2012 Ford Focus Electric: Overly Timid Or...

Average speed cameras planned for 20mph zones in UK

 
9 1,183 views May 16, 2008

Average speed cameras planned for 20mph zones in UK

Average speed cameras planned for 20mph zones in UK

Enlarge Photo
Last month we reported that the UK government was considering rolling out ‘average speed’ cameras across hundreds of miles of highways in an effort to actively control speeding instead of just measuring it. New reports claim the draconian measure could also be used in residential areas where speed limits often dip as low as 20mph (32km/h).

The new proposal is part of a government plan intended to cut road deaths by a third over the next decade. The plan would also see variable speed limits introduced on main roads near schools and busy centers as well as the introduction of a lower drink-driving limit and a harsher demerit points system.

Lawmakers hope to replace speed-humps in the 20mph zones with the new average speed cameras, reports The Times.

An official document outlining the measures will be introduced towards the end of the year, while the average speed cameras could start appearing in residential zones in just a few months. Studies on the benefit of the 20mph zones are being rushed by the Department for Transport in order to convince local councils to adopt the new proposals.



Posted in:
 
Contribute
Send us a tip Comment Contact the editor
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (9)

  1. By chris Posted: 5/16/2008 9:43am PDT

    let the freedom debate starrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt........ NOW.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. By autoque Posted: 5/16/2008 9:55am PDT

    Now that you've set the stage for us, Chris, we don't really feel like debating. Let's let this one just slip away, shall we? :)

    We all know the responses that are going to come up anyways; 'Thank god we live in America', 'This is too excessive' or 'This is needed to keep the people to abide by the law' and etc, etc.

    But if you've got something constructive to say, we are all ears!! :)
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. By chris Posted: 5/16/2008 10:06am PDT

    constructive? yeah that third comment nailed it. Speed limits are laws and the government has every right to enforce it. if you're doing 21 in a 20, you are liable to be fined. simple as that.

    if anything you should be thankful that they're talking about using average speed systems that allow you to pass those pokey motorists. they could by all rights enforce electronic limiters to be fitted to cars that will use a GPS system to figure out what road you're on and then cut your engine if you pass the speed limit. would you prefer that? cause besides obvious safety concerns, the government has the right to do that as well. so do the car manufacturers. in fact I peg Volvo to be the first to do it if it is ever done.

    point is, an average speed system is fair. it allows you to get the hell out of trouble, but at the same time, not get a ticket. it also allows the government to issue fines to those who deserve it.

    I dont like it any more than anyone else here, but I can't argue with its use in "redistential" or "school" zones. if you ask me, anyone who speeds in those areas where the limit is 20 mph needs to drown in their own feces and piss.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. By chris Posted: 5/16/2008 10:06am PDT

    by the way, aparently i'm dislexic: **"Residential"**
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. By shortroot Posted: 5/16/2008 5:13pm PDT

    I have to say that this is absolute crap. I want to be in charge of the car, I don't want the government enforcing the speed limit. If it is appropriate to drive at 20 mph then I will drive at that speed.

    What irritates me the most is that if everyone isn't constantly monitored by the government in every area of their lives, they are likely to go absolutely mental. I want the choice to choose how I can drive or how I can live my life in general.

    The idea is absolute crap, and I would support anyone who destroyed these cameras, if and when they arrive. I would actually like to drive a McLaren-Mercedes SLR at 100 mph through the zone, then screech to a halt just before the next camera and wait until enough time has passed that it thinks my average speed is 20 mph. Just to piss off the bastards who think I shouldn't be allowed to make my own choices in life, all for the sake of saving a few lives, that probably wouldn't have been saved anyway.

    Lets ban alcohol and fatty foods as well while we are at it, and one-night stands without using condoms and the suicide rate will go through the roof due to boredom.

    A lot of well meaning ideas have completely unintended and dangerous consequences.

    People dying is part of life and if the only way to save a few extra lives is to remove people's freedom, then it isn't worth it.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. By Ultra Posted: 5/16/2008 7:03pm PDT

    well now I know that the UK is not a free country , in the US a cop cant wait outside a bar to wait for drunk drivers putting cameras is around the same thing.

    1. uk not a free country
    2. U.S , Germany and Japan still are.

    thanks for the info
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. By ed Posted: 5/17/2008 12:09am PDT

    THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS lWHEN LIBERALS GET IN POWER. tHEY WANT TO BE YOUR NANNY. lOG LIVE CONSEVATIVES. tHEY LET YOU MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. By HECTOR Posted: 5/17/2008 6:13am PDT

    Shortroot hits it on the nail. People die every day and that's the established order of nature. And it isn't worth it to introduce and or enforce unreasonable restricitons on personal freedom and / or to annoy the living F*CK out of people just to save a statistical life or two.

    Besides the case at hand - nanny cameras that spy on you to make sure you're obeying *the law* - there's another example (and my fellow readers will excuse me for beating on this drum again).

    DRLs prevent a statistically meaningless 3-4% of accidents (though once I read it in a liberal newspaper they prevented 30% of accidents which is absolute BS). So the nanny state mandates DRLs and a couple a lives are save, at the cost of causing unsafe driving conditions because of super bright lights shining in your face or rearview mirror, throwing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (not that I personally care about it) and frankly annoying me to a rabid rage. And, far from recognizing the stupidity of its idea the nanny state mandates the DRLs continent wide in Europe and I've no doubt it will soon be coming to these shores.

    Shortroot has it correct: not everything that (allegedly) keeps us safe is a good idea.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. By Gus Posted: 5/19/2008 11:15am PDT

    That is too tight a monitoring program for me.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Connect with Facebook

Motor Authority. Now with your friends.

Discover stories your friends read.
Share stories more easily.
You control what you share.
Learn more

Research New Cars

Go!


More from High Gear Media

 
 
MotorAuthority
  • Follow Us
  • Twiiter
  • Facebook
 
 
© 2011 MotorAuthority. All Rights Reserved. MotorAuthority is published by High Gear Media. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC. Send us feedback.