Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 12th October 2008

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.

Burning issue: Should average-speed cameras be installed across urban areas?



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

Published Date: 24 March 2008
YES
Geoff Collins, sales and marketing director, Speed Check Services
IN AN urban environment, anything that moderates excessive speed and prevents stop/start driving is going to be beneficial. Environmentally, driving at a steady average speed will produce lower emissions and burn less fuel. Speed humps and chicanes
could be removed from routes that need to be accessed by the emergency services. Also, it could be the spur that allows parents to encourage their children to cycle on the roads in the area where they live, breeding a new generation of road users with practical, first-hand experience of the road, before they fearlessly get behind the wheel of their own cars.

Average-speed cameras are unpopular with the anti-camera lobby, probably because they work; offence levels are very low and compliance is extremely high. Drivers understand that their speed is measured over a length of road, and if they aren't looking out for physical measures – be they cameras, chicanes or humps – they can focus more on their driving, allowing them to concentrate on the road, and hazards around them.

The first Specs cameras were installed in 1999, and since then more than 70 permanent schemes have been used. Anyone who has driven through a roadworks average speed enforced zone will notice the calming influence on driver behaviour, resulting in a smooth and safe flow of traffic. This influence is equally true in urban situations, resulting in moderated speeds and a significant reduction in the likelihood of collisions. Where they are used, average-speed cameras make drivers more attentive and roads safer.

NO
Neil Greig, director, Institute of Advanced Motorists' Motoring Trust

THE 20mph zones that are now a common sight in Scotland by and large work. Speeds are reduced and accidents are less frequent. The best zones are in residential areas where they are self- enforcing. These roads are only used by locals, a few dead ends cut out rat-running and the comparative narrowness of the roads does not encourage speeding. With investment in environmental improvements alongside the 20mph limit a win-win scenario soon develops, with children allowed to play outside and increased walking and cycling.

The Institute of Advanced Motorosts' Motoring Trust does not believe that the wholesale spread of average-speed cameras into our towns and cities is the best way to reduce accidents and improve the environment. Research shows that most drivers don't tend to break limits but also shows that they set their speed by the visual clues around them. In most cities, particularly on main routes, it is clearly quite safe to drive at 30mph. If, however, there are parked cars, schoolchildren, narrow streets or congestion we all slow down anyway. If average-speed cameras are used to impose an unnatural limit that is a recipe for frustration and resentment.

Average-speed cameras are very expensive to install and maintain – the A77 system cost £775,000 and an urban area scheme of eight cameras could cost about £250,000.

In our view this money would be better spent on streetscape improvement and walking and cycling facilities as well as improving traffic flow on main routes to keep drivers away from the areas people live in.





The full article contains 545 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Bill Whitehead,

24/03/2008 01:53:50
Of course they should install more cameras and avoid at all costs putting qualified police officers back on the road.

If they go back to actually stopping people, all those people who've bought fake plates will have wasted their money.

Took em four years to catch one motorcyclist down south inspite of being photographed 66 times.

I think we can all agree, Speed cameras, excellent value for money.
2

Hmm ...,

24/03/2008 09:41:22
... interesting that the only person that The Scotsman could find to speak in favour of speed cameras was the Sales Director of a speed camera supplier!

Not that I doubt his sincerity. Or his desire to increase sales. Of speed cameras.
3

Hmm ...,

24/03/2008 09:42:29
I am sure that the manager of a Speed Camera Partnership would also have spoken in favour - he too has a career and pension to look out for!
4

Oldcynic,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 11:45:07
Yes, it's like asking a butcher if we should eat meat!
5

ThePeter,

glasgae 24/03/2008 12:43:48
they should have asked him to play devils advocate and put forward a case for NOT installing them..
6

BK,

Cyberspace 24/03/2008 16:46:24
Yes, install them - and put all maniacal murdering boy racers off the road - preferably for good! The roads will be much safer without them.
7

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/03/2008 21:17:49
"The roads will be much safer without them."

Yes. They would be much safer without speed cameras.

"Boy racers", Mr BK, are not the kind of people who are caught by speed cameras. It is the ordinary man on the street who is ripped off by these infernal devices.

Speed cameras have steadily made our roads more dangerous and they should be scrapped NOW. They are blatant money-making devices and the authorites have circumvented the basic right to silence during their implimentation.

They serve no purpose except to endanger life.
8

Bill Whitehead,

25/03/2008 16:10:36
BK, if you really honestly believe that the boy racers are even slightly put out by speed cameras, let alone their behaviour curtailed.

Then you deserve the government you vote for and the declining state of the country and it's people like you the rest of us who aren't so easily fooled hold to blame.

Ridiculous.
9

Bill Whitehead,

25/03/2008 16:18:22
The speed camera argument is as fundamentally stupid as the increase on taxes to reduce binge drinking.

A hardcore minority cause the problem, the governments answer is to punish everyone, meanwhile, the hardcore hard drinking few who steal the money to drink theirselves into oblivion just steal more money.

Same is true with speed cameras, a hardcore minority persistantly break the law, so the government believe it's own propaganda, erect cameras that indescriminately prosecute everyone meanwhile, totally miss the perpetrators that caused the problem in the first place.

Please note: don't bother arguing that if you break the speed limit, you break the law, therefore you deserve to be punished, the country as a whole are tired of the constant propaganda of the camera partnerships who won't listen.

Or in other words ..you're catching loads of people yes, but the people you designed this system to catch aren't fooled by a polaroid on a pole that can be disabled with a pot of paint from the iron mongers.

Meanwhile, because some semi illiterate official believes the speed camera results and doesn't understand the science, authority decide not to apply targets or funding to real police officers and they disappear from the road.

Foolish, stupid, short sighted policy of clearly ignorant but blatantly greedy incompetent government.
10

Bill Whitehead,

25/03/2008 16:28:55
oh ..and how do you verify this?

Simple, pick any article in any paper countrywide where a constabulary decides to hold a public relations exercise and have an unannounced three day crack down on illegal drivers and the catch rate is absolutly astonishing.

The constabulary constantly congratulates itself on how many people were caught, but not one of them asks what any right minded individual would ask.

If speed cameras are doing such a great job, why when we put real police on the road for a couple of days, is there such a shockingly high catch rate of illegal drivers?

I can only assume in the comfort of your local council head quarters someone is under the illusion that they were just lucky to catch all those drivers on the three day exercise and the roads aren't like it all the time and consistantly getting worse as the absence of the police generally allows open season to anyone who wants to flout the law.

The warning signs are all there, but somebody somewhere isn't inteligent enough to figure it out.
11

Bill Whitehead,

26/03/2008 09:16:18
Here's a metaphore for you:

One day you're in the kitchen and you spot a Rat scurrying back into it's hole behind the kitchen sink.

So, like any concerned home owner aware of the damage a rodent infestation can cause, you rush out immediately and invest in a dozen traps.

Night after night you catch the best part of a dozen mice and as the weeks go by the number of catches starts to dwindle, after several more weeks you're down to just the occassional catch which fills you with pride and you congratulate yourself for your successful strategy.

A little later a friend tells you he has a rat problem and you pass on you strategy for a successful rodent purge, boasting of your prowess at bringing the problem under control.

Then one morning, you're in the kitchen and you notice the same original rat you saw that first day scurrying back into it's hole behind the kitchen sink and realise you've totally failed to do what you set out to do.

If you hadn't worked it out, the hardcore dangerous inconsiderate drivers who actually end up causing all the problems, are rats, not mice.
12

Stuart Summers,

Cleveland 26/03/2008 13:01:02
I didn't realise that it was the rats causing all of the problems - aren't their paws too small to steer?

They are probably all on income support as well, and almost certainly illegally in the country too.
13

Bill Whitehead,

26/03/2008 16:50:05
I appologise to anyone who doesn't understand what a metaphor is, however I don't believe that rats grow old enough to claim income support.

As to wether rats are legal in this country, that is open to debate, but then the government don't know where thousands of illegal 'human' immigrants are,(although it would seem the english employ quite a few of them in their houses of parliament, humans ..not rats) so the chances of knowing how many rats claim various types of benefit is realistically quite slim.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.