|
I actually agree with Spick from King's Lynn above who wrote that
he speeds along until reaching a camera and then slowing down only
to speed up again.
I
am a regular driver on the M11 and have to contend with the roadworks
at the Standsted Airport junction. When traffic allows a free flow
of vehicles there are those that "bomb" along at 90mph plus, slow
down for the cameras, and then speed up again. So what is the point
of having speed cameras?
I also travel regularly from Fakenham to Holt where there are only
two speed cameras although the signs would have you believe there
are many more. These two cameras are doing very little in slowing
down drivers, especially the local drivers, who know the majority
of the signs that warn of imminent speed cameras are false. Speed
cameras are nothing more than a bothersome waste of time and money.
It
is not speed that generally kills, it is the irresponsible behaviour
of drivers. Can these speed cameras tell if a driver has been drinking?
Or is under the influence of drugs? Can these cameras tell if the
driver is an 85-year-old with impaired vision? No.
TILLY,
HOLT
Everyone here is preaching their own polarised point of view but
I don't feel you can effectively manage thousands of people in such
a simple and clumsy manner.
It is very naive to think that if one decides that they will enforce
the Draconian idea of a total ban on speeding that speeding will
stop. It will not. Police will simply make more money from those
who get caught. Putting speed cameras immediately next to speed
restriction signs is not going to stop the 20 miles of speeding
between towns, it just makes the catch total higher.
If there is a rational reason behind some specific cameras (eg.
blackspots or schools, etc) then fine, but let's not kid ourselves-
we are not children and do not want single-minded people fining
everyone who slightly exceeds an arbitrary limit. Make it real and
people will play ball.
Remember that without cruise control (which is not available on
most cars), desperately watching your speed instead of carefully
watching the road can only lead to anxiety and less care. Stop this
witch-hunt and create a more sensible and sophisticated solution!
RICHARD,
NORWICH
Our
roads are at their most dangerous at holiday times, when there is
a mixture of fast and very slow traffic. The fast drivers should
be stopped, but nothing could or would be done about the very slow
drivers who leave chaos behind them. With more speed cameras it
is becoming almost impossible to overtake these slower drivers.
MALCOLM
FOX, NOTTINGHAM
I
have no sympathy for those speeding caught by cameras. Speeding
over the maximum limit for a particular stretch of road is breaking
the law, plain and simple. Shall we tell shoplifters which shops
have the store detectives and CCTV in? Don't forget, our speed limits
are the maximum limits - we don't have to travel at that speed.
We should drive at the speed appropriate to the conditions without
going over the maximum limit.
Each
year, thousands of people are killed on our roads, yet little mention
is made of this in the media and we, the public, seem to accept
this death on the roads as somehow acceptable. This contrasts distinctly
with our reaction to death on rail or in the air - even though far
fewer are injured or killed by those modes of transport.
Those
deaths are truly dreadful, so why is it that thousands of people
are killed each year on UK roads and this is accepted? Speeding
plays its part in these deaths. It's not the only factor, but it's
certainly an important one. I despair of motorists complaining about
speed cameras. And yes - I'm a motorist - but I'm also a cyclist
and a pedestrian who can see that speed is a major factor in injury
and death on our roads.
HELEN,
DEREHAM, May 2002
There
can be NO argument - inappropriate speed for the conditions IS the
number one cause of accidents and road deaths. Therefore, how can
anyone condemn the use of speed detection equipment? It's true that
bad driving often causes the excess speed, however the real problem
lies with the individuals concept of "It will never happen
to me". The direct result from this irresponsible behaviour
is the imposing of speed limits. Don't be fooled by your driving
licence, you may hold CAT B driving authority but this doesn't automatically
mean you are a good or safe driver.
DAN SMITH, NORWICH
I
find that the attention given to the location of speed cameras very
helpful as a visitor to Norfolk. Last Friday I travelled to Norwich
and first checking the location of speed cameras I thought I must
be careful because the location was Outwell to Swaffham which is
quite a long road. First place mentioned, Outwell, I watched the
fixed cameras and looked for mobile units, kept to the speed limit
while "locals" bombed down the opposite side of the river to miss
the cameras. I completed my journey but saw no mobile units. My
reaction was,did the warning of speed cameras work?
JOHN
KENDALL, LEICESTER
If
speed cameras are there to reduce accidents, as the authorities
responsible for placing them insist they are, then what is going
to be gained by hiding them? How can they be a deterrent to speeding
if they can't be seen? How can you slow down for something you aren't
even aware of? Whether they are visible or not I feel that it is
missing the point. Speed cameras are not the answer. Contrary to
what the government is trying to make us believe, speed is not the
cause of most road accidents. Granted, inappropriate use of speed
is a factor, but inappropriate use of speed is a symptom of bad
driving, and that's the real killer. To anyone who drives with any
frequency on our roads it soon becomes blindingly obvious that driving
standards are absolutely appalling. Forests of speed cameras will
not change this. In fact it could be argued that in the current
atmosphere of speeding paranoia the necessity of checking the speedo
on an almost constant basis, to ensure that you are not few miles
per hour over the speed limit, is time that could be far better
spent scanning for potential hazards.
ANDREW
NEIL, ASLACTON
Speed
cameras are a good idea yes if used in sensible locations. They
should be placed only in locations which are known accident blackspots,
they should be noticeable and well signed. This use would help to
reduce speed in locations where a reduction will help to prevent
accidents. The message then given to motorists is not one of increasing
revenues but one of making the roads safer for all users.
G
TINK, HORSFORD
I
think the speed cameras are a waste of time and money. I have found
myself, when driving down a bypass where I know a speed camera is,
travelling up to the speed camera around 80-90mph and slowing down
just enough to get though the speed camera at 60mph and then I speed
back up to around 90+mph. SO I HAVE PROVED THEY DON'T WORK!! But
anyway if anyone else does this just jot a note down like me, so
we can see have many people do this as well.
SPICK,
KING'S LYNN
I
agree with the Chief Constable re speed cameras. If they are clearly
signed and visible there is NO excuse for speeding. However, should
not this apply to all traffic signs? How many times when approaching
a area with a speed restriction do you find the sign indicating
whatever, hidden behind shrubs, hedges etc. Would it not be even
more sensible to install a sign to say "You are approaching a ????
area - reduce your speed"? I have noticed that wherever speed cameras
are installed, the locals bypass that section of road so it is usually
the unaware stranger to the area who gets caught. Just one other
cautious note, if you lend your car to anyone please make sure who
the driver will be, otherwise if that car gets caught on a speed
camera it will be the registered keeper who gets fined if he cannot
say who was driving the vehicle at the time.
JOHN
KENDALL, LEICS
The
Chief Constable of Norfolk talks a lot of sense about speed cameras.
I drive 40000 mile a year and two things are pretty obvious when
travelling around the country.
1. Norfolk is probably the county with least amount of speed
cameras but sadly this could soon change with the advent of extra
revenue for police coffers.
2. Most important for everybody to remember is the fact that
it is NOT speed that kills but bad driving. A 10mph collision could
kill if the circumstances are right. So my only assessment to all
this is the fact that due to my annual mileage I will no doubt be
filling somebody's coffers somewhere although driving safely to
the road conditions.
CHRIS
STANLEY, TIVETSHALL ST MARY
I
am a lorry driver who now works only in Italy. When I came back
to this country I was surprised at the increased number of speed
cameras about. (It's like driving through Dixons). If I am driving
my car and am travelling at 60mph I am concentrating on the road.
If I come to a slight decline the speed of the car increases only
slightly but enough to put me over the limit. As I am aware of this
I am also looking out for speed cameras. I found myself concentrating
on looking out for speed cameras rather than concentrating on the
road ahead looking out for tractors, tourists , buses etc. It seems
that a lot of people are doing this that is why you have a lot of
people who are scared and tend to drive around at 40 - 45mph slowing
people up causing queues on perfectly good straight roads. Just
because a speed limit is posted it doesn't necessarly mean that
it is safe to drive at that speed - or that it is unsafe to drive
at an increased speed on that road.
COLIN
PARKER, WATLINGTON
|
