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

[GrasB]

Problem I have with speed cameras isn't that they're actually capturing people speeding, it's the fact they don't effectively police the real problem - dangerous driving. It's very easy to drive in a reckless/dangerous manner well within the speed limit & cameras don't catch this. Unfortunately at best they limit the impact of that dangerous driving, at worst provoke it.

With average speed cameras they tend to bunch the traffic up when the road starts to get busy making the gaps smaller than is truly safe & nothing is done about driving too close, which means that you're mentally drained much more quickly when driving. Single point cameras don't discourage the idiots charging about overtaking people dangerously because they just do near emergency braking just before the camera.

 

[mangaman]

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.

Cracking post!

You like to obey the law but like your freedom not to when it suits.

Hey hum - it's all in 1984 (it was written by Geoffrey Chaucer by the way) - the only flaw in your otherwise impeccable post

 

[GrasB]

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

Safe for a person who has a particular skill level, with a particular car, under particular conditions.Change any one of those & doing the speed limit might be too fast. So the question then becomes how do you set the speed limit for a certain stretch of road?

 

[mangaman]

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

No it hasn't - it's been proved time and again they reduce the risk of KSIs (google is your friend)

There's even been a different sort of trial when Oxfordshire switched them off and had to switch them on again when the accident rate went up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/01/speed-cameras-oxfordshire-turned-on

Anyway - over to Mr P (I'm surprised he's not here already)

 

[simon.r]

Who would be the best judge of this ?

To quote your post:

"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."

Each individual has to use their own judgement. Sometimes I consider it safe* to travel in excess of the posted speed limit, somtimes I don't, it depends on numerous factors. There is absolutely no way that all of the posted speed limits in this country are 'right'. I can think of numerous examples where anyone with an iota of sense would deem the posted limits to be too high or too low.

*By safe I mean the risks to me and others are within acceptable boundaries. I accept that ultimately it is always safer to travel at a lower speed, but I don't think anyone would suggest that there should be, for example, a 30mph speed limit on motorways.

 

[GrasB]

No it hasn't - it's been proved time and again they reduce the risk of KSIs (google is your friend)

You can 'proved' both ways depends exactly how the data is filtered. In short the location & application of the camera matters & also the exact data set you look at. I know of a case where a camera install was considered a 'success' because it reduced accidents at a junction. Later it was found to have only shifted the accidents 500m down the road

 

[simon.r]

Safe for a person who has a particular skill level, with a particular car, under particular conditions.Change any one of those & doing the speed limit might be too fast. So the question then becomes how do you set the speed limit for a certain stretch of road?

You can't. Which is why I agree with some of the comments on here about cameras only catching speeding drivers, not dangerous drivers. If we're serious about reducing bad driving we need more traffic police who can use their discretion. I'm all in favour of drivers being punished for bad driving, which may well be taking place under the speed limit.

 

[totallyfixed]

The problem with dangerous driving is that the faster you go the more severe the consequences, so in that respect speed cameras do have a role to play. The thing that I find hilarious is that it is necessary to warn and highlight speed cameras to motorists, I'm all for hiding them and moving them around. I'm against CCTV though, that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

 

[mickle]

Gosh, it's been a while since we've had one of these. They used to be as common as helmet threads.

 

[DRHysted]

They mark the placement of speed cameras, because they are not there for speed, they are mounted for accident black spots, and are actually called safety cameras. By marking their presence they are warning you of an upcoming accident area, and advising you that you need to control your speed to prevent accidents. In order to get a safety camera fitted in an area, a certain number of accidents must have occured (in one instance a pedestrian falling off an overpass onto the road below counted towards this).

They do not cover dangerous driving, driving whilst under the influance, unattentive driving, and as such are not a replacement for a human being.

Regarding speed, I had the pleasure about a decade ago to read a report regarding speeding that had been compiled from the raw data provided by the Police forces, and it has biased me to any government agency report since. As accidents caused by exceeding the speed limit came 7th on the list. The wording you see used all the time is that speed was a factor, i.e. if they were driving slower the accident would not have happened, well if that is not stating the obvious what is.

Regarding CCTV, I can't complain about CCTV because I have a 4 camera system installed on my house.

 

[Rahul Sapariya]

My forum seems to be popular...awesome! For me, using the argument 'cameras are money makers' is rubbish. If you stay in the speed limit then you are fine. The speed on a road doesn't just go down all of a sudden from 50mph to 30mph, there is a sign saying it. And if you cannot see a sign or you can't do a half second glance at your speedometer then you shouldn't be driving...simple-as. I wish there was a mandatory driving test for all drivers every few years...it certainly would reduce the number of bad habits that drivers pick up over the years like when someone wants to join your lane, they signal at the very last second and pull in giving you almost no time to react. I also think cyclists should be given bike lessons on how to cycle safely on the road (bikeability). Cyclists seem to be against this idea but most of those cyclists are too up-themselves to accept help. I just want the roads to be safer and they won't be safer if there are bad car drivers speeding or bad cyclists moving lanes or such without letting a car driver behind you know. And what follows? Violence and hate towards eachother.

So people can talk about this whole 1984 scenario that we are edging forward to (whoever wrote it sounds like a man with a very jaded view on life) but the fact is, we see and hear what we want to see and hear and interpret it the way we want to. I always find it annoying because people probably look down on me because I'm only 22 so if I'm in a car, they expect me to be a bad driver when I think I'm quite good, signalling early...looking in all my mirrors, always passing a cyclist at a safe place and giving a cyclist room.

Why have there been no television adverts on showing that cyclists are traffic too and they need to be on the road? I'd love for there to be a ThinkCyclist advert or something. If there has been one before, make one again because car drivers don't understand still.

 

[simon.r]

So people can talk about this whole 1984 scenario that we are edging forward to (whoever wrote it sounds like a man with a very jaded view on life)...

PLEASE find a copy and read it.

It was written by George Orwell.

And after you've read that seek out 'The Grapes of Wrath' by John Steinbeck and see if you can relate that to the present day.

 

[Inertia]

I'm for them, if you aren't speeding you wouldn't get caught, I don't see how this is difficult. If you aren't capable of keeping to the speed limit without constantly checking the speedo then maybe you shouldn't be anywhere near a steering wheel in the first place. I got caught out by one once but it was my own fault and Ive never been flashed since.

It SHOULD also free up police from setting speed traps to police bad driving instead, though no idea if this happens.

I do oppose the catching people out trick, ie suddenly changing the speed limit of a road and sticking a camera there but apart from that Im fine with them.

 

[dellzeqq]

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

no it doesn't

I love speed cameras. They're a tax on stupidity

 

[Rahul Sapariya]

PLEASE find a copy and read it.

It was written by George Orwell.

And after you've read that seek out 'The Grapes of Wrath' by John Steinbeck and see if you can relate that to the present day.

We are not leading to that. You must understand that society is evolving. If I walked from one side of my city to the other, I wouldn't be monitored all the way...there'd be a black spot here and there. Now I have done nothing wrong, but think of it as someone who stole for example, your bike. They stole your bike and rode it off. They were in plain-view of a cctv but the guy has a hood up so no identification. You mention it to the police that there is a cctv and they try to follow the burglar but there are blackspots. You get annoyed that the police can't find your bike. You say the police are understaffed when it is infact that there are blackspots where there are no CCTV's. People complain about the police but at the end of the day, you feel safe at night because they are patrolling. You feel a little more reassured when on the street because there are CCTV's. Talking about 1984, the book is a good read but do I honestly think it will happen...not in the same way. I don't like the law that they might push for monitoring the internet so hopefully it doesn't happen. But 1984 won't happen at all. Without CCTV, some criminals wouldn't be caught.