[Closed] Traffic Cameras - why not?

Also interested in this. I've never understood complaints about speed cameras, IMO there would be nothing wrong in having them camouflaged all over the place (or at least in danger spots) - there's a simple solution to complainers: don't speed!

More money to councils or police could be a good thing, assuming it's then used correctly 😛

Interested in genuine views from the other point of view though, as long as they're not "I know when it's safe to speed" etc (guilty of this myself occasionally - doesn't mean it's right)

Not sure where you've seen speed cameras removed because I've seen more and more although most are now yellow so they can be seen.
I've no problem with the cameras and would like to see a lot more at traffic lights as it seems optional as to if someone will actually stop or carry on through. More camera prosecution too for use of mobile phones whilst driving as they is no excuse for it with good but cheap bluetooth connection available and most new cars come it as standard.

As I understand it a lot of cameras aren't in use anymore. Apparently the Police don't have the man power or money to manage them.

With modern digital technology I can't see how this stacks up but I remember reading it somewhere.

cheap bluetooth connection available

This STW, handsfree is not acceptable! Remember you are not safe to drive if you smoked a joint the day before or had 3 pints after work the night before. Murderer!

Speed cameras, my understanding. Many are now disactivated as previously the fines where collected by the local authority. Now the money goes to central government with a smaller amount returned to cover costs, so many local authrorities have lost interest and disactivated the cameras.

OP honestly more camera surveilence is a terrible idea. Introduce that for motorists amd within "5 minutes" you'll have calls for cyclists to have registration plates, road tax and insurance

Interested in genuine views from the other point of view though, as long as they're not "I know when it's safe to speed" etc (guilty of this myself occasionally - doesn't mean it's right)

Well...

I've never had a full UK licence. I took my lessons, had my exam booked, went partying for a summer before Uni. I was hungover (possibly still drunk) and pulled a sicky instead of taking the test. I've been driving abroad for the last 11 years and regularly for a couple of months a year when back in the UK.

Having always had rental cars, I find judging the speed of the car quite tricky. In my own I'm accurate to within 5 km/h but it's based on sensation of speed, knowledge of the gearing / rpm, knowing the road noise etc. In a rental it's harder. I did 95 in a brand new Merc E320: I'd have guessed I was doing 75 but it was so quiet. I find I spend too much time glancing down at the speedo, worrying (especially in 30s and 40s) I'll get flashed as creeping up over 30 is so easy. Over here in S.E. Asia, I do think that with most people being unaware of the speed limits, many drive at a speed they feel is safe for the conditions. You don't get the morons who drive [i]at[/i] the speed limit everywhere. They're more flexible and will drive way below the limit should that be appropriate.

Speed does kill but not as much as drink, drugs, mobile phones, lack of experience speed at or under the limit but without taking conditions into account*.

I think the increased use of variable speed limits as well as an increase in the NSL (85 mp/h?) is the way forward.

*I'll set the cruise control to 85-ish on a clear, dry motorway. I'll also happily sit at 50 or less (fewer?) if the conditions demand.

Because...

We are still thankfully Governed by Consent. We may be stuck in a defaco 2 party system, we may be subject to the influence of a biased media, the 99% may still be 'represented' by the 1%, but thankfully they do at least still give a monkeys what the voting public think.

Sadly for cyclists, the majority of voting adults are drivers, or are at least happy for the 'drivers first' status-quo to continue. Drivers, like everyone I think, don't want to have their every move scrutinised and recorded with every slight infraction of the rules punished with fines and another step towards being banned from driving. - During the 2010 General Election the Tories, amongst other things made a pledge to end the war on the motorist, which meant stricter rules on when and where camera could be placed and how visible they should be etc.

Whilst we're tarring everyone with the same brush, would we like to see mandatory safety testing and registration for all bikes, number plates, compulsory testing, every red light covered by cctv, every time someone rides on a pavement they get a fine. Speed limits for off-road trails for the safety off all users?

We need more dash cams and then a system put in place to make it easy to use the footage to grass on other road users.

As a driver AND a cyclist I'd be happy for a lot more surveillance if it reduced the number of accidents. There's been a massive campaign against Average Speed Cameras on the A9 - all the usual nonsense about speed doesn't kill and having to look at your speedo constantly. Deaths and injuries are down...

there would be nothing wrong in having them camouflaged all over the place (or at least in danger spots)

I believe there was an argument made that camouflaged cameras were "entrapment". 😕

Not sure how that works exactly. I doubt you'd get an armed robbery conviction thrown out because you didn't know the bank had cameras.

Whilst we're tarring everyone with the same brush, would we like to see mandatory safety testing and registration for all bikes, number plates, compulsory testing, every red light covered by cctv, every time someone rides on a pavement they get a fine. Speed limits for off-road trails for the safety off all users?

I'd be more than happy to see that *IF* there were 194,477 injuries and deaths caused by cyclists every year.

Legislation [i]should[/i] take the potential for harm into account.

Speed does kill but not as much as drink, drugs, mobile phones, lack of experience speed at or under the limit but without taking conditions into account*.

[b]Recorded Contributing Factors in Fatal Accidents:[/b]

[b]Exceeding speed limit: 16%[/b]
Driver/Rider impaired by alcohol: 8%
Driver/Rider impaired by drugs (illicit or medicinal): 3%
Driver using mobile phone: 1%
Learner or inexperienced driver/rider: 3%
Travelling too fast for conditions: 11%

Source: [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2014 ]RAS50001, Contributory factors in reported accidents by severity, Great Britain, RRCGB 2014[/url]

The old GATSO cameras are now almost out of use, although I don't know about the others that you see at road junctions. The Police are now so under-resourced that they are making the best possible use of ANPR and social media to create an impression that they are out there catching naughty drivers. I guess this includes those Police-Camera-Action programmes you see on TV.

That's fatal accidents, but the [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/463043/rrcgb2014-02.pdf ]overall contributors to accidents[/url] is Driver / Rider error or [b]reaction[/b]. Hmm, I wonder why they might be distracted.

I'm with ScotRoutes - I'd be happy for more surveillance. If it has a minor effect of calling for stricter rules on cycling, fair enough (I don't know how that would work but let them call for it) but if it has a major effect on improving road behaviour across all transport means surely that's a win.

There's been a massive campaign against Average Speed Cameras on the A9 - all the usual nonsense about speed doesn't kill and having to look at your speedo constantly. Deaths and injuries are down...

Its made a huge difference.

Its actually a much nicer road to drive now, stress free.

I don't think that blanket introduction of average speed cameras is going to cure everything overnight, but used appropriately they certainly have a positive impact on driver behaviour

I'd be perfectly happy for villages, town and city centres to be plastered with cameras to discourage the idiots tooling along at 40 in a 20 zone (such as many of the villages where I live where there a loads of kids, pedestrians, older people etc). I can't see how this would be a bad thing. On fast A-roads, dual carriageways, motorways, I'm not fussed about people doing 80 not 70 (or 60).

The Police are now so under-resourced

Which is really one of my points - if this merely pays for itself, surely its fair. Other than:

I believe there was an argument made that camouflaged cameras were "entrapment".

Not sure how that works exactly. I doubt you'd get an armed robbery conviction thrown out because you didn't know the bank had cameras

Which is the nonsense of it. You're on the road, you should be driving within the law. And if you're not, its not entrapment because, well...

That's fatal accidents

Yes, hence "Speed kills"

the overall contributors to accidents is Driver / Rider error or reaction. Hmm, I wonder why they might be distracted.

"Driver/Rider error or reaction" is a factor in 73% of all accidents, but that is a top-level category including things like Junction overshoot, Failed to signal, Poor turn etc.

If you want to make a point about distraction then look under the "Impairment or distraction" category where "Driver using mobile phone" is reportedly 0% of all accidents (though it is naturally hard to prove) and "Distraction in vehicle" is only 3%.

Exceeding the speed limit is still a contributing factor in 5% of all reported accidents.

Speed cameras got a bad rep as many weren't placed in areas where enhanced safety was needed, but in places where they were most likely to trap drivers.

I have seen many placed in inappropriate places, on dual carriageways that had just changed down to 40 and placed behind trees, etc.

What would be a lot better is unmarked cars with cameras and an efficient way of prosecuting dangerous drivers.

No one could really complain about this and everyone would have to drive better as they wouldn't be able to tell if there was an unmarked cop around.

Speed limits could actually be increased in some areas, such as motorways, as you would be sure that no-one was tailgating, undertaking, etc, which are the things that cause most of the problems.

And some of the money raised could be used to put more unmarked cars on the road, and then you would have a larger number of police around if you really needed them for emergencies - they could even carry arms in the boot ready for the impending terrorist attack...

It's all about the money, money, money.

For cameras to by viable, they have to earn their keep. This means catching people, and moreover catching people who are going to pay the fixed penalty rather than contesting it.

This is the problem with stealth cameras. If folk knew that cameras were likely to be hidden, everyone would drive to the limit. Which is great in theory, they've done their job; but then there'd be no money to maintain them, none would work, there would no longer be a deterrent and everyone would go back to speeding again.

Cameras could be placed in high-revenue areas, like right after a speed limit change. You'd probably catch a lot of people right where the limit drops from NSL to 30. But you're not really gaining anything in terms of road safety by prosecuting people who were actually doing 30mph ten yards down the road and just hadn't sufficiently decelerated by the signpost, and I'd wager that a lot more people would contest the charge rather than paying the FP which again is more expensive to process.

So, policy is to put them in blackspots and high-risk areas, nice and visible. Which makes sense if you want to actually act as a deterrent and reduce the number of accidents. And if you think about it, this way they're not just speed cameras, they're speed and awareness cameras. If you're exceeding the speed limit in an accident blackspot whilst paying sufficiently little attention to your surroundings that you don't see a dirty great big fluorescent yellow camera, you deserve a ticket.

I find I spend too much time glancing down at the speedo

If this is a problem, then you're not a good driver. You need to know how fast you are actually going, because as you say it's easy to lose track if you don't pay attention.

"Driver/Rider error or reaction" is a factor in 73%

And of course, the faster you go the less time you (and those around you) have to react....

For cameras to by viable, they have to earn their keep

Nonsense. They're not a commercial enterprise!

I think a part of the original issue was that there was an issue with them capturing people's faces when taken front on. Recording images without consent was seen as invasion of Civil Liberties kind of thing, so that was why the GATSOs switch to only taking picture from rear and hence the complications about establishing who was driving at the time etc. To capture phone use, images would need to be captured from the front, which would re-visit this problem.

Personally I have no issue with any kind of recording if it helps reduce the number of offenders with phones or, my pet hate, multiple cars piling through after lights turn red 😡

Whenever the village my parents live in requested a camera - because drivers were routinely speeding through it - they were were told they couldn't have a camera until someone was killed or injured. Which seems a bit stupid when that's what they were trying to prevent.

And if you think about it, this way they're not just speed cameras, they're speed and awareness cameras.

But on the flip-side it means people interpret the [i]absence[/i] of cameras as an indication that it is okay to speed.

[i] lot of this could be caught by camera, especially the speeding but also phone use.[/i]

Anything that can't be automatically recorded, would have to be watched by people eg. to see who is using their phones. That's just not feasible.

they were were told they couldn't have a camera until someone was killed or injured. Which seems a bit stupid when that's what they were trying to prevent.

Our village asked for a crossing to be put in place, as kids cross the main road by the shops to get to the park, but many drivers come through there at speed, completely ignoring the 20 signs.

We were told we couldn't have a crossing as speeding drivers wouldn't have enough time to see it and slow down. 😯

Nonsense. They're not a commercial enterprise!

My mistake, they must be free to install, maintain and process then. Silly me.

The chief of police here in Durham refused to have any cameras on his patch. "Yay!" said all the drivers. Until it became clear that instead of cameras, he would hire those awful vans to hide round blind corners where the NSL went down to 40.

My mistake, they must be free to install, maintain and process then. Silly me.

if you truly want to stop speeding, stop allowing cars to break the speed limit and fit disabling devices so phones don't work in cars OR accept driverless cars once they are categorically proven as safer than having a numpty behind the wheel.

Technically all of this is possible and cameras wouldn't then have to be installed to spy on us all.

Going back to the OP point, cameras only work when they can be triggered automatically by the offence - speeding, running a red light. To catch mobile phone users you would need constant monitoring and it would require exactly the correct angle and judgement to interpret.

Full driverless cars is the only real solution to that issue and speeding, and drink driving etc. 20 years away?

Until it became clear that instead of cameras, he would hire those awful vans to hide round blind corners where the NSL went down to 40.

We need more dash cams and then a system put in place to make it easy to use the footage to grass on other road users

Absolutely not. Having cameras in cars and bikes seems to only provoke either a) extreme risk taking by the user trying to record their own dangerous driving/riding to impress their mates, or b) vigilante, self righteous and militant style driving/riding creating unnecessary frustration and bad feeling between drivers and/or cyclists, or c) provides a prop for those who generally feel un-confident on the road where more training would actually make them safer.

What's needed to improve road safety is simply:

a) greater investment in road and cycling infrastructure allowing vehicles to travel faster than they currently do where safe to do so, or slower than they currently do where unsafe to do so (variable limits).

b) greater education with a forced re-test of drivers to retain their licenses every 5-10 years. Compulsory motorway training for new and foreign drivers living in the UK (who often seem currently unfamiliar with how a UK motorway works).

c) a much bigger incentive for drivers to further their skills (e.g. advanced driving tuition) which could offer a significant incentive on insurance discounts, VED tax etc.

molgrips - Member

You need to know how fast you are actually going

You absolutely don't.
You need to able to judge that the speed you are driving at is safe for the current conditions. What that actual speed is, is of no relevance.

One should be able to drive perfectly safely without a speedo, as we can't limit the roads for safety at all times in all conditions.

If you can't do this, you shouldn't be on the road IMHO.

You need to able to judge that the speed you are driving at is safe for the current conditions. What that actual speed is, is of no relevance.

Two reasons why you're wrong:

1) You don't seem to understand how our brains perceive speed. As makecoldplayhistory says, that perception is pretty fluid based on lots of factors. If you are in a quieter car, it might seem like you are going slower. But when it matters, you'll realise that it was an illusion. Likewise driving around at 70mph on a motorway can seem nice and easy and steady, but when something happens you realise 70mph is quite quick. Try it out next time you go to Germany - do 120mph for an hour or two then slow to 70, it'll seem like you've almost stopped.

The speedo is always the same, so you need to look at that *as well* as reading road conditions. The speedo should, if you are a good driver, help calibrate your perception.

2) There are other people on the road besides you. You might be able to control your car at 80mph, but if you were a cyclist pulling out of an awkward junction and a car comes over that crest at 80, you'd be happy with that? Driving is a social activity. Keeping to broadly similar *actual* speeds helps everyone else judge your speed, avoid accidents and keep traffic flowing nicely.

My mistake, they must be free to install, maintain and process then. Silly me.

Since when do police activities need to turn a profit? That's the ultimate in Toryism right there!

Agreed with sbob. The actual speed is of no relevance other than to the law.

As for enforcement cameras in general, they're largely useless IMO. I do 26 miles each way through heavy traffic. Of that only about 7-8 miles isn't controlled by cameras. I know where every single one of them is, and I can generally do what speed I like. That said I'm in it for the long run so I stick roughly to the limits and I have plenty of time so that's no problem. I'd say my maximum speed is one of the lowest of anyone on that stretch of road, but my average speed is probably the highest. 🙂

Speed / safety - so when driving at 130kmph (84mph) on a French motorway it's "instant dealth" vs 70 in UK ?

My gripe with speed cameras is they are to a large degree about making money, getting knicked at 2am on a deserted dual carriage way etc which is far less dangerous than driving right up someone's @rse at 60.

If they want to stop phone usage in the car they could just disable them at faster than say 10 mph. Yes you couldn't use one as a passenger but so what really ? Trains could have a special wifi as could say licenced taxis and limos for legit business use.

You don't seem to understand how our brains perceive speed.

As an exercise, I like to play "guess my speed" before looking at the speedo. I've done it so often that I'm pretty bloody accurate now. It's much harder at higher speeds, but hitting 30mph on the money in my own car is a piece of piss.

Sure, there's other factors. A big part of it is knowing my own vehicle, so it's more challenging in something you're not used to. WRT "do 120mph for an hour or two then slow to 70, it'll seem like you've almost stopped" however, I remember this relative speed change being a massive issue when I first started driving, but now it's a non-issue. I wonder if it's something your brain gets used to?

Since when do police activities need to turn a profit? That's the ultimate in Toryism right there!

They don't need to turn a profit per sé, but they do need to be funded.

My gripe with speed cameras is they are to a large degree about making money, getting knicked at 2am on a deserted dual carriage way etc which is far less dangerous than driving right up someone's @rse at 60.

My gripe is that they're very binary. There's no differentiation between someone momentarily breaking the speed limit and a habitual speeder, and as Jamby says there's no consideration of other factors. Weather conditions, tailgating, playing Pokemon Go etc. A policeperson can make an educated decision as to whether a slap on the wrist is appropriate or whether they should have the book thrown at them, a GATSO just goes "here's your ticket."

So because we can't afford an infinite number of policemen we shouldn't have speed cameras?

A policeperson can make an educated decision as to whether a slap on the wrist is appropriate or whether they should have the book thrown at them, a GATSO just goes "here's your ticket."

Surely if you're so good at controlling your speed this doesn't matter?

Sorry for trolling here but I do struggle to understand why such a simple concept produces so much argument. Or rather, I struggle to come up with answers past the obvious.

My gripe is that they're very binary. There's no differentiation between someone momentarily breaking the speed limit and a habitual speeder, and as Jamby says there's no consideration of other factors. Weather conditions, tailgating, playing Pokemon Go etc. A policeperson can make an educated decision as to whether a slap on the wrist is appropriate or whether they should have the book thrown at them, a GATSO just goes "here's your ticket."

I always keep it below 25 mph when I'm playing Pokemon Go. It helps hatch your eggs.

Stay safe kids. 🙂

[quote=molgrips ]Surely if you're so good at controlling your speed this doesn't matter?You don't even have to be [i]that[/i] good at controlling your speed. There's an error-factor of around 10% built in and 60mph is a limit not a target. That means hovering anywhere between 55 and 65 should be fine. That's quite a bit of leeway.

My gripe is that they're very binary. There's no differentiation between someone momentarily breaking the speed limit and a habitual speeder

I frequently and intentionally travel quickly, but at a speed suitable for the conditions. I'm aware 100% of the time what speed I'm traveling at and match any increase in speed with a suitable increase in observation, awareness and an allowance for the actions of others.

To be honest I'd be more worried about those speeders who momentarily break the limit but have not even been aware that they've done so - the accidental speeders! If you break the limit accidentally or without realising then what does that say about the general standards of your driving and observation skills?

There seems to be a general notion that speed limits are arbitrary and that as a driver you instinctively know what the "correct" safe speed for a road is - because you know your car, the conditions and your abilities.
You have more information than whoever put up those signs, so you can decide when it is safe to go fast.

But next time you are hurtling down an unknown road at 70mph when it is inexplicably signed as a 40, think about all the information you [i]don't[/i] have, that the person setting that limit [i]may[/i] have considered:

What's the accident history of the road? Maybe there are concealed entranceways somewhere ahead? Maybe there is a loose gritty road surface ahead? Or mud on the road from tractors? Do they get a lot of fallen trees here? Or wildlife? Or people walking on the road? Maybe they are slowing people down because that innocuous looking corner ahead is actually much sharper than it looks and tends to catch people out on its weird camber? Maybe there is often stationary traffic ahead? Maybe they get a lot of cyclists using it?

I'm sure I'll be accused of driving like a granny but generally if I see a speed limit that seems too slow for the road, my default assumption is that they know something I don't - not the other way round.

(not pretending I'm a saint btw)

It doesn't matter too much to me directly, no. So what, I'm not allowed an opinion?

Can you not see how perhaps the theft of a pencil eraser from WH Smiths and the theft of ten grand from the Post Office might not merit different sentences without you needing to be Reggie Kray?

So because we can't afford an infinite number of policemen we shouldn't have speed cameras?

Have you two got your web browsers set to write-only? Where did I (or for that matter, anyone) say we shouldn't have them?

I think they're poor substitute for the police as they do one job, which is to ensure that everyone travels at or below an arbitrary speed limit irrespective of any other conditions for the ten yards or so of road that they're pointing at. A police presence can check for all manner of poor driving as well as many other crimes and have the advantage of being mobile.

In the absence of the police then yes, of course there's an argument for having speed control at accident blackspots (assuming it's not possible to address why they're blackspots in the first place). And the "managed motorway" ones are ace, and have made a big difference to traffic flow (because fluid dynamics). But in and of themselves they're a blunt object solution to a single component in a much wider and more complex problem.

Accidents / collisions can occur for any number of reasons, often several contributory factors even (gosh, who'd have thought that it might actually be complicated). "Wah wah it's a limit not a target" is a massive oversimplification, it's just low-hanging fruit. Let's get some tailgating cameras installed for a start off.

I do struggle to understand why such a simple concept produces so much argument.

Are you arguing? I just don't agree with you is all, sorry and all that.

But next time you are hurtling down an unknown road at 70mph when it is inexplicably signed as a 40, think about all the information you don't have, that the person setting that limit may have considered:

What's the accident history of the road? Maybe there are concealed entranceways somewhere ahead? Maybe there is a loose gritty road surface ahead? Or mud on the road from tractors? Do they get a lot of fallen trees here? Or wildlife? Or people walking on the road? Maybe they are slowing people down because that innocuous looking corner ahead is actually much sharper than it looks and tends to catch people out on its weird camber? Maybe there is often stationary traffic ahead? Maybe they get a lot of cyclists using it?

That's totally what proper observation when driving is for. If you don't know how to anticipate or make consideration for all the above when driving (whether traveling above or below the posted limit) then it's probably time to consider taking an advanced driving or observation course. This is exactly the sort of stuff they'll equip you to deal with and would be why this sort of training would be beneficial for all drivers after they've passed their test and then again at regular intervals thereafter.