A huge injustice...not.

Ian C

Because the law as applied by speed cameras is an ass - at least a very blunt instrument at best and in most cases. EG1. open road at night with no traffic on it EG2. at times of low usage generally, but not in crowded centres/suburbs where you can't speed anywa. They are clearly used for fund raisng by authorities. You are a small government advocate (aren't you?) and cameras are just the heavy dead hand of big brother/nanny state depressing us all. They are way overused when they should have a respected place in the management of roads.

Terry McCrann

Stephen As a great admiror of your feisty intellect, let me pose to you a simple question. The parliament makes it illegal for anyone to step outside their front door. Your response? What's the problem? Just don't step outside your front door. My point? You have to look at the substance of the claimed illegality and gthe wider context. Is driving at 75mph a great crime? Would you prefer police resources to be focussed on solving THIS crime? Or others that I can suggest? Kind regards. Keep up the good - feisty - work

Ronnie Horesh

Im with you on this Stephen, though I am sure many road fanatics will excoriate you for this. What is the death rate on UK roads? Quite "low" by international standards, which translates to about 4500 deaths every year... plus thousands of serious injuries. We put up with the inconvenience of security checks at airports and (coming soon) railway stations to save perhaps a few dozen lives annually. Driving a bit slower seems a small price to pay.

Ross

I certainly agree with the general point that we need speed cameras and the law must be enforced. However there are occasions where the positioning of the cameras are on very safe stretches of road where they appear to be designed for revenue raising rather than road safety. The three points I have on my licence for instance was a result of speed cameras being installed near my house, and then the speed limit being cut from 60 to 40 with no warning. In cases like that it seems obvious that they aren't about safety but somply trapping people.

Tiberius

I don't see why we have to have Gatsby speed cameras at all. The flashing neon warning boards are very effective at shocking a motorist into slowing down, while on roads that present a persistent danger, physical traffic calming measures are certain to stop accidents. So why would anyone choose a Gatsby (or place plod in the back of a van with a speed gun when there are burglars on the loose), rather than simply stop people from driving too fast? Answers on a public sector pensions deficit statement, please.

Tiberius

Unlike the real world of speed cameras, I am allowed a second chance to post a correction (with thanks to Google): GATSO.

Richard

The main problem (there are many) with speed cameras is that they don't work. They don't make teh road safer - in fact statistics suggest that the obsession with them has made the roads more dangerous.

Jay

Your point is valid. But it's not a case of there being no point in complaining about speed cameras. Speed cameras give the impression of the government acting to improve safety on the roads, while actually doing nothing to help the general standard of driving. Sure if you're caught you're caught, you broke the law, live with it. But travel any distance by road these days and have a look at how many people are driving without due care and attention, on mobiles, etc. They slow for speed cameras, bloody hard a lot of the time to a speed at least 10 mph below the actual posted limit. Not a nice place to be in reasonably dense traffic. But the rest of the time? I've lost count of the number of people I see driving through London reading the paper at the wheel. Traffic police equals more cautious drivers, speed cameras equal lots of patches 200m long where people drive at or below the speed limit. Their bloody useless, and that's why they are rubbish. For the record, no I haven't been caught.

R Freeman

You say that speeding is "No great crime". Surely, that is the point. Why is full force of the state being used to counter these generally minor/technical infringements when truly dangerous road behaviour e.g. driving without insurance, reckless driving - is barely pursued? Because they can, that’s why. It is easy to target the broadly law- abiding, decent driver who will pay-up meekly rather than the unregistered yob living in contempt of the law. I can’t believe that you of all people can’t see this for the state sponsored racket that it is.

Lawbreaker

The purpose of speed cameras is to raise revenue to pay for more speed cameras. (Just as the purpose of traffic wardens has nothing to do with reducing congestion or allowing traffic to flow freely). Cynical? You bet!

Near where I live in the West Midlands, one rural road has 50 MPH speed limit signs placed every 100 metres facing both directions for over 12 miles. The purpose of these numerous and costly eyesores is not to impress the driver to reduce speed, but to allow the manufacturer - a cousin of an influential county councillor - to make a mint.

In my delirious dreams I imagine the UK's populace arising as one and, overnight, destroying all the speed cameras, CCTVs and other invasive intrusions into our lives.

patnpm

Would that there were more revenue making processes like speed cameras. Taxing easily avoided, irresponsible behaviour seems like a good idea to me.

Jamie

I agree with you in principle Stephen, with one caveat. The tolerances allowed. It used to be the speed limit plus ten percent plus two. So in a 30mph zone you would get pinged at 35mph. But people are being pinged at 31mph. Now I don't know about you, but how many people can tell the difference on old style speedos between 30 and 31 mph. The needle is probably 2mph wide. Not to mention that they are not calibrated to the same exacting tolerances as the speedos used in the police cars. All motorists want is a bit of common sense application of the law. Otherwise it is being used for revenue building and not for safety.