Noticed a while back that the two speed camera sites on Mutton Lane had sprouted an additional pole each. Tonight noticed the pair at Woxham Gardens (195 and 196 have had CCTV cameras fitted to the top of the poles pointing at the speed strips.

There is nothing to say what these additional cameras are for on the speed/safety camera website to suggest what they are.

Anyone know what they're for? Are they making sure someone doesn't vandalise the existing GATSOs or are they to ensure all sites can capture speeders on a 24 hour basis without the need for film?

Further to this, today it's clear these are additional flash units and not cameras presumably to enhance the night coverage these give.

They're being fitted out for "digital" operation which means they will be always-on without the need to change film. The new slave flashes are to improve the pictures taken at night.

At £6.5K for each site is it money well spent?

I'm sure they're the five safest strips of road in Hertfordshire now but around those bits driving in general is getting worse and worse. I would rather real police targetting bad driving and not just speed. Bad driving kills, and the cameras can't spot that yet. Better to scrap them all or spend the money you get from them on traffic police to target the middle lane hoggers, red light jumpers, lane jockeys and general bad driving.

Many years ago when all these cameras started popping up everywhere the government stated speeding was the biggest cause of accidents on the roads

Back then the people who had an interest in cars knew this wasn't the case. In fact at the time they actually got hold of the same report that quite clearly stated that speeding was actually seventh on the list.

So why the lies? Oh yes, silly me. Everytime someone gets zapped there is of course a fine to pay

The biggest cause of accidents is as Slim says.... bad driving. So why not address that? Perhaps because it doesn't raise as much revenue??

I assume Herts CC are funding these?

What were the six bigger causes of accidents?

I don't know of any accidents with fatalities where speed wasn't a factor. We all like to think that we drive well, but surely by now we all know that if you're hit at over 30mph the chances of killing someone increase drastically? Why do we all hate the cameras?

padremo Wrote:I don't know of any accidents with fatalities where speed wasn't a factor. We all like to think that we drive well, but surely by now we all know that if you're hit at over 30mph the chances of killing someone increase drastically? Why do we all hate the cameras?

Because the speed camera that fines me for travelling safely at 33mph instead of 30mph has no doubt been placed to generate as much revenue as possible for the council.

jaf Wrote:What were the six bigger causes of accidents?

I honestly can't remember

padremo Wrote:I don't know of any accidents with fatalities where speed wasn't a factor. We all like to think that we drive well, but surely by now we all know that if you're hit at over 30mph the chances of killing someone increase drastically? Why do we all hate the cameras?

Speed is a factor in any accident, because if two items collide then one of them has to be moving therefore speed is involved.

But we're talking about excessive speed. If you don't know of any accidents with fatalities where excessive speed wasn't a factor then I would suggest you don't know of too many accidents.

The fact that you state that if you hit someone over 30mph the chances of killing them increases tells me you're already a victim of the TV adverts.... where we see a Nissan break hard and hit someone because they were doing 40, and if they had been doing 30 they would of stopped short. During that ad did you notice the Nissan skidding to a halt... Don't the majority of cars have ABS these days? Reaction speed has a lot to do with it as well.

Why do we all hate cameras? That's because they have nothing to do with safety but are yet another cash machine used against the motorist. Come along Baker street into Potters Bar and you have Santers Lane on your left (an almost blind turning), on your right you have a primary school (which has over 200 children coming and going), just before it reaches Santers Lane it changes from a 60 to 30 zone... if cameras were about safety then there would be one there....

The biggest cause of deaths on the road is simply not paying attention. Plain and simple.

Also bear in mind that there is a difference between excessive speed and inappropiate speed. What's worse... driving in a modern car at 100mph on a motorway on a nice sunny day or driving up the same motorway in the same car on a average rainy day at the speed limit of 70mph?

Remember guys, it's not speed that kills.... it's inappropiate use of speed that kills.

Smiler Wrote:[quote=padremo]

The fact that you state that if you hit someone over 30mph the chances of killing them increases tells me you're already a victim of the TV adverts.... where we see a Nissan break hard and hit





The biggest cause of deaths on the road is simply not paying attention. Plain and simple.

Yes, and it's better to not pay attention at 30mph than not paying attention at 40mph. And the TV adverts do have scientific backing - it's physics, an object travelling faster will cause more damage than a slower moving one, and as you are not always the cause of an accident it's best to travel slower because you never know what might happen.

Smiler Wrote:Also bear in mind that there is a difference between excessive speed and inappropiate speed. What's worse... driving in a modern car at 100mph on a motorway on a nice sunny day or driving up the same motorway in the same car on a average rainy day at the speed limit of 70mph?

Remember guys, it's not speed that kills.... it's inappropiate use of speed that kills.

a) not everyone has modern cars. If you're caught speeding should they examine your car to see if it's OK to be doing that speed?

b) Everyone will have a different oppinion of what an appropriate speed is. I know some 'kids' who honestly think it's OK to do 50 in a 30 zone if 'the road looks clear'. Why 50? why not 70 or 80? Why limit to 100 on a motorway if the weather's nice? Why not 150mph if the driver feels its safe?