There's a road near me with the highest density of speed cameras in the country...8 cameras in the space of probably no more than 2 miles.
In the last 6 months 4 of them had been taken down :)
Didn't last long though :(
(In the last 6 months 4 of them had been taken down :)
Didn't last long though :(
Tu9 01100011011101010110111001110100,
Wed 5 Nov 2008, 1:28,
archived)
I don't see what the problem is with speed camerasThen again, I don't drive :/
(
Tangy bzzzzzzzzt,
Wed 5 Nov 2008, 1:33,
archived)
they help the police catch drivers who break the lawthis is apparently a bad thing
(,
Fri 7 Nov 2008, 9:14,
archived)
They were put up for the wrong reasons.Speeding (I'm talking at most 5-10mph, maybe upto 15-20) can be done safely in quite a few circumstances, which is what the speed cameras catch, however they were originally put up to "reduce accidents" something that the gov's own studies prove they've not done for something silly like 95% of cameras...the thing is, most accidents caused "by speeding" are not caused by excess unlawful speed, they're caused by excess speed in the wrong situation (eg, going too fast around a bend and going wide, it may not be breaking the law, eg, 50 in a 60 may be too fast on say, an icy corner), which is poor driving and the complete fault of the driver.
Speed cameras don't catch bad driving, so they don't actually reduce accidents like they've been claimed, the only way to catch bad drivers is to actively police the roads with Traffic Officers.
In some circumstances they actually cause more accidents, as people can be going a bit quick, see a camera, and not wanting to get caught, hoof the brakes, they could lose control or a car behind them could go into the back.
Not to mention the numerous places where they're there for revenue generation (eg, bottom of hills on a straight road, or on a piece of straight dual carriage way).
In concept they're a good idea, in practice they are pretty much worthless, something which is finally being understood (See Swindon Council, actively removing cameras now). If they'd have been used sparingly at blackspots, they'd be effective, but as they have been used, it's mostly a revenue scheme with the knockon effect of demonising users of the road.
(,
Fri 7 Nov 2008, 12:14,
archived)
Speed cameras don't catch bad driving, so they don't actually reduce accidents like they've been claimed, the only way to catch bad drivers is to actively police the roads with Traffic Officers.
In some circumstances they actually cause more accidents, as people can be going a bit quick, see a camera, and not wanting to get caught, hoof the brakes, they could lose control or a car behind them could go into the back.
Not to mention the numerous places where they're there for revenue generation (eg, bottom of hills on a straight road, or on a piece of straight dual carriage way).
In concept they're a good idea, in practice they are pretty much worthless, something which is finally being understood (See Swindon Council, actively removing cameras now). If they'd have been used sparingly at blackspots, they'd be effective, but as they have been used, it's mostly a revenue scheme with the knockon effect of demonising users of the road.
