Average Speed Cameras to Police UK Rural Speed Reduction

mostdom · Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:53 am Post subject:

What is stupid is that in one article I read they refer to the younger drivers who exceed the speed limit regularly being a key target group for the speed reduction, yet these are the people who are more likely to ignore any changes to the system. What is bothering me is that the powers that be know this and still wish to go ahead. It seems that the majority will again suffer for the selfish few.
_________________
Dom

HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot

mostdom · Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:11 am Post subject:

HA HA. I think I found the culprits. I spotted this petition that was rejected on the e petition site. Lets write angry letters to all of them. Twisted Evil

Probably Black VW owners the lot of them! eh Dennis? Wink

_________________
Dom

HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot

nuttynurse · Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am Post subject:

Why are the government still allowing family cars to be built that can travel more than double the maximum speed limit of this country whilst constantly imposing greater restriction on the speed we can travel?

Where are the alternatives to the car for successful commuting? Don't tell me public transport, thats a joke! Certainly in the more rural areas.

Why are they continuing to build shopping malls encouraging people to travel more rather than less? Destroying local communities, post offices, local shops and pubs.

I guess some of you will have noticed the condition of our roads. The reason they are slowing us down is more to do with the growing number of pot holes. If they spent less on the ridiculous number of road signs, incomprehensible road junctions, layouts and the likes we would probably be a lot safer simply because they would be able to maintain the roads better. Little of the money from road tax and fines ends back where it is needed. Look instead at the luxury of the working environments of the MP and Euro MP's and what about the limo's the minsters get driven around in.

The revenue from all these camera's seems to be spent on yet more cameras by increasingly creating more cause for them. Lower the speed limit to 50 mph may help to increase the number of people caught speeding. Do we need this cash spent on yet more cameras during this economic down turn, won't the very fact that so many people losing their jobs mean less people being able to afford to drive their car anyway? If the government has money to invest in cameras then it might be better spent in people and jobs and not awarding points.

When is the government going to spend less time persecuting the motorist and instead look at ways of reducing the necessity for people to travel so much? The truth is I guess, the government needs the large scale production of fast cars in the hope that you and I break slow speed limits enough to keep the revenue coming in.

DennisN · Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:35 am Post subject:

Darren · Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:44 am Post subject:

Driver distraction:

_________________
Darren Griffin

M8TJT · Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:35 pm Post subject:

There's one missing from the top photo, a speed camera warning sign Shocked

But I suspect that the photo is taken from a long way off with a lonnnng telephoto to make it look a lot worse than it actually is Wink

Darren · Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:41 pm Post subject:

mostdom · Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:19 pm Post subject:

gareth71 · Regular Visitor Joined: Oct 07, 2004 Posts: 146

M8TJT · Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:35 am Post subject:

66Mustang · Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:08 am Post subject:

Arrrgh!

When I first heard about this, no mention was made of it being backed up by SPECS cameras. I drive a lot in Nottingham, and live in Northampton so SPECS cameras form a large part of my driving life - they are dangerous on country and urban roads due to too much attention being paid to the speedo and not the road ahead.

I think it's about time the government stopped nannying us and let us make our own decisions - I know why they're doing it to criminalise and control more and more of the population and to raise revenue.

EDIT - Signed

jonl60 · Occasional Visitor Joined: Jul 24, 2006 Posts: 3

Put the lower speed limits where the deaths occur. Simple.

Jellyroll · Lifetime Member Joined: May 17, 2006 Posts: 57

Put the lower limits where deaths have occurred and can be shown to have occurred as a result of people driving at (or near) 60mph. If they were caused by traffic driving at 70mph or 80mph or above, a new speed limit won't help, but fixed or mobile cameras may. If they were caused by traffic driving at (or near) 50mph, a new limit won't help, nor will any kind of camera.

707 · Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:51 am Post subject:

Oh dear, it pains me very much to say this, but living at the end of a very busy long stretch of twisting rural road that was 60mph 3 years ago I was very annoyed at the prospect of 6 SPECS cameras set at 40mph when they were put up. Now 3 years later I have to admit, I have not been delayed once by accidents, air ambulance landings, or just recovery of arctic lorry’s from ditches, all of these were once a weekly occurrence. Also in this period two of my sons have learnt to drive and got their first cars and both I and my wife sleep a little easier when they are out late at night with their friends.
I agree I hate the things and what they stand for, I also think it's just another hidden revenue generator for local government, but there is another side.
Question

_________________
Garman i3, Nuvi 300. and now a dissatisfied owner of a Nuvi 3598 LMTD

66Mustang · Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:14 pm Post subject:

Can you imagine trying to drive anywhere if the whole country is covered with them? It'd send you mad.

I agree that they are very effective at controlling people's behaviour, but is this what we really want, to be controlled?

	PocketGPS
	Web