Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th May 2008 Change Date

Evening News / Sony Centre Reverse Auction

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Average-speed cameras: boost for road safety or a total waste of money?



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

MOTORISTS could face a massive increase in the use of average-speed cameras in Scotland's towns and cities, The Scotsman can reveal. Ministers are considering putting up more cameras that measure speed over set distances, in a huge expansion of the surveillance network on the nation's roads.
Under the proposals, cameras would be placed at either end of a stretch of road and the average speed recorded. The aim is to get drivers to slow down and so cut the number of casualties. Picture: PA
Under the proposals, cameras would be placed at either end of a stretch of road and the average speed recorded. The aim is to get drivers to slow down and so cut the number of casualties. Picture: PA
The average-speed cameras, which record vehicle number plates and the time at each end of a speed-check area, would prevent motorists from "camera surfing" – braking sharply just before a camera and then accelerating away after passing it.

The average-speed devices have already proved effective at enforcing speed limits at roadworks and have been used to police 20mph residential zones in several English cities.

Now Stewart Stevenson, Scotland's transport minister, has floated the idea of extending their use to tackle speeding.

The idea has been welcomed by road safety campaigners but has infuriated motoring groups.

There are concerns about the cost of installing networks of cameras, and whether drivers could evade them. And a study last summer showed the average speed of vehicles going through Edinburgh was just 18.5mph; in Glasgow it was 19mph.

But Mr Stevenson believes average-speed cameras could help cut pedestrian casualties, after road deaths increased by 10 per cent in 2006: there are, as yet, no figures for last year.

The minister also pointed to Swedish research, presented to him last week, showing that most pedestrians hit by vehicles at 60km/h (37mph) are killed.

He has been impressed by a significant reduction in speeding and accidents on a 29-mile stretch of the A77 in Ayrshire since average-speed cameras were introduced in 2005, in what is Britain's longest speed trap.

Since then, the cameras have also been used at major roadworks, such as on the Edinburgh city by-pass, the A90 east of Perth and the M8 in Glasgow.

Road safety chiefs have called for them to be installed permanently on the A1 between Edinburgh and the Border, while the Forth Estuary Transport Authority is considering them for the Forth Road Bridge.

Mr Stevenson said: "The public has an overwhelming wish to cut undesirable speed, so that should be a focus.

"This could be increasingly through the use of average-speed cameras, which have been pretty successful on the A77 and at roadworks sites. I think they could have a role quite widely. They certainly seem to be one of the more effective interventions."

Brake, the road safety charity, backed the use of more average-speed cameras to catch offenders and promote safer driving. A spokeswoman said: "

While current speed cameras have proven effective in reducing the number of people killed and injured on roads, some drivers still persist in putting others in danger by slamming on the brakes when they see a camera, then speeding up once they've gone past.

"Speeding is a dangerous offence, which puts other road users at risk, and these cameras should help to encourage drivers to maintain a consistent, safe speed within the limit."

Scotland's police chiefs were also generally supportive. John Vine, Chief Constable of Tayside and chairman of road policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, said: "We would welcome anything that reduces deaths and serious injuries in urban environments."

Willie Wills, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, said: "I am pleased to hear that the minister is considering every avenue to address road safety issues, including average-speed cameras in built-up areas.

"The installation of these devices is not without technical challenges, but it is well established that they are successful in reducing speeds and also accidents and casualties. Approximately two-thirds of all crashes in which people are killed or injured happen on roads with a speed limit of 30mph or less.

"Reducing the average running speed of vehicles by just 1mph would reduce the number of accidents by 5 per cent.

"It is to be hoped that public support for the installation of these devices at sites that are recognised to need compliance with the speed limits will see them deterring excessive speed rather than detecting large numbers of offenders."

However, motoring groups saw no merit in the move.

Neil Greig, a director of the Institute of Advanced Motorists' Motoring Trust, said: "I would rather see good road design to reduce speeding in urban areas, such as blocking off the ends of streets and traffic calming measures, rather than have to use speed cameras. Drivers would find the widespread use of cameras intrusive."

Bruce Young, of the Association of British Drivers, said: "Average-speed cameras are useful in regulating stretches of road where it is important to, for instance, protect road repair workers. This usefulness is restricted, however, to that part of the day when the workers are working – yet we see no evidence of these cameras being deactivated at other times. The conclusion has to be that their main attraction is to fine drivers on the technicality of the rigid enforcement of the limit."

Mark McArthur-Christie, the director of policy for Forward, a transport think tank, said: "Normal speed cameras divert drivers' attention from the road ahead to their speedometers. Urban average-speed cameras are much more dangerous. They will turn drivers into speedo- focused cruise missiles, watching the clock permanently rather than watching the road – just where there are most hazards."

In England, average-speed cameras have improved safety on roads in Nottingham, and been introduced to deter rat-runners in Gloucester.

In the latest trial, in Camden, north London, speeding in a 20mph zone has been cut – although no fines have been issued as the scheme involves new cameras, which are still awaiting Home Office approval.

Kristy Marshall, from Transport for London, which is taking part in the trial, said: "We are following the development of this technology closely as we believe these new cameras could, in time, replace speed humps."

AVERAGE-SPEED CAMERAS CUT ACCIDENTS BY HALF ON A77

SCOTLAND'S first average-speed cameras were installed on the A77 in Ayrshire in August 2005.

The £775,000 speed enforcement camera system (Specs) uses 15 linked cameras to track vehicles over stretches of a 29-mile section of the route between Symington and Girvan.

The cameras time a car's journey between two points, recording vehicles that are found to have broken the speed limit.

Although initially resisted by motoring groups, the cameras have proved invaluable in cutting accidents on the Glasgow-Stranraer route.

Figures released by the A77 Safety Group last year show that deaths and serious injuries on the road have fallen by half since the average-speed cameras were installed.

The annual number of deaths on the route fell from four to two after the cameras were introduced, with serious injuries dropping from 17 to nine per year. There was also a one-third reduction in the total number of people injured.

Separate speed-monitoring equipment showed the number of drivers breaking the speed limit on dual-carriageway sections of the A77 covered by Specs has fallen by 87 per cent. Speeding on single carriageways was cut by 78 per cent.

The A77 is the longest section of road in Britain to be covered by Specs.

Following the success of the A77 project, average-speed cameras have been used temporarily on a number of sites across Scotland's road network and can be currently found on the Edinburgh city bypass enforcing a 40mph speed limit next to where the Dalkeith bypass is being built.



The full article contains 1257 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

tomi,

24/03/2008 00:08:18
Yet more evidence that Britain is now a police state.
2

J R Hartley-Fly,

Fishing 24/03/2008 00:30:38
Average-speed cameras have much to offer in terms of improving road safety.

Depending on the "severity" of the transgression it might be worth giving consideration to the issue of an "advisory" notice without penalty.

The traditional "You're nicked, Sunshine! £60 quid fine and 3 penalty points" notice just alienates ordinary Jocks and Jessies who otherwise lead blameless lives.

I've been driving my new car for the last three weeks, travelling from A to B as fast as the road conditions allow. Three quarters of the time on the City Bypass. The rest of the time "in town". The onboard computer calculates my average speed at 23.8mph.

3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:35:16
Definitely needed, because of some the 'nutters' that drive on our roads!

Take this example,

Lanark Road Edinburgh!

When you approach this road going west, it becomes a 40MPH restriction (only of-course if safe to do so)
Just before you come to the Gillespie cross roads a new children's Nursery has been built and you coming to traffic-lights anyhow!

Time and Time again and everyday, Drivers Pass me and must be doing 60MPH!, have they a 'death-wish'?

They have NO consideration for anyone, not even a child that maybe crossing the road, or a mother with a pram, or the elderly!

Speed Cameras,? yes More Needed and I would pay for them if I could!
To prevent a 'needless' Death!
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:40:45
I have my Advanced Driving certificate, and the Police RoSpa level 2 driving certificate, so don't anyone start on the dangers of speed, not believing it!
5

The Pianist,

on my keyboard 24/03/2008 00:42:09
Chick, #3,

Average-speed cameras won't sort the particular issue you describe. Mobile "safety cameras" might.

Or perhaps real, human polis with eyes, sense and a radar gun! (Obviously unworkable as that would involve getting the polis out and about and not sitting at desks writing up a good performance.)
6

The Pianist,

surfing the Interweb 24/03/2008 00:44:18
Chick, #5,

I'm with you on this one, mate!

7

The Pianist,

on my own. Typing. 24/03/2008 00:45:44
Chick, I meant #4 when I typed #6.
8

Matt there,

somewhere 24/03/2008 00:47:20
There's more to road safety than mere speed!

If some idiot driver goes through a red light at a pedestrian crossing and hits a car or runs down a pedestrian, if some fool drives over a Zebra crossing and smashes into a mother and pram or some damn cyclist bowls down a pavement and knocks down and kills an OAP I do not care if they were doing an average of 29.9mph or 31mph!

IT DOESN'T MATTER! It is NOT only the speed that causes the problem- it is what a driver does that causes the problem.

And anyway, whatever happened to the Green Cross Code? Or has that been replaced with a speed camera?
9

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:50:37
The Pianist @#5/6/7,

Well unless you know different,

Dont matter what speed you play the 'piano' :-)
10

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:57:56
Matt there @#8,
"And anyway, whatever happened to the Green Cross Code?"

And do you think that would make any difference, when a car being driven at 70MPH wanted to beat the lights!

Or someone crossing the road,
Stopped Looked and Listened, not expecting or having the time, to be safe, with a vehicle traveling at 70MPH coming towards them!
11

The Pianist,

andante, andante! 24/03/2008 01:10:06
Chick,

What's the difference between me, you and the Polis?

Me and you get out and about and see what's going on.




Whereas the Plods are sitting in HQ writing up action plans or visiting Community Council meetings to demonstrate the Chief Constable's commitment to growing his salary.
12

Boswall,

24/03/2008 01:11:55
Charles Linskaill

In the space of a couple of posts your average driver has gone from doing 60 at Gillespie road to 70 on the approach to unspecified traffic lights.

I fully expect by the time we hit 50 posts drivers will be pasing you at mach 2.

Do you also have an Advanced Exaggeration certificate?
13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 01:12:18
The Pianist @#11,

That IS Very True!
14

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 01:15:06
Boswall @#12,
Don't get smart and read correctly!

70MPH is NOT the reference to Gillespie Road!
15

Fifi la Bonbon,

24/03/2008 01:16:45
These cameras will mean that lawbreakers are more likely to be caught, while keeping human police free to do proper policing.

There is a foolproof way to avoid detection - maintain a driving speed within the speed limit at all times.

People who find monitoring their speed on the speedometer at the same time as driving safely are obviously not capable of maintaining full control of their vehicles, and should walk and use public transport.
16

The Pianist,

qwertyuiop 24/03/2008 01:22:23
Fifi, #15,

You are a pretty weak link.

You know the rest . . .
17

The Pianist,

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 24/03/2008 01:26:19
Boswall,

I don't usually attack morons, but for you I could make an ecxception.
18

,

24/03/2008 01:26:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 01:50:24
Authorities spending money like water on already obsolete technology in their haste to get on the revenue band wagon.

Once again the UK leads the pack at being at the back of the queue.
20

Sanny,

Portugal 24/03/2008 01:54:50
The problem with speed cameras is that they are seen as another way of taxing the motorist as such they provide a source of grievance for the motoring public. If the true purpose is to reduce or control speed then I believe there is a better and less irritating way to achieve this.

Here in the Algarve they make use of speed controlled lights. If a motorist is exceeding the speed limit in a controlled area, the traffic lights switch to red and traffic is stopped, on that side of the road only, for about 20 seconds. The motorists quickly learn that the fastest way to get from A to B is to travel at the speed limit.

In a country where they tend to have only two speeds - stopped or flat out - this system seems to be extremely effective. Further is does not cause friction between the public and the Traffic Police. Of course for Motorways we have a different problem and I believe Cameras are to be introduced.

The only variation to the traffic light system I would suggest is that a camera is fitted to catch those who run through the lights at red. Such offenders should have both their licence and car removed for a month on first offence and the period doubled up on each offence.

The Authorities need to decide if they are solely interested in improving safety or if this is truly a money grubbing exercise.
21

Fifi la Bonbon,

24/03/2008 01:55:25
"You are a pretty weak link. You know the rest . ."

What does that even mean? You seem to be trying to disagree, without making the effort to string together the facts and arguments. Are you trying to channel the spirit of the acerbic presenter of a popular TV quiz in the hope that you will come across as having a personality? What are you going to say next? "Get a life?"
22

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 02:19:02
There's already a fool proof way of not being convicted.

Drive around on false plates, simply find a car like yours and use your mobile phone camera to make a note of the number, after all, you're not going to be caught, because the authorities aren't going to believe the driver of the car you've cloned is telling the truth that he was in bed at the time.

I'm irresponsible to even suggest this? ...not really, it wasn't my idea, it's a growing trend.

It took four years to catch one motorcyclist who was caught on camera 66 times because he was registered with a false name and address and sky news has already run an article that illegal drivers across the country are at epedemic proportions.

The evidence is all there, but in their haste to get on the revenue band wagon, authority has chosen to ignore the blatant holes in the policy.

Only a question of time till it all goes wrong.
23

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 02:23:31
Why have I said it? ...am I a terrible driver who wants to speed everywhere and thinks cameras are dreadfully unfair? ..no, of course not, I think the whole idea is pathetic.

Because it's reported that 50% of speeding convictions across the UK are never paid and I don't for a moment believe that 50% can all be speeding police cars.

Speed cameras, openning the door to break the law.
24

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 02:32:33
I should point out that the motorcyclist was caught 66 time on the 'same camera'.

You'd have thought considering how frequently he was doing it over a four year period, it would have been worth corralating the information from all those photo's to identify a pattern and most likely time he would do it again and then put a police car there to catch him.

But apparently the force in question congratulate themselves because after months of police man hours they tracked him down by a sale of one of the motorcycles, probably costing a six figure sum in the bargain.

Is it just my opinion, or since speed cameras arrived, has authority become a little bit less clear in thought?

Mind you, the judge only gave him a suspended sentence and didn't ban him, proving once and for all, if you're honest and keep your vehicle legal and pay your fine without question ....you're an idiot.
25

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 02:51:06
While I think about it, I should explain why people using cloned plates get away with it.

The problem is in the mechanism, under current law, if you fail to give the identity of the driver at the time of the offence, they fine you.

If you take the case to court, you obviously won't have any evidence to prove you weren't the driver unless you were really lucky and was having a heart attack in a hospital at the time and your whereabouts is on their records.

So, taking the case to court is likely to cost you thousands of pounds in lawyers fees.

On the other hand, you can get rid of it by paying sixty quid. Which is fine until the next time your clone gets caught, because by then you won't have a leg to stand on because you've admitted your previous offences and are a serial speeder and a menance to society. So then, if you've figured it out, you sell the car, passing the batton to the next poor sucker who's going to end up loosing his license.

Excellent system don't you think? ...here's to more speed cameras, I commend them to the house.
26

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 02:59:46
Down in Kent this week, one of the partnerships had to over turn 120 convictions by mobile speed camera, following allegations that the operator had been fixing speeds to bump up the catch.

The police issued a statement claiming that there was no tampering involved and it was an operational error in how the camera had been setup.

Which means that incompetence is obviously better than tampering with equipment. This follows 300 unsound convictions in Lancashire recently for the same thing, inspite of a widely seen documentary on the BBC showing just how easy it was to set up these mobile cameras incorrectly.

But we still continue using these cameras.

Excellent way to get the publics trust I'd say.

Not to mention inspite of all the talk and propaganda about speed cameras while even now the latest figures I've seen for road safety show a 13% increase in casualties across the uk.

Wow, impressive, anyone still backing this horse to make our roads safer?

By the way, I'm not making it up, five minutes on google will tell you that. Some is from sky news on the web, some is from the bbc news website.
27

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 03:06:42
Because I've had this conversation before, for the benefit of the hard headed who will not see and think that I'm scare mongering.

Cloning a number plate ..is it difficult? ..is it likely to happen? ..would anyone actually risk it?

I know I wouldn't do it, but then I wouldn't rummage through anyones bin trying to find your bank statment to commit identity fraud.

Bottom line, isn't it about time for authority to stop and take a breath and stop believing their own propaganda and take the time to consider that not all of these millions of people who complain about speed camera policy is a road rage merchant with red mist infront of his eyes, some of us watch bemused at the obvious stupidity that will eventually make authority look like a laughing stock.
28

Navvy,

singapore 24/03/2008 03:25:11
Forth Estuary Transport Authority

should be

Firth of Forth Transport Authority

The double ff would be a good ffit for their ffaffing aboot

Firth is a good Scots word which like strath has been abandoned for the bland
29

Navvy,

24/03/2008 03:26:03
I have never been able to get above 25mph on any significant on the pathetic city (parking lot) bypass
30

Mill,

24/03/2008 03:38:38
Orwell strikes again.
What's amazing is how much police fascism people submit to without so much as a whimper. Like the path to the gas chamber.
31

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA........Hillary for Pres....Barack Hus 24/03/2008 03:49:49
Dudes ,
To help save lives, U need these averaging camera technology installed on all roads.

Drivers kill other people Speed does not people.

GUNS don't kill people, but people with guns, kill people.

Here in the US drivers kill approx 26,000 people each year . These not drunk drivers , just drivers who have no clue about safety in driving.

And even less, about the dynamics of their vehicles driven at 30 mph , 70 mph 90 mph. in many many different road conditions and weather.

So one of the very few ways to stop this carnage is to trap the stupid uneducated drivers .

Fine them and take away their licence (license) UNTIL they complete a driving class/test and pass .

This class would include controlling a vehicle at high speeds in the worst possible driving condition etc etc

STOP Squawking about the cameras. Learn to drive safely and STOP blaming SPEED.

Happy Haggis Day with some Irish Whisky.

GC
32

Statsman,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 04:13:37
Increase cameras and decrease police. It's a Nu Labour agenda that no one likes.If the SNP carry on like this, they have no chance of getting my vote next time.
33

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 24/03/2008 04:16:40
Police in Scotland (and the rest of UK) seem to be only interested in dealing with crimes they can measure. Hence the huge overkill on Drink Driving and speeding.

Meanwhile, crimes such as dangerous and reckless driving are ignored as are many crimes where behaviour is threatening or downright dangerous but requires the police to prove the guilt in a less empirical manner.
34

Statsman,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 04:21:38
This SNP government should resign. They are more interested in control freakery than running the country. Scottish Nazi Party.
35

Kiwi,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 04:32:16
It is not speeding drivers that cause accidents on our road but bad drivers.

Will people get picked up for driving too slowly on the avergae speed cameras?
Surely all these people who loiter the city bypass at 40mph or overtake at 50mph could be bbanned in this case allowing traffic to flow more naturally.

Remeber folks, the quicker you get from A to B, the less time you are on the road and the more you help tackle congestion.

36

,

24/03/2008 05:55:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

Ubi,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 06:22:20
If the government persists in persecuting motorists, possibly the most put upon social group in the country, they can vote with their feet. They don't have to use the roads. They don't have to keep the economy propped up. They can stay at home and watch TV. Or use public transport, which the government tells us is a viable alternative.

But if all they do is quietly moan about it and pay up the government will keep squeezing the pips.
38

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 24/03/2008 06:35:25
A good idea.

A much better idea is to ban all cars that can do over 70mph.

Why own a faster vehicle for normal road use? (Let's await the numpty replies to that question!)
39

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 24/03/2008 07:18:35
That's fine and dandy as long as they display, clearly, what "average" speed that needs to be maintained. Otherwise, shove the cameras up yer Nanny Police State erse.
40

terry osser,

morden 24/03/2008 07:26:54
taxtaxtax--what would they do if no revenue
41

terry osser,

morden 24/03/2008 07:29:26
mr bean is a fascist as is nulab

hitler banned smoking in private properties and now nulab want to put cigarettes under the counter.

no good voting snp no difference. probably time to leave diunited kingdom
42

terry osser,

morden 24/03/2008 07:29:40
disunited!
43

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 24/03/2008 07:35:36
So how much is it going to cost?

And do you think this would have prevented the type of accident that happened on the A98 Fochabers-Cullen road yesterday? I really doubt it. To make roads safer we need to improve the roads.
44

Dannynairn,

Aberdeen 24/03/2008 07:44:08
Seem to have lost my considered comment and if I remember it correctly I advocate that speeding should literally be a hanging offence in the sense that any blatant speeding offence detected by law enforcement officers (duly sworn police constables) should have the power (if such does not already exist amidst the proliferation on road traffic law that has emerged over the years) to firstly impound the vehicle, begin the process of removing the driver's licence if he has one and wait for the legal process to kick in and decide through the courts if necessary. The majority of police officers would have good judgement to decide initially if such powers were to be exercised. From what I know some countries practise this effectively and let's forget the excuses such as too much traffic on our roads, or they are not up to Grand Prix standards, and so on. Let us make do with what we have and stop pussyfooting. I'm not risking having to do another comment and losing it so I'm posting it now as my tuppence worth but Maybe someone else shares my views. It has been one of the many niggles in present life which requires to be effectively addressed.
45

Dannynairn,

Aberdeen 24/03/2008 07:44:56
Thank you and I look forward to that
46

james 1st,

hamilton 24/03/2008 07:45:44
i dont like the proliferation of cameras sneaking a view for the government into our lives, the world already has too many cameras. put policemen out there with radar and increase the fines in necessary to pay the costs
47

Gdgy,

dndy 24/03/2008 07:47:22
I don't like the surveillance angle but these cameras work....
48

Stewart_in_Oz,

Alexandra Hills 24/03/2008 07:59:51
Don't come to Oz to escape the over-policing of the motorists. We have the same problem here.
They need the money. It helps to pay for the junket trips for the pollies, grants to overseas undeveloped countries where there is no accountability and the pollies pocket the proceeds. It helps to pay for newer and 'better' speed detection systems.
It is 'supposed' to pay for road improvements so that when you have been held up for ages due to poor roads and try and catch up for lost time they can catch you more easily etc. and as for the genius who has all they certificates etc for being a 'whiz' driver, I was probably driving before he saw the light of day.
49

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 24/03/2008 08:41:01
#44 danny

Am I reading you correctly. Are you really advocating that speeders should be hanged? A tad draconian don't you think?
50

mr angry,

ayrshire 24/03/2008 08:45:16
Nice easy targets, increase the tax haul , while the police can have double helpings of doughnuts without having to actually go out and do any work at all.
51

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh. 24/03/2008 08:50:52
Perceived road safety being secondary to revenue generation.
52

Marcus Fenix,

Paisley 24/03/2008 09:01:09
I used to drive the A77 regularly down by Prestwick Airport before the cameras were installed and it really was like an episode of wacky races. Since the cameras have been installed it has become a lot more civilised.

And if you fancy a blast the A719 between Galston and Ayr is still there!
53

quite reader,

west lothian 24/03/2008 09:01:18
Recently we were presented with a speeding letter through the post, when my wife enquired by telephone as to what to do as neither of us remembered the incident or have ever been charged with speeding we were told that the camera picture was from behind as the vehicle left a 30MPH limit. When she said that both of us drive the car and we were not sure who drove on that day as it was some 5-6 weeks prior, the person on the other end of the phone said "that it was unclear who was driving, make up your mind who is taking the blame and complete the form". This is justice or a money making excercise.
54

Kenny A,

24/03/2008 09:02:04
Ok folks, totaly agree that there are some stupid types out there who should never have been allowed behind the wheel. Speed kills usualy driving to fast. Driving to slow also causes accidents, rare to hear about anyone being done for this unless they are either drunk or elderly.

Speed limits are set on roads for a reason and that is simply safety. If people had the use of the brain cells God gifted them with and drove at the marked speed limits there would be a lot less deaths on the road.

Driving to fast lands in a crash. Driving to slow forces people to overtake often when it is not wise to do so, usualy younger drivers fall into this catagory.

Speed cameras should be used both for speeders and those who crawl along the roads like like tortoises who have taken to much go slow juice.
55

Duncan in Edinburgh,

24/03/2008 09:05:47
Mark McArthur-Christie ought to be ashamed, trotting out that old chestnut about speed restrictions diverting drivers' attentions from the road. If you cannot remain under the speed limit while giving full attention to the road, you are not fit to drive and should lose your license.
56

voltaire's janny,

24/03/2008 09:08:09
I was polled by telephone for my attitide on cameras. The authorities really are finding out public opinion as they go. Incidentally I approved of cameras at accident spots - these are a no-brainer, but I was also asked about fines, %above limit for a flash, and for a conviction.

I was quite impressed and I observe the world going pretty much along with what I said. Average speed cameras at roadworks, congested areas and a FEW notorious stretches are fine by me.

By the way, I am a fast driver; I almost always break the speed limit on every journey. I drive 90-100 on motorways and occasionally more. In town I'll be doing 50 in a 40, but I observe 30 in residential or narrow streets. I have never had a speeding ticket. That is because I watch the road way ahead and concentrate on driving; not phones, conversations, radio or anything else. I am safer than the various numpties I encounter whose intentions I often know before they do, certainly before they signal! Beware volvo drivers and hats.

If you want to police me you'll need my consent. Did you know that 50% of contested convictions are quashed? The law and its enforcement need to have safety and behaviour in mind and be fair; any suggestion that it is about raising cash or trapping motorists and there will be a backlash.



57

M.T.,

24/03/2008 09:08:35
4# Charles Linskaill,Edinburgh 24/03/2008 00:40:45

Read your Advanced Driving Winter 2007 magazine about the cause of accidents.

51# Helmut Edinburgh. 24/03/2008 08:50:52

Correct! The government want the money. Pity they don't use it to keep our roads safe
58

Upbeat,

24/03/2008 09:15:13
Average speed cameras, the techno " committee's" solution. Is this a hidden sytem in the sense that after a short time on a road you are unfamiliar with you will do something that is detected ?

It is easier and much much cheaper than this.

Why not do what most nations in Europe appear to consider acceptable already. Advertise the fact that there,say, a hundred mobile hidden cameras on the roads each day. No one need know the actual number deployed each day. These cameras could be set up in parked cars, behind street furniture, in hedges , behind bridge parapets, next to trees. for a short period and then swiftly relocated.

This is the system in Holland, France, Germany Switzerland etc etc .

The result is that drivers know that the chances they will be fined for exceeding speed limits on any type of road is always there. The result is a society that sticks to the limits with only the very foolish or the very rich willing to impoverish themselves by getting fined.

If drivers don't know when or where they might be 'flitzed ' everyone drives accordingly. These mobile cameras are driven around by a range of private contactors, this includes Pensioners and retired police officers , even some disabled people etc. . A thorough and cheap solution which alters any nation's mindset about speed.



59

jdships,

24/03/2008 09:16:41
4 Charles Linskaill,

" have my Advanced Driving certificate, and the Police RoSpa level 2 driving certificate, so don't anyone start on the dangers of speed, not believing it!"

I give you the benifit of the doubt that you are not also holding a membership of the "I know more about driving because I hold certificates " club.
Yes speed is dangerous but much more dangerous are drivers.
Having held a driving licence for 55 years and an HGV 1 for 28 years ( now retired) - all clean - I have witnessed many an accident and have been lucky on a few occasions to miss out on being involved.
The holding of a licenec / certificates does not make for a better driver it's what one does on the road that counts.

Circumstances . experience and attitudes all play a major part in driving.

Not convinced about ASC unless they are on every main road in the country !!
60

expat in the sun,

La Oliva 24/03/2008 09:18:59
More cameras - more fines - when are the most spied on and overtaxed motorists going to band together and do something about this.

NOBODY has ever been killed or even sustained as much as a broken fingernail as a result of speed - bad driving is the cause of accidents - this can be excessive speed given the road conditions - or driving too slowly - not paying attention - or just sheer incompetance.

In the right car, on the right roads, in the right conditions, you are no danger to yourself or any other motorist by driving at 60 - 70, 80 or 100 MPH. however you can loose your licence for doing this.
However you can be a terrible driver - drive everywhere well under the speed limit - and have an "accident" everytime you get behind the wheel - your insurance company won't like you, (or maybe they will if you pay their premiums) but as long as nobody gets hurt - you can keep a clean licence!!!

It should be very easy to link insurance company records to the DVLA - anyone with an above average accident rate should be investigated, and if found to be a bad risk - given points and ultimately banned

If this government were serious about road safety - they should impliment the above and instead of sticking cameras everywhere - make it more difficult to get a licence - at the moment you can pass a test without ever having driven at over 40MPH, never having driven on a motorway, never overtaken anything, and probably never driven in adverse conditions.

Secondly: regular eye tests for all drivers every five years and competence tests for elderly drivers

This lot should reduce the number of dangerous drivers by a significant amount.

Lastly - a few years ago the government commissioned the Road Transport Laboratory to corralate the relationship between the drivers with highest speed convictions (SP50's) and their involvment in road accidents - the report came out, and apart from a couple of mentions in the motoring press, and I think the Scotsman gave it a
61

Upbeat,

24/03/2008 09:19:53
56 Voltaire

A more persuasive reason for the use of hidden cameras than the " I'm a better than average driver " rant you have penned her is hard to imagine.

Your post should be 'taken down' to be used in Police training colleges to show trainees evidence of the type of irresponsible self righteous attitude that is to be found on the roads in the UK.
62

DaveK,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 09:24:12
Scrapping tolls was just a vote winning gimmick - here come the average speed cameras and a much larger pot of cash for the SNP. I wouldn't mind if Salmond spent the money on weight watchers membership and for sturgeon to get her eyebrows plucked! I have always been worried about any political party with the word National in it - let their be no doubt it is the Scottish Nazi party, only the Nazi's had better dress sense.
63

Morbo,

24/03/2008 09:31:45
To keep down pedestrian deaths it might be a good idea if they looked where they were going. I have noticed a trend over the last 5 years where pedestrians will cross roads without looking, sometimes whilst wearing ipods.

Speed is rarely a factor around town - there are so many traffic lights that there are only so many roads where it is possible to get out of second gear before the next light.

Speed limits have remained the same for years and in this time stopping distances have been dramatically cut due to better brakes, ABS and tyres. Tread depth is more of a factor than speed.

Teaching kids the Green Cross Code seems a lot less expensive than setting up a load of cameras. Of course, the real reason for setting up a network of cameras is so that road pricing can be introduced by the back door. They are not going to make the mistake of asking people if they want that again.
64

11+failed,

the pans 24/03/2008 09:32:38
I wish I was a bit smarter then I should be able to understand. Increase the number of speed cameras and average speed zones in 2005. In 2006 road fatalities increase by 10% that is 31 more deaths and blighted families in Scotland compared to 2005.
Answer? more speed cameras and average speed zones. If that is logic no wonder I struggled with my 11+!
65

expat in the sun,

La Oliva 24/03/2008 09:35:31
A few years ago the government commissioned the Road Transport Laboratory to corralate the relationship between the drivers with highest speed convictions (SP50's) and their involvment in road accidents - the report came out, and apart from a couple of mentions in the motoring press, and I think the Scotsman gave it a mention - the rest ignored it and it was immediately buried - WHY? - quite simply - the results showed that drivers convicted of driving fastest - (with the exception of offences in stolen vehicles or involved in police chaces) were actually 5 TIMES LESS likely to be involved in an accident than someone with a clean lecence.

Personally - over a period of 25 years I averaged 40 - 50K a year - over a million miles, in that time I did not have a single accident, but I did accumulate several speeding fines - I was a business motorist - I know that if I had driven all those miles at the speed limit - I would not have been able to carry out my work properly, (adding stress and frustration) - journeys would have taken considerably longer (leading to fatigue) - and I am certain I would have been a danger to myself and other road users as a result -
Speed cameras, have a place in built up areas or at danger spots - but blanket use on motorways, dual carriageways - or 24 hour operation in roadworks which are only manned for a maximum of 8 hours and often not a t all at weekends - can only serve one function and it isn't road safety - it is money gathering
66

Keith Lagden,

24/03/2008 09:36:22
Tis a pity nothing can be done about fast taking smooth slick Politicians who suffer from verbal pollution. They are probably too fast for the camera.
67

lac,

Down Under 24/03/2008 09:41:19
Have just returned from visit to NZ where road systems are comparable (similarly inadequate and poorly maintained) to Scotland. Their police forces make good use of hand-held speed detection equipment, static cameras and high profile patrols. If all else fails they have the power to impose immediate bans for excessive or multiple offences. This allows police to remove keys from offenders at the roadside - a weapon that has made a lasting impression on speeding motorists.
68

Marcus Fenix,

Paisley 24/03/2008 09:41:59
Do what I'm doing - saving up to buy a helicopter. I've had enough of this driving mince.
69

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 09:44:32
Nazis. Fascists. Gas chambers. Nanny State. Jeez, what is wrong with you people? All you're being asked to do is keep within the speed limit as laid down by the law. Don't speed, don't get fined, simple as that. You're like the Yanks and their obsession with guns. The same macho crap. Fast cars, small d**ks, I suspect.
70

Pa broon,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 09:45:07
Here we go again another revenue wheeze from the powers above. They won't be satisfied until there are camera's every mile.
71

Sas,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 09:50:17
# 56 Thank goodness there are excellent drivers like you, good enough to do 90 - 100mph on motorways and 50mph in town. I'm afraid I'm such an inadequate driver that I try and obey the speed limit.

You're proud to break the speed limit all the time and rightly so - if only everyone was like you, our streets would be so much safer....................

Oh, and you certainly shouldn't be policed unless you consent to it - what other laws do you believe you should be immune from?
72

Sas,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 09:52:03
EVEN IF speed cameras are being used as a system of taxation, it suits me fine - I'm more than happy to have speeding drivers pay more taxes than the rest of us.
73

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 24/03/2008 09:54:33
I travel on a road that is monitored by average speed cameras and can state positively that they are effective in making car drivers observe the speed limit. They have certainly curtailed the activities of the ton-up brigade and the boy racers.
However, they do not prevent HGV's from bunching up, nor do they stop HGV drivers, normally foreign, from ignoring their legal hours, nor prevent them from creating mayhem as they change lanes without being able to see the vehicles on their blind side. In spite of the average speed cameras the A14 in Cambridgeshire continues to be at a stand-still on a daily basis, mainly because of the very high level of commercial traffic that is unaffected by average speed cameras.
74

,

24/03/2008 09:59:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
75

Kenny A,

24/03/2008 10:00:17
60

Heard this type of argument before and I am afraid you are both right and wrong. Bad driving kills, speed also kills, have seen a few accidents where death was due to speed, no broken fingernails, just broken bodies and broken families.

There seems to be a perception amongst a great deal of people that when they get behind a wheel it is everyone else who is a bad driver, not themselves.

Speed does kill because you do not have the time to react as you would at lower speeds. As I mentioned earlier however, driving to slow also causes other people to overtake when they should not. It is usualy the impact that kills. Faster you go harder the impact.

Obey the speed signs if it says 20mph drive at that if it says 70 drive at that speed when safe to do so. And yes before anyone tackles me on this I like to drive fast, years in Germany does that to a man. Years in Africa where everyone thinks he is Micheal Schumaker drings out the urge to hire a driver.

Speed does indeed kill.
76

Marcus Fenix,

Paisley 24/03/2008 10:02:28
Just wait till the government make it compulsary to have a GPS chip in your car! You'll be taxed by the mile and be able to tell is you're speeding at the same time. Flying is the way forward.
77

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh. 24/03/2008 10:06:09
Presumably a sizeable chunk of this undoubted increased revenue from these new cameras will be used to repair the numerous potholes which are contributing to road accidents and vehicle damage?
78

drew 33,

24/03/2008 10:08:02
64 11+failed,
"Increase the number of speed cameras and average speed zones in 2005. In 2006 road fatalities increase by 10% that is 31 more deaths and blighted families in Scotland compared to 2005.
Answer? more speed cameras and average speed zones. If that is logic no wonder I struggled with my 11+!"
I think I can help you out there! Just a bit of lateral thinking, the revenue from cameras fell between 2005 and 2006. Answer, increase the number of cameras.
79

Marcus Fenix,

Paisley 24/03/2008 10:08:10
Behave Helmut.
80

Nemo,

On the road again 24/03/2008 10:09:35
An overall low standard of driver skill is still the major threat on our roads

Revenue generation from motorists still transcends other road safety measures

There is still nothing of statistical significance to suggest these cameras make roads safer.
81

drew 33,

24/03/2008 10:13:04
Great system these average speed cameras. They each monitors one lane just enter the zone on the inner lane and leave by the outer, or vice versa.
82

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 10:13:37
#74

I happen to agree with you that the speed limit on motorways should be raised to 80. And I won't deny I've had a ticket in the past; I took the chance and suffered the consequences. I don't feel threatened by the State, however, just because it tells me how fast to drive. I, too, have concerns about the controlling instincts of the SNP and Labour. Not being allowed to be a boyracing a*se on the roads is the least of all our worries. Your linking speeding fines and totalitarianism is pathetic. You insult all the people in the world who have to really worry about a knock at the door not just getting points on their licence.
83

voltaire's janny,

24/03/2008 10:23:45
You guys. You're so easy to wind up.

So Upbeat. I've never had a speeding conviction. How about the average driver? How 'bout you?

Mathematically, in this one category that means I am entitled to claim above average.

SAS - no exemptions. This country used to require consent in policing. You against that? If I get caught I'll pay my fine, and if caught twice I'll seek to modify my behaviour until the consensual three years rolls by. I consent to that.

The problem with rantislation such as espoused by morally better-than-thou drivers herein is that it is simple human nature to cast stones while hoping your ain glass hoose remains out of censorous gaze.

Ever watched porn, eh? Your hard drive never witnessed a dodgy mpeg? Aye right. What if someone with up-tight morality decided your nads had to go for watching the still-illegal practices commonly regarded as normal by most folk?

The answer is policing by consent. Our polis uphold the law unlike, say, the US where they enforce. Continuous adjustment is key in this respect. Cars and speeds, seatbelts, crumple zones, speed cameras, traffic lights etc are all subject to this societal imperative.

I'll keep my max no claims, clean license thanks and deceive myself of my above average status until proved otherwise thanks.
84

scottish person,

24/03/2008 10:26:49
#73 You are dead right. The police seem to ignore HGV's.They just charge along at 60 everywhere and no one seems to bother. Urban motorways with a speed limit of 50, ONLY APPLICABLE TO CARS, as lorries charge on at 60 everywhere. They are destroying our roads in town(where they should be banned), in country roads they are destroying the road surface. They are also getting bigger. The roads in the UK were not built for these monsters. The drivers have also had their brains removed, which does not help. When is something going to be done about them......