h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>The problem with cameras is they only modify behaviour after conviction<<

Err, no. There's also all the people that don't speed because of the camera. - Kea


People only slow down at the camera sites. What tends to happen is people slow down as they approach the camera and speed up again after they are past. Sometimes this involves violent braking if they don't notice the camera in time. This in itself has a knock-on effect causing frustration and, arguably, more accidents.

Most sensible drivers (and believe it or not, that's the majority) agree with cameras for safety reasons - near schools, at blackspots etc. But it is clear that many cameras are placed on perfectly safe stretches of road, often partly hidden behind road signs. These are indubitably income generators.


I drive 50k miles a year. I've been caught speeding twice and had one serious accident (when I was doing 45-50 mph in a 60 zone). The 2nd time I was caught, because it was in England I was offered a speed awareness course. I had been caught by a camera that had been set up on the M6 motorway to cover roadworks - except the roadworks had been cleared away 3 days previously and this temporary camera was pretty well obscured by some road maintenance gear on the verge. The course had 20 people, including me. 17 of us had been caught by the same camera. Some of the locals on the course told us that the council had gleefully announced in the press that over 3500 drivers had been caught in one week by this camera. Can you understand why drivers start to get irritated?

"People only slow down at the camera sites."

Which 'people' is this of which you speak?

I don't speed, behaviour which altered because of the cameras, but I don't speed *anywhere* because you never know where a mobile camera will be parked, or where schoolkids will be standing pointing cameras at you, or even communities now can use speed cameras, although that only generates a letter or three before the then start actively looking out for your car speeding around town.

So yes, they do work. If they got rid of cameras I'd probably start speeding again.

Personally I'm in favour of speed cameras as income generators. If you don't want to contribute to the pot, DON'T SPEED. If you do speed and get caught, think of it as a subscription fee allowing you to do what the hell you like, at least a few times. I'd rather speeders pay, than my taxes are increased to replace the money.

The more speeding idiots the cameras kick off the roads, the safer and better roads will be. Collisions are in the main, caused by people driving TOO FAST and TOO CLOSE. If there is a child darting out into the road, he must have been on the pavement, giving a clue there was a hazard, which should lead anyone to take more care. If you can't see a child on the side of the road, pay more attention, drive slower or strap your guide dog on the roof so he can watch for you.

When I said I'd start speeding again if cameras were removed, I meant on motorways. I wouldn't speed round town because it's too dangerous.

>> It's entirely possible to lose your licence on one trip between Dundee and Aberdeen and to be totally unaware of this until the letters drop through your letterbox two weeks later.

No it's not.

1) If you are clocked the camera will flash twice in your rear view mirror. If you miss that on four separate occasions then you are too blind to drive safely.

2) Empty cameras do nothing to cut down on speeding because drivers ignore them because they *might* get away with it. The cameras on the Preston New Road in Blackpool are ALWAYS functional, and the only people who speed on the Preston New Road are first-time visitors. The cameras on the Keighley to Halifax road are NEVER functional, and I was the dangerous bitch who obeyed them.

So if the cameras on the Aberdeen to Dundee road ALWAYS worked, and worked correctly, then they speed on the road would be reduced. The occasional visitor might get clocked once by the first of them, but would be cautious for the rest of them.

And colour me nasty, but if you do the crime you should bloody well pay the fine.

<>

There are very few cameras on motorways anyway - mainly at roadworks which is why when a camera is actually put on a motorway with no roadworks, the results are spectacular. Wasn't there one in England that made millions because it was set up half a mile after the roadworks ended and was left there for over a year?

As to speeding in towns - I and the majority of drivers are totally in agreement with you. The people in the community calling for cameras to protect their kids are often drivers too. Just as in every other crime or anti-social behaviour, urban speeding is done by a tiny fraction of motorists. Mainly these are young males (but increasingly young females) aged 18-25. There have been loads of initiatives to try and tackle this - harder tests, better training, lowered limits before a ban (6pts as opposed to 12) but very little has worked.

For one simple reason. Speeding is fun. It's exciting, thrilling, exhilarating and it's something adolescents have been doing since Moses had a go-kart. Yes there are adults who speed in towns but their speeding is accompanied by bad driving - cutting people up, jumping traffic lights, aggressive behaviour. None of these things can be stopped with cameras. To such people cameras are just another hazard. Only traffic police can realistically tackle such driving.

Mina's put her finger on it: there is far too much generalisation about drivers' views on speed cameras.

*Some* people behave as SWL suggests, and slow down dangerously for them and speed up rapidly after them. And *some* behave like Mina and me, obeying speed limits generally because of the sheer bloody vulnerability of other road users.

And while we're comparing mileages, my name is Ben and I've driven 20-30,000 miles every year for the last 25. In that time I've been rear-ended on roundabouts twice (once while stationary) had a minor bump in a car-park and been clocked for speeding 4 times, once resulting in a speed awareness course.

Zen - in bright sunlight the flash isn't always apparent.

Though I'll grant you, bright sunshine hasn't been in great supply this year

Incidentally, I'm hugely in favour of variable speeds on motorways; the M74 4:00am on a clear mid-summer morning is a very different proposition from the M8 in Glasgow or the M25 anywhere at 6:30pm the same day.

Actually, I find the problem with bright sunlight is false positives, swl - I think I've been clocked when I haven't.

And call me Ben, you've known me long enough, or Mrs Zen if you're feeling formal. I feel like a public school boy if you call me Zen, and that's a recipe for all sorts of innuendo.

My problem is I never use the rear mirror. The way I figure it is - if you're behind me *I'm* *your* problem. So flashes in the rear view mirror don't concern me.

"My problem is I never use the rear mirror. " swl

Ah what a great driver you are!

Right. I spend every morning in life on Belfast's infamous Westlink. The speed limit there is 50. It's that because the curves are very sharp and there is no hard shoulder, plus 3 or 4 short slip roads joining it in the space of a mile.

Speeding along here is rife. I sit at 50, and EVERY MORNING cars swoop past me on either side doing much in excess of that.

Most days there is a collision somewhere along it.

There are no speed cameras.

Any suggestions as to how the drivers who blatantly, continuously and dangerously flout this limit be educated?????

Kneecapping.


Or has that been tried?

"If you are clocked the camera will flash twice in your rear view mirror. If you miss that on four separate occasions then you are too blind to drive safely."

Or you're driving a van which doesn't *have* a rear view mirror...

Technically you don't need a rear view mirror to drive safely. Here at least you legally only need side mirrors. This is why trucks with loads are legal - they mirror drive with side mirrors because they have no rear visibility otherwise (and don't have a normal rear view mirror).


SWL, I disagree that speeders in town are invariably young men. Sure people hooning tend to be, but speeding alone seems to be done by a wide variety of people. Speeding on the open road seems to be done more by people in fast and/or expensive cars. I'm sure airbags and fancy brakes increase speed too.


And I take your point about some speed cameras being stupidly placed and used. But you seem to be arguing against them in general. The ones I am most familiar with are in vans or cars and parked on a road that I travelled alot. They were in a 50km zone just past where it dropped from 70km, so it caught alot of people. Locals would flick their lights to let people know, which is fine. It not only made me slow down, but it reminded me that that the people who live along that stretch of road were entitled to not have cars travelling above 50km especially as there was a school bus stop there and kids often crossing the road.

with Kerr

hooning?

Done by boy racers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon

What do you call it?

This post has been removed.