[Collette Wright]

At midnight on Sunday Oxfordshire officially became free of speed cameras after the coalition government cut funding for road safety schemes.

This move will no doubt be welcomed by some who think speed cameras are just a means of generating revenue. Others, however, will fear for the impact it may have on road safety.

Which side of the fence do you sit on? You can read the full article by clicking the link below and then telling us your views by posting a comment:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...-speed-camera-

[Rolebama]

The only people who will benefit from this are those who speed. As it is quoted as being a reduction in 'the war on the motorist', I would have thought a reduction in the duty on fuel would be more of a committal to this. Reduction in road safety on financial grounds, when we have just been used as a subsidizer for a VAT reduction, just adds insult to injury.

[wagolynn]

Swindon appears to have survived the loss of speed cameras...
Hopefully effort can now be put into educating drivers about driving safely.

[smudger]

Lets hope that other regions follow this example, speed cameras are just cash making machines anyway;)

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Swindon appears to have survived the loss of speed cameras...

Swindon council claims that there was no difference in the accident rates from the last year of the cameras being switched on and the year after the cameras were switched off.

Just goes to show how 'Safety cameras' improved safety. :D

[Snowball]

I would like to share your confidence that drivers would (could) be educated to think "safety" by themselves, wagolynn, but I think that speeding in appropriate places will escalate with the removal of cameras.
I concede that they are not in themselves a panacea for ensuring road safety, because speeding is only one minor factor of many reasons for an RTC. But they are at least a partial deterrent against the group of drivers who will bully their way through sensible drivers who observe safety rules, and especially during busy times.
If speed cameras were not effective, then their uselessness would have been self-generated by their loss of revenue.

I was once caught by a mobile speed camera (not beliberately breaking the speed limit; just thought a dual carriageway road in a non-familiar area was 40 and not 30mph), and it cost me 3 points and £60 FPN. My only offence in over 50 years driving, but no apology accepted; just pay up!
However, I am still not bitter about speed cameras, and every time I go on the road I see actions that support them being in place.

A greater police presence in the form of traffic patrol cars would be better, but that isn't going to happen with the cut-backs, is it?
Speed camera removal needs to be replaced by something even more effective because, irrespective of whether or not drivers have the ability, too many have proven themselves to be untrustworthy to behave safely on our roads.

[wagolynn]

I would start by telling the truth, driving is dangerous, not because of speed per say but because the vehicle is moving.
A moving vehicle has certain properties, to drive safely these need to be understood (perhaps skidpan training should be part of the driving test), along with the rules of the road.
Drivers are totally responsible for their own safety and for the safety of all around them, both morally as well as legally.
Accident are extremely rare, crashes are common, all parties are usually to blame, not necessarily in a legalistic sense but in a practical driving sense, most of these are due to not thinking about driving (passenger in the driving seat syndrome).

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by wagolynn

Accident are extremely rare, crashes are common, all parties are usually to blame, not necessarily in a legalistic sense but in a practical driving sense, most of these are due to not thinking about driving (passenger in the driving seat syndrome).

I would agee, except that I don't agree with the term "usually".
"Sometimes" or "often" possibly.
There are occasions when an innocent driver is absolutely unable to safely avoid a resultant collision by another driver's crass stupidity. In such instances, it would not be justifiable to reduce the onus on the offending driver by trying to apportion blame on the innocent party.

For example, a little over a year ago, I had to stop for traffic crossing from my right at the Kidlington roundabout on the A34 in Oxfordshire.
I was in the outside lane, waiting to turn right, and had been stationary for possibly 10 to 15 seconds. An M-reg Ford Fiesta rammed into the back of my car, then shot around me and made off towards Oxford.
The police never caught him or traced the Ford and, eventually, I was informed that the vehicle had been stolen in Bolton and used in a burglary.

The attending police officer told me that I had absolutely no way to avoid the collision and that I was in no way to blame for any part of the incident.
And a traffic policeman's opinion is good enough for me.

There must be hundreds of RTC's all around the country where it is patently clear that the innocent driver is totally free of blame. In these instances it would be unjust, and an insult to decent drivers, to attempt to deflect a portion of blame towards the innocent party.

The degree in a combination of skill and good fortune can be so miniscule in the difference between avoidance and collision, that the ability to prevent collision could not be fairly assessed.

Most of us try to anticipate the "unexpected", which is itself a myth, since it can be deemed that the "unexpected" that you allow for then no longer becomes the "unexpected".
And it is then the very elusive "unexpected" that brings about the unavoidable collision; regardless of a driver's alertness and/or ability.
There is a world of difference between classroom theory and on-the-road reality.

[wagolynn]

Hi Snowball,
Usually; customarily; at most times; in the ordinary course of events.

I chose to use this word (Usually) as the intention was to get away from the normal legal/insurance position, where a black or white answer is most convenient, in the process justice, prevention and good driving development are of no interest.

In the case you describe, I see no harm in asking the question, ‘could I have done anything to prevent the crash’, should the answer be no, then ok well done, but at least ask the question.

If half the drivers involved in crashes or near misses carried out this simple exercise, the standard of driving would improve, but the present culture of sole blame discourages self analysis or should I say, offers a good excuse to not risk finding out there is room for improvement.

[ficklejade]

I rather agree with Rolebama's comment that it will really only benefit those who speed habitually, plus those who, like Snowball, get caught out by these ridiculous different speed limits - especially on dual carriageways - when one can be unsighted by large vehicles.

On the open road and I do mean open, it might prove to help safety. I'm sure others know of several speed cameras on straight long stretches with good visibility that would allow you to pass a heavy lorry travelling at 50mph on a 60mph road but that's where they put the camera! The frustration of following a slower vehicle over a long period builds up and for some temptation gets the better of them, hence collisions. Smudger will have witnessed this with the A9 and I certainly have both there and on A82. This is not speeding, assuming the road is 60mph rated and I don't mean to suggest I'm in favour of speeding.

However, I do feel that speed cameras (particularly in small villages where often folks use the roads as rat runs or basically can't engage the brain to realize the speed limit is there for good reason) do contribute towards catching the lawbreakers. In relation to that comment, I was over on the mainland the other day and overtook a car travelling at 40/45. Just over a mile later, I slowed behind another car turning off and was in a 30 limit - okay small village, dead straight street, and the guy I'd overtaken sails past me, still at 40! What???? :eek: I got passed him again on the next clear straight and the process was repeated in the next hamlet!! It was unbelievable!

Sorry to ramble on, but Rolebama also mentions adding insult to injury. No speed camera revenue + more policing = less Council income and more policing costs - just watch Council Tax rocket!

[GuyLogan]

It is a really tough one to call. Has anyone actually done any research to see how many lives they have saved? I'm not sure why they have been cut to save money, I thought they brought in money? In any case, I'd rather have speed cameras than speed bumps!

[wagolynn]

There is no reliable data; it is very difficult if not impossible to prove a negative. I have probed some data produced locally that looked as though a camera was doing well. Upon investigation, they were comparing the camera installation criteria (accidents over 3 yrs and wider area) with data literally at the camera site over 1 year.

[Snowball]

I share GuyLogan's view. with speed cameras, observe the law and you haven;t a problem. With speed humps, some are so vicious that, no matter how slowly you drive, they severely rock a car at speeds as low as 15mph. In a 30mph zone, a speed hump should not be uncomfortable at 20mph.
There is also the chance that a close-following driver may not appreciate you dropping to such a low speed; an action which I claim as my right in order to avoid unnecessary wear to my vehicle.

Despite care at speed humps, my last car needed new console bushes (about £400 if I didn't have a maintenance contract) at less than 4 years old and less than 30,000 miles.
The service engineer remarked, "These speed humps have a lot to answer for."

I'm not a fan of chicanes, either. In icy conditions there is always the possibility of an oncoming driver being a bit too nippy and sliding across the road and colliding with you.

On the main road through our town there are two chicanes (one each side of a railway bridge), and lots of articulated wagons use this road because of its proximity to local industrial estates. Most of them have to cross into the oncoming lane in order to clear the raised obstruction and bollard on their nearside. This situation cannot be right.

I submitted my views to the local highways authority, but it was ignored. No doubt the same whimps will mutter their usual platitudes if some innocent is killed or severely injured!

[chopper jockey]

Speed cameras do nothing for road safety in my opinion. In fact they sometimes actually cause accidents because of motorists slowing down to avoid a flash. The sooner they are all scrapped the better. All of them. Even the ones outside schools that are left on all night as well.
I should think all those millions of innocent motorists that have had a ticket in the past, but no accident will be happy too.:rolleyes:

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by chopper jockey

Speed cameras do nothing for road safety in my opinion. In fact they sometimes actually cause accidents because of motorists slowing down to avoid a flash. The sooner they are all scrapped the better. All of them. Even the ones outside schools that are left on all night as well.
I should think all those millions of innocent motorists that have had a ticket in the past, but no accident will be happy too.:rolleyes:

Whilst respecting the opinions of others (an important factor in a free society), I personally feel, sadly, that too many drivers daily prove the need for the cameras.

As I have previously admitted, in over 55 years of driving I have collected one FPN for exceeding a 30mph limit. Strange road, dual carriageway, but still my fault. No danger caused and written apology to police, but still got fined and 3 points, and a clean licence ruined.
Yet I am not bitter, just miffed, but I still support the cameras. I don't believe they cause accidents (bad driving causes these), and I feel that they can save lives if sensibly placed.
The only way that speed cameras will be proven to be useless, is when they become financially uneconomic; and who really believes that will happen?

How many UK drivers have collected speeding fines at home, yet drive abroad, in France for example,without incident; and their cameras are a lot more obscure than ours? Why? Because these drivers can be self-disciplined when it suits them.

So, when they drive with less consideration on UK roads, risking an RTC., are they not in fact displaying a selfish disregard towards their fellow drivers?:confused:

[Rolebama]

My main concern about reducing the cameras is what they will be replaced with. Those who benefit from the cameras are looking at losing a considerable amount of revenue, and I do not believe they will reduce their expenditure, so will look for alternates. As it is, those who 'voluntarily' contribute to the coffers may not be the ones rounded up in the next scheme, and it may be something which affects us all in a non-voluntary manner. (Hope that makes sense.)

[Snowball]

Good point, Rolebama. Councils and governments never give up a source of revenue without amortising it into another source.
In the extremely unlikely event that drivers became so self-disciplined as to make speed cameras unprofitable, I believe the taxpayer would be landed with something to reimburse the loss.

[wagolynn]

Originally Posted by Snowball

How many UK drivers have collected speeding fines at home, yet drive abroad, in France for example,without incident; and their cameras are a lot more obscure than ours? Why? Because these drivers can be self-disciplined when it suits them.

So, when they drive with less consideration on UK roads, risking an RTC., are they not in fact displaying a selfish disregard towards their fellow drivers?:confused:

I think I saw a post on here saying that the speed limit tolerance is much greater in France, will that account for the difference.
I have never seen a speed camera intervene when drivers have been doing something dangerous and prevent a crash.
I guess that puts me with chopper jockey, speed is not what causes crashes just bad, careless, inconsiderate, inattentive, lazy driving.

[Snowball]

I don't think the tolerance is greater. We have a nephew who lives in France, and he tells me the French are pretty sharp on misdemeanours. He said to be sure your wheels come to a full stop at "stop" signs, or you'll be done.
During our recent French holiday I twice noticed where gendarmes were standing on watch near to stop signs.
Also, in northern Brittany, we had a police 4x4 tail us for quite a distance. I just slipped my cruise control in at about 2kph under the limit, and ignored him. He would not overtake; just tailed me until I turned into a SuperU carpark.

[smudger]

Did anyone else hear that phone in on Radio 2 today, where a council in England actually switched all the speed cameras off, then went national through the media telling everyone about it?

A lot of the callers said they should have kept quiet about it, then drivers would still slow down when the saw them.

Whats your opinion on the matter?;)

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by smudger

Did anyone else hear that phone in on Radio 2 today, where a council in England actually switched all the speed cameras off, then went national through the media telling everyone about it?

A lot of the callers said they should have kept quiet about it, then drivers would still slow down when the saw them.

Whats your opinion on the matter?;)

Typical bureaucratic muddying of the waters, smudger.
But, being the cynic that I am, could the council be dissatisfied with the size of the revenue; and intend to eventually switch them back on without telling the media???:rolleyes:

[smudger]

Aye! but they did say that they regretted their action of telling the media.;)

I think that all speed camera are just money making machines for the councils.

They said on Tog Gear that only 4% of them were ever placed on accident black spots.:rolleyes:

[Snowball]

Originally Posted by smudger

They said on Tog Gear that only 4% of them were ever placed on accident black spots.:rolleyes:

Ah, smudger, but it depends on how you define "black spot".
A genuine accident black spot is a place where you would expect the majority of drivers to recognise potential danger, and drive accordingly; so minimum revenue there.

However, place a camera where there is no unsafe condition and the definition changes to, an imaginary black spot where drivers are likely to be caught by accident.
A much better placement for revenue.:D

[wagolynn]

There were/are rules for the positioning of speed cameras, usually totally ignored.

[smudger]

One of the questions put to the chief constable during the interview was,....has there been a reduction in accidents since these cameras have been turned off?

After fluffing away for a moment or two, he was asked the question again.....in the end he said, "that information has not been collated" yet??

I think what he meant was ...NO!;)