Topic ID 16
What is the opinion on the new speed camera's on the Ware road??... 1) About time too!...catch those b*!gers endangering our kiddy's lifes! 2) Just to wring the last penny out of us poor unsuspecting Hertford people..... What do you think??? Edited by - Steve on 14 Jul 2003 16:40:37
Reply ID 34
Hertford has been free of these "metropolitan" measures up until now. Their appearance is yet another example of "Outer London creeping in". The positioning is slightly puzzling too. I'd say they were unnecessary. I suspect a jobsworth is responsible for them!
Reply ID 37
As an erstwhile London driver (see other postings!) I can add that I feel much more relaxed, patient and therefore safer behind the wheel here in Hertford where there are far fewer such anti-car measures. In my opinion, speed cameras, road humps, pinch points etc just wind drivers up and encourage us to drive more aggressively. Open warfare between drivers and local authorities is something Hertford is so far blissfully free of, and we should try to keep it that way.
Reply ID 39
I have to agree..i work in Brimsdown close to the speed camera's on Mollison Avenue...i have seen a number of accidents caused there specifically by erratic braking/driving when people become aware of the speed camera's at the last minute.
Reply ID 58
It often seems that the consultants who design these schemes actually end up making matters worse, sometimes through not taking account of all the relevant factors. I also suspect they earn commission on traffic light sales!
Reply ID 468
I like speed cameras instead of road humps. Road humps may cause damage to your car. There was a person in the paper that sued the council. He was driving in a 30mph zone with road humps. When he went over the hump at 30mph the bumper hit the road and caused damaged. The council reduced the speed to 20mph. katie
Reply ID 479
I have to agree that road humps are even WORSE than speed cameras, Katie! The problems with humps: 1. Cause massively increased noise and exhaust emissions 2. Make traffic constantly accelerate and decelerate -- dangerous! 3. Make vehicles meander all over road in order to cross humps at least uncomfortable points - dangerous! 4. Bigger vehicles going over them cause ground vibrations which do no good for surrounding buildings (or sleeping residents!) 5. They only reduce the AVERAGE speed of traffic. This is not the same as enforcing a constant safe speed. EG you go slow over the hump itself but speed up at corners etc (ie the most dangerous parts of your journey) in order to make up time. DUMP THE HUMP!!!!!!
Reply ID 502
Of course, if drivers didn't speed or drive too fast for the conditions then speed bumps and cameras would never be used (Beane Rd. and the rat-tun are two obvious places where I see it every day). Thankfully we've moved off the rat-run now, so we don't have to put up with the accelerating cars as they pull away from the horizontal speed bumps of the parked cars through there. They should ditch/lower the fines from speed cameras to end the apparent myth that they are revenue generating - the money gained goes into the cameras, it's said - and make them 4 or 5 points instead of three. In Switzerland (or the Canton of Geneva at least) they are allowed to hide speed cameras and they are difficult to spot. That stops people from decelerating as they approach them, and expands their influence further than the immediate vicinity.
Reply ID 510
Hiding the cameras stops people from decelerating as they approach them? Not likely -- drivers are simply more likely to brake sharply when they realise they are almost on top of a camera -- how safe is THAT? There's already a well-documented case in Britain of a bike rider being killed because someone did just that. And the old cliched argument "If drivers only kep to the limit....." doesn't wash --- this danger exists whether you're speeding or not --- I suspect virtually all drivers touch the brake by instinct as they go over speed cameras, eyes glued to the speedo - and therefore not on the road.
Reply ID 511
If drivers never broke the speed limit, there would be no (need for) cameras. If they suddenly started adhering to the speed limit, then there would be no fines from speed cameras so a major funding source for cameras would dry up so they would be taken out of commission. They wouldn't be needed anyway. Hidden caneras work because rarely ever see the camera. In both New Zealand and Australia pilot studies have shown this. I haven't seen anything from the Swiss experience, but have just seen it's effect myself.
Reply ID 534
Skanky You are obviously not a driver, or you would know that it's impossible NEVER to break the speed limit. Even ACPO (Assocn of Ch. Police Officers) acknowledge this by recommending that no prosecution should happen unless you go over the limit by 10% + 2mph. But some "Safety" camera partnerships ignore this advice and you can get done for doing 31mph. In any case, cameras should be highly visible to remind the vast majority of law-abiding drivers to check their speedo at acident blackspots. Trouble is, there are now so many cameras at non-blackspots that they have lost all credibility as a real safety device.
Reply ID 535
Sorry, your last two posts *seem* to contradict each other - though it's probably just down to me misunderstanding you. Are you for them in theory, but have a problem with some (many?) of the ways they are implemented, in some (many?) places, or against them in total? If it's the former then we probably have far closer positions than it seems - the effectiveness and safety of speed cameras is down to how they are used, as in any measure or tool. I think road safety (like most things) is far more complicated tham merely one issue (speed), and most arguments I've seen both for and against cameras have been a little too simple or generalised - and that includes my one above about them being self-funding.
Reply ID 537
Quite agree with you about the complexity of road safety planning, added to which, there are often other motives (such as ecological ones) that have little to do with safety per se, but get swept up in the speed/road capacity etc, debate. Personally, I'm not against speed cameras as employed for their original purpose -- ie to strictly enforce speed limits at known accident blackspots, and warn of the danger at that point. I'm very much against the way they are currently being used though, and the notion of hypothecating fines back to the authority levying them seems to me to go against natural justice. I'm not a speedster or suchlike, but I just feel that motorists would behave more responsibly if treated less like criminals, cash-cows, pariahs, etc etc. It would probably be better to have more police around rather than cameras for the purpose of challenging the real lunatics, while avoiding giving everyone else the impression that they are being 'caught out' by subterfuge.......