Speed Cameras

[soze]

Lets take camera's at lights as an example.

You drive through a red light, your a muppet and deserve to get fined and given points yeah?
Think this is fairly self explanitory, until..

Your at a set of red lights and an ambulance pulls up behind you lights flashing in a hurry to get past, there's nothing coming at the junction so what do you do. You sit there and block the emergency vehicle from going anywhere of course until the lights change, since if you go through to let him past, you get snapped, fined and given points.

And if your smart you would appeal and say you went over a red to let a ambulace pass then they would check the gps of the ambulace and see you are not lieing and wave the fine. Every time emergancy services use the blues and twos it is noted and explained so if the gps put that ambulance behind you when you got the ticket it would be waved.

Enforcing certain laws with no context as to the situation at the time, and therefore no common sense has always been stupid. Speed camera's are no different to that.
If police wanted to they could simply sit outside a school and pull over all the people rushing past dangerously in a morning, and do in fact do this. This makes sense.
Placing a static camera in the middle of a piece of road that isn't in a dangerous pedestrian crossing zone only makes people that are in a rush drive faster for the rest of the journey where they are likely to injure someone. It won't catch the speeders since they simply slow down for that 2 meters of tarmac. It will just infuriate them so they make it up by going faster for the next 20 meters to make back the time. You can argue till your blue in the face about if this is a sensible rational or how careless with other peoples lives they are being. The fact is that's what happens, whether you like it or not. If the camera's were at spots where people really needed to be going slowly then fair enough, but they arn't, so actually do much more harm than good.

Christ sake if a police pulled over the first mug that speeds people would drive past them and the procede to be stupid self important wank stains and speed again. How else should it be done let the fuck faces speed except for where there is a police car sat there not responding to other crimes because they are sat there with a speed gun?

Speed cameras are not perfect but thinking your should remove them for an extra cop car and then have them sit around is abit silly

 

[tris-]

If the camera's were at spots where people really needed to be going slowly then fair enough, but they arn't, so actually do much more harm than good.

???????
cameras cause no harm. people driving fast and slamming breaks on when they see a yellow box causes harm.

i think im going to repeat my self again. the law is the law if you like it or not. get caught, be a man/women and admit it and dont sob over it. the reasons why the cameras are there is really not important at all.
the speed limit is 30 (or what ever) and that is the law. go faster then risk being caught. go the correct speed and wtf is the problem?
would you complain if you got caught downloading music for which you had no license to possess? would you complain if you got caught stealing something from a shop? how about cycling in the dark with no lights and no luminous vest?


i really dont see any scenario where you need to be somewhere 2 minutes quicker than you could make it (which i assume is a similar scenario to what your implying here).

it seems the problem here is speeders think they know best. i admit, i speed. i feel i know i can go that fast on what ever piece of road. i dont imply i have more knowledge than people who created the speed limits. i also wont complain if i get caught.

 

[soze]

???????
cameras cause no harm. people driving fast and slamming breaks on when they see a yellow box causes harm.

i think im going to repeat my self again. the law is the law if you like it or not. get caught, be a man/women and admit it and dont sob over it. the reasons why the cameras are there is really not important at all.
the speed limit is 30 (or what ever) and that is the law. go faster then risk being caught. go the correct speed and wtf is the problem?
would you complain if you got caught downloading music for which you had no license to possess? would you complain if you got caught stealing something from a shop? how about cycling in the dark with no lights and no luminous vest?


i really dont see any scenario where you need to be somewhere 2 minutes quicker than you could make it (which i assume is a similar scenario to what your implying here).

it seems the problem here is speeders think they know best. i admit, i speed. i feel i know i can go that fast on what ever piece of road. i dont imply i have more knowledge than people who created the speed limits. i also wont complain if i get caught.

I think if you are one of these mugs that think people can only walk into the road infront of a school so you think you can do 50 down all the other residential areas and not worry about some one running into the road, then the spped limit only applies to the 10m befor and 20m after speed cameras. They are normaly under the misconception that they are good drivers too so they think they can handle it.

I do not think you can get through to these people they seem to think they have the right to ignor the speed limit because it dose not suit them. Its one of the only socialy acceptable laws to break. But only if you are too self important to worry about any one else

 

[Golena]

think im going to repeat my self again. the law is the law if you like it or not. get caught, be a man/women and admit it and dont sob over it. the reasons why the cameras are there is really not important at all.
the speed limit is 30 (or what ever) and that is the law. go faster then risk being caught. go the correct speed and wtf is the problem?

I'm going to repeat my self once again as well then. I've never been caught by a speed camera, I have and always have had zero points on my licence so i'm in no way sobbing about it.

The simple fact is that people ARE going to speed and break the law. You can put camera's down every other street in the country and people will be speeding on the 50% that don't have camera's. That's the problem, it's not about my want to drive faster than the speed limit at all, it's that people will drive faster than the speed limit whether you or I like it, and if they are going to do that i'd rather they did it where they are unlikely to kill someone rather than past the front of the school.

i really dont see any scenario where you need to be somewhere 2 minutes quicker than you could make it (which i assume is a similar scenario to what your implying here).

it seems the problem here is speeders think they know best.

And the problem in your argument is that you believe everyone is going to suddenly start thinking like you. The perfect scenario would be that everyone wakes up tommorow and decides that 30mph is as fast as they should be driving. No matter how much you want this to happen it's not going to. You think people drive at 40 instead of 30 at the moment for the thrill and excitement. No, it's to get somewhere 2 minutes earlier. If someone sticks a camera in their way they will simply make the time up by driving faster on the other bits. The camera in itself may do no harm, in that it makes people drive on that bit of road at 30, but it does do harm when people then speed on the other bits to make back the time.

There's 3 reasons to have speed camera's.
1) To get profit for the police.
2) To make roads safer and save lives.
3) To piss people off.

Lets assume they wern't there for number 3, as that would be a stupid reason to have them. That means they are either there to make things safer or make profit. Now given that putting them on none danger hotspots makes people drive faster past the danger hotspots instead, they really arn't making things safer are they. So the reason for them must therefore be number 1, the almighty dollar!

Your not going to get rid of idiots on the roads, it's simply never going to happen. What we should be doing is ensuring that the idiots harm as few people as possible, and camera's are having the opposite effect.

And if your smart you would appeal and say you went over a red to let a ambulace pass then they would check the gps of the ambulace and see you are not lieing and wave the fine. Every time emergancy services use the blues and twos it is noted and explained so if the gps put that ambulance behind you when you got the ticket it would be waved.

I'm guessing from this you've never had any experience in appealing anything involving a large corporation. It may be if you appeal it you might have the chance of getting off. Your likely to have to spend at least 2 days of your life filling in forms and chatting on the phone, maybe even spend time off work to go to court to actually appeal it. And that's all for the chance that your not gonna get slapped with the fine anyway. Thanks, instead of going through that level of hassle, i'll just sit still for 30 seconds and let the ambulance flash me cheers. The fine will probably be cheaper than the lost money appealing it anyway. Guilty until appealed innocent isn't how our legal system is supposed to be working is it?

How else should it be done let the fuck faces speed except for where there is a police car sat there not responding to other crimes because they are sat there with a speed gun?

The people speed anyway even with the speed camera's. Assuming that the speed cameras are catching the people actually driving dangerously 99% of the time is just silly. Instead of having a policeman stood there with a gun pulling over people actually going at a dangerous speed, not those doing 32 in a 30 zone, we've got 5 people sat at a desk doing admin work on the speed camera's catching the second bunch of people. Yay, result!

 

[soze]

I'm guessing from this you've never had any experience in appealing anything involving a large corporation. It may be if you appeal it you might have the chance of getting off. Your likely to have to spend at least 2 days of your life filling in forms and chatting on the phone, maybe even spend time off work to go to court to actually appeal it. And that's all for the chance that your not gonna get slapped with the fine anyway. Thanks, instead of going through that level of hassle, i'll just sit still for 30 seconds and let the ambulance flash me cheers. The fine will probably be cheaper than the lost money appealing it anyway. Guilty until appealed innocent isn't how our legal system is supposed to be working is it?



The people speed anyway even with the speed camera's. Assuming that the speed cameras are catching the people actually driving dangerously 99% of the time is just silly. Instead of having a policeman stood there with a gun pulling over people actually going at a dangerous speed, not those doing 32 in a 30 zone, we've got 5 people sat at a desk doing admin work on the speed camera's catching the second bunch of people. Yay, result!

Your wrong i have had experiance and if you appeal a ticket for a valid reason they get overturned. My aunt had one waved because she was driving my uncle to hospital they simply checked he had checked in told her she should have called a ambulance and waved the ticket and the points. And my old mate from London who i watch football with is a traffic cop so i know if you appeal it properly rather than just write "lolz priks i ad to mov coz of a ambulanze init" they will look into it and if they find out you did move for the ambulance you will be fine. Like i said i know from him that every time they turn the blues and twos on they have to note down when and why, and with the gps that is in all emergancy services vehicals its not hard to appeal.

And your saying cameras are poitless yet you have not came up with anything better just let cops pull them over i would like to know where all these cops to replace cameras are coming from.

I would like to see losts of sign posts that are all a set distance away. then they can put the average speed cameras on the back of lots of different signs and they are alot harder to avoid. Also if they move about maybe people will not know where they are and just do the speed limit.

Speedings speeding so what you are saying is only go after the poeple doing 100 in a 30 just like it should be fine to let people who hold up a shop get away so you can be ready incase some one robs the bank next door.

And FYI most speed cameras issue tickets automatically People are only involved when it is appealed. Hence the reason that guy got a ticket for doing 200 in a astra or whatever. If there were people doing them do you think that would slip through?

 

[Golena]

And your saying cameras are poitless yet you have not came up with anything better just let cops pull them over i would like to know where all these cops to replace cameras are coming from.

You say speeding is speeding, fair enough. Go to any none-camera controlled street in the UK and count the percentage of people actually following the speed limit. I'd be surprised if it was over 20%.

That's proof enough tbh that camera's are simply making zero difference to any speeding problems.

Either the speed limit is too slow, or people arn't aware of the dangers that going faster than it are causing. Remember that we arn't talking about a few teenagers speeding about, we are talking about 80% of the UK's population.

The truth is that different people have different "safe" speeds at which they can drive. I've been in cars with people that shouldn't be going at 30 through 30 zones and people that could go through the same zone at 40 fairly safely.
It's very easy if going over the crest of a hill to go from 30 to 35 on a busy road without realising it unless your staring at the speedo instead of concentrating on traffic. It's somewhat different to holding up a shop where your 100% aware of what your doing. There's plenty of idiots driving much faster than they should be and how many of these are getting caught by static camera's, probably less that those that drive at a speed close to the speed limit safely all the time. It's not punishing people that are driving dangerously or making people drive slower, it's just taxing a random percentage of car drivers that strayed over the limit at the wrong time. In fact it's only likely to get the people that are busy paying attention to the road and ensuring they are driving safely instead of staring at their speedo.

If you honestly believe that you can keep a speed between 28 and 30 without stopping paying due care and attention to the road then your deluding youself, which is why hidden camera's are also a stupid idea unless they were only used to catch those going obviously too fast for the road. Unless your actually suggesting that everyone should drive around at 20mph.

 

[tris-]

It's somewhat different to holding up a shop where your 100% aware of what your doing.

err.. you cant say people are safely going fast and in the same post imply these people arnt fully aware of what they are doing.

i may of misread though, about the awareness thing.

 

[soze]

You say speeding is speeding, fair enough. Go to any none-camera controlled street in the UK and count the percentage of people actually following the speed limit. I'd be surprised if it was over 20%.

That's proof enough tbh that camera's are simply making zero difference to any speeding problems.

Either the speed limit is too slow, or people arn't aware of the dangers that going faster than it are causing. Remember that we arn't talking about a few teenagers speeding about, we are talking about 80% of the UK's population.

The truth is that different people have different "safe" speeds at which they can drive. I've been in cars with people that shouldn't be going at 30 through 30 zones and people that could go through the same zone at 40 fairly safely.
It's very easy if going over the crest of a hill to go from 30 to 35 on a busy road without realising it unless your staring at the speedo instead of concentrating on traffic. It's somewhat different to holding up a shop where your 100% aware of what your doing. There's plenty of idiots driving much faster than they should be and how many of these are getting caught by static camera's, probably less that those that drive at a speed close to the speed limit safely all the time. It's not punishing people that are driving dangerously or making people drive slower, it's just taxing a random percentage of car drivers that strayed over the limit at the wrong time. In fact it's only likely to get the people that are busy paying attention to the road and ensuring they are driving safely instead of staring at their speedo.

If you honestly believe that you can keep a speed between 28 and 30 without stopping paying due care and attention to the road then your deluding youself, which is why hidden camera's are also a stupid idea unless they were only used to catch those going obviously too fast for the road. Unless your actually suggesting that everyone should drive around at 20mph.

First saying some one is driving at 40 in a 30 zone safely is bollocks. The speed limit is not what it is for people to drive safely. It is to do with pedestrians the speed you hit other cars at ect. Saying some one breaks the law safely is mind boggling. Like robbing a bak with a note saying i have your daughter hostage give me the money and she dies and then saying but i robbed it safely there was no one in danger.

And the reason cameras do not change the whole contry is because of fuck heads who speed complaining about them, so its hard to put them anywhere. If cameras could be put anywhere and every where so basically if every road at any time could have a camera that would change the way people drive. As is you have to tell people where they are paint them yellow and every one gets used to them.

And yes i can happily keep my speed at 30 i know how my car sounds and unless im going up or down hill if i do not move my foot my car stays at 30. So a look every now and then is enough. Unless your the kind of mindless driver who follows the car infront like a sheep you should know how to keep your car at 30. If you do have to follow the car in front then i do not think your a very good driver, if you stay at 30 you have 10% for your seppdo to be out befor you get flashed at 34mph. And you think the camers should be changed to only flash at 45 50 well that just stupid.

So i think can i drive at 30 with out watching my speedo yes can you drive atall with out following the car infront?

People can drive safely over the speed limit thats just mental speed limits are not based on your abilities but the safety of the road or conditions.

err.. you cant say people are safely going fast and in the same post imply these people arnt fully aware of what they are doing.

i may of misread though, about the awareness thing.

Maybe special drivers are allowed to break the law and be part of amazing double standards

 

[Bugz]

I think you only need to go to France to see what a lack of speeding cameras/enforement/regulations does.

Case Closed.

 

[tris-]

Maybe special drivers are allowed to break the law and be part of amazing double standards

lol. i have no qualms with breaking the law (within reason ofc). , its not facing upto what youve done that pisses me off
went for a spin today in my mates new MX5 that ripped out 100 in a very short time. i know fine well it was illegal, even though it was an empty duel carriage way. the difference between him and most other people who get caught is he'd accept it and not cry like a pussy.

if youve driven for 1 month+ and dont have the ability to be 100% aware of what your doing, you probably shouldnt be driving. anyone with half a brain cell can tell how fast they are going just from the sound of the engine. which means saying cams make you watch the speed is a shitter excuse than saying you shouted SUPRISE before you raped someone.

surprised if it was over 20%.

That's proof enough tbh that camera's are simply making zero difference to any speeding problems.

again, i dont know why it matters why the cameras are there.

the limit is the limit (which im sure ive said multiple times). they make profit, reduce accidents, what ever. it seriously doesnt matter why they are where they are. afaik none of us here are experts at driving and none of us here have the qualification to say what speed is safe and what speed isnt.

sure, we can drive fast and feel its fine to do so. so far ive regularly clcoked up 60 on a 1/2 mile (quiet road btw, as in no other mother fucker is ever there at the same time, unless its a peek time) bend that comes into my estate. i feel its a safe speed taking into consideration the environmental factors, but that doesnt matter shit when its twice the speed limit.

if im caught, im caught. i will accept it. when it comes down to it im not qualified to say IT IS safe to do what ever i did, plus the fact its illegal anyway.

 

[Golena]

again, i dont know why it matters why the cameras are there.

the limit is the limit (which im sure ive said multiple times). they make profit, reduce accidents, what ever. it seriously doesnt matter why they are where they are. afaik none of us here are experts at driving and none of us here have the qualification to say what speed is safe and what speed isnt.

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/revisited.html

Think this guy explains it much better than I could. The figures actually show that speed camera's appear to be increasing accidents. So they actually make money and increase accidents.

If you want to continue arguing that a company getting cash for reducing safety on roads is in everyones interest then please go ahead. The topic isn't about "is speeding good or bad", it's obviously bad. But speed camera's don't stop people speeding, they just make people speed more when they do speed. Your continued attempts to call these people idiots or bad drivers that shouldn't be on the road is also pointless, because they are on the roads and camera's arn't helping to get rid of them. The bottom line is the company currently responsible for speed camera's couldn't give a crap about road safety, they just want cash to keep their job by what ever means possible.

afaik none of us here are experts at driving and none of us here have the qualification to say what speed is safe and what speed isnt.

Actually I assume that most of us here do have that qualification. It's called a driving licence. If you don't feel you have the qualifications to say what speed is safe to drive at, then sell your car and go had your licence back now, your one of the people that's going to kill someone. Passing a driving test should imply that you can tell what speed is a safe speed for the road your driving on. As a hint that speed isn't always the one on the little sign by the side of the road.

Arguing that you shouldn't be driving if you can't tell what speed your going from the sound of the engine (when I can go from 20 to 40 without the car in gear down a hill, wonder how you tell then!!) but driving when you arn't qualified to tell if the speed your doing is safe is simply mind boggling.

 

[tris-]

i probably shouldnt keep trying to debate this while im pissed, though its working for the most part.

what i meant is the people who design the speeds etc are the ones qualified to say what speed the road should be.

and by experts at driving i mean trained as a traffic policeman and other roles like that.

i thought that was all implied for some reason, oh well.

but still, you also claimed people cant be 100% aware at all times while driving. that people cant tell their speed AND focus on the driving its self (mirrors, looking around, hell even just steering the fucking thing). passing a driving test means you should be, or else we can assume the examiner didnt really take notice either.
i never said you shouldnt be driving if you cant tell the speed from engine noise.
im not sure if your taking this out of context on purpose or its all a big mistake

 

[soze]

Quoting stats from 3 years ago way to grasp at straws there. The real goverment stats show a slightly different picture prolly. As Ladyman said on top gear if you look at the real figures accidents have gone down, based on increased traffic on the roads ect

If speed cameras increas accidents then its when wank stains speed and slam on the breaks befor them. If the goverment were allowed to put them where they wanted and not put them on the edge of the road painted yellow they might be more effective.

 

[tris-]

that page is quite the biased mother fucker.

 

[Golena]

but still, you also claimed people cant be 100% aware at all times while driving. that people cant tell their speed AND focus on the driving its self (mirrors, looking around, hell even just steering the fucking thing). passing a driving test means you should be, or else we can assume the examiner didnt really take notice either.

Maybe if you believe that then that is where the problem lies.
If everyone was 100% aware of everything around them at all times then accidents simply wouldn't happen. The reason accidents do happen is because while driving the average none super-human like yourself can probably only concentrate on 70% of the stuff that's happening.

Laws arn't there to make profit or piss people off. They are there to provide a safer environment where people don't get murdered or killed by people trying to do 150 down a residential road. Can we at least agree on that? Now if the way of enforcing driving laws doesn't help make the roads a safer place to be then what's the point? Profit ofc. The idea that people are making up laws simply to make cash off people with no regard as to if it's improving safety is far more troubling than if I can drive at 40 down a stretch of road.

what i meant is the people who design the speeds etc are the ones qualified to say what speed the road should be.

Speed limits don't and never will tell you what speed it's safe to drive down a section of road. That seems to be the point your missing. I've never looked into the processes that define how a bit of road actually gets it's speed limit, but there's plenty of cases you can point at that simply make no sense. I can go find bits of road that it would be dangerous to drive down at 30 with a speed limit of 60 on them. I can also find sections of road with limits of 30 that you could fairly safely drive down at 40. Simply assuming that if your going less than the speed limit is safe is far more accurate than assuming everyone going over the speed limit is driving dangerously. I wonder what qualifications the guy who actually puts limits on roads actually has. You might find he's actually less qualified than me to define what's a safe speed for me to drive down a section of road in my car, given every car has diffferent stopping distances and every driver has different reaction times. He defines the speed it's legal for me to drive down the road, not the speed that's safe. There's a HUGE difference there.

 

[soze]

Maybe if you believe that then that is where the problem lies.
If everyone was 100% aware of everything around them at all times then accidents simply wouldn't happen. The reason accidents do happen is because while driving the average none super-human like yourself can probably only concentrate on 70% of the stuff that's happening.

Laws arn't there to make profit or piss people off. They are there to provide a safer environment where people don't get murdered or killed by people trying to do 150 down a residential road. Can we at least agree on that? Now if the way of enforcing driving laws doesn't help make the roads a safer place to be then what's the point? Profit ofc. The idea that people are making up laws simply to make cash off people with no regard as to if it's improving safety is far more troubling than if I can drive at 40 down a stretch of road.



Speed limits don't and never will tell you what speed it's safe to drive down a section of road. That seems to be the point your missing. I've never looked into the processes that define how a bit of road actually gets it's speed limit, but there's plenty of cases you can point at that simply make no sense. I can go find bits of road that it would be dangerous to drive down at 30 with a speed limit of 60 on them. I can also find sections of road with limits of 30 that you could fairly safely drive down at 40. Simply assuming that if your going less than the speed limit is safe is far more accurate than assuming everyone going over the speed limit is driving dangerously. I wonder what qualifications the guy who actually puts limits on roads actually has. You might find he's actually less qualified than me to define what's a safe speed for me to drive down a section of road in my car, given every car has diffferent stopping distances and every driver has different reaction times. He defines the speed it's legal for me to drive down the road, not the speed that's safe. There's a HUGE difference there.

In England there is no minimum speed limit just because the limit is 70 that dose not mean you have to do 70 they assume you are not stupid enough do drive at stupid speeds, in unsafe conditions. Maybe some people just can't understand that they have to drive at what is safe. Like if it was snowing and the ground was a sheet of ice would you still do 70 because thats what the sign say?

Limits are picked easily motorway dual carriage way 70
Single carriage way 60
Single carriage way not built up 40
Single Carriage way in a built up area 30

That how you are supposed to be able to know what speed to do with out the signs. They are not this exactly but just how i remember them i suggest you read your highway code if you need to learn why speeds are what they are.