are speed cameras making??

http://tinyurl.com/2jrxs

100k per day on the M42....

Apparently on date Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:51:03 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
<news (AT) timkemp (DOT) karoo.co.uk> said:

Well, being somewhat to the point, this goes to show there are far too many
speeding drivers going through those roadworks.

Can't really argue with that being an extremely good place to put a safety
camera on that basis, providing it / they are nice big orange things with
clearly marked speed limits.

Six cars an hour doesn't seem to be a high figure for the M42 from where I'm
sitting, so it must have made a heck of a lot more than six cars an hour slow
down to the allowable limit. Hence, the cameras are doing what they are
intended to do, i.e. slow down the traffic in a place where a danger is
perceived (people working on the roadworks.)

Lets face it, at some time or another we all speed (even by only 1mph)

The way I look at GATSO's is this.... if you are speeding but see a GATSO
and slow down to the correct speed limit it shows that you are at least
paying attention to the road infront. To know a GATSO maybe ahead you may
see other cars braking as well as the the bright markings on them all. It
shows you are paying attention to the road. If you dont see one of these
brightly painted box's while doing more speed than you should be then you
cant be concentrating on the road and deserve to get flashed.

Many a time I have been doing over the limit on the M6 through
Cumbria/Dumfries where there are many Talivans on the overhead bridges but I
see them well in advance and I have never been done. Maybe the guys
operating these can see the people that do slow down a long way away and
just go for the ones that still speed past oblivious that its there?

Any thoughts?

Steve


"Tim S Kemp" <news (AT) timkemp (DOT) karoo.co.uk> wrote

"Tim S Kemp" <news (AT) timkemp (DOT) karoo.co.uk> wrote

I think it's difficult to argue against speed cameras - it's a bit like I.D.
cards in that if you have nothing to hide then they won't worry you. The
huge figures being paid to the government as a direct result of speed
cameras prove that there are a lot of motorists speeding.

I'm certainly not one of the "speeding kills" brigade but there have to be
limits and if you knowingly go beyond them then you have to pay for the
privilege. People say that the cameras are just a fund-raising venture but
those funds are coming from drivers who are breaking the law, simple as
that, whether the cameras are on dangerous roads or not.

Sorry to have to use the old "what if yer poor ol' granny was knocked down
by a speeding driver?" thing, but...what if? Would you have liked to have a
camera fifty yards upstream of the tivvy home?

Si

antispam (AT) nowhere (DOT) com wrote:
except of course that the cameras operate even when no work is going on

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:29:25 -0000, "Steve" <No (AT) Way (DOT) com> wrote:


So are you not concentrating when flashed by a hidden camera. ;-)

Last points/fine I got were on my bike before I sold it - filmed from
someone's driveway (from behind)... only knew they were there because
I turned around further on and came back the same way... now that's
improving road safety for you...

Mark S.

do against them is not to speed!!!

Mungo "two sheds" Toadfoot (ufdi (AT) hotmail (DOT) com) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

As usual, the devil is in the detail.

The reasoning behind the locations chosen is often odd, if viewed from a
safety point of view, yet logical if viewed from under a cynical hat.

The removal of resources from other aspects of traffic enforcement that has
coincided with the move to speed cameras is also suspicious - and has led to
a real decrease in the quality of driving, and a real increase in the number
of unregistered/uninsured cars on the road.

I'd rather my granny had a narrow miss from somebody who was doing 40 in a
30 than got run over by somebody doing 29 yet paying no attention to
anything outside their windows.

Well if she was, my first question would be: does she like a drink?

A study by the Transport Research Laboratory in 2003 found that, on average,
over 50% of pedestrians involved in traffic accidents had been drinking.
For
most age groups the rate was over 60%, for the 16-34 age group it was over
70%: http://tinyurl.com/2wvkn (PDF).

When the government quotes the number of pedestrians run over they always
fail to mention this fact; it's easier to blame motorists than to address a
wider social problem that they are not dealing with effectively.

(OT I know, but the government estimate that 40% of violent crime, 78% of
assaults and 88% of criminal damage is committed under the influence of
alcohol. Little seems to be being done to address this.)

The government (and certain police authorities) would have us believe that
the average road journey is as hazardous as a scene from 'Death Race 2000';
they always fail to mention that, according to the Department of Transport
in 2001 http://tinyurl.com/yprmy, we have the safest roads in Europe (and
probably the world).


--
Remove Xs to reply direct

"Steve Knight" <steve.kXnigXht1 (AT) bluXeyonXder (DOT) co.uk> wrote

Except by the public natured motorist running them down.