|
|
 |
Add
your comment
More
comments
Latest
comments
| Tony,
Luton |
Friday
24
January, 2003 |
|
| I
would like a hidden camera installed soon after the visible
one to catch the drivers who slow for the camera and then imediately
speed-up above the limit. |
| Naheem,
High Wycombe |
Friday
24
January, 2003 |
|
|
the speed camera on london road covers three lanes and it flashes
at 37mph that is more than unfair we should at least do about
40mph and then get flashed. all the cars under 1990 should be
dumped and the prices for the new cars should drop down and
people buy new cars. when you come from another town you don't
know what is the speed limit and it should be 40mph. |
| Simon
H, Bedford |
Friday
24 January, 2003 |
|
| Interesting
stuff in this forum. Half of you despise cameras as money spinners,
the other half believe that they're good - some say speed doesn't
kill. If more money/time was spent on driver training perhaps
we wouldn't have the conflict of opinion. I join the Institute
of Advanced motorists, passed and now am more than 50% LESS
likely to have any accident at all. For less than £70 it was
the best money I ever spent......BUT - if I have an accident
- I'm out of the IAM and the cheaper motoring I have stops.
Makes you think eh! How many people have had NO more training
since they passed their test originally? And how long ago was
it? |
| John,
Letchworth |
Thursday
23
January, 2003 |
|
| Does
anyone know if speed cameras are programmed to detect the size
(and by implication the class) of the vehicle? On a normal single
carriageways national speed limit 60 mph for cars, but only
40 for HGVs, 70 & 55 on dual carriageways. I suspect HGVs can
drive at up to 50% over the limit without fear of automatic
speed cameras Can anyone confirm or correct this. |
| Phil
, Luton |
Wednesday
22
January, 2003 |
|
| Yes
its me again! I know this is about speed cameras, but what about
them speed humps, why oh why do they make them so that you have
to slow down to 5-7 mph to ride them without knocking Granny's
teeth out???(!). The hump should really conform to some British
Standard in such a way that the hump is ridden smoothly and
safetly at say....20 mph. And while I am on this subject, how
does an ambulance carrying a critically ill patient is supposed
to get to a hospital quickly over speed humps???? |
| Trevor
Sayer, Aylesbury |
Wednesday
22
January, 2003 |
|
| I
agree totally with Phil of Luton re. why are mobile speed cameras
being put on the bit of dual carriageway between Office World
roundabout and the end of Park ST - I was done for doing 38mph
in a 30 on this stretch before Xmas - yet this a elevated dual
carriageway with only one access road and no likelhood of any
pedestrians crossing, cars coming out in front of you, etc -
yet it is 30mph! But the Bicester Rd as it goes out of Aylesbury
is dual track each way, but goes over roundabouts, has houses
& businesses fronting onto it and is much more busy than the
road in Luton due to the fact that there is a large Tescos &
retail park further along it - yet this is 40mph limit; could
someone explain the logic of this to me? |
| Graham,
Cambridge |
Wednesday
22
January, 2003 |
|
| I
think speed camera are very dangerous, having an external agent
moderating your speed prevents that all important concentration
on the driving. Additionally the number of camera's in 70, 60,
40 and 30 zones means that quite often when travelling in strange
places I'll go down to 28 if I'm not sure what the limit is.
How about posting a big number on the camera - information that
the driver might need perhaps. Getting caught is a lottery,
I know slow old people who have been done for 37mph on big sweeping
roads and tearaway teens who have never been caught. Perhaps
a policeman using his brain instead of a scalar measurement
might be better for safety, because currently sliding past a
speed camera sideways at 28mph is not an offence, but driving
safely by at 37mph is. Perhaps road layout and education would
help road safety, but it wouldn't generate anough cash for this
money grabbing greedy government who takes more and more while
giving less and less in order to smash up foreign countries.
Safety implies a decent fire-service - so no one is going to
convince me that this government is interested in safety, it's
only interest is in money, power and conquest. |
| John
Pacey, luton |
Wednesday
22
January, 2003 |
|
| drive
within the correct speed limits, presto no tickets.although
i know of 3 "speed cameras" in luton that have been forgotten
about and are not painted in a bright colour.there the dummy
ones anyway. |
| Mike,
Stevenage |
Wednesday
22 January, 2003 |
|
| Yes,
I would be happy to travel at 60mph on the main roads (A507,
A600), but then there is the dawdler who sits at 40-45mph, and
causes the long tailback. Find the chance to overtake, accelerate
to past as quickly as possible (per the Highway Code), and get
done for going too fast.... Did the slow person get done for
causing "an obstruction to other road users", or "driving without
due care and consideration". Answers on a post card... The limit
is arbitrary, and the test should be what is a safe speed for
the conditions. Road engineering actually dictates the speed
limits: 60 on the Henlow bypass is very comfortable. On the
Barton-Hitchin road 60 is excessive. Do not forget, most roads
were built a long time ago, and when I passed my test in 1976
the National speed limits on a main road were 70mph. This was
reduced to 50mph for fuel economy reasons, then increased to
60. The 60 is purely an expedient compromise measure, and should
be treated as such. Instead, it is managed as an absolute dictate,
for the convenience of the administration of the country. |
| Phil,
Luton |
Wednesday
22 January, 2003 |
|
| Why
the hell are the police putting a mobile speed camera between
the Office World roundabout and the lower roundabout at the
end of the dual carriageway? There are no pedestrians and the
road is elevated.I am all for putting cameras in accident prone
spots..but here??? |
| David,
Cambridge |
Wednesday
22 January, 2003 |
|
|
I agree with Martin, Kempston. When you return from the Continent
at Dover it's like a third world Country. We ARE overcrowded
- our NHS, Road, trains and Cities cannot cope and there is
NO solution. Roads are dangerous places and speend cameras are
a lazy way around the problem. One idea which they have in Germany,
on the motorway is where the motorway is 2 lanes only then lorries
and anything with trailers are not allowed to overtake. On our
roads slow lorries pull out and hold up cars, making the drivers
irate etc. But then it's this God forsaken damn Country and
weak Government. |
| Mike
Melbourne, Bedford |
Tuesday
21 January, 2003 |
|
| Cameras
will cause drivers to drive within the speed limit,however they
will not catch people who are over drink the limit. |
| Steve,
Stevenage |
Tuesday
21 January, 2003 |
|
| Linda
- if, as you state, you have been stupid enough to get caught
speeding twice in two days on the same camera, surely you must
be one of the idiots you refer to!!!! |
| Rob,
Harpenden |
Tuesday
21 January, 2003 |
|
| Why
hide speed cameras? So drivers can slow down for a few yards
and then speed up? Pointless. Need a reminder not to speed?
Look at the speed limit signs. So what if they are there just
to raise revenue? No speeding=no revenue=removal of the cameras.
It's as simple as that. |
| Linda,
Dunstable |
Tuesday
21 January, 2003 |
|
| Having
got caught twice in two days on the same camera, doing very
little over the limit - I have to say that I am now over cautious.
I spend most of my driving time with other drivers right on
my bumper as I try to stay with the speed limit. I also find
that I am forever glancing down at my speedometer to ensure
that I don't go over the limit. I feel that I am probably more
of a danger driving like this, but I really don't want any more
points on my licence. I also get really cross when I see people
flying off ahead of me.... doing at least 30mph over the limit.
It's because of these idiots that we have speed cameras in the
first place. |
| Tony,
Stotfold |
Tuesday
21 January, 2003 |
|
|
Why Oh Why is there a Speed camera controling a 30 speed limit
on the new bridge in Arlesey. This is pure proof that speed
cameras are there to get cash from us. (No I haven't been caught
but how sad.) |
| Andy,
Hemel Hempstead |
Sunday
19 January, 2003 |
|
| Speed
cameras should be SEEN not hidden behind signs as they are on
the St.Albans road in Hemel Hempstead.They should be there as
a VISABLE reminder to keep to the speed limits not used as a
money making machine for the local authorities.By hiding cameras
this can also cause a traffic hazzard as people brake heavily
and suddenly when seeing them, usually when the road is clear
and you are already within the speed limit so not anticipating
such actions.I agree you should drive within the limits on the
roads but most cameras are not in the best areas eg. BLACKSPOTS
I just wish the use of the cameras was for the purpose of reducing
accidents and not, as in many cases, to trap drivers and raise
revenue. |
| Paul,
Luton |
Sunday
19 January, 2003 |
|
| Well,
I have read with great interest the preceeding articles, some
for, some against and I would like to add my views. First off
I would just like to mention that my licence is clean. Camera's
were originally for accident black spots which is fair enough,
but, as already mentiones, there are cameras appearing in stupid
places which are without doubt there to make money, there can
be no doubt about it. OK, cameras in residential areas are fine,
but more people are killed through bad driving than speeding.
Modern cars stop a lot quicker, but yet the speed limits were
set years ago. If camera continue to appear has anyone actually
thought of the impact on the motor industry? Why bother with
a BMW M3 or an MR2 and forget a Porche or Ferrari! I am not
for one minute suggesting that you drive at 150+ but please
make speed limits more sensible. How about after 11pm and before
5am on the motorways making the limit 100mph. I would still
be able to stop much quicker than a car from the 60's when these
limits were set! Also set a minimum speed of 60mph. Those whom
want to drive slower should not use the motorways, maybe these
would ease congestion! Finally, soon road tolls will be introduced
on motorways, on top of our road tax, congestion charges, hiked
up insurance, high fuel costs, all on bad roads! Hey, but thats
another debate? Get a motorcycle - no front no. plate - less
chance of being caught on cam! |
| Cheryl,
Luton |
Sunday
19 January, 2003 |
|
| Speed
camara's are not all that good as all of them don't flash when
someone speeds |
| Ian
Beet, Birmingham |
Saturday
18 January, 2003 |
|
| Any
decent driver should be able to judge their speed without staring
at the speedo. Plus most speed cameras aren't set to the exact
speed limit it is usually 10% + 3mph, ie 36mph in a 30. |
| Chad
Bond, West Drayton |
Friday
17 January, 2003 |
|
| I
think that speed cameras are sometimes set up in totally the
wrong places. i understand if they are in built up places ie.towns
and villages. dont understand why they have them on dual carriage
ways in the country side. where the risk to public is lower.it
seems to me that if they are trying to slow traffic, why dont
they just build more speed humps? its just another way for the
goverment to make more revenue. |
| Michael
Smith, Harpenden |
Friday
17 January, 2003 |
|
|
I notice with interest that there are no cameras in Harpenden.
No need the traffic is at a stand still from morning to night.
Who needs cameras?? Maybe we would qualify for a camera if the
council stopped thinking about St. Albans and started building
a ring road around us. We would welcome the chance to get a
speeding ticket. |
| Bridget,
Iver |
Friday
17 January, 2003 |
|
|
Keith this is not about manpower or how many pc's are doing
what. They are out tackling issues like what we are debating
about. You speed you're stupid, you slow down you're sensible,
what is so hard in that? I sat in an Inquest today and you would
not believe what these investigators can do, so just accept
they are there and remember we put them there. |
| Keith,
Newport Pagnell |
Wednesday
15 January, 2003 |
|
| I
would rather be free to concentrate on looking out for road
hazards than speed cameras. Has anyone noticed the amount of
roads that have their speed limits reduced to far too slow speeds
when a camera appears, and the notices on lampposts from the
police boasting about how many speed tickets they have issued
get right up my nose, What I want to know is how many burglars
or car thieves have they caught? None I expect because if your
car is broken into, all they will do is give you a crime number.
|
| Jamie
Connors, MK |
Wednesday
15 January, 2003 |
|
| A
couple of points I'd like to mention after reading all of the
enties in this section. Speed cameras will catch those who are
breaking the law ... is this a bad thing?? Only those who break
the law should be complaining ... even then, do they have a
right to complain? Second point ... can someone driving on a
road suddenly brake and cause an accident?? I think not....
it's the driver behind the braking car that has caused the accident,
as they were driving too close to the car in front - true or
not? At 30mph you should leave a gap of at least 5 car lengths
thus leaving room for safe and smooth braking in case of situations
involving slowing cars. Even a bus can manage this kind of distance
to come to a complete stop, therefore a car should be able to
stop with ease. It's not the cars fault in any of the matters
disscussed in this issue. The drive is/should be in complete
control of the car and therefore should be held responsible
for their actions, not the car! nor the speed camera!! |
More
comments
Latest
comments
|
