[Pierre]

Originally Posted by andyl

An independent report last year said speed cameras save on average 100 lives per year.

An independent report by who? and based on what figures

And they raised £20m. Top!

raised! robbed more like.

Extending your argument, should we scrap speed limits as speed is not such an important factor?

Of course speed is a factor, speed will be a factor in every vehicular accident because if you're not moving you not likely to crash into anything. But also factor in weather, road condition, driver skills/ experience, drink/drugs, daylight/night, time of day. Speed will always be a factor but it very rarely the only factor or the main one - for the cause of the accident. I do concede that speed will probably the main factor influencing the possible severity of the accident.

Of Course Speed limits are essential, anyone doing 40 or 50 mph in a built-up 30mph residential area deserves to be nicked - no argument.

But what is annoying is where false low limits are implemented on perfectly good fast roads.

There is a by-pass near where I live that was built only recently. It is a dual carriageway it is 3.5 miles long and is as straight as anything, there are no pedestrian walkways or crossings and there is a seperate cycleway. Yet this road has a 40mph limit and cameras all the way along it.

Yet, I can turn of this by-pass onto a country road that is single carriageway, has loads of tight corners and concealed entrances and has a poor quality surface and the limit is 60mph - go figure.

But I will say that I like those vehicle activated signs and would guess they are quite effective (but there's no way I would concede they're cheaper than gatsos because gatsos, as I say, raised £20m last year thanks to the fundraising efforts of speeding drivers who can't quite grapple with the legal entity that is a speed limit).

So because they do not raise revenue they're not as cheap??

But a speeding driver that freqently uses a route with a vehicle activated sign will soon get wise to the fact that s/he will not be punished for breaking the law and so will return to old ways. And, there is a flaw in your argument.

These signs not only advise of speed limits but they advise of sharp corners and blind summits etc -you know "accident blackspots" where cameras are supposed to be situated to save lives - not on straight roads to raise revenue.

Remember they're called "safety cameras" now - funny that at "accident blackspots" they're now installing vehicle actuated signs instead of cameras.

If vehicle activated signs produce a 'substantial reduction in accidents' then surely speed is indeed a factor?!!

I've covered that one

I also don't dispute that there are other causes of accidents which need more effective policing and that we need more traffic police - and more proactive traffic police at that - to achieve that aim.

I wont argue at that.

What will happen with the proposed system is that topics like this will become dominant when, as always with politics, there are more important things to hand. Leaving aside for one moment the argument as to whether speed cameras reduce accidents, surely we should applauding their effectiveness at detecting a crime and ensuring an offender faces justice

In some cases I would call it entrapment not "justice"

(whilst covering local authority prosecution costs and returning a dividend to the Treasury). I mean this is the cause of so much angst with other offences - that people get away with it and don't pay the price. From where I'm standing this is not an issue worthy of lengthy political debate, but is precisely the sort of issue that will be raised countless times by aspiring politicians under Howard's proposals.

But driving community are making it an issue worthy of debate. Therefore it is a valid issue