Speed Camera's - Cash Cows.

[ECCOnoob]

No ,they DONT stop speeding ,they only make people slow down for the camera ,then speed up again afterwards. They do NOTHING to improve road safety.

 

Oh well if you say they do NOTHING to improve road safety then it must be right..

 

Lets hope they start installing more and more SPECS cameras then that will soon eliminate all this slowing down suddenly for the camera or perhaps the solution is to have a few more people slamming into the back of the car in front before people actually get the message.

[donkey7159]

I was out driving in Derbyshire this morning when the traffic suddenly became very slow, It became apparent later down the road that the reason for this was the presence of a cow at the side of the road, festooned with pound notes. The motorists were taking no chances, I guess, in case the cow had been fitted with a speed camera.

 

That would be a cash cow then :hihi:

 

Simular to these Talivans

 

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/van.htm

[Eater Sundae]

But is it poor driving. ?

 

What is the more dangerous . A driver driving at 35mph in a 30 zone , driving in a safe ,careful manner OR a driver driving at 28mph in a 30 zone tailgateing another car ?

 

The second driver may be driving within the speed limit ,BUT is driving in a dangerous manner, where as the driver travelling slightly over the limit ,keeping a safe distance between himself and other road users , is far less likey to have an accident , BUT is the one who will be penalised.

 

Now ,you tell me that is right.

 

This really is a poor argument. You are comparing apples and oranges.

 

There are lots of different ways of driving dangerously. Yes, a driver tailgating another may be more dangerous, but SO WHAT?

 

I would concede that speed cameras and speed guns are limited in what they do - check for speeding drivers and nothing else. I would like to see the police driving around and pulling those drivers who are driving badly/carelessly/dangerously, not just those that are speeding. Just because they are not doing enough of that does not negate the benefits of speed cameras and guns.

[donkey7159]

Just because they are not doing enough of that does not negate the benefits of speed cameras and guns.

 

But actual police stopping dangerous drivers actually involves some work , where as camera vans only needs a plod sat on his backside in a van.

[Eater Sundae]

But actual police stopping dangerous drivers actually involves some work , where as camera vans only needs a plod sat on his backside in a van.

 

OR

 

It's a better use of limited resources to identify a lot of bad drivers during a shift and then let cheaper employees follow this up with letters etc than to tie up an expensive police officers in stopping and processing just a few bad drivers per shift, as that is all he would have the time to do.

 

I would be very surprised if individual officers would not prefer to be driving around and actually identifying dangerous and careless drivers committing a full range of offences.

 

I would like to see more police in cars out and about, and using their discretion when dealing with drivers. If bad drivers had a realistic expectation of encountering a "plain-clothes" police car on a regular basis, then I believe driving standards would improve. Unfortunately this would require a lot of extra traffic police to make much of a difference. But if we had that, then I reckon our taxes would be even higher.

 

Cameras and guns are a pretty crude tool, and limited in what they achieve, but may still be a better use of resources than available alternatives.

[DT Ralge]

But is it poor driving. ?

 

What is the more dangerous . A driver driving at 35mph in a 30 zone , driving in a safe ,careful manner OR a driver driving at 28mph in a 30 zone tailgateing another car ?

 

The second driver may be driving within the speed limit ,BUT is driving in a dangerous manner, where as the driver travelling slightly over the limit ,keeping a safe distance between himself and other road users , is far less likey to have an accident , BUT is the one who will be penalised.

 

Now ,you tell me that is right.

 

I am not one to focus purely on speed since "speed does not kill".

Keeping space ahead is vital and too few drivers do that.

Momentary or persistent lack of attention and poor hazard perception are the real culprits.

Poor knowledge, too. A driver assuming that 35 is not different in outcome to 30 (in the event of needing to brake to a stop). A lack of understanding of the laws of physics and a readiness to throw the HC's stopping distances out because of ABS - forgetting that nobody used the figures for the 5 minutes that they could be recalled - and an over-reliance on car technology without having any clear idea, for instance, as to what ABS is for (and never having been trained in its single biggest purpose).

[Cyclone]

Of course they are serving their "purpose of safety". Making people slow down and stick to the speed limit whilst punishing those morons who dont is absolutely contributing to safety.

That's simply not true is it. We're discussing a specific van, on a specific road, on a long straight section with good visibility. Doing 60 mph there is in no way unsafe.

 

The camera operators are not stealing anything from you. If you do the illegal act of speeding... you pay the price. its YOUR fault that you get fined. Your comparison with the council stealing a tv is just silly.

No they aren't stealing, it's an analogy, not a description. If you can't understand that then you're just being silly.

[Cyclone]

Lol, the extremes people are going to to try and excuse their lack of attention on the road and try and blame cameras for their poor driving is just getting better and better!

 

As I've told you multiple times, I've never been snapped by a camera. That doesn't mean that I can't understand an argument as to how the government lies about their purpose.

 

Why you seem to think that being lied to by the government is okay is something you haven't yet managed to explain.

[Cyclone]

But actual police stopping dangerous drivers actually involves some work , where as camera vans only needs a plod sat on his backside in a van.

 

A camera doesn't involve a police officer at all.

[Cyclone]

OR

 

It's a better use of limited resources to identify a lot of bad drivers during a shift and then let cheaper employees follow this up with letters etc than to tie up an expensive police officers in stopping and processing just a few bad drivers per shift, as that is all he would have the time to do.

 

 

This argument is dependant on the fact that speeding makes someone a "bad driver". It doesn't. No more than not speeding makes someone a good driver.