DfT 'unwittingly' bigged-up speed camera benefits

No right solution...

I agree about speed bumps being a pain (literally!). However, given the unique way these 'safety' features are funded balanced against the pitiful state of road maintenance these days, they may as well not bother with speed bumps - potholes seem to work just as well, even if they are a little more haphazard. Amusingly, I've seen a few speed bump equipped roads where the speed bump is the only surface in good condition.

Speed cameras have a bad reputation because of poor implementation and legislation. There are too many, in blatant revenue earning locations (wrapped in self-justifying 'policies'). They have been used as an excuse to reduce traffic patrols by the police (I ain't seen a camera administer first aid at an accident). Plus they don't sit well with the current fining/points system - a straight fines system combined with a flat 'go 20mph above the limit, lose your license' approach would be more effective (both revenue wise and deterrence wise).

They are a distraction as drivers spend more time looking for cameras than actually looking what they are doing - hidden ones doubly so. I wonder what the stats are for fender-bender accidents in camera locations, or in the surrounding vicinity - they don't seem to publish those.

I question the value of either solution in the grand scheme of things (especially through routes), but do see some valuable use in places where low speed is critical (outside schools, most residential streets).

Harsher penalties, stricter driving tests (maybe limited to only a couple of attempts, instead of letting half-wits try a dozen times), maybe a re-assessment every so many years, and an increase in the minimum age would improve driver discipline to the point where eliminating these expensive engineering and technical solutions is possible.

Who cares

"I don't really see the big deal about speed cameras. If people don't want to drive within the law then why don't they just hand in their driving licenses? "Drive on the road and work within some rules" is a pretty simple deal, it's strange to me that so many people get confused by it."

Because a lot of us don't care. We want the freedom to drive at the speeds we think are appropriate (we are adults after all and not dribbling morons) without having to pay £60 for going 35 where the man says it should be 30!

It doesn't really make any difference at the end of the day. The vast majority of us drive at 80 or 85mph on the motorway and 35 mph round town, where we think it is appropriate to, slowing down for speed cameras and then speeding up, with no consequences and with nobody getting hurt.

*sigh* @ Sarev

Other ppl do it so why can't I? Great argument there!

Nothing wrong with driving at 80mph on an empty motorway, but how do you *know* it's empty, without the slightest possible doubt? You don't ofc. You *think* it's empty, like those ppl that *thought* there was nobody coming the other way.

The speed limits are there to limit the devastation that unfolds when someone ****s up as they inevitably will. Until we're all perfect drivers then we need speed limits. You can argue all you like about what they are, but that they don.t apply to you? Do grow up.

"And if we decide to break those laws, so be it. We know the risks"

Great, so *you* decide to take a risk by speeding and someone else dies. Nice. You don;t have the right in law or morals to risk someone elses well being. That's the issue that escapes your massive IQ. Integer overflow ftl eh?

@Sarez

Insulting people will not win your argument, having said that you appear to be a complete numbskull.

Implying that smart people find speed limits irritating and that those who obey them must be mindless government drones is a rather over simplistic view often put by people who think they are above laws they don't like.

I personally might or might not agree or abide with speed limits or any number of other restrictions but that doesn't make me any smarter or less so than the next person. As it stands speed limits are applicable to everybody for whatever reason and just thinking you are smart is not sufficient reason for exceeding those limits. That should be easy enough to understand.

"Should accept it"..

Excellent straw man. Really.

Nobody forces anybody to bend any law on the statute books, but I can pretty much guarantee everybody breaks at least one with alarming regularity. However, it's also known that there should be "shades of grey" and that prosecuting some things under certain circumstances are not actually to the benefit of the general public. So, they're not enforced, as there is no benefit to society for doing so. They're there so that when people blatantly abuse the system, you can pull them up and throw the book at them (Tax evasion for Al Capone?).

The main cause of accidents (from the reports taken) are lack of attention, or dangerous/careless driving. If you got a camera that would spot the lunatics on the roads (you know, the ones that overtake streams of traffic on a bend as they want to arrive somewhere 30 seconds earlier, or travel 10 cm from your rear bumper on the motorway because they want to go at 110mph rather than the 80-85 that most of the traffic is doing), I have the strong suspicion that nobody would bat an eyelid (and many would be strong advocates, with a strong statistical and scientific backing).

However, it's nice and easy to pick up on one (contributing, not primary causative) aspect, and come down hard on it. If it didn't produce so much revenue, I don't think it'd have taken off quite so much, but it has proven quite the cash cow, despite the placing regulations preventing them being placed in the positions that really cry out for them (you know, where people travel under the speed limit because, in their good judgement, the road simply won't be safe to use at the rated limit). Yes, it's the law, but slavish adherence and turning the world into black and white to justify adherence is really just laziness, or maybe not really understanding the real problems.

@Chris W

There is a debating fallacy known as the False Dilemma where you present someone with two options 1) and 2) as if they're the only ones available and then imply that they have to pick between the two, ignoring the fact that the correct answer is "neither of the above".

Let me give you an example. Last night I came back to Portsmouth from London on the A3. As you leave London this piece of road seems to have speed cameras about every half mile and initially a limit of 40mph which then goes up to 50mph.

Now I'm sure those limits are all sensible and good when the road is chock full of traffic during the day time, but at 2am the road is virtually *EMPTY* and there is absolutely *NO DANGER* in Making Progress along it, but you cannot, simply because of all the bloody cameras.

So you have a choice: trundle along at 40mph or make progress (illegally, of course) then slow down when there's a camera.

Which do you do?