Safe Speed Forums

First of all I speed once in a while and not excessively. I've also been driving for at least ten years and have never once been flashed by a camera or stopped by police. So I've got no pity for you all moaning about speed cameras. All of you know the law and the speed limits and most of you can probably read the speed limits signs, they ven warn us about the cameras. So if you get flashed it is 100% your own fault. But then I guess that's the problem with this country today now, it's a blame culture some people would rather behave like spoilt kids and try blaming their foolishness on others.

I too have driven for almost 10 years, and never been flashed by a scamera.

If you are genuinely interested in an answer to your question then I suggest you go to http://www.safespeed.org.uk/index1.html and read through the information there, before coming to the forums with confrontational and argumentative language.

I too have a completely spotless license, which has remained spotless for over thirty years. I don't intentionally speed and believe that appropriate speed limits should be set and appropriately enforced. However, I have a real problem with speed camera policy.

Leaving aside the questioned accuracy of these devices and the potential for deliberately induced errors in some, the policy sends the wrong message. Many motorists now believe that their primary responsibility to road safety is not to drive safely, but to obey the speed limit. Worse, even though 95% of accidents do not involve exceeding the speed limit, many motorists have equated road safety with obedience of the limit and have acquired an unshakeable belief that if they obey the limit they are safe drivers and will be safe.

_________________
Will

So basically you are careful where you speed and make sure you cannot see any cameras around.

Paul will probably reply better than I can -

This site is not about promoting speeding.
This site is about promoting safe driving.
Speed cameras do not improve driving standards and may do the reverse.

I have been driving for 25 years and have been 'caught' once over the limit about 20 years ago. I have been stopped by police only once since, the police were stopping all cars on a particular road due to some bank/shop raid that had occurred. I have owned and still own cars and bikes that are not particularly slow, or quiet for that matter.

You've only been driving for 10 years. Well, I've been driving safely for 48 years and have a completely clean licence and 2 protected no-claims discounts.
However, my two main objections to the cameras are first of all that they are being used to disguise an actual reduction in 'proper' road safety efforts whilst the politicians try to appear to be doing something whilst at the same time cashing-in on the minor errors of drivers which, in practice, have no real effect on safety (c. 4% of accidents involve vehicles being driven in excess of the posted limit, thus 96% don't).
My second objection, and this is the major one really, is that for the first time in out history, those alleged to have been speeding through detection by camera technology are required to either confess, name someone who will confess, or effectively be prosecuted for not confessing. This cannot be right, but our lack of a written constitution has allowed it, albeit contrary to the Bill of Rights Act of 1689.
You might add to this the now-established inaccuracy of the equipment used, including both the Gatso and LTI20/20 units, and the true justice is hard to establish. It seems that even if one drives within all limits at all times one could still receive both points and a fine due to equipment and/or operator errors.
Yes, it is one's choice to drive within or without the posted limits, but to make electronic enforcement the cornerstone of our road safety policy, as has now happened, is basically flawed policy. But then, it does bring in the cash.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Strangely enough I actually agree with the above bit -

but as a reason why we have ended up with speed cameras.

I'm not trying to anatagonise any of you and I appreciate that you have written reasoned replies to my argument. I personally support speed cameras but it would be a waste of my time and yours trying to start a discussion/argument on their merits or otherwise.

The point I am trying to make is:

1) Every motorist is or should be aware of the speed limits whilst driving.

2) Every motorist knows it is illegal to speed.

3) So if you speed and get caught by a traffic policeman/speed camera then it is your own fault.

Speed cameras are not going away and speed limits are unlikely to change, therefore we either have to moderate our speed or pay those fines. The choice is ours.

Damn straight, it would rapidly expand to fill any spare time you had available

Firstly, Speed Limits are likely to change - downwards. Because of this obsession that it is speed that is dangerous, when it isn't. It is the inappropriate use of speed that is. And no amount of speedcams detect bad, unsafe, reckless driving.

Secondly, there is another choice - support a campaign that promotes safe driving!

And if you're not trolling,

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Seconded. The whole point of this forum is to initiate debate. You have reasons for your beliefs as do we, but you will find that the majority of the regulars here do have clean licences and are more concerned with the negative effect cameras are having on policy and general standards than protecting ourselves from prosecution.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I would put that as protecting ourselves from wilful and wrongful prosecution based on some of the other threads.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Well yeah, there is that...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Ok fair enough, you all have arguements against speed cameras. But do all of you also agree that if you get caught speeding you should be dealt with according to the letter of the law? That seems fair to me, otherwise there is no point having any laws on speeding.

Apparently councils have been instructed to review speed limits in 2007. Whether any get revised upwards is debatable. I really like those villages and there are some where there is no posted speed limit apart from NSL. I find I am generally driving through the hazardous bits no higher than 30 anyway but I don't have to wait until a few hundred yards outside the village to accelerate. It's so nice to be allowed to use your judgement, as obeying inappropriate speed limits is an unnecessary pain.

You can correct me if I am wrong but your argument seems to boil down to "You must obey the law".

The tenet of this site is "You must do all you can to be safe."

We believe that the Government's camera policy has made safety worse and this is why we oppose it.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I think that a good talking to off a police officer at the time of the incident does far more than a letter through the post 2 weeks later. I think that prosecuting people for minor transgressions is undermining the public's faith in the system and breeding resentment and distrust and I would sooner see 10 properly trained trafpol than 1 camera.

As most things (used to be) in the British judicial system, there needs to be an element of discression. Obvously if someone's driving at a dangerous and inappropriate speed then they need to be brought to justice, but a few MPH over the limit where safe isn't the same thing. At the moment there is no discression, so whether you're doing 90mph on an empty motorway or 40mph past a school at 3:30pm you'll get the same treatment.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

The thing is that speed limits and speedometers have very little to do with safe driving. You can run, ride bikes, ride horses etc, without a speedometer and you can go fast enough to kill yourself with any of these modes of transport. I have driven many miles without being able to read the speedo when I have had a broken cable or the instrument lighting failed but I am still here to tell the tale.

When you drive up to a tee junction how do you know when to start braking to stop at the give way marks? You don't use the speedo. When you get to the line how do you know if you have time to pull out without approaching vehicles crashing into you? You have no idea how many m.p.h. their speedo is showing but you can still do it safely.

I often think that we would be safer if cars did not have speedos. We would then have to judge a speed appropriate for the conditions at the time.

I have had a clean license for 24 years and most of the regular posters on this site also have clean licenses so don't assume that our dislike of cameras is because we are all on 9 points

Yes, the letter of the law. We might reasonably expect the authorities to apply the law to the letter too. On many occasions they have been proved not to have done and thus technical defences to speeding charges are acceptable and valid. If they get it wrong then you are not guilty or no offence has been committed.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

the problem is you can drive past the camera below the speed limit but driving in a dangerous manner and nothing happens, drive past above the trigger speed and you are ticketed, after all the safe speed for a road could be higher than the limit, also a camera does nothing to actually make you safe, assuming you buy into the 31 in a 30 is a dangerous act idea.