AOL Speed Camera Poll

  pj123 13:57 06 Feb 05
Locked

AOL are doing a poll. "Do you resent speed cameras?" The only options you have are "Yes" or "No".

I find that very difficult to answer. I could say no but having just been "camera'ed" myself I should say yes. I think somewhere along the line there should be some discretion or leeway. I have a friend who was caught on camera doing 33mph in a 30mph zone, but it was 2am in the morning and there was no other traffic or pedestrians anywhere around. I think discretion should have come into this. That makes me think that cameras ARE there to make money.

My own case, I had been behind a vehicle travelling at 30mph (in a 40mph zone) for 4 miles. I couldn't get past because of traffic coming towards me. I knew that up ahead was a small (half mile) section of dual carriageway. When I hit the dual carriageway (suffering from frustration) I put my foot down and moved into the offside lane only to see a mobile camera van in a layby. I was doing 45mph to get past this vehicle. Obviously, I am not going to argue because they won't listen. So I now have a £60 fine and 3 points on my licence. I passed my test in 1961 and have never had any endorsements.

  JonnyTub 14:40 06 Feb 05

I don't resent them because they are there for our own safety, what i really resent is the profiteering. 20 million quid at the last count and that's pure profit from the taxpayers pockets, if as you suggest discretion is used i bet that figure would come down to about 7 or 8 million. click here

  pj123 15:32 06 Feb 05

JonnyTub, yes just read that in my paper as well.

Although I said 4 miles at 40mph 1 mile of this distance was still at 60mph and the vehicle in front was still only doing 30mph. Maybe he/she had been caught before and has now decided to do 30mph wherever they go. That only creates more accidents as the vehicles behind get piled up and more and more frustation sets in. I think there should be minimum speed limits set as well. eg. in a 60mph zone the minimum should be 50mph. In a 70mph the minimum should 60mph.

  JonnyTub 15:46 06 Feb 05

The problem with static gatso's is local people know where they are and therefore know when to slow down. I live on the north east coast and whenever i head into newcastle via a very busy dual carriageway, there's a 2 mile stretch of road with 4 camera's on and a 40mph limit. Now the local's know exactly where these camera's are and slow down for each camera, but speed back up after, so totally inaffective to those in the know. As for those who don't know???

As i said i've no problem with them other than as you've mentioned, no discretion applied be it 1 mph or 100mph over the limit. I just disagree with the fixed penalty of £60 and 3 penalty points, because the paying out doesn't stop there, your insurance is likely to be hiked up also.

I've heard the gatso's referred to as a "stealth tax" i can't disagree with that at all.

  JonnyTub 15:50 06 Feb 05

ahem.. to get this back on track and 'pc related' i would answer no to aol's online poll

  pj123 15:58 06 Feb 05

JonnyTub, I agree with you and have actually answered NO to the poll, even though I am one of their victims.

Ticked now.

  david.h 16:39 06 Feb 05

speed camera's minimum setting to trigger a photo is eleven percent of the speed limit there the slower the speed limit the easier to get caught a margin of only 3mph in 30 mph.

favorite spots are road works and behind overhead bridges on the m25 where there a speed reductions.

we all speed to a small degree from time to time
so it is easy to get caught so you only have yourself to blame if you drive to fast.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 16:56 06 Feb 05

Less than 4% of all road deaths are caused by 'inappropriate speed'...this does not mean speeding 100%. It is heartening to see that Plod is tackling the other 96% of deaths with the same amount of gusto. It is equally heartening to see Plod really going for the youths who cause much aggro by breaking into cars, houses etc...but then again they have no money to pay the fines so there will be nothing raised.....it is hard not to be cynical. Also, if one more member of the constabulary tries to inform me that Traffic Plod and Beat Plod are 'totally different and nothing to do with us, Sir', I will be locked up for GBH on an officer.

G

G

  bremner 17:18 06 Feb 05

ROSPA states click here

"Driving too fast for the conditions causes, or contributes to, one third of road crashes.

There are 72,000 speed-related road accidents each year on Britain’s roads, in which around 1,100 people are killed and 12,600 are seriously injured..

Approximately two-thirds of all crashes in which people are killed or injured happen on roads with a speed limit of 30 mph or less. At 35 mph a driver is twice as likely to kill someone as they are at 30 mph.

Hit by a car at 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrians will be killed
Hit by a car at 30 mph, about half of pedestrians will live.
Hit by a car at 20 mph, only 1 out of 10 pedestrian will be killed.

Anyone speeding in a residential area gets what they deserve.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 18:06 06 Feb 05

click here I think I would rather believe the government than somewhat biased ROSPoA. 'speed-related'..does not mean speeding.

G

  bremner 20:23 06 Feb 05

Interesting unbiased website the link takes us to.

Unfortunately the link to the 2002 government figures does not seem to work.

This however is taken from the same government website:

Speeding is not just inconsiderate driving - it contributes to the 36,000 serious injuries and 3,400 deaths that occur on Britain's roads each year.

Read this report from that same government site. In particularl the summary and recommendations in Chapter 3 click here

Speed related means driving at a speed inappropriate to the conditions. You do not have to exceed the speed limit to be speeding.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Nintendo Switch review: Hands on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Here's what should be coming to Adobe Project Felix in 2017

Apple AirPods review: Apple's beautiful new Bluetooth headphones bring true intelligence to…