Speed Camera's - Cash Cows.

[Cyclone]

Where's the evidence that limits have been reduced to being deemed unreasonable?

 

Once again though, the limits are there for all to see. Unfortunately for some, the self discipline isn't.

 

Being able to see what the limit is doesn't mean that it's reasonable or that it hasn't been reduced.

 

You yourself have identified Penistone road as having an inappropriate limit on one section (although not reduced, it was always that low AFAIK).

Many other rural roads have been reduced from 60mph to 50mph simply because councils were given the power to do so.

[SnailyBoy]

Does this mean that the cameras in these spots don't improve safety there?

 

That's a good point.................if the camera didn't catch offenders either.

[Cyclone]

Do you mean the bit where people overtake just to get one car in front after being stuck behind them for so long? I've had a few times where an oncoming car has overtook a bit too late (or just taken a stupid risk) and forced me to slow down to allow them to finish the manoeuvre.

 

The A57 is a good example though. A road that was reduced to 50mph because of all the dangerous drivers and bikers, spoiling it for people like me who can drive to the limit and know when the brake or drop down a gear to handle the corners. "Self discipline" - good phrase there.

 

A road that had the speed limit reduced to magically somehow stop people who crashed due to inappropriate speed crashing in the future.

 

They weren't obeying the 60 limit and crashed, why will a 50 limit change that.

You could post a 5 mph limit on it and it wouldn't stop people crashing.

 

What it does though is mean that I can't legally drive at a perfectly safe 60 mph on several stretches of it. (not all stretches are safe at 60, or indeed 50).

[ANGELFIRE1]

I would call these infernal machine's Cash Cows, others call them Speed Cameras, meanwhile our Masters in the Government and the Coppers prefer the word "Safety" cameras.

 

Now here is the argument, if these Camera's are principaly for "safety" why not make them even more visible, stick a flashing yellow light on the top of them, make them standout so the motorist cannot argue he/she did not see them, then if you choose to speed past them, you deserve to be prosecuted.

 

The only problem here of course is that any one with a brain cell would slow down, but isn't that what the cameras are for anyway, to slow you down and not as revenue collectors. I don't think this idea would be taken up though, the Government needs the brass these things generate.

 

Regards

 

Angel.

[SnailyBoy]

Being able to see what the limit is doesn't mean that it's reasonable or that it hasn't been reduced.

 

You yourself have identified Penistone road as having an inappropriate limit on one section (although not reduced, it was always that low AFAIK).

Many other rural roads have been reduced from 60mph to 50mph simply because councils were given the power to do so.

 

Penistone Road doesn't bother me, many a time I meet the 40+ brigade again at the next set of lights.

 

The main problem seems be the minority who see a limit and resent the curtailment for what ever reason. Even to the point as seen on this forum, of ridiculing those that do comply.

[ECCOnoob]

I would call these infernal machine's Cash Cows, others call them Speed Cameras, meanwhile our Masters in the Government and the Coppers prefer the word "Safety" cameras.

 

Now here is the argument, if these Camera's are principaly for "safety" why not make them even more visible, stick a flashing yellow light on the top of them, make them standout so the motorist cannot argue he/she did not see them, then if you choose to speed past them, you deserve to be prosecuted.

 

The only problem here of course is that any one with a brain cell would slow down, but isn't that what the cameras are for anyway, to slow you down and not as revenue collectors. I don't think this idea would be taken up though, the Government needs the brass these things generate.

 

Regards

 

Angel.

 

I think the simple fact that these cameras encourage people to slow down and punishes those who break the speed limit contributes to SAFETY on the roads. I have no problem with them being called safety cameras.

 

As for visability are you kidding? They are painted bright yellow with warning signs in their location and markings across the road where they are located. Not forgetting those alleged "hidden" camera vans - those massive vehicles painted in a reflective colours with big camera symbols printed on them and Safety Camera Partnership written on the side. Oh and the fact that the location of all active cameras is published on the web and local press. How much more visible do you want???

 

All this aruging the toss over names, regulations, legality and justification is just rediculous.

Whichever way you argue it. Breaking the speed limit is illegal. Dont break the speed limit and they wont effect you. Simple.

[convert]

Not sure how a red light camera would detect offending cyclists, after all they don't have number plates. Maybe that's where actual traffic police come in.

 

However, this morning driving to work I saw 3 vehicles jumping red lights. Only one of them had 2 wheels............and an engine.

 

Thanks for answering.

 

The point of the question was that a cycist jumping a red light is just as much a breach of the law as someone speeding.

 

So you have to agree that the fixed cameras are only able to catch motorists, therefore they differentiate between road users.

 

Maybe it's time we only placed cameras where there are proven benefits, and spent more money on traffic police to catch those offences and offenders that fixed cameras can't.

[SnailyBoy]

Thanks for answering.

 

The point of the question was that a cycist jumping a red light is just as much a breach of the law as someone speeding.

 

So you have to agree that the fixed cameras are only able to catch motorists, therefore they differentiate between road users.

 

Maybe it's time we only placed cameras where there are proven benefits, and spent more money on traffic police to catch those offences and offenders that fixed cameras can't.

 

Isn't that what I said here.....?

 

How about letting the cameras to catch the speeders, along with Red Light offenders (which never seem to be mentioned when discussing automatic offence detection).

 

The limited number of traffic police officers can then utilise their resources to catch other offenders, which can of course include speeders too.

[DT Ralge]

Does this mean that the cameras in these spots don't improve safety there?

 

It's a fact that some have worked better than others and it seems the Partnership know this having monitored it.

No surprise in a less than scientific endeavour to control outcomes on a stretch of road that success is sometimes harder to find. It's a bit like squeezing a balloon and finding the air moves elsewhere.

But the Partnerships feel (or are) compelled to try to modify/improve driver outcomes.

[DT Ralge]

Thanks for answering.

 

The point of the question was that a cycist jumping a red light is just as much a breach of the law as someone speeding.

 

So you have to agree that the fixed cameras are only able to catch motorists, therefore they differentiate between road users.

 

Maybe it's time we only placed cameras where there are proven benefits, and spent more money on traffic police to catch those offences and offenders that fixed cameras can't.

 

How long would you wait before a conclusion can be made about camera effectiveness?

Yes, flesh-and-blood PC's would be very welcome change.

And, with this, how much revenue could be generated by lack of compliance with the basics: seatbelts, lights, tyres