|
|
 |
Add
your comment
More
comments
Latest
comments
| Dave,
St Albans |
Sunday
29 December 2002 |
|
| Speed
cameras at accident black spots are clearly useful deterrents.
But I am totally against the majority of them in my county of
Northants, as they are placed for maximum revenue. What are
we all trying to achieve? If it is to make the roads safer for
everyone, the majority of speed cameras must be having a detrimental
effect. And, if they are as successful as the police claim,
how come the car insurance in not cheaper in Northants and the
3 counties? I have now been caught twice on the blessed things.
Neither time would the average person say I was "speeding",
yet I had to take my punishment and am now half way to a ban.
So I now drive with my eyes watching the speedometer or the
speed limit. And I know I have my eyes off the road much more
than previously and am much more dangerous as a result. I know
that the anti-car lobby will say that I am a dangerous and criminal
driver. But I really am not. After 40 years and nearly one and
a half million of fairly incident free driving, I feel I am
as safe as the next driver. I do hope the police will place
these cameras in places that will deter speed. The new game
seems to be to go as fast as you can up to a camera, bang your
foot on the brake as you pass it, then scream away the other
side. Who does that help? Which pedestrians can feel safer?
|
| Dave,
Luton |
Saturday
28 December 2002 |
|
| Why
put cameras where they will hit normal drivers. The bottom of
Crawley Green Road, they know lorries need to build up speed
to get up steep hills. Hitchin Road just before the open road,
people see the national speed limit sign and increase speed
only to be hit by a camera 100 yards before hand. It's obviously
designed to make money and not to decrease speed. |
| Paul,
Luton |
Saturday
28 December 2002 |
|
Speed
Cameras - The Cons.
1.They don't stop poor drivers speeding, they just slow them
down for 100 metres
2.They don't educate drivers.
3.They penalise experienced drivers with good driving skills
who make small lapses
4.They take drivers attention from the road. 5.They make drivers
drive in a artificial manner, with some accidents being caused
by drivers slowing sharply for them even when BELOW the limit
6.Speed camera detectors are available to those who can afford
them creating a kind of driving subclass (Tony Blair has encouraged
all schools to get computers so they are not IT deprived, perhaps
he should provide every vehicle with a detector)
7.They are put on main roads where higher speeds are acceptable
within reason.
8.They encourage apathy and resentment towards the people who
have to use them, the Police
9.If the government hasn't already got enough money from Road
Tax and fuel pump prices etc, they want MORE!
10.They make generally law abiding people feel like criminals
11.Speed DOES NOT kill, innapropriate use of speed does.
12.They are taking the fun out of driving .
Speed Cameras - The Pros.
1.In some cases they MIGHT have saved a life or two (but encouraging
training would save more) 2.I've joined The Association Of British
Drivers ( www.abd.org.uk ) because of them
3.Some small campaign groups like them |
| Lee
Jones, Aylesbury |
Saturday
28 December 2002 |
|
| I
do agree that speeding needs to be stopped. Everyone does it
at some time or another and with todays powerful cars with increased
occupant protection, its easy to get carried away. However,
I don't agree that speed cameras are the answer and neither
are speed bumps. People will always speed because they can.
Technology, could be the answer combined with education of the
motorist. Cars could be equipped with a speed limiter that automatically
reduces the cars speed to that of the permissible speed limit
when entering a controlled zone in a manner that does not cause
problems for other motorists. The car would pick up a signal
from a road sensor that sets a limiter until another limiter
in another zone increases it. The limiter should be tamper proof
and prevent the vehicle exceeding the limit whilst not restricting
acceleration up to the permissible limit. Education of the motorist
is also important. If you are shown some very nasty pictures
of accidents caused by speeding this in many cases would be
a bigger deterrent than a fine. Couple this with advanced driving
tuition and it would greatly improve the driver, the single
biggest controlling factor in the speed kills equation. Advertising
is also to blame. Motor manufactures market cars as fast, macho
driving machines, with 0-60 acceleration times and top speeds
figuring highly in advertising. It sells cars and nets the government
a nice slice of revenue in terms of tax to boot. With big powerful
companies influencing the finances of government, its little
wonder there is no insensitive to really tackle to root cause
of the problem! Does anyone agree? |
| steve,
luton |
Monday
23
December, 2002 |
|
| speed
cameras are a good idea if kept in builtup areas and controled
by police not private companys.as this the same with wheel clampers
will become a money spinner rather than a safty issue.also a
fine is hard enuogh but not to add pionts as well, |
| John,
Wisbech |
Monday
23
December, 2002 |
|
|
When are we going to have true justice for the citizen protecion
against robbery mugging and murder and not wasting police time
on speed cameras? |
| Andy
North, MK |
Monday
23 December, 2002 |
|
| As
you can see from the official police statistics copied from
thier own website. Despite being only able to clear up 20% of
REPORTED crime leaving approximately 14900 unsolved crimes.
The powers that be still seem to think that the best use of
resources is to target the motorist.... Is it any wonder that
middle england is sick to the back teeth with this deliberate
money making scheme.. It doesn't take a genius to work out why
the public have no support for the police force A total of 187,987
offences were recorded in Thames Valley, 3,890 less than in
the previous 12 months. Of those 88% were property offences
(e.g. burglaries; car crime) with 10% being violent crimes (e.g.
fights outside pubs; sexual offences; robberies). The biggest
reduction was in the theft of vehicles which dropped from 14,492
to 11,479 - a fall of almost 21% |
| Stewart
Anderson, Letchworth |
Sunday
22 December 2002 |
|
| I
am in favour of using any technology to make the roads safer,
and I wonder why we never hear any proposals to introduce the
system I have seen used to great effect in parts of Europe (Spain
and I think France at least). Any vehicle coming towards an
area where the speed limit is reduced, such as approaching a
town or village or other hazard,will cause traffic lights to
switch to red if his vehicle is travelling above the speed limit!
It works well once drivers are used to it, although I confess
it was only after cursing many times at the lights always turning
red when I approached that the penny eventually dropped for
me and I realised that my speed was causing the problem!! |
| Earl,
Sandy |
Friday
20
December, 2002 |
|
| I
think speed cameras are fine when used in the right places like
danger black spots, schools and small villages etc., but we
all know of speed cameras going up on clear straight roads with
no hazards for miles. We're aware that speed limits are there
for a reason and should be adhered to, but most drivers attention
is required looking at what's happening beyond the windscreen
not within the dash board. A neighbour of mine has recently
been nicked for doing 32 MPH in a 30 limit! That kind of punishment
will force all drivers to stare at their speedos more and draw
their attention away from the road, thus potentially causing
more incidents (albeit within the speed limit), and surely that's
not what we want. Bad driving needs to be addressed, and speed
cameras will not always catch bad drivers, police will. There's
no substitute for good old fashioned (sensible) policing. |
| John,
Letchworth |
Friday
20
December, 2002 |
|
| A
few of the correspondence equate a reduction in speed with an
increase in safety. This is a fallacy, speed cameras do reduce
speed, speed cameras do raise revenue, speed cameras KILL !!
Statistical Evidence Proves it, since the increase in speed
cameras on a per county basis death have also increased on the
per county basis. This has actually reversed the long term drop
in fatalities which was being achieved . |
| Peter
Oram, Australia |
Friday
20
December, 2002 |
|
| In
Australia we have the same debates all the time on speed cameras.
If a camera saves one life they become very valuable. People
here use two way radios to warn other motorist of speed camera.
Would they do the same thing if they saw a murder take place.
In my opinion put the every where and make the fines at least
a 1000 pounds for the minimum offence and have them on an increasing
rate as the speed goes up. |
| John,
Bristol |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
| One
fact i think most people dont seem to understand is that the
speed limits were set many many years ago when cars were slower
at accelerating and stopping. My car does 100 - 0 in less distance
than the highway code states from 50 - 0 . So when are the limits
going to be adjusted accordingly? |
| Matthew,
London |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
| Speed
cameras are purely revenue based devices, there is no evidence
whatsoever that state they cut down on accidents, unfortunately
it isn't speed that kills (as said in all the adverts) . Its
the misuse of spped that kills, and one camera sitting on a
road is not going to stop a person speeding except on that 100
metres where the camera is placed |
| Jules,
Northampton |
Wednesday
18
December, 2002 |
|
| Re-educate
the pedestrian! If they bothered to cross the road correctly
there would be far less accidents, fatal or otherwise. Legally
a car can drive past a school at 30mph, but would you? Children
who can't wait to get out of school & get home as quickly as
possible, the last thing on their mind is "STOP, LOOK & LISTEN".
Put those adverts back on tv. Put some of the onus back onto
the pedestrian, make them take responsibility for themselves
and their actions. |
| Katie,
Milton Keynes |
Tuesday
17
December, 2002 |
|
| I
am only 15,in the past 3 weeks i have seen 4 fatal accidents
in MK,speed cameras are a good idea and at least something is
being done but i dont think more cameras is the solution, something
more drastic needs to be done. |
| John
Swindon, Wickford |
Thursday
12
December, 2002 |
|
| Unfortunately
there is more evidence suggesting that accident figures have
nothing to do with the placement of speed cameras, than there
is evidence supporting the Governments assertions. GPRS enabled
technology is readily available which could be fitted to cars
to physically prevent them speeding, automatically limiting
the car to the prevailing speed limit. A simple bit of legislation
pushed through by the government would see that all new cars
sold could never speed in the UK. The obvious reason that this
has not been pursued is that it is not in the Governments interest
... Are they really concerned about saving lives or raising
revenue ? |
| sabrina,
luton |
Monday
9
December, 2002 |
|
| Speed
cameras these days are stupid. they are supposed to catch motorists
exceeding the speed limit right? so why make them clearly visible
like some places have? as soon as you see one, you slow down
so this is defeating the whole point. they shouldnt be seen
at all. I can guarantee that more people will be caught. |
| Maurice,
Bedford |
Monday
9
December 2002 |
|
| I
am basically in agreement with speed cameras as long as they
are used to control speed at dangerous spots. I live in Wilstead,
very near the A6, and am very aware of the number of accidents
and the resultant injury and loss of life that has occurred
along this stretch of road. The new cameras that have been installed
near my home will certainly have some effect in slowing most
vehicles, but as they are forward facing they cannot catch the
worst offenders, namely motorcyclists who, particularly during
the summer months, scream past at speeds well in excess of the
limit. Their number plates are on the back of their machines
and thus cannot be seen by the cameras. I am not a 'Bike Basher'
but feel that they should be subject to the same controls as
other road users. |
| John,
Letchworth |
Friday
6
December, 2002 |
|
|
If the government would admit speed cameras are revenue raising
device, a sort of voluntary road toll (say £30 & no points)
this would be accepted, reluctantly, by drivers. However the
government claims these are just safety devices and refuse to
accept the statistical evidence that they do not work. |
| John,
Wembley |
Thurs
5 December, 2002 |
|
| Why
should speed cameras only be for "safety"? What's wrong with
using them to rake in some revenue?I say put them up all over
the place, hide them, don't tell people they're there. if motorists
CHOOSE to break the law by speeding, then they pay up. Simple.
Excellent. What's the problem with that? If they improve road
safety that's a bonus. |
| Mo,
Watford |
Tuesday
3
December, 2002 |
|
| There
are a lot of countries that have less speed cameras and the
accidents rate is much lower than the uk's, it's ok for them
to drive fast! |
| Ernie,
Bedford |
Tuesday
3
December, 2002 |
|
|
1) A camera is listed for the new Clapham Bypass. As there are
no stats for this unused road to show that it is an accident
area. What logic can they advance for installing one at it's
opening? 2) How many officers are allocated to mobile cameras,
and if instead they were reassigned to beat duty, how many attacks
could they save happening to the general public. |
More
comments
Latest
comments
|
