Snazy - no, because people speeding can cause danger way beyond what they might appreciate in their insulated shell, and the faster they're going the less likely they are to appreciate it.

The speed camera that catches 1000 people a week plainly is working. The arrogant motorists are paying for their arrogance through the pocket. If you consider yourself above the law you will pay for it.

jon14 - you know very well what I meant.

lol so what about idiot pedestrians who ignorantly walk out into the roads in their self important bubbles.
Somehow I didnt think you would agree with the opposite, so no shock there.

As for "its working" by dishing out 1000 tickets a week. Thats what you are not getting, but indirectly agreeing with my earlier point. A camera that is catching 1000 people a week is FAILING in its job to make the road safer, as its FAILING to discourage 1000 people a week to slow down.

Its not about arrogance, points, pounds..... its about lives!

I simply said that some people don't seek employment because it pays them to stay on benefits. Nothing wrong with that and perfectly true. You said it was new to you. Two others have since agreed with me.

I actually don't know why you took offence to that. Maybe you just wanted to because it was me. Comments like 'look where it came from' doesn't really become adult conversation.

Au contraire, Snazy. A pedestrian does indeed have a self-important bubble, and can indeed cause danger on the road. But a much slower-moving one, and other pedestrians watching him do it are likely to think 'what an idiot' rather than 'great, I can do that too'. People will eventually slow down at speed cameras, once they accept that they are going too fast, and that it's their responsbility. If they don't, they will accumulate points on their licence, and eventually another arrogant motorist will be banned from our roads. Safety win. The motoring lobby has repeatedly stated that it doesn't want speed cameras and doesn't want contoured traffic calming, yet never proposes an alternative. "Anything's got to be better", they cry. Well, tell Philip Hammond what this anything is, because if it's cheap, I'm sure he'd prefer it.

jon14 - what you actually said was "I don't think people are having a go at the unemployed - rather those who don't even sign on because they can't be bothered because they get more money living off benefits." I was expressing surprise that people can get magic benefit – be it JSA, IB, or whatever – without 'signing on' for it.

Dear Mrs Smith,

I am sorry for the recent loss of your son in the road accident on X Road.
I write to you with great news however. Last month we raised £12,500 through the camera on other roads in Lewisham, and dished out over 500 points, leading to at least 3 driving ban, good eh!

Doesn't really work does it?

The idea of the camera's is a deterrent, not a cash cow. If its not slowing people down, its NOT working.

As for the other part, well done for avoiding the point again. The bubble I am talking about is the one which makes them feel safe walking into any road at any point and expecting drivers to be able to stop.
What percentage of pedestrian/vehicle collisions occur on a crossing?

I will leave it there as you clearly dont accept that pedestrians have any responsibility for their own safety on the roads, and we sure aint going to agree on the camera thing.

Where on earth have I said that?! That's truly bizarre.

So if people are too arrogant to take any notice of a) the law or b) the fact that the law gets applied to them, boo-hoo-hoo, then the enforcement isn't working, so move it to somewhere else where people might be breaking the law, but will magically be less arrogant? Sorry, that's just ridiculous. They'll learn soon enough. Whose fault is it that this camera keeps giving fines? They know where it is (if they're looking), they know it catches people, whose fault is it? I can't imagine there's a single camera where the number of people it catches doesn't go down over time, but I'm sure you'll provide me with evidence of one.

I tend to agree with Snazy. Just having a look round the internet, most sites are arguing that cameras haven't actually reduced accidents or deaths - some say they've increased accidents.

So the evidence seems marginal at best. It reminds me of a an argument I once heard about CRB checks - somebody was saying that they cost a fortune and don't actually work that well. You'd save more lives by putting money into other things that claimed more lives. Others said they were a price worth paying.

If 95% of accidents are caused by something other that speeding, then it might be the case that the emphasis is in the wrong place.

lol once again as expected you have just ignored it, twisted it and made a brilliant yet pointless reply.
If you read back you will note (but no doubt ignore) that I have already said I am all for enforcement etc, points, fines are all good.

However the bit you have ignored again is that if they keep spitting out fines, they are NOT slowing people down.
These are 2 seperate issues, but it would be wrong to just say,no lives saved, but hey we are making money.

I have not said give up have I, oh no, thats right, I suggested other methods, eg SPEC's.

So let me try again....

Speed camera's which continue spitting out hundreds if not thousands of fines a week are proving themselves NOT to be being effective in the function they are installed for. Just like speed cushions, chicanes etc... Some just dont work.

In cases where speed cameras are clearly NOT reducing the speed on the road, then another approach should be considered, such as SPEC's.
These are not bus lane camera's... People who get tickets from them, tough, they will indeed learn. However speed cameras are about lives, and if one method is not working, try something else, rather than just accepting failure because its well paid.

I really hope that makes more sense, but im sure there is some fault there to find.

Im glad you get where I am coming from Jon.
Touching on the point you make about camera's causing accidents, this is very true, especially in the case of hidden away one on roads which get infrequent users. The A2 is shocking for this. You only have to look at the amount of skid marks near the cameras.

Have threads now merged to save money?

Skid marks near cameras? Blame the cameras! Not the drivers for going too fast in the first place. Oh no. Car means no crime. If the last government had removed a camera from a speeding blackspot like you demand in such a shrill way, people (not least on this forum) would have been queuing up to say they were soft on crime and that they were doing it to massage the figures! Ridiculous.

The fact is that drivers in this country are too arrogant to slow down, because I'M IN A CAR. There's a horrible macho driving culture that really needs to get out of its teenage years, stop watching Jeremy Clarkson and grow up.

In no other area would an enforcement measure that catches people breaking the law and deters them from doing so be under pressure for removal. But motorists are different, somehow. I learnt to drive quite late in life (37) last year. It was a bit of an experience. The only thing that makes drivers slow down to anything like the speed limit is a camera. It is lunacy to suggest that where a camera catches people it is failing.

Are speed cameras now Tory?

Roz, sorry I will hush now. Its clearly getting personal, so I see no point in carrying.

So, back on topic.

My research on SPECs says it is used on motorways and dual carriage ways. It times drivers across two known points and so determines the speed - which is fine if the drivers are likely to be at a constant speed.

This is clearly not a good method for normal roads in london, journeys on which are continual stop start - not many drivers get around london near 30mph, but they would certainly have driven well over the limit to do so.

However, I am in favour of a system that is digital, automatically reads number plates, uses video evidence, and can record evidence against a number of cars simultaneously.
Maybe one camera could produce 5000 notices a week!

Plus it seems reasonable to check that cars are taxed at the same time - there would almost certainly be a strong link between speeding cars, untaxed/uninsured cars and other criminal behaviour.

Come-on cameron! Make it so.

Perryman, SPEC's was first rolled out in Nottingham in 2000. On central roads, and was in fact SO effective, that they had to sell the system 2 years later as they were not generating enough revenue from the camera's to keep them in place.

It can in fact be used on any road on which speed is a problem, very much like Gatso's. However it is effective from the first camera to the last, unlike Gatso which has a very short effective range.

My point is not that camera's are in any way unfair, or that drivers should be able to speed around. But more that if we are going to use money to fund such systems, that they be more effective, ans reduce the speed of the drivers on the roads around schools, parks etc. Even if a mobile version could be arranged.

On the flip side, having been knocked down, not once, but twice in my life (as a child) I can honestly say neither time was the drivers fault, and both times I walked straight out from between cars. So I feel I am in a strong position to say that pedestrians play their role in road safety.

Wouldn't it be better to put limiters in all vehicles that adjusts depending on the road they are on (based on GPS tracking). This would avoid the installation of millions of yellow cameras on every road and would allow the government to know where every car is at any time which would be really useful in mapping crimes.

Good to hear Jeremy Clarkson being brought into the discussion. There were many that thought he would make a good Prime Minister

I can't believe that bringing Jeremy Clarkson into the coversation has killed this thread. Particularly as I see another linked one on Sun readers. Clarkson of course writes articles for the Sun, and had a particularly poignant one the morning before the Lib-Tory coalition was anounced when he and many other columnists were anxious, to say the least, that the tories would not get in. He made another cheap jibe at the outgoing PM, and I believe that it was this paper that championed the JC for PM. What really amused me was the size of text, as he did not have a lot to say they put it in Janet and John pitch to fill up the space.

Or am I reading too much into all of this.

I think everyone is just bored/exhausted with the election and with politics in general now and can no longer muster the energy . Its not personal!

"Good to hear Jeremy Clarkson being brought into the discussion. There were many that thought he would make a good Prime Minister."

I'd prefer to see Private Eye's Ian Hislop putting the stick about parliament, if truth be known.