Why are people against CCTV and speed cameras on the roads?

[benb]

Have you not been reading any of this thread? Its ^^ thataway.

Oh, I thought that one was where there was a tight bend or something. Can you please link it again, as I can't find the post now.

 

[benb]

Remind me again, where I said this?

Here:

Yes an un-moveable, non negotiable, non discretionary lee way. Which is rubbish. Really rubbish. More rubbish than a very rubbish thing. Which is very rubbish indeed.

 

[subaqua]

Same thing innit?

And arent they monitored by Average Speed Cameras* these days?


* Now theres a thing of wonder.

some sections are covered by average sped cameras. the M25 by Heathrow does have gantry cameras though. sadly they are the film type not the digital type so are not really much use.

 

[benb]

Thats not even an anagram of "all speed cameras are crap"...

Your gonna have to do better than that Benny boy.

Well obviously I was paraphrasing.

 

[benb]

Oh, BTW, it's nice to have a debate where, although strong views are being expressed, we're all being (relatively) civil - and no sign of trolls!

 

[benb]

FTFY

Haha, thanks!

 

[benb]

Smeggers, I'm struggling to understand exactly what your argument is.

There was a clearly posted speed limit, which you exceeded. If you don't agree with the limit, then lobby to have it changed.

 

[MontyVeda]

blimey... 5 pages in 12 hours!

 

[subaqua]

there was a revenue generator at the bottom of the M11. then the start of the lower limit got moved to where it should be ( just before the merge from 3 lanes to 2, instead of 200 yds before the camera on the 2 lane section) and the revenue generator isn't as good at taxing idiots who cant read anymore.

 

[Linford]

blimey... 5 pages in 12 hours!

It is a speeding thread

 

[Linford]

I don't think Ben B is making that point. He seems to me to be suggesting that by imposing a speed limit for a section of carriageway, the authoities are implying that any vehicle exceeding that speed without any legal reason to do so is driving at a speed beyond that which is considered safe for the road in question.

One might conclude that the driver is therefore taking risks above and beyond those considered acceptable under law or (by implication) driving in a way which is not safe.

The offence of Dangerous Driving is another kettle of fish altogether and not, I think, what BenB is referring to.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the authorities in a democratic society should introduce a system whereby vehicles passing a given point at greater than a legally imposed and clearly posted speed limit should be subject to a fine and/or further punishment.

In the 'good old days' I benefitted from several 'Gypsy's warnings' from well-meaning traffic officers and then went off to do the same silly thing again. How much fairer to have a system that simply results in my being reported for the offence of speeding every time I trigger a device.

Have you been caught by a static cam, and have you broken the speed limit since that time ?

 

[Boris Bajic]

Have you been caught by a static cam, and have you broken the speed limit since that time ?

Good question. Yes, but I exceeded the limit far less after a fine and points than after a 'talking to'.

In the days of the quiet word from a copper (in my 20s and a courier), I dismissed the advice as soon as I was round the corner. The throttle was generally at or near the stop wherever possible. I saw speeding almost as a duty or a sacred calling.

In the days of the static cam that brooks no BS from motorists, my driving was significantly calmer for a good few weeks (months?) after each 3-pointer. On the occasion of a 6-pointer (richly deserved) I slowed down for many, many months. Sometimes my insurance was affected (quite rightly) and this has an effect on behaviour too. So yes, my behaviour was modified much more by static cameras than by traffic officers.

Now I speed much less. I took the option of a course for the cost of a fine a couple of years ago and it did wonders for my ability to stay within the law.

 

[Boris Bajic]

A heart warming tale. Imagine how much more could be achieved with more average speed cameras then?

I know nothing of the effectiveness of average-speed camera systems. However, I am strongly in favour of the wide use of the type of roadside camera that caught me many times.

The tale wasn't meant to be heartwarming, but I'm glad it touched a human heart.

 

[atbman]

As far as I can tell, the safe speed judgement argument goes roughly like this (points are, I believe, awarded for the driver's level of ability):

1. I'm a good driver and can judge what speed is safe even if it's higher than the limit (3 points)
2. I'm a very good driver and am able to exceed the speed limit safely by a sizeable margin because of that (6 points)
3. I'm so good, I can go 50% faster than the speed limit in perfect safety (9 points)
4. I'm an absolutely brilliant driver who can do 80 in a built-up area and 140 on the motorway (12 points). This means that banning me for 12 months has actually increased the relative danger on the roads because they've taken such a brilliantly safe driver off it

I read somewhere that about half of all drivers done for speeding have had an insurance claim accident in the preceding 6 months

 

[Rahul Sapariya]

11 Pages in a day...personal best for a forum I made :

Anyway, for me the law is the law. There is no point in trying to think it is safe to drive over the speed limit of a road because it seems logical. I think this way because there are gonna be bad drivers who try to drive faster and they fail at it by not being safe. Then, as you grow older, your reaction times don't work as well as they used to. I see so many drivers who still don't keep to the 2 second rule, and too often have I seen cars who nearly crash into the car ahead of them because they don't keep a safe stopping distance away from the car ahead of you. Plus, you sometimes get people who have done driving lessons in a different country and then they come over to here and just do a few lessons and pass. Driving cars has to be well regulated and watched because it isn't a stroll in the park, this is a 2 ton machine that can kill.

When I talk about CCTV and speedcameras, I mean where speedcameras catch your speed but also when CCTV catches a stupid car driver...how I just want the police to stop him/her and tell them what they did wrong. People complain about the fines but for me, I just keep thinking 'next time could be much worse'.

I hate average speed cameras myself because it does stop speeding but it can also aggrevate fellow drivers. The main aim of speedcameras and CCTV is to save lives and to reduce bad car driving, not to annoy car drivers...there would be some over-lap but it'd be worth it in my opinion.

I read somewhere that AA or some other car insurance company were thinking of introducing this black box that is fitted in your car. With that, what could happen is that if the black box thinks you are driving like a moron or speeding and that sort of thing, the company would post a letter to your house about the situation. Also, if you are a good car driver, then you get benefits such as cheaper car insurance and such. I think this would be a good idea. I'd love for it to be a compulsory thing in all cars.