Why are people against CCTV and speed cameras on the roads?

[Rahul Sapariya]

I am really for CCTV and speed cameras. I have heard people say that speed cameras are money grabbers but my argument is that the speed limit is there to help save lives. I also believe that if you can't obey the laws then you shouldn't be driving in the first place. Imagine if every road had a speed camera? Would it not make the roads safer? I also think every road should have a camera so that any dangerous moves and stuff like that can be monitored. You could have something like a 3 strike rule where if you do something dangerous 3 times then you get a letter in the post which mentions it. I really would like some feedback on the idea because I honestly think cameras on the road would really help. Plus it could help when you need to prove who's fault an accident was.

 

[DRHysted]

I would sooner have people looking at the road in front of them, rather then concentrating continually on their speedo.

It has been proven that speed cameras do not reduce accidents.

It is now easier to speed, or dive dangerously because cameras can not do the same job a person can.

 

[Rahul Sapariya]

Well having signs saying speedcamera up ahead just allows a motorist to slow down and then speed up again. I want there to be speedcameras everywhere. I hate cars who break the speed limit. They risk lives. It is true speed cameras do not reduce accidents but then you must think about the early warning that car drivers get. You even get it on your tomtom now, some alerts. If the roads were watched more by cameras and something done to bad cyclists and bad drivers, wouldn't that make the roads safer?

 

[CopperCyclist]

I'd rather have more traffic police, but that's a pipe dream!

My only issue with speed cameras is when they take a road that used to be a higher speed and change it down when it's not necessary, bunging a camera on it. Leaves a bad taste as if it's a deliberate attempt to catch people out. There's a road near us that used to be a perfectly safe 50mph road. It's a bit of open country road in between two villages, which were 30mph. They have now changed the 50mph stretch to a thirty as well, and put a camera on it. It's genuinely a painful road to drive at 30mph - no houses, no junctions, no bends, just hedges, fields and one pavement!

 

[ufkacbln]

I would sooner have people looking at the road in front of them, rather then concentrating continually on their speedo.

It has been proven that speed cameras do not reduce accidents.

It is now easier to speed, or dive dangerously because cameras can not do the same job a person can.

Simply untrue...

A Police Officer is unable to process as many offences as the fixed systems do

As for the "looking at the speedo" that is a sign of a poor driver if they cannot make a reasonable estimate of their speed from other input. It is also the argument used by the Association of British Bad Drivers who are on record as saying that Police vehicles and the Police enforcing traffic are a hazard as "otherwise law abiding motorists" are "forced to look out for Police rather than concentrate on the road ahead"

Fixed systems identify and prosecute millions of traffic offences each year, all we need to do is be stricter with the penalties incurred by such actions.

 

[subaqua]

do people constantlylook at the speedo. No , they don't. a quick scan acros the dash will show you where the needles are on all gauges and it only takes a few times to know where they should be for most speed limits. and thats the operative word LIMIT , not a target.

 

[Banjo]

A road by me has 3 major schools on it hundreds of kids crossing the road plus shops and a hospital all within a mile. Being a straight bit of road and the main artery into this bit of town almost everyone did 40 on it. Now with a camera it is very noticeable that speeds have dropped along the entire length of the road not just on the painted lines.

I am 100% in favour of them .All a camera is asking you to do is obey the limit which drivers should be anyway.

 

[gavroche]

I hate speed cameras. They are simply just there to make money. As for cctv, this is just another infringement of your liberty. Would you like to have one just outside your living room? And now the governement wants to check your e-mails without you knowing! What next? Electronic tabs for everyone so the police always know where you are? And please dont come up with: "if you are a law abiding person, you have nothing to worry about" arguement. I am a law abiding person but I also like my freedom and don't wish to live in a police state, thank you very much. Remember 1984
( Orson Wells) and all that. Well, we are slowly getting there.

 

[Linford]

In my county, there is a lot more bias now on unmarked police cars than fixed camera's. Given that when I filter through traffic, and regularly smell Ganja coming from the cars and see people talking on the mobile, eating, driving erratically, skimming the elbows of cyclists etc which would not be detected by a static cam, I think that the resources would be of better effect when in the hands of someone who can detect other things which have the potential to cause many more problems than a simple snapshot of a vehicle moving on an open stretch of road.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Remember 1984( Orson Wells) and all that. Well, we are slowly getting there.

I don't know that book. Is it in any way connected with the George Orwell one that I read? (In 1984 as it happens.)

 

[green1]

I'd far rather see proper numbers of traffic police and get rid of speed cameras all together. How many cases of uninsured/unroadworthy cars or dangerous/drink driving do speed cameras catch?

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Because they impinge on many drivers' ''right'' to break the law with impunity. Let's face it, a lot of driving is about pushing beyond the limits without getting caught: exceeding the speed limit beyond the extra 10% we can get already away with, from amber gambling to sneaking through a red and calling it ''London green.'' And cars are overpowered and overprotected for the demands of safe or legal driving so it's not surprising that drivers overstep the limits. And because there's a culture of systematic cheating, there's a feeling that it's unfair to get caught out by a camera they failed to spot when all the others (and cyclists!!!!) get away with it.

 

[Linford]

Because they impinge on many drivers' ''right'' to break the law with impunity. Let's face it, a lot of driving is about pushing beyond the limits without getting caught: exceeding the speed limit beyond the extra 10% we can get already away with, from amber gambling to sneaking through a red and calling it ''London green.'' And cars are overpowered and overprotected for the demands of safe or legal driving so it's not surprising that drivers overstep the limits. And because there's a culture of systematic cheating, there's a feeling that it's unfair to get caught out by a camera they failed to spot when all the others (and cyclists!!!!) get away with it.

I have always considered that the best practice for self and other preservation is to always travel at a speed which you can stop within the distance you see to be safe. All posted speed limits should be guidlines, and no substitute for the above statement.

 

[simon.r]

I have always considered that the best practice for self and other preservation is to always travel at a speed which you can stop within the distance you see to be safe. All posted speed limits should be guidlines, and no substitute for the above statement.

Which does of course mean that it's sometimes safe to travel in excess of the posted speed limit.

 

[Linford]

Which does of course mean that it's sometimes safe to travel in excess of the posted speed limit.

Who would be the best judge of this ?