xjrv8:
Saaamon:
So they can catch people without a license and insurance etc? Think its a great idea personally.How■■? No licence, no insurance…so will they have the car registered in their name?
You can own a car without a license. A 4 year old can legally own a car. Makes no difference.
The technology is there just like on your sat nav, to have a speed restrictor in every vehicle that limits the vehicles speed to that of the given road via gps. If it’s not a money making scheme to have camera’s etc then why if it’s all about safety, is this system not scheduled to be brought in over the next few years ?
Kerbdog:
The technology is there just like on your sat nav, to have a speed restrictor in every vehicle that limits the vehicles speed to that of the given road via gps. If it’s not a money making scheme to have camera’s etc then why if it’s all about safety, is this system not scheduled to be brought in over the next few years ?
Sure the technologies there, but is there the public acceptance to have a GPS unit in each car and to have a speed limiter?
It’s one of the big arguments against pay for use roads, is the fact that you’d be tracked wherever you go either by a GPS unit in the vehicle or ANPR camera everywhere.
Personally it’s a massive civil liberties issue for me, the old excuse “if you’ve got nothing to hide then there’s nothing to fear” is wearing a bit thin. I really hate the level of surveillance we have in this Country.
The fact that we normal citizens must remember is that our Government (whatever party) is supposed to serve us, but really it’s formed of control freaks who want total control of every aspect of our lives.
speed cameras are ok
as long as there are warning signs to warn you that a speed camera is ahead
this gives you time to slow down
But that in itself causes major traffic problems when a Mexican wave starts, I am all for cameras in areas that need them, outside schools, on the approach to bad junctions etc, trouble is that there is far too many still around purely for the sake of making money, nothing else.
Only the other day on the A17 I had a car scream past me just before one of the camera’s and then see it at the last moment and cut straight in front and jam on the brakes, he never even considered my fully freighted waggon right up his chuff, very nearly hit him, sure those camera’s are super safe my arse.
I am sure we can all make numerous examples of such nonsense.
waynedl:
Saaamon:
So they can catch people without a license and insurance etc? Think its a great idea personally.Ok, so, a scum bag with no licence nicks my car, it’s fully road legal so camera thinks it’s ok.
Or a drunk driver on his way home from the pub.
Cameras are a BAD idea, always said it and will always say it. Police are what is required. Good, old school police though, not hobby bobbys with targets.
100mph is perfectly safe at certain times and certain places, 20mph can be dangerous at the wrong time and in the wrong place.
A pro rally driver will be safer at higher speeds than someone who just does the school run.
etc
etc
+1
Phantom Mark:
But that in itself causes major traffic problems when a Mexican wave starts, I am all for cameras in areas that need them, outside schools, on the approach to bad junctions etc, trouble is that there is far too many still around purely for the sake of making money, nothing else.Only the other day on the A17 I had a car scream past me just before one of the camera’s and then see it at the last moment and cut straight in front and jam on the brakes, he never even considered my fully freighted waggon right up his chuff, very nearly hit him, sure those camera’s are super safe my arse.
I am sure we can all make numerous examples of such nonsense.
+1
Some interesting views.Personally I do not like the current cameras but with average speed cameras there will be no stupid hard braking from people exceeding the limit.Speed limits are there for a good reason most of the time.Someone said 100mph is safe in certain conditions and it may well be with certain people in certain conditions but how could we let joe public make the decision whether it is safe or not.We all perceive things differently and most drivers perception is not that good if we look at the standards of driving on our roads today.
An average 18 year old would probably think he was perfectly safe on a motorway doing 100mph but with his limited experience he is probably far from safe.An experienced driver may well think he is safe doing 100mph because he has never had an accident but in reality he is probably not safe either through his complacency.
It is a sad state of affairs all round but if these cameras reduce accidents and casualties then that must be a good thing.It is just a shame more drivers do not have the ability to drive responsibly without being spied on.
The Mexican wave still happens on the average speed routes leading me to believe people don’t understand what average speed means.
Phantom Mark:
The Mexican wave still happens on the average speed routes leading me to believe people don’t understand what average speed means.
I reckon the wave as you call it is not caused by the cameras but the fact drivers travel to close to each other.
No gap no anticipation and no brain!
Limey, thats a great idea, but with so many cameras within a short distance, theres a lot of work to be done, might even have to work overtime, just to kill a few on one road 
albion1971:
Phantom Mark:
The Mexican wave still happens on the average speed routes leading me to believe people don’t understand what average speed means.I reckon the wave as you call it is not caused by the cameras but the fact drivers travel to close to each other.
No gap no anticipation and no brain!
That’s as maybe, but it’s the reality of the situation. Certain drivers slow up for anything on the motorway, speed cameras even if they’re at or below the speed limit, anything with a battenburg patten, (HATO, Recovery Trucks, VOSA). It just seems to be a reflex reaction.
We really could do a lot to improve road safety and it wouldn’t need loads of cameras and new laws.
I read an article recently that said that Austria has achieved a 35% of young male driver death in their first 3 years of driving and reduced crashes by drivers in their first year by 30%.
I think they’ve introduced some sort of multi-phase licence and the training seems to include some off road work driving in various condition in a controlled environment.
And then at the other end of the scale, eye tests for over 40’s, this does include me by the way. But it’s seems to be when most people start suffering from deteriorating eye sight.
muckles:
albion1971:
Phantom Mark:
The Mexican wave still happens on the average speed routes leading me to believe people don’t understand what average speed means.I reckon the wave as you call it is not caused by the cameras but the fact drivers travel to close to each other.
No gap no anticipation and no brain!That’s as maybe, but it’s the reality of the situation. Certain drivers slow up for anything on the motorway, speed cameras even if they’re at or below the speed limit, anything with a battenburg patten, (HATO, Recovery Trucks, VOSA). It just seems to be a reflex reaction.
We really could do a lot to improve road safety and it wouldn’t need loads of cameras and new laws.
I read an article recently that said that Austria has achieved a 35% of young male driver death in their first 3 years of driving and reduced crashes by drivers in their first year by 30%.
I think they’ve introduced some sort of multi-phase licence and the training seems to include some off road work driving in various condition in a controlled environment.
And then at the other end of the scale, eye tests for over 40’s, this does include me by the way. But it’s seems to be when most people start suffering from deteriorating eye sight.
Totally agree with you there.Drivers are the main problem.As I have said before they pass a basic test (including LGV) and the vast majority never bother to learn anymore.They develop bad driving habits and become very complacent thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong.
There are definitely better ways than cameras.If every driver was assessed every 3 to 5 years and further training carried out when required accident rates would drop and driving standards would improve.
This system works very well in other countries but our government seem as dumb as a lot of the drivers.
Silver_Surfer:
Can the specs camera diferentiate between artics and cars by reading the number plate?
YUP - in under a second they know exactly what vehicle should have that plate on it
albion1971:
Totally agree with you there.Drivers are the main problem.As I have said before they pass a basic test (including LGV) and the vast majority never bother to learn anymore.They develop bad driving habits and become very complacent thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong.
There are definitely better ways than cameras.If every driver was assessed every 3 to 5 years and further training carried out when required accident rates would drop and driving standards would improve.
This system works very well in other countries but our government seem as dumb as a lot of the drivers.
I don’t think the government is dumb, they know that re-tests every few years would be extremely unpopular, and car drivers are voters.
muckles:
albion1971:
Totally agree with you there.Drivers are the main problem.As I have said before they pass a basic test (including LGV) and the vast majority never bother to learn anymore.They develop bad driving habits and become very complacent thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong.
There are definitely better ways than cameras.If every driver was assessed every 3 to 5 years and further training carried out when required accident rates would drop and driving standards would improve.
This system works very well in other countries but our government seem as dumb as a lot of the drivers.I don’t think the government is dumb, they know that re-tests every few years would be extremely unpopular, and car drivers are voters.
Exactly right again muckles and that is why we have to go down the camera route but we know it is far from the best method and that it does not educate drivers in anyway.
albion1971:
Exactly right again muckles
Cor! Right twice in one day, 
I’ll have to put that down in my diary.
Speed cameras haven’t prevented four deaths on the A47 in Norfolk in the space of four days.
This is a road that has many fatal accidents and not a single camera on the Norfolk stretch.
waddy640:
Speed cameras haven’t prevented four deaths on the A47 in Norfolk in the space of four days.This is a road that has many fatal accidents and not a single camera on the Norfolk stretch.
Are you stating that the presence of speed cameras has not prevented accidents or the opposite (their absence as opposed to accident encouragement!)? Sorry if that’s hard to understand - I’m confusing myself now! 
Snudger:
waddy640:
Speed cameras haven’t prevented four deaths on the A47 in Norfolk in the space of four days.This is a road that has many fatal accidents and not a single camera on the Norfolk stretch.
Are you stating that the presence of speed cameras has not prevented accidents or the opposite (their absence as opposed to accident encouragement!)? Sorry if that’s hard to understand - I’m confusing myself now!
One of the reasons for installing cameras is in high accident risk areas. Given the accident rate on the A47 one has to question why there are no cameras if they supposedly reduce accidents. It is likely in both these instances that excessive speed was not a factor.