Traffic light cameras turned into speed cameras...

Traffic light cameras turned into speed cameras...

Author
Discussion

moreymach

Original Poster:

1,029 posts

273 months

Wednesday 20th November 2002
quotequote all
thats it really.. Authorities are converting traffic light cameras to be speed cameras as well.. Reckon most people agree with traffic light cameras, not any more though!!

granville

18,764 posts

268 months

Wednesday 20th November 2002
quotequote all

salty

93 posts

291 months

Wednesday 20th November 2002
quotequote all
Not necessaryily good news, but not suprising. I read somewhere that they can easyily be changed to do both.

Although I hate cameras (of the speed sort), whilst learning to drive I was instructed to slow down as I approached a set of lights, because they "could" change at any moment.

It does really p**s me off with the number of people who blatently run red lights. Makes you wait a little longer before you pull away from the lights, incase there is some nutter running a light.

When it comes down to it, its not a bad thing. Slow people down before they go through trafic lights - its not as if they are on (many) open roads, they are there when there are junctions.

Unfortunatley, yet again the major problem with these cameras is that they rely on an out-of-date DVLA database.

Salty

john robson

370 posts

284 months

Wednesday 20th November 2002
quotequote all
red Light cameras have always shown the speed at which the vehicle went through when they were activated by a red light, they were just not 'approved' as a speed detection device, but like you say it does look like that is changing.

soulpatch

4,693 posts

265 months

Wednesday 20th November 2002
quotequote all
As much as I hate speed cameras I have to kind of agree with this one as I was nearly destroyed some years ago when I was on a bike.

Some twat raced through the lights in a town center at what I guessed to be about 60MPH and nearly went into the back of me becuase he was concentrating so much on racing through the lights to avoid waiting about 1 minute.

There is a time and a place but that is not it........

kevinday

12,275 posts

287 months

Thursday 21st November 2002
quotequote all
Over here in our less developed road system if you do NOT run a red light you are liable to have somebody up your backside. The norm is around 2-3 seconds, occasionally I have seen up to 5 seconds. It is very dangerous and stupid as we all know, but there are no cameras here. I approve of red light cameras personally, and believe that if the Budapest police fitted them to lights and moved them around it would have two results:

Lots of fine income.
Improvement in road safety.

tallchris99

216 posts

272 months

Thursday 21st November 2002
quotequote all
Anyone who speeds through a traffic light controlled junction is a loon who needs to be stopped...

mondeoman

11,430 posts

273 months

Thursday 21st November 2002
quotequote all
I know I spout off about revenue cameras, but I do agree with traffic light cams - so using them for speeding through the junctions is not, to me, unacceptable.

zumbruk

7,848 posts

267 months

Saturday 23rd November 2002
quotequote all
I used to agree with red light cameras, until I read an Australian study that showed that accidents at junctions rise by 17% after they are installed - people brake hard to avoid running the lights and get stuffed up the arse by the bloke behind.

tsh

52 posts

264 months

Sunday 24th November 2002
quotequote all
So you don't feel that this is another excuse to justify yet more lower and lower speed limits?

How many sets of lights do you know there it is frequently (not always) safe to cross at more than a couple of mph over the limit?

If the lights have just changed, and you can see the other approach roads, then chances are it's going to be safe at more than 30mph.

This is not a safety issue - this is a car control issue. They're just playing on the safety aspect in order to gain support.

Anyone tell me what proportion of accidents are caused by excess speed, and what proportion are just caused by failing to observe signs?

Remember that it won't deter cyclists or pedestrians from doing silly things at junctions either.

Sean

TVR5

595 posts

265 months

Sunday 24th November 2002
quotequote all

tsh said: So you don't feel that this is another excuse to justify yet more lower and lower speed limits?

How many sets of lights do you know there it is frequently (not always) safe to cross at more than a couple of mph over the limit?

If the lights have just changed, and you can see the other approach roads, then chances are it's going to be safe at more than 30mph.

This is not a safety issue - this is a car control issue. They're just playing on the safety aspect in order to gain support.

Anyone tell me what proportion of accidents are caused by excess speed, and what proportion are just caused by failing to observe signs?

Remember that it won't deter cyclists or pedestrians from doing silly things at junctions either.

Sean



TVR5

595 posts

265 months

Sunday 24th November 2002
quotequote all

tsh said: Anyone tell me what proportion of accidents are caused by excess speed, and what proportion are just caused by failing to observe signs?

Sean



TVR5

595 posts

265 months

Sunday 24th November 2002
quotequote all

tsh said: Anyone tell me what proportion of accidents are caused by excess speed, and what proportion are just caused by failing to observe signs?

Sean



Buggered the repy up there. Twice.

Anyway, out of all the people I have known have accidents (ranging from not bad to fatal ones) I do NOT know 1 that has been down to speed. NOT 1! I know quite a few people from school days or who live in the same small town that have had accidents and when I get to hear about them as I say, none are due to speeding, they have all been caused by other factors, from poor visibility, no lights, people pulling out in front of them, towing a vehicle incorrectly (dangerously) etc etc... Sure you could say speed was a factor, as they always do say, because the car was moving. But that's what cars do...move. If it was moving at 1 mile an hour you caould say speed was a factor. Bloody ridiculous. It's dangerous driving that does it. Not speed. Right speed for the right conditions is what I say. Sure some people drive far to fast in the wrong conditions, but those few have given the government the excuse they need to rip the rest of us off. It's a hell of a lot easier (ie they can make shed loads of cash) from just fining people for doing 45 in a 40 limit than they can from stopping the bad driving that causes bad accidents.

Sod it. Bad mood now....



madcop

6,649 posts

270 months

Sunday 24th November 2002
quotequote all

salty said:

Unfortunatley, yet again the major problem with these cameras is that they rely on an out-of-date DVLA database.

Salty


The problem with the data base is that it is only as good as the information that is supplied into it.
The big problem is that the end of society (and some of those that aspire to be above that end of society) which is the "I don't give a fcuk" end, decide that they will not bother to send the information to the data base because they do not want the bother of responsibility on their shoulders when they drive their unlicensed, uninisured wrecks through areas where they are likely to get caught out by a photograph. Moreover that they do not want the aggravation of explaining to someone in authority why they were in a particular place doing 'whatever' when a criminal or other traffic offence investigation is underway into their alleged conduct.


Jason F

1,183 posts

291 months

Sunday 24th November 2002
quotequote all
To be fair Madcop I have regularly sent the correct info to the DVLA, and it is not always updated..
They do also have a natty way of making valuable docs disappear...

soulpatch

4,693 posts

265 months

Sunday 24th November 2002
quotequote all
When I had to send my license off to get the address updated by recorded delivery - they claimed that the person that signed for it did not work there and made me pay 18 quid for another one!

hertsbiker

6,371 posts

278 months

Sunday 24th November 2002
quotequote all
I'm a bit worried... sometimes you have the choice of slamming the brakes on - possibly not stopping before the camera goes off. Or speeding up a bit. And getting caught by another camera.

Tricky. And sometimes you can find that these situations just occur without speeding, or being careless.

Cameras reduce confidence, and bring fear of prosecution into ordinary motorists lives. Very scary.

On the other hand, red light cameras are a good idea. Just NOT BOTH please.

C

spaceman

43 posts

270 months

Sunday 24th November 2002
quotequote all
I must admit that I already thought that junction cameras did speed as well, so it does not really affect my opinion on them.
Although I am not a fan of cameras and much preffered life on the roads as a passenger and driver before them, shooting through junctions at excess speed must be one of the more risky ways to speed with or without traffic lights, you dont know what the traffic crossing your path is going to do. If a camera is placed anywhere these sites must surely be the more appropriate than some of the straight stretches of road that you see them on.
More to the point the speed limit should be appropriate to the type of road and junction and then people would not feel the need to speed, lets face it the current speed limits were set a long time ago when cars and roads were a lot more basic. Things could do with a bit of a revison and the speed set according to the particular road rather than a blanket figure.
Im going off on one now so i'll stop.

Cheers

Space

kevinday

12,275 posts

287 months

Tuesday 26th November 2002
quotequote all
I think traffic light cameras are a good idea, and I have no problem if they are also speed cameras. Some of you think that more accidents happen because of red light cameras. In the UK the amber light is on for 2 seconds. This is ample time to stop if far enough back, or, to continue through before the red if closer. Here in Hungary the amber varies between 1 and 2 seconds dependent on which light, there appears to be no rule at all. This is not good, because it is easy to run a light by being too close to stop and too far to get through before the red. You have a good and sensible system in the UK. Most lights are in urban areas with 30-50mph limits, which we all claim to stay within, therefore there is no problem, is there?

deltaf

1,384 posts

264 months

Wednesday 27th November 2002
quotequote all
Red light cameras are there for safety reasons.
But why oh why are so many of them empty?
Cynical old me thinks that maybe theres not enough red light jumpers to justify the cost of installing them all with functioning gubbins, in other words it wouldnt be profitable.
I agree wholeheartledly with red light cams, just leave the speed measuring portion out of the equation, especially when theyre on green.
Doing that will just alienate the public against them, which would be a pity.