Hampshire News
Click the logos above for more stories from your area.
'Yellow vulture' cameras to catch motorway speeders
CONTROVERSIAL speed cameras dubbed "yellow vultures" have been erected to pick off motorists going too quickly through roadworks due to start next weekend on a busy stretch of the M27.
Perched like birds of prey on limbs extending above the road, the cameras will catch any motorist whose average speed tops 50mph through a section of road widening works, starting on Saturday.
The Highways Agency claims that the cameras are needed for the safety of the workers.
However, motoring groups warn that they could make the road less safe and have branded them a nuisance at night.
The cameras will be in place for up to 15 months while the Highways Agency carries out a £36m project to ease congestion by building fourth lanes between junction three at Nursling and junction four at the M3.
It says that drivers can expect "slight delays" of up to ten minutes.
Motorists are already feeling the frustration of lengthy delays from a smaller £18m project to add climbing lanes between junctions 11 for Fareham and 12 for Portsmouth.
The Association of British Drivers says that while it does not object to speed limit enforcement, the "yellow vultures" could cause some drivers to overcompensate by slowing too much when approaching a second camera. It also feels that the cameras could distract drivers from the road by encouraging them to keep a constant eye on their speedometer.
A Highways Agency spokeswoman refused to say when the cameras would operate, or why "yellow vultures" would be used.
She said: "We use safety cameras, including average speed cameras, to enforce speed limits at roadworks where road speeds are lowered and drivers are likely to speed.
"Essentially the cameras are used to protect the workforce, motorists and keep traffic moving through the roadworks."
She added that the cameras had been installed and operated in accordance with Department for Transport rules and guidance from the safety camera partnership.
Roads bosses are optimistic that the major roadworks can be finished by Christmas.
7:00am Monday 18th February 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Adrian Smith on 7:16am Mon 18 Feb 08
The Echo needs to get over its obsession with these roadworks and move to reporting real news.
The Echo needs to get over its obsession with these roadworks and move to reporting real news.
Posted by: L. Beaufoqued on 8:19am Mon 18 Feb 08
There's worse things around you know.... like major surgery !
There's worse things around you know.... like major surgery !
Posted by: Andy, Romsey on 8:24am Mon 18 Feb 08
Seems to me that the only ones who really ever moan about the 'Yellow vulture' cameras are those who prefer to ignore speed limits when they are in force. But i don't see why people are complaining anyway, because at peak times, nobody gets to go faster than 20mph between junctions 3 & 4 on that stretch of road.
Seems to me that the only ones who really ever moan about the 'Yellow vulture' cameras are those who prefer to ignore speed limits when they are in force. But i don't see why people are complaining anyway, because at peak times, nobody gets to go faster than 20mph between junctions 3 & 4 on that stretch of road.
Posted by: Ron Garm on 8:27am Mon 18 Feb 08
Totally agree L., a chap I know goes into the General for an op tomorrow - not sure if the poor blighter's gonna make it through !
Totally agree L., a chap I know goes into the General for an op tomorrow - not sure if the poor blighter's gonna make it through !
Posted by: Christoff on 9:20am Mon 18 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Andy[/bold] wrote:
Seems to me that the only ones who really ever moan about the 'Yellow vulture' cameras are those who prefer to ignore speed limits when they are in force. But i don't see why people are complaining anyway, because at peak times, nobody gets to go faster than 20mph between junctions 3 & 4 on that stretch of road.[/quote] Agreed. They are a bit of nuisance but they work. The distance is not very long anyway. If they decide to put them up everywhere then speeding will be impossible so not likely as they will lose so much revenue from fines..very clever invention though
Andy wrote:
Seems to me that the only ones who really ever moan about the 'Yellow vulture' cameras are those who prefer to ignore speed limits when they are in force. But i don't see why people are complaining anyway, because at peak times, nobody gets to go faster than 20mph between junctions 3 & 4 on that stretch of road.
Agreed. They are a bit of nuisance but they work. The distance is not very long anyway. If they decide to put them up everywhere then speeding will be impossible so not likely as they will lose so much revenue from fines..very clever invention though
Posted by: toxeth o grady on 9:54am Mon 18 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Adrian Smith[/bold] wrote:
The Echo needs to get over its obsession with these roadworks and move to reporting real news.[/quote] Look at todays most popular stories & I'll think your find that is the most read news story - so people are obviously interested !!
They are certainly a good idea when there are workmen on the road but late at night ????
About time these type of cameras were put on every motorway bridge to track the 70 mph limit - just imagine the amount of money the Govt would make from BMW/Audi drivers :)
Adrian Smith wrote:
The Echo needs to get over its obsession with these roadworks and move to reporting real news.
Look at todays most popular stories & I'll think your find that is the most read news story - so people are obviously interested !!
They are certainly a good idea when there are workmen on the road but late at night ????
About time these type of cameras were put on every motorway bridge to track the 70 mph limit - just imagine the amount of money the Govt would make from BMW/Audi drivers :)
Posted by: Uma Tendon on 10:18am Mon 18 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Ron Garm[/bold] wrote:
Totally agree L., a chap I know goes into the General for an op tomorrow - not sure if the poor blighter's gonna make it through ![/quote] With all these stories about bogus staff infesting the NHS it is a bit of a worry. Who knows who will be operating on you and what sort of job they will do !!
Ron Garm wrote:
Totally agree L., a chap I know goes into the General for an op tomorrow - not sure if the poor blighter's gonna make it through !
With all these stories about bogus staff infesting the NHS it is a bit of a worry. Who knows who will be operating on you and what sort of job they will do !!
Posted by: Lee Whitbread, Labour Candidate for Bassett on 10:56am Mon 18 Feb 08
A speed camara can save lives, I think it is important to remind people of their obligations when they are on the road.
A speed camara can save lives, I think it is important to remind people of their obligations when they are on the road.
Posted by: Top Starfish, Hampshire on 11:26am Mon 18 Feb 08
As a sales representative, all over the country, I drive through these sort of cameras on a daily basis - They are effective and keep the traffic moving at a nice steady speed (ie. bang on the limit). I have never seen people overcompensating at the end of the works!
[bold]SO[/bold] much better than other types of speed enforcement!
As a sales representative, all over the country, I drive through these sort of cameras on a daily basis - They are effective and keep the traffic moving at a nice steady speed (ie. bang on the limit). I have never seen people overcompensating at the end of the works!
SO much better than other types of speed enforcement!
Posted by: Sir Gerry Fowl-Dupp on 1:31pm Mon 18 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Uma Tendon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Ron Garm[/bold] wrote:
Totally agree L., a chap I know goes into the General for an op tomorrow - not sure if the poor blighter's gonna make it through ![/quote] With all these stories about bogus staff infesting the NHS it is a bit of a worry. Who knows who will be operating on you and what sort of job they will do !![/quote] Sounds like you're worrying for nothing. I won't lie, us surgeons are prone to the odd mistake - particularly after a session in the "19th Hole" but if discovered in time and we can fidn the limb it can be stitched back on...... tell your pal not to worry, he's got a pretty good chance.
Uma Tendon wrote:
Ron Garm wrote:
Totally agree L., a chap I know goes into the General for an op tomorrow - not sure if the poor blighter's gonna make it through !
With all these stories about bogus staff infesting the NHS it is a bit of a worry. Who knows who will be operating on you and what sort of job they will do !!
Sounds like you're worrying for nothing. I won't lie, us surgeons are prone to the odd mistake - particularly after a session in the "19th Hole" but if discovered in time and we can fidn the limb it can be stitched back on...... tell your pal not to worry, he's got a pretty good chance.
Posted by: Gladstone, Southampton on 1:54pm Mon 18 Feb 08
"The Association of British Drivers says that while it does not object to speed limit enforcement, the "yellow vultures" could cause some drivers to overcompensate by slowing too much when approaching a second camera. It also feels that the cameras could distract drivers from the road by encouraging them to keep a constant eye on their speedometer."
Well, I'm relieved that this assocation (however few in number they may be) have no objection to the law being enforced. Very good of them.
If they are really drivers with any experience, then they should have a pretty good idea of the speed they are doing and should only need to glance briefly at the speedo to confirm it. If this is beyond them, cars with cruise control can be set to travel at or just below the limit. The important thing is that lanes are narrower, there may be workers in close proximity and the road will not be as predictable as when it is not subject to roadworks. That's why we need to go a bit slower. It won't kill us but the alternative might.
"The Association of British Drivers says that while it does not object to speed limit enforcement, the "yellow vultures" could cause some drivers to overcompensate by slowing too much when approaching a second camera. It also feels that the cameras could distract drivers from the road by encouraging them to keep a constant eye on their speedometer."
Well, I'm relieved that this assocation (however few in number they may be) have no objection to the law being enforced. Very good of them.
If they are really drivers with any experience, then they should have a pretty good idea of the speed they are doing and should only need to glance briefly at the speedo to confirm it. If this is beyond them, cars with cruise control can be set to travel at or just below the limit. The important thing is that lanes are narrower, there may be workers in close proximity and the road will not be as predictable as when it is not subject to roadworks. That's why we need to go a bit slower. It won't kill us but the alternative might.
Posted by: Will Marmgroback on 1:55pm Mon 18 Feb 08
Getting a little bit concerned now.......
Getting a little bit concerned now.......
Posted by: Hewell Helpmepee on 2:53pm Mon 18 Feb 08
Tricky when both arms are in plaster .............
Tricky when both arms are in plaster .............
Posted by: On safari on 5:13pm Mon 18 Feb 08
Will these "vultures" fly down and attack the speeders?
Will these "vultures" fly down and attack the speeders?
Posted by: G. Lovebox on 5:45pm Mon 18 Feb 08
I do hope he's remembered to make a will !
I do hope he's remembered to make a will !
Posted by: Christopher Biggins on 6:01pm Mon 18 Feb 08
[quote][bold]On safari[/bold] wrote:
Will these "vultures" fly down and attack the speeders? [/quote] Of course not. Vultures are scavengers, not birds of prey
On safari wrote:
Will these "vultures" fly down and attack the speeders?
Of course not. Vultures are scavengers, not birds of prey
Posted by: King Mush, Woolston on 11:21pm Mon 18 Feb 08
I'm more angry about the REAL vultures at the top. Big Brother government cranking it up day by day.
Wheely bin fines and jail on the way for us all plus the constant mugging of the poor beleagured car owners
This fascist like obsession with speed traps rolls on and the weak dopey motoring millions just grumble about it.
Average speed limit cameras are now all over the place and make some sense at certain times of the day ie to protect the workforce (usually invisible)
Doesnt every driver now keep looking all over the place in cae a sneaky cam is operating? Or glancing down at speedo readings instead of watching the road ahead?
Constant brakelights in front which can be distracting?
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I'm more angry about the REAL vultures at the top. Big Brother government cranking it up day by day.
Wheely bin fines and jail on the way for us all plus the constant mugging of the poor beleagured car owners
This fascist like obsession with speed traps rolls on and the weak dopey motoring millions just grumble about it.
Average speed limit cameras are now all over the place and make some sense at certain times of the day ie to protect the workforce (usually invisible)
Doesnt every driver now keep looking all over the place in cae a sneaky cam is operating? Or glancing down at speedo readings instead of watching the road ahead?
Constant brakelights in front which can be distracting?
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Posted by: paul b on 12:36am Tue 19 Feb 08
[quote][bold]King Mush[/bold] wrote:
I'm more angry about the REAL vultures at the top. Big Brother government cranking it up day by day. Wheely bin fines and jail on the way for us all plus the constant mugging of the poor beleagured car owners This fascist like obsession with speed traps rolls on and the weak dopey motoring millions just grumble about it. Average speed limit cameras are now all over the place and make some sense at certain times of the day ie to protect the workforce (usually invisible) Doesnt every driver now keep looking all over the place in cae a sneaky cam is operating? Or glancing down at speedo readings instead of watching the road ahead? Constant brakelights in front which can be distracting? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr [/quote] King Mush.......I have something to say to you.
Hibby bibby roses lamp in the cartwheel box of trunks of thorns of the cheetah.
Marmite pickle head.
King Mush wrote:
I'm more angry about the REAL vultures at the top. Big Brother government cranking it up day by day. Wheely bin fines and jail on the way for us all plus the constant mugging of the poor beleagured car owners This fascist like obsession with speed traps rolls on and the weak dopey motoring millions just grumble about it. Average speed limit cameras are now all over the place and make some sense at certain times of the day ie to protect the workforce (usually invisible) Doesnt every driver now keep looking all over the place in cae a sneaky cam is operating? Or glancing down at speedo readings instead of watching the road ahead? Constant brakelights in front which can be distracting? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
King Mush.......I have something to say to you.
Hibby bibby roses lamp in the cartwheel box of trunks of thorns of the cheetah.
Marmite pickle head.
Posted by: Observer on 7:42am Tue 19 Feb 08
[quote]King Mush.......I have something to say to you.
Hibby bibby roses lamp in the cartwheel box of trunks of thorns of the cheetah.
Marmite pickle head.[/quote]
Is such the level of Hampshire intelligence, or is it computer software encryption?
It has been shown statistically that speed cameras through road works contribute to more accidents than without. This may well vary on the length of 'works' (which frequently do not) and traffic volume, but they are far from the "safety" cameras so enthused about by government and safety 'nannies'. Road safety is an attitude of mind, primarily demanding observation and applied intelligence. Even a glance at a speedometer in traffic can result in a close call, or worse. Driving at a constant maintained speed behind others doing the same can lead to complacency and inattention. Attention needs to be concentrated on the vehicles in front, not on the demands of a camera.
King Mush.......I have something to say to you.
Hibby bibby roses lamp in the cartwheel box of trunks of thorns of the cheetah.
Marmite pickle head.
Is such the level of Hampshire intelligence, or is it computer software encryption?
It has been shown statistically that speed cameras through road works contribute to more accidents than without. This may well vary on the length of 'works' (which frequently do not) and traffic volume, but they are far from the "safety" cameras so enthused about by government and safety 'nannies'. Road safety is an attitude of mind, primarily demanding observation and applied intelligence. Even a glance at a speedometer in traffic can result in a close call, or worse. Driving at a constant maintained speed behind others doing the same can lead to complacency and inattention. Attention needs to be concentrated on the vehicles in front, not on the demands of a camera.
Posted by: TonyF, Christchurch on 8:01am Tue 19 Feb 08
Figures indicate that accidents increase in roadworks with average speed cameras. Was research carried out before installing these? Drivers staring at the speedo are not safer, the biggest cause of accidents is poor observation.
Figures indicate that accidents increase in roadworks with average speed cameras. Was research carried out before installing these? Drivers staring at the speedo are not safer, the biggest cause of accidents is poor observation.
Posted by: Gladstone, Southampton on 9:44am Tue 19 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
[quote]King Mush.......I have something to say to you. Hibby bibby roses lamp in the cartwheel box of trunks of thorns of the cheetah. Marmite pickle head.[/quote] Is such the level of Hampshire intelligence, or is it computer software encryption? It has been shown statistically that speed cameras through road works contribute to more accidents than without. This may well vary on the length of 'works' (which frequently do not) and traffic volume, but they are far from the "safety" cameras so enthused about by government and safety 'nannies'. Road safety is an attitude of mind, primarily demanding observation and applied intelligence. Even a glance at a speedometer in traffic can result in a close call, or worse. Driving at a constant maintained speed behind others doing the same can lead to complacency and inattention. Attention needs to be concentrated on the vehicles in front, not on the demands of a camera.[/quote] Please could you direct me to these figures? I'm intrigued by this assertion and suspect that it either can't be backed up or the study is not comparing like with like. But prove me wrong - give me a link to the website where they are published.
Observer wrote:
King Mush.......I have something to say to you. Hibby bibby roses lamp in the cartwheel box of trunks of thorns of the cheetah. Marmite pickle head.
Is such the level of Hampshire intelligence, or is it computer software encryption? It has been shown statistically that speed cameras through road works contribute to more accidents than without. This may well vary on the length of 'works' (which frequently do not) and traffic volume, but they are far from the "safety" cameras so enthused about by government and safety 'nannies'. Road safety is an attitude of mind, primarily demanding observation and applied intelligence. Even a glance at a speedometer in traffic can result in a close call, or worse. Driving at a constant maintained speed behind others doing the same can lead to complacency and inattention. Attention needs to be concentrated on the vehicles in front, not on the demands of a camera.
Please could you direct me to these figures? I'm intrigued by this assertion and suspect that it either can't be backed up or the study is not comparing like with like. But prove me wrong - give me a link to the website where they are published.
Posted by: Johnny on 10:27am Tue 19 Feb 08
Try this one: http://www.safespeed
.org.uk/trl595.html
Try this one: http://www.safespeed
.org.uk/trl595.html
Posted by: Observer on 10:34am Tue 19 Feb 08
Gladstone wrote:
[quote]Please could you direct me to these figures? I'm intrigued by this assertion and suspect that it either can't be backed up or the study is not comparing like with like. But prove me wrong - give me a link to the website where they are published.[/quote]
Hope this helps;
The figures come from the Transport Road Research report TRL595 obtained under the Freedom Of Information Act and displayed on the Safer Speed website:
http://www.safespeed
.org.uk/trl595.html
Table 3.18 is a direct extract from that report, and is described in detail in the text.
Gladstone wrote:
Please could you direct me to these figures? I'm intrigued by this assertion and suspect that it either can't be backed up or the study is not comparing like with like. But prove me wrong - give me a link to the website where they are published.
Hope this helps;
The figures come from the Transport Road Research report TRL595 obtained under the Freedom Of Information Act and displayed on the Safer Speed website:
http://www.safespeed
.org.uk/trl595.html
Table 3.18 is a direct extract from that report, and is described in detail in the text.
Posted by: paul b on 10:56am Tue 19 Feb 08
Sorry I'm such an intolerable turd, everyone
Sorry I'm such an intolerable turd, everyone
Posted by: Gladstone, Southampton on 1:30pm Tue 19 Feb 08
Thanks for supplying that link to the website for speeders. As I thought, there is no indication that the report quoted was comparing like with like. It could be (and is most probable) that these cameras are more likely to be installed where the risk of accidents is highest and therefore the rate of accidents remains high even with speed cameras. Who is to say that the rate may not have been even worse without them? The problem is people not understanding, or not choosing to understand, the difference between correlation and cause.
Thanks for supplying that link to the website for speeders. As I thought, there is no indication that the report quoted was comparing like with like. It could be (and is most probable) that these cameras are more likely to be installed where the risk of accidents is highest and therefore the rate of accidents remains high even with speed cameras. Who is to say that the rate may not have been even worse without them? The problem is people not understanding, or not choosing to understand, the difference between correlation and cause.
Posted by: Top Starfish, Hampshire on 2:28pm Tue 19 Feb 08
[quote]The figures come from the Transport Road Research report TRL595 obtained under the Freedom Of Information Act and displayed on the Safer Speed website:
http://www.safespeed
.org.uk/trl595.html
Table 3.18 is a direct extract from that report, and is described in detail in the text.[/quote]
If you look at the data in the table it shows that Digital average speed cameras give a slightly lower personal injury accident rate than sites without speed cameras - it is the analogue spot speed cameras which cause more accidents, when people slam on their brakes. The data is not great as the schemes without speed cameras generally don't require them. Also there is far less data from unenforced sites than from enforced sites so it's not really comparing like with like.
The figures come from the Transport Road Research report TRL595 obtained under the Freedom Of Information Act and displayed on the Safer Speed website:
http://www.safespeed
.org.uk/trl595.html
Table 3.18 is a direct extract from that report, and is described in detail in the text.
If you look at the data in the table it shows that Digital average speed cameras give a slightly lower personal injury accident rate than sites without speed cameras - it is the analogue spot speed cameras which cause more accidents, when people slam on their brakes. The data is not great as the schemes without speed cameras generally don't require them. Also there is far less data from unenforced sites than from enforced sites so it's not really comparing like with like.
Posted by: King Mush, Woolston on 8:39pm Tue 19 Feb 08
[quote][bold]paul b[/bold] wrote:
Sorry I'm such an intolerable turd, everyone[/quote] Nobody really cares.
At least you're organic
paul b wrote:
Sorry I'm such an intolerable turd, everyone
Nobody really cares.
At least you're organic
Posted by: Observer, Herts. on 8:44pm Tue 19 Feb 08
The data is not 'great' if it does not suit your position, and as it did not suit the governments position, it was not made available to the general public. But the data is what it is.
To suggest that one kind of camera is preferable to another because the individual result suits ones argument, is no better than 'cherry picking'. The overall result from the report shows that in works where speed cameras are absent, fewer PIA's and fatalities occur.
It is recognised that 'spot' speed cameras such as Gatso's create a knee jerk reaction from some drivers which have been the cause of fatal accidents. It does not necessarily follow that SPECS cameras will not. There will still be some who drive above a limit for a certain distance, then slow to below it and cause a 'caterpillar' reaction with similar results. There are also those who will change lanes between cameras (assuming two lanes available), thereby not registering in the 'average' speed software of a camera aimed at any one lane. Without SPECS, this action need not occur. (This is not an endorsement of lane changing for avoidance. Lane changing is the number one cause of motorway accidents).
A maximum speed limit is set through road works for the 'safety' of workers and should be respected for such. In the main, it is recognised, and traffic slows. Where it falls down is during times of NO work, when teams are off site for several hours duration perhaps all night, and traffic flow is light. Should there be prosecution for making progress on a clear road? Driving slowly on clear roads increases fatigue, and reduces concentration.
As for seeking 'like for like' - same location with and without cameras and data collected - it is highly improbable highway authorities will adopt such a regime for the sake of pure comparison for those refusing to accept anything less. What 'is' adopted are schemes that are sold politically as being correct on an assumption that 'speed' or 'safety' cameras do a good job. Whilst government and many constabularies will claim so, there are many faults in their data compilation that leads to claims that when investigated are far from what they are made out to be. Too much politic - not enough honesty.
The Safe Speed website is no site for "Speeders" as Gladstone cryptically remarks. It was set up in an attempt to increase road safety by reducing those elements that cause accidents, and encouraging safety awareness through intelligent and responsible use of speed for prevailing conditions, rather than adhering to a posted number, believing it 'safe', and in no danger of being caught 'on a camera'.
People who do not understand the case against speed cameras do so in spite of the facts as they stand, because of a 'belief' that cameras have achieved what is claimed from PR and 'spin'. 'Truth', is harder to find.
Of the quarter of a million drivers prosecuted for speeding by cameras in one year, how many had caused an accident at the time on camera? I'll wager it's none. But very lucrative for government.
The data is not 'great' if it does not suit your position, and as it did not suit the governments position, it was not made available to the general public. But the data is what it is.
To suggest that one kind of camera is preferable to another because the individual result suits ones argument, is no better than 'cherry picking'. The overall result from the report shows that in works where speed cameras are absent, fewer PIA's and fatalities occur.
It is recognised that 'spot' speed cameras such as Gatso's create a knee jerk reaction from some drivers which have been the cause of fatal accidents. It does not necessarily follow that SPECS cameras will not. There will still be some who drive above a limit for a certain distance, then slow to below it and cause a 'caterpillar' reaction with similar results. There are also those who will change lanes between cameras (assuming two lanes available), thereby not registering in the 'average' speed software of a camera aimed at any one lane. Without SPECS, this action need not occur. (This is not an endorsement of lane changing for avoidance. Lane changing is the number one cause of motorway accidents).
A maximum speed limit is set through road works for the 'safety' of workers and should be respected for such. In the main, it is recognised, and traffic slows. Where it falls down is during times of NO work, when teams are off site for several hours duration perhaps all night, and traffic flow is light. Should there be prosecution for making progress on a clear road? Driving slowly on clear roads increases fatigue, and reduces concentration.
As for seeking 'like for like' - same location with and without cameras and data collected - it is highly improbable highway authorities will adopt such a regime for the sake of pure comparison for those refusing to accept anything less. What 'is' adopted are schemes that are sold politically as being correct on an assumption that 'speed' or 'safety' cameras do a good job. Whilst government and many constabularies will claim so, there are many faults in their data compilation that leads to claims that when investigated are far from what they are made out to be. Too much politic - not enough honesty.
The Safe Speed website is no site for "Speeders" as Gladstone cryptically remarks. It was set up in an attempt to increase road safety by reducing those elements that cause accidents, and encouraging safety awareness through intelligent and responsible use of speed for prevailing conditions, rather than adhering to a posted number, believing it 'safe', and in no danger of being caught 'on a camera'.
People who do not understand the case against speed cameras do so in spite of the facts as they stand, because of a 'belief' that cameras have achieved what is claimed from PR and 'spin'. 'Truth', is harder to find.
Of the quarter of a million drivers prosecuted for speeding by cameras in one year, how many had caused an accident at the time on camera? I'll wager it's none. But very lucrative for government.
Posted by: Tony F on 9:28pm Tue 19 Feb 08
The average driver is not a reckless idiot when spotting a hazard he will slow - child beside the road with a ball, workman going about his business etc. He/she can slow to a safe suitable speed without looking at the speedo and maintaining focus on the hazard. The careless illegal unlawfull driver may not but then if his car is not registered to him or has a cloned number plate what can a camera do? Driving rigidly at a speed limit is not safe driving. Safe driving requires matching of speed to conditions and good observation outside of the vehicle. If your speedo broke would you suddenly become a killer?
The average driver is not a reckless idiot when spotting a hazard he will slow - child beside the road with a ball, workman going about his business etc. He/she can slow to a safe suitable speed without looking at the speedo and maintaining focus on the hazard. The careless illegal unlawfull driver may not but then if his car is not registered to him or has a cloned number plate what can a camera do? Driving rigidly at a speed limit is not safe driving. Safe driving requires matching of speed to conditions and good observation outside of the vehicle. If your speedo broke would you suddenly become a killer?
Posted by: Hugh on 9:32pm Tue 19 Feb 08
Perhaps I could answer Mr. Gladstone since I was the ABD rep who took the call from the Southampton Echo who have as usual misquoted what I said which was: We have no objection to 50 limitsat roadworks since the limit is there to protect workmen, quite rightly, even if they are leaning on their shovels drinking tea! However, to have the same limit throughout the night and at week-ends when there are no workmen seems stupid. The limits and cameras should be switched off at those times. I also said that any motorist who is caught by the specs cameras has only himself to blame since they are usually clearly signalled in advance. Slightly different from what was printed. We stand for responsible driving. Hope that helps
Perhaps I could answer Mr. Gladstone since I was the ABD rep who took the call from the Southampton Echo who have as usual misquoted what I said which was: We have no objection to 50 limitsat roadworks since the limit is there to protect workmen, quite rightly, even if they are leaning on their shovels drinking tea! However, to have the same limit throughout the night and at week-ends when there are no workmen seems stupid. The limits and cameras should be switched off at those times. I also said that any motorist who is caught by the specs cameras has only himself to blame since they are usually clearly signalled in advance. Slightly different from what was printed. We stand for responsible driving. Hope that helps
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
Play video
