Cash Cow.

[tonyav]

Well at long last the police admit it, well the Scottish police do anyway.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10656510/Police-admit-using-mobile-speed-cameras-are-like-shooting-fish-in-a-barrel.html

[Gromit]

// Placing mobile speed cameras on stretches of road without a history of frequent accidents is like "shooting fish in a barrel", one of the country’s most senior police officers has admitted. //

So people have to start dying before the law is enforced?

We have a speed limit, and if you exceed it and you are caught then you are punished.

There should not be a get out clause that says 'I was doing 100mph but it is a safe road".

[black_cat51]

i don't get what the problem is :)

[ummmm]

Don't speed...simple.

[tonyav]

That's proof that cameras are not there to make roads safer, they exist to hit motorists in the pocket."


!

[Gromit]

No it isn't.

A straight long piece of road in dry weather is subject to the same laws as an accident blackspot.

Just because no one has killed themselves yet, does not mean the police should turn a blind eye to people breaking the law.

Enforcing Drivers to stay within the speed limit IS improving safety, even if the road has not had any fatalities previously.

[mikey4444]

Is this the Jeremy Clarkson defence perhaps ?

"I have a powerful, very expensive car and I want to drive everywhere as fast as I jolly well like "

Speed limits exist on all our roads in Britain, not just the ones that might or might not have had fatal accidents on them. Speed cameras only catch people who exceed those speed limits and therefore break the law. If they do it enough times, than they stand to lose their licences, thus depriving all of us of yet another dangerous driver on our roads, albeit temporarily.

If these people help to boost the finances of the local Police Force, in a time of savage cutbacks in expenditure......well, all the better surely ?

Not really quite sure what point you are trying but failing to make here tonyav ?

[tonyav]

“If speed cameras were designed to save lives, we'd place them outside schools and in other built-up residential areas.

[tonyav]

My point is at long last the police pretty much admit using it has a cash cow.

[ummmm]

//If these people help to boost the finances of the local Police Force, in a time of savage cutbacks in expenditure......well, all the better surely ?//

Agree. It's not hard to take your foot off the accelerator. Speeding hardly saves you time either.

[mikey4444]

Still not sure what you are saying Tonyav...are you in favour of people exceeding the speed limits or not ? Its hardly credible that you are going to answer YES to that question, so are you then arguing that people should be allowed to get away with it ?

[tonyav]

No I don't think they should get away with it, but why aren't they being used more in accident black spots, residential areas and outside schools.
( by the way I have zero points on my licence ).

[ummmm]

They are.

[tonyav]

How do you know.

[Gromit]

Tonyav

You seem to be arguing that stopping someone from speeding is not improving safety. It is.

[tonyav]

You seem to be arguing that stopping someone from speeding is not improving safety. It is.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't improve safety, Just a pity that they don't use them more where there is more likely to be an accident.

[youngmafbog]

No Gromit, if the road has no accidents and no problem then all the camera's in the world dont make it safer.

No as to whether or not people should speed, that is a different question.

I think the main issue here though is that camera's were sold as saftey measures to save lives when clearly they were not. So it is the lies of the government that are the problem.

[ummmm]

How do I know?

Because I see them. What a stupid question.

[Gromit]

// if the road has no accidents and no problem then all the camera's in the world dont make it safer. //

Yes they do. Just because there has not been an accident yet does not mean it is as safe to drive at 100mph instead of 70mph.

Roads have been designed for inside the speed limit. If you exceed the correct speed for the road you are driving dangerously. The fact that 99.9% of the time you get away with it does not matter. If you are caught you should take the fine and not whinge about it.

[youngmafbog]

But people wont drive at 100mph if they exceed it then its likely to be 75 - 85 which on a road with no problems is not going to be any more an issue than doing 70 I would suggest.

//Roads have been designed for inside the speed limit//
Yes, but mostly for cars 50 years ago. So that argument has a million holes in it and certainly can't be used in the blanket fashion you have used it in.

I'm not saying if you speed you should whine, and I wouldn't if caught.

But the beef here is that the cameras were sold as safety items when in reality they were cash cows. And since the change of funding and recipient of the cash cameras suddenly are not required!