Are speed cameras really about safety or not?
This suggests further evidence that this is all about making money!
Yes you may have guessed but I am a tad upset about being caught speeding on a Saturday morning on the M4 which was not very busy and just keeping up with the rest of traffic but overtaking at that time!
So one final question does 94 MPH mean 3 or 6 points, and £60 fine or more?
Answers:
Statistically, motorways are the safest roads in terms of per mile driven, at any time of day or night. The insurance companies have a vested interest in seeking ways of increasing revenue and/or reducing the costs of claims, and risk will rise or fall proportionate to the annual mileage driven. If you have a minor incident or a near miss every 5,000 miles, then it figures that you are going to have 20 if you drive 100,000 per annum as some professional drivers and business people do.
The issue of speed-cameras is a thorny one.
There is no doubt but they are effective in reducing vehicle speeds, but that possibly isn't the most important point, because the PURPOSE of a particular speed-reduction exercise is what really matters.
Thus, when cameras were first installed in the UK, they were placed almost anywhere; often hidden from view. The purpose of this was to create a climate of fear, and thus induce motorists to obey speed-limits absolutely, without question.
In this, they were supported by many police-forces, the Driving Standards Agency, pressure groups such as B.R.A.K.E., various road-safety experts, national and local politicians wanting to be seen to do something and, perhaps most siginificantly, by those who operated the "safety partnerships" amounting to a gravy-train of revenue for those companies who install cameras and maintain them. Naturally, the initiative was backed by the goverment, due to the fact that "safety cameras" are a ready source of tax revenue (which they insisted would be "self-funding").
Thus, the perception was that a reduction in vehicle speed would result in a dramatic drop in death and serious injury.
The police and "safety lobbies" are every keen to suggest that "speed causes accidents." However, this is a simply ridiculous idea, because excessive-speed is just another example of bad judgement, like all accident-related data.
The only possible true statement, is that higher speeds result in an increased likelehood of more serious injury, IN THE EVENT THAT AN ACCIDENT SHOULD HAPPEN.
What I personally find interesting, is the fact that the death and serious injury toll in my home area has not changed at all between 2001 and the present day, in spite of the enormous proliferation of "safety-cameras".
One really does have to question the efficacy of those who first proposed the idea of "safety-cameras" and who set themselves up as "safety-experts", when clearly, their aim has failed miserably, with cameras ill-sighted. (How many cameras are situated near schools, for example, or in housing estates where children play?)
In fact, there are far BETTER ways of slowing traffic down is that is the aim, and one of them is to vastly reduce the number of roadsigns/ traffic signals etc.
However, the "experts" seem to have an answer, (and a roadsign) for every eventuality, to the point that all drivers now suffer "information overload" and increased levels of stress; actually reducing the ability of drivers to drive safely.
A further point is the fact that as local-councils now oversee speed-limits, the limits now being set by people who know absolutely nothing about safety. Speed-limits have now lost all credibility and are widely disregarded by a majority of motorists.
Were the "experts" to concentrate on drug-driving, drink-driving and the very high incidence of people driving with defective eyesight, they may regain the initiative, but of course, that would require considerable expenditure in effective policing, whereas setting up "safety-cameras" is a PR exercise to assure people that something is being done, when in fact, nothing effective IS being done.
As for "safety-cameras" being "self funding," I find myself wondering how long it will be before they actually affect the economy of the country, but that is perhaps an argument too far!
in some ways speed cameras r quite useful but wen they put them in the most pointless places, theyre useless
i thk its pointless to have them on at night wen theyre hardly any cars on the motorway, but they say because its "dark" and therefore dangerous. bulls**te
In my opinion they are not about saftey. I have noticed that several speed cameras are set up at locations where you can speed acidently and it is more likely to catch out drivers unfamiliar with the road than speeders. I also believe that taking conditions of roads into account you should be able to go as fast as you want. Especialy on a near empty motorway at knight. IMHO the police should concentrate on idiots that juke in and out of lanes, undertake, tailgate and just generaly drive bad. I drive fast but safely.
In answer to your final question, i beleve it is 3 points and a 60 quid fine. If you get caught going over 100mph its an instant ban.
Nope. Camera/radar devices have only one single purpose -- increased revenue for the city. That's it.
We have been fighting them tooth and nail here in the US but they are making steady headway in cities across the nation. I suppose giant barcodes on our roof panels for easy identification will be next.
Speed cameras are about profit for the city.
just another way of collecting revenue.
Motor Cycle News did a huge survey on Speed cameras across Britain, with the help of experts in this field. Their conlusion (the experts) was that in most cases the saftey aspect was neglegable and in worst cases, the safety aspect was hindered by fast vehicles trying to slow down in poor road conditions.
Add to this, the FACT, that Traffic Cops ARE on the decrease. Our roads ARE a much more dangerous place to be.
Speed cameras are a money spinner, make no mistake about that!!
O-M-G!u know its true spped camera r useless - thats why they put em where they put em-
btw if u get caught again this year then its a ban aswell! so bewhere
-im never doin over 100 again
they are partly saftey but i think its partly down to the government wanting more of our money
They are clearly about revenue; why else would they put them just round bends, just over the brow of a hill, etc? If they were truly about safety, they would be truly visible, by virtue of positioning as well as colour. That said, their positions are available on the Internet, I understand. In Nottingham, the police tell us that on roads with cameras, the death toll is now zero, so I suppose you can't argue with that. Personally, I prefer the cameras to the sleeping policemen that are also everywhere, as with the cameras, at least you can drive normally, and without damaging the suspension. Also you don't see in the rear view mirror, some yob with his clothes on backwards, mouthing obscenities at you from his 1982 Fiesta, which is currently two feet from your back window..
Your fine will tend to vary with the police force. 94 was asking for it, though. Sorry.
Speed cameras are only supposed to be used in accident blackspots. I'ts not really fair to be done for speeding at 2.00am on a motorway when the road is empty. I have also noticed that there seems to be a lot of speed cameras at the bottom of a gradient. I also think that on a B road if there is no other traffic why should you have to stick to sixty. I should add that if the road is busy you should just be patient, i'ts overtaking on single file roads that causes most accidents. I think speed cameras are a good thing in the right place but as with everything nowerdays they will try to get more money out of us whatever it takes. Unfortunately 94 mph might get you 6 points just depends which county you live in.
As the numbers of Traffic Police decrease due to increase of cameras our roads become more UNSAFE due to drunks, uninsured, dangerous drivers, dangerous vehicles and people going so slow they actually cause accidents by making people frustrated an who then overtake when they should not. Of course cameras are about revenue. Everything is set to get more money from honest motorists. Try catching the dishonest ones!!
It is a bit of a con, frankly. I am over here from Aus, and I find it amusing that your cameras are bright yellow! I have been done once back home by a camera - it was hidden (like they often are), attached to the front of an old banger! It does seem to me that it is not about the safety and certainly about the cash here - after all, I have been here two years now and not been stopped Once! Lol! That is so poor! I would have expected to have been breath-tested several times by now at least!
My favourite was watching the two guys in one morning running a red light - and why not? It is not like there are going to be any police around! I
Basically, my driving experience in the UK has taught me that if there is no camera about, you can do pretty much what you want - drink & drive, run over people, run into others, speed etc! Otherwise, spot a camera, slam on the brakes, and behave like an angel, and you will be fine! That is what I would tell any people coming over here from overseas!
No, It's all about the money!
Speed cameras are helpful but not always when safe driving
is involved. It's just a reminder to all drivers that ahead on the
motorway is a camera that will record your speed and most
of you will automatically drive within the speed limits to avoid
a penalty or traffic fine.
But for the hardcore offenders, they are not concern about
speed cameras or safe driving. On the contrary, it's the fastest
speed that thrills and excites them than anything else.
Their minds are set in one extreme direction and they don't
care about other people's safety.
Thus, they break all safety rules of driving on the motorway,
until finally an nasty accident occurs. By then it's too late for
safety with or without speed cameras!
Well, the officials will tell you that they are about safety, and there are instances of the presence of a camera coinciding with a reduction in accidents, but what they don't want peope to know is this:
Between 1992 and 2002 the number of speed cameras trebled, whilst the number of road deaths also increased.so how is that improving safety?
It is also proven that drivers drive more erratically (changes of speed) when they approach cameras - this is a contributory factor to traffic jams and to motorway accidents.
.probably only 3 points, by the way.
speed cameras are meant to be in accident hot spots but in actual fact they only have to be positioned in 1 square mile of an accident hot spot so therefore they then get positioned in an area that is most likely to collect revenue!! yes a complete rip off. no one would mined them if they were used and positioned as they are meant to be
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.