I've always supported the idea of speed cameras, although they only deal with a particular stretch of road.

People complain about them being a form of 'taxation'. Well, if that's the case, then they're almost the perfect form of taxation from the taxpayers' point of view as the tax is totally avoidable if you drive properly!

However, perhaps money would be better spent improving blind and other dangerous junctions on our roads. It's never ceased to amaze me, in my 37 years of driving, that the authorities still tolerate junctions where you are expected to pull out onto a main road with almost no worthwhile visibility in one direction (or even worse, both directions).

QUOTE:...""To add to my earlier post. Here in Oxfordshire, the cameras are being switched off now (this week -26th onwards)."" and the message to boy racers that gives is 'you can go as fast as you like now, we don't care any more'.

Edited by Sofa Spud on 27/07/2010 at 12:06

There is no dominant ideological opposition to cameras in either of the main governing parties - or come to that in almost all local authorities of whatever stripe. There is some opposition in sections of the press - and ironically in that section of it which most wants to put "bobbies back on the beat" and presumably not wasting time dealing with speeding motorists when a camera is both more accurate and more efficient in doing so.

Penning is a junior minister waving to his cheerleaders in the tabloid gallery. There is no will in this government - or even in Oxfordshire County Council - to get rid of speed cameras.

A quote from a news report "Philip Hammond, the new transport minister has said he will end Labour's "war on motorists" as he looks to clamp down on speed cameras, clamping firms and plans for road-charging." And the Conservative election manifesto explicitly says they will stop all funding on new cameras and invest in more effective alternatives. And Oxfordshire have voted to stop using speed cameras.

The police have a duty - indeed a statutory duty - to enforce the law and if fixed cameras were to be removed then a great deal more money and resources would need to be devoted either to mobile enforcement - where people are not stopped at the scene - or to recreated this nirvana you seem to have in mind where men in Ford Anglias or Mark 2 Jags with bells on the top drive around looking for "suspicious" activity and "bobbies" in helmets step out from the side of the road on country lanes with their hand up, pulling the odd motorist and advise them as to their driving habits.

Can you imagine doing that on the Kingston bypass?

We are in the days of ANPR which go a long way beyond insurance and road fund licence enforcement . Like it or not they also provide information as to the whereabouts of known criminals and crime patterns.

We are where we are. Get with it.

The above is written in a very arrogant confrontational style. This forum used to (a year ago) have more than a few serving police officers including some traffic police. At least one traffic officer - user id MidLifeCrisis I think - and I think others, did voice grave doubts about the current reliance on speed cameras. Do your own search so that you find the original source rather than my paraphrase. Trying to ridicule views you do not agree with, classing those who disagree as habitual law breakers, or simply stating that they are wrong without providing evidence, is not convincing.

Hi Guys, getting a bit tedious this, why don't we wait and see. Not much we can do about it though, is there?

Let's not get too upset about conra views, Leaf got all uptight about biker boy now seems to feel slighted by Lucy BC's turn of phrase. Chill out guys, it's only a discussion. Stick the shades on, kick back and chill.

Incidentally what's with all the recent spelling mistakes? I know torque is cheep but please give us a brake.

They call me mellow yellow, but I always wanted to sing the blues, but nothing ever gets me down.

Otis

>> I`m not an advocate of speed cameras in the long term. ......

You're not an advocate, but at the risk of putting words into your mouth that would appear to be because you don't believe them to be effective, which is a fair point.

I am an advocate of enforcement. If there is more effective enforecemnt, then lets go for that.

However, firstly most of the anti-camera people seem to be anti-enforcement as in "I want to speed and getting photographed is mean".

Why do poeple struggle so much with this and fail to understand that there are two credible and largely unconnected points;

1) Enforcement of the law is good.

2) Some speed limites are/may be inappropriate and need changing

When does having an inapproriate speed limit and resolving the issue by not having efficient enforcement every become a good plan?

Personally I believe we should have cameras, and as many as possible.

Secondly we should have more traffic police popping up all over the place indulging in routine and random stopping.

Thirdly many speed limits are inappropriate and need fixing. A great deal of them need to be increased (are you listening Coventry?) and some need decreasing.

Locally they are decreasing speed limits.

I don't know the law regarding speed limits, but in the past there was I think more emphasis on prosecuting dangerous driving, as opposed to breaking the speed limit, and the two are not the same. I suspect many dangerous drivers do break speed limits habitually, and many who break speed limits habitually are dangerous drivers. The problem is that the dangerous driver usually knows to break for a camera, then zoom off afterwards. And cameras do not police every road at every point. They police a tiny stretch of road, although at a known black spot that can save lives. And lastly speed limits are no more than a guide. There are so many roads where doing the speed limit around a corner would be inadvisable if not suicidal. And yet on some stretches exceeding the limit by 10 mph might be safe, given clear conditions, no traffic etc

Cameras seem to me to be a poor substitute for proper policing of the roads. So that means unmarked police cars on motorways pulling over dangerous speeders, but ignoring people doing 80mph in a safe manner. Cameras do not pick up people racing each other, weaving in and out of traffic. Traffic cops do, thank goodness.

I guess I take the libertarian viewpoint, whereby there should not be a law, unless that law can be shown to have a benefit that outweighs the reduced freedom. So a speed camera at a black spot reduces our freedom to speed at the black spot, but increases our freedom to life. So there is a net gain. But blanket speed cameras is excessive.

By the way, where I live the speed cameras are fine. But in some areas, such as Luton, they breed like rabbits, and limits are sometimes poorly signed. (Surely the point of cameras is to catch people who exceed clearly marked limits, since the latter help us set an appropriate speed for safety's sake?)

I can`t help remembering an accident near here, a while back. A car driven by young people went onto its roof - split it`s petrol tank and three of the four teens burnt to death.

That was in a 30mph Zone - just outside the main speed camera route.

Electronic governers that dropped a cars speed to a maximum allowed might have helped that. But maybe not.

I`ve also been a passenger in some cars where the driver seems to have no awareness of what`s going on around them. On and off the throttle - can`t drive in a straight line and ridgidly looking forward with tunnel perception.

`Unsafe at any speed` springs to mind there.

With my generation, locally our road skills were honed on 100mph bikes - aged 16 & 17yrs. Three out of the fifteen lads in my class died on these bikes - but the rest of us got in good experience for when we transfered to cars.

Edited by oilrag (Moderator) on 27/07/2010 at 21:53

Well our local lot seem to have decided to save cash in other "non essential" areas

Gore will do anything to hang onto her job

tinyurl.com/notineastyorks

Safer Roads Humber has revealed it is to lose about £385,000 – or 27 per cent – from its budget.

But the organisation has vowed to keep its 47 speed cameras in Hull and the East Riding.

It comes despite other parts of the country, which are facing similar funding cuts, deciding to turn off the devices to save money.

//

Instead, Safer Roads Humber officials say they have chosen to make savings through efficiencies and by cutting spending on communication campaigns.

In East Yorkshire, the organisation will:

* sc*** a seatbelt campaign due to have been run in September and October

* Cancel an initiative aimed at ensuring businesses have proper insurance for their drivers

* Scale back its annual Christmas anti-drink-drive message.

*** what is wrong with this swear filter? The word was perfectly acceptable and is of the form "breakers yard" "sc*** yard" Can we not say "sc*** metal dealer" anymore?

Edited by martint123 on 27/07/2010 at 22:24

So the answer to this is to do what should have happened in the first place which is to redirect all money raised by speed cameras - not into the central government pot where it can be dissipated - but back into the safety partnerships so they can do what they are supposed to do - which is to participate in properly funded measures to improve road safety.