It's no secret that I hate bloody speed cameras but the new cameras on the M4 take the biscuit. They were switched on this week.
These are blatantly revenue raising devices that do little if anything to improve road safety. Indeed, as the police cut back on traffic police because they now have cameras, road safety will be hit and the other benefits of having police physically stop drivers (catching other criminals) will disappear completely. Besides, the cameras aren't foolproof anyway.
In a survey published in a recent Scotsman article 69% of motorist believed the Government's main purpose for the cameras is revenue raising and only 22% thought they were essential to road safety.
I wanted to write something a little more thought out and better researched but I just don't have time right now. So you'll have to make do with this mini-rant.
Check out the other mini-rants on the BBC's "talking-point" page.
I'm still waiting for my local 'Road Safety Partnership' to explain how cameras catch drivers with no MOT, Insurance or Road Tax. How they detect people on their mobile or pissed up. How they stop tailgating and other dangerous driving that happens below the speed limit. In fact, as speeding is something like the 7th worst cause of accidents, how cameras combat the 6 bigger dangers that kill more.
Incidently, the audi driver who tried to ram me off the road a couple of months ago was within 100 yards of a speed camera and a police station. The station was closed.
And how do speed cameras help catch drug dealers or organised criminals.
Just a couple of years ago the papers would frequently carry stories of big drug busts or the arrest of a wanted criminal after traffic police routinely stopped somebody for a driving violation. That just doesn't happen any more.
Speed cameras raise revenue from drivers exceeding the speed limit.
So don't speed. What is there not to understand?
'Fraid I'm in the 22% who support cameras, and have zero-tolerance for speeding. Limits aren't guidelines, and motorists don't get to choose whether to observe them.
However, my view is that cameras should be used to save police officers time which could be better used for stopping more motorists for other reasons, which I fully agree isn't the way they are being used.
But revenue generation from drivers breaking speed limits: yep, the more, the better.
But the Govt. are justifying them by saying they reduce road casualties. Yet the figures don't back that up. There's been a massive rise in cameras over the last 5 years but no corresponding drop in road accidents.
The question is, how much do you want the Govt to spy on what you do to make sure you don't break the law? Would you be happy for a camera to be placed above the bar at your local pub to record everyone buying alcohol to make sure no-one was under 18? Would you be happy for your CD burner to email a list of all the music you copy to the police to check that you're not copying music illegally? It amounts to the same thing.
NRT. I'm not complaining about being caught speeding. I am very careful where I twist the throttle and know it twists back again.
I have major concerns with the perception that speeding is a) inherently dangerous and must be stopped at all costs and b) it is the biggest cause of accidents on our roads. Neither of which is true.
As a biker i'm an hugely aware of the crap standards of driving on our roads these days and I put this down, in part, to the lack of traffic police on our roads.
In Norfolk we have a lot of the flashing speed limit signs (the company who makes them is based here) and studies have shown them to be more effective at reducing speeds through villages than cameras.
No money in it though.
I think the cameras are a load of rubbish. The police should go and catch drg dealers and political extremists rather than sitting in a van catching 50 people do 10mph over the speed limit. Figures prove that there hasnt been a significant reduction in deaths on the road! These cameras money spinning devices for fatcat politians.
