are lying whenever their lips are moving. Bad
driving causes accidents, not speed! |
| Phil,
Redbourn |
Monday
10 February, 2003 |
|
| There
can be no dispute that speed contributes to death, but analysis
of what happens leading up to a major accident shows that other
driver behaviour, such as overtaking and simply bad driving
is probably the more significant contributor and cameras do
not help. Like speed humps, they often contribute to eratic
driving with drivers accelerating between cameras in the known
safe zones. |
| Robin,
Dunstable |
Sunday
9 February, 2003 |
|
|
I did hear that these speed camera vans had be easily seen ie
painted in day glow yellow similar to static cameras. I have
also seen these same vans parked on a pedestrian crossing Island
opposite the Luton & Dunstable Hospital, this cannot be legal
can it ? or do Bedfordshire Police Authority make up there own
rules as they go along such as Police vehicles turning on blue
lights so they can jump traffic lights and turning them off
when they have completed their objective. Tea getting cold is
it? I think the Police should set examples to the public especially
the Traffic Police who are exceptionally bad. |
More
comments
|
