<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by neilp:
Cameras are placed at accident black spots. This is why they are usually clearly visible. They are not there so much to catch people speeding, but to slow the traffic at accident spots, thus cutting down on the number of accidents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Absolute bollocks! I see you didn't put a smiley at the end so you obviously believe this crap.
The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) figures claim that motorways are the safest type of road in Britain, yet the M11/A11 is littered with speed cameras.
This particular road is in the middle of nowhere (no towns/villages) on a dead-straight 3-lane road, so there will never be any pedestrians/cyclists/children on or near it. How come they put speed cameras there?
We all know that ACPO guidelines say 10% + 2mph for a conviction, so given these figures, one of these speed cameras would nick me at 79mph, only 9mph over the posted speed limit.
If I was driving a 10-tonne truck down this road, which should be limited to 40mph, it can get upto 78mph without being caught - that's 38mph over the speed limit and nearly double what it should be doing! How does that work?
What if I tow a dangerous load on a trailer attached to my car at 78mph? Still no ticket but I'm 28mph over the required speed limit for vehicles towing a trailer. Why don't I get nicked?
Secondly, can you explain to me how a speed camera catches a dangerous driver, a drunken driver, an uninsured driver or an unroadworthy vehicle? All of these would be picked up by a Police patrol.
Finally, to quote an article in The Sun on Friday 16th May this year...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
"New Speed Cameras Trap Just Nine Drivers a Day"
New hi-tech speed cameras have proved a financial flop-
because they are so successful. Only nine drivers a day
are trapped by the devices which were expected to catch
sixty. So instead of heading for a profit of 1.4 million
in fines they are running at a loss of 2000 a month.
Six sets of the revolutionary digital cameras were
introduced in Nottingham seven months ago. They measure
the speed of cars between two points up to a mile apart.
But motorists soon learned where the traps were and
stuck to the speed limit.
The number of serious road accidents had dropped by 52
per cent and average vehicle speeds are down by 5mph.
...
Brian Parbutt, deputy leader of Nottingham Council said
"There was talk that this would be a money spinner. But
there has been a much lower level of income from the
fines. However, there has been a much bigger impact in
terms of reducing driver speeds and accidents."
Fellow councillor Alan Clark added: "We may have to
scale the project down if the income isn't forthcoming."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now tell me it isn't about money!
BTW, I'm all for the appropriate use of speed (see my post up there ^^^) but revenue generation while reducing patrols to stop potential accidents before they happen is not the way to go.
Speed is not the be-all and end-all of accidents, we require better driver education.
/rant
[This message has been edited by antonye (edited 28 June 2001).]