Hull speed cameras sites 'picked to make most money'

[vonhosen]

Dave Finney said:

vonhosen said:

In over 100 years of limits, that hasn't been the case. Enforcement has always taken place on no other basis than the limit was being exceeded (i.e. safe speeding). That hasn't changed. All that has changed is that technology has resulted in greater detections & automation of the process.

Not according to the article:

The Sunday Times said:

"Kent police ... take into account the road conditions, time of day and speed of the vehicle before deciding whether to send out a ticket."

“The force uses proportional discretion in assessing the circumstances to decide whether there is a public interest in prosecuting a driver"

"Hertfordshire police ... to enforce the 70mph speed limit ... was not in the public interest"

And they'll still deal with you for 'safe speeding'. We already know there is a sliding disposal scale, that hasn't changed either.
The 70 limit hasn't been enforced at 71 & never has (so no the 70mph limit is not enforced at 70), that's not what I was saying, they are just being coy.
A certain amount over the limit, no action.
A bit more over, at least the offer of a course.
A bit more over, at least a FPN.
A bit more over, at least a summons.
Any of the above thresholds (which they are being coy about) can be lowered where those looking at it consider the circumstances warrant it.
Individual officers observing offending & that can all go out the window, because whether & how they deal with you can be dependent on whether they have something more important/pressing to deal with at the time.
Cameras don't tend to have more important/pressing stuff to deal with.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 22 February 16:33

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

Mainland Europe doesn't have a uniform 80mph limit, it varies.
I'm not fussed whether the limit is 70 or 80 here as far as my journey times are concerned, because it's not going to make a great deal of difference to me.
I don't believe a 70 or 80, as far as limits are concerned, are going to make a great deal of difference to the risk I pose either.
There are lots of considerations into the setting of limits & for a change of such proportions I wouldn't waste my time campaigning for or against any such change. I'm happy to leave campaigning & subsequent decisions to others whilst I occupy myself with other things.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 21st February 23:27

You sidestepped that then, or maybe I wasn't clear with my request.
I didn't want an explanation or reasoning why the 70 or 80 was not of importance to you on a personal level. I have no interest in you as an individual behind the wheel and any impact on your journey. I am more interested in your arguments for or against as they relate to society as a whole.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Mainland Europe doesn't have a uniform 80mph limit, it varies.
I'm not fussed whether the limit is 70 or 80 here as far as my journey times are concerned, because it's not going to make a great deal of difference to me.
I don't believe a 70 or 80, as far as limits are concerned, are going to make a great deal of difference to the risk I pose either.
There are lots of considerations into the setting of limits & for a change of such proportions I wouldn't waste my time campaigning for or against any such change. I'm happy to leave campaigning & subsequent decisions to others whilst I occupy myself with other things.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 21st February 23:27

You sidestepped that then, or maybe I wasn't clear with my request.
I didn't want an explanation or reasoning why the 70 or 80 was not of importance to you on a personal level. I have no interest in you as an individual behind the wheel and any impact on your journey. I am more interested in your arguments for or against as they relate to society as a whole.

I said I'm not wasting my time arguing for either side with the suggested change margins. Those who are interested for or against can put forward their arguments & I would no doubt be able to see valid points in the arguments of both sides. It would then be up to elected officials to decide if they want to make an adjustment to the current compromise or not.

[Devil2575]

daytona355 said:

Are you that stupid that you can't even make your side of the argument more than name calling? What a clever post

I chose not to argue against a point that was so flawed it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain what was wrong with it.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

I said I'm not wasting my time arguing for either side with the suggested change margins. Those who are interested for or against can put forward their arguments & I would no doubt be able to see valid points in the arguments of both sides. It would then be up to elected officials to decide if they want to make an adjustment to the current compromise or not.

That was the response I half expected.
I am interested to know what your current employment is. You may once have been 'job' but you appear far more politician now, although I appreciate these days that the two are far from mutually exclusive at the top. More's the pity.

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

They aren't expensively trained Police officers

And therefore the profit margin from the SACs is higher.

You mean:
Greater efficiency in use of resources.
Deal with more offenders per buck.
Increase in safety initiatives.

No. I mean that using cheaper operators for the cameras means that the SCPs show a greater profit.

Please do not presume to tell me what I mean.

[Rovinghawk]

cmaguire said:

I am interested to know what your current employment is.

I would suggest that PR spokesperson for the SCPs is a possibility.

(Some might say apologist, lobbyist or mouthpiece but I am not one of them)

[WD39]

randlemarcus said:

WD39 said:

Can everybody please slow down.

W o u l d y o u l i k e u s t o t y p e s l o w e r f o r y o u ?

WASP

[WD39]

Dave Finney said:

vonhosen said:

In over 100 years of limits, that hasn't been the case. Enforcement has always taken place on no other basis than the limit was being exceeded (i.e. safe speeding). That hasn't changed. All that has changed is that technology has resulted in greater detections & automation of the process.

Not according to the article:

The Sunday Times said:

"Kent police ... take into account the road conditions, time of day and speed of the vehicle before deciding whether to send out a ticket."

“The force uses proportional discretion in assessing the circumstances to decide whether there is a public interest in prosecuting a driver"

"Hertfordshire police ... to enforce the 70mph speed limit ... was not in the public interest"

And the other thirty odd police forces?

[Davidonly]

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

Good timing! This popped up on a link a moment ago.

http://www.driving.co.uk/wordpress/article/news/dr...

Paul Watters of the AA said:

But if everything is safe, the road is clear and the national speed limit is set, then there isn’t the same justification to enforce the limit.”

In over 100 years of limits, that hasn't been the case. Enforcement has always taken place on no other basis than the limit was being exceeded (i.e. safe speeding). That hasn't changed. All that has changed is that technology has resulted in greater detections & automation of the process.

The most interesting thing is that there is no evidence that any of this actually does improve 'safety'. Ever increasing enforcement MUST be having a negative effect on economic output - banned drivers often become un-employed, lower speeds have a demonstrable impact on productivity. The casualty rate reduction is can be linked to passive and active safety systems in the vehicle and maybe to road layout changes but not to ever increasing speed enforcement - yet that gets by far the greatest emphasis. And still no data to support it... ???

[vonhosen]

Davidonly said:

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

Good timing! This popped up on a link a moment ago.

http://www.driving.co.uk/wordpress/article/news/dr...

Paul Watters of the AA said:

But if everything is safe, the road is clear and the national speed limit is set, then there isn’t the same justification to enforce the limit.”

In over 100 years of limits, that hasn't been the case. Enforcement has always taken place on no other basis than the limit was being exceeded (i.e. safe speeding). That hasn't changed. All that has changed is that technology has resulted in greater detections & automation of the process.

The most interesting thing is that there is no evidence that any of this actually does improve 'safety'. Ever increasing enforcement MUST be having a negative effect on economic output - banned drivers often become un-employed, lower speeds have a demonstrable impact on productivity. The casualty rate reduction is can be linked to passive and active safety systems in the vehicle and maybe to road layout changes but not to ever increasing speed enforcement - yet that gets by far the greatest emphasis. And still no data to support it... ???

The safety benefit has to be (one of the benefits) in speed limits, the enforcement is just a consequence of having those limits.

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

Davidonly said:

The most interesting thing is that there is no evidence that any of this actually does improve 'safety'. Ever increasing enforcement MUST be having a negative effect on economic output - banned drivers often become un-employed, lower speeds have a demonstrable impact on productivity. The casualty rate reduction is can be linked to passive and active safety systems in the vehicle and maybe to road layout changes but not to ever increasing speed enforcement - yet that gets by far the greatest emphasis. And still no data to support it... ???

The safety benefit has to be (one of the benefits) in speed limits, the enforcement is just a consequence of having those limits.

You've not answered him.

Is there any data to support the alleged safety benefit of speed cameras as opposed to eg improved safety systems in cars? Not anecdotal, not circumstantial, not flawed; actual solid unbiased data from an independent source such as a university or similar.

[singlecoil]

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

Davidonly said:

The most interesting thing is that there is no evidence that any of this actually does improve 'safety'. Ever increasing enforcement MUST be having a negative effect on economic output - banned drivers often become un-employed, lower speeds have a demonstrable impact on productivity. The casualty rate reduction is can be linked to passive and active safety systems in the vehicle and maybe to road layout changes but not to ever increasing speed enforcement - yet that gets by far the greatest emphasis. And still no data to support it... ???

The safety benefit has to be (one of the benefits) in speed limits, the enforcement is just a consequence of having those limits.

You've not answered him.

Is there any data to support the alleged safety benefit of speed cameras as opposed to eg improved safety systems in cars? Not anecdotal, not circumstantial, not flawed; actual solid unbiased data from an independent source such as a university or similar.

The 'alleged safety benefit' doesn't come from the cameras, FFS! It comes from the speed limits. The cameras are just a way of encouraging compliance with the limits. People must make up their own minds whether we would be better off without speed limits, because there is never going to be any data on that subject, because there is always going to be limits.

[cmaguire]

Speeding Kills

Can't you just accept that? Life would be so much easier.

Oh, hang on. It's bks.
Sorry about that.

[Who me ?]

vonhosen said:

The safety benefit has to be (one of the benefits) in speed limits, the enforcement is just a consequence of having those limits.

BUT- years ago ,when Trafpols were there for safety, and acted in a NOT FOR PROFIT capacity, we had safety built in with enforcement, and if that failed- TICKET.
Then came the great God PROFIT, and the organisation known as SCP ( Suspicious conned presumption), which only saw speed limits as the answer to road safety, and the disciples spoke out loudly, and the local SCP raked in the cash. Then came the beancounters, whose function was to retain as much of the cash for local schemes( e.g. new cars for the brass hats/ new offices for the SCP ETC). Then the Great God Gordo saw threw this and was most displeased. (as his share of the loot was rapidly declining). So forthwith- al SCP would get a grant .but slowly the SCP bush withered ,due to lack of funds, and the ACPO stepped in to stop the empire from withering.
A new scheme was introduced , locally- whereby local organisations could syphon off funds to operate brainwash facilities to motorists ,to ensure they knew that that corner/stretch of road, they'd been driving for lots of years was UNSAFE , because the local WRI said so.
Van ho ho - sound familiar ?
The problem is that today, we HAVE NO POLICE folks around to advise drivers on driving at speed- all they want to do is teach foks to drive well under the limit- as the limit is the "ultimate" a car can drive at.

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

The 'alleged safety benefit' doesn't come from the cameras, FFS! It comes from the speed limits. The cameras are just a way of encouraging compliance with the limits. People must make up their own minds whether we would be better off without speed limits, because there is never going to be any data on that subject, because there is always going to be limits.

But the argument isn't about whether or not we should have limits, but rather what the limits are set to.
If it were a question of limits or not, then, as you said, there is no data so nobody can know whether they're any good.

[Davidonly]

vonhosen said:

Davidonly said:

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

Good timing! This popped up on a link a moment ago.

http://www.driving.co.uk/wordpress/article/news/dr...

Paul Watters of the AA said:

But if everything is safe, the road is clear and the national speed limit is set, then there isn’t the same justification to enforce the limit.”

In over 100 years of limits, that hasn't been the case. Enforcement has always taken place on no other basis than the limit was being exceeded (i.e. safe speeding). That hasn't changed. All that has changed is that technology has resulted in greater detections & automation of the process.

The most interesting thing is that there is no evidence that any of this actually does improve 'safety'. Ever increasing enforcement MUST be having a negative effect on economic output - banned drivers often become un-employed, lower speeds have a demonstrable impact on productivity. The casualty rate reduction is can be linked to passive and active safety systems in the vehicle and maybe to road layout changes but not to ever increasing speed enforcement - yet that gets by far the greatest emphasis. And still no data to support it... ???

The safety benefit has to be (one of the benefits) in speed limits, the enforcement is just a consequence of having those limits.

OK speed limits have a place - never thought otherwise. However, I think we have to have better data that
1. they are correctly set and
2. that the amount of enforcement really needs any more increase (as it seems to endlessly be doing so or
3.if anyone has ever proved any benefit from non-human enforcement in the first place.

For example I don't understand how major roads around Notts have had multiple changes imposed. NSL to 50 PLUS avg speed cams and I suspect better markings and other engineering. Why was that done all at once? where was the data to support the reduction in limit let alone the addition of avg speed cameras? There isn't any basis for this continue!

It's unreasonable to prosecute a citizen for safe use of the road (NB points are awarded for behaviour that can result in risk to road users) because another citizen decided to change the rules without a scientific / technical / data driven rationale for doing so. The people making these changes appear to be far removed from the subject matter experts that ought to be guiding this stuff!

[Dave Finney]

singlecoil said:

The 'alleged safety benefit' doesn't come from the cameras, FFS! It comes from the speed limits. The cameras are just a way of encouraging compliance with the limits.

The evidence doesn't appear to support your opinion, though. Speed limits may be:

1) self enforced (by individuals and peer pressure)
2) enforced by Police
3) enforced by speed camera
4) other (CSW etc)

Each type of speed enforcement may have different effects and we can have a little, lots or none of each.

We know that self enforcement definitely occurs. Thousands of speed limits have been changed and, when speed limits are changed by 10mph, average speeds change by 1-3 mph. The results are consistent and this is without any change in enforcement levels.

When Police enforce motoring laws they will include speeding but they tend to prosecute when the speed is unreasonable for the conditions or when associated with other infringements, IOW: they tend to prosecute only when they believe that it is in the public interest to do so.

Enforcement by speed camera is fundamentally different to the two above. Prosecutions are pursued whether in the public interest or not, there have never been any scientific trials, the most accurate evidence suggests that they do not save lives or prevent serious injuries, the authorities have deceived the British public about the effects of speed cameras and we've had to reduce Police numbers because of the cost to society of running speed cameras.

We need two things from the authorities:

1) honesty
2) speed cameras deployed within scientific trials (the best quality evidence)
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/02_scientific_trial...

The problem is that we have not had either of these for over 20 years now. It's time we started taking road safety seriously.

[Digby]

Dave Finney said:

It's time we started taking road safety seriously.

Some on here will never agree with that. All the evidence in the world suggesting profit before safety, dodgy stats and better alternatives etc are shoved straight under the "so what?" rug and they carry on defending the very people attempting to screw us over.

Look at the topic title. Not that it's anything we haven't heard before, but only on PH could you have situations like this...

"I wonder about the responsibility of this organisation when a former chief superintendent of police in Hull asked about relocating a camera from outside the police station in Clough Road to an accident blackspot where there had been three serious accidents in Beverley High Road.

"The response he got from the safety partnership was, 'Well it makes enough money where it is, why should we move it?' They weren't interested in the casualties, they were interested in the money. This is disgraceful."


....and have people defend it.

But then I recently posted about the number of people using mobile phones when driving and I actually got called names and told to mind my own business in that thread, so nothing surprises me.

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

The 'alleged safety benefit' doesn't come from the cameras, FFS! It comes from the speed limits. The cameras are just a way of encouraging compliance with the limits. People must make up their own minds whether we would be better off without speed limits, because there is never going to be any data on that subject, because there is always going to be limits.

But the argument isn't about whether or not we should have limits, but rather what the limits are set to.
If it were a question of limits or not, then, as you said, there is no data so nobody can know whether they're any good.

No, that is NOT what the argument is about, but you are right about the lack of data.

Dave Finney said:

singlecoil said:

The 'alleged safety benefit' doesn't come from the cameras, FFS! It comes from the speed limits. The cameras are just a way of encouraging compliance with the limits.

The evidence doesn't appear to support your opinion, though...

That the cameras are there to encourage compliance is not an opinion, it's a clear and obvious fact. A camera that is working properly can only do one thing, and that is take pictures of cars that are exceeding the speed limit by a pre-set amount. People who don't want their car's picture taken are therefore encouraged to stay inside the limit.