Speed Cameras

[Dave1987]

Speed Cameras. Councils have just got hold of some new extremely expensive ones (£20k per camera) that they claim can catch people speeding even more effectively than before. Now as someone who has never been caught speeding and I have a completely clean driving license I am doubtful as to the "safety" claims with these cameras as at the end of the day if they never caught anyone speeding they would cost huge amounts to operate with no revenue to pay for it. IMO councils see speed cameras as a revenue source and the safety reasons are just an excuse. At the end of the day if they didn't want to catch people speeding and they were about safety why not just have the points systems and a three strikes and you are banned? Or is all that revenue just too good to miss out on?

Discuss...............

 

[ainsworth74]

I thought that the police were responsible for cameras not councils?

 

[Kite159]

Isn't the revenue from speed cameras passed directly to central government rather than being kept by the local police force?

So the local police don't benefit from catching speeders (who are not as bad as those who drive too slowly, i.e. 30 mph in a 50 zone)

(Or has that changed again?)

 

[ExRes]

So the local police don't benefit from catching speeders (who are not as bad as those who drive too slowly, i.e. 30 mph in a 50 zone)

I don't quite see where you're coming from, are you saying it's safer to drive at 50mph in a 30 mph residential area than at 30 mph on a 50mph carriageway ?

 

[Kite159]

I don't quite see where you're coming from, are you saying it's safer to drive at 50mph in a 30 mph residential area than at 30 mph on a 50mph carriageway ?

I worded that wrong, but someone driving at 30 mph on a 50/60 mph road is more dangerous as it makes drivers behind take risks to overtake (especially as it sometimes make Mr or Mrs slow to suddenly find that pedal to speed them up to devil speed until the chance to overtake is gone)

Speeding in a residential area is a lot worst through, and should have a harsher punishment than 3 points & £100 fine.

Speeding on a dual carriageway/motorway (say doing 80 and keeping up with the general flow of traffic) isn't as bad (less random pedestrians flowing around)

 

[deltic]

Speed Cameras. Councils have just got hold of some new extremely expensive ones (£20k per camera) that they claim can catch people speeding even more effectively than before. Now as someone who has never been caught speeding and I have a completely clean driving license I am doubtful as to the "safety" claims with these cameras as at the end of the day if they never caught anyone speeding they would cost huge amounts to operate with no revenue to pay for it. IMO councils see speed cameras as a revenue source and the safety reasons are just an excuse. At the end of the day if they didn't want to catch people speeding and they were about safety why not just have the points systems and a three strikes and you are banned? Or is all that revenue just too good to miss out on?

Discuss...............

Dont you get points as well as a fine when caught by a speed camera? I would prefer far greater use of average speed cameras rather the present single point cameras. They manage traffic flow far better and no cause the constant breaking/acceleration single cameras cause

 

[90019]

I would prefer far greater use of average speed cameras rather the present single point cameras. They manage traffic flow far better and no cause the constant breaking/acceleration single cameras cause

No, instead you get people terrified of going slightly over the speed limit who drive along staring at their speedo rather than watching the road.

 

[miami]

I got caught at 60 on the average camera on one side of the m60 near Stockport. On the speed awareness course it seemed geared to reducing speed in residential areas. That's good, but as someone who sticks in 3rd gear and thus tends to hover around 25 it all seemed rather obvious.

People speeding in residential areas, or through active roadworks (I.e with someone Working on the carriageway within 200 yards) should have the book thrown at them. Those doing 80 on the motorway are not in the same area.


As for slow people, not a problem as long as they pull over if a queue forms behind them. The exception is those going below 56 on the motorway, needlessly putting 13 tonnes of metal into the middle lane.

 

[Busaholic]

The money from speeding fines used to go to so-called Road Safety Partnerships, who were responsible for introducing and maintaining fixed speed cameras ( 'Gatsos') but in 2007 the Labour Govt changed that to the money going directly to the Treasury, who were meant to hand it all back to councils in the form of Road Safety Grants. Come 2010, and the Coalition Govt, they decide they'd rather keep their hands on much of the loot and so reduced the amount going to councils by about sixty per cent! Not sure what the current position is, but probably much as in 2010.

 

[Amberley54]

No, instead you get people terrified of going slightly over the speed limit who drive along staring at their speedo rather than watching the road.

Not met many of those drivers in my travels yet.

People sometimes forget that a 30 mph MAXIMUM speed limit is just that, not the speed you must drive along that stretch of road.

By the way I have been caught by GATSOs on two occasions over the years, and opted to attend a safer driving course - never had a point or accident since. So safety cameras certainly worked for me.

 

[Dave1987]

The point is though that if they are about safety and not revenue then why not have a three strikes rule in a certain period and you banned. Can't stand it when they start saying that they are introducing cameras for safety when they love all that lovely revenue they get off them. At the end of the day if no one was ever caught speeding they would lose massive amounts of money on them. I'm sure they actually like the fact that some people speed and all the money they get in from them doing so. Is it any wonder people see them as piggy banks?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not met many of those drivers in my travels yet.

People sometimes forget that a 30 mph MAXIMUM speed limit is just that, not the speed you must drive along that stretch of road.

By the way I have been caught by GATSOs on two occasions over the years, and opted to attend a safer driving course - never had a point or accident since. So safety cameras certainly worked for me.

I've been doing 70 mph down a dual carriageway once and came up on someone crawling along. The closing speed was very dramatic, fortunately the outside lane was empty so could get round them otherwise I would have had to break harshly. Driving slowly on a trunk road can be as dangerous as excessive speed.

 

[GB]

The point is though that if they are about safety and not revenue then why not have a three strikes rule in a certain period and you banned.

Maybe not three strikes but essentially, isn't that what we have now with the points system?

I've been doing 70 mph down a dual carriageway once and came up on someone crawling along at 50 mph. The closing speed was very dramatic, fortunately the outside lane was empty so could get round them otherwise I would have had to break harshly. Driving slowly on a trunk road can be as dangerous as excessive speed.

Closing speed very dramatic? Sounds like you weren't paying enough attention to the road in front of you.

 

[miami]

4 strikes and you're out (well 5 including the speed awareness course) although particularly high speed may reduce the number of strikes.

If 20mph is very dramatic I wonder what speed young Dave does in residential areas? 10mph perhaps?

Fortunately he didn't happen upon a horse going down the road, as a closing speed of 45mph may have given him a heart attack!

 

[PaxVobiscum]

I've been doing 70 mph down a dual carriageway once and came up on someone crawling along at 50 mph. The closing speed was very dramatic, fortunately the outside lane was empty so could get round them otherwise I would have had to break harshly. Driving slowly on a trunk road can be as dangerous as excessive speed.

Perhaps there's a typo somewhere there?
The closing speed would be 20 mph. You should really be driving so that you can cope with stationary obstacles, not just vehicles moving more slowly in the same direction. Reads a bit to me that you were driving on the assumption that the road ahead was clear further than you could actually see. I hope not, but perhaps I misunderstood the post.

 

[90019]

Not met many of those drivers in my travels.

I have, many times over the past few years.
I usually encounter them every few weeks when travelling through the average speed cameras on the A1.

I've been doing 70 mph down a dual carriageway once and came up on someone crawling along at 50 mph. The closing speed was very dramatic, fortunately the outside lane was empty so could get round them otherwise I would have had to break harshly.

If you'd been paying attention to the road and forward planning, that wouldn't have happened.

 

[AM9]

I worded that wrong, but someone driving at 30 mph on a 50/60 mph road is more dangerous ....

'more dangerous' than who?

... as it makes drivers behind take risks to overtake (especially as it sometimes make Mr or Mrs slow to suddenly find that pedal to speed them up to devil speed until the chance to overtake is gone)

'makes drivers behind take risks'? Aren't they in control of their car or their actions? If the answer to either of those no, then they shouldn't be driving.

Speeding in a residential area is a lot worst through, and should have a harsher punishment than 3 points & £100 fine.

Speeding on a dual carriageway/motorway (say doing 80 and keeping up with the general flow of traffic) isn't as bad (less random pedestrians flowing around)

I do agree with those two statements but more because there is an expectation by other road users that vehicles will be keeping generally within the 30mph, especially pedestrians. If you hit one of those, it might make a mess of the front of the car but chances are that at 30mph, the other party won't be going anywhere (ever again).
On a motorway, all users are in vehicles so have a similar stake in their own safety as the others that they may involve in an incident.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

... I'm sure they actually like the fact that some people speed and all the money they get in from them doing so. Is it any wonder people see them as piggy banks?

Yes it's a 'pr*tt' tax. Every driver knows what speed limits are* yet they still take the risk of getting caught. Then when they do get caught there is an indignation that the setup is just a cash generator, forgetting that they willingly provide the fuel.

* Excepting the situation where the speed limit signage is not in accordance with legal requirement which if contributory to the transgression, usually results in withdrawl of the penalty. The fact that a camera is not visible or painted the wrong colour is of course nothing to do with why the driver is breaking the speed limit but the politics of driving prosecutions seem to have made this 'unfair' on the poor law breaking driver.

 

[Kite159]

Picture a single carriageway road, speed limit of 60 mph, and you have a slow car driver doing 30 mph regardless of the building queue behind, people in that queue will lose patience with doing 30 and will attempt to overtake. On seeing someone trying to overtake him (or her), they will put their foot hard down on the accelerator to try and block the overtaker from an easy overtake by exposing the overtaker to 'risk' for a longer period of time. Or at periods where it would be safe to overtake, they accelerate hard to prevent overtakers before slamming on the brakes to go back to 30 when it is no-longer safe (oncoming traffic, corners, hills etc).

The risk being on the other side of the carriageway (which at this point will be straight, flat, and well lit to highlight no oncoming vehicles).

 

[miami]

Picture a single carriageway road, speed limit of 60 mph, and you have a slow car driver doing 30 mph regardless of the building queue behind, people in that queue will lose patience with doing 30 and will attempt to overtake.

If it's safe, that's fine. Although I do find it frustrating, not the one at the front doing 30, but the 5 behind that all refuse to overtake. Annoying != unsafe though, if the overtaking move is unsafe that's entirely the driver doing the overtaking's fault.

On seeing someone trying to overtake him (or her), they will put their foot hard down on the accelerator to try and block the overtaker from an easy overtake by exposing the overtaker to 'risk' for a longer period of time.

That's a crime -- driving without due care and attention, careless driving, dangerous driving. Not sure. But from the highway code which tends to underly these more subjective charges.

Rule 168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.

So I'd assume dangeorus driving. Not that the roads are policed anymore.

Or at periods where it would be safe to overtake, they accelerate hard to prevent overtakers before slamming on the brakes to go back to 30 when it is no-longer safe (oncoming traffic, corners, hills etc).

The risk being on the other side of the carriageway (which at this point will be straight, flat, and well lit to highlight no oncoming vehicles).

A dangerous driver going slowly and then speeding up is more dangerous than one doing 65 in a 60. A driver going slowly and obeying the highway code however is not dangerous.

 

[Chrism20]

I have, many times over the past few years.
I usually encounter them every few weeks when travelling through the average speed cameras on the A1.

The A1 roadworks seem to be particularly bad for that IMO.

I got myself one of those TomTom live sat-navs and it tells you your average speed between the A/S cameras and also beeps like mad if you breach it. Best piece of kit i've bought for the car in years.

 

[AM9]

Picture a single carriageway road, speed limit of 60 mph, and you have a slow car driver doing 30 mph regardless of the building queue behind, people in that queue will lose patience with doing 30 and will attempt to overtake. On seeing someone trying to overtake him (or her), they will put their foot hard down on the accelerator to try and block the overtaker from an easy overtake by exposing the overtaker to 'risk' for a longer period of time. Or at periods where it would be safe to overtake, they accelerate hard to prevent overtakers before slamming on the brakes to go back to 30 when it is no-longer safe (oncoming traffic, corners, hills etc).

The risk being on the other side of the carriageway (which at this point will be straight, flat, and well lit to highlight no oncoming vehicles).

If we are talking about Speed Cameras, as per the thread title, then all this above is just a strawman interjection.

 

[Dave1987]

Perhaps there's a typo somewhere there?
The closing speed would be 20 mph. You should really be driving so that you can cope with stationary obstacles, not just vehicles moving more slowly in the same direction. Reads a bit to me that you were driving on the assumption that the road ahead was clear further than you could actually see. I hope not, but perhaps I misunderstood the post.

Well two points, firstly 50 is a guesstimate it was probably slower than than, certainly the closing speed was very dramatic, secondly you do not know the circumstances so the rest of your post is a bit presumptuous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes it's a 'pr*tt' tax. Every driver knows what speed limits are* yet they still take the risk of getting caught. Then when they do get caught there is an indignation that the setup is just a cash generator, forgetting that they willingly provide the fuel.

* Excepting the situation where the speed limit signage is not in accordance with legal requirement which if contributory to the transgression, usually results in withdrawl of the penalty. The fact that a camera is not visible or painted the wrong colour is of course nothing to do with why the driver is breaking the speed limit but the politics of driving prosecutions seem to have made this 'unfair' on the poor law breaking driver.

Yes so why won't the powers that be honest and say they actually love all that revenue that comes in then? On the news the woman explaining about these new cameras was at pains to say it was about safety and not money even though she admitted they did get a lot of revenue from speed cameras. Hmmmm

 

[ralphchadkirk]

A vast number of drivers considerably over-estimate their ability, and struggle to drive safely at 30mph, let alone higher speeds.

 

[AM9]

Yes so why won't the powers that be honest and say they actually love all that revenue that comes in then? On the news the woman explaining about these new cameras was at pains to say it was about safety and not money even though she admitted they did get a lot of revenue from speed cameras. Hmmmm

Why should they? It doesn't matter what they are called, the bad drivers keep ignoring the clear signs that indicate the legal speed limit, and continue to pay the price that sensible drivers benefit from in the form of increased public funds. Eventually those drivers either get banned because they reach 12 penalty points or they decide that the law also applies to them as well as everybody else and they drive more sensibly.

 

[miami]

I really fail to see the issue. I've been driving for 15 years and only once was I unobservant enough to be caught on a speed camera.

The maximum "tax" that they can raise is about £100 a year, otherwise you're banned

If you get caught in a 30 (where most people who get caught are), and you were so blind that you couldn't see a large dayglo box at the side of the road, what would you have done if it was a small child who suddenly ran in front of you? Complain about the scuffed paintwork?


P.S if you're ever near an accident, check if the injured person is breathing. If they aren't, they are dead. The ambulance will not arrive in time, make them breathe, just tilt their head back should do the trick in most cases. My last first aid refresher had the tutor tell us a very sad tale when he was acting as a paramedic about a girl who had been knocked over by a car. Well meaning passerbys said "don't touch her". The ambulance arrived 5 minutes later and she was unable to be revived, chocked on her own tounge. Anyone there could have simply tilted her head back slightly and saved her life, but they didn't do the basic airway breathing circulation. She didn't need mouth to mouth, just needed you to check there was no danger, check her breathing, and make her breathe.

Such a sad tale

 

[90019]

secondly you do not know the circumstances so the rest of your post is a bit presumptuous.

There's no need to know.
In the circulstances you describe, if you're driving to the conditions and paying attention to what is going on around you, a situation like that wouldn't arise in the first place.

 

[Dave1987]

There's no need to know.
In the circulstances you describe, if you're driving to the conditions and paying attention to what is going on around you, a situation like that wouldn't arise in the first place.

Right so someone accelating off a slip road to 70 mph to join the carriageway on a short slip road that they know they need to get their toe down who then realises the car on the carriageway is only doing 40-50 mph so have to brake sharply isn't paying attention? That's not what happened in my case but a perfect example. You do need to know the circumstances before presuming someone isn't paying attention!

 

[miami]

Right so someone accelating off a slip road to 70 mph to join the carriageway on a short slip road that they know they need to get their toe down who then realises the car on the carriageway is only doing 40-50 mph so have to brake sharply isn't paying attention? That's not what happened in my case but a perfect example. You do need to know the circumstances before presuming someone isn't paying attention!

In that case you'd merge ahead of the slow 40-50mph car.

What would you do it it was a lorry running at 55mph? What if there was a holdup and the traffic was stopped?

What would you do if there was a broken down car on the sliproad?

 

[90019]

Right so someone accelating off a slip road to 70 mph to join the carriageway on a short slip road that they know they need to get their toe down who then realises the car on the carriageway is only doing 40-50 mph so have to brake sharply isn't paying attention?

If they didn't notice the other car going much slower when it was visible to them, then yes, they weren't paying enough attention.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Right so someone accelating off a slip road to 70 mph to join the carriageway on a short slip road that they know they need to get their toe down who then realises the car on the carriageway is only doing 40-50 mph so have to brake sharply isn't paying attention?

Yes. They should be looking at the traffic on the main carriageway before accelerating up to 70mph. If they can't see the traffic on the main carriageway then they shouldn't be accelerating up to 70mph.

If you don't like paying the moron tax then luckily it can be achieved easily by simply not speeding in the first place.

It could be a Viz Top Tip. DRIVERS. AVOID paying speeding fines by SIMPLY obeying the speed limit.

 

[Dave1987]

If they didn't notice the other car going much slower when it was visible to them, then yes, they weren't paying enough attention.

On the slip roads I am thinking of you have a split second to react to a car crawling along in the inside lane. Hardly "not paying attention".