News - Average speed cameras proposed for all UK motorways

[rabbid]

Just don't stay in the same lane too long, you'll be fine

That used to be allegedly possible with the old gen. The newer ones apparently not.
Never tried it, it may be one of those myths.
Or, it may work so they released the anti myth!
Don't really want to risk the points to find out. I suppose if you accidentally go past one a bit too fast no harm in trying the theory out!

[malfunction]

unfortunately it's the drivers who are the problem. i spend a lot of time driving up and down motorways and the number of people who are oblivious to common sense/situational awareness is baffling at times

Controlling speed isn't going to fix that though. Would sooner they spent the cash on more coppers / "highways agency" (someone must have been having a laugh when they came up with that name!) and actually policed driving standards / safety more

[TAKTAK]

I love the people that slow down when they see one of the cameras and then zoom off again when they pass it

[Scarlet Infidel]

I'm going to stick my head out and say that I see merit in it.

I don't like average speed cameras because they make me nervous even though I stick to the speed limit. But that is precisely why they work and normal cameras don't. If they were everywhere you would soon learn to drive at the correct speed (and satnavs could easily tell you what speed you are averaging).

Nothing here suggests this is a stealth tax. These cameras will make people drive slower which should reduce accidents (and/or the severity of them), fuel costs and carbon emissions. Sure you might spend an extra 20 minutes driving, but it is only the speed you were meant to be doing in the first place.

Regardless of if they care about being green the government has to aim for certain carbon reductions and this seems like an excellent place to target.

[Funkstar]

I'm not convinced about the reducing accidents argument, most poeple will end up spending more time looking at the speedo than the road!!

I wonder if this would be legal under European law?

[RIX]

Watch the film Transporter all will be revealed, in all serious this is a ****ing joke i hate this country with avengence, first the london low emissions zone now this honestly it makes me rage.

I know what you mean this country is a joke, their are more and more cameras bieng put up in and around my area (ESSEX). We got new speed cameras, loads of mobile speed/anpr cameras, **** loads of cctv cameras and soon average speed cameras.

Theirs a camera everywhere you look, what will they think of next?

[Stringent]

I agree with the bunching up thing. Having to drive through a lot of average speed cameras, they just create more traffic than regulate. The A1/M, the ones on the M25. Tried going through those at rush hour? Its worse. Even when its not the traffic just clumps together and people stay at unsafe distances.

While the old counter is, 'don't speed beyond the limit' is still a sensible one, you will never get caught. However enforcing it in this way will make some people more paranoid about their speed and it wil be counter productive. Rather than driving being a nice experiance, it will be one which is made more tense.

I also fail to see how they are going to be able to constantly monitor speeds. I know this is slightly off topic, but the number of times I bave been in a 50 zone and the Tom Tom sat nav has said its 30, or vice versa. So imagine then you are driving 50 in a 50 zone and you get ticketed becuse their system hasn't been updated and still says 40 or whatever.

Cost of putting up cameras and maintaining them? A lot more than they are going to rake back. Stolen number plates will also go up.

[TeePee]

Since modern cars are so much safer then cars when the national speed limit was set, and rads are safer than they've ever been, surely there is a good argument for increasing the limit.
The same goes for using mobile phones while driving. Why should all of us be restricted because a few are incapable of multi-tasking.

It's all about raising revenue and allowing government control under the guise of 'safety' and 'reducing emissions'. It's our fault. We let them put up cameras and paid them to do it, so it only makes sense for them to put up more. It's not too late to start necklacing on a grand scale, and that's the only way to change it.

[golwg]

I'm not convinced about the reducing accidents argument, most poeple will end up spending more time looking at the speedo than the road!!

I wonder if this would be legal under European law?

Agree with that.

[FoxdieUK]

Im a quite a bad speeder on the m/ways. However, im actually for this. Hopefully this should make for more consistant driving speeds which would hopefully = quicker, and less frustrating drive.

I would be up for a up for a speed limit change to 80mph. However i would be concerned with the speed difference between lorries and cars. Aproaching a lorry at +30mph would require forward thinking get in the right lane. Unfortunately a good majority of drivers do not have forward thought racing up to the rolling road block, slamming the anchors on, then trying to get into the middle lane from 50mph causing everyone having to slam the brakes on who have already seen the obsticle and got over in good time.

I would also consider a ban on lorries over taking each other on anything less than a 4 lane carriage way, this would also include a ban on Dual A-roads. I would also give them the ability to temporary raise the 56mph limit to aid safer over taking, a kind of boost.

[FoxdieUK]

Just to add, i hope they would consider a lesser penalty for being minor offenses. A fixed £50 fine would be ample deterrent, without the points.

[Scarlet Infidel]

Since modern cars are so much safer then cars when the national speed limit was set, and rads are safer than they've ever been, surely there is a good argument for increasing the limit.

Over a ton of metal going at 70mph+ will cause a lot of damage regardless of modern tech. Roads are far busier now so more dangerous.

If you were in charge what would you set the limit to? Would you even have one? What are you basing these assumptions on, statistics and testing or the desire to drive faster?

The same goes for using mobile phones while driving. Why should all of us be restricted because a few are incapable of multi-tasking.

Because someone who thinks they can cope with it might not be able to. And you won't be pleased when they come crashing into you at 80mph.

It's all about raising revenue

I really don't get this constant insistance that they are trying to raise money. Would they even make back any more than it costs to implement the cameras? Is the government's role simply to take take as much as possible from the people and then throw it down a well?

When the government takes money from you, usually as punishment or because you have more than you need, they are simply redistributing it to spend on something deemed more worthy. Whether this is efficient or fair is up for debate, but it isn't done out of any spite.

[Andeh13]

Are people forgetting that Motorways are already the safest roads in the UK? Speed has virtually nothing to do with accidents (isnt it like only 4% of accidents are speed related?). This will just be a money generating machine, the amount of Co2 produced & traffic diversions to install them would totally offset any reduction by the vehicles.

I don't like average speed cameras because they make me nervous even though I stick to the speed limit. But that is precisely why they work and normal cameras don't. If they were everywhere you would soon learn to drive at the correct speed (and satnavs could easily tell you what speed you are averaging).

Well said, this is the problem. Whats worse, everyone travelling at speeds they feel safe & comfortable at , in whatever lane they choose, or everyone driving a bit slower but constantly watching their speed, getting frustrated and all round bunching together? Honestly, which one is more dangerous?

Keep in mind if people don't like speeding, or get nervous at high speeds (like me, i drive a 1.1 saxo. I genuinely can't remember the last time i spent any time in the middle/fast lane) they stick to the slow lane, and occasionally the middle lane to nip around lorries.

When the government takes money from you, usually as punishment or because you have more than you need, they are simply redistributing it to spend on something deemed more worthy. Whether this is efficient or fair is up for debate, but it isn't done out of any spite.

More worthy!? Where have you been for the last decade? The MP expenses scandel, the war in Iraq, the fact that our government now own some of the biggest banks & still allow them to pay million £ bonuses? The utter failure which was a couple of weeks of snow & cold (its england....) and the country grinds to a halt due to the lack of salt?


I wouldn't trust this flipping Government to tie their own shoes!

[scaryjim]

Firtly:

<Greens>'re not good people, at best misinformed and at worst Nazis who want you to use a horse and cart and outlaw airlines. Dangerous.

Godwin's Law, you lose the internet

Secondly, to everyone who insists that cars are so much safer now: yes, the cars may be technologically better, but do people suddenly have significantly faster reactions than they did 50 years ago? No, didn't think so, The problem is not whether it's safe for the car to move faster than 70mph, but whether it's safe for an average numpty to drive one at those speeds.

Thirdly, to those who complain that average speed cameras create "bunching": That's due to aforesaid numpties being unable to leave an appropriate gap to the car in front. The situation is no better on busy motorways without cameras: I've frequently been trapped in the middle lane doing 70mph because there's 10 people behind me doing 72 in the outside lane and leaving one freaking car length to the car in front. If people actually paid attention to their driving instructors, rather than feeling to need to drive as fast as possible without hitting other cars, this wouldn't be an issue.

Fourthly (and finally, I think), to those quetioning whether this would reduce CO2: I recently did a return journey from Manchester to Birmingham. The trip down had roadwords and heavy traffic, and I spent the vast majority of it driving at 50 - 55mph. The trip back was clear, and I spent most of it driving at 70 - 75mph. I used almost twice as much fuel driving back as driving down. So yes, it makes a pretty significant difference.

In conclusion: do I support this? I'd love to, I think it's a great idea, but I don't think it's practical: Firstly there's the cost and (as funkstar (iirc?) pointed out) the emissions caused by implementing it in the first place - it definitely puts the boot into the "environmental" reasons for doing it. Secondly, there's the fact that it won't turn bad drivers into good drivers, so we'll just end up hundreds of cars nose to tail at a constant 70mph: doesn't sound safe to me. And of course, it just gives the "let me drive faster" crowd something else to whinge, moan, and drudge up bad feeling about. And that doesn't do anyone any good...

[Lankius Maximus]

When the government takes money from you, usually as punishment or because you have more than you need, they are simply redistributing it to spend on something deemed more worthy. Whether this is efficient or fair is up for debate, but it isn't done out of any spite.

Really? Is it that simple.? That will make me feel so much better about my ever increasing council tax/ national insurance/ congestion charge/ parking fees in Westminster/ petrol costs/ road tax costs/ the fact that I had to move to get my kids into slightly better schools because the redistribution of wealth into the education system was working so well!....... No its not done out of spite, however its is done because it is an easy form of revenue.

Speed cameras are the most blatant form of tax going. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-motorist.html Councils have even admitted it. They will just force motorists onto the A roads and clog them up as well. They cost very little to set up and, as they are digital, very little to run.

I believe it says alot that in the US these things are illegal as they hinder a persons right to a free trial.

Too much road furniture is a distraction. Just as GPS units and mobile phones are.

[Scarlet Infidel]

Really? Is it that simple.?

No, of course not. I was just pointing out that money raised by the government is not just stealing and is meant to come back to us in the end. I think we can all agree its not the perfect system.

Speed cameras are the most blatant form of tax going. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-motorist.html Councils have even admitted it.

Your point here may or may not be valid but there is no way I'm clicking that link in a vain attempt to look for accurate quotes or a balanced argument.