KJP wrote:
That is exactly the situation where a road has a history of serious speed-related accidents but the 85th percentile drivers are going too fast, indicating that their normally-good judgement is letting them down at the location concerned.
The rules state that there have had to be x number of accidents in x number of years, and say nothing about any of them having to be speed-related. So they have a spate of accidents on an otherwise safe road, caused by freak weather conditions or something, and that justifies them putting up a camera.
Quote:
In the sort of scene shown in your first photograph there may be a hidden hazard, which even the best drivers cannot react to, because they don't know it's there. However, good drivers are likely to slow down where there are cameras.
Speed limits used to be a useful indicator of hidden hazards and the like. But with the wholesale misuse of speed limits in recent years, that's sadly no longer the case. What is the point, for example, of lowering speed limits on safe, rural dual-carriageways with no accident history to 50mph, or even 40mph? There are plenty examples of this.
In any case, if there are hidden hazards which can't be engineered out then surely the right thing to do is slow people down - by way of warning signs or whatever - rather than simply fining them for going too fast.
Quote:
The most a camera could do in that location is add another £40 to the punishment, and that's not what cameras are supposed to be for.
But that's the most any camera ever does - just doles out £60 (not £40 btw) fines plus points.
Cheers
Peter