Posted By Nick House Hi Bryn Read this earlier today - are you a regular to the site?? Although many people have been saying this for years, successive governments have so far managed to side step the issue, by interpreting the results to reflect thier reasons for justifying the cameras existence. I personally know of several traffic police officers who are against the idea of fixed speed cameras, and are all for more police presence on the roads stating that the cameras only catch a 'snapshot' in time, and do not portray the entire 'picture'. Can't see this (or any other government for that matter) doing a 'u-turn' on the issue though......... Regards Nick.

Posted By Sean Fraser My personal opinion here: as a nation we are spending a lot of time debating this enforcement measure and saying nothing about what it is trying to address. The people who object to cameras - are they objecting to the perceived waste of resources, or afraid of being caught breaking the law? If the latter, are they of the opinion that speed is irrelevant and they should be free to travel at whatever speed they deem to be safe, or do they agree that set limits should be respected regardless? When I see a sign that tells me to travel at 30mph, then that is the maximum speed I will go - and I'll ignore the driver up my backside who disagrees by driving too close, shaking his/her head or gesticulating, and the motorcyclists who, almost without exception, speed past me (often at a corner). I believe that if the law tells me to do something then I do it, but if I disagree with it I'll do my best to get it changed - while still respecting it until it is. I realise there is another issue here - the claim that some councils are attempting to save money by replacing traffic police with cameras - but it comes down to enforcement. Nowadays people in general seem to try to get away with all they can, challenging others to catch them, then objecting on the increasingly rarer chance they are actually brought to task. Whatever happened to personal repsonsibility? If we respected the rule of law and behaved responsibly, perhaps beleagured councils wouldn't feel the need to add more and more enforcement measures at a cheaper and cheaper cost - an ever downward spiral where hoplessness is the only thing that increases. And you can see how that is affecting the HSE - critisised for cutting back services it seems that people think it is the HSE that makes the workplace safer. No, it's not - it is US, the employer and employee together, that makes it safer - the HSE only punishes those who don't (and increasingly they aren't even getting to do that). They don't reward you for getting it right, do they? Same should go for driving - follow the rules, be considerate, plan your route and act responsibly. Oh, if only . . . If you don't break the law then you can't be caught. And then there wouldn't be cameras, let alone this interminable debate.

Posted By Nick House I am not advocating the use of excessive speed (although the argument could be more adequately phrased as inappropriate speed - but that is a completely different discussion and has no place here), but a simple comparison with accident figures in France could well be used to discredit the current trend to concentrate on using speed cameras rather than using a higher police presence. I have driven/ ridden in France on several occasions, and although there are still idiots on the road there, overall the attitude is completely different. The % of accidents as a proportion of vehicles equates to 0.8% in the UK and 0.3% in France. There are 29,638,976 vehicles in the UK, and 34,291,275 vehicles in France, and yet the International Road Traffic and Accident Database 2000 statistics reported 242,118 accidents in the UK, compared to 121,220 in France. Is it a coincidence that there are no speed cameras in France, and the traffic police presence is considerably higher than in the UK - the survey does not go into this detail, but surely it cannot be dismissed as coincidence. I know that those of us in the South regularly moan about foreign (read French) drivers on our roads, but are we really that different when the roles are reversed? In addition to this, until there are regular compulsory refresher courses for drivers/ riders in the UK, then accident statistics are unlikely to see any marked improvement - after all, where else can you pass an initial test, and then happily continue with no further training to improve your skills for an indefinite period of time? Driving instructors readily state that they do not really 'teach people to drive', merely 'teach them to pass their test'. Just because someone has passed their driving test, does not necesarily mean that they are a competent driver, merely that they have reached the required standards to pass the driving test. therefore in my opinion (and I stress that it is only an opinion), to see a marked reduction in road traffic accidents is to provide compulsory ongoing training, have a higher police presence, and hand out stiffer penalties for dangerous drivers. Although I am all infavour of ahving speed cameras in accident black spots, and in places such as outside schools, I can't see the justification for erecting ever more cameras on open stretches of roads. Apologies for going on a little in this post, but I do have strong feelings on this one (as, I can imagine a lot of others do (on both sides of the fence)). Regards Nick.

Posted By Jon Whilst I agree with everything others have written I feel the issue should be poor driving standards.Most people pass their test when young and that is that(unless they get 6 points within the first 2 years).As someone has already pointed out there is no further training/health survailance or controls(other than an overstretched police force) I guess the point im trying to make is are the drivers out their who blame eveyone else for their own failings COMPETANT, as we all know competant= training and experiance, I live in the New Forest and speed limits were reduced to cut the deaths of the ponies which roam the roads.Result year on year pony deaths have risen.I feel if you put in a control measure like this then people dont concerntrate,they take it for granted that they will be safer. Just another point of my ramblings.The Gov and police like to call them Safety Cameras now and not speed cameras, arose by another name is still rose. Regards to everyone

Posted By Jim Walker The speed cameras as such are OK by me - got caught a few months ago and it was my own stupid fault. What is wrong is if other resources (traffic cops) are then removed. It will be interesting to see what happens when the use of mobiles becomes a specific crime. I would dearly like to see the police out there throwing the book at the idiots using these whilst driving.

Posted By Dave Wilson Sitting in the dentist waiting room read a small snippet. The Home office dept responsible for the 'mobile phone ban whilst driving' regs due on 1st Dec have asked for organisations to tender for surveys around the UK to count the number of people using mobile phones in cars, apparently so that the police can target these areas for prosecution / revenue production?

Posted By Andy Petrie Back to the France issues, have you ever been to Paris. Show me a car there that doesn't have a load of dents in it and I will show you a car that's never left the garage. They are constantly driving into each othr, just there attitude is that small accidents happen and they never get reported to the insurer or the police. I knew a guy who worked for Peugot and got a lovely new car. He left it in the garage for taking back to the UK and bought a banger for driving round Paris, and true to form it was dented to hell.

Posted By Geoff Burt Bryn I read your first posting with dismay - thinking am I the odd one out. Reading on I can see, thankfully, I'm not. If you read the responses properly there is an overwhelming case for cameras regardless of personal likes and dislikes. Over 3000 people a year are killed on our roads. I don't have the figures for the number who are maimed but it must be huge. Just think of the misery and suffering this all causes. I personally knew five people who have been killed on the roads and believe me it is devastating for the families. We cannot rely on the co-operation of drivers or their 'common sense' and anything that helps to reduce this accident rate, whatever the cynics amongst us think, is welcome. It's interesting that surveys of the perception of how an individual drives always comes up with a good to excellent rating - defying the law of averages! Try it next time you run a seminar. Geoff

Posted By Sean Fraser The comment that I may have been untruthful when I said I stay within the speed limit proved my point - my experience is that although I DO stay at 30mph, there are usually (but thankfully not always) cars behind me who are obviously impatient and take every and any opportunity to go past me - speeding now seems to be the norm and must therefore be acceptable behaviour. There seems to be a general inability of drivers to control themselves and their speed - they drive at whatever speed they want, not to what is proscribed. There is an argument that forcing people to keep within the limit means they will need to be continually looking at their speedometers and hence not concentrating on the road - such arguments show a complete lack of understanding about human subconscious behaviour and says more about the arguer than about the argument. The fact is that since I always drive within the limit, I am subconsciously gauging my speed and keeping it controlled. I don't need the speedo to tell me my speed - it only confirms it. I admit that I have had 2 speeding convictions in the past and both were in 30mph zones. Now, there is absolutely NO possibility of getting a third. But there is another justification - at 30mph, the stopping distance is 23 feet / 75 metres - that is 6 car lengths. At 40mph, this goes up to 36 feet / 120 metres - thats now 9 car lengths. It is reported that drivers are twice as likely to cause fatality at 35mph than at 30mph. On average, 10 people die on UK roads EVERY DAY. And this, more than the chance of being caught and prosecuted, justifies why I drive at the limit. And if it annoys other road users, then good - I am not going to "go with the flow" due to the irresponsibility and ignorance of others. I agree that it is irresponsible driving that causes accident, but speed DOES kill. Limits in built up areas are fully justifiable. I do treat the Twenty's Plenty campaign with a degree of cynicism though - if we can't seem to get people to drive at 30mph, what hope is there to get them to drive at 20mph? Enforcement is only for those who willingly break the law with the full knowledge of what they do. If we encouraged responsible driving AND TESTED IT routinely, perhaps then and only then will we address general driving attitudes. I endorse the call for refresher license tests - perhaps now we should be doing something about it. I know I am. Bryn, I make no bones about the fact that I find most motorcyclists to be serial speeders - that is my experience, not my prejudice. But my point is that they are no different from most drivers in their attitude to speed - they simply have a different means to allow them to express it more often and more freely. If you are arguing that your experience of motorcyclists is that they all keep within the limit and the speeders are the minority, then I look forward to visiting this driving Nervana. Until then, my opinion is simply being reinforced every day by my experience. By the way, I am moving house soon and when I do, I will be applying for the Advanced Driving Test. As a company car user it won't make a difference to my insurance, but it will come useful if that should change. In the meantime, it will allow me to re-examine my own driving behaviours and make the necessary corrections to make me safer through a responsible attitude. Until refresher licenses are mandatory, this is the only way to advance my driving skills.

Posted By Sean Fraser For those who might wish to follow up on this, RoSPA produce a number of factsheets on driving, including one on Speed Cameras - link: http://www.rospa.co.uk/pdfs/road/speed_cameras.pdf The general site for all RoSPA factsheets is: http://www.rospa.co.uk/CMS/

Posted By Alan Bate Speed cameras are fine if you stick to the speed limits. Go to fast, break the law, get caught!!

Posted By Geoff Burt Ref your last paragraph - yes it can and it does, a number of drivers have been prosecuted for not having insurance through being caught on camera. Perhaps you would like to provide us with your suggested solution/s to car thiefs, joy riders etc - as any good safety advisor would when seeing a problem with the existing situation! Hopefully you will be able to apply it to inner city areas and equally to rural areas and at a reasonable cost.

Posted By Jason Gould Hi all Im going to stick my LITTLE pennies worth here now. Before speed cameras we did have police on the roads waiting to catch speeders ETC, and still do, but in far fewer number. I remember the belief in my social circles that these police were on bonuses etc. Cameras do work but only in the areas they have been placed and only for the people that are new to the area and dont have any fancy detection gadgets. Im happy when they are placed near schools etc but have to connfess I have found them in some silly areas which leads me to believe it can seem its all about revenue etc. Im not going to proffess that I have never exceeded these speed limits cos I have, aswell as driving with no insurance etc when younger.(NOT NOW I MUST STRESS) I have NEVER had the need to rip it down a road as im always worried about crashing, so I have driven a little extra carefull in HOPE and only HOPE not to get pulled. I got away with this for 3 years without so much as a pull, just 1 parking ticket. (is that fair to others?) Now I remember in the late 80s early 90s I knew some people who had stolen cars. Then they drove them for an hour or two before dumping. Nowadays a thief can drive a stolen car for a good week without feeling the compulsion to dump it as there are so little police on the road to put the pressure on. Are we not just talking politics here. Some will say why are we being pushed into creating extra revenue for the police forces of the country when our lovely council tax bills should be doing this. Others will say we should use public transport more often, (speaking to an agency bus driver the other week who said he gets work cos the local bus firm in our area is short of 20+ drivers/Privatisation Hmmm I would not count on them for my work attendance). Back to speed cameras and their failure to control deaths on the road. As long as the revenue gained is going back into the policing system then I have no quarrels. If I choose to drive fast then I run the risk of killing someone and getting fined etc and I would deserve the punishment. personly I feel that two police bikes on the side of the roads doing random checks for speed, tax, theft etc is much more of a deterant than a letter in the post. I have to ask this cos I know one of you bright sparks will answer. WHY THE HELL DO WE MAKE FAST FANCY CARS FOR THE NORMAL ROADS? I thinks the industry has something to answer for here. Anyway thats just the average opinion of an average urban working class man.

Posted By Jack Can someone remind me, when was this golden era when police were so thick on the ground that you only had to ring & your stolen car would be found? My recollections from having cars stolen in the 60s & 70s was that found them after about 6 weeks wrecked or burnt out.

Posted By Stephen Ashton OK, I'll admit it isn't speed that kills.... Its the sudden stop (or start) And, if it's OK for you to drive above the speed limit, so long as you drive 'extra carefully', then, is it OK for me to work on this roof without a restraint harness? I'm an experienced man, I'll look where I'm putting my feet, I'll be a little extra car ...............................................e ................................................f ................................................ ................................................ u ................................................. ................................................. ................................................. _ Sorry, but it is Friday..

Posted By Stephen Ashton Ooops, That didn't work terribly well,,, On the 'preview response' it looked quite good. Steve

Posted By John Allen Speeding and other types of bad driving is just another form of anti social behaviour. Just because it is done by a businessman in a BMW rather than by a teenager with a spray can on a wall does not make it any less reprehensible. The knee jerk reaction that we should have more police on the beat or more traffic cops is not addressing the real issue. In short from board room to sink estate and from parliament to street corner we have become a less law abiding society. I don’t need a policeman with a radar gun to make me drive safely and within the speed limit any more than I need a cop on the beat in my street to prevent me from robbing the house next door. Blind respect for authority has gone and that is no bad thing for that authority was often corrupt but in its place we have a vacuum. It’s a not a problem we can solve overnight or has a single answer. Personal responsibility is part of it but how do you attain it in a society which encourages irresponsibility at every level? We must appreciate that safety rules however well intentioned are now seen in the same light as other rules and will be challenged and broken for no other reason than that they can be.

Posted By Sean Fraser Tyler, I would recommend that you read the RoSPA factsheet I mentioned earlier - it states that there needs to be a justification for speed cameras to be installed in order to reduce accident rates and specifically not to raise revenue. I have sent an email to the local police asking if this can be verified - if not, I'll try my local councellor next and ask why not. There is obviously a strong urban myth out there that will persist until we can demonstrate why individual cameras are placed where they are. Lets make the decision makers accountable.

Posted By Tyler Aaron, I agree with you 100% Tyler

Posted By John Allen A measure I would advocate is getting rid of the white disc with the diagonal black line as an indication that the "national speed limit" applies. Why can't each change of speed limit be clearly designated by the appropriate number? I know at the end of dual carriageways sections you will see "60" signs but every where else it is the white disc. And while I'm on the subject when are we going to catch up with the rest of the world and change over to kilometers?