Top Gear's anti-speed camera campaign is SICK

[morningpaper]

Watched Top Gear last night (and I can't help but think that the current series is making too much of Jeremy Clarkson - who is basically a really nasty man).

ANYHOO I was particularly horrified by their anti-speed camera segment: they were praising an MP who had said he wanted to ban speed cameras in Swindow - awarding him a trophy and throne etc. to the ecstatic screaming of the audience. They routinely give speed camera detectors away as competition prizes.

They are in such a position of influence over young men - and their message is basically that if you keep to speed limits you are a 'loser'.

This kind of thing makes me FUME. Are these presenters ever responsible for walking their children across a busy road? Are they actually the ones holding the hands of their toddlers while they teach them to stop and look for cars? Do they REALLY not care if some young twat is doing 50 in a 30mph zone while they do so? Do they REALLY think that's a good campaign to throw their weight behind?

It really makes me SEETHE that the BBC allows them to broadcast their 'campaign.'

In fairness Hammond did then ask people not to speed once the cameras are taken away but to obey the speed limit.

I don't get it -if you are obeying the speed limit what's the problem with speed cameras?
If you are not obeying the speed limit - its your own stupid fault.

So, if the cameras were decided on a "needed due to accident" basis rather than "we'll get a lot of money from here" basis (!) it might not be speeding that contributes towards the number of accidents?
I was thinking if it was just on fatal accidents, speed might be a contributor to the issue (more likely to die behing hit at 40 than 30 etc) but if it is a combination of fatal and serious, then some drivers may have been doing 30 but unlucky/bad drivers?

I dont have an issue with speed cameras per se, I dont go out at night and throw paint over them, kick them and curse them.
I'm just not convinced that on their own they acheive the overall goal of reducing speed in total. No point drivers speeding along where they know there is not a camera, only to slow down for when they come in vision, and then speed up again. That is not helping overall iyswim, unless people ONLY cross where the speed cameras are!

Taxing speeding is a stelth tax and has nothing to do with safety or saving lives and therefore not what should be happening. Take aways the profitering and concentrate on the safety issues instead and you will have better systems and safer roads.

If the consequences of your action are immediate and a short pain in the arse you are less likely to do it again in the same place thus creating a safer enviroment.

If you don't realsie where or what you have done wrong but get a letter a fine and a whole in your pocket - you are more likely to do it again.

Well it's not really a stealth tax, is it? There's not much 'stealth' about massive great yellow cameras and warning signs. I really don't have a problem with fining people for persistent law-breaking.

I do agree that it would be better to be motivated purely by safety, that's a fair point.

I am all in favour of improving road safety by better engineering of roads - if there are better ways of improving road safety than speed cameras, fine, BUT you cannot claim it is a stealth tax. You only have to pay it if you break the law - don't break the law, don't get fined.
simple

And as Policywonk says, the cameras aren't exactly stealthy.....
Unless this is a new meaning of stealth that I haven't previously encountered.

I do have a question - there is a road near me where it is two lanes one side, two on the other. You drive down the road at 40 and there is no sign to say it has turned to 30 on one side of the road, is that legal?
Bear in mind, if you are driving in the very end lane, you've got to look over three more lanes to see the sign on the other side, there are no changes in the condition or road, nor change in number of lanes.

I don't know - are there street lights?
If there are, then in a 40 zone there should be repeater signs to enforce the 40 limit. No repeaters means a 30 limit. I would have expected a 30 sign at the point where it changes though.

See, we dont have masive signs and yellow cameras around my own home (midlands). They are hiden, usually in bushes and the cameras when seen are often in unmarked speed zones and you think should I be doing 20 mph 30mph, 40 mph or os it a 50mph?

I have seen them aswell on the link road between Tiverton and Barnstable on down hills so everyone is braking as they spot the camera, hiden behind the bush - which actually makes it far more dangerous than it actually would be without the camera (bad road anyhow and much more approprite spots for cameras along that section where it would save lives not make money)

That's interesting Ivy, it's completely different from the way they are used around here (Surrey/London).

Different forces seem to use them in wildly different ways, which can't be right.

Elf
"Part VI of The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 requires that, unless a road has been
designated special road status (i.e. a motorway), speed limits are implemented either by
virtue of the provision of a system of street lights (restricted road status) or through
Traffic Regulation Order. Traffic authorities are required to ensure that all speed limit
signing complies with the statutory requirements prescribed in The Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) as amended, or have been specially
authorised by the Department or the Government Office for the region"
(quote from direct.gov)
I'll let you go and look at the RTRA 1984....

Donk - no change in the road / lights / things surrounding road.
I only used to drive that way down that road, never the other way, and it was only because DH pointed it out to me.
Just wondering if it were legal, just in case there is a flurry of protesters in Nottingham about a camera where the speed isn't clear!

Sadley I dont think this will change as the goverment make a lot of money through speed cameras. I say this as I think that there are ways and means of making roads safer but they will not be looked, investigated or implemented whilst speed cameras bring in such a wonderful revenue.

Idealy I would like to see all the money made from speed cameras put into cycle paths to get people out of cars, (which initself would reduce accidents) get people fit from cycling on safe link up paths (town to town and village networks that kids can use safely) This would tackle three or four issues all with one sum of money - obesity, health, speed, accidents, carbon footprints

of to bed know to dream some more

Nooooo, not cycle paths!!!

I live off a main road, bus lanes on both sides + a cycle path on one side. The amount of cyclists who go on that blimming path (or cycle road if we're being technical!) in the wrong direction!!

Its also completely different from my experience IvyK - and does not comply with the guidelines
[http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/TrafficManagement/DG_10025598 here]
(see the link to the pdf file about half way down the page)

It would not need a change in street lighting - just an absence of the small 40 mph repeater signs....

How can you go down a cycle path the wrong way if there is only one path/road?

Oops!
Its also completely different from my experience IvyK - and does not comply with the guidelines
here
(see the link to the pdf file about half way down the page)

Morningpaper, I agree with your OP.

How depressing/stupid/kneejerk/tabloid.

Also, what the hell is going on with these nonentities suddenly deciding to run campaigns on what are quite complex political issues when their understanding of the mechanisms concerned is minimal?

I give you Kirstie Allsopp on property tax reform, Jeremy Clarkson on road safety and local authority revenue raising and Lily Allen on knife crime.

These people are tv presenters and pop singers - people who have almost no knowledge of tax, politics, criminology, mass behaviour, economics. It's really depressing. We complain about politicians and then we get the politicians we deserve - Jeremy Clarkson, effecctively.

BBC should be ashamed.

Its on the road, not on the pavement, so not wide enough for two bikes. People have cycled down the "cycle" part of the road, into oncoming traffic (and bikes!)

MaJ - it was a MP though deicded it though, TG were just praising them.

Top Gear makes a lot of money for the BBC - it's its most profitable programme in terms of worldwide sales, rights etc. I suspect this might have something to do with the presenters being given a bit of extra rope.

I suppose it's not a party political issue, so not really against any guidelines? Or a grey area, like those who say the BBC shouldn't do 'green' messages as not everyone regards climate change/environmental imperatives as politically neutral.

So long as the message is balanced out by other BBC content I don't really mind.

Agree entirely with the OP.

Is it time to mention again that 3000 people die as a result of car accidents every year in the UK. 3000! And then there are all the non-fatal injuries on top of this including loss of limbs, paralysis, brain damage etc...