The government has lifted a requirement that speed cameras only be fitted to areas where speeding has been proven to be a cause of accidents. This will mean they can be placed virtualy anywhere for councils and the police to make money. Though speed kills I think the majority of motorists would prefer they were placed at red lights and box junctions instead as they would have more of a preventative effect which would also improve traffic flow - what do you think?
2007-02-01 10:22:47 · 10 answers · asked by MPatrinos 3 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Safety
Most traffic lights and many major yellow-box junctions are already fitted with cameras...
2007-02-01 10:34:44 · answer #1 · answered by Nightworks 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where speed is cause of accidents? Hmmmm. Who makes that judgement. Most accidents have speed as a contributing factor. Used very liberally as if the car did not move it would not have an accident.
University of Arkansas is now doing a study on this speed as a contributing factor of accidents and the initial indication is that speed is often over contributed to accidents. This study is being done for laws being proposed for truck drivers.
Studies have shown the after installing cameras at red lights, accidents have increased (rear ends),, but because these cameras often generate a quarter a million a year is reason enough for most councils to proceed to this method anyway and now should be charged with contributing to the accident.
2007-02-01 14:06:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
traffic flow would only improve if everyone looks at lights and simultaneously move oh don't forget the car in front of you as for cameras at lights too many people would emergency brake at amber
box junctions i agree more cameras
speed cameras well how many people have you followed for example when it's a 50 limit and they are doing 50 but all of a sudden slow down instantly to speeds of40 they need help it's dangerous
2007-02-04 00:38:10 · answer #3 · answered by MILL 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I once got a speeding ticket for doing 33 in a 30 zone with a camera... it was cheaper to pay the fine then to take time off work and go to court.
P.S It was 3:30 in the morning when the camera took the picture so I think it's safe to say it was more of a revenue thing than a safety issue.
2007-02-01 10:35:46 · answer #4 · answered by misc 75 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Traffic cameras should not be allowed to be used anywhere until the technology is developed to find out who is driving the vehicle. At this point in time (and correct me if i'm wrong), the owner of the vehicle gets the ticket...not the driver at the time the picture was taken. You loan your car to a bud and he violates the law, it's your butt. Very wrong here!
2007-02-02 05:45:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Speed cameras would be better at traffic lights. This used to be the case for one or two traffic lights in Nottingham.
2007-02-01 20:31:45 · answer #6 · answered by brian t 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When looking into the mirror your picture is mirrored, when taking a picture with the camera it is not - that makes quite a difference. A webcam on the monitor filming you won't serve you as a mirror when comping your hair because you have the impression that the wrong hand is used. A mirror would be more accurate - it's life size.
2016-03-29 00:32:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes some silly drivers block the boxes and make traffic jams worse
2007-02-03 05:49:57 · answer #8 · answered by Mick 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Speed cameras fail to catch the tailgaters, people who use mobiles and drive dangerously
2007-02-01 17:48:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither should be used.
2007-02-03 11:30:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋