Speed cameras go up on A64 (From York Press)

The plague of speed cameras begins. Not even York and North Yorkshire can now escape them!

Shouter wrote:
The plague of speed cameras begins. Not even York and North Yorkshire can now escape them!

I wonder why they need them eh? Is it because otherwise people won't slow down for the roadworks?

Yes probably, but also to raise money from those who are stupid enough to be caught by them. If people drove sensibly and within the law 'greed' cameras wouldn't be necessary, though I think they are mainly a revenue raising stick with which to beat errant motorists.

It takes a strange form of paranoia to claim that cameras put out to protect a workforce are there to make money.

Looking at the installation I think actually it'll be us (tax payers) funding them - so in my view any money recovered from people who think that the law doesn't apply to them is very welcome.

But really, the bottom line is that people will be working near fast moving vehicles and we all know that there are too many people who think they'll decide their own speed limit.

When the word 'revenue' crops up in relation to speed cameras, you know you're in for the usual nonsense!

It news that the speed cameras will soon operating on the A64 near Bishopthorpe and Fulford interchange are welcome to most drivers.
The speeders have been warned.
Speeding is stupid in the extreme!

Shouter wrote:
The plague of speed cameras begins. Not even York and North Yorkshire can now escape them!

Some stupid drivers should think before speeding.
Idiots.

Unless speed cameras are installed at road works a fair proportion of drivers do not slow down whilst driving through road works travelling at 70 plus thereby endangering the work force, if all drivers slowed down there would be no need for them

Blah blah blah, safety reasons doubtful ....

That stretch of road up to Tad is more than safely, and more adequately, patrolled by Police.

If its for safety, they are more dangerous as people slow and brake causing tailbacks and then put the foot down. Random speed camera traps = danger!!!

OB-1 wrote:
Blah blah blah, safety reasons doubtful ....

That stretch of road up to Tad is more than safely, and more adequately, patrolled by Police.

If its for safety, they are more dangerous as people slow and brake causing tailbacks and then put the foot down. Random speed camera traps = danger!!!

But tell me oh wise one.......if all drivers correctly observe the 30 mph temporary limit, plus the approach warning signs what is there to fear. Everyone will slow down in a safe manner and pass the work site without endangering its operatives.

OB-1 wrote:
Blah blah blah, safety reasons doubtful ....

That stretch of road up to Tad is more than safely, and more adequately, patrolled by Police.

If its for safety, they are more dangerous as people slow and brake causing tailbacks and then put the foot down. Random speed camera traps = danger!!!

So says the propaganda anyway...keep repeating it....

If speed cameras aren't there for making money then can some one explain this...a couple of years ago I was caught by a mobile speed camera on the motorway near newcastle, it was 9-00am sunday, the temporary road works had been removed, all cones gone, yet the 50mph were still left in position inside the central crash barrier. The camera van was hiding under a motorway bridge. I was clocked doing 58mph ! Fined £60 + 3 penalty points. There must have been hundreds more caught that day. No wonder these 'safety cameras' are despised by motorists. I did object thro' the channels, but was given a standard letter....summons stands!

pedalling paul wrote:

OB-1 wrote:
Blah blah blah, safety reasons doubtful ....

That stretch of road up to Tad is more than safely, and more adequately, patrolled by Police.

If its for safety, they are more dangerous as people slow and brake causing tailbacks and then put the foot down. Random speed camera traps = danger!!!

But tell me oh wise one.......if all drivers correctly observe the 30 mph temporary limit, plus the approach warning signs what is there to fear. Everyone will slow down in a safe manner and pass the work site without endangering its operatives.

Well, I could be driving along legally at 30MPH, and a speeding driver pass me at 60-70. Without a camera, he'd speed past, in a straight line, and be out of my safety zone. With a camera, he could slam on, lost control, and hit my car. The threat of hidden cameras would be more effective, as would average speed cameras over the whole zone. A small number of highly visible cameras will inevitably result in erratic driving from some drivers.

Once they're up they're staying up I bet.

Why all the fuss? If you speed then expect a fine..simple..

If they really want traffic to slow down - perhaps they should do what they do in Spain - have a little chap with a flag waving at the traffic as they enter the "slow" zone of the roadworks!

Jazzper wrote:
If speed cameras aren't there for making money then can some one explain this...a couple of years ago I was caught by a mobile speed camera on the motorway near newcastle, it was 9-00am sunday, the temporary road works had been removed, all cones gone, yet the 50mph were still left in position inside the central crash barrier. The camera van was hiding under a motorway bridge. I was clocked doing 58mph ! Fined £60 + 3 penalty points. There must have been hundreds more caught that day. No wonder these 'safety cameras' are despised by motorists. I did object thro' the channels, but was given a standard letter....summons stands!

The signs were still up, the limit still applied. You broke the limit, you got fined. What gave you the right to decide the signs didn't apply to you? If money was made out of your stupidity and you were left feeling sore, good! Entirely your own fault.

Do these people who harp on about speed cameras being there to raise money read the Daily Mail by any chance? Total nonsense. As the more sensible posts suggest, why should every driver have a personal 'right' to decide his or her own 'safe' speed? More cameras the better I say....speed and get fined!

ClueDog wrote:

Jazzper wrote:
If speed cameras aren't there for making money then can some one explain this...a couple of years ago I was caught by a mobile speed camera on the motorway near newcastle, it was 9-00am sunday, the temporary road works had been removed, all cones gone, yet the 50mph were still left in position inside the central crash barrier. The camera van was hiding under a motorway bridge. I was clocked doing 58mph ! Fined £60 + 3 penalty points. There must have been hundreds more caught that day. No wonder these 'safety cameras' are despised by motorists. I did object thro' the channels, but was given a standard letter....summons stands!

The signs were still up, the limit still applied. You broke the limit, you got fined. What gave you the right to decide the signs didn't apply to you? If money was made out of your stupidity and you were left feeling sore, good! Entirely your own fault.

Cluedog, you are missing Jazzper's point. The 50 limit was there because of the temporary road works. With the road works finished and all cleared away, there was no point in keeping the limit.

The real reason the speed camera was there was to raise money. It's a geniune cause of friction between police and motorists.

AnotherPointofView wrote:

ClueDog wrote:

Jazzper wrote:
If speed cameras aren't there for making money then can some one explain this...a couple of years ago I was caught by a mobile speed camera on the motorway near newcastle, it was 9-00am sunday, the temporary road works had been removed, all cones gone, yet the 50mph were still left in position inside the central crash barrier. The camera van was hiding under a motorway bridge. I was clocked doing 58mph ! Fined £60 + 3 penalty points. There must have been hundreds more caught that day. No wonder these 'safety cameras' are despised by motorists. I did object thro' the channels, but was given a standard letter....summons stands!

The signs were still up, the limit still applied. You broke the limit, you got fined. What gave you the right to decide the signs didn't apply to you? If money was made out of your stupidity and you were left feeling sore, good! Entirely your own fault.

Cluedog, you are missing Jazzper's point. The 50 limit was there because of the temporary road works. With the road works finished and all cleared away, there was no point in keeping the limit.

The real reason the speed camera was there was to raise money. It's a geniune cause of friction between police and motorists.

The point is that motorists have NO right whatsoever to decide which roadsigns they choose to obey. So what if he 'thought' the speed limit was redundant? Roadsigns are not suggestions, if you break the limit you get fined. Some (not all) motorists have a real 'I'll do what I want' attitude that really gets my back up - if you're driving a 1500kg block of metal at high speeds, the least you can do is obey the rules put in place to keep other people safe.

Peppa07 wrote:
Do these people who harp on about speed cameras being there to raise money read the Daily Mail by any chance? Total nonsense. As the more sensible posts suggest, why should every driver have a personal 'right' to decide his or her own 'safe' speed? More cameras the better I say....speed and get fined!

No I don't read the 'Mail' or any other paper. But along with a lot of others that morning traveling on a 3 lane motorway, do not expect to be fined for doing 58mph. I can now see why, due to people with your attitude, we have this wide split of opinion. I traveled very the same road the next morning, exactly the same road conditions, except much more monday morning rush hour traffic, the 50mph signs had gone and so had the 'safety camera van' !

Jazzper wrote:
If speed cameras aren't there for making money then can some one explain this...a couple of years ago I was caught by a mobile speed camera on the motorway near newcastle, it was 9-00am sunday, the temporary road works had been removed, all cones gone, yet the 50mph were still left in position inside the central crash barrier. The camera van was hiding under a motorway bridge. I was clocked doing 58mph ! Fined £60 + 3 penalty points. There must have been hundreds more caught that day. No wonder these 'safety cameras' are despised by motorists. I did object thro' the channels, but was given a standard letter....summons stands!

Quite often the roadside stuff is either not removed after the reason they were put up is long gone, as a result the warnings get ignored thus creating a mindset. The authorities need to ensure cameras/signs are always activated and if temporary then remove them when the time is right.
Fair do's all round.

YorkCityLuke wrote:

AnotherPointofView wrote:

ClueDog wrote:

Jazzper wrote: If speed cameras aren't there for making money then can some one explain this...a couple of years ago I was caught by a mobile speed camera on the motorway near newcastle, it was 9-00am sunday, the temporary road works had been removed, all cones gone, yet the 50mph were still left in position inside the central crash barrier. The camera van was hiding under a motorway bridge. I was clocked doing 58mph ! Fined £60 + 3 penalty points. There must have been hundreds more caught that day. No wonder these 'safety cameras' are despised by motorists. I did object thro' the channels, but was given a standard letter....summons stands!

The signs were still up, the limit still applied. You broke the limit, you got fined. What gave you the right to decide the signs didn't apply to you? If money was made out of your stupidity and you were left feeling sore, good! Entirely your own fault.

Cluedog, you are missing Jazzper's point. The 50 limit was there because of the temporary road works. With the road works finished and all cleared away, there was no point in keeping the limit. The real reason the speed camera was there was to raise money. It's a geniune cause of friction between police and motorists.

The point is that motorists have NO right whatsoever to decide which roadsigns they choose to obey. So what if he 'thought' the speed limit was redundant? Roadsigns are not suggestions, if you break the limit you get fined. Some (not all) motorists have a real 'I'll do what I want' attitude that really gets my back up - if you're driving a 1500kg block of metal at high speeds, the least you can do is obey the rules put in place to keep other people safe.

Motorists DO have the right to decide whcih roadsigns they choose to obey. It's a basic principle of safety and common sense. Advanced driving teaches that safety comes first, and legality second.
If the surrounding traffic was all doing 58, as stated, then Jazzper was safer doing that as well.
If he had stuck to 50MPH the other cars would have been braking and/or changing lanes, both less safe than a constant speed without a lane change.
The point Jazzper made is right - the signs should have been removed when the works ended, and the unmarked van was cashing in on the signs being left behind.
I'd have accepted the summons, refused any offers of fixed penalty or awareness courses, and turned up in court to state my case.
Unfair policing of speed limits is not the route to safer driving.
I usually obey speed limits, but I believe I am in the right to choose to disobey them whenever that is the safer option. I'd rather complete my journey without accident, and argue about the fine/points later.

I agree with the cameras to protect the workforce, but only when that workforce is actually there. Despite simple technology to prevent it the cameras will operate for 24 hours, seven days and the workforce for about 6 hours, five days. A lot of people will be caught at night and on quiet weekend mornings which doesn't seem fair.

Pete the Brickie wrote:
I agree with the cameras to protect the workforce, but only when that workforce is actually there. Despite simple technology to prevent it the cameras will operate for 24 hours, seven days and the workforce for about 6 hours, five days. A lot of people will be caught at night and on quiet weekend mornings which doesn't seem fair.

Doh no they won't.

Wouldn't a couple of average speed cameras be a safer option? That way, there won't be as much slamming on the brakes on the approach to the fixed cameras. Just a thought!

R'Marcus wrote:

Shouter wrote:
The plague of speed cameras begins. Not even York and North Yorkshire can now escape them!

Some stupid drivers should think before speeding.
Idiots.

Precisely! I am sick of riding the bike at 70mph (if safe to) along the A64, only to be tailgated by stupid, impatient, selfish idiots (usually in Audis) who think that the Law doesn't apply to them and that they are in control of their vehicle. I have two friends (both serving Police officers) who I am out biking with and they tell me that when they are parked on the bridges with a 'radar' gun pointing along the A64, catching speeders is like shooting fish in a barrel. If people stick to the legal limits, which are there for a reason, then they have nothing to fear from the safety cameras. The muppets who bleat on about them only existing "to raise money" are plain & simple cretins. I stick to within the limits and will not have to pay any money. Simple really. The speed limit is exactly that - it's a LIMIT NOT A TARGET!
'Peppa07' is right: Let's have more safety cameras! Make the speeders slow down the only way these scum will do so: fines and points on their licences. At 70mph it takes 96 METRES to stop. And that's on a dry road, in clear conditions. Over 300 feet. So I despair when I see dimwits arrogantly tailgating in lane two, at OVER 70mph, only 25 feet from the car in front of them! Is it any wonder 'pile-ups' occur? That people die trapped in the wreckage of their cars after ramming the vehicle(s) in front of them? Still, these speed-obsessed knobs will carry on breaking the Law. Anyone can drive fast - you just press the accelerator. A skilled driver is aware of when NOT to. Next time you are in the car, try to keep a two second gap between you & the vehicle in front. It takes two seconds to say: "only a fool breaks the two second rule". If the car in front passes a stationary object, you need 2 seconds to elapse before YOU reach the object and pass it. On wet roads this is doubled. Just because others drive recklessly and/or dangerously never justifies YOU doing this. I speak as a long term member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, trained to Police Class One standard.

Jazzper wrote:
If speed cameras aren't there for making money then can some one explain this...a couple of years ago I was caught by a mobile speed camera on the motorway near newcastle, it was 9-00am sunday, the temporary road works had been removed, all cones gone, yet the 50mph were still left in position inside the central crash barrier. The camera van was hiding under a motorway bridge. I was clocked doing 58mph ! Fined £60 + 3 penalty points. There must have been hundreds more caught that day. No wonder these 'safety cameras' are despised by motorists. I did object thro' the channels, but was given a standard letter....summons stands!

You were fined and had your licence endorsed because the limit was 50mph and you were doing 58mph!
I really do not know why this is hard to comprehend... (Claimed) ignorance of the speed limits is no excuse.

deathwatch wrote:

Jazzper wrote:
If speed cameras aren't there for making money then can some one explain this...a couple of years ago I was caught by a mobile speed camera on the motorway near newcastle, it was 9-00am sunday, the temporary road works had been removed, all cones gone, yet the 50mph were still left in position inside the central crash barrier. The camera van was hiding under a motorway bridge. I was clocked doing 58mph ! Fined £60 + 3 penalty points. There must have been hundreds more caught that day. No wonder these 'safety cameras' are despised by motorists. I did object thro' the channels, but was given a standard letter....summons stands!

You were fined and had your licence endorsed because the limit was 50mph and you were doing 58mph!
I really do not know why this is hard to comprehend... (Claimed) ignorance of the speed limits is no excuse.

The speed limit was a temporary one to protect roadworkers. Work was finished packed up gone ! signs were left out till next day by said workers too lazy to remove them.

If you look at the photo above, it shows a sign...camera not in use. In my case it would have been nice if a sign had read...watch out camera still in use!!

Peppa07 wrote:
Do these people who harp on about speed cameras being there to raise money read the Daily Mail by any chance? Total nonsense. As the more sensible posts suggest, why should every driver have a personal 'right' to decide his or her own 'safe' speed? More cameras the better I say....speed and get fined!

OMF-ingG.

Really? Did you just say "Why should every driver have a personal 'right' to decide his or her own 'safe' speed?"
Surely that's what they teach you when you take driving lessons? They teach you to make *your own judgements* based on safety and skill not to blindly follow some one size fits all mantra.

Look I understand the distinction between giving free rein for a Mad Max/ Deathrace 2000 scenario and the fundamentals of civilisation i.e. imposing a few basic ground rules for people to follow so that life flows smoothly and safely.
But you know what? I'm a big fan of thinking for myself. Being a drone is not for me.
We should be encouraging drivers to learn the skills needed make the decision to drive at the right speed, not saying "you don't have the right to choose - do this now"

It's frightening that people are willing to come onto internet comment facilities and claim their right to not have to think for themselves. Truly frightening.

Hear Hear Buzz ! Peppa07 must be a contender for 'Big Brother' ! ;-)

Jazzper wrote:

deathwatch wrote:

Jazzper wrote:
If speed cameras aren't there for making money then can some one explain this...a couple of years ago I was caught by a mobile speed camera on the motorway near newcastle, it was 9-00am sunday, the temporary road works had been removed, all cones gone, yet the 50mph were still left in position inside the central crash barrier. The camera van was hiding under a motorway bridge. I was clocked doing 58mph ! Fined £60 + 3 penalty points. There must have been hundreds more caught that day. No wonder these 'safety cameras' are despised by motorists. I did object thro' the channels, but was given a standard letter....summons stands!

You were fined and had your licence endorsed because the limit was 50mph and you were doing 58mph!
I really do not know why this is hard to comprehend... (Claimed) ignorance of the speed limits is no excuse.

The speed limit was a temporary one to protect roadworkers. Work was finished packed up gone ! signs were left out till next day by said workers too lazy to remove them.

If the sign is still there, you are obliged to adhere to the stated limit. It is unambiguous and not open to interpretation. Whether it has been 'left there in error' doesn't matter. If in doubt, why not simply adhere to the limit? You would have saved yourself a penalty if you had... As I stated earlier: It is a limit NOT a target.

deathwatch says...
6:27pm Thu 1 Nov 12


I have two friends (both serving Police officers) who I am out biking with and they tell me that when they are parked on the bridges with a 'radar' gun pointing along the A64, catching speeders is like shooting fish in a barrel

If those idiots practice their aim by shooting at Cod etc in a sealed keg like container full of water, it would explain why they can't hit anything when confronted with a more challenging equine target at distance.

They should start using invisible cameras as they are starting to do in other countries. Then there would be no problem with people seeing a visible one and foolishly braking too hard because they are such rubbish drivers.

And that is what they are, incompetent drivers who need a ban to teach them a lesson, lifetime if need be.

again wrote:
They should start using invisible cameras as they are starting to do in other countries. Then there would be no problem with people seeing a visible one and foolishly braking too hard because they are such rubbish drivers.

And that is what they are, incompetent drivers who need a ban to teach them a lesson, lifetime if need be.

Spot on with that one! A lot of the people who moan about safety cameras being in place to 'make money' are missing the basic and simple point: The scum who break speed limits and arrogantly flout the Law think that the only 'dangers' of their speeding and reckless driving are getting caught and getting fined & (more) points on their licence. Typical of their selfish, self-centred attitude. The reality is that the dangers are that they will cause road traffic collisions and possibly kill or maim innocent people. Their selfish concerns about only getting caught/fined etc. speaks for itself. It says a lot about them as people & their attitude to others. I can't understand why people have a problem. Reduce your speed, drive according to the conditions and WITHIN (not necessarily AT) the legal limits, and you will not be out of pocket and get points on your licence.
Invisible cameras will force drivers to ease off their accelerators. hopefully will catch drivers on their bloody mobiles too...

Jazzper wrote:

deathwatch wrote:

Jazzper wrote: If speed cameras aren't there for making money then can some one explain this...a couple of years ago I was caught by a mobile speed camera on the motorway near newcastle, it was 9-00am sunday, the temporary road works had been removed, all cones gone, yet the 50mph were still left in position inside the central crash barrier. The camera van was hiding under a motorway bridge. I was clocked doing 58mph ! Fined £60 + 3 penalty points. There must have been hundreds more caught that day. No wonder these 'safety cameras' are despised by motorists. I did object thro' the channels, but was given a standard letter....summons stands!

You were fined and had your licence endorsed because the limit was 50mph and you were doing 58mph! I really do not know why this is hard to comprehend... (Claimed) ignorance of the speed limits is no excuse.

The speed limit was a temporary one to protect roadworkers. Work was finished packed up gone ! signs were left out till next day by said workers too lazy to remove them.

Perhaps the signs were still there until the workers had come back to remove the last of their kit? It seems reasonable that the signs would be the last thing to be removed, otherwise they'd be unable to safely take them down.

I was in a shop the other day when I felt like lifting a couple of dvds I fancied despite observing a shoplifters will be prosecuted sign.

Can you believe the b*stards collared me via a disguised store detective?

Now I've been fined just because I chose which laws apply to me.

Isn't that ridiculous?

Hey, I hate (love) to play devils advocate but (so)..

The current max speed was introduced in the mid sixties and it was a sensible limit for vehicles of that era.

Modern cars are drastically safer and more capable. ABS, traction control, sophisticated suspension, run flat tyres etc.

70 is a pitifully low speed for even an average modern vehicle, the government has intimated as much.

In this case, the speed camera sounds justifiable to me but don't push your own inabilities onto all drivers. That big saloon in the outside lane doing 100 is likely far safer than your old hatchback at 70.

twotonethomas wrote:
I was in a shop the other day when I felt like lifting a couple of dvds I fancied despite observing a shoplifters will be prosecuted sign.

Can you believe the b*stards collared me via a disguised store detective?

Now I've been fined just because I chose which laws apply to me.

Isn't that ridiculous?

twotonethomas ....maybe you should just stay at home..hopefully far safer for you there, unless you are still using a chip pan!

Far safer at home, than on the footpaths with idiots ignoring speed limits.

jingles233 wrote:
Hey, I hate (love) to play devils advocate but (so)..

The current max speed was introduced in the mid sixties and it was a sensible limit for vehicles of that era.

Modern cars are drastically safer and more capable. ABS, traction control, sophisticated suspension, run flat tyres etc.

70 is a pitifully low speed for even an average modern vehicle, the government has intimated as much.

In this case, the speed camera sounds justifiable to me but don't push your own inabilities onto all drivers. That big saloon in the outside lane doing 100 is likely far safer than your old hatchback at 70.

The cars might be better built, but the volume of traffic has increased dramatically since the 1970's. Also, safer cars give drivers the (dangerous & false) impression that they can drive faster. Your post proves this lethal misconception. Driving a powerful saloon at 100mph is sheer stupidity. Cars being driven at high speed, often far too close to the vehicle in front are the cause of many fatalities. The arrogant, impatient speed - obsessed bullies tailgating drivers to intimidate them into 'getting out of the way' often justify their reckless behaviour by assuming that the 'safety systems' in the car will protect them! Do these morons not consider (or care about) other vehicles and other vulnerable road users? No! They are too wrapped up in themselves. Cars might be 'drastically safer & better built', but the human being behind the wheel is definitely NOT. 70mph is enough. Leave earlier, keep your distance, stay focused and anticipate and allow for other road users. Plus, driving according to the conditions will save lives. If 100mph is "safe", then the penalties wouldn't be so severe. SLOW DOWN!!!

C'mon children, play the game nicely. Get caught ....pay up end of !

I want these cameras also set for 50mph, so anyone UNDER it gets a fkin ticket and stops holding everyone else up.....

its not even the old cars with foreign plates and immigrant workers , its the nice new shiny ones with coffin dodgers in most of the time of the time, especially around bingo o'clock...

deathwatch wrote:

jingles233 wrote:
Hey, I hate (love) to play devils advocate but (so)..

The current max speed was introduced in the mid sixties and it was a sensible limit for vehicles of that era.

Modern cars are drastically safer and more capable. ABS, traction control, sophisticated suspension, run flat tyres etc.

70 is a pitifully low speed for even an average modern vehicle, the government has intimated as much.

In this case, the speed camera sounds justifiable to me but don't push your own inabilities onto all drivers. That big saloon in the outside lane doing 100 is likely far safer than your old hatchback at 70.

The cars might be better built, but the volume of traffic has increased dramatically since the 1970's. Also, safer cars give drivers the (dangerous & false) impression that they can drive faster. Your post proves this lethal misconception. Driving a powerful saloon at 100mph is sheer stupidity. Cars being driven at high speed, often far too close to the vehicle in front are the cause of many fatalities. The arrogant, impatient speed - obsessed bullies tailgating drivers to intimidate them into 'getting out of the way' often justify their reckless behaviour by assuming that the 'safety systems' in the car will protect them! Do these morons not consider (or care about) other vehicles and other vulnerable road users? No! They are too wrapped up in themselves. Cars might be 'drastically safer & better built', but the human being behind the wheel is definitely NOT. 70mph is enough. Leave earlier, keep your distance, stay focused and anticipate and allow for other road users. Plus, driving according to the conditions will save lives. If 100mph is "safe", then the penalties wouldn't be so severe. SLOW DOWN!!!

Some might consider me one of these 'The arrogant, impatient speed - obsessed bullies' you speak of, I'm not known for going slowly - I travel to the conditions of the road which means that there are times I consider a limit to be flexible, but I want to point out that where conditions may have allowed for speeding - not once have I managed to crash my car, or bike. Had my licence about 8 years now, not 1 crash (neither have I caused any) so your point isn't cut & dry.

However I do know a guy who's father was such a worker and 3 months ago was killed while repairing ARMCO during the day by a truck on the motorway so I see the view of the 'protection' from camera's but they are more of a distraction for drivers than a reminder of the limit in place. What if a driver is so busy monitoring the speedo that they hit a worker and get a 'death by careless driving' charge?

You don't need to be 'constantly monitoring the speedo' to be able to drive safely and legally. I'm not suggesting that people should spend more time staring at the speedo than looking at the road. It takes a fraction of a second to check your speed. People trying to justify their bad driving by saying "the safety camera distracted me" is ludicrous. Having never been caught for exceeding the legal limit doesn't show someone to be a 'good driver'. It simply means that they have never been caught! People drive too fast & too close to the vehicle in front and it is simply extremely dangerous. They are arrogantly gambling with the lives of other people and it is wrong. Tailgating kills. It causes needless stress to other road users and is selfish & lethal. What if the other road users are not experienced and panic and lose control? If you are hit by them whilst you are barrelling along at 100mph, wrapped up in the belief that you are in control, you'll find out extremely quickly and painfully that you are not in any way able to safely bring your vehicle to a safe controlled stop. This "well, I've never been caught (yet)" attitude is no Indication of the standard of someone's driving abilities. I have to often tell the loved ones of a road traffic collision that their wife / husband / parent etc has not survived, despite all of our efforts, and it is a horrific thing to do. I have to take a deep breath and look them in the eye, knowing that the collision was probably preventable and that excess speed was a high factor in that person(s) death. I wish people who impatiently and aggressively tailgate the car in front of them could sit in with me next time I have to break the terrible news that someone has died, so that maybe I might start to sink in that it is NOT about "not getting caught" and "getting away with it". It's about safety, respect for others and about saving people's lives. If you don't care about anyone else and are obsessed with getting to where you are going as fast and aggressively as possible, you carry on driving like that. We'll stay behind to pick up the pieces. As long as you don't get caught, that's okay then. As long as YOU'RE alright...

As someone who used to work on the highways there is nothing worse than knowing cars are beating by your head at 70mph -90mph come on we all sped now and then) If you reduce the speed to 30 the whole experience gets easier. it's still dangerous but the noise and spray are so much less intimidating!
Most of the work will be under the bridge and the noise and vibrations echoing under there at 70 would make it a rough day!
I for one will happily be doing 30(ish) over the bridge every day.

I use the A64 most days and as I try to save petrol I usually drive at a steady 60 miles per hour the number of vehicles that fly past me at 80 or 90 just show the need for these camera’s whilst these works are going on, I for one won’t be too bothered if they stay up after the works have finished

Funnyian wrote:
I use the A64 most days and as I try to save petrol I usually drive at a steady 60 miles per hour the number of vehicles that fly past me at 80 or 90 just show the need for these camera’s whilst these works are going on, I for one won’t be too bothered if they stay up after the works have finished

At last! One of the (sadly, too few) users of this forum showing sense and respect for others when it comes to use of the highways. Well put! A lot of people race along thinking the only harm in speeding is 'getting caught' and it costing them money. They are too selfish and/or stupid to realise the bigger picture. (ie people die...)

Funnyian wrote:
I use the A64 most days and as I try to save petrol I usually drive at a steady 60 miles per hour the number of vehicles that fly past me at 80 or 90 just show the need for these camera’s whilst these works are going on, I for one won’t be too bothered if they stay up after the works have finished

At last! One of the (sadly, too few) users of this forum showing sense and respect for others when it comes to use of the highways. Well put! A lot of people race along thinking the only harm in speeding is 'getting caught' and it costing them money. They are too selfish and/or stupid to realise the bigger picture. (ie people die...)

Deathwatch..? more like Grim Reaper ;-)

The only speed cameras that work properly are the SPECS average speed cameras you get on motorway works - you only need one gantry of cameras at the start of the works and another set at the end (though intermediate sets are in place for data logging etc), a car goes through at the maximum permitted speed to set the cameras up and callibrate them correctly - and then for any motorist going through it won't matter if they slow down for the cameras themselves because if they have been speeding in between they still get caught.

Personally I wouldn't be aversed to more of these types of cameras being fitted up if the overall speed limit on motorways and other 'safe' roads was increased to 90 or 100, especially if the cameras were able to detect speed and relate it to your registration to determine if your car can handle such speeds and therefore issue a fine if you're driving some old 1990's car at 100mph.

If only they could make a camera to catch mobile phone using drivers then we'd be properly on to something.

"If only they could make a camera to catch mobile phone using drivers then we'd be properly on to something"
I totally agree with that !