Figures suggest that Britain is the Gatso capital of Europe, do you think that these cameras are just another way to cream money from motorists? Or are they a tool for preventing fatal road accidents? According to Swindon Borough Council, they may not be the best way to make roads safer. What do you think?
Why is it that people who dont speed complain the most. with so many people acknowleging that they moderate their speed in the area of the camera it only makes me cringe to think what the roads would be like without them.
I would however prefer more dedicated patrol officers as the sight of a motorist being dealt with at random locations is far more effective.
Remember we only have 'black spots' because it's too late for someone.
Speed cameras are nothing more than a revenue raising government job creation scheme.
They have no place in being, they have a negative effect on road safety and allow the authorities to reduce measures that do contribute such as increased police patrols.
There is too much reliance on technology and not enough attention to making the roads safer by dealing with the selfish, arrogant, careless and reckless.
Sorry but that doesn't help politicians look good and keep milking the system for their own ends does it?
Even if they don't make much of a change to road safety, they must help reduce emissions a bit which can only be good!
If cameras were used properly only in black spot accident areas im sure people would accept them and the money you save on the others you can get more traffic officers dealing with a broader range of motoring offences which effect peoples lives!!!!!!!!!
Firstly I don't speed or at least try not to. But I am not one bit in favour of the speed cameras in this area. They are in the wrong places! on an average 3 mile journey round town I pass no less than FOUR cameras. Some areas are more populated with these pests than others. For example we went on Holiday from Poole (south coast) to Yorkshire. We passed a total of 8 cameras on route. 6 of them were in the first 20 miles of our journey in the Poole/Bournemouth area and most of these were on the dual carriageways leading out of the town. Does this make it safe when travelling at 50-70 down a dual carriageway to suddenly be hit with a camera? The first thing most people do is glare down at the speedometer to make sure they are under the limit. It takes just a second for another idiot driver to do something to cause an accident. That time could be spent reacting to whatever the other driver is doing. on a free flowing road why put a camera up other than to make money? Also with the newer age cars which are more responsive and fitted with most safety features it is very easy to get carried away and not realise you have done it - bang - a fine and points. I've just moved from an old G reg car into a new one this year and the difference is unbelievable. In the old car you knew when you were doing 30. In the new car, 50 feels like a crawl. There's no difference in the engine size (well 0.1). I'm wondering just how many accidents there are on Germany's limitless autobahns. People say they want us out of cars and to use public transport. This may be feasible in places like London where its readily available and interchangeable (and where the government are), but you get to the outer towns where it is rubbish and you have one train available every hour and even then its a 15 min walk each end to and from the station. Or the buses where there is maybe one every 20 mins at peak times, which when turn up are quite shabby and littered/vandalised. Some people get one a day on their routes. And well we just wont talk about the justification of taxis. The government are living Marie Antoinette's no knowing what's going on in their country outside their city. So maybe they are justified around schools and hospitals. But not on a free flowing dual carriageway where with todays age and technology even 70 seems slow. Money making madness.
Report this comment:
Comments page 7 of 375