Class One Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=18949 Average speed cameras are set to be rolled out across the UK to replace Gatsos, it has been revealed. Geoff Hoon, the transport secretary, said the traditional cameras were ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unfair’ and would be replaced by the newer technology. In an interview with the Sunday Times he said that so-called ‘spot’ cameras, which measure speed from a fixed point, were not as effective as average speed cameras. ‘Spot speed cameras are seen by some people as unfair because when you are driving along you perhaps don’t notice your speed,’ Hoon said. ‘What is interesting about average-speed cameras is that [limits] are largely observed by motorists.....’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I hate average speed cameras even more than I do Gatsos. I have to say, they are a darn sight more effective though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoff Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I think they are more likely to reduce excess speed (ie over the limit). With a fixed point camera once someone knows its there they will slow for it before picking up speed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Walker Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I hate average speed cameras even more than I do Gatsos. I have to say, they are a darn sight more effective though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 "Geoff Hoon, the transport secretary, said the traditional cameras were ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unfair’..." Didn't see them moaning when they were raking in millions! Now they seem to have a better way to catch even MORE unsuspecting motorists! Brilliant work!! "But Hoon said that he is no car hater and in fact travels 15,000 miles a year. ‘I am an enthusiastic motorist. I enjoy driving,’ he said. ‘I know most people enjoy driving.’ His stead of choice? A Ford Galaxy people carrier…" Proper petrolhead then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexM Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Common sense approach.. fix the roads and raise the speed limit, stop using cameras for blatent profiteering, and clamp down on untaxed/uninsured/drunk/doped up drivers. Oh wait, that's far too much effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Common sense approach.. fix the roads and raise the speed limit, stop using cameras for blatent profiteering, and clamp down on untaxed/uninsured/drunk/doped up drivers. Oh wait, that's far too much effort. Just out of interest do we have any facts about how much such cameras cost? We all go on about them being a profit making outfit (and I am sure they are) but ticket processing, relpacing broken/burned cameras etc isnt cheap I bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 They're profit making for the Govt because the local councils pay for them while the Chancellor takes the income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 As long as they don't use them to compare average speeds across the whole UK or the whole length of a particular road I'm OK with it but I don't really enjoy them on the motorway when the limit is reduced - people seem to spend more time checking their speedo than they do the road. You also get people driving really close so that the camera can't see their plate, danger, danger. I can see it now though, "you left London at 4pm, you arrived in Manchester at 9pm, given the amount of traffic on the M1 and M62 you were clearly speeding for some of the journey. Please accept these 3 points as a reminder that we are watching" Semi-related reading: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article5106324.ece?&EMC-Bltn=MOTGT9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcAB10 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I hate average speed cameras even more than I do Gatsos. I have to say, they are a darn sight more effective though. ^ agreed. i'm really not a fan either, and as Michael said it will just increase the amount of people 'speedo watching' instead of 'road watching'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Disagree Doug, this is proper brain out use a hammer to crack a nut (and still miss). TVP, the press, the councillors, MP's and action groups are absolutely desperate for SPECs to be installed on the M40 - all of it but would 'settle' for coverage from 1a to 7. They base this support on 7 fatal crashes in 18 months, each of the seven crashes were shown in the Bucks Free Press as 'proof' for the need of cameras. Crash 1- Lorry crosses over central reservation from westbound to eastbound carriageway, ploughing into oncoming traffic. Crash 2- van gets squashed by lorry on approach to J1a due to woeful road planning and general impatience (in general) as lane 1 becomes a slip road filter and people queue jump, swap lanes etc. Crash 3- cause unknown, still under investigation. Crash 4- woman drives into back of parked Iveco truck broken down on hard shoulder. Crash 5- Another car squashed on approach to J1a Crash 6 - Bloke crashes into car parked on hard shoulder. Crash 7- Pick up flipped over, rescuer died when struck by a passing truck. Phase 1 has begun- Scamera vans parked on bridges every day for two weeks yet wouldn't have prevented atleast 6 of those accidents used as 'proof' for their need because speed isn't the be all and end all of road safety, if we educated people into increased observation and general awereness would be a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Seems a sensible and effective way of preventing speeding, I'm surprised they havn't done it already. SPECS - I hate the things I think we may be living (and driving) in the last decade or so when you will be able to go over the limit without knowing 99% that you will be caught, fined, banned. Seems a shame somehow... I suppose if everybody did stick exactly to the speed limits, there were cameras on all roads, cities and public buildings inside and out plus we were all forced to carry identity cards, it may be a slightly safer Country. But, on the day after Remembrance Sunday, I'm not sure that this is the "freedom" that my Great grandad died in the war for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Semi-related reading: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article5106324.ece?&EMC-Bltn=MOTGT9 I love Clarksons writing. "...the number of pedestrians being killed on the roads in the least deprived areas (where intelligent people live) is three times smaller than the number in areas of greatest deprivation (where thick people live)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Semi-related reading: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article5106324.ece?&EMC-Bltn=MOTGT9 He does have a point! "Stupidity Kills". However making people drive more safely and reducing road deaths does not make money, therefore is useless to the government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Garfy Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I dont have a problem with average speed camara's in road works areas, but rolling them out over the whole motorway network worries me, its ok for those that have cruise control but what about the millions that don't, picture this, your driving along being mindfull of your speed, you've been staying around 70, then you notice you have crept upto 80, oh bugger, how long have I been doing that for, what shall I do, slow down to 60? but for how long? oh I'm really worried now, maybe I've been through a few check points like that, then while your so concentrated on that someone brakes hard and you dont notice, smash!!!!!! Extreme situation I know, but I think its a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbloodyturbo Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I ont think it's people's speed that gets them killed, i think it has a lot more to do with their attitude towards driving in general, people not slowing when its wet, people not leaving the appropriate space to the car infront, people passing when its clearly dangerous to do so, things like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Oh goodie, more cars on the road where people don't want fines so they don't register, tax or insure them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supra-Brett Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 "Geoff Hoon, the transport secretary, said the traditional cameras were ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unfair’..." Didn't see them moaning when they were raking in millions! Now they seem to have a better way to catch even MORE unsuspecting motorists! Brilliant work!! But they dont rake in more than the old fashioned cameras as people actually stick to the limit with average speed ones !!! Disagree Doug, this is proper brain out use a hammer to crack a nut (and still miss). TVP, the press, the councillors, MP's and action groups are absolutely desperate for SPECs to be installed on the M40 - all of it but would 'settle' for coverage from 1a to 7. They base this support on 7 fatal crashes in 18 months, each of the seven crashes were shown in the Bucks Free Press as 'proof' for the need of cameras. Crash 1- Lorry crosses over central reservation from westbound to eastbound carriageway, ploughing into oncoming traffic. Crash 2- van gets squashed by lorry on approach to J1a due to woeful road planning and general impatience (in general) as lane 1 becomes a slip road filter and people queue jump, swap lanes etc. Crash 3- cause unknown, still under investigation. Crash 4- woman drives into back of parked Iveco truck broken down on hard shoulder. Crash 5- Another car squashed on approach to J1a Crash 6 - Bloke crashes into car parked on hard shoulder. Crash 7- Pick up flipped over, rescuer died when struck by a passing truck. Phase 1 has begun- Scamera vans parked on bridges every day for two weeks yet wouldn't have prevented atleast 6 of those accidents used as 'proof' for their need because speed isn't the be all and end all of road safety, if we educated people into increased observation and general awereness would be a start. None of these examples of fatal accidents being used as justification to install speed cameras is as good as the justification used to install one in Yorkshire. Cant recall how many fatal accidents in total were used, BUT 3 of them were suicides, caused by people jumping off a motorway bridge, onto the carraigeway, and not involving any vehicles !!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrenlea Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I ont think it's people's speed that gets them killed, i think it has a lot more to do with their attitude towards driving in general, people not slowing when its wet, people not leaving the appropriate space to the car infront, people passing when its clearly dangerous to do so, things like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 But they dont rake in more than the old fashioned cameras as people actually stick to the limit with average speed ones !!! None of these examples of fatal accidents being used as justification to install speed cameras is as good as the justification used to install one in Yorkshire. Cant recall how many fatal accidents in total were used, BUT 3 of them were suicides, caused by people jumping off a motorway bridge, onto the carraigeway, and not involving any vehicles !!!!!!! I'd heard about that the other week. Yorkshire aren't the only 'partnership' to do this, I think Wiltshire did too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecoup Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 going the way of germany arnt most of their motoways covered by loads of cameras ? but they have the bonus of good surfaces and the little bit of unrestricted, they can put the average speed cameras all over the motorway system makes no diffrence to me i live in norfolk we aint herd ov motoways ere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now