Car Talk - Non S2000 General Motoring and Non S2000 Car Talk

Red light cameras

Thread Tools
 
Old Jul 8, 2009 | 04:21 AM
  #21  
Nick Graves's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,181
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
Default

Originally Posted by Moggy,Jul 8 2009, 09:55 AM
Appears they have found a loophole in the regs to get around the need to have some evidence of accidents by installing speed cameras in currently installed red light cameras
Didn't read that far!

It will probably only cause more junction accidents, as red light cameras tend to.

But that will be ignored...
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2009 | 04:22 AM
  #22  
Nick Graves's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,181
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
Default

Originally Posted by MB,Jul 8 2009, 12:18 PM
I also totally agree with red light cameras - I can't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

But this is underhand and just one more nail in the coffin for driving freedom.
There's some evidence they cause more rear-enders than they stop sideswipes!
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2009 | 04:31 AM
  #23  
MB's Avatar
MB
Thread Starter
Member
Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 33,838
Likes: 23
From: Sunshine Coast - England UK
Default

Guess the severity is less though Nick?

I've seen an accident by someone who ran a red light and it wasn't pretty!
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2009 | 04:48 AM
  #24  
j8mie's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,022
Likes: 1
From: There's no i in toast!
Default

Mark you sound like you are clearly annoyed by this, and I have to agree with you. You could write to your local MP and/or the local paper complaining about them.

I've written to my local MP complaining about some speed bump, and the damage they cause to vehicles, and sure enough I got a response, it wasn't the response I wanted but at least he took the time to reply.
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2009 | 04:51 AM
  #25  
Moggy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
Default

Originally Posted by MarkB,Jul 8 2009, 11:13 AM
The loophole is, and always has been that 'vicinity' is a huge distance away.
I knew about the vicinity loophole. I think it's 1 mile radius. I think this loophole is a newer one.

I can't remember where I read it but some cameras had been put on a 30mph road which ran below a m/way because there were a number of accidents on the m/way above
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2009 | 04:53 AM
  #26  
Moggy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
Default

Originally Posted by j8mie,Jul 8 2009, 12:48 PM
Mark you sound like you are clearly annoyed by this, and I have to agree with you. You could write to your local MP and/or the local paper complaining about them.

I've written to my local MP complaining about some speed bump, and the damage they cause to vehicles, and sure enough I got a response, it wasn't the response I wanted but at least he took the time to reply.
Better, IMO to write to the speed camera partnership first in a non commital questioning way. 5 min email will suffice.
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2009 | 04:58 AM
  #27  
MB's Avatar
MB
Thread Starter
Member
Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 33,838
Likes: 23
From: Sunshine Coast - England UK
Default

Originally Posted by j8mie,Jul 8 2009, 01:48 PM
Mark you sound like you are clearly annoyed by this, and I have to agree with you. You could write to your local MP and/or the local paper complaining about them.

I've written to my local MP complaining about some speed bump, and the damage they cause to vehicles, and sure enough I got a response, it wasn't the response I wanted but at least he took the time to reply.
Think I will.

A drill and some self expanding foam seems effective otherwise.

I'm surprised there hasn't been vigilante groups formed.
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2009 | 05:43 AM
  #28  
j8mie's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 9,022
Likes: 1
From: There's no i in toast!
Default

Originally Posted by Moggy,Jul 8 2009, 01:53 PM
Better, IMO to write to the speed camera partnership first in a non commital questioning way. 5 min email will suffice.
I did think about suggesting that, but tbh, you'll just get a load of "speeding kills" nonsense back from them, so you'll only be wasting your time.
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2009 | 05:54 AM
  #29  
FistralG's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,938
Likes: 0
From: Newquay
Default

Originally Posted by Moggy,Jul 8 2009, 09:43 AM
They have to have some form of evidence of accidents in the vicinity to install speed cameras. Might be worth finding out.
It doesn't have to be a speed related accident. As JC pointed out on the Top Gear episode when they had the Minister for Transport on and they were discussing speed cameras. The speed camera on the M4 near Heathrow was installed after someone jumped off a bridge!
Reply
Old Jul 8, 2009 | 05:56 AM
  #30  
Nick Graves's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,181
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
Default

Originally Posted by MB,Jul 8 2009, 12:31 PM
Guess the severity is less though Nick?

I've seen an accident by someone who ran a red light and it wasn't pretty!
Probably in a lot of cases.

There are others though, where the inevitable gridlock causes stupid penalties.

Like everything these days, it seems that a fundamentally sensible idea has been corrupted into a Pythonesque joke by simple-minded politiciunts.

Speed limits themselves were never statistically proven, before their talibanesque imposition; the 30mph limit was introduced at the same time as a raft of other sensible traffic flow improvements and was 'proven' on the back of those!
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:02 AM.