Best comments: Are you for or against speed cameras?

Claptrap!!!

I completely agree with Pickle. except that driving instruction per se does not make good drivers. There are far too many bad drivers – usually those that don’t read the speed signs that are on all major roads close to the speed cameras.- They tend to ignore their driving instructions after a few weeks after their test.

‘pickle’ has it right; better driver training. The air is a very much safer place in which to travel than roads – no one has yet ever crashed with the sky!, but pilot training is very much more disciplined and extensive than that for student car drivers. I recall my youngest daughter learning to drive and on returning home from a driving lesson with a local school, she told us how her instructor had told her that he thought that he ‘could soon get you (her) through’. I told her that I was not happy for her ‘to get through’: I wanted her to be so thoroughly profficient that she would stay unhurt and alive. I took over her tuition and persevered until I knew she would be a safe and confident driver. From the point where she was talking of ‘getting through’ to when she passed the test was, for her, a rather disagreeably long few months! She’s enjoyed a safe, accident-free Twenty years or so now.
Message! – Get rid of all the ‘Safety’ nonsense, including cameras and start making people aware of the value of their own self-preservation by thorough, disciplined driving tuition.
But of course, if we all drive so safely – not necessarily slowly, REVENUE will diminish and that says it all?

Cameras DO NOT “criminalise” motorists. It is a motoring offence, NOT a criminal offence. But I have little doubt that you know that anyway. And what constitutes a “simple mistake”? And how do YOU know that they are “often in non hazardous places”?

Cameras are set to trigger at 10%+2mph above the given limit – ie 35mph in thirty limits, 46mph in forty limits and so on – and the average speed of people caught speeding in 30mph limits, for example, is 39mph (source: Roadsafe), and 85% of people caught were driving at 37mph or more (source: ACPO).

As for “non hazardous places”, just about all cameras in use today are only there because there were four (or more) fatal or serious injury crashes in the three-year period prior to the installation of the camera, because THEY were the criteria set by the DfT (as of since the commencement of the Safety Camera Partnership programme back in 2002).

And what do you mean that: “Cameras are the only solution on offer”? Would you mind elaborating?

As for cameras being ugly, have you written to your local Partnership to ask them if they can beautify them? Or hows about we hide and conceal them all……….

And when you say: “Gone are the joys of the open road”, what do you mean exactly?

And ditto: “Police should set an example at ALL times”.

Shot down in flames…well, maybe it will teach me a lesson or two. I bow to your superior knowledge on information from ACPO and Roadsafe. However, I’m not the only one to believe that some cameras – not all – are there with an eye to the revenue they produce. Of course I can’t give you chapter and verse and this is debatable. So, yes, you are correct to shout at me for making this generalisation. I don’t totally withdraw it. Nor the idea that individual authorities can set their own flash points and it is not a good idea to rely on any formulae to avoid being caught. I keep to the limit.

Like most humble mortals I get my motoring wrong now and then. I try and drive sensibly and carefully, but inevitably there have been times when the car has gone faster than I wanted it to. I correct this. Do I slam on the brakes when I am surprised by a thirty limit round the bend? No, I let the car slow down naturally and then keep to the limit. Usually, I’m there abouts before hand anyway. A simple mistake can, of course be serious, but I was drawing a distinction between those who deliberately set out to ignore the rules and those who transgress by accident. Again, perhaps you were right to critisize this generalisation.
As far as I know, no one has produced any deterrent alternative, since speed cameras were introduced. Speed bumps, chicanes etc reduce speed, but there hasn’t been any attempt to improve devices that produce penalty points on the licence. To enlarge on my generalisation, I should say, Speed cameras are the only solution on offer, so until something better comes along, that’s what we have to put up with. They are undoubtedly ugly – made of angle iron and protruding onto the road. I remember when they and their accompanying signs hit the streets. They made an unpleasant addition to the road side. They emphasize the nature of their job, as prison bars emphasize the nature of jail. I have no suggestions about improving them, but that doesn’t stop them being an eyesore. Perhaps that’s what the designer had in mind.

What else? I enjoyed motoring when I was younger. I still enjoy driving, but think twice about going out just for fun. Apart from the cost, motoring and public transport are now a means to an end. Perhaps you are too young to have enjoyed honing skills on a twisty road whose speed limit was that of the car and common sense.

I have two examples of police coming past me at higher speeds. On one occasion I joined them in the same cafe ten minutes later, the other, the biker passed me. I speeded up, he speeded up and I let him go. He was filling his tank at the garage when I passed him. There have been others, but none with any reliable proof. As I have said elsewhere, the police have a job to do, but they have no business to drive faster just because they can.
I hope you will appreciate, that this space is set aside for ideas and conversation. It’s a chance for ordinary mortals to think out loud. I’ve enjoyed doing that, but thanks for the challenges, they’ll make me think a bit harder before I write, and that’s no bad thing.

How can cameras be there to raise revenue? Are motorists FORCED to speed. As for the trigger speed I mentioned before – ie the 10%+2mph threshold – I can assure you it is universal. It is the guideline recommended by ACPO when the Safety Camera Partnership programme first started back in 2000/2001 (prior to that, the trigger speed was set at between 10 to 20mph above the posted limit). The point is that ACPO – being pragmatic and realistic – realised of course that motorists could, and would, slip over the limit now and again, and THAT of course is the reason why they made an allowance for that happening.

Don’t believe what you read in your daily newspaper (most of them have an anti-camera agenda), as they have deliberately misled their millions of readers that numerous motorists are being ‘criminalised’ and ‘persecuted’ for ‘slipping’ or ‘drifting’ a ‘couple’ or a ‘few’ mph over the limit. They do it – and get away with it – because they know that 99.99999 of their readers are not aware of the trigger speed threshold.

@Allan 33

You ask “How can cameras be there to raise revenue?”, perhaps you’d care to travel southbound on the A32 heading towards Corhampton in Hampshire.

There is a point at which the road enters a 30 limit as it bends to the right. There is a layby just around the bend where a Police speed camera van *loves* to sit because it has a perfect view of the exact point where that 30 limit sign is, but which is out of sight of traffic *until* it crosses that line.

Consequently, if you pass that 30 limit sign but haven’t slowed to exactly 30 mph *BINGO* they’ve got you.

Now if they wished to promote road safety that van could be sited in a position where it *would* be visible before you get to the limit sign, but it isn’t, which leads to the inexorable conclusion that it’s simply there to make money.

I disagree about variable limits. I have just visited the Borders region of Scotland where many of the small towns and villages have motorway style 300 yard warnings of the change down to 30, and my favourite a variable 20 limit past the local school complete with very visible signage and a system of flashing lights. Everyone seemed to obey this system. The trade off was far less street signage and clutter elsewhere and most seemed to be intelligently laid out.
Disappointed there is only two options in this survey, so I voted ‘Against’ but I think cameras do have a role to play in certain places.

“blue flashing lights and sirens to ensure motorists get out of the way”

The police do not have a mandate to drive beyond the given speed limits. They too can be prosecuted for speeding. Other drivers may ‘give way’, though they should avoid obstructing any police vehicle (or any other!) but they are not obliged to stop or ‘give way’.
Unlike an ambulance on an emergency call, how often will any police vehicle be more effective ‘at the scene’ by saving a few seconds? If the police behave inappropriately then it’s hardly surprising that some drivers feel they can drive in a similar fashion. The police should be a gold standard, one we should all to aspire to.

It is obvious that my experience of the police has been far more rewarding than others on this topic of driving – I have never been treated with anything less than politeness and fairly. But then I don’t break speed limits.

I drive daily but can’t remember ever being overtaken by a silent police car that is speeding.

The whole point is that many admit they don’t know what the speed limit is – and – don’t obey it anyway – because “they know better”. Which is why I want Speed Cameras to remain.

If Speed Limits are variable – then those motorists have even greater excuses NOT to obey – remember they don’t obey the fixed ones anyway.

I completely agree with the idea that “Good driving is about a lot more than just speed” but many state they “don’t notice cameras” which implies they are bad drivers. .

What do you mean when you say: “We are getting to the point where drivers are no longer required to think”? And what is this “driver education” you refer to? Will it stop the three or four boy-racers who live in the next street down from us from belting around everywhere they go endangering peoples’ lives? And if so, when is THAT likely to happen?

What nonsense to quote information from an unknown source as though it was gospel and suggest that because you are calling him a highway engineer we are obliged to believe it. As if a reduction from 30+ to 30 would produce a significant reduction in road repairs. The areas of country road you suggest are wrongly restricted to 30 are possibly narrow, have houses along them in some places, are used by cyclists or horses or people walking their dogs. They may even be used by motorists who don’t want to be forced into a hedge by some fool in a hurry to get somewhere five minutes before he otherwise would do so.
We have all seen drivers who cause you to wonder how they passed a test in the first place, what difference if they took one ten years later or every year for that matter. People with bad judgement or an irresponsible attitude in charge of a machine that can accelerate with the mere brush of a foot on the throttle will easily pass tests but it will not give them understanding, no more than quoting an unknown `highways engineer’ will give us knowledge.

I hate to point out but you have highlighted BAD drivers of BOTH types –

The first who brake because they are going too fast –

the second those that have no idea what speed the ARE going and brake anyway.

The whole point is to drive at or below the indicated speed limit at all times for the safety of society.

GOOD drivers are aware of the speed they are going at all times .

Driving is not just concentrating ON the traffic – OR ON looking at the speedo. as some posters seem to think……..IT’S BOTH.
.

Just out of interest I recently did a survey of dozens of family and friends – those that drive that is – and not one of them had ever seen a ” near accident”, as you put it, and yet YOU have seen “quite a lot”. Can you tell me the location of the cameras you are referring to, or is it a case of you driving quite far afield and you just happen to be thereabouts when these near- misses happen? Over the past few years I have spent many hours at various camera sites observing what happens, and I have never-ever seen a “near accident” – ie someone suddenly slamming on their brakes and the driver behind them nearly going into the back of them.

For such near-misses to happen implies a number of things: 1) In one scenario it implies that the two drivers involved were not familiar with the camera site in the first place AND that they both missed the warning sign AND that they were both speeding AND that the driver behind was travelling much too close; 2) And in the second scenario it implies that the first driver was unfamiliar with the camera site AND missed the warning sign AND was not keeping half-an-eye on his or her speed (it only takes literally half-a-second to glance at the speedo occasionally), AND that the driver behind was driving too close.

And you blame all THAT on the CAMERAS?!!

Anyway, IF such problems ARE occurring, then the obvious solution is to hide/conceal the cameras. Would be much more effective anyway to do that, because if the speeders never knew when or where they were likely to get caught, they would be much more likely to drive within the limits most of the time.

As for average speed cameras, they in effect do what concealing ordinary speed cameras would do, and if the Stocksbridge Bypass is anything to go buy, then thousands of fatal and serious injury collisions could be prevented every year. The Stocksbridge Bypass – which is about seven miles in length – was built in 1988, and in the first fourteen years there were 25 fatalities. But at the end of 2002 average speed cameras were installed, and in the eight years since then there has only been one fatality – a drink/drive motorcyclist. And I believe the speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph, but I’m not sure if that happened at the time the cameras were installed or some time later.

In what sense are speed cameras oppressive? They are there to deter speeders, so how can THAT be “bolting the [stable] door after the event”? And WHAT damage “may well have been done” by the time the ticket arrives? And I would suggest that it is THEY – the speeders – that are doing the oppressing (the main reason given by people for not cycling, for example, is their fear of death or serious injury from fast moving traffic).

As for ‘rewarding’ considerate drivers with an 80mph limit on motorways; I regard myself as a considerate driver and I would like to see the limit on motorways reduced to 60mph, and at the very least, the present 70mph limit more strictly enforced.

You ask the question (which is in fact a statement): “Why are ridiculous 20mph limits put on roads when at 4.am their is no physical way for anybody let alone children to be there……..?” What an absurd question! So what about 8.00am and 10.45am and 12.06pm and 4.23pm and…………….. And how about people going to or returning from work at 4.00am – ie in the early hours of the morning – or people returning from a party or a night out clubbing, who are of course likely to have had a few drinks and, as such, not be as alert to the dangers of traffic as they otherwise might be. WHAT a totally ridiculous statement!

The reality is that many collisions happen as a consequence of something unexpected happening, and the faster someone is driving when the unexpected DOES happen, the more likely it is that a collision will occur, and the faster someone is driving the more likely it is that the injuries sustained will be fatal or serious in the event of a collision. If everyone drove cautiously and considerately and carefully, then not only would there be any need for this “rapid extra training” you speak of, but the number of fatal and serious injury collisions – and particularly the more serious of the serious injury collisions – would be reduced significantly, by up to 65 or 70% or more.

Around 32% of driver/motorbike rider fatalities happen in single vehicle crashes, and whilst some of them are due to the driver falling asleep, the vast majority of them happened because the driver was driving too fast, and THAT is precisely the reason why they lost control of their vehicle. In such cases – and many others – BETTER would have meant SLOWER.

You, no doubt, have your anti-camera agenda, but in a recent survey by the Institute of Advanced motorists, 70% said they supported the use of speed cameras, and THAT is despite years and years of propaganda lies and disinformation by much of the national daily press and abhorrent groups such as the ironically-named Safe Speed and the pompous-sounding Association of Barm….., I mean British Drivers. As for Jeremy – 3,600 road deaths a year is “a cause for massive celebration” (Sunday Times 26.03.06) – Clarkson………..

See results of IAM survey here:

http://www.iam.org.uk/latest_news/driversconflictedovercameras.html

In the past five years, the number of road deaths has fallen from 3,201 in 2005 to 2,222 in 2009, and whilst it is hardly a cause for celebration, let’s hope that the number of road deaths continues to fall sharply, and the numbers of families every year who are left devastated by the loss of a loved one in such circumstances becomes a rarity in the not too distant future.

Correction: In my response above I said that “Around 32% of driver/motorbike rider fatalities happen in single vehicle crashes”. What I SHOULD have said is: Around 32% of ************************ ************** fatalities happen in single vehicle crashes.

Re Correction: For some bizarre reason certain words in my Correction were blanked out. All I am trying to say re the 32% I mentioned, is that THAT of course includes passengers killed as well as drivers.

As I said towards the end of my response to ‘Gerry’ above, the anti-camera propagandists have been disseminating lies and disinformation about cameras – and in relation to cameras – for many years now. There are many of them, all concocted and designed to lead Joe Public to believe that cameras are ineffective and/or just there to raise revenue.

One of the lies oft repeated by them is that road deaths have not decreased since cameras were first introduced. Here’s a recent example from Richard Littlejohn in his column in the Daily Mail:

‘In two of the four years after the first camera was installed in Britain in 1992, the casualty rate actually went up. Since then, it has remained fairly constant.’ DM 28.07.10

Littlejohn and the DM editors know that 99.999% of their readers have no knowledge whatsoever about the number of road deaths that occur each year and, as such, they know they can disseminate such lies with impunity, and this lie, like many others, is concocted and designed to lead their several million readers to believe that cameras have not reduced the numbers of people being killed on the roads, and so therefore must be ineffective. And if that’s the case, then why are they still being used unless it’s to raise revenue. Since 2003, when the speed camera programme really took off, road deaths have fallen from 3,508 to 2,222 last year. And Littlejohn earns big bucks to lie and mislead and manipulate the readers of the DM who, in effect, pay his wages.

We then get to another of the Big Lies disseminated by the anti-camera fraternity – ie that most cameras are NOT situated at accident blackspots, so therefore they must be there for the purpose of raising revenue. Yet again, those that spread this lie around repeatedly and as far and wide as they can, KNOW that the vast majority of people DON’T KNOW that 99% of cameras in operation are only there in the first place because the location – ie the stretch of road – met with the DfT criteria/requirements, and THEY are that four fatal or serious injury collisions happened at that location in the three years prior to the installation of the camera.

‘Bob’ says – like numerous Toms, ***** and Harrys on numerous forums and comments pages – that: “Many [speed cameras] have been placed on roads with no record of accidents.” Well, whenever you come across someone making such a claim, just respond by asking them how they happen to know that these roads they are referring to don’t have any record of accidents. I’ve done exactly just that on dozens and dozens of occasions over the past five or six years and, guess what, the person that said it is never heard from again! So BOB, are you going to be the first? I doubt it somehow.

I have had a license since learning to drive in the Army in 1955 and have had a car most years since then from an Austin 7 to my present Mondeo 2.2. I suppose during those years I have averaged about 12,000 miles a year, not professional driving but careful `family aboard’ driving. This experience has brought me in touch with many many professional drivers, in this country and on the continent. Not literally in touch but near misses, overtaking, undertaking, pushing past me on narrow roads or forcing me over to allow their huge bulk right of way. In recent years it is the smaller lorries and the Transit type vans with their high top speeds and rapid acceleration that has become a problem. I have had them behind me on 50mph roads trying to make me move over before I am able to or go faster when I don’t want to. They are all professional drivers with a job to do and places to go before they can go home to their families but so what, why shouldn’t they stick to the speed limit the same as I have to?

This correspondent, a professional driver, says he`GENERALLY OBSERVES SPEED LIMITS WHERE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE’, so we have to assume that where in his judgement he considers the speed limit appropriate we are safe in our own observance of the speed limit and at all other times we should move over or go faster to accomodate his need for more speed.

This is why the opinion of other drivers, professional or not, cannot be allowed to pursue a situation based on their own agenda, professional driver, travelling salesman, boy racer or general inconsiderate fool with a car that goes faster than his/her brain operates at should have no say in the matter.
Cameras are necessary and should remain and increase in number.

@Bob and Frank Davis:

Being paid to do a job that involves driving, be it taxi, delivery or whatever does *NOT* make someone a “professional driver”! In fact it can often mean that that person is a *worse* driver because they have inculcated bad habits (aggressive driving, risky overtaking, lack of consideration for other road users etc).

Cameras are not going to do anything to prevent that sort of behaviour, however, only traffic police using the Mark One Eyeball can spot and stop it.

But just about ALL cameras ARE at accident blackspots. A camera can only be installed at a site that meets with DfT criteria – ie that four (or more) fatal or serious injury crashes happened at the location in the previous three years. The point is that they CAN’T be “useless elsewhere” because they are just about ALL at accident blackspots. So if the cameras which are situated at accident blackspots are “very effective”, as YOU say they ARE, then there’s no problem presumably because just about all of them ARE.

So what you are saying is make all 30mph limits 45, all 40mph limits 55 and all 70mph limits 100. What nonsense, leave the speed limits as they are, introduce more 20mph limits in urban areas, especially around schools and playgrounds and increase the number of cameras on all other roads.
Who are these little old ladies who drive so recklessly at 36mph and keep getting caught, who’s paying their fines and buying their fuel to allow them to continue.

It is significant to the less than 1% who didn’t have an accident. It was probably not insignificant to the hundreds of motorists well being who drove along a road that was under some sort of outside control however insignificant that might be to people who study statistics and claim them as the be all and end all.

Have to say – when we only had mobile speed traps – motorists did NOT slow down unless they saw the speed trap – they simply knew that the chances of being caught was far lower because there were far far fewer police manning the mobile traps – they were really rare. That was why there were accidents in certain places – the police *never* had the resources to man the number of mobile traps needed properly. That’s why the static speed cameras were installed in the first place. .

Since the highly visible fixed speed cameras were installed the motorist knows that if they pass the camera at above the limit – they get caught – Fantastic deterrent!

They also reduce accidents – ask RoSPA who keep the records..

I completely agree – I was a mad motorcyclist in the 50s and 60s (no limits then on the ‘open road’).

The problem is and has been the lack of money to employ the numbers of policemen needed to stand guard day and night on our roads in the hopes of catching passing offending motorists. It is the same reason for so many of our superb CCTV units (which are also very effective). Remember the huge increase in traffic since the 50s requiring MORE regulation rather than less.

What speed cameras do is catch motorists that speed – they are and were not installed to catch – mobile phone users – drunks or Druggies. just speeding motorists – and whatever posters say they do that well – even though many posters want to excuse or ignore their own “mistakes” AKA breaking the Law.

However In fact speed cameras can also help to catch motorists that drive without – driving licences – MOT – and insurance.

Now if someone could come up with a detector that could detect alcohol. drugs, and manual mobile phone use at say 50 metres – I would agitate for them to be installed too – Note not instead of – too.

In the meantime – we have to leave non speed offences detection to the human bobby – but speedsters ARE caught with speed cameras. There should be more of them.

The trouble is that the numbers in the traffic branch are insufficient to monitor the roads – there were never enough BEFORE the advent of Speed Cameras (A major reason for them being installed in the first place) it will be worse afterwards. With the planned cuts in police numbers there will be a huge number of unmonitored roads to save money – far more than before. I predict an increase in accidents. .

The speed cameras act as something like “sleeping policemen” AKA speed bumps. – they take the place of policemen – So although it may be true that some motorists illegally speed up again – Their overall speed is down – and crucially they slow down at the accident black-spots which has shown to SAVE lives..

You have to be caught for the deterrent to work – a few policemen won’t – speed cameras catch people – which is why so many people complain about them. Wonderful deterrent – visible speed cameras.

Sorry you broke the law – you exceeded the speed limit by your own admission – you should know the speed of the road you are on – So the speed camera did exactly what it was designed to do – catch drivers that exceed the speed limit.

They are not indiscriminate – They catch speeding motorists. They caught you.

If they were indiscriminate – they would catch me – I don’t exceed the speed limit.

No ifs or Buts – Speed Cameras catch speeding motorists.

Speed Cameras must stay.

No Elle, you have NOT been “criminalised”; speeding is a motoring offence NOT a criminal offence (it’s probably because you read the Daily Mail or the Express or the Sun that you’ve been led to believe that’s the case, but it’s not). And cameras don’t “convict” anyone Elle. They are there to deter the speeders from speeding, and to a large degree that’s precisely what they do.

As I said already in another post, the average speed of people caught speeding in 30mph limits is 39mph. I’d be interested to know where you were caught on each occasion. It was obviously unfamiliar territory, and you somehow managed to miss the warning sign on each occasion. Are you sure you were focussed on the road and not perhaps speaking to someone on your mobile phone Elle? Now come on, be completely frank with us.

.

Elle: Do you have contempt for the boy-racers and speedfreaks who race around everywhere they go endangering people’s lives?

.

I have not come across such foolish nonsense in print where the writer has attached their name (presumably). Any sensible person can be sure you were speeding, however little above the prevailing limit, and knows you were fairly caught. To do it a second time demonstrates the absurdity of your article.
You are not criminalised you are caught, pay up and stop telling us how astounded your family were, they should have told you your `fortune’ the first time and then there may not have been a second.
The final paragraph of your letter does not add credibility to your complaint it merely demonstrates to us other worried drivers who have to share the road with you that there is someone out there at the wheel of a metal killer who doesn’t know what they are doing.

It is very interesting to read that some of our counties have switched off their speed camera, when their arguement all along was that they were their for safety reasons and not revenue.

However, I understand that since all the revenue go’s to central govenment, these counties are not so keen to foot the bill for operating and maintaining the camera’s, so where in their ethics, does the safety theory fit into it ???

Simple solution Big D, just hide/conceal all the cameras!

And Peter, you’re missing the point completely, either deliberately or naively. The Tories have an agenda to abolish cameras, if they can possibly get away with it. That’s why they join in with all the lies and disinformation about cameras, and use terms such as “the war on the motorist”. It’s hard to imagine that some people swallow such poppycock propaganda nonsense, but they DO. There is no “war” going on against anyone, just a sensible and pragmatic programme of camera enforcement designed to deter the speeders and complement what the traffic police are already doing. By withdrawing and cutting central funding the Government gives its buddies in the shires the excuse to switch off their cameras.

The answer to your problem is not to blame the camera, or the driver speeding by or the driver in front of you who slows down in panic but to leave a very safe distance between yourself and the car in front at all times. Sensible driving, crisis averted.

Tailgating and dangerous driving should be prosecuted. The irony is that the idiot who slams on the anchors at the site of a speed camera doesn’t get punished. The tailgater’s do not get punished. The people who drive on roundabouts without signalling do not get punished. The people who sit in the overtaking lane on dual carriageways at 60MPH do not get punished. The people driving at 45 MPH on dual carriage ways forcing HGV’s to overtake them do not get punished.

So it’s a complete load of b******s really isn’t it?

2 million people a year getting fined, means the system is broken, the limits are too low. the money should be spent on police patrols and prosecuting the above offenders.#

Speed is by no means a measure of safety in the modern world.

But fixed speed cameras have Speed Limit signs well in front – and camera icons in front of them – they are highly visible – and have white markers shortly afterwards and well visible *before* you pass the camera. They *are * placed at a “reasonable distance to enable the offender to attain the correct speed without causing an accident” That’s why they are there..

The trouble is speeding motorists do not bother to see them – and are caught – *then* complain!!!

Speeding motorists *should* be punished – Hence fixed speed cameras must stay.

@Richard – Not all fixed cameras have speed limit signs in front of them by any means!

On more than a few occasions I’ve seen a sign warning of cameras ahead but *no* limit repeater sign which is ridiculous.

Graham,

I can only say that ALL speed cameras I’ve passed ever since they were first installed however long ago that was – were all preceded by speed limit indicators and normally camera signs.

However some can be obscured by large lorries that drivers tend to drive too close so obscuring their vision – or – a tree foliage has very rarely temporarily obscured it.

But there are no speed cameras that precede the statuary speed signs – What too many drivers want is constant reminders that they are breaking the speed limit. The responsibility of the driver is to be aware – at all times – what the speed limit actually is AND what speed they are going. Then they won’t break the law..

Again sorry but if you ignore speed signs you are to blame – there does not have to be repeater signs – drivers are expected to have working memories while driving.

Cameras must stay.

@Richard

There is general requirement in Direction 11 of the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 to “provide speed limit repeater signs at regular intervals”, now it may be *your* experience that “ALL speed cameras you’ve passed […] were all preceded by speed limit indicators and normally camera signs”, however it is *my* experience that I have seen speed cameras in locations where they have *not* been preceded by speed limit repeater signs “at regular intervals”.

Of course the most sensible place for a repeater sign would be attached to exactly the same pole that the speed camera warning sign is fixed to, but that seems to have not occurred to some authorities (it would be cynical to say that, as when cameras used to be deliberately concealed behind road signs etc, that this was simply to enhance revenue generation…)

To glibly say that “drivers are expected to have working memories” is to miss the point.

@Richard
What about drivers that are unfamiliar with an area, it is like running the gauntlet.
I’m beginning to hate this country, it appears to be full of pontificating t***s and sucking the life out of the wallets of hard working people.

If speed limits were set at a sensible rate, then there would be nearly 100% compliance.
How many times have you seen people applying the brakes at speed camera sites when they were already travelling at the correct speed for fear of being prosecuted by faulty equipment? What effect does this have on traffic especially during busy times? Traffic backs up for miles and people are at a standstill further back spewing out noxious fumes and damaging the environment needlessly. Speed cameras are a scourge.
Dangerous driving I am in favour of prosecuting.

[Edited by moderators: profanity]

You’re actually doing 60 MPH as the speedometer always reads low.
Thank you for unnecessarily blocking up Britain’s roads.

But the problem is that people are complaining that because they have been caught by a speed camera – the speed camera must go – not the same thing at all.

I have exceeded the speed limit when going downhill – but never in the vicinity of the highly visible speed camera.

Even if I had I wouldn’t complain about it – but pay up for breaking the law.

Pay up?????
Show me the victim of the “crime” first….

Sadly that is only because radar controlled signs are new – directly the poor quality drivers get used to them they are ignored.

Speed cameras had a similar effect – until some councils started to only activate the speed camera intermittently – Now on the A10 some drivers ignore the speed cameras because they are often off – showing that those drivers ignored speed limits too.

Speed plays a part in less than 5% of accidents.
You can’t argue with statistics.