Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Pingu on 09 November, 2008, 01:41:00 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7718279.stm
He thinks single speed cameras are 'unfair'.
Mr Hoon, who described himself as an "enthusiastic motorist", also confessed to the newspaper that he had been caught speeding in the past.
He said: "I was doing 42mph on a country road that at the time was a 30mph limit."
A few months later the council had raised the maximum speed limit on that road to 40mph.
Referring to it, Mr Hoon said:"I still have a sense of resentment."
::-)
-
Erm... your quoting is quite selective isn't it?
He actually prefers the use of average speed cameras. Me too - their use has transformed the A14 over recent years.
He also suggests lowering the blood alcohol threshold and doubling fixed point penalties to six for >15mph infringements.
I thought it was quite a positive piece, regardless of whether you think he's a wazzock (I do).
-
I wasn't trying to misrepresent what he's saying, just being exasperated that he's spouting some of the usual speedophile nonsense.
I'd go along with a lot of the ideas in the article.
-
The 6 points for being more than 15ph over the limit is a great idea, no more whinging that fines are a "stealth tax"!
-
Everytime I
hearsee the word speedophile I reach for my gun.
-
Speeding drivers kill far more children than paedophiles.
-
Go get your gun, Manotea, cause I think he's a speedophile, too.
There's some positive measures in there, but Hoon is a cretin.
-
In the article he gave an example, quoting from personal experience, why he along with many others, feel that 'single speed cameras' are unfair and not particularly effective, and advocated a range of other measures which (I believe) most people would fully support.
Still, lets not miss a chance for a bit of name calling, eh?
-
No, in the article Hoon admitted being a criminal and then claimed he felt aggrieved that the roads were made safer after his offence.
-
"Enthusiastic" is generally a euphemism for...er...hooning it about.
-
No, in the article Hoon admitted being a criminal and then claimed he felt aggrieved that the roads were made safer after his offence.
You are joking, right?
-
Everytime I hearsee the word speedophile I reach for my gun.
Lucky we've got gun control, eh? ;)
-
Elsewhere, they are linking to an Excess article headlined with a reference to speed cameras, and how they are not the "answer"
In the article, they admit that speed cameras weren't actually discussed....
I have a problem. Manotea, with the idea of measures that "most people would fully support". Dangerous territory in law enforcement.
-
No, in the article Hoon admitted being a criminal and then claimed he felt aggrieved that the roads were made safer after his offence.
You are joking, right?
Fraid not, he was clocked at 42 in a 30 and fined. When he learned the limit on that road was later reduced to 30 he felt "aggrieved" in his words.
-
Manotea said:
Everytime I see the word speedophile I reach for my gun
Do you do the same with 'oenophile'?
-
Well, the article discusses average speed cameras, cuts in drink-drive limits and higher fines for speeding drivers. Nothing too contentious here, surely?
And I'm not sure how spindrift inferred that the road was 'made safer" when it was reclassified from 30 to 40mph which was roughly the speed Hoon was doing previously.
Maybe Sprindrift agrees with Hoons judgement, and presumeably that of the relevant authority, that the road was more safely driven at a faster speed (or rather that the previously set speed was unreasonably low).
-
A car moving at 42mph has TWICE the kinetic energy of one at 30mph, which gives it TWICE the braking distance and at least twice the damage potential.
A little excess speed does not seem so trivial to me.
-
And I'm not sure how spindrift inferred that the road was 'made safer" when it was reclassified from 30 to 40mph which was roughly the speed Hoon was doing previously.
Ah yes, roughly the same speed, but in fact 2mph over. Ergo Hoon is a criminal, and has no right to feel aggrieved.
At least I think that's what was said. I couldn't hear too well over the usual speedophobe bleating.
:P
-
Umm, does anyone think fixed speed cameras are the ideal solution? Particularly when they are painted yellow - that was introduced to appease the motorist lobby; there wasn't any research into whether it would help matters or not. The fact is, it wouldn't. They only affect vehicle speeds for a short distance after the camera, because they're so easy to spot. Research into visible vs stealthy cameras conducted in New Zealand showed an 11% better reduction in deaths with covert cameras.
Average speed cameras were introduced near here on the A14. As ChrisS pointed out, they've made a huge difference. Compared to the fixed cameras which they replaced, they've shown a large decrease in serious road accidents. And they have made the road far easier to drive along if you are sticking to the limit since the spread of vehicle speeds has reduced dramatically. It's better for the environment, it's safer, and it works. Average speed cameras are the way forwards.
-
I love the thought of "popularity"
As soon as the average speed cameras start to identify speeding drivers they will become unpopular as well!
From the Southampton Daily Echo....
The emphases are mine - but aren't they the familiar bleating about fixed cameras?
CONTROVERSIAL speed cameras dubbed "yellow vultures" have been erected to pick off motorists going too quickly through roadworks due to start next weekend on a busy stretch of the M27.
Perched like birds of prey on limbs extending above the road, the cameras will catch any motorist whose average speed tops 50mph through a section of road widening works, starting on Saturday.
The Highways Agency claims that the cameras are needed for the safety of the workers.
However, motoring groups warn that they could make the road less safe and have branded them a nuisance at night.
The cameras will be in place for up to 15 months while the Highways Agency carries out a £36m project to ease congestion by building fourth lanes between junction three at Nursling and junction four at the M3.
It says that drivers can expect "slight delays" of up to ten minutes.
Motorists are already feeling the frustration of lengthy delays from a smaller £18m project to add climbing lanes between junctions 11 for Fareham and 12 for Portsmouth.
The Association of British Drivers says that while it does not object to speed limit enforcement, the "yellow vultures" could cause some drivers to overcompensate by slowing too much when approaching a second camera. It also feels that the cameras could distract drivers from the road by encouraging them to keep a constant eye on their speedometer.
A Highways Agency spokeswoman refused to say when the cameras would operate, or why "yellow vultures" would be used.
She said: "We use safety cameras, including average speed cameras, to enforce speed limits at roadworks where road speeds are lowered and drivers are likely to speed.
"Essentially the cameras are used to protect the workforce, motorists and keep traffic moving through the roadworks."
She added that the cameras had been installed and operated in accordance with Department for Transport rules and guidance from the safety camera partnership.
Roads bosses are optimistic that the major roadworks can be finished by Christmas.
-
The problem is less with Hoon and his Civil Servant watered down stance, but more with Sub-Editors.
Indeed, if you pick through his words, he is actually for speed controls and greater penalties for transgressions. Unfortunately (as often happens with an inexperienced junior minister ;)) some of his words can be misquoted or emphasised.
-
And I'm not sure how spindrift inferred that the road was 'made safer" when it was reclassified from 30 to 40mph which was roughly the speed Hoon was doing previously.
Cos roads with lower speeds are safer. The higher the speed the more likely an accident and the more severe the injuries.
-
Maybe Sprindrift agrees with Hoons judgement, and presumeably that of the relevant authority, that the road was more safely driven at a faster speed (or rather that the previously set speed was unreasonably low).
Umm - the inference surely is that the optimum [1] tradeoff between convenience and safety was more likely to be at 40mph than 30. The road is less safe with higher speeds but that level of safety falls within the accepted carnage rate for public road use.
..d
[1] optimum for who, exactly?
-
The problem is less with Hoon and his Civil Servant watered down stance, but more with Sub-Editors.
Indeed, if you pick through his words, he is actually for speed controls and greater penalties for transgressions. Unfortunately (as often happens with an inexperienced junior minister ;)) some of his words can be misquoted or emphasised.
But the Press Office at the Dep of Transport (or wherever he works now) should have picked this up prior to publication. I know our place insists on the right to see stuff prior to it being published to check for bias and innaccurate reporting.
-
[1] optimum for who, exactly?
Optimum is a political decision, methinks.
Maximum vehicle flow is achieved at around 18mph; this would be unpopular politically so compromises are made which place the comfort and convenience of the motorist above that of other 'lowly' road users.
When cost/benefit analysis is performed to justify massive road schemes, pedestrian time is not costed...
-
And I'm not sure how spindrift inferred that the road was 'made safer" when it was reclassified from 30 to 40mph which was roughly the speed Hoon was doing previously.
Cos roads with lower speeds are safer. The higher the speed the more likely an accident and the more severe the injuries.
The power of your arguement has left me speechless.
-
And I'm not sure how spindrift inferred that the road was 'made safer" when it was reclassified from 30 to 40mph which was roughly the speed Hoon was doing previously.
Cos roads with lower speeds are safer. The higher the speed the more likely an accident and the more severe the injuries.
The power of your arguement has left me speechless.
TRL 549, it's an established tenet, and a bit less sarcasm would be nice.
-
Well, TRL549 relates to drivers perception of cyclists and as I don't have £40 spare to buy a copy I cannot comment on its contents. But to recap.
Hoon drives at 42mph on a 30mph road later reclassified (for whatever reason) to 40mph, which might suggest the original classification was on the low side (but who knows, I certainly don't). The salient point is that it would seem unlikely Hoon would be presecuted for speeding at 2mph over the limit if he made the drive today. Taken together these facts would leave most with a certain sense of grievence. At the same time he/his department is advocating a range of other measures with which (IMO) most would agree, (Or are you advocating fewer cameras[1], lower drink drive limits[2], and lower fines for offenders[3]?)
Your position is that the road has been made safer because lower speed limits are safer. Can you explain how this links to the original article?
For the record
[1] I consider cameras to be an infringement of my civil liberty
[2] I effectively don't drink so would have no problem with a zero limit but feel that in practice its unreasonable. I'd like to see more enforcement of the laws we have. The police should be free to breathalise every body driving away from a pub.
[3] Overall I'd aim for fewer laws and bigger penalties, i.e., over the drink limit -> car impounded and crushed.
-
Taken together these facts would leave most with a certain sense of grievence.
Only if you are a bitter, frustrated malcontent. Just pay up, it's the law, there are always limits to behaviour, whining "It's not fair!" is pointless.
Your position is that the road has been made safer because lower speed limits are safer. Can you explain how this links to the original article?
The road Hoon was fined on now has lower, safer speed limits. That's what makes Hoon's "grievance" all the more disappointing.
-
For whatever reason the limit was set at 30mph, that is what it was when Hoon was caught speeding.
I got caught by a speed camera doing 35mph entering a 30mph stretch. Doesn't matter. I was wrong. I have no idea if that bit of road has since been reclassified, or what changes have been made to it (which we also don't know in Hoon's case).
Whatever the reason, what I did was breaking the law, and I have served my punishment. I do not feel aggrieved, and nor would I.
Hoon decided to drive at a speed which was not legal. End of.
-
You know, I've read that article several times now, and it still says:
"I was doing 42mph on a country road that at the time was a 30mph limit."
A few months later the council had raised the maximum speed limit on that road to 40mph.
-
And there was I thinking speeding wasn't a criminal offence. It hasn't, after all, left me with a record (for the one time I was prosecuted for speeding). I would go so far as to say that speeding is something that ALL drivers do at some time, either deliberately of inadvertently, to a greater or lessser degree, and the only way to avoid doing so is to not drive ever.
Just because you think someone is a fool/idiot/buffoon/criminal does not necessarily invalidate everything they have to say.
Many drivers would prefer average speed cameras - ok, so it's because they would probably avoid prosecution if, having spotted one whilst travelling over the limit they could then slow down to avoid exceeding the average, so I'm not so sure they're a panacea. But I do think on roads like the A14, renouned for speeding, they do make a substantial positive contribution. I guess it's horses for courses.
-
And I'm not sure how spindrift inferred that the road was 'made safer" when it was reclassified from 30 to 40mph which was roughly the speed Hoon was doing previously.
Cos roads with lower speeds are safer. The higher the speed the more likely an accident and the more severe the injuries.
Without the sarcasm then, I'm also confused.
The speed limit on the road was increased from 30mph to 40mph.
So if you think that lower speeds are safer then wouldn't you be of the opinion that the road was made more dangerous in that case ?
-
The road Hoon was fined on now has lower, safer speed limits. That's what makes Hoon's "grievance" all the more disappointing.
Yes I think this is the problem. You've misread the original article. The limit is now 40mph not 30mph.
To be fair though you did also copy and paste a sentence which explicitly said that.
-
I guess the KSI rates declined after the camera was sited. Hoon pissing and moaning over this is a waste of energy.
-
For the record
[1] I consider cameras to be an infringement of my civil liberty
[2] I effectively don't drink so would have no problem with a zero limit but feel that in practice its unreasonable. I'd like to see more enforcement of the laws we have. The police should be free to breathalise every body driving away from a pub.
[3] Overall I'd aim for fewer laws and bigger penalties, i.e., over the drink limit -> car impounded and crushed.
Why do you consider cameras to be an infringement of civil liberties but not police breathalising everyone?
-
I consider cameras to be an infringement of my civil liberty
I think speeders infringe everybody else's civil liberties, it's aggressive and anti social behaviour, it's a shame cameras are needed but blame the selfish idiots who ensure they are needed rather than the cameras themselves.
-
Why do you consider cameras to be an infringement of civil liberties but not police breathalising everyone?
The information gathered by these devices is open to abuse.
It's an automated law enforcement device, where the offence is something with an arbitrary definition. Machines never apply common sense, policemen usually do.
The other strong anti-camera argument is that a policemen stopping you for speeding may realise that your tyres are bald, you're pissed, the car is stolen, and/or you have 2 dead bodies in the boot.
[I should say I'm still on the fence with this whole issue, so don't shoot the messenger! Oh, and apologies if I'm stating the obvious.]
-
I think speeders infringe everybody else's civil liberties, it's aggressive and anti social behaviour, it's a shame cameras are needed but blame the selfish idiots who ensure they are needed rather than the cameras themselves.
That's what I think too. :thumbsup:
-
Why do you consider cameras to be an infringement of civil liberties but not police breathalising everyone?
The information gathered by these devices is open to abuse.
It's an automated law enforcement device, where the offence is something with an arbitrary definition. Machines never apply common sense, policemen usually do.
True, but it's not the device that infringes your liberties, it's the way the people use the data. I'm happy for average speed cameras to temporarily store registration plates for the sole purpose of measuring speed, but I'd be strongly against feature creep where it's extended into a surveillance system used to track the movement of every vehicle. At least a camera is in some sense judging everyone equally, whereas policemen may use their "common sense" to ignore an offence committed by e.g. an acquaintance.
Most laws do require the application of common sense in their interpretation, but it's not obvious to me that speeding is one of them (apart from a few exceptional circumstances, and an automatic ticket can always be contested). In other words, either the law on speeding should be rewritten to allow people to exceed the limit where it's "safe", or everyone should expect it to be enforced.
The other strong anti-camera argument is that a policemen stopping you for speeding may realise that your tyres are bald, you're pissed, the car is stolen, and/or you have 2 dead bodies in the boot.
I think that's an anti-police argument :)
-
I consider cameras to be an infringement of my civil liberty
I think speeders infringe everybody else's civil liberties, it's aggressive and anti social behaviour, it's a shame cameras are needed but blame the selfish idiots who ensure they are needed rather than the cameras themselves.
+1
-
Why do you consider cameras to be an infringement of civil liberties but not police breathalising everyone?
Cameras are a blunt, lazy instrument that intrude upon all. I don't feel protected, I feel oppressed.
In contrast, breathalysing drivers at pub closing time (n.b., not "everyone") would be an efficient and reasonable means of targeting drink drivers.
-
I feel my civil liberties are protected by safety cameras.
-
Why do you consider cameras to be an infringement of civil liberties but not police breathalising everyone?
Cameras are a blunt, lazy instrument that intrude upon all. I don't feel protected, I feel oppressed.
In contrast, breathalysing drivers at pub closing time (n.b., not "everyone") would be an efficient and reasonable means of targeting drink drivers.
Targetting those travelling at over the speed limit would be a reasonable and efficient way of catching habitual criminals.
..d
-
Well, TRL549 relates to drivers perception of cyclists and as I don't have £40 spare to buy a copy I cannot comment on its contents. But to recap.
Slightly Ot, but you can get the PDF of TRL 549 for free
Use this link (http://www.trl.co.uk/store/report_detail.asp?srid=2700) then click "Buy Now" and then select the free PDF option
-
Cameras are a blunt, lazy instrument that intrude upon all. I don't feel protected, I feel oppressed.
Now to me this feels like the nub of it. Why do people feel oppressed when all that the arrangement does is to ask them not to be breaking the law? A couple of possibilities
Is it the simple fact of being asked not to break the law? Surely not, that would suggest that, amongst others, Mr Hoon deep down has little or no regard for the law, when creating and repealing them is a core function of his job.
Is it the anxiety because there is no sure knowledge that you were caught until the letter hits the doormat a couple of weeks later? Could be. After all a person might be able to talk their way out of it with a real policeman, and even if not they would know there and then that they hadn't.
Is it the undermining of the self esteem resulting from having failed to spot a big yellow box on a pole?
-
Quite. How can you feel oppressed by an unthinking box on a pole that only does something if you're breaking the law? Would you feel oppressed if you saw a copper with a hand held speed meter?
-
Quite. How can you feel oppressed by an unthinking box on a pole that only does something if you're breaking the law?
Its not the function, its the symbol.
Anyway, lets get back to the original post. All things considered I thought it was a reasonable article, which as Pingu said had a lot of good things in it.
-
Speed measurement arbitrary?
Faff.
If you drive in a rather unreliable way and cannot set your speed within an error margin, then the answer is quite simple.
Drive within that margin.
Anyone who doesn't get this is a spanking half-wit.
Either that or stop moaning like a stuck pig if you have to pay a fine.
-
Cameras are a blunt, lazy instrument that intrude upon all. I don't feel protected, I feel oppressed.
Now to me this feels like the nub of it. Why do people feel oppressed when all that the arrangement does is to ask them not to be breaking the law? A couple of possibilities
Is it the simple fact of being asked not to break the law? Surely not, that would suggest that, amongst others, Mr Hoon deep down has little or no regard for the law, when creating and repealing them is a core function of his job.
Is it the anxiety because there is no sure knowledge that you were caught until the letter hits the doormat a couple of weeks later? Could be. After all a person might be able to talk their way out of it with a real policeman, and even if not they would know there and then that they hadn't.
Is it the undermining of the self esteem resulting from having failed to spot a big yellow box on a pole?
How about CCTV in all public places ?
And monitoring of your phone and internet usage ?
There is no logical difference between monitoring and recording motorists IN CASE they break the law (not, SUSPECTED OF) and monitoring and recording every other aspect of your daily life IN CASE you break the law.
-
Its not the function, its the symbol.
I don't understand. What does the camera symbolise beyond its function?
-
It symbolises a tax on stupidity and on "I wanna speed, WAAAAAAAAA!"!!
-
It symbolises the desire of some members of society to choose which laws they break, but furthermore their desire to do this with impunity.
-
A speed camera* only records your number if you go past it over the limit. So what about the trafficmaster cameras that record number plates of passing vehicles, and is operated by a private company? How do you know what else they might do with the data? Surely that's far more of an infringement of civil liberties?
-
It symbolises that you can be drunk, high, armed, having just burgled a house and driving an unregistered or even stolen car with 4 bald tyres, but that you are safe from prosecution by it as long as you keep to the speed limit.
-
A speed camera* only records your number if you go past it over the limit. So what about the trafficmaster cameras that record number plates of passing vehicles, and is operated by a private company? How do you know what else they might do with the data? Surely that's far more of an infringement of civil liberties?
The answer is to make it uneconomic by everybody conspiring to drive below the speed limit. The cameras would soon be removed.
-
It symbolises that you can be drunk, high, armed, having just burgled a house and driving an unregistered or even stolen car with 4 bald tyres, but that you are safe from prosecution by it as long as you keep to the speed limit.
No it doesn't, unless you've the sloppy logical capabilities of a slug that recently ate a bag of salt and vinegar crisps. It says that simply that if you break the speed limit you're likely to get punished for it.
Of course, they are used as an excuse for a lack of enforcement in other areas, but hey, that's not the fault of the speed camera nor does it justify speeding or a driver's anger at being caught breaking the law.
-
It symbolises that you can be drunk, high, armed, having just burgled a house and driving an unregistered or even stolen car with 4 bald tyres, but that you are safe from prosecution by it as long as you keep to the speed limit.
Absolutely. And exactly the same applies to if it wasn't there. However, if you go past it at an antisocial* speed then it will catch you. That is why it is called a speed camera and not a 'armed robber who drinks and drives unregistered with bald tyres but under the limit' camera.
And in the case you suggest, they would be immune from automated prosecution even if the camera caught them as the car would be unregistered.
..d
* antisocial by definition as you are breaching a rule laid down by society.
-
It symbolises that you can be drunk, high, armed, having just burgled a house and driving an unregistered or even stolen car with 4 bald tyres, but that you are safe from prosecution by it as long as you keep to the speed limit.
No it doesn't, unless you've the sloppy logical capabilities of a slug that recently ate a bag of salt and vinegar crisps. It says that simply that if you break the speed limit you're likely to get punished for it.
Of course, they are used as an excuse for a lack of enforcement in other areas, but hey, that's not the fault of the speed camera nor just justify speeding or a driver's anger at being caught breaking the law.
What a charmingly quaint expression of a charmingly quaint point of view. If you spend any time at all in the arena of car forums, you'll quickly discover that the reasons cameras are widely ridiculed is for their inability to deal with any other offence. So they do indeed symbolise a failure to address other aspects of road safety.
To misguidedly assume that this is either because frustrated drivers are unable to speed or are resentful at having been caught speeding is to display the intellectual capacity of a bivalve mollusc.
-
If you spend any time at all in the arena of car forums, you'll quickly discover that the reasons cameras are widely ridiculed is for their inability to deal with any other offence.
Do they also mock and deride aspirin, on the grounds it is useless against cancer?
-
I had no idea it was being used as a substitute for more effective drugs. Someone should be told.
-
Aspirin isn't used to supplement anything, neither are safety cameras. There are 6000 cameras, to replace them all with coppers would involved eighteen thousand officers working shifts. You want to pay for that? Speed cameras free up resources, allow officers to go after othe criminals and the fines support making road safer, it's win/win!
-
Absolutely. And exactly the same applies to if it wasn't there. However, if you go past it at an antisocial* speed then it will catch you. That is why it is called a speed camera and not a 'armed robber who drinks and drives unregistered with bald tyres but under the limit' camera.
I have a problem not just with the cameras (they're fine, they just catch drivers who are truly not looking where they are going), but with the obsession about speed. Speed has become the totem for road safety - it is pretty much the only message that is put out - obey the speed limit and everything will be fine. The "safety partnerships" regularly spout on about targeting a section of road and "making it safe".
Pretty much every time I drive out of London on the A40/M40 late at night, I'm overtaken by someone who really doesn't care about the cameras - creaming through them at 20 - 30+ over the limit, weaving from lane to lane. Stolen car, obviously. Does anyone seem to care? Is there ever a plod car on the A40, like there used to be in the old days? Nope.
The Braywick road in Maidenhead - nice stretch of dual carriageway, 40 limit, speed camera at the Maidenhead end. The speed camera is their start line on a Saturday night, the Esso at the bottom is the braking point, if they can get down to about 60 at the roundabout, they'll get round for another lap. Of course, there isn't a problem because the teenagers are smart enough to be doing 40 for the camera. It's too hard for the police to stop this from happening, they'll just rely on the speed camera.
When I drive on the motorway, regardless of the speed I'm doing, there is some tit about 6 feet from the back of my car. It is extraordinary that the driver of a small car will tailgate a LWB Land Rover, but they do. Does anyone care about this? No, as long as they are doing less than 70, they're doing nothing wrong. Even if I do pass on of the (rare) police cars, they don't take any action.
My problem with all this is that the authorities have focused on something that is easy to measure and brings in regular revenue - both of which are important to their continued employment. I genuinely don't believe that they are focusing on some of the more difficult problems with dangerous and inattentive driving - which is what is actually killing people.
-
Ask yourself: If there weren't safety cameras on the A40, would there be more Police cars there?
Well, the answer is yes. But not on patrol - they'd be dealing with more collisions.
-
It symbolises that you can be drunk, high, armed, having just burgled a house and driving an unregistered or even stolen car with 4 bald tyres, but that you are safe from prosecution by it as long as you keep to the speed limit.
No it doesn't, unless you've the sloppy logical capabilities of a slug that recently ate a bag of salt and vinegar crisps. It says that simply that if you break the speed limit you're likely to get punished for it.
Of course, they are used as an excuse for a lack of enforcement in other areas, but hey, that's not the fault of the speed camera nor just justify speeding or a driver's anger at being caught breaking the law.
What a charmingly quaint expression of a charmingly quaint point of view. If you spend any time at all in the arena of car forums, you'll quickly discover that the reasons cameras are widely ridiculed is for their inability to deal with any other offence. So they do indeed symbolise a failure to address other aspects of road safety.
To misguidedly assume that this is either because frustrated drivers are unable to speed or are resentful at having been caught speeding is to display the intellectual capacity of a bivalve mollusc.
I'm unsure why anyone would anticipate a speed camera to enforce anything other than speeding. You generally don't stop a burglary by pointing a radar gun at the house, either.
I'm not arguing that other aspects of bad driving are poorly enforced. If anything, as south London appears to have nil traffic enforcement, I'm righteously annoyed about it. But that doesn't pass any comment on the validity of speed cameras. If they stop some speeding then all is good. They do their little bit for road safety and to make the urban environment that little bit more pleasant for everyone. And they ought to free up policing resources.
If you don't want to be caught speeding, don't speed. It's that simple. If you are not speeding, a speed camera is an irrelevance. I get annoyed that we need to have speed cameras, certainly, along with the endless traffic 'calming' measures. But the reason we have to put up with all this is the humble denizens of those driver forums, who appear somehow to believe themselves elevated above the law, and thus able to symbolize a speed camera as some kind evil entity hellbent on stomping their little liberties.
And yes, I do own a car. And no speeding tickets. And if I got one, I'd admit I done wrong, guv'nor, and deal with it.
And you've really got to work on those insults. Bivalve molluscs don't have an intellect, or a brain for that matter, usually just the two sub-oesophagal ganglia (and occasionally a few other distributed ganglia). As such, they tend not proffer opinions on speed cameras. And if they did, well, they can't type very fast with just the one pseudopod and the looming threat of being gently cooked in a nice white wine sauce.
-
We've already had another thread on the wider aspects (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=9303.0) of road safety enforcement a couple of weeks ago - you may have missed it. I've been talking specifically about how speed cameras are perceived, or in other words, what they symbolize. To many, they symbolize the automation of road safety and a substitute for proper policing. Hence my obviously exaggerated example of all the things they don't pick up.
And no, I don't own a car, nor do I want to. I've never had any points in 20 years of driving. And if I did, I certainly wouldn't complain about it. Not that that's even vaguely relevant.
Insults? I don't take any of this seriously enough to start insulting people. I was just playing with you. ;D
-
To many, they symbolize the automation of road safety and a substitute for proper policing.
Not sure if this is true at all, public support for cameras is pretty steady.
-
Absolutely. And exactly the same applies to if it wasn't there. However, if you go past it at an antisocial* speed then it will catch you. That is why it is called a speed camera and not a 'armed robber who drinks and drives unregistered with bald tyres but under the limit' camera.
I have a problem not just with the cameras (they're fine, they just catch drivers who are truly not looking where they are going), but with the obsession about speed. Speed has become the totem for road safety - it is pretty much the only message that is put out - obey the speed limit and everything will be fine. The "safety partnerships" regularly spout on about targeting a section of road and "making it safe".
Pretty much every time I drive out of London on the A40/M40 late at night, I'm overtaken by someone who really doesn't care about the cameras - creaming through them at 20 - 30+ over the limit, weaving from lane to lane. Stolen car, obviously. Does anyone seem to care? Is there ever a plod car on the A40, like there used to be in the old days? Nope.
The Braywick road in Maidenhead - nice stretch of dual carriageway, 40 limit, speed camera at the Maidenhead end. The speed camera is their start line on a Saturday night, the Esso at the bottom is the braking point, if they can get down to about 60 at the roundabout, they'll get round for another lap. Of course, there isn't a problem because the teenagers are smart enough to be doing 40 for the camera. It's too hard for the police to stop this from happening, they'll just rely on the speed camera.
When I drive on the motorway, regardless of the speed I'm doing, there is some tit about 6 feet from the back of my car. It is extraordinary that the driver of a small car will tailgate a LWB Land Rover, but they do. Does anyone care about this? No, as long as they are doing less than 70, they're doing nothing wrong. Even if I do pass on of the (rare) police cars, they don't take any action.
My problem with all this is that the authorities have focused on something that is easy to measure and brings in regular revenue - both of which are important to their continued employment. I genuinely don't believe that they are focusing on some of the more difficult problems with dangerous and inattentive driving - which is what is actually killing people.
My view exactly.
-
I very, very rarely drive - five or six times a year - and always within the limit, but I agree with Manotea that safety cameras are an affront to civil liberties. I'm also not a fan of CCTV. They symbolise sloppy government that would rather film everybody, on the offchance that they catch a crime in progress, than use intelligence to target those who need targeting.
Although as driving is a choice, I'm less concerned about safety cameras than I am about CCTV.
-
And in the case you suggest, they would be immune from automated prosecution even if the camera caught them as the car would be unregistered.
Hmm. I think you may just have alluded to another problem with these devices ...
-
Ask yourself: If there weren't safety cameras on the A40, would there be more Police cars there?
Well, the answer is yes. But not on patrol - they'd be dealing with more collisions.
That statement implies (to me at least) that you believe the Police care nothing about speeding - or at least not enough to instigate patrols / mobile cameras should the fixed ones be taken away.
-
Speed cameras are a stupidity tax. All Hoon's comments show is that you get stupid people in the cabinet (as if we didn't know that already).
-
Really. I would have though average speed cameras are much more effective then normal ones. If you are local and know where a normal speed camera is you can slow down as you pass it and drive at 100 the rest of the time. If there are a couple of average speed cameras then you have to stay within the speed limit for the whole area covered. Well I suppose you could go like a nutter for half teh distance then really really slowly for the other ahlf but peopel dont do taht they just slow down. The bits of the M1 taht have average speed cameras on at the moment (50mph due to widening) see the traffiic slow down to and stick at 50.
-
I have a problem not just with the cameras (they're fine, they just catch drivers who are truly not looking where they are going), but with the obsession about speed. Speed has become the totem for road safety - it is pretty much the only message that is put out - obey the speed limit and everything will be fine. The "safety partnerships" regularly spout on about targeting a section of road and "making it safe".
etc
This is my view exactly too. I don't have a personal problem with the cameras as I don't "want" to speed, but I do have an issue with "speed" being mistaken for road safety. Driving at 69mph through average speed cameras while drunk, on bald tyres, and in fog isn't safe - but people think it is as they're driving within the limit. I tried getting somebody to take part in advanced driving lessons once - they declined as "there's no point, you only need to drive within the limit and you're safe". That person also constantly uses a hands free phone while driving - because it's legal.
Dropping speed limits "for safety" also misses the point as well as increasing the risk of missing a sign, which in turn raises the fear of cameras. 10 years ago driving was easy as the speed limits were, in general, as per the highway code. 30mph in residential areas, 60mph on single carriageway and 70mph on dual. Now, thanks to different councils treating roads "for safety" a length of country road can have limits fluctuating constantly between 30, 40, 50 and 60mph.
I've caught myself quite a few times on a long country road wondering whether I've missed a sign and whether the limit is still the 40 I think I'm in, or back up at 60. The other way around, when I am sure I'm in a 60 and there are no signs to say otherwise, I have a constant nagging fear that I'm actually in a 30/40/50 and the signs are either overgrown or stolen for scrap metal. Seeing a camera ahead then adds to the worry. The road conditions and style mean it should be a 60, but if a local council have decided "30 for safety" and chucked a camera in, how can I tell? (Yes, I know "look at the signs" but if they've been stolen along with the drain covers overnight, then I'm up for a fine. I'm generally pretty good at reading the signs and road as I pride myself in my clean licence).
I know that was a ramble (phone rang a few times) but I can understand why people have such a fear of cameras as a whole. Each time I go for a long journey, such as Cornwall to see the relatives, I do spend the next couple of weeks worrying that I triggered a camera in an area where I'd mis-read the speed limit signs.
I also have a worry about the apparent over-reliance we have in this country of relying on cameras and not people. Speed cameras don't prevent the crime of speeding. If you were mown down by a high speed driver would you gain any satisfaction that they'll get a slapped wrist in a couple of weeks time? CCTV doesn't prevent the crime of burglary; and seeing recordings of a hooded shadow walking away with my goods wouldn't make me feel any better.
-
Reducing speeds of the general flow of traffic has a generally beneficial effect. Average speed cameras are definitely the way to go for A-roads. Maybe GPS based black boxes would be better? Then the insurance company could bin your claim if you were over the limit.. And the data only gets read in the event of an incident.
..d
-
Ask yourself: If there weren't safety cameras on the A40, would there be more Police cars there?
Well, the answer is yes. But not on patrol - they'd be dealing with more collisions.
That statement implies (to me at least) that you believe the Police care nothing about speeding - or at least not enough to instigate patrols / mobile cameras should the fixed ones be taken away.
Partly, I think that's true. But further, they just don't have the resources (especially when they have to deal with increased numbers of collisions, which takes up a lot of time/effort etc.
-
It symbolises that you can be drunk, high, armed, having just burgled a house and driving an unregistered or even stolen car with 4 bald tyres, but that you are safe from prosecution by it as long as you keep to the speed limit.
No it doesn't, unless you've the sloppy logical capabilities of a slug that recently ate a bag of salt and vinegar crisps. It says that simply that if you break the speed limit you're likely to get punished for it.
Of course, they are used as an excuse for a lack of enforcement in other areas, but hey, that's not the fault of the speed camera nor just justify speeding or a driver's anger at being caught breaking the law.
What a charmingly quaint expression of a charmingly quaint point of view. If you spend any time at all in the arena of car forums, you'll quickly discover that the reasons cameras are widely ridiculed is for their inability to deal with any other offence. So they do indeed symbolise a failure to address other aspects of road safety.
To misguidedly assume that this is either because frustrated drivers are unable to speed or are resentful at having been caught speeding is to display the intellectual capacity of a bivalve mollusc.
I've just read through this thread, and am left confused. Traffic coppers have a variety of things to deal with. Automated speed controls remove the need for them to deal with it, and free them to chase up the long list of other offences that the cameras don't deal with.
I see that as a win/win.
I really feel no need to go on car fora......
-
If you are unable to judge your car's speed, or manage that speed, or pay attention to the road around you, or accept that you don't have to be driving at the cusp of the limit, or wish to renege on the contract that you made with the state when you passed your test; then I see that 'speed' cameras are an issue.
No doubt if all the speed cameras out there were wide-area ones, and there were plenty of traffic police catching people, then the poor beleaguered motorist would be receiving just as much motor-industry-sponsored oxygen of publicity.
-
Absolutely. And exactly the same applies to if it wasn't there. However, if you go past it at an antisocial* speed then it will catch you. That is why it is called a speed camera and not a 'armed robber who drinks and drives unregistered with bald tyres but under the limit' camera.
I have a problem not just with the cameras (they're fine, they just catch drivers who are truly not looking where they are going), but with the obsession about speed. Speed has become the totem for road safety - it is pretty much the only message that is put out - obey the speed limit and everything will be fine. The "safety partnerships" regularly spout on about targeting a section of road and "making it safe".
Pretty much every time I drive out of London on the A40/M40 late at night, I'm overtaken by someone who really doesn't care about the cameras - creaming through them at 20 - 30+ over the limit, weaving from lane to lane. Stolen car, obviously. Does anyone seem to care? Is there ever a plod car on the A40, like there used to be in the old days? Nope.
The Braywick road in Maidenhead - nice stretch of dual carriageway, 40 limit, speed camera at the Maidenhead end. The speed camera is their start line on a Saturday night, the Esso at the bottom is the braking point, if they can get down to about 60 at the roundabout, they'll get round for another lap. Of course, there isn't a problem because the teenagers are smart enough to be doing 40 for the camera. It's too hard for the police to stop this from happening, they'll just rely on the speed camera.
When I drive on the motorway, regardless of the speed I'm doing, there is some tit about 6 feet from the back of my car. It is extraordinary that the driver of a small car will tailgate a LWB Land Rover, but they do. Does anyone care about this? No, as long as they are doing less than 70, they're doing nothing wrong. Even if I do pass on of the (rare) police cars, they don't take any action.
My problem with all this is that the authorities have focused on something that is easy to measure and brings in regular revenue - both of which are important to their continued employment. I genuinely don't believe that they are focusing on some of the more difficult problems with dangerous and inattentive driving - which is what is actually killing people.
This has been suggested before and is in error.
One of the biggest roblems in Road Safety is the "risk taking driver" - the one who feels that driving at speed limits is boring, tailgates, overtakes dangerously and speeds.
The facts are that drivers caught speeding are more than twice as likely to be in an accident than the normal driver.
The problem is not reading the signs... we should be looking at speeding as a potential marker for a risk taking driver and instead of treating it like a minor offence - recognise the potential for indicating dangerous drivers.
-
....
The problem is not reading the signs... we should be looking at speeding as a potential marker for a risk taking driver and instead of treating it like a minor offence - recognise the potential for indicating dangerous drivers.
Indeed. But the really "dangerous drivers" who don't care are in unregistered cars so the triggering of the camera has no real world effect.
-
What we need is a few of these fitted to patrol cars-
Carpoon by Little-X (http://www.carpoon.fi/)
:thumbsup:
-
....
The problem is not reading the signs... we should be looking at speeding as a potential marker for a risk taking driver and instead of treating it like a minor offence - recognise the potential for indicating dangerous drivers.
Indeed. But the really "dangerous drivers" who don't care are in unregistered cars so the triggering of the camera has no real world effect.
No matter what system you use this will happen.............. unfortunately as long as the press and some "Road Safety organisations" promote the idea that these individuals are "otherwise law abiding" motorists forced to these extremes by a draconian regime of victimisation and persecution then it will remain a problem. We need to put these myths to bed once and for all and recognise these as criminals intent on evading the law.
The good news is that we do catch hundreds of thousands of dangerous drivers who are in the 90 5 of motorists who are registered....
-
DNA tests catch otherwise law-abiding murders and rapists.
-
DNA tests catch otherwise law-abiding murders and rapists.
Yes but they don't stand on the A40 taking swabs from everyone passing.
-
Cameras don't take pictures of everyone. They take pictures of law-breakers.
You can be DNA swabbed if innocent, and the information can be used to convict you of another, far more serious crime.
-
How does an average speed camera work then ?
And I'm pretty sure they still need some grounds to take a DNA sample, even if it was just the grounds on which you were arrested in the first place which may well be for a different offence.
I just can't square the blanket surveillance of cameras with basic civil liberty.
-
This has been suggested before and is in error.
One of the biggest roblems in Road Safety is the "risk taking driver" - the one who feels that driving at speed limits is boring, tailgates, overtakes dangerously and speeds.
The facts are that drivers caught speeding are more than twice as likely to be in an accident than the normal driver.
I'd like to see the facts behind this assertion. Two thoughts.
1) I notice on my insurance renewal that they don't care about 6 points or less. No loading at all for SP and TS offences below 6 points. This suggests to me that there is no obvious link between accidents and being caught.
2) The people that I know who tail gate aren't particular risk takers. A 75 year old relative drives like a snail, but will cheerfully drive far too close to the car in front on the motorway. Not risk takers, just incompetent..
-
1) I notice on my insurance renewal that they don't care about 6 points or less. No loading at all for SP and TS offences below 6 points. This suggests to me that there is no obvious link between accidents and being caught.
I have been offered "licence cover" as an additional extra on several of my insurance renewal quotes.
When I asked what that was they said that if I lost my licence due to totting up speeding points, they'd pay out public transport costs for the remainder of the insurance cover period.
-
....
The problem is not reading the signs... we should be looking at speeding as a potential marker for a risk taking driver and instead of treating it like a minor offence - recognise the potential for indicating dangerous drivers.
Indeed. But the really "dangerous drivers" who don't care are in unregistered cars so the triggering of the camera has no real world effect.
No matter what system you use this will happen.
Don't be daft! You can't catch unregistered/untaxed/uninsured drivers with cameras!
Or do you think they use face recognition? :P
-
No matter what system you use this will happen.
Don't be daft! You can't catch unregistered/untaxed/uninsured drivers with cameras!
[/quote]
ANPR?
-
...
Don't be daft! You can't catch unregistered/untaxed/uninsured drivers with cameras!
...
ANPR?
OK - before this diverges into a lengthy discussion of what COULD be done with cameras, let me just state:
The current speed cameras aren't going to be used to catch UNREGISTERED speeders.
By paying your dues (VED, insurance etc) you sign up to a system that allows you to be fined automatically for an offence that 10%* of offenders (who are paying less than you to use the roads) are invulnerable to.
This doesn't sound terribly good for road safety, overall.
(*Just an underestimate, one would imagine.)
-
....
The problem is not reading the signs... we should be looking at speeding as a potential marker for a risk taking driver and instead of treating it like a minor offence - recognise the potential for indicating dangerous drivers.
Indeed. But the really "dangerous drivers" who don't care are in unregistered cars so the triggering of the camera has no real world effect.
No matter what system you use this will happen.
Don't be daft! You can't catch unregistered/untaxed/uninsured drivers with cameras!
Or do you think they use face recognition? :P
Do I understand this argument?
The system identifies and catches drivers who are registered and prosecutes tens of thousands per year - we should not do this because a few evade the system?
What we need to do is to make the penalties more severe - at present the penalty for driving uninsured is often less that insuring!
-
LOL, of course you can catch unregistered/untaxed/uninsured drivers with cameras. That's why police regularly set up ANPR units with the associated traffic police to stop those who u-turn/drive off before the camera, or those who are pinged by it. Yet another example of how cameras multiply the effectiveness of policemen.
-
What we need to do is to make the penalties more severe - at present the penalty for driving uninsured is often less that insuring!
Amen to that.
-
Bent Mikey:
Would you say this is how MOST cameras are used?
Would you say that the operation you describe has much opposition?
-
Bent Mikey:
Would you say this is how MOST cameras are used?
Would you say that the operation you describe has much opposition?
This is how our ANPR teams are used.
Yes we do get opposition- from those that the system catches. It is amazing how unfair an uninsured or unlicenced driver thinks it is when we sieze their car. Do I give a toss?
-
It is amazing how unfair an uninsured or unlicenced driver thinks it is when we sieze their car.
Ha, I saw a classic petulant outburst from an uninsured driver whose car was impounded- he tried to slash the tyres with a knife and got icked.
-
[3] Overall I'd aim for fewer laws and bigger penalties, i.e., over the drink limit -> car impounded and crushed.
Driving unregistered/banned/uninsured?
Car gets crushed plus massive fine and/or gaol.
-
Bent Mikey:
Would you say this is how MOST cameras are used?
Would you say that the operation you describe has much opposition?
This is how our ANPR teams are used.
Yes we do get opposition- from those that the system catches. It is amazing how unfair an uninsured or unlicenced driver thinks it is when we sieze their car. Do I give a toss?
point of info, Fuzzy;
- do these schemes catch taxed cars with no insurance?
- or 'borrowed' cars driven by the 'wrong' drivers?
- stolen cars?
Ta.
-
Bent Mikey:
Would you say this is how MOST cameras are used?
Would you say that the operation you describe has much opposition?
This is how our ANPR teams are used.
Yes we do get opposition- from those that the system catches. It is amazing how unfair an uninsured or unlicenced driver thinks it is when we sieze their car. Do I give a toss?
point of info, Fuzzy;
- do these schemes catch taxed cars with no insurance?
yes
- or 'borrowed' cars driven by the 'wrong' drivers?
Not directly
- stolen cars?
yes
Ta.
-
point of info, Fuzzy;
- do these schemes catch taxed cars with no insurance?
- or 'borrowed' cars driven by the 'wrong' drivers?
- stolen cars?
Ta.
Surely those are not realistic questions? Of course they do. I passed two such operations today and cheered the coppers when I passed. They gave back huge smiles.
-
- or 'borrowed' cars driven by the 'wrong' drivers?
If there is a way of detecting this, I'd be interested. (Assuming the driving is giving no cause for concern)
-
Bent Mikey:
Would you say this is how MOST cameras are used?
Would you say that the operation you describe has much opposition?
This is how our ANPR teams are used.
Yes we do get opposition- from those that the system catches. It is amazing how unfair an uninsured or unlicenced driver thinks it is when we sieze their car. Do I give a toss?
point of info, Fuzzy;
- do these schemes catch taxed cars with no insurance?
- or 'borrowed' cars driven by the 'wrong' drivers?
- stolen cars?
Ta.
matt,
In answer to your questions (in order)-
Yes. Just about all insurance policies are now recorded on a Motor Insurance Database, incuding details of permitted drivers. This database is accesible by ANPR. If the system reads a plate that is not attached to a policy, an alert is given. Insurers keep the database very up to date.
Sometimes. If intelligence is received that someone is driving a car for which they are not insured, a local marker can be put on the local systems. These are accesible to Local and, insome cases, cross border ANPR systems.
Yes. Stolen vehicles are recorded on PNC which is accesible by ANPR nationwide.
:thumbsup:
-
Bent Mikey:
Would you say this is how MOST cameras are used?
Would you say that the operation you describe has much opposition?
This is how our ANPR teams are used.
Yes we do get opposition- from those that the system catches. It is amazing how unfair an uninsured or unlicenced driver thinks it is when we sieze their car. Do I give a toss?
point of info, Fuzzy;
- do these schemes catch taxed cars with no insurance?
- or 'borrowed' cars driven by the 'wrong' drivers?
- stolen cars?
Ta.
Can I refer you back to the point made earlier about aspirin not curing cancer? These schemes don't catch many rapists, or long-firm fraudsters, or people who mis-sell endowment policies.
They do a specific job, and do it very well.
Once more, you cannot criticise a sheep for not being a cow.
-
matt,
In answer to your questions (in order)-
...
Thanks Fuzzy. Glad to hear it's a worthwhile technique.
-
On another note, I spotted a comment from a supposed cooper, on "another" website devoted to stopping the mass slaughter perpetrated by cameras.
He mentioned that ANPR was only being used for "revenue-generating offences, such as driving without insurance"
No further comment is necessary.
-
Can I refer you back to the point made earlier about aspirin not curing cancer? These schemes don't catch many rapists, or long-firm fraudsters, or people who mis-sell endowment policies.
They do a specific job, and do it very well.
Once more, you cannot criticise a sheep for not being a cow.
You can refer me all you like, to whatever you like, but I have no intention of reading it. I was just asking a question, which fuzzy kindly answered.
To be honest Tony, I'm having difficulty following your logic here ...
-
In fairness, it seems there are several of us having difficulty following your logic about cameras, mattc. Tony's point was quite reasonable given your views, and I follow what he meant.
-
In fairness, it seems there are several of us having difficulty following your logic about cameras, mattc. Tony's point was quite reasonable given your views, and I follow what he meant.
I asked a question - Fuzzy was kind enough to answer.
I don't understand why anyone needed to make things any more complicated.
Can we get back to actually making points, then discussing them? please?
-
I asked a question - Fuzzy was kind enough to answer.
I don't understand why anyone needed to make things any more complicated.
Can we get back to actually making points, then discussing them? please?
Let's not obfuscate and/or split hairs. Your point was that speed cameras are no good at all because they only catch some offenders. Tony's point was that this is just fine - no one strategy fixes all ills.
-
On another note, I spotted a comment from a supposed cooper, on "another" website devoted to stopping the mass slaughter perpetrated by cameras.
He mentioned that ANPR was only being used for "revenue-generating offences, such as driving without insurance"
No further comment is necessary.
That's scraping the bottom of the barrel, that is.
-
Let's not obfuscate and/or split hairs. Your point was that speed cameras are no good at all because they only catch some offenders. Tony's point was that this is just fine - no one strategy fixes all ills.
OK, fair enough - we got into a bit of a cul-de-sac there.
Right, so to address the above point. I think you/Tony are over-simplifying the argument I think I put forth. The problem is that when they "only catch SOME offenders", the sampling is not random, and is in fact seen as highly "unfair" (that's a great term, isn't it?!?).
I shall paint a school-days analogy, if you'll forgive me.
Imagine you, a lifelong goody-goody, and some "known troublemakers" are all caught smoking behind the bike shed. You hang your head in shame, whilst the others leg it, taunting the teacher as they go, in full view of your peers. You find yourself the only one outside the head's office at going home time. No child psychologist is required to guess that you feel hard done by. Some might say that the school's justice system has taken a knock due to the visible failure to bring the others to justice.
Now, I'm not saying that you should have got away with smoking BECAUSE the others escaped, I'm saying there are subtleties at work here that need considering.
To be honest, if you still don't see this is a valid viewpoint, I shall give up, no hard feelings. I think speed cameras have good and bad points, most of which have now been discussed here or on other threads, and they are difficult to evaluate. My view, currently, is that the way they are currently used does as much harm as good. I do think speeding needs to be tackled in the UK today, but so do other big safety issues.
Your view may well differ to mine!
-
I can't imagine that anyone ever left my school, and most probably any other, expecting any form of justice to be fair.
-
I guess the problem is that I don't see speed cameras doing any harm. If you're caught, it's because you're speeding. End of problem, well, apart from some moaning about "go and catch real criminals". Yes, that's you, speeder.
-
I guess the problem is that I don't see speed cameras doing any harm. If you're caught, it's because you're speeding.
Hear hear.
I shall paint a school-days analogy, if you'll forgive me.
Imagine you, a lifelong goody-goody, and some "known troublemakers" are all caught smoking behind the bike shed. You hang your head in shame, whilst the others leg it, taunting the teacher as they go, in full view of your peers. You find yourself the only one outside the head's office at going home time. No child psychologist is required to guess that you feel hard done by. Some might say that the school's justice system has taken a knock due to the visible failure to bring the others to justice.
How would you be caught smoking if you weren't smoking?
Are you suggesting that the bulk of people caught by speed cameras have false number plates? WOW!!!!
-
The basic point here appears to be that only "otherwise law-abiding" drivers get penalised for speeding, in that the scum on false plates, or with cars registered in the name of the recently-dead, don't get caught.
It has already been pointed out that the sheer number of criminals caught by the cameras shows that they are effective. Those on the various SScams can mostly be filtered out by such systems as ANPR.
Win-win.
But I suppose we should abandon ANPR. It doesn't catch speeders.....
Seriously, any law-enforcement strategy has to deal with the basic facts that there are a multitude of possible offences, each requiring a different strategy. Just like in medicine.
-
...
Don't be daft! You can't catch unregistered/untaxed/uninsured drivers with cameras!
...
ANPR?
OK - before this diverges into a lengthy discussion of what COULD be done with cameras, let me just state:
The current speed cameras aren't going to be used to catch UNREGISTERED speeders.
By paying your dues (VED, insurance etc) you sign up to a system that allows you to be fined automatically for an offence that 10%* of offenders (who are paying less than you to use the roads) are invulnerable to.
This doesn't sound terribly good for road safety, overall.
(*Just an underestimate, one would imagine.)
Yet ANPR which does do this is also anathema, persecution, victimisation, revenue raisng only, kills millions of drivers with panic braking, diverts Police form more important road safety measures etc.....
The A14 explodes the myths.... The only intervention was the introduction of Average Speed cameras..
TRaffic now drives within the limit, and we have accidents down over 60% and deaths down 100% and only 11 fines issued.
Yet the local ABD still churns out all of the above!
Now you really need to explain how these figures are NOT a road safety improvement!
-
Obviously the could be improved if say cyclists who, not having any form of speed measuring device, inadvertently tripped one could get the photo from the relevant police authority.
-
Rather worrying that road deaths and injuries in my region are up one third this year, despite a proliferation of cameras:
BBC NEWS | England | Suffolk | Road deaths and injuries increase (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/7728849.stm)
A crackdown in September brought 2165 prosecutions for motoring offences including 328 against drivers using mobile phones and 661 for speeding.
What that would seem to suggest is that speeding is in fact not the most common crime being committed on the roads. I wonder what is? Perhaps something that only police can detect. If we can have HATOs and such like on motorways with some traffic powers, why not have them on other roads as well? I'd dearly love to see some tailgaters pulled and fined, such as the clown last night who drove a metre from the car in front with his brights on.
Yet the local ABD still churns out all of the above!
I didn't realise anyone was still under the impression that the ABD were a credible source. Shrill indignation knows no bounds. There's an amusing little tendency amongst the lunatic fringe of labelling anyone who questions the efficacy of the current road safety scheme as being a closet speedophile. The ABD seem to perform exactly the same role in reverse. So no, I wouldn't take whatever they have to say too seriously. ;)
-
On another note, I spotted a comment from a supposed cooper, on "another" website devoted to stopping the mass slaughter perpetrated by cameras.
He mentioned that ANPR was only being used for "revenue-generating offences, such as driving without insurance"
No further comment is necessary.
That's one opinion.
AIUI ANPR is used to identify vehicles identified in all manner of situations o the roads. Using it to identify suspect vehicles on the roads. Drivers without insurance, VED etc. are criminals. I don't see this in any way as 'revenue generating', I see it as catching and punishing toe rags.
-
What that would seem to suggest is that speeding is in fact not the most common crime being committed on the roads.
It does nothing of the sort.
What it shows is that, in that area, for that period of time, under the regime in place at the time, 328 people were prosecuted for using a mobile phone and 661 were prosecuted for speeding.
You can't really read anything else into that unless you have some kind of agenda.
-
What that would seem to suggest is that speeding is in fact not the most common crime being committed on the roads.
It does nothing of the sort.
What it shows is that, in that area, for that period of time, under the regime in place at the time, 328 people were prosecuted for using a mobile phone and 661 were prosecuted for speeding.
You can't really read anything else into that unless you have some kind of agenda.
I recall a clamp-down on illegal drivers which showed that about 1 in 3 of all motorists are commiting an offence relating to "paperwork": registration, licence, MOT, insurance or VED. Some of these were wilful and some the result of genuine mistakes and oversights but it might explain the discrepancy between the 2165 prosecutions overall and the 661 for speeding.
-
A clampdown on Portsmouth Taxis a few years ago saw 1 in 4 being prevented from moving - defects serious enough to render the vehicle sufficiently unroadworthy to issue an immediate notice!
-
What that would seem to suggest is that speeding is in fact not the most common crime being committed on the roads.
It does nothing of the sort.
What it shows is that, in that area, for that period of time, under the regime in place at the time, 328 people were prosecuted for using a mobile phone and 661 were prosecuted for speeding.
You can't really read anything else into that unless you have some kind of agenda.
I see. You can't explain the discrepancy in figures, therefore any explanation must be the result of some unspecified agenda. Good one.
In fact it transpires that failure to wear a seatbelt is the most common cause of prosecution in this instance:
Officers have also caught 1,176 people in cars not wearing a seatbelt.
Frankly, I'm appalled. Almost twice as common an offence as speeding. You'd have thought they'd learned by now.
-
Certainly much more needs to be done to raise the levels of seatbelt wearing.
However what your figures do show is that motorists, in large numbers, don't give a shit about the law.
Clamp down on all of them.
-
Certainly much more needs to be done to raise the levels of helmet wearing.
However what your figures do show is that cyclists, in large numbers, don't give a shit about the law.
Clamp down on all of them.
Would you be saying that if helmets were compulsory?
-
Helmets don't save lives or curb anti-social behaviour, so it is a false comparison. ;)
-
1/ A london survey showed buses jumped red lights more often than cyclists.
2/ Not wearing a seatbelt is dangerous for oneself. Speeding is dangerous for others- the risk is transferred.
-
Helmets don't save lives or curb anti-social behaviour, so it is a false comparison. ;)
Seatbelts encourage antisocial behaviour, though.
Britain’s seat belt law should be repealed | John Adams: Risk in a Hypermobile World (http://john-adams.co.uk/2006/12/16/britains-seat-belt-law-should-be-repealed/)
Second, it is unfair. In modifying their behaviour in response to their increased sense of security, belted motorists drive in a way that puts others at greater risk. The law redistributes the burden of risk from those already best protected, in cars, to those who are most vulnerable, on foot or bicycle. Following the introduction of the law in Britain, as in most other countries, the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists who were killed increased.
-
Ah, so it is right to go for non-wearers and speeders then.
-
Ah, so it is right to go for non-wearers and speeders then.
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Seat%20belts%20for%20significance.pdf
Figure 1 in particular.
-
There's an amusing little tendency amongst the lunatic fringe of labelling anyone who questions the efficacy of the current road safety scheme as being a closet speedophile. The ABD seem to perform exactly the same role in reverse.
An excellent observation sir.
(Damn - I was going to stay out of this thread ... )
-
There's an amusing little tendency amongst the lunatic fringe of labelling anyone who questions the efficacy of the current road safety scheme as being a closet speedophile
Um , any actual, you know, evidence for this? It's a common tactic when an argument is lost to misrepresent those you disagree with. Ascribe to them views that have been made up.
-
I don't see a lunatic fringe of those supporting safety cameras. I see people fed up with others using their streets as racetracks.
-
I see people fed up with others using their streets as racetracks.
Which antisocial behaviours are the British public most concerned about? University of Reading finds out
Release Date : 11 December 2006
Speeding is top of the league when it comes to antisocial behaviour, a University of Reading study has shown.
Thames Valley Police approached psychologists at the University of Reading and asked them to analyse the British Crime Survey - which considers the concerns of more than 17,000 people across the UK.
Speeding traffic was rated as a significantly greater problem than all other antisocial behaviours, with 43% of the population regarded speeding traffic as a 'very' or 'fairly big' problem in their area.
University of Reading - Which antisocial behaviours are the British public most concerned about? University of Reading finds out (http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsandevents/releases/PR3936.asp)
-
A lunatic fringe of 43% of the population? That's bigger than an Emo's.
-
A lunatic fringe of 43% of the population?
Sounds a little low to me. That's bigger than an Emo's.
Say what?
It is strange that so many motorists speed, but regard it as antisocial when other people do it.
-
It is the little tin box syndrome. Protected from reality and society they don't see that their behaviour is unacceptable.