Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

It is still a simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

I'm not arguing for anything. Cameras are devices to take pictures.
These particular cameras only do so if they detect speeding vehicles.
What more need be said? What questions do you think need be asked?

The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted the
perception of what is safe. As far as the cameras are concerned an idiot
driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving all over the
road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady 60mph on a road designed
for 70+ but somebody has decided to designated as a 50 limit for no logical
reason is defined as driving dangerously.

Cameras do not pass judgments about what is safe. They are not
intelligent entities.

There are many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the
cause of some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people
have to respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real
difference that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference
between 30 and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras
do you see in 30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise
enough revenue. It is that level of cynicism that has brought them into
disrepute.

I reckon that I encounter more speed cameras in 30 limits than any other
limits. Cheshire police often set up a mobile camera a couple of miles from
where I live, to protect a 30 limit on the A54. The nearest fixed cameras
to where I live protect 40 limits. T'other day I went to Stalybridge and
the cameras I encountered (as far as I can recall them) were protecting
limits of 60, 50, 30, 30, 30, 30, 50, 50, 60 respectively.

How many of those 30mph limits were genuine urban areas with
houses/shops/schools and pedestrians in close proximity and how many were on
through routes that just happened to be in the appropriate urban sanitary
district?

They were all urban, in Ashton-under-Lyne and Stalybridge. Without
retracing my steps, I couldn't say how many of them were next to
pavements that had railings, but they were all next to pavements, with
all sorts of buildings next to them.

But your question is an irrelevant one. It's not up to me to speculate
about the motives of the people who set the limits and/or positioned the
cameras, and life's too short to do so. It's up to me to drive with due
care and attention, with consideration for other road users and to
observe the speed limits and other instructions that are signalled by
signs, road markings and lights.

Cheshire's not so bad for them, but there seem to be a superfluity in
Staffs.

Different areas do things differently it seems.

Yes, the vicinity of Stoke on Trent is not for inattentive drivers.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309765.html
(37 109 at Warrington Bank Quay, Jun 1985)