On the subject of Traffic Wardens and Speed Cameras.

galena1 · Posted: Tue 03/09/2004 11:22am [Post #1]

THIS one COULD run for ever.... Very Happy

Can't be any driver that doesn't have some input here Exclamation

I shall add my own observations later.

This post has: 0 recommendations

mart44 · Posted: Tue 03/09/2004 3:25pm [Post #2]

Whether the cameras have the primary purpose of raising revenue from speeding motorists or not, I agree with their presence. I personally don't think they are for that reason but realise that many disagree on that point. I believe they are there to lower the risk of injuries by, hopefully, making drivers stay within the speed limit.

I do reckon though that they should be used in tandem with a review of speed limits. There are some places where cars should be allowed to speed up a bit. 30 MPH on some dual-carriageways is 10 MPH too low in my opinion. This is the case with one near us where drivers with previously clean licences are being booked for travelling at a few MPH above the 30 MPH limit. Lots of articles in the local paper about it. Conversely, there are some places where the limit should be below the standard built-up area speed of 30 MPH. Outside of schools and roads in housing estates would be examples of such areas.

The trouble is that cameras are rarely erected in housing estates and outside of schools, where they are perhaps most needed. They are nearly always on the open road where it can be argued that driving a bit faster is safe. I think that's why many drivers think they are just put in place as revenue raisers. Whatever, the thing to do to avoid extra subscriptions to the local authority coffers is not to go above the stated speed limit.

This post has: 0 recommendations

whoozhe · Posted: Thu 03/11/2004 8:07pm [Post #3]

Governments just about everywhere still cling to outdated forms of traffic management. Speed cameras have NOT affected accident rates at all.
The main reason there has been a slow decline in accident deaths is mainly due to medical advancements and better built cars. Actual accident figures are not available but a recent survey in Australia among crash repairers show a steady increase of accidents above that of traffic growth.
Governments need to step out of the punish/fine arena and consider alternative road systems.
In Adelaide Australia last week a power failure resulted in 300 sets of traffic light to cease working. During this 3 hour period there were less accidents recorded than in any comparable period for the last 20 year. This was put down that motorists were more alert and aware of their surroundings. There were less traffic jams and less road rage.
My biggest beef is that the more "Traffic Controls" that are put in place the more a motorist has to be concerned about. Each control adds to driver distraction.
Frustration could be the main cause of accidents. A simple trip to the local shopping mall can become a horror with all the traffic lights, blocked road access and priority given to non motorists.
What is needed is road systems that get a driver from A to B in the fastest safest way with the least restictions possible.
But alas it is far cheaper to appear to be doing something via the control method than spend money on roads.

This post has: 0 recommendations

Osc · Posted: Fri 03/12/2004 10:12am [Post #4]

Here in Washington DC, they have been steadily installing traffic cameras as a way to increase revenue. They have even shorten the amount of time the "yellow" light is on, between red and green. They say it is to create safer streets, but every report commissioned by the City Council has proven that traffic cameras do nothing to improve safety. Worse yet, the shortened yellow time, while drastically increasing revenue from the cameras, greatly decreases safety! The reports state that if you have LONGER yellow lights, fewer accidents will occur.

Of course, the insurance companies are getting right on this. A US insurance company (GEICO) has started to donate traffic cameras to local sherriff's offices, in hopes of more tickets, and thus higher insurance premiums.

This post has: 0 recommendations

galena1 · Posted: Fri 03/12/2004 10:22am [Post #5]

Does my old heart good, Osc, to read such things Evil or Very Mad

Here in the UK it's a money making exercise. Cameras hidden around corners and behind bushes. Yes, we shouldn't break the speed limit - Guilty as charged, Judge. 33mph in a 30mph area Crying or Very sad

. Shoot me now. I appreciate the need for controlling the speed limit in SOME areas and yes I was breaking the limit but it was a ridiculously low limit for that particular stretch. Name of the game is 'Screw the Public'. Regards.

This post has: 0 recommendations

ccb056 · Member Joined: 24 Feb 2004 Posts: 40 Points: 1

question, do they determine the speed by analysing frames and the car's position in each fram, or do they use radar?

why cant you just put duct tape over the cameras? Very Happy

This post has: 0 recommendations

Osc · Posted: Fri 03/12/2004 11:45am [Post #7]

just a clarification -- the cameras I was talking about were the red-light cameras. We also have tons of speed-trap cameras. What a wonderful world we live in.

This post has: 0 recommendations

galena1 · Posted: Sat 03/13/2004 9:14am [Post #8]

Here in the UK there are an increasing number of speed cameras being sabotaged. Some have been set on fire. Others have been cut down with angle grinders and some have had the lenses spray painted. Not that I am condoning such tactics, of course. Some of the newer cameras are digital and can record thousands of numbers, unlike the old 'film' type.

This post has: 0 recommendations