Poll: new speed cameras - for or against?

Your comments are flooding in after the publication today of Ben Webster's story about the introduction of clusters of speed cameras monitoring the average speed of drivers.

The digital cameras will be rolled out on hundreds of roads next year, making it impossible to evade detection when drivers rise above the speed limit because they will cover every entry and exit point and - unlike earlier versions - never run out of film.

"More cameras = more Big Brother", writes John of Colchester, while Ash from Doncaster replies: "Those of you who say it's another way of bleeding money out of you - don't speed and it won't cost you!"

It's clearly a divisive issue. Jeremy Clarkson, for one, has aired his views on such safety technology on this website before.

All of which leads us to ask one question: average-speed cameras - for or against? Tell us now by voting in our poll.

Online Surveys & Market Research

Comments

[Brian Healy]

I wonder if H.M Forces really recognise the damage to their own credibility with this misguided stealth tax.People at every level of society understand there are far more effective measures available to
manage speed and safety.The increase in cameras and their funding mechanism is nothing short of a national disgrace

[Alex Fear]

Why don't they just bring back the man who walks ahead of your car with a red flag to warn people you are coming.. 0% driving fatalities.

Of course some of us would have to do a 2 day working week with sleep over, and see our relatives maybe once a year.

Heck, horse and cart might become fashionable again.. of course the government would have to go back to traditional highway robbery "stand and deliver".

[James C. Walker]

My wife is from Brighouse, West Yorkshire and we visit Britain frequently. I am 64 years old, a million+ mile driver, and I have extensive driving experience in 16 major countries. I have studied the subject of the safest posted speed limits for 45 years. I also work closely with the Michigan State Police to try to get most traffic laws enacted and enforced ONLY for safety purposes, never for revenue purposes.

If posted Motorway speed limits were set to produce the lowest accident rate, they would reflect the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions. That would set most rural Motorway limits at 80 or 85 mph, depending on the area. We live in Michigan with similarly-good rural Interstate highways and our 85th percentile speeds are from 78 to 83 mph. Our rural Interstates should also be posted at 80 or 85 mph in most areas (also 70 currently in Michigan).

Thus posted at 80 or 85, British motorways or US Interstates would have the smallest speed variance, the smoothest traffic flow, the best lane discipline (keep left except to pass in Britain, the reverse in the states), the least tailgating, the least aggressive driving, and the lowest accident rate per mile traveled.

Britain used to support correct 85th percentile posted speed limits, until the cameras came in.

Revenue production has become more important to government officials than safety, a result that I find to be immoral.

Jim Walker
JCW Consulting (automotive related)
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

[Ben Hatton]

This will sap the last little bit of enjoyment left out of driving a car.
At 2am when I'm coming down a completely empty M40 on the way home from work, I've stil got to do 70Mph?!!! They need to increase the motorway speed limit to 85 or 90Mph if they insist on doing this.

ps. Good luck catching me on my motorbike!!!