Here's a little tip. Look out for the big red signs at the side of the road with numbers in the middle. Match the little dial on the dashboard in front of you to the number. As if by magic, the cameras will stop flashing!

Speed kills , exceeding the speed limit is a proven significant factor in road accidents.Those drivers too blind or stupid to see clearly marked speed limit signs deserve all they get. I am delighted to hear that speed cameras raise lots of revenue as it can only help reduce the tax burden on law abiding members of the community. We need more speed cameras Mr Clegg.

While I agree with the idea of banning speed cameras, I completely disagree with the argument in favour of it. Anyone who manages to collect 12 points deserves to be banned for consistent and flagrant disregard of the speed limits, moreso if they have a job that relies on driving.

Average speed cameras are much more effective and seem to be safer. I don't think the original poster had that in mind though.

Lets be honest - cameras are not there to improve safety. They are there to raise money. I am a good driver. I driver a very old, slow car (believe me). I haven't had any sort of accident in more than 10 years. And yet I have 6 points on my license. 36mph at the top of my road, one night when I was the only car in sight and forgot that the camera was there. And 48mph - I was unfamiliar with the area, came around a corner suddenly came upon a 40mph sign (which I couldn't see from the bend), whacked on the brakes but too late - another £60 fine. I would probably never have been fined by a police officer in these circumstances - they would have just warned me, which would have been fair enough. Instead I get points and fines - completely disproportionate but its money in the govt's coffers.

which is better 30mph in a 30 zone eyes fixed on the speedometer, or say 33mph eyes fixed on the road ahead?

How about just making roads safer, e.g. by having more pedestrian crossings or improving dangerous bends?

I totally agree with raydar's view.

How about removing all funding retained by the police for cameras from areas where there has not been a speed related death or treatable injury in the last 5 years within 20yds of the positioning of a camera and preventing the speed limit of 30mph on sections of a dual carriage way where otherwise the speed would be 50 to 70. That would sort out some of the fundraisers and deter the real dangerous driving.

How about reducing the speed limit to 15 mph in areas of high population density during morning and afternoon peaks of pedestrian and cycle travel. No fines, just a 3 month ban for a second offence and 12 months for a third, with increased insurance of course.

The system of points which was deemed fair when it was implemented, was not designed with the future of speed cameras in mind. Apparently, and I don't have a source for this, road safety standards have decreased significantly while we pile more and more cameras all over the place.

As we exponentially increase the number of chances to lose points without reviewing the points system or the number of points available, more and more drivers who normally would of driven around just fine and hurt no one, are going to be banned from the roads.

You might say good, we don't want dangerous drivers on the roads, but many of these people are not dangerous and are fully competent to drive. There is also the fact that banning someone may well land them up on the benefits queue and that is bad for the economy, especially in large numbers and during a recession.

I agree we should promote saftey and punish reckless and dangerous behaviour, but I am wondering if there is a better way to go about it.

Perhaps it should be down to the insurers to collect statistical data on a drivers performance, that way the safe drivers will save money while the reckless will pay more. If they are really bad no insurer will cover them and they cannot drive. No need for a convoluted and old fashioned paperwork system.

Fortunately, satellite navigation systems can alert you when you're coming up to a fixed speed camera.

However, I do believe if they're to be kept, authorities must publish reports showing these cameras have significantly reduced accidents or casualties in those areas.

I believe a local authority - think it was Swindon, removed these cameras and noticed no difference in accidents or casualties - which does tend to show they're ineffectual in reducing road accidents.

And I know in my town, the cameras are well known, so you see drivers speeding up to them - slamming on the brakes just before, and then speeding up again when they're clear of the markers.

So I'd question how effective the cameras have been as a safety measure, unless authorities can provide solid proof of accident reductions.

Personally, I'd be more in favour of police patrol cars on the road, which have a noticeable effect on driving habits.

Failing that, allow a lot more discretion in how points are given - there's a world of difference between doing 33 mph at say school leaving time, and doing 33 mph in the early hours of the morning - yet each are judged identically.

As others say, it's probably safer to be actually watching the road as opposed to your speedo.

And for those who say a driver should always know their speed - all well and good - but who can honestly say they've never exceeded a speed limit - probably nobody on the road.

And of course, there may be a fault with the vehicles speedo that the driver's unaware of - something that being pulled over by a patrol car might highlight, or make them get checked out.
With so much on the car being computer controlled now, doesn't take much for a malfunction..............or a cable wearing, or the dial just malfunctioning.

If they're pulled over for it once, then fair enough - they get hit with a fine and points.

But cameras won't make them aware of that, and through what may be honestly no fault of their own, they could accumulate enough points driving across town to lose their license.

Anyway, a real minefield - and if authorities can show a camera has increased road safety, then I have no problem with it.

If it hasn't, then it should be scrapped.

agree with this idea 100%

if there is a need for cameras it should be average cameras. the speeds need to be carefully controlled so they are appropriate to the road- 80 on motorways, 30 in residential areas with faster through routes to get traffic out and discourage rat runs. there are too many roods with slow speeds which just frustrate drivers and encourages further ignoring of limits. if you keep up reducing speed and adding more cameras you will get people driving slower but not paying attention - this is much more dangerous!

agree with this idea 100%

I'm new driver and I'm constantly worried about being flashed by one of these as 2 strikes and I'm out.

I never intentionally speed but being new it can be difficult to judge your speed- I actually do wind up watching the speedo as much as the road which can't be good!

It also seems wrong that they punish a 5 second mistake instead of a habbit of bad driving- Somebody who accidently does 35 mph in a 30 zone once is given a penalty when somebody that knows the locations of the cameras, bolts along at 70 and slows down to the limit just for the camera is not- how is this improving road safety?

agree with raydar... speed cameras are actually very dangerous as people who genuinely drive at silly speeds will tear along at 80, 90, 100 until they see a camera then slam on brakes causin a potential pile up whereas ok they shouldnt be driving at those speeds really its actually lethal i have personally seen this incident happen and just avoided the pile up the cameras are a government money maker nothing more

At the end of the day, a speedometer is an indicator. Every second you have to spend looking at it because of some officious goit with a laser gun is a second you're not looking in your mirrors or on the road ahead. I wouldn't mind seeing what would happen if you arranged for small children to run into the road at camera sites as a vehicle approaches. I'm sure TRL have the equipment to pull this off either in the simulator or on track with cardboard cut-outs.

The other problem is that many speed limits are inappropriate. There's a section of dual carriageway in Southampton with a 30 MPH limit and a head on camera - and no obvious hazards - a pure revenue earner and nothing else. On the other hand there is a village (Droxford) on the A32 a few miles away which has a 30 MPH limit. At around 8AM this is far too high, the place is swarming with children and folks backing out of their drives etc. On the other hand, around 2AM you could probably do 50 through there with no danger.

Speed is the main cause of about 5% of accidents, yet is the focus of trafic enforcement and road safety thinking.

By far the most cost effective way of making our roads safer is to "engineer out" the black spots. But no, we criminalise a huge proportion of the motoring public every year instead, with the nice side-effect of making 'ordinary Joes' disrespect the police.

Breaking the speed limit is illegal. Speed limits are set to ensure the safety of the community. A driving licence offers the opportunity to drive on the public highway in accordance with the law. If you drive too fast, you are not driving in accordance with the law. I wish there were more cameras and more police allocated to speed offence enforcement.

One day speeding will be viewed as seriously as drink driving. It is very anti social and astonishing that so many people view it as a trivial offence.

I am also very concerned that the new driver PStephenson finds it so hard to judge speed. Perhaps a refresher driving course might help?

Ban all speed cameras! I got points on my licence - now I drive looking for cameras, more than anything else. I was a safer driver before.

I'd like to respond to CarolineRussell- obviously It's easy to tell the difference between say 30 and 40- but can you honestly tell me you can reliably tell the difference between 30 and 32/33 without looking at the speedo?

Also I would like to point out that I have never said that I think speeding is acceptable and this discussion is pertaining to "speed cameras" and not to "speed".

I feel that speed cameras (in particular the Gatso) as a method of enforcement are flawed- they have no judgement and will enforce a speed limit only within their 10 metre "zone" not on the roads as a whole. You must know as well as I that many drivers slow down to the speed limit JUST for the cameras and speed up to far in excess of the limit in between them- how are the speed cameras doing anything to stop speeding in thee cases?

Having police on patrol with people that can actually make judgement calls and monitor roads as a whole is, I think, a much better solution than speed cameras. I'm also actually ok wih average speed cameras over large distances- as these reduce speed over a far less insignificant distance and are more forgiving of a 2 second lapse that causes you to slightly exceed the limit.

And finally, I would like to point out that one can disagree with a law without breaking it. And as we are entitled to free speach you need to respect the opinions of those you disagree with as much as they must respect yours- implying that everyone that disagrees with speed cameras is a speed happy criminal is, in my opinion, offensive.

who decides what is a safe speed? an unthinking camera set by someone who thinks a speed is "safe" or a thinking motorist whose life and that of other users is at risk? the use of cameras clearly indicates that we cant be trusted to obey the law of the land and if we break it the penalties can be horrendous. rather than adding cameras surely the road design should be made safer to cut speeds or allow higher speeds to used safely. eg why have 70mph limits on motorways that were introduced to save fuel used as safety issues when they are the safest roads.

I agree that speed cameras should be removed, I stick to speed limits and have a clean license, however when driving it has become more and more usual for the petrified driver in front to slow down to 20-25 mph approaching a speed camera, possibly in fear of losing their license after being caught 3 times at 36 -37 ?

Ban the speed cameras and replace with average speed cameras. I have no time for those wanting a ban just so they can speed

Absolutely. The last place a driver needs to be looking when approaching a blackspot is his speedometer yet that's where all eyes arem even those travelling below the limit. Hardly any accidents are caused by breaking limits (unless you deliberately mislead by adding in the figures for driving too fast for the conditions below the limit which is common practice iin the 'road safety industry').

More police patrols have more effect on safety than revenue-raising cameras.

raydar said:
"which is better 30mph in a 30 zone eyes fixed on the speedometer, or say 33mph eyes fixed on the road ahead?"

May I humbly suggest 25mph with your eyes on the road? The limit is a maximum, not a suggestion.

What is the point to a big yellow box on the side of the road that flashes at you when you go 4mph over the limit...?
Oh yes i know, to pay for the councils wine at the christmas doo.
The truth of the matter is they earn more money each year then both Nick Cleg and David Cameron put together.
YES scap ALL fixed cameras.
They do not stop accidents, if anything they cause traffic congestion, cost people money, increase insurance premiums and piss people off.

What is the point to a big yellow box on the side of the road that flashes at you when you go 4mph over the limit...?
Oh yes i know, to pay for the councils wine at the christmas doo.
The truth of the matter is they earn more money each year then both Nick Cleg and David Cameron put together.
YES scap ALL fixed cameras.
They do not stop accidents, if anything they cause traffic congestion, cost people money, increase insurance premiums and piss people off.

What is the point to a big yellow box on the side of the road that flashes at you when you go 4mph over the limit...?
Oh yes i know, to pay for the councils wine at the christmas doo.
The truth of the matter is they earn more money each year then both Nick Cleg and David Cameron put together.
YES scap ALL fixed cameras.
They do not stop accidents, if anything they cause traffic congestion, cost people money, increase insurance premiums and piss people off.

What is the point to a big yellow box on the side of the road that flashes at you when you go 4mph over the limit...?
Oh yes i know, to pay for the councils wine at the christmas doo.
The truth of the matter is they earn more money each year then both Nick Cleg and David Cameron put together.
YES scap ALL fixed cameras.
They do not stop accidents, if anything they cause traffic congestion, cost people money, increase insurance premiums and piss people off.

What is the point to a big yellow box on the side of the road that flashes at you when you go 4mph over the limit...?
Oh yes i know, to pay for the councils wine at the christmas doo.
The truth of the matter is they earn more money each year then both Nick Cleg and David Cameron put together.
YES scap ALL fixed cameras.
They do not stop accidents, if anything they cause traffic congestion, cost people money, increase insurance premiums and piss people off.

What is the point to a big yellow box on the side of the road that flashes at you when you go 4mph over the limit...?
Oh yes i know, to pay for the councils wine at the christmas doo.
The truth of the matter is they earn more money each year then both Nick Cleg and David Cameron put together.
YES scap ALL fixed cameras.
They do not stop accidents, if anything they cause traffic congestion, cost people money, increase insurance premiums and piss people off.

This idea completely stinks.

If speed cameras were removed, hundreds more people would be killed or maimed each year by speeding drivers. And for what? Just so a few who think they are too important to obey the law can arrive at their destinations a couple of minutes early.

If someone managed to get clocked 4 times by a speed camera, that is prima facie evidence that they are an incompetent driver. Lets not forget that cameras are painted bright yellow, impossible to miss and will only get you if you are going significantly over the speed limit.

Remember that around three thousand people are killed each year on our roads, including hundreds of children.

If you paused to think of the tens of thousands of families affected, the Christmases and birthdays coming round each year without their loved ones, you wouldn't be campaigning to dismantle vital road safety infrastructure.

Over 2,200 people were killed on the roads in the UK last year and more the year before. Excessive speed has repeatedly been shown to be a major factor in lethal accidents and speed is also one of the few ways the police can enforce reasonably safe driving across all vehicle users before incidents involving death and injury take place. The police simply do not have the resources to use officers to enforce speed limits.
I agree that more resources to the traffic police would reduce accidents. I think all traffic fines should go towards road safety improvements including more traffic police. 20mph zones should be enforced and traffic police should also enforce pedestrian crossings - that would reduce the 1600 child pedestrians killed and injured last year. Speed cameras should not be repealed.

The number of accidents was falling year on year UNTIL speed cameras were introduced. They are now, giva or take the odd 10-20 accidents, stable which means that the government is actually responsible for the deaths of many thousand people.

Spped cameras ONLY catch people exeeding an arbitairy and often artificially low speed limit.

Policemen on the road catch drunk, uninsured, drugged, unlicensed etc, etc drivers.

Speed cameras penalise otherwise law abiding citezens who have a need for a car and registered it at their home address and are therefore easy targets for a car hating labour government.

Speed on it's own does not kill. Innaopropriate use of speed is what kills.

The number one cause of accidents is Innatention, speed comes a lowly 7th as a cause of accidents. The 1 third figure banded about by the government includes such things as "failing to correctly judge the speed and course of the other vehicle" that is incompetance, not speed!

Ditch speed cameras, bring back more traffic patrols!

The number of accidents was falling year on year UNTIL speed cameras were introduced. They are now, giva or take the odd 10-20 accidents, stable which means that the government is actually responsible for the deaths of many thousand people.

Spped cameras ONLY catch people exeeding an arbitairy and often artificially low speed limit.

Policemen on the road catch drunk, uninsured, drugged, unlicensed etc, etc drivers.

Speed cameras penalise otherwise law abiding citezens who have a need for a car and registered it at their home address and are therefore easy targets for a car hating labour government.

Speed on it's own does not kill. Innaopropriate use of speed is what kills.

The number one cause of accidents is Innatention, speed comes a lowly 7th as a cause of accidents. The 1 third figure banded about by the government includes such things as "failing to correctly judge the speed and course of the other vehicle" that is incompetance, not speed!

Ditch speed cameras, bring back more traffic patrols!

To those who believe that speed cameras are designed to generate revenue, you might find it interesting to research the figures. It costs more to run a speed camera than the amount of money they generate in fines.

The sole purpose of speed cameras is to increase road safety and reduce the number of people breaking the law.

As many have already said, if you really don't want to give your money away, drive sensibly.

I believe speed cameras are of little benefit in road safety and I would be happy to see them go. The statistics I have seen which 'prove' speed cameras to be effective are very sketchy and nobody with a logical mind would draw the same conclusions the previous government did. In fact there is evidence to suggest they have made the situation worse, but they are almost certainly no help.

We need to return to logical setting and enforcement of speed limits which does not criminalise the majority.

We need to shift the emphasis of road safety away from speed and consider more important issues such as driver awareness/observation and attitude.

speed cameras don't stop speeding, they make money out of it. Cynical, unfair and a waste of money that could be spent on making roads safer.

I'm of mixed opinion.

I don't think all speed cameras should be abolished just the majority...

I think cameras should ONLY be put up in areas which are by schools as anyone speeding on a road with a school deserves to be fined.

I think average speed cameras on motorways and fixed cameras on dual carrageways and A roads should be removed.

"If speed cameras were removed, hundreds more people would be killed or maimed each year by speeding drivers."

That's the typical line trotted out by the 'speed kills' lobby, but not one backed up by real life experience in Swindon. Swindon deactivated all its fixed speed cameras over a year ago and it's made no difference at all to the accident rate. Probably because in reality, bad driving is far more of a problem than speeding, which even according to official figures causes only around 5% of accidents. In other words, so-called 'safety cameras' do nothing about the causes of 95% of accidents. We'd be better off ditching the cameras and spending the money on more traffic police - the numbers of which have fallen sharply since 'camera mania' took hold.

Gbell

Swindon removed only 5 cameras and the police stepped in with mobile speed cameras to make up for the Council's reckless decision to favour criminal drivers over the safety of child pedestrians.

Nevertheless, accidents have actually INCREASED at the former speed camera sites. People are complaining that Swindon has been turned into a boy racer hell hole and families are campaigning to have the cameras re-instated.

Here are some concrete examples to make the boy racers think twice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6288690.stm

If only there'd been a speed camera on the A465, this collision would have been prevented. The victim of this speeding driver has spent years in a wheelchair as a result. I wonder how many paltry 60 quid fines it takes to pay for is treatment?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/[…]/article716904.ece

Two more lives destroyed by speeding. Note the driver's history of speeding offences. If only there'd been a few more speed cameras, his driving licence would have been taken off him before he had the chance to cripple two people. Again, how many 60 quid fines to pay for their treatment?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8772684.stm

Even worse this one. Two lives ended, all for want of a speed camera. Of course, our soft touch courts pamper the criminal; only a seven year ban! No consolation there for the family of the victims.

http://www.burtonmail.co.uk[…]t-road-accident-success.htm

On a brighter note, Staffordshire have taken the opposite approach to Swindon. Their speed cameras have cracked down hard on speed yobs, saving 23 million of law abiding tax payers money in the process.

When you see results like that and think of all the young lives saved, it makes you wonder what planet pro-speeding campaigners are living on.

Well what utter mindless drivel. None of those incedents would have been prevented by a speed camera unless it was exactly in the 10 foot stretch of raod where the accident happened. All of the were caused by bad driving and bad driving is not stopped by speed cameras, it's stopped by patrols spotting dickheads and prosecuting them. Speed cameras do not spot dickheads they make money out of some poor sod who happened to not be gazing at his speedometer while driving past one. Of course if he had been gazing at it he could well have mowed someone down which would have really messed with your melodramtic justification for scameras.

I agree, with more and more speed cameras appearing you are lucky if you don't get caught.

I've been driving nearly 40 years and have not had an accident in the last 30.

I dont drive fast and I think I'm a safe driver (as we all do) I've passed my IAM test. however I have managed to pick up two speeding tickets from these insidious cameras.
In the old days a bobby would pull you over and call you Stiling Moss and give you a warning and send you on your way with a flea in your ear.
The point is I'm not a raving lunatic that speeds at every opportunity I can. and I suggest the vast majority are like me.

I'm now trying to get a job as a driver an find that a lot of companies demand a clean licence.

Either get rid of them or find a way of catching the "persistant speeder"

 

I have just been caught speeding at 35mph in Evesham in a 30mph zone on a clear day on a large straight "A road".

On the same day I saw youngsters peforming handbrake turns and other dangerous actions in a car park close to a children's playground.

I got fined £60, the reckless drivers were not. Is this supposed to be justice ???? I believe £60 is far too much for exceeding the speed limit by a little over 10%.

Captainstanley said "accidents have actually INCREASED at the former speed camera sites."

But the overall accident rate has stayed the same. Could it be that the only reason accidents rates fall 'at speed camera sites' is that people start using other routes to avoid the speed cameras, thereby reducing the amount of traffic on those roads?

Let's look at it another way - if accidents have increased at former camera sites but the overall accident rate has stayed the same, then accidents must have DECREASED on other roads mustn't they? Maybe due to traffic moving back to former levels on roads with deactivated speed cameras? So have speed cameras really reduced accidents - or have they merely relocated them? I don't think that's actually been researched, but maybe it should be.

As for your examples, well as fatjon says the cause was bad driving rather than just speed. That idiot Naseem could have pulled the same stupid overtaking manoeuvre going past a speed camera at the legal limit and it would have caused a head-on crash.

You seem of have this misguided opinion that all accidents are caused by speed, and if nobody exceeded the speed limit there would be no accidents. Well more accidents are caused by bad driving than speeding - and there's plenty of bad driving going on BELOW the speed limit.

Plenty of other accidents are the fault of cyclists or pedestrians. Yes, even those cute little child pedestrians you're so concerned about. Which is why Staffordshire targetted them in its road safety campaign and maybe why it was so successful. So don't put it all down to a crackdown on speeding, because it wasn't.

There's no denying that there are plenty of times when driving fast IS dangerous (bad weather, built up areas etc) but conversely there are also plenty of times when you can drive fast safely. Speed cameras take no account of this, nor do they do anything bad slow drivers. Trained traffic cops can though. Better than stupid cameras anyday.

I never said that all accidents were caused by speed, but rather all accidents are made worse by speed.

It's the central point that speedistas never engage with. They blame incompetent driver for accidents. But surely it's obvious that a faster incompetent driver is a more dangerous one. The crash that Naseem caused would indeed have been much less severe had he been travelling within the speed limit.

By the way, I've been driving for over 15 years and I've never had a speeding fine. I've always been amazed that anyone could ever get caught by a speed camera, given that they are hearalded by signs and a massive and obvious yellow box. I reckon they must be pretty efficient in picking out inattentive drivers, and the vitriol they attract comes largely from people unable to accept that they have poor driving skills.

When are people going to stop this 'Speed Kills' mantra. It doesn't. Hitting things kills, inappropriate speed only makes it worse. Time and again it has been proven that speed cameras do nothing for road safety and, in some cases, make it worse as drivers focus on their speedometers at the expense of concentrating on what they're doing. The previous governments claim that 30% of all accidents are due to 'excessive speed' was shown to be untrue a very long time ago (it's actually closer to 5%). Speed cameras persist because they bring in money and have actually reduced driving standards in this country as there are fewer traffic officers policing the roads in a sensible manner.

Get rid of the lot of them.

Arg. People aren't going to stop this "Speed Kills" mantra, because, would you belive it... speed kills!

You even said it yourself.

"Hitting things kills, inappropriate speed only makes it worse."

So if you hit a 10 year old child, the faster you're going, the more likely they are to die.

Basic physics mate.

The misguided speed camera policy, and the wanton fraud surrounding it, has led to needless deaths (the 'fatality gap')

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sscw.html

"That may have led independent analysts brought in to review government figures to take a somewhat optimistic view of the cameras' success....." [Professor Mervyn Stone]

"...HAD DAMAGED ROAD SAFETY BY REMOVING TRAFFIC POLICING FROM THE CORE DUTIES OF POLICE FORCES. " [Richard Brunstrom]

I agree with this suggestion. Cars speed up between cameras, then see them and brake. This causes irregular traffic flow.
There are enough distractions from signs, cycle lanes appearing and disappearing and other traffic calming measures such as the introduction of chicanes, on an otherwise straight road. Sign and camera free roads, as is being introduced in parts of Holland, have been shown to reduce accidents.