OT - Case for speed cameras is destroyed in a flash

[phunk]

Thought I would post this seeing as TG is always drawing our attention to how ridiculous the claim that speed cameras save lives is, and how they are simply government cash machines designed to rip off the general public. Front page article from the telegraph online today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/nspeed29.xml

A review of the Government's speed cameras policy was demanded yesterday after official statistics showed that only five per cent of crashes are caused by drivers breaking the speed limit.

Drivers who let their attention wander cause more than six times as many accidents.


Speed cameras: under attack
Campaigners seized on the figures and demanded: "In that case, why are there so many cameras?"

Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, which has led the campaign, said the Government's case for continuing to install cameras had been destroyed.

"Even those statistics are flawed, because they could include a joy-rider who is going at 100mph and no camera will ever stop him," he said. "They are spinning like tops to justify the camera programme."

Motoring groups called for a broader approach to road safety and a revaluation of the £95 million camera project.

[matt2000]

they are under attack though

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

funny website if you hate them

[Peter3hg]

Originally Posted by matt2000

they are under attack though

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

funny website if you hate them

I hate them but don't find that funnyat all, in fact it angers me. Who do these people think has to pay to replace these Gatsos. Thats right, the tax payer. Destroying them is not going to achieve anything.

[matt2000]

i never thought about it that way.

[targa_997]

Originally Posted by peter3hg2

I hate them but don't find that funnyat all, in fact it angers me. Who do these people think has to pay to replace these Gatsos. Thats right, the tax payer. Destroying them is not going to achieve anything.

You can take it the other way: in France tickets on existing cameras finance installation of new cameras

so if you break one:

- they loose a new camera
- less income -> lower budget for new cameras

[vRS]

Originally Posted by peter3hg2

I hate them but don't find that funnyat all, in fact it angers me. Who do these people think has to pay to replace these Gatsos. Thats right, the tax payer. Destroying them is not going to achieve anything.

Ditto, people don't mthink they just act without thinking(or watch to much Max and Paddy) at the edn of the day people hate them but they do help save lives.

[Buddyworm]

Why does this statistic not surprise me? Oh yeah, it's because the last person who didn't bother to shoulder check and nearly changed lanes into me wasn't speeding at all. And the past month, all the accidents I've seen have been during rush hour traffic. You can't speed during rush hour in this city.

B-Wurm

[zaybxcwd12]

Originally Posted by peter3hg2

I hate them but don't find that funnyat all, in fact it angers me. Who do these people think has to pay to replace these Gatsos. Thats right, the tax payer. Destroying them is not going to achieve anything.

The tax payer? tax payer are you serours. They are a money generator, there is as much evidence to show they are a safty risk as they are for road safty. Each camera costs roughly 20k so of little signigicance when they generate a total 120 million a year.

[the Interceptor]

I might get flamed for this, but I'm perfectly fine with speed cameras. There are rules to follow on the public road, and the government monitors if you follow them here and there, e.g. with speed cameras. You break the rules and get caught, you get the punishment - it's as easy as that.

It may well be that I'm only saying that because I live in a country with partly speedlimit-less roads. But then again I'm not a speeder. I do drive quickly here and there, but I always follow the rules (on an appropriate basis), so I have no problem with speed limits and their control mechanisms. And you can still be a proper petrolhead, you know? 8)

Regards
the Interceptor

[zaybxcwd12]

I am not a speeder either not intentionaly anyway however when I go into a Camara zone I am paying less attention to the road I spend my time looking for cameras and checking speedo to me thats not not full concentation on the road which is potentialy dangours.

[maximus]

Originally Posted by vRS

Ditto, people don't mthink they just act without thinking(or watch to much Max and Paddy) at the edn of the day people hate them but they do help save lives.

Er, no they don't.

[geoff_a_pult]

Originally Posted by maximus

Er, no they don't.

Just because only 5% of crashes are caused by excessive speed doesn't mean that that 5% isn't hundreds upon hundreds of crashes per year. Some of those crashes are obviously going to be fatal, and like it or not, speed cameras do reduce speeding in an area. That means that the number of excessive speed crashes in that area will be reduced, and like it or not, some lives will be saved.

Speed cameras are definitely not the best way to save lives on the road, and they are a major cash cow for governments, but that doesn't mean they don't save a few lives as well.

[phunk]

Originally Posted by zaybxcwd12

I am not a speeder either not intentionaly anyway however when I go into a Camara zone I am paying less attention to the road I spend my time looking for cameras and checking speedo to me thats not not full concentation on the road which is potentialy dangours.

Bingo. Generation of cash for the government at the expense of human lives. A bit like Iraq really, except less bombs.

[JoeBlo1]

Many accidents are caused by careless drivers who change lanes or turn corners without properly signalling or paying attention to oncoming traffic. I'm more afraid of drivers without the skills to properly manoeuvre their cars or drivers who are too lazy to obey simple road rules than speeders. Not enough drivers pay attention to their surroundings like they should. At least speeders know that they are going over the limit so they are more focused on the actual driving. When you're speeding on the fast lane on a highway, your focus is the car in front and any potential idiots from the right who might unexcpectedly swerve to your lane because they failed to notice your speed from their left-hand mirror. I think the government should create stricter driver schools instead of just posting up speed cameras.

Speed doesn't kill; a lazy attitude coupled with a lack of driving skills do.

[West]

Originally Posted by JoeBlo1

Speed doesn't kill; a lazy attitude coupled with a lack of driving skills do.

BZZT! Speed doesn't kill; it's the sudden stop that does it

[transtek]

Originally Posted by geoff_a_pult

Just because only 5% of crashes are caused by excessive speed doesn't mean that that 5% isn't hundreds upon hundreds of crashes per year. Some of those crashes are obviously going to be fatal, and like it or not, speed cameras do reduce speeding in an area. That means that the number of excessive speed crashes in that area will be reduced, and like it or not, some lives will be saved.

Speed cameras are definitely not the best way to save lives on the road, and they are a major cash cow for governments, but that doesn't mean they don't save a few lives as well.

And some people will be killed or seriously injured due to crashes caused by people suddenly slowing because they see or hink they see a camera or camera sign and looking constantly at the speedo, etc. instead of actually paying attention to driving and what's coming the other way.
If lighting a cigarette causes accidents, and talking a call on your mobile causes accidents, due to lack of attention, then it's clear that looking at your speedo and looking out for cameras, etc. to see if you're going 33 in a 30 zone (jeezus, how irresponsible I am and what a hazard to society! - that's sarcasm BTW), will also cause accidents.
But what government is going to acknowledge such a valid point when the cash is flowing in in such huge sums?

[zenkidori]

most if not all traffic problems could be solved by increased public transport and stricter license requirements.