Should we get rid of speed cameras? (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Don't miss our new Youth Sport supplement every Thursday inside your Echo 
Daily Echo on FacebookAll of today's content from across the site, all in one place at bournemouthecho.co.uk/today
Should we get rid of speed cameras?
7:00am Tuesday 11th August 2009 in
THE controversial idea of scrapping speed cameras in Bournemouth is to be investigated.
A council committee will look at whether the 20 fixed speed cameras in the town do a good job at reducing vehicle speeds and preventing collisions.
And it will also consider whether Bournemouth should follow Swindon’s example and turn off its cameras, ploughing the money into other road safety schemes instead.
Queens Park and Charminster’s Cllr Mark Anderson is behind the move. He is setting up a special ‘task and finish’ group to look specifically at the effectiveness of the town’s speed cameras.
After calling witnesses and visiting other towns, including Swindon, his committee will make recommendations that will eventually go before cabinet.
Cllr Anderson said: “I’ve been keen on this issue for a while. When I was 20 the reason I drove carefully around the town was because I knew there were police around.
“I knew that if I exceeded the speed limit I would probably get caught by a radar gun and I didn’t know where they would be.”
He said he was keen to compare the effectiveness of speed cameras with other measures, including signs that light up when speeding drivers go past.
“I just think we pay a lot of money into the safety camera partnership and I’d like to know what we actually get from it.
“We’ve got cameras in place that all the locals know. You take the two on Queens Park Avenue – everyone comes to the lights, slows down and then speeds up again. If there was a policeman somewhere along Queens Park Avenue with a radar gun, I think that could be much more effective.
“And if we don’t have the safety cameras, we can invest the money in road improvements. This could potentially include filling in potholes.
“That’s one of the things we will be looking at – should we be using some of this money to help repair the road infrastructure of the town? We have very little money from the government for road repairs.”
When Swindon council made the decision to switch off its five fixed speed cameras, road safety bosses in Bournemouth and Poole both stressed they had no plans to do the same.
But Cllr Anderson said the idea deserved investigation. “I’ve got an open mind on this,” he said. “I just want to know what people think. I want the people of Bournemouth to tell me what they want.”
Comments(115)
Nomdegloom
says...
7:42am Tue 11 Aug 09
Nomdegloom
says...
7:49am Tue 11 Aug 09
Nomdegloom
says...
7:49am Tue 11 Aug 09
blogit2
says...
7:50am Tue 11 Aug 09
grumps999
says...
7:57am Tue 11 Aug 09
I will happily help put the hammer through them all
twynham
says...
8:03am Tue 11 Aug 09
blogit2 wrote:Why not just stick to the speed limit; no need to get angry or slow down then!
I dont think they work in fact they make me angry so after I pass them I speed up yet the flashing speed warnings makes me look and yes i do slow down
2Much...again!
says...
8:19am Tue 11 Aug 09
twynham wrote:Because, if you're sticking to the limit, you're plodding along at 50, then you come to a camera, everyone in front slows to 40.
blogit2 wrote:Why not just stick to the speed limit; no need to get angry or slow down then!
I dont think they work in fact they make me angry so after I pass them I speed up yet the flashing speed warnings makes me look and yes i do slow down
People get angry, cos the cameras are there to catch people out, and as blogit2 said, the flashing reminder is a much more effective way of getting peoples' attention.
ry8000
says...
8:41am Tue 11 Aug 09
Speed cameras are now old hat... they've had their chance and they don't work. So lets get back to something more sensible and effective.
kinc
says...
8:56am Tue 11 Aug 09
psal
says...
9:17am Tue 11 Aug 09
jobsworthwatch
says...
9:20am Tue 11 Aug 09
rayc
says...
9:22am Tue 11 Aug 09
There is no doubt that cameras have failed to cut fatal and serious injury accidents despite claims to the contary from parties with a vested interest. The enforcement has become petty - when cameras were first introduced the prosecution level was 40mph or thereabouts in a 30mph limit , now they prosecute at 35mph mainly so that the SCP can make money from Speed Awarenesss courses. By prosecuting so many drivers who were driving in a safe manner and not having accidents the authorities have removed the link between speed limits and safety.
Zzzz
says...
9:36am Tue 11 Aug 09
benjamin
says...
9:46am Tue 11 Aug 09
mark0peters
says...
9:47am Tue 11 Aug 09
LEAVE A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN YOUR CAR AND THE CAR IN FRONT.
Those who have "super safe" fast cars with ABS and Airbags etc need to remember that the rest of us may not be so fortunate. They rely upon the technology to save them, but no one is perfect and you dont know whats round the corner..
Those who drive 4X4's can try and intimidate other road users because lets face it - they could potentially kill you if you had to stop suddenly.
If you drive into the back of my older simple car at speed - you might just kill me.
Maybe we can forget speed cameras. More effective would be a compulsary trackometer and a fixed recording camera on the front and rear. That would stop dangerous driving tommorow.
Dorset Mitch
says...
9:51am Tue 11 Aug 09
Ef the ref
says...
9:51am Tue 11 Aug 09
Nomdegloom wrote:Lets not forget that the majority of speed limits in this country (with the exception of motorways) were set in the 1930s when cars had poor brakes, lights, tyres, wipers etc. Cars are much better now...unfortunately, drivers are NOT!
There are too many speeding drivers in the area. Removing cameras would send out the wrong signal. If anything, more cameras, not less are required to encourage calmer, quieter, and safer driving. This is 2009, not the bygone days of "Heartbeat".
So lets find a way to catch all the drunk, drugged, uninsured, untaxed and downright bad drivers as well as those who drive fast. This fixation with speed is failing to catch the other 95% of drivers who cause accidents whilst NOT exceeding the speed limit!
rayc
says...
9:58am Tue 11 Aug 09
jobsworthwatch
says...
11:07am Tue 11 Aug 09
Zzzz wrote:So the 20% chance of dying if hit at 30mph is acceptable? By comparing the chances of dying to surviving at the respective speeds, is an attempt to cover up the fact that there is a point at which loss of life is acceptable!
Speed DOES kill. Everyone must have seen the TV advert about a child having an 80% chance of dying when hit at 40mph, compared with an 80% chance that they'll live if hit at 30mph. So those few mph make a massive difference to road safety. Stop making excuses and slow down!
bobaub
says...
11:08am Tue 11 Aug 09
Glashen
says...
11:26am Tue 11 Aug 09
jobsworthwatch wrote:This might suggest you consider 3500 deaths per year an acceptable number. I regret that the evidence does show that the cameras have not been effective in reducing road deaths. To take the view that any effort to cut this tragic death toll is "futile" is a statement of despair.
22 million cars doing 12,000 miles/year each, divided by 3,500 road deaths is more than 75 million miles/death. Thus you are likely to drive your car for 6,250 years before you cause a death on the road. Its quite evident now that fixed speed cameras do little if anything to save lives and are nothing more than revenue raisers. Most people speed most of the time ( may be speeding isnt that dangerous? ) and the police across the west country have anounced a purge on bad driving, I suspect we have reached the plateau, any money spent now trying to reduce road deaths is futile. The only measure that does seem to make people drive to the speed limit are the flashing signs.
I would suggest more traffic police instead of relying on speed cameras would have a beneficial effect.
Adrian XX
says...
11:36am Tue 11 Aug 09
So the 20% chance of dying if hit at 30mph is acceptable? By comparing the chances of dying to surviving at the respective speeds, is an attempt to cover up the fact that there is a point at which loss of life is acceptable!
No, it means the possibility of loss of life is acceptable. If it were not acceptable then we would have to ban cars completely. Every time you drive there is a possibility of loss of life as some kid may run out into the road chasing his frisbee.
Given that possible loss of life is acceptable, the 20% chance of dying if hit at 20mph is simply a matter of fact. Less speed, less dead.
Glashen
says...
11:40am Tue 11 Aug 09
Zzzz wrote:I do not condone speeding, however the TV advert is somewhat misleading, the speeds referred to are impact speeds, however in most pedestrian related accidents the car will have begun to brake by the time of impact.
Speed DOES kill. Everyone must have seen the TV advert about a child having an 80% chance of dying when hit at 40mph, compared with an 80% chance that they'll live if hit at 30mph. So those few mph make a massive difference to road safety. Stop making excuses and slow down!
Awareness of the dangers and consequences both by drivers, parents and children would in my view be more effective than the proliferation of cameras which penalize motorists without regard to the circumstances but appear not to have any effect on the road death statistics.
rayc
says...
11:42am Tue 11 Aug 09
Glashen wrote:We were told by the authorities when cameras were introduced that they would free up Traffic Officers to concentrate on other road infringements.
jobsworthwatch wrote: 22 million cars doing 12,000 miles/year each, divided by 3,500 road deaths is more than 75 million miles/death. Thus you are likely to drive your car for 6,250 years before you cause a death on the road. Its quite evident now that fixed speed cameras do little if anything to save lives and are nothing more than revenue raisers. Most people speed most of the time ( may be speeding isnt that dangerous? ) and the police across the west country have anounced a purge on bad driving, I suspect we have reached the plateau, any money spent now trying to reduce road deaths is futile. The only measure that does seem to make people drive to the speed limit are the flashing signs.This might suggest you consider 3500 deaths per year an acceptable number. I regret that the evidence does show that the cameras have not been effective in reducing road deaths. To take the view that any effort to cut this tragic death toll is "futile" is a statement of despair. I would suggest more traffic police instead of relying on speed cameras would have a beneficial effect.
What has happened in fact is that the number of dedicated Traffic Officers has reduced dramatically and some Police Forces have disbanded their Traffic Divisions completely. Its Smoke and Mirrors and all a scam.
Square Old Codger
says...
11:50am Tue 11 Aug 09
glennzilla
says...
11:58am Tue 11 Aug 09
Zzzz wrote:Zzzz is only partly correct. Poor driving skills, even at slow speeds, can kill too. Perhaps we in the UK should follow the example set by Finland to produce safer drivers. It takes 3 years to qualify for a full driving licence with a mandatory 6 hours training on a skid pan!
Speed DOES kill. Everyone must have seen the TV advert about a child having an 80% chance of dying when hit at 40mph, compared with an 80% chance that they'll live if hit at 30mph. So those few mph make a massive difference to road safety. Stop making excuses and slow down!
frarog
says...
12:22pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Having said that it is a pain to watch the speedo instead of the road!
Fightingback
says...
12:26pm Tue 11 Aug 09
In fact, drivers braking for no reason when they see a camera - even if they're not exceeding the speed limit - is more likely to cause an accident.
It's just another stealth tax .
Ef the ref
says...
12:28pm Tue 11 Aug 09
frarog wrote:That's a very good point about watching the speedometer.
I would much rather get rid of all the speed humps instead. These cost you for additional wear and tear on your car and, probably, more in council tax because of the increased road maintenance.
Having said that it is a pain to watch the speedo instead of the road!
In Montana, USA, they got rid of most of the speed limits for that very reason and, guess what?...the number of road accidents actually fell and the number of fatalities dropped by over 60%.
weevie
says...
12:28pm Tue 11 Aug 09
The whole town is littered with these nightmarish attempts at CONTROL, coupled with badly arranged roundabout line painting and lane markings that, if followed, actually create the situation of an unsafe placement for vehicle and driver.
Add all this to the fantastic numbers of cameras and you have a local mind-set now of anger and frustration at how Bournemouth's excellent wide roads have degenerated into a set of petty restictions, of sticking-plaster mentality.
Dump the lot, and if you spot some idiot behaving badly, report them. And Authorities - PLEASE advertise that you will follow-up reports, tell us the telephone numbers, talk to us - most of us are still quite reasonable, if perhaps a little quicker these days.
Stevie Milton
says...
12:51pm Tue 11 Aug 09
shrekmizen
says...
12:51pm Tue 11 Aug 09
weevie
says...
12:52pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Ban wide exhausts.
Reduce in-town speeds to 20, blanket UK. Increase motorway limits to 85.
Make it compulsory that local councils provide on-pavement cycle lanes to every school, college - and that supermarkets pay for the same around their cachment areas, with free (deposit paid) panniers instead of plastic bags.
Licence cyclists (£5 p.a, if caught being stupid, lose licence).
Width and height restictions on private vehicles (have you SEEN just how MASSIVE some of these things have become - in the name of 'fashion' or 'choice' - for god's sake?)
em . . . . anything else on anyone's wish list?
djd
says...
1:07pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Is it because they stop drivers from exceeding speed limits, perhaps, or is it because so many drivers see them as a money making machine for the authorities ??
Reading the previous posts on this subject many think that drivers' atitudes and values need to change.
It is true that if drivers did not exceed the speed limit, whatever your views on the speed limits may be, then the cameras would become redundant.
Many drivers think that they should be allowed to exceed speed limits when they see fit. Who are they to decide which law they should obey and when ??
Perhaps the same drivers would like the option to drive through a red traffic light if they see fit to do so.
Until the standard of driving improved drastically I can see no chance of the cameras being removed.
Whatever your views are about them, they do act as a deterrent, even if only for a short distance.
I agree with some of the other posts
which discuss the warning signs which light up when you pass them if you are exceeding the speed limit. I find them much more effective.
bluealpinedriver
says...
1:09pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Instead, I would put all residential roads down to 20mph and perhaps raised speed humps in areas near schools. Leybourne Avenue in Bmth demonstrates the usefulness of a raised speed hump area. It makes people slow down regardless and is very effective.
ukdragon
says...
1:44pm Tue 11 Aug 09
mark0peters wrote:I'm in total agreement with you there. I don't plod along under the speed limit, and yes, I will admit, there are times that I break the speed limit (let's be honest - who doesn't!) - what really gets me is the impatient twits who drive their cars so close up your exhaust that you can't see the edge of their bonnet.
If you drive a car (especially 4X4 or fast car)- do me a favour Please just one small request to everyone who drives round here ....
LEAVE A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN YOUR CAR AND THE CAR IN FRONT.
Those who have "super safe" fast cars with ABS and Airbags etc need to remember that the rest of us may not be so fortunate. They rely upon the technology to save them, but no one is perfect and you dont know whats round the corner..
Those who drive 4X4's can try and intimidate other road users because lets face it - they could potentially kill you if you had to stop suddenly.
If you drive into the back of my older simple car at speed - you might just kill me.
Maybe we can forget speed cameras. More effective would be a compulsary trackometer and a fixed recording camera on the front and rear. That would stop dangerous driving tommorow.
When you're being tailgated so aggressively - you dare not brake for fear of the car behind parking in the rear seats - where my daughters are.
If you really want to test your airbags so much - there are plenty of walls around! ;)
Xchurch-man
says...
1:45pm Tue 11 Aug 09
The locations of all are marked on sat navs to start with, and locals know where they are, so those who intend to break the speed limit merely slow down for them then speed up once past.
The only way to prevent anti social driving is unmarked police cars cruising real accident black spots and filming people and then stopping them.
This will catch the true bad drivers and punish them, maybe also changing the way they drive for the better after they have been nicked a couple of times and fined heavily.
Fixed cameras are known to be sited to catch unwary motorists who are not necessarily driving dangerously. They are merely income generators.
They do not catch the idiots who wheel-spin around urban areas at night putting lives at risk, only real policemen can do that.
The notion that speed alone is the cause of all accidents is a myth. Inappropriate and bad driving, along with the use of inappropriate speed, are the true causes of accidents.
Fixed cameras are a waste of time and merely turn many law abiding motorists against the police. They are simply seen as another tax on the motorist.
Target the dangerous idiots with real policemen. If they know that an unmarked traffic car or a copper hidden behind a wall with a camera could be waiting anywhere to catch them, they will either learn to drive safely or end up being fined a small fortune and loose their licences.
Either way the public will be protected far better than by the use of fixed speed cameras.
A real fear of not knowing where the coppers are waiting will work. If someone cant learn from this and drive safely, then maybe they are an idiot who should not be driving to start with!
essexman2
says...
1:46pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Zzzz wrote:The logic of that advert is that the slower one drives the better for road safety. That logic is defective as the limit of slowness is NOT moving at all or the man with a red flag in front @4pph max.
Speed DOES kill. Everyone must have seen the TV advert about a child having an 80% chance of dying when hit at 40mph, compared with an 80% chance that they'll live if hit at 30mph. So those few mph make a massive difference to road safety. Stop making excuses and slow down!
Therefore just driving slower is too simplistic: it's a sound bite approach to a more difficult problem; how to train drivers to drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions. Each of us will have different views on that speed, so we need limits and ways to enforce them. Therefore the cameras should stay part of enforcement. However their placement must be for true safety, and not as they are perceived now as revenue gathering machines. Technology should also be developed so that the limits can be varied: a driver going at 45 in a 40 zone on a deserted rural main road at 2am is less of a danger than one at 430pm.
Lastly of the ad a question: is death the only matter to consider? Someone hit at 30 may survive, but how and with what life quality?
Xchurch-man
says...
1:57pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Stevie Milton wrote:Couldn't agree more.
Speed is not the issue in most of the conurbation - the traffic jams see to that. The issue is the frequently bad and selfish driving of all the well-off oldies who retire to this area with their down-sizing cash, and then wobble erratically along in their powerful new cars: visually challenged and unable to see out of the windscreen; arthritically challenged so unable to turn their necks to see anywhere other than in front; mentally lazy, so disinclined to use their mirrors (wots that for?); reflexively slow - oops, watch that cat, dog, child. They are driving along in a tin-world of their own. Take the over 80's off the roads and see if that brings the accident rate down.
The trouble is they will then buy mobility scooters and mow people down in those. (remember the woman killed on the Isle of Wight by one and the supermarket checkout demolished in Christchurch?). All powered vehicle use by elderly drivers should be subject to regular medical assessment. The police should have the power to remove unsafe drivers from the road until they are re-assessed as safe to drive. This should also apply to mobility scooters, some of those can do 20Mph on pavements and are not much smaller than a Smart Car!
kevvo's daughter
says...
1:59pm Tue 11 Aug 09
LEAVE A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN YOUR CAR AND THE CAR IN FRONT.
Are you having a laugh, there is never a car in front, you never fail to make me smile ever.
godzillareturns
says...
2:19pm Tue 11 Aug 09
jobsworthwatch
says...
2:40pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Glashen wrote:Its simply the law of deminishing returns. We've got to the situation now where to reduce deaths, as stated by a contributer above, we need to ban cars. Probably the main reasons for deaths being as low as they are is down to better automotive design and our grid-locked roads. We have the same speed limits in place now as when I started driving in the late 60s.
jobsworthwatch wrote: 22 million cars doing 12,000 miles/year each, divided by 3,500 road deaths is more than 75 million miles/death. Thus you are likely to drive your car for 6,250 years before you cause a death on the road. Its quite evident now that fixed speed cameras do little if anything to save lives and are nothing more than revenue raisers. Most people speed most of the time ( may be speeding isnt that dangerous? ) and the police across the west country have anounced a purge on bad driving, I suspect we have reached the plateau, any money spent now trying to reduce road deaths is futile. The only measure that does seem to make people drive to the speed limit are the flashing signs.This might suggest you consider 3500 deaths per year an acceptable number. I regret that the evidence does show that the cameras have not been effective in reducing road deaths. To take the view that any effort to cut this tragic death toll is "futile" is a statement of despair. I would suggest more traffic police instead of relying on speed cameras would have a beneficial effect.
Insight
says...
2:59pm Tue 11 Aug 09
The question is, which do you prefer?, five easily avoided GATSO's, or ten modern police vehicles, anywhere in the county.
It's not about wether speeding is right or wrong, it's about, do cameras work and are they value for money and the evidence on both counts appears to be No!
Insight
says...
3:09pm Tue 11 Aug 09
baldrick44
says...
3:12pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Also, i think that we (residents of Bmth & poole) should see how much money is spent on repair and maintenance of the Cameras
Insight
says...
3:13pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Glashen
says...
3:16pm Tue 11 Aug 09
jobsworthwatch wrote:We do have some of the safest roads in the world, however I do not think the death toll is acceptable. One interesting statistic that since the number of cameras has increased there has been a increase in road deaths over that which would be expected if the trend to safer raods had continued. Whilst this statistic may not be proof that cameras have not had a beneficial effect, the fact that the safety camera partnerships are not trumpeting the statistics showing that they do save lives, frankly speaks for itself.
Glashen wrote:Its simply the law of deminishing returns. We've got to the situation now where to reduce deaths, as stated by a contributer above, we need to ban cars. Probably the main reasons for deaths being as low as they are is down to better automotive design and our grid-locked roads. We have the same speed limits in place now as when I started driving in the late 60s.
jobsworthwatch wrote: 22 million cars doing 12,000 miles/year each, divided by 3,500 road deaths is more than 75 million miles/death. Thus you are likely to drive your car for 6,250 years before you cause a death on the road. Its quite evident now that fixed speed cameras do little if anything to save lives and are nothing more than revenue raisers. Most people speed most of the time ( may be speeding isnt that dangerous? ) and the police across the west country have anounced a purge on bad driving, I suspect we have reached the plateau, any money spent now trying to reduce road deaths is futile. The only measure that does seem to make people drive to the speed limit are the flashing signs.This might suggest you consider 3500 deaths per year an acceptable number. I regret that the evidence does show that the cameras have not been effective in reducing road deaths. To take the view that any effort to cut this tragic death toll is "futile" is a statement of despair. I would suggest more traffic police instead of relying on speed cameras would have a beneficial effect.
This has changed my mind on cameras and I now believe we need more traffic police and a different approach.
Insight
says...
3:27pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Well done, more strength to you arm sir!
Glashen
says...
3:28pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight wrote:This statistic if true is odd, the cameras surely cannot make a loss, this must be because the rules on what happens to the fines has changed, when most of the local cameras were installed I understood that the fines were used to pay for more cameras and maintenance, now if the govt. has changed that to charge the maintenance to the council/police whilst taking the fines, it is a strong argument for using the money spent by the camera partnership on more proper traffic police rather than wasting it on these ineffective cameras.
The amount of money Swindons tax payers have saved by dumping their five fixed GATSO's means they could afford to buy a fleet of ten BMW police cars, every single year.
The question is, which do you prefer?, five easily avoided GATSO's, or ten modern police vehicles, anywhere in the county.
It's not about wether speeding is right or wrong, it's about, do cameras work and are they value for money and the evidence on both counts appears to be No!
pd7
says...
3:34pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Education is far more effective
Insight
says...
3:45pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight
says...
3:50pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Leave the quangoes and here today, gone tommorrow politicians to spin their webs of lies and deciet and put the police back on the road.
Jonkers
says...
3:56pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Jeez people can run faster than that .
Utter tosh and likely to be suggested by retired people with ample time on their hands - and also likely to be the same retired people who decide to go shopping at 5 - 6 pm despite having all day to do so just at the time when all the people who have been working want to.
Selfish g***!!!
Millygee
says...
4:24pm Tue 11 Aug 09
mark0peters wrote:Just got in from the office and started reading these postings...wondered how long it would be before some twit started banging on about 4X4 owners/drivers. Not very long it seems!
If you drive a car (especially 4X4 or fast car)- do me a favour Please just one small request to everyone who drives round here ....
LEAVE A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN YOUR CAR AND THE CAR IN FRONT.
Those who have "super safe" fast cars with ABS and Airbags etc need to remember that the rest of us may not be so fortunate. They rely upon the technology to save them, but no one is perfect and you dont know whats round the corner..
Those who drive 4X4's can try and intimidate other road users because lets face it - they could potentially kill you if you had to stop suddenly.
If you drive into the back of my older simple car at speed - you might just kill me.
Maybe we can forget speed cameras. More effective would be a compulsary trackometer and a fixed recording camera on the front and rear. That would stop dangerous driving tommorow.
For goodness sake...leave off will you?
Why all this hatred about 4X4s?
I don't own a 4X4 but I know several people who do and they are no different from you or I. All of them need them for one reason or another...business, caravan towing, off road work etc. Let's face it, NO ONE would buy a 4X4 just for fun. They're too large to park easily, cost a fortune in fuel, expensive to maintain and, as these postings prove, you are always the butt of someone's anger/prejudice.
Get a life and find someone else to vent your spleen on!
nonnogeppetto
says...
4:27pm Tue 11 Aug 09
frarog
says...
4:27pm Tue 11 Aug 09
I guess that is because, at speed, you have to be more alert and therefore you tend to notice things. When driving slowly, it is boring and your mind can drift.
ferret38
says...
4:56pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight
says...
4:57pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight
says...
5:20pm Tue 11 Aug 09
fedupwithjobsworths
says...
5:28pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight
says...
5:40pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight
says...
6:49pm Tue 11 Aug 09
But, there's a question of simple logic regarding mobile speed cameras. If you're going to pay a wage to some fellow sitting in a van drinking tea all day as he fiddles with his unreliable equipment, doesn't it make more sense to pay a real police officer to sit in the same place and have the added bonus of being able to breathalyze a passing drunk and save more lives that way?. Surely, that is only common sense, isn't it?, or do the camera supporters advocate ignoring what the equipment is incapable of dealing with?
Rally
says...
7:04pm Tue 11 Aug 09
the majority of drivers today are over-confident about their driving skills (most would now fail the standard driving test) this causes no end of problems.
Arguing that to avoid speeding a driver has to keep a constant eye on the speedometer and that this is dangerous to do, is nothing more than an attempt at covering up poor driving skills.
A good driver constantly scans front view, side and rear mirrors and takes in the speedometer reading at the same time.
The speed limit is a limit not a target; don't let your speedometer needle go above a touch below the speed limit figure and you'll easily avoid a speeding fine.
Don't let yourself get caught up in the trend of driving at the same speed as everbody else is travelling - more often than not they are all actually breaking the speed limit.
And so on, and so on.
It's the incompetence and selfish attitudes of the majority of drivers and not the Highway Code and Speed Cameras that are the real problems here.
jonpds
says...
7:32pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight
says...
7:44pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight
says...
7:54pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight
says...
8:03pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight
says...
8:19pm Tue 11 Aug 09
AFCB_REPUBLICAN
says...
8:56pm Tue 11 Aug 09
tommytorets
says...
9:24pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Scrap them all and put up the flashing speed boards, at least drivers take noyice of them
Insight
says...
9:39pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Try again, when you're coherant and have thought it through.
doowgnir
says...
9:44pm Tue 11 Aug 09
Insight
says...
10:28pm Tue 11 Aug 09
tommytorets
says...
10:33pm Tue 11 Aug 09
sturman
says...
11:06pm Tue 11 Aug 09
They do little to reduce accidents, they just help to induce paranoia which leads to erratic driving.
In my 35 years of driving experience it seems that most accidents are caused by lack of attention/considerat
ion.
I think they are another means of extorting money from the hard pressed public and do little to improve safety on our roads.
AFCB_REPUBLICAN
says...
11:15pm Tue 11 Aug 09
tommytorets wrote:Anyone hurtling along in two tons of metal in excess of the speed limit is a potential murderer pal. Put them inside and throw away the key.
to AFCB_REPUBLICAN, get a life, these days murderers and rapists get a caution or probation when caught, why should a car driver who might be just a couple of miles an hour over the speed limit be treated in the way you suggest, crushing his or her car, imprisionment plus a fine, get real, there are serious crimes that need these kinds of punishment, speeding is not one of them.
AFCB_REPUBLICAN
says...
11:15pm Tue 11 Aug 09
tommytorets wrote:Anyone hurtling along in two tons of metal in excess of the speed limit is a potential murderer pal. Put them inside and throw away the key.
to AFCB_REPUBLICAN, get a life, these days murderers and rapists get a caution or probation when caught, why should a car driver who might be just a couple of miles an hour over the speed limit be treated in the way you suggest, crushing his or her car, imprisionment plus a fine, get real, there are serious crimes that need these kinds of punishment, speeding is not one of them.
kinc
says...
12:10am Wed 12 Aug 09
rayc
says...
9:08am Wed 12 Aug 09
AFCB_REPUBLICAN wrote:That's the problem with your simplified view of life; 29mph all is OK, 31mph terrible things happen.
tommytorets wrote: to AFCB_REPUBLICAN, get a life, these days murderers and rapists get a caution or probation when caught, why should a car driver who might be just a couple of miles an hour over the speed limit be treated in the way you suggest, crushing his or her car, imprisionment plus a fine, get real, there are serious crimes that need these kinds of punishment, speeding is not one of them.Anyone hurtling along in two tons of metal in excess of the speed limit is a potential murderer pal. Put them inside and throw away the key.
You and people like you have reduced it to driving by numbers. Unfortunately the number that really matters is the death and serious injuries one and this has not reduced as speed cameras have increased- well not in the real world only in the Camera Partnerships one . The audit Office have warned the Government that they will no longer be able to call the KSI statistics from speed cameras "official" as they are not accurate but slanted in their favour.
frarog
says...
9:19am Wed 12 Aug 09
rayc wrote:Exactly - keeping to an exact speed is ridiculous and unsafe.
AFCB_REPUBLICAN wrote:That's the problem with your simplified view of life; 29mph all is OK, 31mph terrible things happen. You and people like you have reduced it to driving by numbers. Unfortunately the number that really matters is the death and serious injuries one and this has not reduced as speed cameras have increased- well not in the real world only in the Camera Partnerships one . The audit Office have warned the Government that they will no longer be able to call the KSI statistics from speed cameras "official" as they are not accurate but slanted in their favour.tommytorets wrote: to AFCB_REPUBLICAN, get a life, these days murderers and rapists get a caution or probation when caught, why should a car driver who might be just a couple of miles an hour over the speed limit be treated in the way you suggest, crushing his or her car, imprisionment plus a fine, get real, there are serious crimes that need these kinds of punishment, speeding is not one of them.Anyone hurtling along in two tons of metal in excess of the speed limit is a potential murderer pal. Put them inside and throw away the key.
Before the camera proliferation started the death rate from accidents was falling dramatically but, soon after, the rate started to level off.
As I said before though, I would rather have cameras than humps - particularly in built-up areas.
We need more traffic cops to pick up the lane hoppers, tail gaters, etc.
wobblywheel
says...
10:58am Wed 12 Aug 09
A. Yes - but;
With all cars now having on-board computers running engine management systems it is not rocket science to integrate satellite road mapping into all new vehicles.
With the 'brain' of the car in control and updated through satellite with the speed limits on each and every road the car speed will be automatically monitored and controlled. This would also be of tremendous benefit in stopping all police pursuits where the big-wigs would have the codes to electronically shut down the engines of cars that are stolen or driving out of control.
Simples!
rayc
says...
11:25am Wed 12 Aug 09
wobblywheel wrote:I hope you are never in a situation where you need to accelerate to get out of danger and the computer says NO
Q. Should we get rid of speed cameras? A. Yes - but; With all cars now having on-board computers running engine management systems it is not rocket science to integrate satellite road mapping into all new vehicles. With the 'brain' of the car in control and updated through satellite with the speed limits on each and every road the car speed will be automatically monitored and controlled. This would also be of tremendous benefit in stopping all police pursuits where the big-wigs would have the codes to electronically shut down the engines of cars that are stolen or driving out of control. Simples!
wobblywheel
says...
11:35am Wed 12 Aug 09
Does accelerating out of danger mean 'breaking the speed limit?'
rayc
says...
12:02pm Wed 12 Aug 09
wobblywheel wrote:it could do but better to break the speed limit than be dead. You must have more faith in Government IT system project than me to believe that this will be implemented.
to rayc Does accelerating out of danger mean 'breaking the speed limit?'
The control of the vehicle has to be the driver's responsibility and once you start interfering with that you are on tricky legal grounds.
Insight
says...
3:08pm Wed 12 Aug 09
Insight
says...
5:45pm Wed 12 Aug 09
PokesdownMark
says...
6:53pm Wed 12 Aug 09
wobblywheel
says...
6:54pm Wed 12 Aug 09
I concede to your comments on 'hacking.'
The reason Gatsos don't work is due to every sat-nav informing their whereabouts. Whilst I agree that 'real police' back on the streets is the most desirable option, in the real world this would be extremely costly and as soon as we have any sort of terrorist alert suddenly they will disappear to do 'other more important work.'
Without doubt the 'specs' or average speed cameras work superbly and are not detectable by 'snoopers'.
PokesdownMark
says...
6:54pm Wed 12 Aug 09
PokesdownMark
says...
7:00pm Wed 12 Aug 09
wobblywheel wrote:But police on the road contribute to anti-terrorist activities. Also average speed cameras do nothing but increase the number place clone problem.
To Insight
I concede to your comments on 'hacking.'
The reason Gatsos don't work is due to every sat-nav informing their whereabouts. Whilst I agree that 'real police' back on the streets is the most desirable option, in the real world this would be extremely costly and as soon as we have any sort of terrorist alert suddenly they will disappear to do 'other more important work.'
Without doubt the 'specs' or average speed cameras work superbly and are not detectable by 'snoopers'.
wobblywheel
says...
7:16pm Wed 12 Aug 09
I gonna throw this book 'How to Brainstorm good ideas' in the bin.
lol
Insight
says...
7:17pm Wed 12 Aug 09
I agree on your points regard to average cameras or specs, they do appear to be the lesser of the available evils, however there is a reason they're not in wide spread use already. One is their cost and the other is their limited application. The cost of a multipoint entry system for residential areas is prohibitive because it's in the millions of pounds, compounded by the nature of the device having a much reduced take in fines rendering the devices unlikely to pay for themselves in the normal lifetime of the equipment, unless they're put in a captive enviroment, such as a motorway or busy dual carriage way without exits, because as the name suggests, speed is measured as an average and it's very easy for any driver to average out a speed, even by stopping if necessary. The Irish found this out to their cost as it's stopped further expenditure on other road improvement projects having used a huge amount of their budget.
I don't agree on the cost of the police, seriously, if the half a million Bournemouth pays to the partnership was diverted into front line police 'and' the back office full of non-productive staff such as managers were done away with, the road going police which most of us accept are the essential element would easily pay for themselves. Let's not kid ourselves that real police won't be generating a great deal more in fixed penalty tickets than the current crop of obsolete cameras do anyway. Swindon paid £320,000 to their partnership before they dumped them, that's enough each year to furnish the police with a fleet of ten brand new BMW police vehicless. Granted you need police to operate them, but then you need operators to sit in vans drinking tea all day as well and you wouldn't need to buy ten brand new cars every year now, would you!
Lastly, think of the opportunity for employment in these times of austerity, real police, visible and back on our streets?, it might just make a difference to all kinds of anti social behaviour, I mean, have you seen a speed camera tell a youth off for drinking beer in a playground while abusing the old ladys?, no, neither have I.
Speed cameras are and always were a pipe dream of the bean counters and unfortunately, what was supposed to save money, costs a hell of a lot more than the original tried and trusted, proven to work, methods.
Insight
says...
7:34pm Wed 12 Aug 09
Driving under the influence of drugs is becoming a serious problem, even real police have difficulty with that one, what good is a speeding ticket two weeks after a druggie ploughs into a bus stop killing everyone present?. Seriously, what is the point of speed cameras? even twenty mile an hour limits are a placebo, because if drivers are ignoring a thirty, they're going to be ignoring a twenty as well, but normallly the partnerships put in a twenty mile an hour limit, because their study of the area indicates a speed camera wouldn't generate enough to pay for itself. It's a con, it's always been a con and it always will be!
Insight
says...
7:39pm Wed 12 Aug 09
PokesdownMark
says...
7:48pm Wed 12 Aug 09
Time will tell.
wobblywheel
says...
7:56pm Wed 12 Aug 09
Re the number plate cloning.
This could be drastically reduced if we took up the French system whereby the plates MUST be riveted. I in fact have riveted my plates on my car to stop there unauthorised removal.
Now I realise this won't stop all - but it could go a long way to cutting the theft of peoples plates considerably.
Sadly, the people who make these laws don't understand the words pro and active!
To Insight
Can't argue on any of your recent points, yes real police on the streets would be the 'best' solution.
PokesdownMark
says...
8:11pm Wed 12 Aug 09
Insight
says...
8:12pm Wed 12 Aug 09
But that is besides the point anyway, they don't want to steal the plates, infact, they don't want to even suspect, they just copy them and the best device for doing that on the street is a mobile phone camera. An hour later, the crook emerges with a car, same make, colour and model as yours and for all intent and purposes, he's you!, automotive identity theft. Then, when you get a speeding ticket and you don't remember being there, best you hope you were in hospital having a heart attack or something, because the last thing a camera partnership wants to admit is being a victim of the cloning scam and if you pay up, well, you've just helped out the criminal underworld!
wobblywheel
says...
8:26pm Wed 12 Aug 09
I fully understand cloning, but according to stats, thefts of number plates from parked vehicles has gone up dramatically.
Yes, cordless drills do exist and yes two rivets would not take long hence I used 10 per plate and the thickest ones I could get. The noise and time involved in taking my plates off make it not worthwhile. Too risky.
Rivets have got to be better than 2 screws or self adhesive pads.
So, to anyone else reading this post if you are concerned about your plates being stolen rivet the b*gg*rs on!
Insight
says...
8:37pm Wed 12 Aug 09
There are a few techniques the police use to differentiate between a cloned car and the real one from photographs, I admit I don't know all of them and I'm not irresponsible enough to repeat the ones I do know, but suffice it to say, mobile phone cameras make it much easier for the theives and as in any job, there are amatuer efforts and their are some very convincing forgeries, because lets be honest about it, a number plate is a couple of bits of laminted perspex and some reflective material, if you've ever made one (and I have, legitimately when I worked in the motor industry) you realise it isn't exactly rocket science, add to this replication of distinguishing features and they're away.
I guess if you don't want to be a victim of number plate cloning, the best defence is to buy a bugatti veyron, because as far as I know, there's only twelve in or coming to this country. Yeah ok, half a million is a bit out of most peoples pockets, but all the time we have speed cameras and we drive the likes of common old garden fords, volkeswagens, citroens etc etc, we could all be victims.
Insight
says...
8:41pm Wed 12 Aug 09
GAHmusic
says...
9:14pm Wed 12 Aug 09
Insight
says...
9:22pm Wed 12 Aug 09
PokesdownMark wrote:Yes you're probably right Mark and now that you've said it, that's probably whats stirred the Lancashire mob into action as well. They've got a veritable forest of cameras up there, despite being the sixth worst county in the country for crashes and injuries, far and away more cameras than here and it'll cost them, unlike Swindon, an absolute fortune to buy their way out of the partnership before their council tax payers get clobbered.
Maybe that funding change is the reason the council have started this review process? Time will tell.
Jeremy Klaxon
says...
9:41pm Wed 12 Aug 09
Insight
says...
10:12pm Wed 12 Aug 09
wobblywheel
says...
1:24pm Thu 13 Aug 09
No, the number plates were new ones that I bought and put on because it appeared someone had tried pulling off the front one. The rivets are all around the edges and do not interfere with the reading of the plates. The plates are not defaced in any way.
Insight
says...
4:00am Fri 14 Aug 09
Speed cameras and the ill informed idiots who support them, really do have a lot to answer for.
Rally
says...
2:46pm Fri 14 Aug 09
For one whole month switch off all speed cameras, radar guns, etc., allow all drivers to ignore the Highway Code and all road signs in their entirety.
Hmm, I wonder how long it would take to sort out the ensuing chaos and clear the debris and bodies from the streets.
twobigdogs
says...
3:39pm Fri 14 Aug 09
r lanes on every corner and let drivers just drive!Other countries dont have all the above nonsense so why do we?
Insight
says...
11:33pm Fri 14 Aug 09
Rally wrote:Now that's a very mature comment, how far did your spit your dummy out of the partnership pram?
How's this for an idea? For one whole month switch off all speed cameras, radar guns, etc., allow all drivers to ignore the Highway Code and all road signs in their entirety. Hmm, I wonder how long it would take to sort out the ensuing chaos and clear the debris and bodies from the streets.
On the same principle, let's arm everyone with machine guns, hand grenades and mechettes as well, just for the fun of it.
I'd suggest that most people realise that speed cameras make very little difference to the bulk of the highway code, they're not policemen, they're just polaroids on a pole that take a picture if something passes them above a set criteria, they don't do anything else, so your recommendation seems ridiculous. Radar guns (as you call them) are also nothing to do with speed cameras and have been used successfully by the police since long before the absurd speed camera era began and to be honest, I'd like to see more police on the street with radar guns pulling drivers over, instead of men in vans drinking tea all day, fixated on speed and ignoring the likes of drink and drug drivers and the money wasted on the impotent camera partnerships would go a long way to achieving that.
However, Sweden (I think) do operate a road system that has no road signs or white lines and they make it work very successfully, however, because this is Britain, I can't see it working here all the time we have people who think like you do rally.
As for clearing the bodies from the streets, even with speed camera we're still losing three thousand people a year on Britains roads, which is pretty much how it's been since cameras arrived, when the trend before cameras was downwards. Dump the cameras and put our police back on the roads, it's the only cost effective productive solution that makes sense on all counts and we can't afford political bean counters and private companys with vested financial interests to decide what's best for us based on statistics corrupted for the best media presentation.
Rally
says...
1:33am Sat 15 Aug 09
Have you never heard of irony, Insight?
By the way, did you know that there were proportionally more accidents before the introduction of the Highway Code?
Have you considered the fact that the number of deaths from RT accidents is influenced greatly by the ever increasing life-saving skills of our hospitals?
What happens in other countries is greatly influenced by their culture.
Continental drinking habits (of alcohol) compared to ours is a typical example.
Speed Cameras would disappear if drivers learned to, and actually did, drive sensibly instead of thinking that the Highway Code only applied to other drivers.
Ideally, we should have a system that picks up drivers driving at an inappropiate speed, but I can't imagine how this could be achieved.
Insight
says...
5:18am Sat 15 Aug 09
Insight
says...
5:36am Sat 15 Aug 09
It just seems totally weird for a government authority to actively encourage what many would see as virtual vigilantism. I mean come on, taking the law into your own hands should never be encouraged, should it?.
Insight
says...
11:01am Fri 28 Aug 09
Just so that you realise the opposition to speed camera here isn't isolated, how about this article from Crawley in Sussex.
**********
Published Date: 28 August 2009
THE launch of a new mobile speed camera in Worth Road, Crawley, descended into chaos after furious residents called for permanent safety measures.
Angry residents hurled questions at Ken Seymour, project manager for Sussex Safer Roads Partnership, on Thursday (August 20) demanding to know why funds had not been put towards a more permanent speed restriction solution, such as traffic islands or a pedestrian crossing.
Instead of residents celebrating the new camera, many interrupted Mr Seymour during his opening speech, forcing Cllr Henry Smith, leader of West Sussex County Council, to step in to try and calm things down.
Kerry McCannant, whose father was seriously injured on the road, said: "My dad was the first one to be hit on Worth Road, and so I know first hand what it is like to have to deal with this every day.
"I want to know when we are going to get some traffic islands put in the road, we have two nurseries across here, and the traffic light crossing is too far away.
"How many more dead bodies do you want to accumulate? My dad is sat at home with a brain injury, he doesn't remember who he is most of the time. This is a very serious issue for everybody."
Following a very heated discussion, Cllr Henry Smith conceeded and said residents could expect to see traffic islands by 2010.
**********
Councillor Lawton; Nobody is being fooled anymore, do yourself a favour and accept it!!
More News stories
- Driver lucky to be alive after crash on the A338
- Allotment holders present responses to Christchurch council
- North Bournemouth residents urged to join new panel
- Bournemouth pilot takes to the skies over Imperial War Museum
- Poole dad's drink-drive record "appalling"
- New Christchurch store to create 200 jobs
- 'Streets of Bournemouth' winners collect prizes
- Get your best picture of Dorset scenery into our book
- Barfleur service not returning this summer
- Figures show drop in number of Dorset house fires
INQUIRY: Cllr Mark Anderson is setting up a committee to look into whether Bournemouth should follow Swindon’s example and scrap speed cameras
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
PokesdownMark says...
7:41am Tue 11 Aug 09
I hope evidence based thinking prevails in the process.