Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

speed Cameras - Rant alert

84 replies

magicfarawaytree · 27/09/2006 07:49

Why dont the wa**rs who go on about gettting rid of speed cameras go play catch on the m6! Get a life and put your engergy into something constructive. Its not like there isnt enough to choose from...education, crime in generel etc

OP posts:
KathyMCMLXXII · 27/09/2006 18:05

But Zippy, isn't the problem that their role as revenue generators can actually clash with their role as promoters of safety, because for a camera to be an effective revenue generator you actually want more people to speed rather than less. Thus a lot of the complaints are about cameras installed in places where speed limits are not as well signed as they could be, so people who actually want to keep to the limit miss the signs and get fined. Too much temptation for the council to avoid or delay putting up clearer signs if by doing so they will actually lose money....

foundintranslation · 27/09/2006 18:07

They possibly do Blu. There are certainly more miles of motorway per road user than there are in the UK.

Blu · 27/09/2006 18:14

I think it is a complete conspiracy theory peddled by speeding drivers that speed cameras are there to generate money! If you don't know the Highway Code giving speed limits for certain roads, don't notice those rather clear black and white 'camera' notices, don't notice the speed limit notices, then you get what's coming to you! The only possible dubious case is temporary restrictions around roadworks.

SenoraPostrophe · 27/09/2006 18:20

yes, the "revenue generator" argument is bollocks imo. where do you think this money is going? on picnics for the speed camera office every summer? no, it goes on road safety measures. If there are cameras in areas where the speed limit is not well signposted and not obvious, then ask for more signs, don't moan about the speed cameras.

hub2dee · 27/09/2006 18:20

I'm not for one moment saying they don't catch people who speed, what I'm saying is that I'm fairly sure I've read research which attributed the rationale for their location with a bias to revenue generation than accident prevention IYSWIM. I appreciate this might have all been a conspiracy theory though, but I imagine the figures support the claim.

hub2dee · 27/09/2006 18:21

Re: where's the money going - absolutely no idea, but I am fairly sure a 'road safety' budget can be spent creatively, as can most others !

kittywits · 27/09/2006 18:22

Blu, it's what I remember hearing. Can't for the life of me remember the source, sorry. Maybe it's just a load of tosh

TaraPalmerTomkinsonsNose · 27/09/2006 18:23

we had load of speeder s intoday
iw ill bet you a fiver everyt iemt hey say " they never normally speed" arf yeah right

lazybluealien · 27/09/2006 18:27

45 in a 30 zine is not the same as 85 on a clear mootorway in the fast lane. not by a gazillion miles.

SenoraPostrophe · 27/09/2006 18:31

so why don't they just "creatively" spend all that money they're spending on speed cameras? they're not cheap you know.

and I don't believe any figures used by the anti-camera brigade because the only figures I've heard them mention is that accident rates have "flatlined" while numbers of speed cameras have risen, the argument being that speed cameras therefore do not reduce accidents. But in reality, accident rates are the same, but the amount of traffic has gone up which would suggest the opposite.

But anyway fundamentally, so what if soe cameras are revenue generators? it's easy to avoid paying any fines with the simple expedient of driving within the speed limit.

Blondilocks · 27/09/2006 18:33

I drove through a village once that had NO speed signs going into it (& there weren't street lamps, or many houses close to the road) but a national speed limit sign going out of it.

Had never been through that village before, or even on that road before so I would have been VERY angry had I been caught speeding - unless of course we should all memorise a map of different speed limits before being allowed to drive.

There are many instances where the signs are awful & I think that if there are going to be speed cameras then they need to signpost adequately.

Blondilocks · 27/09/2006 18:37

I also think that some roads should have minimum speed limits as excessively slow drivers cause idiots to overtake in really reaaly stupid places, which in turn endagers innocent drivers minding their own business & driving in the opposite directing. (Have witnessed many such idiots - luckily I haven't seen any accidents, just near misses)

SenoraPostrophe · 27/09/2006 18:38

I disagree about minimum speed limits. that would effectively ban lots of vehicles from the roads.

hub2dee · 27/09/2006 18:39

blondi - I think built-up areas (ie. a village), anywhere with lampposts every 100 yards etc. is deemed to be a 30 mph, even if no signs are posted IIRC.

Senora - agree re: so what if they are revenue generators - people have been caught speeding, so that's their tough luck in a way, but that kind of challenges the argument that they have been deployed to reduce accidents IYSWIM... perhaps it's a bit of both !

I think there were some court cases a few years ago re: allocation of revenue from theses cameras... I will look at the BBC site.

Blu · 27/09/2006 18:40

A few minutes googling 'speed camera location' and speed camera revenue' has yeilded NO proper research to indicate that speed cameras are primarily used fro profit rather than safety, and pages and pages of ads for bits of kit designed to help you evade the law as you speed through this land - all of which quote the fact that cameras are nothing but money-earners, none of which give any real evidence for this.

I particularly like this conspiracy-theorist site. For the second pic down, for e.g, he rants about the fact that the camera is cunningly hidded behind the speed limit sign, apparantly giving drivers no warning - completely ignoriong the fact that there is a bloody great 'camera' sign, clear as day! For his 1st picture, he gives us the benefit of his advanced traffic safety knowledge that the speed limit through road works has been reduced from 50 to 40 - for no good reason other tha a bit of highway robbery. Personally, i would have thought that reducing a 3 lane road to 2, with no access to a hard shoulder, and the same amount of trafic feeding through on the road was a VERY good reason to slow the speed! The chances of a pile up as a result of a minor knock or breakdown are obviously increased with nowhere for people to go!

And why is it legal to sell stuff designed to help you break the law? One of my colleagues was poring over a leaflet for some paint which apparantly makes your number plate unphotographable - I hope he gets some and finds it doesn't work!

I have been known to overdo it a bit on notorways, i'm not an innocent party here, but blaming speed cameras is a bit rich!

Blondilocks · 27/09/2006 18:44

The thing is around where I live there are lots of little hamlets with a couple of houses with only national speed limit. These are similar to this village I went through - you could see it was bigger than a hamlet but the houses were on roads off of this main road & there weren't street lamps, so everything suggests no speed limit, but if there's a end of speed limit sign then there must have been one IYSWIM. I just think that if there's a question as to whether it's 30 or not they should put a sign up so that everyone knows.

SoupDragon · 27/09/2006 18:48

Blu, IIRC, it's not illegal to sell that equipment but it is illegal to use it. Or something weird like that!

On the subject of "speed cameras are primarily used for profit rather than safety", I think it's a bit of both. It seems that there are loads of signs warning you of cameras but far fewer telling you what the speed limit actually is. Why do they put a picture of a camera on theback of the camera box and not a sign telling you what the sped limit is? It's bloody obvious that a large yellow box on a pole is a speed camera, you don't need a picture stuck on it to tell you that.

One other thing that irks me is that white circle sign with the black line... I have no idea what limit it refers to on what type of road. I bet a lot of people don't so why not just put the s*dding number up?!

TaraPalmerTomkinsonsNose · 27/09/2006 18:49

its so boring when you get someone in court hwo has gone ont he internet
we all yawn in our heads as they also tend to represent hemsleves which is cringwrothy

SoupDragon · 27/09/2006 18:50

Blu, I love that site "especially as most of the Gatsos are hidden" Hidden apart from the camera warning signs and the white stripes on the roadway that is.

Blu · 27/09/2006 18:51

Blondilocks - yes, there should be a speed limit sign in those cases.

hub2dee · 27/09/2006 18:52

Would you say, Tara, that mags generally don't look well on people who self-defend then ?

Blondilocks · 27/09/2006 18:53

The white circle sign with the black line means end of the speed limit so 60 on normal roads or 70 on dual carriageway/motorway.

If it was another numbered speed limit then a numbered sign would be shown.

I really don't see that point of putting this sign just before a roundabout. Surely it would be better on the other side of the roundabout?

lazybluealien · 27/09/2006 18:53

soupy thats what the theory test was designed for! making sure every knows what the signs are./
it means national speed limit, which on a dual carriageway is 70 and on single is 60mph

hub2dee · 27/09/2006 19:01

Hang on, I thought motorway 70, dual carriageway 60, single carriageway 50, urban 30....

But my highway code is 20 years old LOL. Plus I'm possibly wrong.

hub2dee · 27/09/2006 19:02

Looks like I'm wrong:

highway code