What do you think good or bad

[zed]

There's no doubt these cameras do thier job, but there's also no doubt that it's a money spinner first and a saftey measure second.

Many people don't realise how these cameras work, I've been through loads of motorway roadworks where a 50 mph limit is in effect and people are happy to continue at 70 mph (rather that 85 mph as they were before the roadworks). They either know something that the rest of us don't or really don't know what 'average' means.

 

[Gucci]

Apparently the McLaren building will be surrounded by them

 

[Dieselman]

Specs in use

Today I was driving where there have been SPECS in use for 10-15 years. Judging by the speed vehicles pass through the areas covered by them they won't make much, if any revenue.
Looking at the pic I realise they are using IR, so are useful all the time.

 

[flango]

Today I was driving where there have been SPECS in use for 10-15 years. Judging by the speed vehicles pass through the areas covered by them they won't make much, if any revenue.
Looking at the pic I realise they are using IR, so are useful all the time.

Nottingham by any chance, they look like the ones on the ring road?

 

[Dieselman]

Nottingham by any chance, they look like the ones on the ring road?

Yes. These were the first ones, but have been breeding...
You have to say though, they are VERY effective at stopping speeding. No-one speeds in the areas covered.

 

[flango]

Yes. These were the first ones, but have been breeding...
You have to say though, they are VERY effective at stopping speeding. No-one speeds in the areas covered.

I agree but one of my guys was stupid enough to get caught by these exact cameras last year, I received the NIP as the car was registered to the company. When I looked at it I could not believe it Nottinghamshire Police had actually forgotten to put the actual offence committed on the NIP. Get out of Jail free, NIP cancelled and the lucky S*d got away with 3 points and £60

 

[st4]

Yes. These were the first ones, but have been breeding...
You have to say though, they are VERY effective at stopping speeding. No-one speeds in the areas covered.

So they won't make much revenue. Remember folks speed is not the number one cause of accidents but IMHO strageic placing of these camera's in accident blackspots will be of use.

 

[SimonsMerc]

A contrary view - I think that these average speed cameras are great when used properly. Average speed cameras mean that people drive at the speed limit, and don't break suddenly. As a means of enforcing speed limits (as opposed to generating revenue, I think they're superb), especially for areas where lower speed limits are justified (30mph on a residential road for instance).

The biggest problem I've had with "normal" speed cameras is people suddenly performing an emergency brake (to 20mph less than the speed limit) when they finally notice them. I've come *very* close to crashing into someone who did that on the A40 - I was driving at the speed limit, and the only thing that saved me was fast reflexes (on reflection I was a little too close to the car in front for comfort, and I've learned from that).

Note that I believe that speed limits on motorways should be higher (90 is reasonable with current technologies), and that if they were higher but enforced with average speed cameras we would all get where we need to faster.

-simon

 

[Dieselman]

A slightly old topic, I know but some more detail in todays paper.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article4909662.ece

I really can't see how they will be used as revenue raisers given this information.

“Wherever there are average-speed camera signs, the traffic moves at a uniform pace. Congestion reduces and accidents reduce.”

On the M1 the number of casualties halved after average-speed cameras were introduced on a contraflow between junctions 6a and 10.

Compliance tends to be very high: a pair of cameras on the M4 between junctions 10 and 12 issues only one penalty for every 10,000 drivers.

 

[st4]

A silghtly old topic, I know but some more detail in todays paper.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article4909662.ece

I really can't see how they will be used as revenue raisers given this information.

“Wherever there are average-speed camera signs, the traffic moves at a uniform pace. Congestion reduces and accidents reduce.”

On the M1 the number of casualties halved after average-speed cameras were introduced on a contraflow between junctions 6a and 10.

Compliance tends to be very high: a pair of cameras on the M4 between junctions 10 and 12 issues only one penalty for every 10,000 drivers.

You wouldn't even need to read the paper to realise that revenue raising won't be a byproduct of SPECs everywhere. It would be the opposite and probably render the unmarked police cars redudant. Actually it may be a cost saving measure.

 

[kwakdonut]

Actually it may be a cost saving measure.

The scourge of modern life and the very reason why we have 4 Policeman and 1 dog covering the whole country. Or something like that!

Why can't politicians see that 'cutting costs' is not always the answer?

Waste is bad but I would prefer to have a decent, well-manned Police force who have discretion at their fingertips instead of badly-placed cameras.

 

[Rovinghawk]

I support cameras located in built up areas, i support them by schools and small roads, i support them when they are located in accident blackspots.

I DONT support having them on big wide open motorways such as the M1 and I personally think the 70 mph limit on M roads is a huge mickey take.

i think theres a point where it goes too far.. The odd gatso is fine... All this average speed stuff will simply lead to more fake plates, cars registered in incorrect names & addresses etc etc. there are plenty of ways around the system...

if pushed too far, more and more people will cheat the system.

I agree totally.
I disagree with Kjay, though- the speed limiters fitted to the cars will more likely be 25mph than 70mph

RH

 

[Dieselman]

Why can't politicians see that 'cutting costs' is not always the answer?

Because people want to have more services and pay less tax. The only way to achieve that is for them to cost less.

Do the respective Police services actually cost less than previously.?