Hoon backs speed camera overhaul

[Adrian]

Its not the function, its the symbol.

I don't understand. What does the camera symbolise beyond its function?

[Wendy]

It symbolises a tax on stupidity and on "I wanna speed, WAAAAAAAAA!"!!

[Jaded]

It symbolises the desire of some members of society to choose which laws they break, but furthermore their desire to do this with impunity.

[iakobski]

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?

[Jezza]

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.   

[clarion]

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.

[ian]

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.

[David Martin]

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.

[Jezza]

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.   

[spindrift]

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?

[Jezza]

I had no idea it was being used as a substitute for more effective drugs. Someone should be told.

[spindrift]

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!

[rae]

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.  

[clarion]

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.

[ian]

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.

[Jezza]

We've already had another thread on the wider aspects 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.       

[spindrift]

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.

[Jezza]

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.   

[Julian]

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. 

[mattc]

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 ...

[rafletcher]

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.

[Regulator]

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).

[pcolbeck]

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.

[nuttycyclist]

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.

[David Martin]

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