Hull speed cameras sites 'picked to make most money'

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

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.

Yes, I know what the thread is about, but when the argument becomes one of, "it's not the cameras, it's the limits", it's also not about limits vs no limits

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

Yes, I know what the thread is about, but when the argument becomes one of, "it's not the cameras, it's the limits", it's also not about limits vs no limits

We seem to be making progress, all we now need to do is to come to a consensus on what the argument IS about.

[RobinOakapple]

singlecoil said:

We seem to be making progress, all we now need to do is to come to a consensus on what the argument IS about.

I know what the argument is about-

Side A:

The Speeders

They want to be able to drive as fast as they want, whenever they judge that is ok for them to do so. If there is to be any enforcement of the (raised) speed limits then it is to be only by polite policemen in clearly marked cars who will leave them alone as it is obvious that they are perfectly safe skilled drivers in well maintained high-performance vehicles, or who will, in extreme cases, pull them over for a gentle ear-wigging before sending them on their way with no further action.

They hate speed cameras because they take all the fun out of driving.

Side B:

The people who realise that Side A are fantasists, and who realise that the arguments that Side A put forward are mostly st. Side B would like to be allowed to drive faster but they realise that with such permission comes the unfortunate fact that everybody else will be allowed to drive faster too, including many people who shouldn't be driving at all.

[0000]

Side A:

Proponents of progress through education and improved road design who think this isn't about safety but about sustaining an entire industry.

Side B:

Those who can't think for themselves, love a nanny state and more than likely have a vested interest in the industry.

[RobinOakapple]

Like I said, fantasists. Driver education and better roads

[Corpulent Tosser]

0000 said:

Side A:

Proponents of progress through education and improved road design who think this isn't about safety but about sustaining an entire industry.

Side B:

Those who can't think for themselves, love a nanny state and more than likely have a vested interest in the industry.

Your opinion is valid, but I think RobinOakapple's is far closer to reality

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Yes, I know what the thread is about, but when the argument becomes one of, "it's not the cameras, it's the limits", it's also not about limits vs no limits

We seem to be making progress, all we now need to do is to come to a consensus on what the argument IS about.

Let me remind you of what you wrote, and what I was responding to:

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.

In other words, it's not the cameras, it's the limits.

And not only that, but you reduce it to the mere presence/absence of limits - for which there is no data, so effectively stifling the argument.

[Pete317]

RobinOakapple said:

The people who realise that Side A are fantasists, and who realise that the arguments that Side A put forward are mostly st. Side B would like to be allowed to drive faster but they realise that with such permission comes the unfortunate fact that everybody else will be allowed to drive faster too, including many people who shouldn't be driving at all.

So you're quite happy to see bad drivers doing 70mph on the motorway, or even 80 at a push, but not 85?
Trust me, you can kill someone just as effectively at 70 as you can at 80+

And you seem to be happy with bad drivers screaming past horse riders at 40+mph, when even 10mph is pushing it a bit?
Or would you be content with being limited to 10mph on country roads just in case some numpty encounters a horse rider?

And it's a bit presumptuous of you to attribute all sorts of motives to those you have labelled 'speeders'.

You haven't a clue what any of us 'speeders' is actually thinking.

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

And not only that, but you reduce it to the mere presence/absence of limits - for which there is no data, so effectively stifling the argument.

By all means have a discussion about speed limits, but this isn't the thread for it.

But if there are limits, they will need to be enforced. If they are not enforced, then there are effectively no limits. Cameras are cheaper than policemen and will be the norm for the foreseeable future.

[RobinOakapple]

Pete317 said:

RobinOakapple said:

The people who realise that Side A are fantasists, and who realise that the arguments that Side A put forward are mostly st. Side B would like to be allowed to drive faster but they realise that with such permission comes the unfortunate fact that everybody else will be allowed to drive faster too, including many people who shouldn't be driving at all.

So you're quite happy to see bad drivers doing 70mph on the motorway, or even 80 at a push, but not 85?
Trust me, you can kill someone just as effectively at 70 as you can at 80+

I didn't say that, as you very well know. As for trusting you? You can't be serious

Pete317 said:

And you seem to be happy with bad drivers screaming past horse riders at 40+mph, when even 10mph is pushing it a bit?
Or would you be content with being limited to 10mph on country roads just in case some numpty encounters a horse rider?

Didn't say or imply that either

Pete317 said:

And it's a bit presumptuous of you to attribute all sorts of motives to those you have labelled 'speeders'.

You haven't a clue what any of us 'speeders' is actually thinking.

I have masses of clues as to what you speeders are thinking, the clues are there in the posts you make on the subject.

[Dave Finney]

singlecoil said:

But if there are limits, they will need to be enforced. If they are not enforced, then there are effectively no limits.

But your opinion is at odds with the evidence.

1) When speed limits are changed by 10mph, average speeds change by 1-3 mph. The results are consistent and this occurs even when there is no enforcement by Police or speed cameras.

So speed limits alone DO have an effect.

2) Speed limits also allow Police to easily prosecute unsafe driving. IOW: when it is in the public interest to prosecute.

3) Deploying speed cameras, however, has a very different effect than either of the above. Prosecutions are pursued whether in the public interest or not, there have never been any scientific trials of speed cameras, the most accurate evidence suggests that speed cameras 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.

[singlecoil]

Dave Finney said:

singlecoil said:

But if there are limits, they will need to be enforced. If they are not enforced, then there are effectively no limits.

But your opinion is at odds with the evidence.

1) When speed limits are changed by 10mph, average speeds change by 1-3 mph. The results are consistent and this occurs even when there is no enforcement by Police or speed cameras.

So speed limits alone DO have an effect.

You will need to prove that the drivers KNEW that there would be no enforcement. If they didn't know, then it doesn't count.

Dave Finney said:

3) Deploying speed cameras, however, has a very different effect than either of the above. Prosecutions are pursued whether in the public interest or not, there have never been any scientific trials of speed cameras, the most accurate evidence suggests that speed cameras 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.

For the umpteenth time...

... it's not the speed CAMERAS that "save lives or prevent serious injuries", it's the speed LIMITS.

[Pete317]

Brief summary of this thread:

"The cameras are about money"

"No they're not, they're about enforcing the limits"

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

"If you want to discuss the limits, you'll have to start a new thread"

[Pete317]

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

So you're quite happy to see bad drivers doing 70mph on the motorway, or even 80 at a push, but not 85?
Trust me, you can kill someone just as effectively at 70 as you can at 80+

I didn't say that, as you very well know. As for trusting you? You can't be serious

That's what it amounts to.

No credible literature about setting limits subscribes to your 'lowest common denominator' viewpoint.

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

And it's a bit presumptuous of you to attribute all sorts of motives to those you have labelled 'speeders'.

You haven't a clue what any of us 'speeders' is actually thinking.

I have masses of clues as to what you speeders are thinking, the clues are there in the posts you make on the subject.

So how come you get it so wrong?

[vonhosen]

Dave Finney said:

singlecoil said:

But if there are limits, they will need to be enforced. If they are not enforced, then there are effectively no limits.

But your opinion is at odds with the evidence.

1) When speed limits are changed by 10mph, average speeds change by 1-3 mph. The results are consistent and this occurs even when there is no enforcement by Police or speed cameras.

So speed limits alone DO have an effect.

2) Speed limits also allow Police to easily prosecute unsafe driving. IOW: when it is in the public interest to prosecute.

3) Deploying speed cameras, however, has a very different effect than either of the above. Prosecutions are pursued whether in the public interest or not, there have never been any scientific trials of speed cameras, the most accurate evidence suggests that speed cameras 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.

That's a change of limit - if they notice - & quite a bit different from no limit at all.
No limits I'd be moving around a lot quicker than presently.

To pretend that Police only ever prosecuted speeding where it was unsafe (when cameras weren't/aren't used) is just that, pretending.
There have been plenty of Police prosecutions of speeding on no other basis than the limit was being exceeded & to uphold that limit in the last 100 years plus.

You'll find plenty of people posting it here.
Clear, dry motorway, light traffic, over the limit, stopped by officer & reported.

'Reduced Police numbers because of the cost to society of running speeding cameras?'

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 24th February 19:28

[Dave Finney]

singlecoil said:

Dave Finney said:

singlecoil said:

But if there are limits, they will need to be enforced. If they are not enforced, then there are effectively no limits.

But your opinion is at odds with the evidence.

1) When speed limits are changed by 10mph, average speeds change by 1-3 mph. The results are consistent and this occurs even when there is no enforcement by Police or speed cameras.

So speed limits alone DO have an effect.

You will need to prove that the drivers KNEW that there would be no enforcement. If they didn't know, then it doesn't count.

Dave Finney said:

3) Deploying speed cameras, however, has a very different effect than either of the above. Prosecutions are pursued whether in the public interest or not, there have never been any scientific trials of speed cameras, the most accurate evidence suggests that speed cameras 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.

For the umpteenth time...

... it's not the speed CAMERAS that "save lives or prevent serious injuries", it's the speed LIMITS.

I am very pleased to see evidence being called for, very rare on this forum!

When Portsmouth lowered the speed limit on 100's of miles of roads, the Police stated they would not be enforcing the new limit. Average speeds still fell by around 1.3mph.

In fact, the Police have stated that they would not be enforcing ANY 20mph speed limits, but average speeds have still dropped in 20mph areas:

http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/11509057....
http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/2702.html

I agree with you that the evidence shows that speed cameras do not "save lives or prevent serious injuries", but scientific trials would provide the proof of speed camera effect.

[RobinOakapple]

Pete317 said:

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

This is no longer a rational discussion.

Fortunately the people who impose speed limits and those whose job it is to enforce them do have a good grasp of reality, unlike you, and the rules they make and enforce will apply to you the same as they do to the rest of us.

Continue arguing on your own, chum.

[daytona355]

People would respect limits more if they were applied in a common sense manner, and in keeping with the technology available to drivers these days and increased safety of cars. Low limits around pedestrians is one thing, why do dual carriageways get reduced down to 40, sometimes 30, for no good reason? Why is the motorway subjected to ridiculous restrictions just because it's raining a bit as happens on the M5 all the time? before you tell us it's because of an incident, why do you rarely come across anything of the sort, normally just cars being unnecessarily restricted by scameras on the gantries because some womble assumes that because he can't control a car on the wet, no one else can. The only saving grace is that they are not SPECS

[RobinOakapple]

daytona355 said:

normally just cars being unnecessarily restricted by scameras on the gantries because some womble assumes that because he can't control a car on the wet, no one else can

Maybe it's because he thinks that a lot of other wombles might be on the road too, not just driving gods in supercars like yourself?

[daytona355]

Then make the test harder to pass, or restrict rubbish to the inside lane, if we are being facetious