Tweet
The main objections that I hear to the existing or increasing deployment of speed cameras are as follows.
i) They make you drive too slow
- I'd agree that this is the case on most motorways and indeed, some 60mph and 50mph zones. One example near to me is St. Peter's Way. It used to be a 60mph zone. You could safely travel 70mph on it. However, they then decreased the speed limit to 50mph, and brought in two speed cameras about half a mile apart.
Result? People braking in order to avoid the speed cameras. And then accelerating. Very dangerous. While cases like this have to be dealt with pragmatically, I'm sure the majority of car drivers would accept residential speed limits of 20mph that were strictly enforced, in addition to increasing the limit on motorways to 80mph.
ii) They are just trying to catch drivers out; speed cameras should be brightly painted and visible
- Absolutely awful argument. Perhaps police officers should publish details of where they will be at certain times as well?
By stating where law enforcement is carried out, speed cameras only slow people down for short periods - very dangerous, especially in moderate to heavy traffic. If, however, you were told on approaching a 10 mile stretch of motorway that speed cameras were in operation (as every bloody speed camera should be at all times), you would rationally stick to the speed limit throughout that stretch.
The vast majority of speed cameras should be hidden, except in one or two areas where a lot of accidents have happened due to speed. Here, they should be very, very obvious.
A combination of the two is wise - not one or the other.
iii) They are just trying to get more money out of motorists!
- The amount of taxes levied on other motorists in other areas is another argument; there is absolutely nothing wrong with making proven criminals (which is what speeding drivers that are pictured are) pay a fine.
Wouldn't it be better for everyone in society if the general tax level were reduced as a result of criminals paying more for their actions?
---
The only valid argument as I see it is i). Perhaps speed limits do need to be changed on motorways in order to represent that advancements in car engineering and safety that have occurred. This could be coupled with a reduction from 30mph to a strict 20mph limit in residential areas.
Arguments ii) and iii) are ridiculous ones that only serve to discredit the car lobby.
i) They make you drive too slow
- I'd agree that this is the case on most motorways and indeed, some 60mph and 50mph zones. One example near to me is St. Peter's Way. It used to be a 60mph zone. You could safely travel 70mph on it. However, they then decreased the speed limit to 50mph, and brought in two speed cameras about half a mile apart.
Result? People braking in order to avoid the speed cameras. And then accelerating. Very dangerous. While cases like this have to be dealt with pragmatically, I'm sure the majority of car drivers would accept residential speed limits of 20mph that were strictly enforced, in addition to increasing the limit on motorways to 80mph.
ii) They are just trying to catch drivers out; speed cameras should be brightly painted and visible
- Absolutely awful argument. Perhaps police officers should publish details of where they will be at certain times as well?
By stating where law enforcement is carried out, speed cameras only slow people down for short periods - very dangerous, especially in moderate to heavy traffic. If, however, you were told on approaching a 10 mile stretch of motorway that speed cameras were in operation (as every bloody speed camera should be at all times), you would rationally stick to the speed limit throughout that stretch.
The vast majority of speed cameras should be hidden, except in one or two areas where a lot of accidents have happened due to speed. Here, they should be very, very obvious.
A combination of the two is wise - not one or the other.
iii) They are just trying to get more money out of motorists!
- The amount of taxes levied on other motorists in other areas is another argument; there is absolutely nothing wrong with making proven criminals (which is what speeding drivers that are pictured are) pay a fine.
Wouldn't it be better for everyone in society if the general tax level were reduced as a result of criminals paying more for their actions?
---
The only valid argument as I see it is i). Perhaps speed limits do need to be changed on motorways in order to represent that advancements in car engineering and safety that have occurred. This could be coupled with a reduction from 30mph to a strict 20mph limit in residential areas.
Arguments ii) and iii) are ridiculous ones that only serve to discredit the car lobby.
like someone's going that speed. I usually go 100-140 on intercity highways.
.
. If some idiot at the Department of Transport hears what you are saying we will have millions of inflatable yellow speed cameras all over the place.
Comment