Iain Young

They never did, (at least I've never seen them do it). Cameras have not changed that fact at all.

True. Bad driving is the cause, (which cameras cannot detect). The fact is however, that the stopping distance difference between driving at 70mph and 90mph is actually quite a long way, so reducing the overall speed of the traffic (to the speed limit), gives everyone a bigger chance of avoiding trouble. Surely it's a good idea to treat the symptoms whilst you look for a cure for the cause?

Cameras are treating the symptoms, not the cause. However until good driving can be enforced, that is all that can be done. Investment should be made into the traffic police to get more of them on the roads, booking people who are driving badly. Unfortunately, I suspect that most people on here will then start moaning about having a police state....

Very true. Every road has a different set of problems, and different speeds at which it is safe to travel. A blanket approach to road safety does not make sense. But unfortunately, it would cost a lot of money to do anything else, so it's difficult for governments to tackle (especially when people are already moaning about the number of taxes they have to pay etc). Changing both public opionion / approach to driving standards and hiring large numbers of traffic police will not be a cheap process....

Leslie

More people die of MRSA sickness now than are killed on the roads. Maybe NL should invent yet another target for the cleaners in the hospitals, what do you reckon PSL?

In recent times it has become apparent that more and more burglars and muggers etc are prepared to seriously wound or kill to avoid detection.

Looks like another chance to make a target for the burglars to ensure that they can get the maximum amoiunt of "swag" for the minimums number of dead and injured victims. Why not, they get more consideration than the victims as it is?

Tough on crime eh!

PSL, before you go shooting your mouth off about people speeding, you should remember your own speeding cases before someone resurrects your posts about it. You won't want to be "hoist by your own petard"-again!

You'd be safer to stick with dead fish I think.

Les

ajm

Speeding is just a name given to the act of driving above a speed limit. As long as the the speed limits are too low then people will speed.

People are angry because the cameras are always situated in places where the speed limits are too low.

Iain Young

Interesting. I've not heard that one before Leslie. Could you point me to the statistics please< (I'd like to take a look)...

Or is it just because the laws have been reclassified (which happened a couple of years or so ago) so that more things can be classified as violent crime than just normal crime (which has happened). The chief constable said a while ago that if the reclassification hadn't taken place, then the violent crime statistics (and crime generally) would have actually shown a decrease in the last period of government.

Iain Young

That is sometimes the case, however in other cases they are in genuine blackspots.

This stretch of M4 has a very large number of accidents. Surely it would be a better idea to leave the cameras in for a few months to see if they have had a positive effect on the accident rate before complaining about them. If they have not had a positive effect, then they should be removed again

porkerboy

The real issue is that a considerable number of speed limits are just too low. 70mph is ridiculously slow on a dry,clear motorway - 80mph would be more acceptable.

Speed doesnt kill - poor driving does. And speeding will never become as sociably unacceptable as drink driving - cant see why that argument has ever been made.