Speed cameras and cutting death rate on the road?

Question

I'm going to get lynched for this.
Everybody cries out at the death rate on the road due to speeding so what comes along the camera your caught your fined you dont pay .Pounds are wasted chasing non payers and still everyone is speeding here and there.
Why not do away with the cameras and put limiters on all new cars manufactured so they cant speed . who the hell needs to go from 0-60 in 3 seconds anyway or cruise at 160mph.

Answer 1

good point what level of responsibilty does the manufacturer bear...well they do loads of test and we all have the mot to ensure surviving while driving a roadworthy car...l guess the rest is in our hands....we have a licence....why jepordise it...if we were clever....we would realise that sticking to the rules...cost no money...and going slower can make for really enjoyable driving....we all like the feeling of speed though....but l would argue that the feeling of driving 'profesionally' is much more satisfying...last point is that when you floor the accelerator..its the designer who has the triumph..not you.....as it is thier ingenuity that you celebrate not your own driving skill.

Answer 2

IF you put a 70 mph speed limiter on a car then it can still do 70 mph through a 30 mph street which is where most of the deaths occur.This means it is a total waste of time,and on top gear it was proven that speed camera's do NOT reduce the deaths on our roads.They are just cash machines for our rip off goverment...

Answer 3

i watched a documentry approximately this approximately 18 months in the past. and those are info, for the final 10 years deaths on all roads have been dropping specifically using extra desirable technologies in automobiles ie extra suited breaking, air bags and so on, it endured up till approximately 2 years in the past whilst it began upward thrust lower back. you may now take from that what you will, besides the incontrovertible fact that interior the checklist they sent a policeman to germany (many motorways with out velocity limits) yet additionally has much less deaths than the u.ok on nicely-known, you desire to be conscious of what the policeman concluded ? that in spite of the reality that the evidence replaced into incredibly there staring him interior the face "nicely velocity nevertheless kills" replaced into his respond velocity would kill, besides the incontrovertible fact that,there are tousands upon thousand of risky/unlawful driver obtainable, we would desire to maintain the jogging public off the line (if a motor vehicle replaced into drivinbg on the pavement you would be in enormous worry so why walk on the line ?) and placed across lower back the site visitors police in automobiles to rid our roads of those drivers.

Answer 4

but mate.. you gotta love supercars hun!!

and yeh in Germany there's places with no speed limit. so seeing as a lot of companies are german any way..we'd need a british manufacturer for that idea.. oh dear we haven't got any!
xx

it's simple. scrap the cameras. they don't do anything, if your gna speed then yur gna speed and just get done, but the government uses any way to make money so it's not gna happen. basically.. damn huevr came up with the idea =]

xxx

happy new year!

Answer 5

Thing is, the actual percentage of deaths on the roads which are directly caused by speeding (i.e. driving in excess of the prevailing speed limit) is about 10%. Most fatalities occur either through poor driving or on a road where the permitted speed limit is higher than that which the occupants of a car can survive an impact, i.e. a 60mph A road, or a dual carriageway.
There is little evidence to suggest that speed cameras actually reduce the death rate, either in the UK, or elsewhere. In fact the UK has the highest percentage of speed cameras per mile of road of any European country, but our death rate per mile is actually higher than other places. Why?
Modern technology has made speeding a very easy and lucrative target for the government to extract yet more money from our wallets. If they actually cared about road safety, they'd put more Police on the roads to catch the dangerous, unroadworthy, drunk, drugged, uninsured and stupid people who either cannot or will not drive responsibly.

Answer 6

Speed cameras are not there to cut "death rates" they are put in places where the likelihood of revenue income is going to be greatest. This means that you usually find cameras on the safest stretches of road.

This "Speed Kills" mantra is totally wrong. Speed alone has never killed anyone. Stupidity, inexperience, road conditions, drink, drugs, badly maintained vehicle, etc, etc have the potential to cause death especially in combination. But listing the real reasons for death on our roads is not as simple as using the facile "Speed Kills"...

The safest roads are those with the highest speed limits.

Answer 7

You have a simplistic, unworkable solution based on widely publicised misinformation.

The safest roads in Britain are the motorways (according to Government statistics). They also have the highest average speed.

75% of all road accidents in this country occur at LESS than 30mph (according to Government statistcs).

So exactly how would the ludicrous concept of a 70mph speed limiter actually reduce accidents? That's correct - it wouldn't...

Answer 8

Speed cameras are yet another example of the government getting a little more revenue on the pretext of road safety. Cameras are placed where they will earn the most revenue not where they will assist road safety. The placing of them in so called accident hot-spots is again a nonsense . If an accident is under a bridge and a motorway over it, the camera will be placed in the area but on the motorway where there has been no accident. It is this sort of tactic which not only brings the police into disrepute but the whole legal process

Answer 9

Sounds good however the average speed cameras are better than gatso as the speeders have to maintain the average for the road and slowing down for the cameras doesn't work.

Answer 10

You must 8nderstand that you live in a "Nanny State" Where 5he govt. tells yoou how to live, what to eat, how to excersise,etc.etc.
This was not the role of Govt. when it was first devised, but now we have 8 Parliaments governing 20 million people ( UK have one governing 150 million), they have to justify their existence, and do this by imagining new laws and regulations - half of which are nonsensical and do not work.
30 years ago they sent a delegation (junket) of 4 people to Europe to " study Roundabouts " for the RTA .
A letter would have sufficed . Anyway they got it all wrong