New British Speed Camera record

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whatwhat**

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8559670.stm

M6 speed camera catches 5,500 drivers in five weeks

Road safety bosses say they are stunned after a speed camera caught out more than 5,500 motorists in five weeks.

The camera, on the M6 near Carlisle, was installed to protect workers carrying out repairs and is expected to net £168,000 from fines issued so far.

A Cumbria Safety Cameras spokesman said he could not understand why so many drivers are ignoring the 50mph limit, which is clearly signposted.

Pressure group Safe Speed called the figures "disgusting".

The camera was installed between junctions 43 and 44 of the M6 on 29 January and will stay while bridge repairs are carried out.

In seven years... never have I seen a camera generate so many tickets
Kevin Tea, Cumbria Safety Cameras

It is operated by Cumbria Safety Cameras on behalf of Cumbria Police, part of the Cumbria Road Safety Partnership.

Kevin Tea, manager of Cumbria Safety Cameras, said: "In seven years working on the safety partnership in Cumbria never have I seen a camera generate so many tickets.

"I can't offer an explanation for it. I can't understand why people haven't seen the signs and cameras and are continuing to speed."

In total, 5,569 motorists were caught, but only those who drove faster than 60mph - about 2,800 people - will be prosecuted because of limited resources.

They will each receive £60 fines, raising about £168,000 which will be passed to the Treasury, according to Mr Tea.

A Highways Agency spokesman said: "There's a 50mph speed limit, cones, barriers and signs in place on this stretch of the M6 for a very good reason - to ensure the ongoing safety of drivers and road workers while the work is underway.

"We are concerned about the number of drivers who appear to be ignoring the speed limit, putting themselves and our workforce in danger.

"Driving through half a mile of roadworks at 70mph takes just ten seconds fewer than driving at 50mph - a ten-second saving which can put lives at risk."

'Making money'

But Claire Armstrong, co-founder of Safe Speed - which campaigns against speed cameras - said: "We're pretty disgusted. It's obviously got nothing to do with road safety.

"The fact it's raising so much revenue will add to the police/public divide and continue to make people believe it's just about making money."

Ms Armstrong said traffic police officers are a much better judge of road safety as they assess a motorist's overall driving, not just their speed.

"You don't measure safe driving in miles per hour," she added.

The M6 roadworks are due to be completed by 26 March.

...And I can safely say, from having drove through those speed cameras twice every weekday for the past five weeks, every single one of them must have been half blind not to notice the speed cameras. And I can say that safely knowing my boss doesn't read this site, since he's one of em.

Supposedly the highest ticket was 106 mph, which by the way is weaving in and out through a narrow laned roadworked cone layout. And suposedly one got snaped at 115mph but tho photo never caught the numberplate: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/driver-doing-115mph-through-m6-speed-cameras-near-carlisle-escapes-fine-1.682277?referrerPath=home

and the previous records...

**Leigen_Zero**

Hmm, if it was on roadworks, why do I have this feeling that the signs weren't exactly noticable, and the people were not exactly informed...

**whatwhat**

As I said, I've drove through them for the past five weeks daily. Clear, as, day.

**WarOne**

This is what I have to say about the subject:

But then again, Americans like their speed and we don't like paying the government.

But near a road konstrukshun site, I like the concept of putting automatons in charge of ticketing people wizzing by about to slam into hard working, unionized road repairers.

**SagesStone**

"You don't measure safe driving in miles per hour," she added.

**whatwhat**

WarOne wrote:But then again, Americans like their speed and we don't like paying the government.

sub 70 speed limits and countless toll roads, that's my experience of driving in the US. Suppose it's a state by state thing though.

**malfred**

The one speed camera they regularly enforce around here are the construction site ones.

Not that you get to speed on the expressways very often

**Kilkrazy**

When I drove around New York and Long Island, I stuck to the speed limits because it was a rental car and I did not want to be caught and fined.

However there were plenty of presumably native drivers tailgating and honking on me because they wanted to go faster than the limit.

Not to excuse the speeding through roadworks, but it can be a problem to cruise at 70 on the motorway(in the UK) because of slowsters in the lefthand lane and speeders coming up fast in the middle and overtaking lanes.

I normally find 80 more comfortable unless the conditions are poor.

**WarOne**

Kilkrazy wrote:When I drove around New York and Long Island

Hey, you drove by me!

Depending in which state you drive in, the number of

ing tolls and short highways kills the dream. The Long Island Expressway for instance is about 70 miles of road, most of which is clogged at the Western end when it gets closer to the city. On the Eastern end, one can exceed speeds of 70-80mph due to lax law enforcement on that end of the island.

NYC sux for driving. Take a ferry to avoid it at all costs.

Western US states due to their large size and endless asphalt ribbons tend to be the ones you invoke for the ultimate riding experience. Scenic landscapes of yellow sand, more

ing yellow sand, brownish rocks, sickly green scrubs and of course that blazing sun attempting to suck the moisture from your body.

Yeah...scenic.

**malfred**

Why drive when you can auto-run through Azeroth?

**WarOne**

malfred wrote:Why drive when you can auto-run through Azeroth?

This happens:

**JohnHwangDD**

Thankfully, America is starting to push back against cameras. Maybe we can ship ours across the pond, to a country that enjoys continuous surveillance.

**Kilkrazy**

London Underground has just announced its plans to increase the installed cameras from 12,000 to 14,000 at its stations over the next couple of years.

**bsohi**

I never understood the big hooplah over speed camera's. You nay-sayers seem akin to saying "how DARE they want to punish me for committing a crime, even though there was no police officer there!" Speeding is a crime, one that puts lives at risk. Don't bleeding do it. These camera's aren't getting people who go 5-10 kmh over the limit, they're getting people who were going 20 kmh over at least.

**dogma**

malfred wrote:The one speed camera they regularly enforce around here are the construction site ones.

Not that you get to speed on the expressways very often

I hate 290.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Thankfully, America is starting to push back against cameras. Maybe we can ship ours across the pond, to a country that enjoys continuous surveillance.

They just installed 25 new cameras in my parents' suburb.

**KingCracker**

Shoot you guys need to move to Michigan then, there isnt any toll roads around where I live as far as I know. Hell the only time I saw a toll road was when I drove into Indiana.

**avantgarde**

whatwhat wrote:And suposedly one got snaped at 115mph but tho photo never caught the numberplate: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/driver-doing-115mph-through-m6-speed-cameras-near-carlisle-escapes-fine-1.682277?referrerPath=home

So what I'm getting is, in order to avoid being ticketed for speeding by a camera, one should go faster than the camera is capable of taking a picture.

I'm in favor of putting up cameras. Sometimes when I'm hitting 90+ on unpatroled stretches of highway I stop paying attention and start dozing off. By putting up cameras with big signs it would definitely be easier to stay awake when there's no cops around.

**usernamesareannoying**

bsohi wrote:I never understood the big hooplah over speed camera's. You nay-sayers seem akin to saying "how DARE they want to punish me for committing a crime, even though there was no police officer there!" Speeding is a crime, one that puts lives at risk. Don't bleeding do it. These camera's aren't getting people who go 5-10 kmh over the limit, they're getting people who were going 20 kmh over at least.

+1
i cant see any negative against them other than gee, i cant break the law... if there is someone here that is against them please enlighten me.
they should use these things to generate as much income as they possibly can from them and put it to good use to help the people protecting us.

**JohnHwangDD**

bsohi wrote:Speeding is a crime, one that puts lives at risk.

These camera's aren't getting people who go 5-10 kmh over the limit, they're getting people who were going 20 kmh over at least.

Puh-leaze. Speeding doesn't add any risk whatsoever. At least not if one does a properly statistically-controlled analysis. Speeding in and of itself adds practically no risk, which is why it's perfectly safe to drive triple digits sane and sober. If speed by itself actually were a risk, people wouldn't do it.

I've done well over 200 kph from Windsor to Hamilton, and felt no risk at all. Speed wasn't an issue at all.
____

@KingCracker - still running 90+ on M-14 to Livonia?

**usernamesareannoying**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
bsohi wrote:Speeding is a crime, one that puts lives at risk.

These camera's aren't getting people who go 5-10 kmh over the limit, they're getting people who were going 20 kmh over at least.

Puh-leaze. Speeding doesn't add any risk whatsoever. At least not if one does a properly statistically-controlled analysis. Speeding in and of itself adds practically no risk, which is why it's perfectly safe to drive triple digits sane and sober. If speed by itself actually were a risk, people wouldn't do it.

I've done well over 200 kph from Windsor to Hamilton, and felt no risk at all. Speed wasn't an issue at all.
____

@KingCracker - still running 90+ on M-14 to Livonia?

maybe the internet is hiding your sarcasm but you are kidding right John?

**JohnHwangDD**

Nope, no sarcasm.

I run fast, and have never had a speed-related accident / incident in all the years I've been a licensed driver.

I don't believe I'm an exceptional driver at all. I'm a somewhat aggressive driver, but also a very attentive driver who keeps speed in check with road & traffic conditions.

My opinion is that a lot of people are very ignorant about high-speed driving, and there's a lot of uninformed fear about running 100+ mph (and higher).

The fact of the matter is that most American highways are good for 100+ mph in a modern car. In the midwest and other open states, I'd bump that to 120+.

**usernamesareannoying**

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nope, no sarcasm.

I run fast, and have never had a speed-related accident / incident in all the years I've been a licensed driver.

I don't believe I'm an exceptional driver at all. I'm a somewhat aggressive driver, but also a very attentive driver who keeps speed in check with road & traffic conditions.

My opinion is that a lot of people are very ignorant about high-speed driving, and there's a lot of uninformed fear about running 100+ mph (and higher).

The fact of the matter is that most American highways are good for 100+ mph in a modern car. In the midwest and other open states, I'd bump that to 120+.

saying speed doesnt add any danger is ridiculous John simply for the unknowns of the road. your saying someone driving 100+ mph will be able to handle the same unknown situations that a person say driving 60 would? an unknown situation could be anything from maybe a blow out to a deer deciding to cross the road or some other person driving 100+ losing control of his car. the 100+ person will be able to respond just as well as the 60+ person? i dont think so.

not to mention some people should not be driving at all let alone that fast.

**croggy**

i have no problem with speed cameras or even speeding but i do have a problem when they place a camera purely to make money

like on a quiet b road with no residentual properties and a large verge between the road and the foot path

or when they leave motorways a t 50mph over the weekend while there is no one working on them and the cones have been pushed aside so the road is as wide as it ever was

the problem isn't the cameras its the tw*ts that choose where they go

**JohnHwangDD**

@usernames - have you ever driven a proper car at speed? I'm guessing from your reply, that no, probably not. Don't argue from ignorant fear. It's nonsense and a waste of time.

When I was blasting thru Canada, I was in my SVX, and my current car is a 530i. Both of these cars are designed for 100+ mph, and will cruise that way without any problem. Actually, they're both easily capable of cruising 120+ mph.

A responsible, attentive, alert driver can drive at speed without any risk.

**dogma**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
A responsible, attentive, alert driver can drive at speed without any risk.

The limits of human response time, and statistical evidence, strongly disagree.

**WarOne**

dogma wrote:

The limits of human response time, and statistical evidence, strongly disagree.

Ah, but you are forgetting Speed Racer!

And how fast must a car go in order to agree with statistical evidence?

**dogma**

WarOne wrote:
Ah, but you are forgetting Speed Racer!

And how fast must a car go in order to agree with statistical evidence?

Statistical evidence points to a direct correlation between the imminent speed of a vehicle, and the number of accidents.

This coming from a kid whose first car was a '93 Civic hot swapped to a B16A5; further enhanced via a supercharger, cat-back, racing suspension, and 18" racing wheels.

**Tim the Biovore**

Wow, that is just ridiculous. If it were an unlucky year, that could be about five-thousand dead.

**usernamesareannoying**

JohnHwangDD wrote:@usernames - have you ever driven a proper car at speed? I'm guessing from your reply, that no, probably not. Don't argue from ignorant fear. It's nonsense and a waste of time.

When I was blasting thru Canada, I was in my SVX, and my current car is a 530i. Both of these cars are designed for 100+ mph, and will cruise that way without any problem. Actually, they're both easily capable of cruising 120+ mph.

A responsible, attentive, alert driver can drive at speed without any risk.

good for you.
let me know how that works out for you when any of the things i mentioned happen.
let me guess... you're one of the people in the anti camera camp arent you?

**whatwhat**

I also have an issue with bsohi's comment, but my issue is that careful driving is impeeded when drivers are constantly looking at their spedo, for cameras, cops etc.

The idea that 100mph is a safe speed for all drivers on highways is insane. The stopping distance for one is well over what you can definitively see in front of you. The only example of a country with anything near that right now is germany, who have wide cambered autobhans with very strict regulations on the distance in front of you. The idea of keeping the recomended disatance at 100mph on your average US/UK busy highway is completely unworkable.

and ftr it's not like I never drive over 100, but I do at least apreciate I'm taking a risk when doing it.