Hoon backs speed camera overhaul

[Manotea]

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.

[spindrift]

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.

[Manotea]

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.

[spindrift]

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.

[clarion]

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.

[Manotea]

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.

[rafletcher]

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.

[ChrisO]

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 ?

[ChrisO]

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.

[spindrift]

I guess the KSI rates declined after the camera was sited. Hoon pissing and moaning over this is a waste of energy.

[sas]

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?

[spindrift]

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.

[mattc]

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.]

[gordon taylor]

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. 

[sas]

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

[Wendy]

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

[Manotea]

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.

[clarion]

I feel my civil liberties are protected by safety cameras.

[David Martin]

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

[Cunobelin]

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 then click "Buy Now" and then select the free PDF option

[Adrian]

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?

[nicknack]

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?

[Manotea]

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.

[Jaded]

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.

[ChrisO]

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.