M6 speed camera catches 5,500 drivers in five weeks

[green_and_mean]

And obeying the signs and looking for speed cameras (which WILL happen) means less concentration on the road which could lead in a nasty accident.

 

Why would you bother looking for speed cameras if you are not speeding? Using your logic we should all drive as fast as our vehicles allow as its safer than worrying about sticking to a speed limit? If you find concentrating on driving at 50 mph too much for your brain maybe you shouldn't be driving?

[green_and_mean]

Also search the internet and you may find I have a very strong argument. BUT each to their own eh?

 

If you look hard enough you can find a valid argument to justify anything, however most people that argue against speed cameras are those that get caught or wish to speed without the fear of getting caught.

[sploits]

Hhhhhmmmmm green_and_mean chirps up again. I am a perfectly good driver with a clean license and I don't speed. Other people on the other hand DO. Some people may have problems trying to keep an eye on their speed, road, people around them. People do focus on looking where speed cameras are regardless of if they are speeding or not.

 

I'm sorry if you think you are perfect and I bow down to your superiority. Oh by the way that is sarcasm incase your BRAIN couldnt figure it out.

[Startkey&Clutch]

 

Also search the internet and you may find I have a very strong argument. BUT each to their own eh?

 

Quite the opposite actually, if you search the internet, or the M6 even, you will find a lot of people using the same argument, but it’s not a strong one at all.

And if "people may have problems trying to keep an eye on their speed, road, people around them" then they should SLOW down to give themselves times to deal with those hazards.

[sploits]

Quite the opposite actually, if you search the internet, or the M6 even, you will find a lot of people using the same argument, but it’s not a strong one at all.

 

hhhhmmm again I tend to disagree. But like I said, each to their own.

 

mightymouse made a good comment previously about the how drivers react when hitting a speed camera'ed area. It can cause all sorts of problems due to how people handle it. And as you have said there seems to be a lot of people with the same argument as I have so I'm pretty sure its not just me who thinks its a money making scheme and dangerous.

 

Its up to you what you think but I think its a dirty money making scheme and has potential dangerous factors (most of which I have said previous)

[david1605red]

... Don't speed - you won't be fined. If you do... tough luck.

... And this is where the whole pro-speed camera argument falls apart. There have been many cases, some well publicised, where speeding tickets were issued from a camera flash, and it was subsequently proved in court that the driver wasn't exceeding the limit.

 

In some of these, the driver had to take it to a Crown Court appeal to get the Magistrates' verdict overturned, risking lots of time and money to get justice.

 

I helped out in a case, and I still have the video at home, where the camera pans across the back of a vehicle on a dual carriageway, and clearly shows the car is under the 70mph limit. But then the officer starts zig-zagging the cross-hairs violently across the tailgate, and a reading of 85 pops up. We had to get an expert report from a video analyst to get the prosecution to drop the case.

[Startkey&Clutch]

hhhhmmm again I tend to disagree. But like I said, each to their own.

 

mightymouse made a good comment previously about the how drivers react when hitting a speed camera'ed area. It can cause all sorts of problems due to how people handle it. And as you have said there seems to be a lot of people with the same argument as I have so I'm pretty sure its not just me who thinks its a money making scheme and dangerous.

 

Its up to you what you think but I think its a dirty money making scheme and has potential dangerous factors (most of which I have said previous)

 

 

Whilst I dont agree with your oppinion, I would fight to the death for your right to voice it.

Lots of people agree with what you have said, but, as others have already said, it will mostly be those who have been caught speeding. Its only a money making scheme because people are stupid enough to speed despite all the warnings.

People do slam on their brakes when they see a camera, but if they wernt speeding they wouldnt have to would they?

That is why the SPECS cameras were introduced, and are becoming more and more common.

[sploits]

Alot of people slam on their brakes regardless of whether they were speeding or not. I have 2 speed cameras near to where I live. I was following a small car on the road and we were approaching the cameras. The car in front obviously seen them late and slammed on the brakes. The thing was they were not speeding. It was just a reaction sort of thing (they seen the camera late and they panicked and braked incase they were speeding when they were actually just under the speed limit for that stretch of road). So to say people who slam on the brakes are speeding isn't always true (but I would admit that most probably would be).

 

... And this is where the whole pro-speed camera argument falls apart. There have been many cases, some well publicised, where speeding tickets were issued from a camera flash, and it was subsequently proved in court that the driver wasn't exceeding the limit.

 

In some of these, the driver had to take it to a Crown Court appeal to get the Magistrates' verdict overturned, risking lots of time and money to get justice.

 

I helped out in a case, and I still have the video at home, where the camera pans across the back of a vehicle on a dual carriageway, and clearly shows the car is under the 70mph limit. But then the officer starts zig-zagging the cross-hairs violently across the tailgate, and a reading of 85 pops up. We had to get an expert report from a video analyst to get the prosecution to drop the case.

 

Excellent input Dave, I have heard some horror stories about speeding tickets being issued when infact there was nobody speeding (the reading on the gun/camera was wrong).

[Startkey&Clutch]

Alot of people slam on their brakes regardless of whether they were speeding or not. I have 2 speed cameras near to where I live. I was following a small car on the road and we were approaching the cameras. The car in front obviously seen them late and slammed on the brakes. The thing was they were not speeding. It was just a reaction sort of thing (they seen the camera late and they panicked and braked incase they were speeding when they were actually just under the speed limit for that stretch of road). So to say people who slam on the brakes are speeding isn't always true (but I would admit that most probably would be).

 

 

 

Excellent input Dave, I have heard some horror stories about speeding tickets being issued when infact there was nobody speeding (the reading on the gun/camera was wrong).

 

 

HAHA!

Yes they do slam on anyway, this gives strength to ClampingKings argument about retesting, and hang them if they fail!

[green_and_mean]

Excellent input Dave, I have heard some horror stories about speeding tickets being issued when infact there was nobody speeding (the reading on the gun/camera was wrong).

 

People have been accused of many crimes including murder and subsequently been found not guilty, thats hardly an argument against prosecuting people.

[sploits]

HAHA!

Yes they do slam on anyway, this gives strength to ClampingKings argument about retesting, and hang them if they fail!

 

People do miss things and like I have said nobody is perfect. Maybe the driver didn't know the area and never noticed the sign. Suddenly they notice a yellow camera looking at them and BANG go on the brakes. They weren't speeding but the brakes went on anyway. Why would you want to retest them? I'm pretty sure some people have drove along happy as larry in their own little world only to realise they missed a turning they were supposed to take ETC. you wouldn't be retesting all them as well would you?

[green_and_mean]

People do miss things and like I have said nobody is perfect. Maybe the driver didn't know the area and never noticed the sign. Suddenly they notice a yellow camera looking at them and BANG go on the brakes. They weren't speeding but the brakes went on anyway. Why would you want to retest them? I'm pretty sure some people have drove along happy as larry in their own little world only to realise they missed a turning they were supposed to take ETC. you wouldn't be retesting all them as well would you?

 

 

Accidents are not caused by people braking for speed cameras they are caused by the cars behind being too close, travelling too fast and not paying attention to the road in front.

[sploits]

And why would people not be paying attention to the road? Because of the distraction of the speed cameras etc.

[david1605red]

People have been accused of many crimes including murder and subsequently been found not guilty, thats hardly an argument against prosecuting people.

I would agree that prosecutions should not stop just because some defendants are not guilty.

 

However, with speed cameras, very few people are willing to risk taking the matter to a court hearing, the whole system is geared towards getting people to accept the fixed penalty, when in many cases the evidence wouldn't stand up if it actually went to trial.

 

If everybody who received a NIP and didn't think they were speeding, were to elect to go to court instead of meekly accepting the COFP, the whole rotten system would quickly grind to a halt.

[green_and_mean]

I would agree that prosecutions should not stop just because some defendants are not guilty.

 

However, with speed cameras, very few people are willing to risk taking the matter to a court hearing, the whole system is geared towards getting people to accept the fixed penalty, when in many cases the evidence wouldn't stand up if it actually went to trial.

 

If everybody who received a NIP and didn't think they were speeding, were to elect to go to court instead of meekly accepting the COFP, the whole rotten system would quickly grind to a halt.

 

Probably because most people are guilty there are very few cases where the evidence has shown the driver was not speeding. Not guilty verdicts are usually due to technical defences which whilst valid do not show the cameras are inaccuate.

[sploits]

Probably because most people are guilty there are very few cases where the evidence has shown the driver was not speeding. Not guilty verdicts are usually due to technical defences which whilst valid do not show the cameras are inaccuate.

 

David has already proven that cameras can be wrong (as per post #31).

[green_and_mean]

David has already proven that cameras can be wrong (as per post #31).

 

No he said the Police had used it wrong he didn't say the camera was not working properly and we are discussing fixed speed cameras anyway not devices used by the police to measure speed.

[electron99]

And why would people not be paying attention to the road? Because of the distraction of the speed cameras etc.

 

Since passing my test I have driven well over a million miles in 23 different vehicles.

As you gain experience, you learn to drive concentrating on the road ahead, looking for hazards, always anticpating what might happen.At the same time you get the 'feel' of the car you are driving and know, without constantly looking at the speedo, what approx speed you are driving.

 

Roadworks/cameras on motorways are sign posted a long time before you reach them; there is no way you could not miss the warnings unless you are an inexperienced driver, unsure of yourself and the car you are driving.

 

There can be absolutely no excuse for being flashed by a motorway camera unless you have an arrogant disregard for the 'rules' of the road.

[david1605red]

No he said the Police had used it wrong he didn't say the camera was not working properly and we are discussing fixed speed cameras anyway not devices used by the police to measure speed.

Both mobile and fixed cameras can be inaccurate. Check out Fines 'unfair' due to problem Gatso (From The Argus)

[green_and_mean]

Both mobile and fixed cameras can be inaccurate. Check out Fines 'unfair' due to problem Gatso (From The Argus)

 

Andrew Howard, the head of road safety at the AA, said: “The reality is that drivers are given a 5mph margin for error, so while Mr Barker has shown he was not over 35mph he has not shown he was not over the legal limit of 30mph.

“There have been many cases where people have been able to prove some cameras are inaccurate or have found problems with positioning such as cameras on bends but no one has been able to give the silver bullet to speed cameras and on the whole they continue to work very well.”

 

And that is from the AA who are hardly anti motorist.

[david1605red]

It's not up to the driver to prove he wasn't speeding, it's up to the Police / CPS to prove he was. In Mr Barker's case, they issued a NIP followed by a fixed penalty notice for an alleged 36mph, and it was shown in court that the primary and secondary readings differed by more than 10%, hence the charge was dismissed.

 

The point is that most people would have simply paid up, when in fact the inaccuracy of the camera meant they didn't need to, although I don't see anyone from Sussex SCP rushing to refund their fines / points.

 

As for the AA, who were originally formed to warn motorists of speed traps, they've clearly been "got at" by the establishment and their "safety camera" claptrap.

[green_and_mean]

It's not up to the driver to prove he wasn't speeding, it's up to the Police / CPS to prove he was. In Mr Barker's case, they issued a NIP followed by a fixed penalty notice for an alleged 36mph, and it was shown in court that the primary and secondary readings differed by more than 10%, hence the charge was dismissed.

 

The point is that most people would have simply paid up, when in fact the inaccuracy of the camera meant they didn't need to, although I don't see anyone from Sussex SCP rushing to refund their fines / points.

 

As for the AA, who were originally formed to warn motorists of speed traps, they've clearly been "got at" by the establishment and their "safety camera" claptrap.

 

Most people are prepared to accept they are in the wrong rather than waste six months of their life and a day in Court trying to avoid a £60 fine.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

IMHO the only valid argument agains speed cameras is that they are a very blunt tool and have reduced the traffic police on the roads.

 

Inappropriate speed is only one of a range of dangerous issues and the absence of police patrols does nothing to reduce these.

 

As for those who find them a distraction, I'm just surprised you cope witha all the signs that litter the road and the information to be absorbed let alone the problems on a scenic route!

[Al27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al27

I wonder how many of these tickets were given out in the dead of night when there are no workers around?

 

Is it safer to speed at night then? I would have thought a changed road layout and low visibility was enough of a reason to slow down workers or no workers.

 

I knew you couldn't resist! I just asked a question - I wondered what proportion were issued during the day and during the night?

 

Who said anything about it being safer to speed at night?

[mystery1]

I knew you couldn't resist! I just asked a question - I wondered what proportion were issued during the day and during the night?

 

Who said anything about it being safer to speed at night?

 

Are you referring to schedule 17 per chance ?

 

M1