|
|
 |
Add
your comment
Latest comments
| Neil
Thompson, Luton |
Monday
2
Decmeber, 2002 |
|
| Last
week, on the breakfast show, it was mentioned by one of the
campaigners for speed camera safety that speed cameras were
being put up at various locations on the A6. These were designated
as "accident black spots". I have lived in Luton for 28 years
and I can honestly say that I have yet to see an accident at
one of these locations!!! This is merely a ruse to make more
money from the average motorist. Furthermore, the accidents
that do happen are generally caused through sudden speed fluctuations.
These cameras are more of a hazard than a safety cushion!!!!
|
| James,
Northampton |
Monday
2
December, 2002 |
|
| I
wonder how many people realise that being caught on the speed
camera will cost you more than the three points and the £60
fine. When I got caughtI found that by declaring it to my insurance
company ( as one is required to do ) my annual premium went
up by £12. I'm sure many motorists conveniently forget to declare
their endorsements but they could risk having their policies
declared void in the event of a claim. I think that these speed
cameras must be raking it in for insurance companies. |
| Barry
Riley, Newport Pagnell |
Friday
29 November, 2002 |
|
| Speed
cameras will never stop people speeding. Whats needed is Education
not Taxation. If you stand by any speed camera you will always
see brake lghts before it and a plume of exhaust smoke after
the lines end ! Motorists will always be an easy target and
a nice cash cow for the powers that be. It`s a shame they cannot
fit numberplates to Muggers Rapists and Burglars ! |
| David
Sechelt, Canada |
Thursday
28
November, 2002 |
|
| The
cameras were tried over here and were not successful at all.
Those that were caught in the cash cow did not pay anyway. And
it cost thousands of dollars to purchase and maintain!! THEN
THEY WERE SCRAPPED. Please use this money for other worthwhile
prodjects.Thanks for your time.ttfn |
| Chris
Zaremba, Bedfordshire |
Tues
11 November, 2002 |
|
| I
think I was caught last week on a dual carridgeway in Luton
that had 30 limit but everyone was moving at 40. It is a very
wide road with no hidden turns and should not be used as a money
maker. |
| Neil,
Biggleswade |
Tue
11 November, 2002 |
|
| MK
is a new town and was designed to keep cars and pedestrians
seperate, many of the smaller towns and villages were built
before motor vehicles were invented. I can't understand why
people think that speed cameras are unfair. There are always
speed limit signs when you are entering and leaving a zone if
you can't see the signs you shouldn't be on the road, if you
choose to ignore the sign then you can expect to get a fine
or a ban if you are caught. Why should drivers need additional
speed camera warning signs and brightly painted cameras? |
| Robin
Brough Jr, Baldock |
Tue
11 November, 2002 |
|
In
general there is nothing wrong with speed cameras at accident
black spots and hazard areas such as schools. However placing
them on dual carriage ways operational at all times is just
earning revenue as are the new breed of mobile units. Northants,
West Midlands and other police authorities publish the whereabouts
of mobile cameras on their web sites and over local radio traffic
news - obviously using them as a safety mechanism. Beds police
do not tell anyone where they are - they just want money and
to hell with safety!
Comment from BBC Beds, Herts and Bucks
Bedfordshire Police DO publish
the whereabouts of both their fixed and mobile safety/speed
cameras in both the local press and also on this website.
See
where they are>> |
| Fred
Norwood, Luton |
Tuesday
15 October, 2002 |
|
| Speed
cameras in general are a beneficial conception. They keep us
scrupulous! The number one justification in favor of speed limits
is for our safety. I surmise we all have seen someone going
a bit too fast and thought, "where are the police when we need
them!?!" Well these cameras well help enforce the laws. But
on another note we need to be careful about how much the government
gets involved. I use the book "1984" by George Orwell as an
example of what we don't want to transpire! Big Brother is good
in some cases, but too much of a good thing can be bad and leads
to totalitarianism . Cheers! |
| Anon |
Wednesday
9
October, 2002 |
|
| I
have just noticed on your web page about speed cameras, under
essential information - "If you are driving at 40mph and hit
a child, you are likely to kill that child." Most emotive, why
just a child? If anybody gets hit at any speed by a vehicle
and it is going to hurt. But my question is, what are they doing
in the road? In this country 'jay walking' is not an offence.
Perhaps it should be? I see it most days in Dunstable, there
are pedestrian crossings everywhere, but some people will not
walk the extra few yards to one and would rather play in the
traffic. |
| Peter,
Hemel Hempstead |
Wednesday
9
October, 2002 |
|
| The
statistics say that around 4 percent of accidents are directly
caused by speed. But it is so very easy to measure, and with
the law as it is now, an easy source of revenue. Get your car
photographed and you are guilty, you are a criminal, even if
you don't know who was driving (as the deputy chief constable
of Hampshire found out). |
| Neil,
Stevenage |
Saturday
5 October, 2002 |
|
| I
find it strange that fixed cameras have warning signs and have
been painted yellow or a colour that stands out yet mobile one's
are not hi vis and they hide their cars and have been known
to hide themselves behide things and there are no signs or if
there are it says speed camra area (these signs should read
mobile camera area) so surely there is a contradiction in the
law here between fix and mobile cameras. |
| Joanne
Deveau, Caddington, nr Luton |
Wed
18 September, 2002 |
|
| I
think that a mobile speed camera should be set up in the Cresent
Caddington (leading to Five Oaks School). My neice now goes
to this school and walks from home. She has to go along an alleyway
which leads directly onto the Cresent. The parents of children
are the violators of the speed restrictions which infuriates
me. The mother of my neice spoke to someone in the county council
about having a lollipop lady attend this dangerous site and
she was informed that a child would have to be knocked down
before anything could be done. This is outrageous and I wish
someone could help us get a good resolution. As for the parents
who drive their children to school, they need to be caught and
taught a lesson too. |
| john,
dunstable |
Tues
17 September, 2002 |
|
| I
agree with Gerry from MK, in that it is bad road planning which
is far more likely to cause deaths than pure speed alone. Also,
road surfaces vary widely and affect braking incredibly, though
we have no info whilst driving on them. I also feel that many
children (and a surprising number of adults) seem to have absolutely
no concept of road sense as a pedestrian, the emphasis these
days being ALL on the driver. If you look at the location of
many speed cameras, it is nothing to do with anything other
than raising revenue, as the majority do not coincide with accident
blackspots, though there are a lot which do. I'd rather the
money was spent on repeater speed signs and those countdown
to 30mph bands/coloured bars on the road which work a treat
in my opinion. |
| Tom,
Bedford |
Friday
13
September, 2002 |
|
I
realised the other day what it is I object to so much about
speed cameras. Most times when you get accused of breaking the
law, you have a reasonable chance of proving your innocence.
If you are accused of stealing something then you'll be able
to prove, by showing a reciept, that you had actually bought
it. If you get accused of assault then there are usually witnesses
or DNA evidence that can get you off. But with speed cameras
there is no way that you can proove you weren't doing the speed
limit the police claim you were.
If I'm doing 58mph in a 60 zone, all it takes is slightly wrongly
set equipment or a nudge on the accelerator and bang that's
three points on my licence and a fine to boot. And that's why
people always slow down when they see speed cameras - they don't
want to take the risk of being caught even if they are doing
the speed limit. And as most experts will tell you it's often
not just speed that causes traffic accidents, but sudden changes
in speed.
Perhaps what is needed is a tachograph fitted to all cars, or
a LCD display 50 metres after the camera telling you what speed
you recorded, at least it's peace-of-mind that you won't get
a nasty letter through the your letterbox in a couple days. |
| Gerry
Huke, Milton Keynes |
Friday
13
September, 2002 |
|
| I
am not knocking the idea of speed cameras. But one thing puzzles
me. Milton Keynes has no speed cameras and traffic can legally
travel at a much higher average speed than other towns in the
area. Occasionally like all other places accidents do happen,
so is it always speed that kills? It appears to me down to bad
road planning and poor safety installations, such us underground/overhead
passes that are needed if we want to keep injuries and death
to a minimum. |
|
