Driven to distraction

Have we suddenly become a nation of budding Michael Schumachers? That is one conclusion to draw from a survey released today showing that almost one in five motorists now have penalty points for speeding. The alternative conclusion, of course, is that the proliferation of speed cameras over the last few years has ruthlessly penalised the driving public.   

According to the survey by insurers Direct Line, 16 per cent of motorists now have penalty points on their licence, with 3 per cent being one offence away from a driving ban.

The survey also reveals that an incredible £121 million was paid out in speeding fines last year, one of the reasons, no doubt, that 67 per cent of respondents think the 6,000 speed cameras erected in the last ten years are more to do with raising cash than improving road safety.

This is a compelling argument, but it is often drowned out by the emotive language used by the road safety lobby.

Unfortunately, the campaigners who advocate the extension of the camera network do not understand that there is only so much that roadside flashing can achieve. After all, many accidents are the result of people driving without licences in stolen, uninsured or unregistered cars.

These drivers are not discouraged by cameras because they can never been tracked down by them. It is only otherwise law-abiding motorists who are penalised, often for very minor infringements that are neither reckless or dangerous. This brings the system into disrepute.

But irrespective of whether or not you consider your speeding ticket justified, there is a good chance your insurance company will use it to increase your premium.

Those who have more than thee points on their licence will certainly have to pay more and drivers who have been banned are likely to face real difficulty obtaining anything other than astronomical quotes.

For more on how speeding offences could affect your car insurance premiums click here

Comments

[Hennie Botha]

I agree that many speed cameras are placed at illogical spots where there are relatively low chances of accidents due to speed. Many of us may not agree with the speed restrictions on a specific stretch of road. BUT as long as there are laws, we are obliged to obey them. It is not for us to just disregard laws because we perceive them as being unjust!

We live in a democratic country where we are allowed to vote and we have many avenues of protest and, if we do not agree with the laws, we have the means to get them changed.

A man can't just have sex with an under-aged girl because he feels that she is old enough to act responsibly. The decision is not yours to make.

If you have a problem with the traffic rules, contest them by all means, but until they are changed, you are expected to obey them or pay the penalty and stop whingeing!

I am all for the cameras that can measure your average speed over a stretch of road. It will eliminate this insane accelerating and braking at cameras which I think is much more dangerous than a constant higher speed.

[albert hall]

No I am not. Any more than I am distracted by pedestrians, cyclists, white van men, BMW drivers, buses, trucks. Or cell phone callers and people who read a newspaper while at the wheel.

Speed cameras are a fact of life to stop drivers behaving like lunatics on the road. The introduction of speed cameras is the fault of lunatic drivers. It you took notice of the signs you would not need them.

I would fine at least £500 for exceeding the 30 mph limit in town. Up to £5,000 for exceeding the 70 mph limit on motorways but no points system. For tailgateing take away the car and scrap it. That would stop such anti-social behaviour stone dead.

Why does a man in an Aston Martin accelerate down a 30 mph road in front of my house every evening with cars parked nose to tail along the road, hitting 5,000 revs, only to jam the brakes on 200 yards later to turn left every evening? What is he trying to prove. Has he something lacking in his head.

I have been driving, without any penalties or accident for 55 years. And no I am not an old fart in a flat cap with a pipe. I have driven, recently, at over 150 mph down the Stuart Highway where the only limit is a 120 ton truck going at 100 mph in the other direction in a 1,000 bhp Ford Fairline hot rod. 0 to 100 in less than seven secs.

When driving just remember you are not the only person using the road and drive the way you would like your airline pilot to do when he/she is taking you on holiday. Steady and controlled and within the envelope as they say.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Peter Cracknell would get zero marks in Analysis 101. He confuses the subjective "speeding" with the objective measurable speed. He takes for granted that a fixed speed limit is necessary when German autobahns prove the opposite.

He contrives simultaneously to believe that dangerous speed is too subjective for a police patrol to determine, yet a blanket speed limit fixed for all vehicles and conditions can objectively decide what is dangerous.

He then takes it upon himself to describe anyone who disagrees with his own beliefs as selfish and irresponsible.

He is obviously fully qualified to stand for Parliament or join the Police.

[Peter Cracknell]

I accept that the 70 mile an hour motorway speed limit could probably be increased without significantly increasing the casualty rate. But this is because there are no other road users like cyclists and pedestrians. One argument for the 70 mile an hour limit is of course that speeds in excess of 70 significantly increase fuel consumption.

A speed camera seems to me the most cost-effective way of enforcing speed limits. The alternative would be to employ more traffic policeman who could then try to make the very questionable subjective judgement as to whether someone's driving is dangerous. Or we could go back to the old system of not really in forcing speed limits.

I think there is an argument to be had about the appropriate speed limit on any given road, and about the appropriate penalty for speeding, but I just don't understand people who argue that exceeding the speed limit is okay.

Maybe people do genuinely believe that speeding is completely unrelated to death and injury on the roads. Some people believe that Appollo 11 did not land on moon, so I guess it is possible. But maybe believing speeding is unrelated to accidents on the road is better than excepting that your behaviour is selfish and irresponsible.

[Mary Brown]

Do speed cameras actually cause accidents? When driving in a constantly changing speed restricted zone one is constantly having to take ones eyes off the road to read the speed omitter. I find this very uncomfortable and potentially dangerous.

[R.Taylor]

£100 pound bill(to Full of Hamm council)for drifting over the white line into a bus lane on a motor bike. When was the last time you saw a bus held up by a motorbike?
Welcome to sleazy Britain's banana rapublic where you can get fined a cocklepicker's monthly wage for something you can legally do in Piccadilly.
And you think they care about "accident rates" ?

[James Brown]

Italy increased speed limits to 93mph on the Autostrada in 2003. The result? Vastly reduced fatalities.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Paul Randall vastly overstates the case that speed determines injury/death outcomes of accidents. Many other factors are involved, including for example: relative weights, heights, directions, vehicle design, tyres and brakes, reaction times, airbags, seatbelts, road surface.

Frankly, it is vastly more important not to have the accident at all at normal highway speeds than whether your initial travel speed was a little higher or lower.

So whenever there is a risk of a youngster running in front of my car, I don't travel at the speed limit, I travel slower and when possible further away from the child. Conversely when I can clearly see there are no risks of collisions I am often happy to travel faster than the speed limit.

Oversimplistic nonsense is the kind of thinking that has produced the speed camera debacle.

Rewarding children works better than punishing them. Adults are no different.

[Richard DeHavillande]

Why does Paul Randall assume that Airmiles obeys speed limits just to frustrate other drivers?

I also try to obey speed limits because I live in a small village with virtually no public transport and can not afford to risk using my licence.

There are many times when the speed limit seems pointless given the traffic density and road conditions but will that count if there is a mobile speed camera - NO.

I see no reason why I should risk my licence just because another driver wishes to drive through a village at 60 rather than at 30 - I would not try to prevent anyone from overtaking.

Allowing drivers to use their judgement about safe speed has some merits but what happens when you encounter a police officer with different views (or one who has had a bad day). At least with speed cameras it is one rule for all. probably the only way to stop speeding (if that is the real intention) would be to have so many speed cameras on every road to make it impossible to speed without being caught.

[Stephen Large]

In reply to Airmiles, I'm afraid that you come across as a little smug and sanctimonious. "Always drive at the speed limits, never exceed them..." etc. Somertimes the speed limit for a particular stretch of road is wholly inappropriate and driving at that speed, presumably just to prove a point or frustrate other drivers, is not clever or funny. In fact driving at too slow a speed for the conditions is to my mind a more dangerous approach than speeding as it encourages reckless behaviour like Airmiles has experienced. Also Airmiles when did you see the police themselves driving at just the speed limit? So knock it off and have a bit of courtesy for your fellow road users.

[Paul Randall]

Speed does not cause the great majority of accidents - discuss. A child walks into the road in front of her house - the motorist can correctly claim that his speed was not a factor in the cause of the accident. The car is travelling at 30+ mph and the child is dead; the car is travelling at an appropriate speed for a residential area and the child is badly bruised but back at school in a few days. Speed may not cause accidents, but it always determines the outcome, the damage, the injury and the deaths.
Paul Randall

[David Cook]

I agree that speeding is a problem, and cameras are also a problem. To stop the problem, modern technology can be used very simply. All cars are fitted with speed limiters, with gps control. This means no-one will speed again. End of problem with speeding, and a sideline bonus, who will want to steal a car and go joyriding at 30mph......

[Alan Wilkinson]

There are two useful questions to ask about rigid speed limit enforcement:

* Does it reduce accidents?
* Does it add value to road travel?

Unfortunately, most of the fundamental research on these questions I have investigated is deeply flawed but it is clear that if there are any beneficial effects they are small.

Motorists are entitled to ask what is being done to make road travel faster, safer and more efficient.

I believe car manufacturers are doing a lot, but roading authorities are doing little. Consequently, travel times are trending up, not down.

Like everything else, the key to innovation and progress is competition. Roading authorities are monopolies - so they just don't care about good service. Speeding crackdowns are about transfering the blame to the monopolists' customers, nothing else.

Those who parrot: "If you don't break the law you won't get a ticket" need to ask why shouldn't we seek to travel faster more safely?

[Martin Trainer]

I am amazed at the righteousness of the "speed-limit observers" who preach at everyone else. Basic common sense indicates two things of relevance:

1 The safe speed on a road will vary according to weather conditions, time of day, traffic volumes, variations in lines of sight, potential hazards such as dogs or pedestrians. Accordingly where a road is designated with a particular speed limit there will be occasions where it is very safe indeed to drive faster than that limit, and occasions when it is dangerous to drive on or indeed under it.

2 Deliberately driving in such a way as to hold up other drivers, and thereby anger them, is dangerous in and of itself.

Our speed limits are in general too low, and accordingly are (at best) treated as a minimum speed not a maximum speed. The law is an ass, and at least policing with a bit of common sense would leave it with a modicum of respect.
The public does not consider speeding an offence and I bet that on 90% of all journeys the driver has broken the law several times by speeding. And almost always perfectly safely.

Preachers, environmentalists, and indeed policemen who pretend otherwise are deluded souls.

[Rob Fleming]

If the effort is made to learn where local speed cameras are sited, between them obscene speeds can be attained in the confidence that non Gatso policing has atrophied to the point of irrelevance. Most drivers treat speed cameras with similar, careful disregard and speed undetected with impunity. I have every sympathy for those filmed from afar by mobile camera. But it's an unobservant, vocal minority who gripe about getting 'caught' by a blatant yellow box and a set of warning marks painted on the road in front of them.

[Marc Levine]

The proliferation of speed cameras, bus lane cameras, yellow box junctions and a whole army of unnecessary parking police have removed from our country any form of common sense.

About a year ago I got stuck in a traffic jam on Haverstock Hill, Belsize park. I wanted to turn left but couldn't because of the bus lane (empty) due to a bus further up the road that had broken down.

Eventually a few cars in front used the bus lane to get out of the melly and turned left. After a few minutes I followed.

Naturally I got fined, some jobsworth watching me in my car try and use some common sense. I appealed and was turned down. The adjudicator said that the only time I could drive in the bus lane is when instructed to do so by a Police officer. What about common sense I asked? Doesn't come in to it he replied. In other words we should have remained there until hell froze over - poluting the environment with our exhaust fumes.

In a separate incident, my wife returned to find her car had been towed. She paid for the parking space on Muswell Hill Road but returned 10mins late. The car was not causing an obstruction but the tow truck did as it blocked the road to remove the car. All for the sake of stealing £190 from us. ALl local authorities across the country have the right to tow or clamp any vehicle parked 'illegally'. The trouble is they are prevented by law from telling you that you might get towed. Thankfully most don't. Haringey does. We will never shop in Muswell Hill again.

Just like the congestion charge (~80,000 people paying £8/day = £640,000 and ~10,000 paying £100 fine = £1m) all these schemes are simply focused on raising revenue by whatever underhand means necessary.

Britain is a Fine country. It's financed by Fines.

[James Brown]

The 70mph limit was set in 1964 and is now both embarrassing and insulting, given the advances in engineering and technology.

I suspect that if the 70mph limit were removed, many more drivers would respect the slower 30mph limits in town because they would have the opportunity to make up for lost time on the motorway.

As a frequent traveller on UK Motorways and German Autobahns, I can confirm that speed does *not* cause accidents. When drivers travel faster, they tend to refrain from lane changing, which leads to safer driving. The other benefit is that you have a much better quality of life when you can travel to places so quickly and easily without the constant worry/stress of having broken the law. Anyone in favour of speed limits on the Motorway must visit Germany before commenting…

[Katie]

I drive at the speed limits. Don't exceed them, don't get fined. I'm not a slow driver. I drive a reasonably high performance car. I pull away from junctions swiftly where appropriate.

I have, in fact, been tried to drive at high speeds safely -- the same driving course the police take.

Instead of speeding fines, I do get, however, dangerously tailgated, aggressively overtaken and (several times in the last month) actually run off the road by people who simply have to get to their destination faster than my obeying the speed limit will let them. This is usually acheived by them trying to overtake me into oncoming traffic and running out of road - at which point they simply pull back in and leave me to drive into the verge to avoid them. This kind of near miss due to other driver's tempers are not frequent -- often only once or twice a month but the aggressive tailgating happens on a daily basis and near-misses from that are common.

From time to time they fail to miss and their insurance pays to have a new back fitted to my car at enourmous inconvenience to myself.

None of this is captured by cameras, the police simply will not take reports and conduct even the most cursory of investigations.

As far as I can tell, there are no road traffic laws within the West Midlands apart from the speedlimits. Drivers are absolutely free to drive in any manner in which they like, provided they do not exceed the speed limit.

The Cheif Constable refuses to answer my inquiries as to when he plans to start enforcing the other traffic laws, stating that "he does not deal with operational matters".

What I find most annoying about this is the apparent immunity that most drivers seem to have to speed cameras IN ADDITION to the apparent complete suspension of other traffic laws.

I expect that if I exceed the limit, I would get fined, and something would happen were I to deliberately cause collisions. This does not appear to be the case for most drivers who can not only exceed the limits without fear, but cause actual accidents without fear of prosecution either.

[Airmiles]

The more cameras, the better! Fine the moronic speedsters until their pips squeak!
Teach them a lesson, until they come around to being good, responsible, disciplined, law abiding citizens!

[Ross Firestone]

I sympathize with drivers in the U.K. Here in the US speed cameras or red light cameras are rarely used because they are not effective. US license plates have letters and numerals which are only half the size of those on UK plates, and they often are not black on a plain white background, for example, Colorado's has red alphanumerics on a white and green mountain background.

License plate "shields" are available which defeat speed and red light cameras by making the plates unreadable when viewed from above or the side. These cost less than £20 for U.S. plates.

In addition, most police in the US don't consider speeding a major problem as long as you are moving with the traffic. Traffic into the center of Chicago often moves smoothly at 130 km/hr even though the speed limit is 80. But if you've weaving in and out traffic at 150 km/hr you'll be arrested for "excessive speeding."

[The Impressionist]

The solution to the speed camera issue is remarkably simple although seems to evade many of your correspondents. Don't speed and you won't get caught. If I catch myself exceeding the speed limit then I slow down. What's so hard about that? If speed cameras are a source of revenue to the public purse then that's fine by me.

Many motorists claim some God-given right to endanger other road users by driving irresponsibly. Speeding is one example that technology can currently detect. Tailgating those of us who try to stick to the limits is another and hopefully we will find a way to stop that, too.

I am fed up listening to self-centred, gas-guzzling four-by-fourers and boy racers who seem to think that killing innocent road users is an acceptable consequence of their inability to drive responsibly.

[Pierre Graves]

Speed limits haven't been updated to reflect improvements in car braking and control systems since they were introduced decades ago. The days of taking your life in your hands as you applied the brakes of your mkI Ford Escort are long gone. The reason these out-dated laws remain is to make money for local police authorities, the Revenue and companies like Serco. The perfect public-private partnership, unless you happen to be a member of the over-taxed public! If the Government want to reduce needless deaths then perhaps they should concentrate on the higher numbers of luckless individuals who now die each year from hospital acquired infections in wards serviced by the same companies who operate the cameras. Or is it just easier to print-off the car number plates and cash the cheques than it is to clean hospitals properly?

[James Hendry]

We have had cameras in Australia now for a lot longer I lived in the countryside and traveled along a 10km road with a few bends and trees in the 10 years I lived there 12 people died on that road but I never seen one camera. Since moving to the city I may see 2 cameras within 1km of home.
This had the effect that the message did get though that if you speed on safe roads you get fined in the name of road safty,so when the revenue droped the govt of the day lowered the speed limit on side sreets fair enough and also some main roads the catch is as the default limit is 50 if a main road is 50 insted of 60 you have to guess no signs. You only know when you get the letter in the post you guessed wrong. so we have 60 km roads with people doing 50 causing road rage. Good job the sun shines

[John Tomlin]

As I see it, the principal role of the police is to prevent crime and catch criminals. The most powerful weapon the police have in their armoury to do this job is 'Public Cooperation'.
By positioning speed cameras to raise revenue and persecute otherwise law-abiding citiens merely serves to disarm the police of this imprtant weapon.
Speed cameras outside schools, pedestrian areas and other areas where excessive speed may be a cause of accidents I support - but most of the speed cameras appear to me to be all about raising of revenue and control freakery.

[jack lumber]

I just wonder why no attention is paid to vehicle wieght in relation to the speed it is doing.
Two vehicles doing 30mph.
One weighs 1000kgs and the other 2000kgs.
One has a sloped bonnet e,g Honda Civic and the second a slab fronted 4x4 ( no name necessary).
Stand J Clarkson ( or his effigy) in front of both and let each vehicle hit it at 30mph.
Which vehicle would do most damage - which vehicle would JC prefer to be hit by?
Please get JC to address this question.
thanks
jack lumber

[Paul Dale]

I travel every day on a country road. It is approx 5 miles between main roads, is totally straight, has 5 houses in total on the road & has the mobile speed van there most every week for a couple of days.
Saving lives ? Only if you are a hedgehog

[Paul Dale]

These speed cameras are a nonsense.
It's argued that speed kills. Ok then why is it quite ok for police & ambulances to speed, what's the difference.
The retort is that they are trained.
Ergo it's not speed that kills, it's training, or the lack of it.
It's not speed that kills, it's the nut behind the wheel that kills. Just go out on a road & see the youths that weave between cars, tailgate & do stupid things.
Speed is a secondary consideration. Speed cameras will not reduce the "Nuts behind the wheels" but it will bring in a sizeable revenue

[PGS]

In NSW (Australia), the state government has just started using the 'distance speed camera' method on the motorways. These clock the time you enter & leave - then send you a ticket if you have completed the journey too fast. I believe France has been using this for some time. Whilst I don't like speed cameras, I consider this to be the better method.

[Bernie]

Whenever I see a traffic camera and I happen to be going too fast I slow down and then I automatically accelerate back to my normal speed like everyone else. I assume the camera is there to trap me. However, there are occasions when I come upon a radar operated traffic signal which suddenly flashes at me to ‘ slow down’. No camera involved. Somehow I give this signal more credibility and I do actually slow down and drive more carefully. I notice other drivers do the same. Why can’t they use more of these type of signals. I am sure drivers would take heed of them more than the cameras.

[Richard Angry]

Your correspondent who cites the Netherlands clearly hasn't spent much time there. They all speed and the motorway tailgating scares me who's used to the M25! The reasons residential areas are safer is because they are planned around cycle lanes etc. - something we could learn from.
The big problem with speed cameras is that they rigidly enforce arbitrary speed limits with no recognition of different driving conditions. Sometimes it is safe to drive above the limit, sometimes the limit is not safe. Furthermore the driver ends up spending half his time watching his speedo instead of the road or panic brakes "just in case" he's speeding to the consternation of those of us following who are aware of both our own speed and the prevailing limit. Both scenarios increase rather than decrease the risk of an accident!

[Christopher Hall]

To speed safely requires wit and good driving ability, experience with all manner of situations and knowing how to judge when speeding is irresponsible and when speeding is perfectly fine. So, since the government has yet to implement any technology that looks inside our minds and assesses objectively whether or not we are fit to speed, we have a blanket instead, a one-size-fits-all cash extractor. Naturally, being of socialist / autocratic origins the blanket is suitably inflexible. But how could it be any better? In my experience speed camera policy is rather like environmental policy when it comes to fossil fuel. Both always sound so righteous and sensible, like, ooh I don't know, all the many virtuous reasons for war in Iraq perhaps.

[Peter Dignam]

I have been trapped by various devices and always in circumstances that are bright, sunny, clear days on dual carriageways with well-spaced traffic and no danger whatsoever imminent or pending from myself or the other vehicles travelling at the same speed.

The most negative aspect of this has been the total alienation of myself from the police, the law, and the judicial system in general.

When a system has become so patently unfair and and arbitrary, then it undermines the whole process of civil society working toward a just and better environment.

I now look at police cars with suspicion and fear and would not dream of informing them of other instances of genuine crime as they have totally lost my confidence. I have been wrongly criminalised and society at large is the ultimate loser as this scenario is repeated with other previously upstanding citizens.

[Taylor]

The speed camera / trap policy is a transparent sham, a parasite industry designed to raise funds and create employment for 'officers' who might otherwise be back flipping burgers or stocking shelves.
The notion that this legalised piracy is 'accident prevention' or 'road safety' is demonstrably denied by the passive nature of speed traps.
There is nothing a camera can do to stop a car speeding at 90mph in a 30mph limit ploughing into another. There is no element of accident prevention. Indeed, the cameras are specially sited and often concealed where there is more chance of speeding. Rather than doing something active like road narrowing or chicanes, they see a revenue raising opportunity to set up a trap to raise a few bob.
Recently I heard a sanctimonious speed camera officer preaching on the radio as he photographed speeding drivers at a road works.

As he tut tutted, the camera was racking up revenue every few seconds. Any intelligent human being genuinely concerned about road safety could have reduced the speed of vehicles by the judicious use of a couple of dozen traffic cones. Nothing he was doing protected the public. Nor would any of the speeding cars he claimed to be concerned about be prevented from coliding with a workman.

He was simply there to make a bit of money and very successful he was too. And I'd say he was being paid more as he was standing around sermonising than any of the workmen or many of his victims.

Mobile speed traps often set up shop on steep hills in the confident knowledge that people unwittingly exceed the speed limit in such places. Motorways engineers routinely take such factors into consideration when designing them, and setting up speed cameras on long slopes is a perfect illustration of cynical exploitation.
If this were not enough, the speed trap manaufacturers and police employ very dubious technology when persecuting and exploiting the motoring public. The time and cost of challenging this extortion is calculated to deter anyone but the most wealthy. In my view, ordinary honest working people are legally ambushed and robbed as they travel to work.

[paul lyall]

Fact: virtually everybody speeds, especially on a motorway. Just try driving at a steady 70 and see how many vehicles pass you. Almost all cars, and just about every white van. If this has become accepted practice, how hypocritical is it to try and impose a law that has lost popular support? The only possible way to regain public support at this stage is to penalise dangerous speed where really necessary. That is not revenue collection on a safe dual carrigeway. It is proper policing of urban limits. It implies realistic acceptance of higher speeds elsewhere. It also implies a better concentration on otherforms of dangerous driving. This is far wider than speeding. Fine away, please, for the en-route use of mobile phones, cigarettes, bananas, poor equipment, or inability to drive properly through alcohol, drugs or ineptitude.

[Proud Brit]

Speed camera's are there to stop people speeding or catch people speeding, depending on what side of the fence you sit on! LIFE IS SIMPLE. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY, DON'T SPEED.
Laws, are not ment to be "interpreted flexibly and treated as guidance", as Dominic would like to think. If this was the case there would be a lot less people in our jails and a lot more crime on our streets.

[Brian Roberts]

The debate about speed on our roads and the use of speed cameras is one that can and i guess will go on for a long time. I feel however the debate is just part of a much larger debate, and that is the debate around our use of cars, the Treasury's huge dependance on the revenue collected from the motorist and the safety lobbyists as well as the green factor. As a nation we have now become very dependant upon the motor vehicle, public transport is next to useless in most areas and often unreliable. We have become used to the independance of our own transport and most of us are unlikely to be persuaded into giving it up. Therefore we have become an easy target from which to raise huge sums of cash and the Government has known this for several decades hence the budgetary increase in fuel duty every year hence we arrive at the point we do today where 70% of what we pay for fuel goes straight to the Treasury. Now to the speed camera, It took them a while but now our constabulary's have also realised the cash generating potential of the British motorist and the speed camera has become the the most cost effective way of generating much needed income. I am not against the use of these cameras where it can be proved that they make a difference, there are many accident blackspots where speed is often a contributory factor to accidents and a camera can and will reduce the accident rate. However there are many cameras sited on stretches of road and motorway where clearly they are there just to generate cash, there is no safety issue, there is no history of accidents and actually since introducing the camera there have been a number of minor shunts as drivers slow to avoid the dreaded flash. One such camera is sited in West Wales on the M4 just past Port Talbot it is clearly a cynical ploy to raise cash there was never a safety issue on what is a straight piece of motorway, there was no history of accidents and since its introduction there have been a number of minor shunts, but it has raised several thousand pounds for the South Wales Police force. It is this use of the camera that most people object to and rightly so, the camera should be used to increase the safety on our roads not generate cash. Finally on speed issue as a motorist who travels over 20,000 miles per annum mostly on motorways I am increasingly concerned with the number of near misses i see as HGV's attempt to overtake each other. To explain as we know for the past few years HGV's have been limited to 56mph however it is clear that for what ever reason one HGV may only be able to reach 53mph and another may be able to reach 57/58mph as a result the slightly faster vehicle will attempt to overtake the slightly slower vehicle the whole process can take over 1 to 2 miles to complete and several minutes. On a three lane motorway this means a lot of vehicles having to move into the third lane to overtake and here is where a number of near misses and often shunts take place. For example a car travelling at 70 mph is suddenly confronted by a HGV doing 56mph pulling out in front of him to overtake a HGV doing 54mph the choice for the car driver is to brake hard to avoid collision with HGV or a sudden switch to the outside lane to overtake often forcing faster traffic to brake suddenly to avoid a collission or not as sometimes is the case. I accept that some of the issues above are about the car driver not being aware and reacting to quickly with out checking, however you cannot escape the fact that the speed of the HGV is the major factor in these incidents. On a two lane motorway the process can result in tailbacks for up to three miles and in some cases causing traffic three miles back down the motor way to come to a complete standstill.I do not pretend to know what the answer to this problem is, i understand the thinking behind limiting the speed of HGV's but by doing so they have caused a different, but just as serious problem. I for one and i am sure many other motorists would welcome any suggestions to resolving this problem.

[Kevin O'Brien]

Originally the argument for speed cameras was that if situated in accident black-spots they would reduce the number of accidents. Providing people driving too fast was the prime cause for those accidents it worked okay. That argument still holds true but most of them now are situated with no actual regard for accident black-spots at all. Their locations are generally well known to local residents who slow down when necessary whilst unknowing strangers to the area get stung. One camera in my home area is situated near a school, fair enough you might say. However there hasn't been an accident in that vicinity in living memory and as for the school aspect, local residents snort with derision at the suggestion that anyone could excede the 30mph limit at school opening or closing times. You are hard pressed to do more than 5 mph at such times, such is the congestion. All the evidence suggests that they are device to raise money from the soft targets i.e. ordinary folk who because they are essentially non-criminal types are easy to trace, track and kick in the teeth with impunity.

[Neil Murphy]

The vast majority of accidents are caused by poor driving - tail gating, cutting up, overtaking innappropriately etc. Speed is rarely a cause of an accident, although it will exacerbate an accident that happens for other reasons. I believe there is value in cameras at accident black spots - well advertised and with clear notofication of the speed limit - such as at Elksley on the A1. But cameras that are being placed just to enforce arbitrary speed limits birng the system into disrepute and do little to reduce accidents.

Like all laws, the speed limits need to be interpreted flexibly and treated as guidance except where there is a clear need for strong limits - eg outside schools, in heavily bult up areas etc.

The motorways are our safest roads and speeding is common. Go figure.

[Dominic]

Its interesting that the British are penalised for doing what EVERY German motorists does EVERY day without breaking ANY laws and without signficant differences in serious injury/death motoring rates.

Truly, its time to take control of YOUR lives and kick out the @#&@$# in the British parliment. Stop being little childern and kick out the Nany. Its time to grow up.

OR, maybe the British are just inferior !!!

[eddie reader]

It is truly remarkable how people who consider themselves both intelligent and decent citizens lose all sense of decency over a metal box on four wheels.
Britain has the third highest pedestrian death rate in Europe, being a cyclist in Britain should be part of the selection procedure for the SAS.
Driving, or cycling, in Holland is a real eye-opener. First of all traffic flows smoothly, but at a relaxed pace. Secondly, and this may be the cause of the smooth flow of traffic, no-one (or at least none that I have ever seen) breaks the speed limit. The reason? Cameras are not obvious. If you suspect one may be around the next corner you are likely to behave accordingly.
Finally, it is my understanding that, in Holland, if a death or serious injury is caused then the driver is assumed guilty unless proven innocent. This has a very salutory effect. In Britain a death caused by a motorist isn't even treated correctly - as manslaughter.
The presentation of the figures quoted is also bizarre. 16% having points means 84% (the vast majority by a long way) do not. £121 million is probably only about £6 per motorist per year or about £40 per convicted motorist - hardly a huge sum.
The tired old argument about cameras being more about rasining revenue than road safety is irrelevant. If you still break the speed limit after all the warnings British motorists have of an approaching camera you deserve to pay.

[Susan Glinska]

To my mind, the real problem with speeding fines and incentive-driven parking wardens is the total removal of the usual process of justice that we would normally expect.

For once that flash goes off in the rear view mirror, the motorist is tried and convicted without any sort of a hearing. And to challenge the findings, the "offender" is expected to pay their fine upfront, and then apply for a refund - a process that pits the "ordinary" citizen against a full-time bureaucracy. Call centres in the developing world have nothing on the impenetrable call centres that pass for a public service.

One website which has turned motorists' frustrations into a business is http://www.appealnow.com. Has anyone else used it? Does it work?