Council to consider future of Shropshire’s speed cameras
Monday 9th August 2010, 2:45PM BST.
SPEED CAMERAS could be axed across the county as part of measures by Shropshire Council to save £60 million over the next three years, the authority’s leader said today.
Councillor Keith Barrow said the authority would look at whether significant savings could be made by removing funding for speed cameras via the West Mercia Safety Camera Partnership.
It follows a move by Oxfordshire County Council which switched off its speed cameras this month as part of a £13 million budget cut.
Councillor Barrow today stressed there were no plans in place as yet to do the same in Shropshire.
He said: “Speed cameras aren’t at the top of our list at the moment but it has to be balanced. I think speed cameras do a very good job at saving lives and they are not about penalising motorists. But we are looking at absolutely everything and nothing is ruled out.”
The council has already pulled £150,000 worth of funding for speed cameras in the county this year as government funding dries up but Mr Barrow today warned more severe cuts may have to be made.
He said: “I have requested a full report from officers with all options including a total cut, some cuts and no cuts being looked at. We need all the information so we can make a decision. But clearly there are some cameras, such as the one at Shotatton crossroads, which have such obvious road safety benefits that we would be crazy to get rid of.”
A spokeswoman for the West Mercia Safety Camera Partnership said: “There are 22 speed camera sites in the Shropshire Council area, four fixed and 18 mobile camera sites.
“We don’t record a total amount of how much it costs to run each camera per year.”
By Russell Roberts
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
- Shrewsbury’s broadband speed one of slowest in UK
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
If only speed cameras had been kept at locations were speeding was a real issue, and not used as a cash cow.
Still, it’s too late now.
Report abuse
I’m all in favour of getting rid of these one dimensional automatons. Speed can be *a* factor in road traffic accidents, but by no means the only one – and certainly not speed in a fixed location where only fifty metres of road is monitored.
Report abuse
What has happened to the SAFETY aspect the councils have been preaching all these years?
The told us they were not ”revenue raisers” they were there to save lives.
So what IS the truth?
Saving money is more important than saving lives????
Report abuse
SPEEDING KILLS, CAMERAS SAVE LIVES, FACT
Report abuse
Asif, if you’re going to shout such a preposterous assertion, then do us readers a favour and PROVIDE SOME RUDDY HARD EVIDENCE FOR IT
Because, I’ll say this, if they were so ruddy effective at saving lives why are so many county councils throughout the country now turning them all off? Hmmm? Any thoughts? I have.
It’s because we’ve been lied to, Asif. Lied to by all the employees of “safety” camera partnerships since 1993, and all of the public money that has paid for these things for the last 17 years has been for nought. Nothing. Because I know Asif that it cannot be proved that a speed camera has saved one single life. Ever.
Report abuse
because the cameras have done their job and made people drive slower, perhaps
Report abuse
Another FACT as you like to call it.
Swindon have turned all their camera’s off 2 years ago, but oddly there has not been an increase in accidents.
Another FACT, camera’s don’t catch drunk drivers, drug drivers, car thieves or uninsured drivers, they are the real menace!
Report abuse
A typical boring reply.
And where do you get this ‘apparently true’ information from?
Let me guess, the ‘Safer Roads Partnerships’ website?
- maybe even the untrue and regularly varied figures that get published by the government for the ‘brainwashing’ of the general public into backing their despised exsistence?
Actual figures only put speeding as a contributor to between 5-7% of all road accidents last year.
Camera’s do not save lives, they catch you ‘speeding’ (after the crime has been committed), fine you and add points to your license. (paramedics, life jackets etc, save lives).
As for standards of driving improving, most motorists are that scared of the ‘speed kills’ propaganda and the underhand tactics of the SRP’s camera’s, that they now spend half of their journey’s with their eyes glued to the speedometer.
- hardly a good way of encouraging safer driving?…
FYI, one of the ideas originally as a detterent was that it was socially unacceptable and embarrassing to have points on your license for speeding, but due to this relentless assault on the british motorist, just about everybody has them now, so who cares.
Lets get rid of the Scamera menace once and for all, and put some common sense back into driving.
Report abuse
Matt – If they are this magical ‘cash cow’ that you seem to imagine then why are they costing £60 million over three years? Surely this ‘tax on the innocent motorist’ should be making them money as you claim, not costing them money?
Report abuse
Why? Because they can’t even get THAT right, can they?
A speed camera can tell you what you did last week. That’s not very helpful. Not in immediate road safety terms.
Report abuse
this is a classic example of the false economy of tory cuts – you cut cameras and save a few hundred grand on processing films etc but you then loose millions of pounds worth of income in fines and the NHS has to spend millions on road traffic accidents
that is utter folly of the most absurb variety
Report abuse
And somewhere a little sheep bleated: “Tory cuts! Tory cuts! Tory cuts!”
Report abuse
“SPEEDING KILLS, CAMERAS SAVE LIVES, FACT”
That’s right ASIF, one pulled me out of the river, as I was drowning once…;-)
Report abuse
Abs, air bags, seat belts, crumple zones, side impact protection, and every other safety feature that have improved motor vehicles in the last 20 year have done much more to save lives than speed cameras
Report abuse
Speed is always a factor in accidents. Stationary vehicles don’t collide. The faster you go (other things being equal) the more likely you are to have an accident and the worse the consequences of an accident are likely to be. Basic physics, really.
Councils are now having to close speed cameras because they are not going to get enough money from the government to run them. Disproves the nonsense about cash cows, doesn’t it?
Report abuse
They don’t record how much it costs to run each camera? Why is this kind of financial incompetence allowed by organizations that are spending public money?
Report abuse
It’s simple – don’t break the law and you won’t get caught.
A story in the Star published on Friday stated:
“The number of motorists breaking the speed limit on the A483 through Pant has fallen by 26 per cent since speed cameras were introduced in the village in November”
Is that such a bad thing? Would you like that much traffic speeding past your front door? The village of Pant is going to be safer with them in place, yet the speed freaks couldn’t care less – they just want to get everywhere 30 seconds sooner.
On a busy road like the A483 if you speed and/or overtake someone driving at or below the speed limit it’s not going to be long before you come up behind another law-abiding driver, and you merely join the queue sooner rather than later.
Speed is a *significant* factor in many RTCs and if you’re going faster you have less time to react and you cause more damage to whoever you hit. Why do so many people feel others’ lives are worth so little?
Report abuse
Turn off the speed cameras and replace them with something more useful like ANPR cameras. At least these cameras will catch the illegal drivers without a license, insurance or tax.
Report abuse
This is proof that speed cameras work because now people aren’t driving so fast the speed cameras aren’t profitable anymore.
They only make money when loads of people drive too fast.
Report abuse
Hypothecation or “netting off” stopped years ago, and from that point onward all the fines from speed cameras have gone to directly to central government. Not the council. Not the camera partnerships.
So nobody for years has been profiting from speed camera tickets, except the government. And they are the ones initiating the cuts….
Report abuse
because they no longer make money from the cameras but they still have to maintain them.
Report abuse
Whats the problem with speed cameras? Speed limits are there to be stuck to, so if your a law abiding citizen who takes responsibility for their own actions then you won’t get caught. Simple.
If you do drive too fast and get caught then frankly you are an idiot and deserve everything you get.
And given the way a lot of people speed through residential areas we should have more speed cameras, not less.
Report abuse
Yes but speed isn’t a major factor in accident rates, poor observation and driving skills cause far more accidents than someone exceeding a speed limit, which may even have been cut by 20plusMPH, in the last few years.
Speed cameras don’t save lives, they just catch motorists who are probably driving far more safely than the morons that DON’T:
… speed, indicate, look in mirrors, use the correct lane, think before pulling out into fast moving traffic, use headlights in bad visibilit AND
… weave around the road aimlessly, drink in excess, take drugs, show no consideration or awareness of other road users.
Do you want any more examples of people that cameras DON’T catch?
Report abuse
do you not think that observation and driving skills are not affected when driving too fast.
Report abuse
” The faster you go (other things being equal) the more likely you are to have an accident and the worse the consequences of an accident are likely to be. Basic physics, really.”
NOT TRUE, studies have shown that vehicles travelling at the 85 percentile speed have less accidents and the accident rates go up when people travel faster OR slower than this speed, which is why all speed limits used to be set around this speed, before the last government changed it and made the roads LESS safe.
Report abuse
SPEED KILLS. Do away with all fixed speed cameras and replace them with the mobile ones
that are not obvious and stand out a mile like the ones that are now used. You could put on them Joe Blogs Builder etc,and you could use different colour vehicles, now this would catch the speed merchants.
Report abuse
[As for standards of driving improving, most motorists are that scared of the ‘speed kills’ propaganda and the underhand tactics of the SRP’s camera’s, that they now spend half of their journey’s with their eyes glued to the speedometer.]
Er no unless you are a motorist who should be banned from driving.
If you are driving at the correct safe speed for that road it is not necessary to keep looking at the speedometer and you will be a good considerate driver to other road users as you presumably were once in order to pass your driving test.
Report abuse
“Not necessary to keep looking at the speedometer”?
Possibly, if you drive everywhere with your cruise control activated, or you own a black Trans Am which talks to you.
If you’re not checking your speedometer frequently, then how will you know whether you’re driving within the speed limit?
Report abuse
It may be just me but most accidents in Shropshire seem to occur late Friday or Saturday night and involve under 30′s. Very few of these accidents occur near speed camera locations and if they do when was the last time anyone saw a speed camera operating at night (other than the fixed ones).
An out of county example is on the A449 out of Kidderminster. A couple of years ago 4 or 5 youngsters were killed in what proved to be an unroadworthy vehicle driven at an in appropriate speed late at night. The reaction was to install a speed camera on the stretch of road involved, which on a dry day, with a well maintained vehicle could be driven at 70mph without a problem.
I welcome mobile speed cameras in the right location, i.e. near schools during the appropriate hours (8am and 9am or 3pm and 4pm). Not like the ones that operate near my local school which set up about 9-30am and finish about 2-30pm, these are just out to make money and do not protect anyone.
Report abuse
i agree with Asif, there is plenty of evidence that they slow people down and therefore make roads safer – see to install one you have to present a case to the Dept of Transport which includes analysis of accidents on that spot, normally serious incidents need to occur before you can get one installed
Report abuse
I once placed a garden gnome at the side of a stretch of road that had an unusually high number of accidents over two years.
In the two years after gnome placement, accidents fell! See! Garden gnomes save lives.
Have you not heard of regression to the mean, early bird?
Can you post some evidence that supports your assertion that they make roads safer?
The massive increase in speed camera numbers since the first one was installed in 1993 should show a corresponding sharp drop in the number of road deaths, should it not? Hmm? Government figures show otherwise:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/images/charts/1208.gif
As the number of speed cameras increase, the number of road deaths plateau! They stop decreasing! The expected benefit does not occur!
Report abuse
looks like dr alis report makes you look pretty silly there winja
HA HA – youre wrong AGAIN!
Report abuse
In their current form they are too obvious to serve any real purpose. They only move accident black spots to other locations, where people feel able to drive fast without getting caught. And I can also accept the argument that they actually cause more accidents than they prevent, because people brake suddenly and take their eyes off the road when they spot them.
The logical and sensible solution is to hide them completely.
People wouldn’t be distracted looking for them. But they would have to completely change their driving habits, else bit hit in the pocket every day of the week until they did. It change driver behaviour overnight. But why do something today that you can put off until tomorrow.
Report abuse
So, by that argument, presumably you would favour the implementation of Intelligent Speed Adaption being fitted to all cars? Yes?
You’ve heard of ISA? A little black box in your boot that, by GPS, knows exactly where your car is at any given time and physically prevents – through electronic intervention – your car driving over a given speed limit even by 1mph?
You support this idea?
Report abuse
Absolutely. I actually already drive around with GPS fitted, but for my own amusement. It is surprisingly easy to drive within the speed limit if you are so inclined. Give it a try.
Report abuse
for those in search of evidence may i suggest you read the University of West of England Study by Pilkington and Kenra as published in the British Medical Journal. Google it.
There paper reported reductions in outcomes across studies ranging from 5% to 69% for collisions, 12% to 65% for injuries, and 17% to 71% for deaths in the immediate vicinity of camera sites.
If thats not enough for you come to Shrewsbury A&E any time you like if you think speeding isnt a problem
Report abuse
If you would care to look at the link to the graph I posted in comment #20, you will see that the huge reductions you claim are not reflected nationally.
For 13 years since 1993 there was a negligible reduction in road deaths, and a massive increase in speed traps. That means one thing, and one thing only. The cameras moved accidents elsewhere, there was never any benefit from their installation. None.
Report abuse
#15
[Do you want any more examples of people that cameras DON’T catch?]
There are more of those than you think roadrunner. They are the other road users pedestrians (remember them?), cyclists, those in and out of their vehicles or using the road constantly like milkmen, postmen etc.
These people can use the highway more safely when car speeds are reduced. The speed limits have to be forciblyimposed as the experiments in Oxfordshire have proved where the cameras were removed and car speeds monitored showing a huge increase in speeding.
It can mean the difference between being housebound or keeping mobile for many folk.
I can’t believe the selfish, arrogant and egotistical nature of some of these comments.
It’s not about how much better paramedics can put mangled bodies back together or whose driving is better than whose it’s about not being selfish.
Ironically isn’t people looking after each other what the Tories call the Big Society.
Great start they are making to that!
Report abuse
Yes eva.
An 88% increase in breaking a speed limit in one spot. No mention of the 88% increase in KSI’s, though, is there? Why? Because there wasn’t.
Report abuse
I understand that it was the government’s own Office of Statistics (or whatever their title is now) which forced the Dept of Transport to correct its figures on the numbers of accidents directly attributable to speeding. The result being that only around 6 or 7% of all accidents occurred due to speeding.
That leaves 93 to 94% of accidents caused by other factors and it is these which the camera supporters just cannot seem to get through their heads – trotting out each time the same tired “speed kills” mantra. Now whilst 6 or 7% is still too high, I would sooner take my chances with a speeding driver than I would with many others out there who clearly should not be in “control” of their vehicles,and who are the cause of far more accients.
It’s all too easy for the self righteous to concentrate solely on the speed issue, but have they seen the standards of driving out there these days? Only the clear presence of police patrols will go someway to resolving the uninsured driver menace, the dangerous drivers and the space cadets under the influence of who knows what, who take to the wheel. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Report abuse
im not sure im happy about this localism nonesense on things like roads which are national, this sounds like “postcode lottery” to me! i mean if my kids driving on a road in scotland, shropshire, london or wherever i expect that to be safe to a national standard and speed, if some one comes here on holiday and dies on our roads because shropshire council has decided to run its highways at a lower standard to their area how can you justify that?
god help us if some one dies as a result of this, its insane to mess with safety for political gains, there will be blood on their hands i fear
Report abuse
spencer
2do you not think that observation and driving skills are not affected when driving too fast.”
There’s driving fast and driving TOO fast. If you are driving too fast, for your own observational skills, then you are obviously driving dangerously but everyone has a different level at which they can drive safely, which is why the very best competetive drivers are well paid and few and far between.
However, if you are driving TOO slow, you can become complacent, bored and your attention can wander. Drivers need a certain amount of stimulus to keep them alert, this is why more accidents happen at lower speeds than some higher speeds.
Report abuse
I’m not sure if more accidents do happen at slower speeds but surely the higher the speed, the higher the mortality rate, which makes ASIF’s comment more accurate than some people have given him credit.
And as for the point you make about differing observational skills, everyone thinks that they are a better driver than they actualy are which is one of the reasons why the national speed limit was introduced, followed some time later by speed cameras because people still wouldn’t abide by the law.
The reason i think that these speed cameras have been a success is because to start with they caught a lot of people and made a large profit, it has taken time to sink in with some people but most have now discovered that if they don’t drive above the limit then they don’t get fined or even banned Which is why the cameras have will start to dissapear.
Report abuse
Have you never heard of motorways, highest speeds, lowest death rates…strange combination, eh?
Report abuse
i can’t even believe i’m answering this, but motorways generally go in straight lines and have more lanes therefore it has been common knowledge for a number of years that people are allowed to drive faster because of these reasons.
I dare say the fireman below has attended mor RTA’s than you so therefore knows the answers , but then again i dare say you watch Top Gear so know more rhan any of us.
Report abuse
Oh please!
In the 20,000+ miles I drive every year spencer I can tell you right now that the worst drivers out there (in terms of basic skills) are the ones least likely to be snapped by a speed camera.
And roadrunner has a point. Accident rates can increase in lower speed limits. A cursory analysis of govt stats show that accident frequency in 20 zones is higher than 30 zones.
Report abuse
I never said there weren’t more accidents at higher speed, i said more people get killed..
surely its more important to save lives. Whats next, not wearing seatbelts is safer in an accident
Report abuse
as a fire fighter attending years of rtas i can assure you the ones at high speed are much more deadly than at lower speeds
Report abuse
Thats like saying that a gun does a better job of killing you than a knife but where do most deaths come from in this country, Knives or bullets?
Report abuse
best make sure i don’t get hit by a slow moving yet very sharp and pointy car then.
Possibly the most pointless ( no pun intended ) ridiculous comment ever left on this site.
Report abuse
“god help us if some one dies as a result of this, its insane to mess with safety for political gains, there will be blood on their hands i fear”
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. I’ve been driving a lot longer than there have been cameras on the roads and I don’t feel any safer with cameras on roads than before, less safe in fact.
Swindon casualty rate has gone down, so expect a downturn nationally.
Report abuse
#15
“[Do you want any more examples of people that cameras DON’T catch?]
There are more of those than you think roadrunner. They are the other road users pedestrians (remember them?), cyclists, those in and out of their vehicles or using the road constantly like milkmen, postmen etc.”
I don’t understand you , Eva, are you saying that you want cameras to catch ….
“pedestrians(remember them?), cyclists, those in and out of their vehicles or using the road constantly like milkmen, postmen etc.”
How strange!
Report abuse
i think speed cameras are sensible, but then ive never been caught! it amazes me anyone can be caught they are luminous yellow for christ sake, if you miss them you must have been really speeding badly or not observing the road, either way you should be fined or banned in my view
Report abuse
well said
Report abuse
they should be turned off in most locations
its a bit unnerving doing the limit and a rocket fast approaches and when they overtake
usually on the wrong side at speed you think–why bother
Report abuse
[Speed cameras don’t save lives, they just catch motorists who are probably driving far more safely than the morons that DON’T:]
How? Those drivers caught driving over the speed limit are ones that think they are immune from the law or cannot read a speedometer or have not learn’t road manners appreciating that other road users like pedestrians find life safer if drivers are made to drive sensibly whether they are sensible people/drivers or not.
I cannot decide whether you are truly unintelligent or just choosing to appear so.
Judging the value of speed cameras by numbers of accidents or people caught speeding is not sufficient.
The fact that a camera is there means that as a driver you can be confident the speed of cars at a junction, as a pedestrian ditto if you are trying to cross over which you know jolly well was not the case when the camera was not there.
As I have said, it is nothing to do with skill and those who think that they are entitled to drive above speed limits should not be on the road at all. They should be the ones forced to stay at home playing at being fast car drivers on a play station. The elderly, disabled, children and other road users can then not feel intimidated by law breakers who erroneously think they know better or just don’t care.
Report abuse
when i read some of these comments from roadrunner and winja, even though i’m reading them in my head i can hear Jeremy Clarksons voice.. Vrrrrrrrrmm vrrrrrrrrrmm
Report abuse
What speed camera supporters don’t appreciate, is that there are a larger proportion of people KILLED, through bad driving (93% to 7%), so speed cameras don’t catch the 97% of worse drivers, that are the REAl killers out there. As someone who has driven over a million miles, over the last 37 years and often driven 1500 miles a week, I think I have seen more of them than a firefighter, who only goes wher his jobs calls him which is a few miles from his depot or Eva the nurse.
Report abuse
Now that is insulting ;)
I like to think of myself more Chris Harris than Clarkson. But without the mighty car control of Mr Harris…….or his flair for writing about cars.
Yet I read your comments, spencer, and all I can hear is Ken Livingstone :)
Report abuse
Eva,
I still find it baffling how your thought process tells you that a driver travelling at 51mph in a 50 zone is less well mannered than the one driving at 49mph. Moreover, are you really saying that your common or garden pedestrian can tell the difference between a car doing 32mph and 30mph? If so then I can’t be bothered to decide if you’re telling porkies or not.
By what other method would you suggest measuring the success (or lack thereof) of a speed camera if not accident stats. Accident stats were the apparent reason for that camera being installed in the first instance. You’ve gotta compare apples with apples sweet cheeks, otherwise you’d jolly well best not compare at all.
And your assertion by implication that cameras are all located at or near pedestrian crossings or junctions is rubbish. Take the A34 between Stone and Newcastle under Lyme. It is infested with the ruddy things, and a dual carriageway for god’s sake. The only junctions are at roundabouts. The only pedestrian crossings are light controlled.
You are, of course, perfectly entitled to think that those who break a speed limit (even if it’s the n’th degree which is what you imply) should not be on the road. I, on the other hand, think that those who cannot use their indicators in the properly accepted manner should be the first ones in the “bad drivers skip”.
Report abuse
hello what about cuts
why cut something that is making money! so my taxes will go up for this, thats not right!
Report abuse
if you were to actually get out and do a lot of driving, Eva, all through the night and day and over all sorts of roads, then you would notice that the biggest menace on the roads are often the ones sticking to a speed limit but have no other respect for other motorists. These are the ones who cause most deaths by pulling out in front of traffic on main roads and not observing the conditions or surrounding traffic…. women are very big contributors in this group, by the way.
Report abuse
I totally agree.
One of the biggest problems on the road are the drivers who will not stick to the speed limits, i.e, drive at 25 in a 30, or those who do 55/60 on motorways, whether out of arrogance or their own incapability to drive.
I have lost count the times over the last month i have had to suffer people ‘ambling’ down slip roads onto motorways, forcing me to brake etc.. (maybe a coincidence here, but the majority of these drivers cars were sporting ‘national trust’ stickers?)
These drivers are more of a threat to other motorists than those keeping to the limit, or are (god forbid) just over.
The modern car is designed to be safe (to a point) in accidents, with airbags, side impact bars, crumple zones, active bonnets etc…, which they didn’t have years ago when limits were higher, so why do the modern arbitary speeds have to keep coming down to a point where driving becomes painful, pointless and dull?
Maybe one day all new cars will come equipped with a man, who walks in front with a red flag and trumpet to warn everybody as per the days of the first motorcar.
- Maybe then everyone will be happy.
If actual figures put speeding as a 5% cause of all RTA’s, why is it that people ‘harp on’ about speeding motorists constantly, and not at why nothing is being done about the other 95%?
Speed camera’s do nothing but cause to misery to a great majority of ‘safe’ drivers, who may have accidentally broken the speed limit for a short while.
Yes, accidents do happen, as we are not all robots.
As ridiculously mentioned by a chief police officer recently these people are in a similar category to murderers, rapists, paedophiles etc…??!
How pathetic.
Has the county gone completely mad?
Surely as per the ’95%’ figure readily available to view being atributed to other causes, maybe it has if ‘speed’ is its number one priority.
Report abuse
“i can’t even believe i’m answering this, but motorways generally go in straight lines and have more lanes therefore it has been common knowledge for a number of years that people are allowed to drive faster because of these reasons.”
So it’s NOT the actual speed that kills then Spencer, but type of roads, are we getting somehwere at last?
Have you ever heard of the saying, “inappropriate speed for the conditions”?
Report abuse
Spencer, you are obviuously a Top Gear fan but I prefer Fifth Gear with its much more balanced presenters in Jason Plato, Vicki Butler-Henderson and Tiff Needel, all competition drivers and with far more road experience than Clarkson and his bunch.
Report abuse
I’ve been in the motor trade for 15 years so get most of my information direct from the manufacturer rather than watching it on the telly..
Report abuse
cameras work, slower safer, lives saved
Report abuse
Why oh why do you fail to see that far higher fatalities and injuries are caused by factors which have nothing whatsoever to do with the speed issue?
Burying your head in the sand and choosing to ignore this fact, or living in blissful ignorance, is beyond my comprehension I’m afraid.
Report abuse
Most people are making a lot of sense here, there are a lot of arguments for and against cameras, but no one should have any objection to them if they are a law abiding motorist, however I see the frustration people must experience because they were 5mph over the limit when ordinarily sensible drivers. However simple momentum calculations with (mass x velocity) will help those who don’t believe excessive speeding is a dangerous factor.
I’d like to see (or not see) just a mobile camera unit without badges all over it, and it used everywhere not just the designated sites.
Increase the tolerance on speeding so 35mph don’t get done and it’s the idiots doing 60 in 30 zones. Have some live footage being taken so they can record all the other ridiculous driving that goes on as well, plus ANPR and pass it on to the police.
The VOSA vehicles do it, the police lurk places, as does their overt Mobile CCTV van, so why can’t a camera van do so?
It only has to be temporary, give it 5-10 years and why can’t all cars have sat nav built in that tells you you’re speeding?
Report abuse
As I climbed behind the wheel of a HGV on my first lesson, my instructor said. “Forget what you learnt in a car, now you will really learn to drive.” How right he was.
Report abuse
Yes, because HGV drivers are a shining example to us all aren’t they?!
Bullying cars into moving out of their way, attempting to overtake on a two lane motorway, when both are limited to the same speed?
Pulling out to do the same thing last minute without indication because they how much it infuriates car drivers, etc, etc……
Yes your instructor was right, you can really ‘drive’ now can’t you.
Try travelling along the M54 daily by car and see how you feel about your HGV buddies.
Report abuse