|
|
 |
Add
your comment
More
comments
| Simon
Rampley, Stevenage |
Saturday
8 February, 2003 |
|
| Why
are there no cameras in 30mph areas in Stevenage,or mobile ones
at least? |
| Tim
Kingham , Bedford |
Friday
7 February, 2003 |
|
| 'Speed
is the major cause of accidents' how about 'speed is the easiest
cause to put down on the report sheet' think about the police
leg work and public money for 'poor road condition',poor lighting','drugs
other than drink','listening to radio''looking at damm fool
map display' etc etc,if speed is such a major cause how come
Germanys unlimited motorways have a lower accident rate than
UK??, |
| Sandra,
Dunstable |
Friday
7 February, 2003 |
|
| The
best money-maker for the authorities is on Luton Road where
the dual carriageway changes from the Luton side of 40mph to
Dunstable side of 30mph...nobody can keep to 30mph on a dual
carriageway, so they must be raking it in with these new mobile
cameras. If the cameras were erected at entrances to schools,
then it would be sensible, but that is rarely the case. Did
anyone watch Jeremy Clarkson last week on his tour of Holland
when they (the inventors of speed cameras) have a website of
recent pics of totally destroyed cameras - they even give the
police a pink painted warning that the camera is "doomed" beforehand!
|
| Jim,
Barton |
Friday
7 February, 2003 |
|
| Speed
doesn't cause accidents but inappropriate use of speed certainly
can be a cause. A camera cannot analyse subjectively. More traffic
police would provide an effective deterrent to erring motorists.
It would also mean that motorists needing further education
could be identified and circumstances could be considered rationally.
A grey box can't do this. |
| Clive,
Northampton |
Friday
7 February, 2003 |
|
| There
is a Speed Camera hidden behind a sign on the A41 at Kingswood,
which is halfway between Bicester & Aylesbury. I thought under
the new rules that either the signs or the camera would have
to be moved. In Nothampton there is a camera in Talevera Way
which is a 60mph road no houses, no pedestrians, no accident
blackspot history, yet there is still a camera. Another trick
they pull is on the A43 at Blisworth, (Bad Blackspot) between
Northampton & Towcester, There is a fixed camera on the approach
to this crossroads (70mph) but what they do is sit on the bridge
about half a mile before the fixed camera with a moblile camera
and get vehicles that are speeding before they slow down for
the fixed camera. |
| Clive,
Northampton |
Friday
7 February, 2003 |
|
| HG,
Northampton. Yes there are signs and also camera signs with
the speed limit displayed. |
| D
J Bavister, Royston |
Thursday
6
February, 2003 |
|
| When
are Police Forces going to be honest with the public? They refer
to these pieces of equipment as "Safety Cameras" when in fact
they do nothing to catch those guilty of such offences as Dangerous
Driving, Driving while Under the Influence of Drink or Drugs,
Driving Without Due Care and Attention, Driving Without Insurance
or MoT, etc. etc. Please, please just be honest and refer to
them as what thewy are - Speed Cameras. Before you ask - No,
I don't have any particular grudge against Speed Cameras. Just
against Police Forces that don't tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth. |
| HG,
Northampton |
Thursday
6
February, 2003 |
|
| Can
any one tell me if there are any warning signs on the A508 Kingsthorpe
Road, Northampton warning the motorist of speed cameras? If
there are no signs and you are photographed speeding, are you
still liable for the speeding fine? |
| Bernie
Mcfarlane, Luton |
Monday
3 February, 2003 |
|
| Education
is what is Required machines will never achieve this by catching
the behavior of a motorist for a fraction of a second |
| John,
Aylesbury |
Monday
3 February, 2003 |
|
| These
camera's like many things are subject to abuse. The urban clearway's
on the main routes into London were "made safe" by reducing
the speed from 70 to 50 and even 40, at the time the money went
to the local authorities and tht was their motive. No one is
going to put the speed back up, yet there are no pedestrians
and the road was designed to do 70. I have no objection to speed
control near schools, sleeping policemen are very effective
for this. Cameras are often cynically placed just after a dual
carriageway, usually it is in the one spot where you can overtake
that slow vehicle. but the speed only drops from 70 to 60. The
current speed limits were introduced in response to the oil
crisis in the 70's. They are not fair and reasonable which is
why most people exceed them. If you are going to enforce speed
limits with camera's then make them appropriate. e.g. 90 on
motorways, where only 7% of accidents occur. The long term solution
has to be to not allow cars to be manuafactured that can exceed
90mph. Better still let's move towards electric cars and remove
the dependency on oil. |
| Mark,
Sandy |
Sunday
2 February, 2003 |
|
| The
speed camera on the A1 at Beeston is there to protect the residents.
The houses are right on the A1 and I do not envy them having
to live there. However, there would appear to be a game played
by drivers on this difficult stretch of road, and that is to
go as fast as possible on the tight bends, then slow sharply
as they go past the speed camera, and then of course to see
who can accellarate away from the camera the quickest. You would
think the authorities might want to stop this happening by putting
in another speed camera, but instead they have put two camera's
further down this stretch of the A1. There are no houses at
this new trap, so I can only assume that they have been placed
there for reasons of revenue. Also this stretch of road seems
to have a regular visitor, a man whose salary is paid by us
to sit in the back of a white van all day and take lovely pictures
of us. Unlike Thorpe park, I havent been given the opportunity
to purchase my photo, perhaps they are missing a trick!! |
| Paula,
Bucks |
Sunday
2 February, 2003 |
|
|
Even though i don't condemn speeding.I was doing 37mph in a
30mph zone in Chalfont-St-Peter on the A413.I think its disgraceful
that in this day and age,it takes 58 days(not including weekends,christmas)to
receive notice of offence.I was informed by Thames Valley Police
that because it was a hired vehicle that there is no limit of
time.I think the law should be changed in this specific field.
|
| radical,
bedford |
Saturday
1 February, 2003 |
|
| That
is the precise point, these things are DANGEROUS DISTRACTIONS
from safe driving. They are also a tax in disguise. There is
no doubt that the assertion that the cameras only cover their
costs is a nonsense. The basis of costing will have been progressively
changed over time so that hidden subsidies are passed into other
parts of the police budget. Given the temptation put in their
way by the rules, if the police and local politicians haven't
done this, then we need smarter public "servants", if that's
the right word! Believe me, an astute accountant can make figures
say whatever you want them to say. I wonder the relevant authorities
would agree to an independent audit of costing methods and apportionments
going back to the inception of cameras to prove their case?
Don't hold your breath. |
| Phil
, Luton |
Friday
31 January, 2003 |
|
| Further
to my comments on speed bumps,this is a quote from the Daily
Express Friday 31st Jan (page 13) "This week, Sigurd Reinton,
the chairman of the London Ambulance Service, confirmed that
speed bumps are responsible for hundreds of deaths a year. For
every life saved throught traffic calming said Mr Reinton, more
are lost because of ambulance delays. Another quote further
on says "........the obession with speed cameras. Once again,
the justification is they save lives but that's also open to
question. Motoring experts as eminent in their field as Mr Reiton
is in his, insist that cameras on dual carriageways and motorways
cause more accidents than they prevent because driver brake
suddenly. Never mind it's a handy source of revenue even if
it is derived from motorists who have brought taxed cars with
tax discs out of taxed incomed and filled them with taxed petrol
and it shows us who's boss. Of that, sadly there is no doubt"
hmmm interesting reading, there'e more, it goes on to talk about
a group called MAD (Motorists Against Detection) who are not
afraid to go outside the law, - they "take out cameras". |
| Tim
, HH |
Friday
31 January, 2003 |
|
| Why
cant we adopt the American way as one comentee says, when school
children are about speed is reduced. In the state of Florida
the yellow bus should not be passed atall. Speed pimples are
the worst offeneders. I drive a small car which does not go
over these atall easily and frequenlty irate van drivers and
especially 4x4 drivers overtake as if nothing was in the road,
and a fat lot of good they are against moterbikes. In reply
to Jo from Herts. When I learnt to drive there were no disc
brakes ABS or any other fancy device in fact heaters were only
just being introduced as standard. The average car struggled
to reach 60mph and one tended to drive in more leaserly manor.
Modern car design has I think a lot to answer for, they may
be safer but they also accelerate and go a lot faster. But have
our reaction times got faster? |
| Chris
Whittington, Shillington |
Friday
31 January, 2003 |
|
| I
heard a minister refer to cameras as 'safety cameras on BBC
this morning. Surely he meant 'Revenue Camera's'? |
| David,
Harlington |
Friday
31 January, 2003 |
|
| My
objection to cameras is mainly with reference to safety. While
many people would question these words I feel that the way in
whixch I was taught to drive, by a profesional driver, a chauffer,
allowed more margin for safety. This driver used to tell me
that the most dangerous part of the road was that which would
be occupied by oncoming traffic. Therefore, providing that your
overtaking manoeuver was carried out in a correct maner if you
exceeded the speed limit for a short duration it enabled a swift
return to your own lane. In fact the poluice in those days used
to exercise judgement. It is really sad the way this country
is developing. In the USA WHILE SCHOOL IS SESSION there is a
mandatory 15mph speed limit outside schools. Outside of this
time the normal speed limit is in force. Why can't we be this
sensible. Or are people right speed cameras are really only
another tax? |
| Radical,
Bedford |
Friday
31 January, 2003 |
|
|
I don't want to hog this, but Helen, the point is we should
be able to use our own judgement within reasonable bounds, not
have a nanny state inflicted on us by a lot of politically correct,
unrepresentative extremists. There are some situations where
30mph (or any other speed limit) is far far too fast - take
the driving conditions today for example - or when the schools
are starting or emptying. But we don't need 24/7/365 electronic
surveillance for that, we need intelligent policing that lets
the majority get on with their lives in a sensible way. By the
way, these cameras are supposed to be self financing. I would
bet my mortgage that the figures used to justify that wouldn't
stand an audit. |
| Scott,
Dunstable |
Friday
31 January, 2003 |
|
|
I got 3 points on my licence for travelling at 49 in a 40 zone
on the A5 just north of Dunstable. I cannot think of one reason
for that camera being there other than revenue generation. It
is not an accident 'blackspot' or residential. Maybe the camera
is there because the council know that people will be speeding
up coming out of the Dunstable hell-zone and it just happens
to be downhill, or am I being too cynical? Put the cameras in
30mph zones and stop the idiots speeding down small residential
streets, not 'A' roads where risks are marginal. And why are
the Bedfordshire police putting mobile camera vans on the A5
into Hockliffe. People are slowing down before the lights anyway,
or are they trying to catch out those that havne't slowed below
the 40mph quick enough for them? Surely the least we can expect
is a justification from those we pay and elect? Somehow I can't
imagine this is why people join the poilce force or is there
a policeman / woman willing to justify their forces behaviour
in criminalising ordinary tax payers. |
| Radical,
Bedford |
Friday
31 January, 2003 |
|
| Let's
start a list of crimes we worry about and see how long it is
before we get to doing 35 mph in a 30 mph limit in good driving
conditions, on a hazard free road (good visibility, few pedestrians,
proper pavements)in a well maintained car in light traffic.
We have: 1) Gang inspired gunfights I'll add: 2) Protecting
children from paedophiles - we've heard this week the police
don't have the resources for this AND tracking child porn on
the internet. I know where they could get a few officers who
are otherwise wasting their time. By the way, who saw the story
on tonight's news about the OAP's who are having to buy their
own CCTV to protect their homes from hooligans? I know where
we could get a few cameras too. |
| Steve
Gilbert, Radlett |
Friday 31 January, 2003 |
|
| I
spent quite a number of years as an instructor of advanced driving.
Tony Blairs' government is constantly out to control us - more
and more. The members of this government are control freaks.
In Canada speed cameras were installed everywhere just as they
have been here in Britain. The Police in Canada met with such
hostility from motorists and public opinion of policing in Canada
that Canada's government was strongly requested by the Police
to destroy all the speed cameras. Apparently Tony Blair was
aware of this at the time he made the decision to have all these
cameras installed. For his government it is a good way of increasing
the crime "clear-up" rate so that he can quote success at the
next election. The truth however, is that his government has
so far failed in all its promises without exception. He is desperate
for some sort of success which he can boast. There are other
ways he is also desperately trying to achieve some success -
the abolition of the "innocent until proved guilty" principle
(which is the backbone of our legal system which has not changed
since William the conquerer) is another example. The destroying
of peoples' cars by customs officers at Dover where people were
prosecuted for bringing beer and cigarettes into Britain, is
an example of what is to come, under this "Big brother" control
freak government. The recent situation of people being invited
to report their "drink-driving" friends for a reward of £500
is worrying. These were the things employed by Stalin in communist
Russia. |
| Jimbo,
Luton |
Friday
31 January, 2003 |
|
|
I like many others I assume have been caught by the mobile unmarked
speed camera hiding on the dual carageway between office world
and park st roundabout.How can this be only 30 mph on a dual
carriageway with no pedestrains they even have the cheek in
supplying you with a bit of paper explaining the reasons why
giving you 3 points on your licence and a £60 fine is justified.By
the way you only find out about this several weeks later when
a letter drops on your doorstep explaining when and where you
have been caught and what speed (which by the way was 40mph)
What is more frustating is since the letter i have driven along
this road many times at under 30 mph and have been passed by
everything including a police car (doing at least 40mph) perhaps
i am unlucky and was in the wrong place at the wrong time but
as a lutonian it make you wonder where it is all going to end.
|
| Helen,
Bedford |
Friday
31 January, 2003 |
|
| Speed
restrictions are for a purpose. Why should we flout them and
risk life and limb of ourselves and other people. If the cameras
serve to remind people to slow down if only to avoid a fine
and points on the licence, then they are a good idea |
| Jack,
Bury |
Thursday
30 January, 2003 |
|
|
I am more concerned about drug gang shootouts, than someone
doing 35 miles an hour, but that would take some real policing
wouldn't it! |
| Radical,
Bedford |
Thursday
30 January, 2003 |
|
|
I spend half my time looking at the speedo, trying to spot cameras
and avoiding idiotic traffic calming obstacles. That makes me
a far less safe driver than I could otherwise be. I don't believe
that 99% of the drivers caught by cameras are driving dangerously
- there is a a hardcore who are dangerous and we all know who
they are - shall I just say Vauxhall Novas, large bore exhuast
pipes and padded rally seatbelts? Most so called road safety
measures are introduced either by the policically correct eco-extremists
or NIMBY householders pressure groups. Has anyone actually seen
a pedestrian near most of the things we are talking about? The
police would be far better off devoting themselves to real crime
and not alienating law abiding, sensible and responsible citizens.
The only places we need traffic calming and speed cameras are
near schools and in the few genuine residential roads which
happen to carry a lot of traffic. It is said speed kills. I'm
sure it does, but very rarely and then only at truly excessive
levels. What kills is aggressive, careless or reckless driving.
Cameras don't catch that, but there is a lot of it about. Find
out your local councillor's attitude to traffic and vote out
the unrepresentative anti-car extremists! |
| Kaye,
Bourne End |
Thursday
30 January, 2003 |
|
| Cameras
are excellent in the right situations but bumps do worry me.
As i drive a car which is quite low to the ground,I'd like to
know who pays for the damage to my exhaust etc. when i go over
those particular high ones. I try to go really slowly to avoid
damaging my car but this usually means i have a convoy of irate
drivers behind me. Another problem is car parks and bumps. Once
again as i have a low car i was quite happy using the multi
storey in High Wycombe, then one day i went in, parked and did
my shopping only to find as i came out some new bumps had been
laid on the slope of the exit. Now firstly it was a nightmare
trying to get out (there is no other way out!) and secondly
WDC have just lost a regular customer! This is a standard car
, not a deliberately lowered one so there must be a lot of people
in my situation...moan moan moan, well it has to be said!! |
| Clarkey,
Luton |
Wednesday
29 January, 2003 |
|
| Why
are people complaining about sudden breaking? Keep well back
from the rear end of the car in front and it poses no danger
to anyone following - whatever the reason for breaking; speed
camera or child! |
| Amy,
Kempston |
Monday
27 January, 2003 |
|
| The
traffic 'calming' methods this country has adopted makes me
far from calm, in fact they make me furious! Speed cameras and
speed bumps are extremely dangerous. people who use the roads
regularly know where they are anyway. It is easy to go as fast
as you like and brake just before you reach them. As we all
know sudden braking is exactly what we need on our roads in
order to prevent tragedy. Genious. In light of the current complaints
by paramedics about speed bumps, I'm sure that those of you
who are in favour of speed bumps would change your minds if
you were going over these bumps in a critical state in an ambulance.
I guess you are willing to die for your cause? |
| Paul,
Aylesbury |
Monday
27 January, 2003 |
|
| Speed
cameras are indeed a problem...let's face it why would you need
one on a country road in the middle of nowhere (A41 near Bicester)..not
only is it unnecessary but it's hidden behind road direction
signs that completely hide it from view. Spending many hours
as a sales consultant driving I see so many people panic, slam
on the brakes to avoid the dreaded flashes, no regard for the
following drivers...I totally agree that they should be in areas
of real danger to children such as schools but it would appear
that the government (local) seems more concerned at revenue
generation from these to boost funds. Why not stop spending
money on housing asylum seekers in hotels, providing them with
all the comforts of home and spend the money on our own homeless
and less fortunate and keep the roads flowing where they can...after
all it's bad enough without big brother waiting to pounce !
|
| Linda,
Dunstable |
Monday
27 January, 2003 |
|
| Well
I'm sure that I was an idiot to get caught Steve from Stevenage,
but this was the first time in all of the 37 years that I have
been driving. I was doing well under 40 mph on both occasions
in a 30mph limit. I really didn't realise and of course I was
in the wrong and have now got 6 points on my licence to prove
it. I still get cross at all the people who charge past me doing
well over the 30mph limit (you know, 40 -50 etc.etc.). Of course
they never seem to get caught anyway. |
| John,
Hemel Hempstead |
Monday
27 January, 2003 |
|
| The
posted speed limit is the maximum allowed on that stretch of
road. You are not forced to drive at it! You will be prosecuted
(that is "done" for illiterates) by the police for driving too
slowly if you are causing a hazard. Stop whinging and learn
to drive properly and safely. |
| Dave,
Maulden |
Saturday
25 January, 2003 |
|
| As
an HGV driver trvelling throughout the UK and western europe
doing 100,000 miles per year, experience has proved to me that
the fixed speed camera causes far more problems than it solves.
In Europe cameras are only used in limited numbers at danger
spots such as schools etc. where the standard of driving is
far better. A lot of drivers are not aware that HGVs are restricted
to 40mph on single carriageway roads and you only have to get
near a Tesco lorry doing 40 to see the frustration this causes
by creating a long tailback resulting in other drivers making
mistakes. Experience has shown me that the vast majority of
motorists exceed the speed limit but drive in a safe manner
although most of them have very little lane sense and do not
appear to know where the indicater switch is, especially at
roundabouts. The Dept. of Transport by its own research shows
that speed is only a contributary factor in 6% of accidents'
(Not the cause). When I am driving I like to constantly look
out of the window and make safe judgements on the conditions
not having to avert my sight to the speedo for fear of being
caught exceeding the speed limit. No, speed is not the main
cause of accidents but the the easy option to appear that the
authorities are doing something to reduce them. |
More
comments
|
