Avon and Somerset Police using redlight camera for speeding
Discussion
surveyor_101 said:
Gavia said:
Rather than just focusing on my second question, what about the bit that relates to the topic?
My point briefly is;If the end game is to slow people down and reduce serious collisions, then surely making it clear that it is a speed camera with signage and making sure their website is clear would be better than! The more stealthly approach they seem to operate and using a camera that doesn't flashing just issue lots of tickets.
The goal should be to slow people down not just penalise the speeders ask discreetly as possible.
The problem or side-effect of that method is that as well as encouraging correct behaviour at the warned locations, it encourages or informs drivers where they need not observe traffic regulations.
Traffic regulation is meant to be observed everywhere it applies and not just at specific locations.
Covert enforcement can have the effect of operating at all locations because drivers do not know where enfrcement will take place. The problem with that is drivers are likely to perceive that not much enforcement is taking place so they are not deterred from unacceptable behaviour.
The best and most efficient metod is a mixture of both because perception of enforcement is obvious and the removal of the ability to always manipulate that enforcement without the risk of getting caught out being high.
At the moment though there is a belief or understanding among most drivers that covert enforcement is either not allowed, unfair or indeed not taking place at all. Covert enforcement is fair because the regulations are public knowledge, are widely known and drivers are required to both know them and to operate their road use within them. How therefore can any enforcement be unfair?
Enforcement is allowed anywhere a regulation is lawfully applied. Is there any covert enforcement taking place? Of course there is.
Perhaps the answer would be to promote the use of more and more covert enforcement or have enforcement equipment that can monitor the full or almost the full road network. Maybe you could look at the old rules and now guidance on police enforcement in the safety camera program that have always said covert enforcement can and does take place and the rules and guidance do not provide a bar to that. Selective reading of those has led to much of the misunderstanding herein.
The use of a red light camera to cover speeding at the junction makes sense, uses one device for 2 purposes, is cost efficient, improves safety at the junction and is completely fair and lawful. The police need not inform drivers what the capabilities of the equipment is or in what mode it is operating or indeed whether it operates or not; that is entirely up to them. What the driver at that junction needs to know is what to do when the lights signal colours to them and what the speed limit is; no other consideration is required.
If you drive lawfully and in accordance wih the conditions you need have no regard for any form of enforcement device or activity. If you intend to manipulate the enforcement of road traffic regulations you will eventually be whinging like a kid on a web forum that it is all unfair and be either without a licence or have one laden with points about to lose it.
Edited by tapereel on Saturday 29th October 09:38
hairyben said:
Ive seen a couple of 2-4-1 profit red/speed cameras in london, nothing new, gatsos so noramlly have the road markings?
Great idea though, making people remove their concentration from the road and its various hazards right at the particularly incresed hazard area of a junction to check a dial on the dash. These spanners in charge now really have no interest or concept of what road safety is do they?
If you aren't capable of identifying all likely hazards when travelling at any particular speed then you're probably travelling too fast, or your hazard perception skills aren't good enough. In both cases I would suggest slowing down.Great idea though, making people remove their concentration from the road and its various hazards right at the particularly incresed hazard area of a junction to check a dial on the dash. These spanners in charge now really have no interest or concept of what road safety is do they?
Countdown said:
hairyben said:
Ive seen a couple of 2-4-1 profit red/speed cameras in london, nothing new, gatsos so noramlly have the road markings?
Great idea though, making people remove their concentration from the road and its various hazards right at the particularly incresed hazard area of a junction to check a dial on the dash. These spanners in charge now really have no interest or concept of what road safety is do they?
If you aren't capable of identifying all likely hazards when travelling at any particular speed then you're probably travelling too fast, or your hazard perception skills aren't good enough. In both cases I would suggest slowing down.Great idea though, making people remove their concentration from the road and its various hazards right at the particularly incresed hazard area of a junction to check a dial on the dash. These spanners in charge now really have no interest or concept of what road safety is do they?
Otherwise I shall continue to be imperfect and have to rely on looking, so that i see the d
head cyclist who pulls (from behind an oncoming car waiting to turn right) and indifferently swoops right across giving me no option but to slam on the brakes or kill him. Which has happened twice this year. And yes I was below the limit, luckily for him not doing the instictive camera-driven speedo glance though.hairyben said:
Wow, can you please tell me how i can be as perfect as you?
I'd recommend IAM or RoSPA. It didn't make me perfect, but it did show me how little I know. Hazard perception is still my weakest area. I find driving slower helps because it increases observation time.hairyben said:
Otherwise I shall continue to be imperfect and have to rely on looking, so that i see the dhead cyclist who pulls (from behind an oncoming car waiting to turn right) and indifferently swoops right across giving me no option but to slam on the brakes or kill him. Which has happened twice this year. And yes I was below the limit, luckily for him not doing the instictive camera-driven speedo glance though.
Drive slower. It helps to create a safety buffer.head cyclist who pulls (from behind an oncoming car waiting to turn right) and indifferently swoops right across giving me no option but to slam on the brakes or kill him. Which has happened twice this year. And yes I was below the limit, luckily for him not doing the instictive camera-driven speedo glance though.ETA I see you've experienced first-hand how driving slower has prevented you from killing or injuring somebody on two separate occasions.
Edited by Countdown on Saturday 29th October 21:03
tapereel said:
You need to rethink and change your attitude towards the limits and the enforcement of them as your present attitude will lead to you being prevented from drivig for a while at some stage.
Nah, I don't think I will change my attitude.When a former constable and member of the chief of officers team responsible for camera expansion spoke out and suggested they were being placed where there was little danger of accidents, not at accident black spots as intended and were placed related to targets and income, I will take his word over yours all day long.
When he also admitted forces were only allowed to join and earn from this situation if they agreed to increase massively the number of tickets issued, why should I ignore this tragic situation?
He also went on to say how he could see the public holding grudges against the police and given that even police officers have stated they agree and do not like this situation, why should I listen to you and those like you over them?
When another chief constable refused to install cameras based on the above and had only one camera in his area at a black spot and declared the statistics showed they didn't work, why did others not follow suit?
When the largest provider of cameras sold them as being able to make buckets of cash and were blank cheque books that would provide so much money, the users of these cameras wouldn't know what to do with it all, why should I listen to someone like yourself and simply shrug this off?
When we see how things have progressed with the industry, it has played out exactly as many predicted.
For what must be the 100th time on here, I shall state again that I am not anti-camera. I like them to be where they make a difference and where they will reduce accidents. They no longer are. The rot set in a long time ago and just got worse and worse.
The tales you can dig up of corruption, bribes, jail time, doctored stats, FOI denials, many laughable mistakes made etc and other examples like the ones above result in my attitude being exactly the same as it was decades ago and confirm how it will remain. It's the same the world over, now.
Defend it all you want, your voice will never be as important as those involved in the industry who agree with me.
Digby said:
When a former constable and member of the chief of officers team responsible for camera expansion spoke out and suggested they were being placed where there was little danger of accidents, not at accident black spots as intended and were placed related to targets and income, I will take his word over yours all day long.
Link?singlecoil said:
Digby said:
When a former constable and member of the chief of officers team responsible for camera expansion spoke out and suggested they were being placed where there was little danger of accidents, not at accident black spots as intended and were placed related to targets and income, I will take his word over yours all day long.
Link?drf765 said:
singlecoil said:
Digby said:
When a former constable and member of the chief of officers team responsible for camera expansion spoke out and suggested they were being placed where there was little danger of accidents, not at accident black spots as intended and were placed related to targets and income, I will take his word over yours all day long.
Link?Digby said:
tapereel said:
You need to rethink and change your attitude towards the limits and the enforcement of them as your present attitude will lead to you being prevented from drivig for a while at some stage.
Nah, I don't think I will change my attitude.When a former constable and member of the chief of officers team responsible for camera expansion spoke out and suggested they were being placed where there was little danger of accidents, not at accident black spots as intended and were placed related to targets and income, I will take his word over yours all day long.
When he also admitted forces were only allowed to join and earn from this situation if they agreed to increase massively the number of tickets issued, why should I ignore this tragic situation?
He also went on to say how he could see the public holding grudges against the police and given that even police officers have stated they agree and do not like this situation, why should I listen to you and those like you over them?
When another chief constable refused to install cameras based on the above and had only one camera in his area at a black spot and declared the statistics showed they didn't work, why did others not follow suit?
When the largest provider of cameras sold them as being able to make buckets of cash and were blank cheque books that would provide so much money, the users of these cameras wouldn't know what to do with it all, why should I listen to someone like yourself and simply shrug this off?
When we see how things have progressed with the industry, it has played out exactly as many predicted.
For what must be the 100th time on here, I shall state again that I am not anti-camera. I like them to be where they make a difference and where they will reduce accidents. They no longer are. The rot set in a long time ago and just got worse and worse.
The tales you can dig up of corruption, bribes, jail time, doctored stats, FOI denials, many laughable mistakes made etc and other examples like the ones above result in my attitude being exactly the same as it was decades ago and confirm how it will remain. It's the same the world over, now.
Defend it all you want, your voice will never be as important as those involved in the industry who agree with me.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used. Assuming that the big bright yellow box on a stick just before some lights WON'T also do speed is just asking for trouble.
TooMany2cvs said:
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used.
You can apply that to anything.Child abuse.
Animal cruelty.
Pointless wars.
Should we ignore anything to do with those, too?
Corrupt councils, corruption in medical fields, corrupt politicians.....whinging and blustering won't stop them, so just let it all go?
What a strange way to view the world.
singlecoil said:
It's an ongoing joke. Digby has a habit of posting some pretty outrageous stuff and when he is asked to support it with links etc he says we should all do this research for ourselves. The point is not that I want a link, but that there isn't a link.
Still not making the effort I see? Someone gave you a link last time. That's more than I will ever do.You speak so passionately about a topic yet do absolutely zero research. In other words, you know nothing about it and just want some internet squabbles.
Your views count for nothing. I told you to ignore me and you couldn't. You must love it!
Whinging and blustering won't help.
(must use that line more from now on)
Digby said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used.
You can apply that to anything.Child abuse.
Animal cruelty.
Pointless wars.
Should we ignore anything to do with those, too?
Corrupt councils, corruption in medical fields, corrupt politicians.....whinging and blustering won't stop them, so just let it all go?
What a strange way to view the world.
Here's a clue: Think about which side of the line of legality you're arguing from...
TooMany2cvs said:
Which is all very well, but tapereel is bang on the money. If you don't start to regard cameras as being a widespread inevitability, and adapt your driving with that in mind, you likely WILL find yourself licenceless at some point.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used. Assuming that the big bright yellow box on a stick just before some lights WON'T also do speed is just asking for trouble.
Just to add, surveys suggest most people support the use of speed cameras. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used. Assuming that the big bright yellow box on a stick just before some lights WON'T also do speed is just asking for trouble.
Countdown said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Which is all very well, but tapereel is bang on the money. If you don't start to regard cameras as being a widespread inevitability, and adapt your driving with that in mind, you likely WILL find yourself licenceless at some point.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used. Assuming that the big bright yellow box on a stick just before some lights WON'T also do speed is just asking for trouble.
Just to add, surveys suggest most people support the use of speed cameras. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used. Assuming that the big bright yellow box on a stick just before some lights WON'T also do speed is just asking for trouble.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff