Saturday, November 17, 2007

Speed Cameras

It is an easy topic. There are very obvious rants here. Everybody seems to feel so strongly about this.

Half of you seem to hold the top gear view. Speed cameras are evil. The maximum safe speed is rarely the set limit. It is not necessarily safe to drive at 54 and dangerous to drive at 58 down an open dual carriageway. It is the arbitrary application of the offence (this law does not apply to foreign drivers, unlicensed cabs, fleet operators, diplomats, joyriders) and the disproportionate penalty (a quarter of your license). Worst of all, they always seem to be set up just so that they can get the maximum revenue instead of really to save lives.

And half of you seem to hold the green view. Speed is dangerous. It is unarguable that hitting an animal at 40 is more likely to kill it than hitting one at 30. So the cameras are a necessary evil. And if you don't want to lose your license, then just obey the laws.

But as usual, the reason why I write here, I think you are all wrong! Well actually all the points above are true, so maybe you are all correct ...

Because even though I broadly subscribe to top gear, I think the authorities should have the courage to admit (even encourage) the revenue raising functions. The money should go to those who most need it.

The faster that you speed, the more environmental damage caused, the more you should pay. I say fair enough. It is only going above a different speed that it is dangerous, dependent on the pictorial or witness evidence of traffic and pedestrian and weather conditions. That different limit could be higher, could be lower. But it depends on the conditions, and points should only be taken if driving is shown to be dangerous.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

RNB is one of the worst drivers I have ever seen.
It's only because speed cameras have replaced traffic cops that he still has a license ;-)

Ann said...

I say catch all of the speeding motorists, except me.

Anonymous said...

All rules in life are made for one (and only one) purpose.
Why should this be any different?

RNB said...

Yes Anon2. Thanks for the chat and explanation. You said that rules are made for breaking...

But that is why I suggested what I did! At the moment the rule is not worth breaking because the penalty is so disproportionate. If the penalty was a fair representation of increased cost and danger, fine.

Or maybe you said that this rule was meant for braking ;]