Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

Wanting limits that they feel are reasonable and enforcement they consider proportionate amount the same thing. Whatever speed they would chose to drive at is what they would want the limit set at.

Reasonable is defined legally as that which a typical, normal bloke (albeit one on a bus) would consider reasonable. This 'reasonable' set of speed limits is what I was suggesting, not something ridiculous.

[singlecoil]

2013BRM said:

Well, for one thing that assumes your quality of argument is superior to others, I dispute this because you seem unable to see two sides to an argument nor concede a reasonable point, it's as if you are driven.

I don't see any reason why I should see two sides of the argument when no-one else does.

And the quality of my argument (not that I need one as I'm ok with the status quo) is indeed superior to that gem from you.

Rovinghawk said:

Reasonable is defined legally as that which a typical, normal bloke (albeit one on a bus) would consider reasonable. This 'reasonable' set of speed limits is what I was suggesting, not something ridiculous.

And can you prove that any of the existing limits would be considered unreasonable by a typical, normal bloke?

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

And can you prove that any of the existing limits would be considered unreasonable by a typical, normal bloke?

There's a DC in Birmingham with a 30 limit, no buildings adjacent. It has a camera, btw.

I believe it to be unreasonable but it's impossible to prove what other people might or might not believe.

[woof]

Travelling back on the M25 yesterday late afternoon.
Just past the M11 junction and the 60 boards came on - incident (or similar wording)
Slowed down. Came though the Bell common tunnel and those first Hadecs cameras were flashing like crazy - so many cars got done that couldn't have been doing more than 70mph (barely looked like they were going much faster than me) - everyone slams on their brakes.
The restriction carried on to Junc 26 and then finally the NSL came back on.

No incident - nothing in the road. No breakdowns ?!

[singlecoil]

Rovinghawk said:

I believe it to be unreasonable but it's impossible to prove what other people might or might not believe.

In that case I suppose we need to rely on the democratic system to ensure that speed limits are in line with the wishes of the majority of local people

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

In that case I suppose we need to rely on the democratic system to ensure that speed limits are in line with the wishes of the majority of local people

You're funny. Democracy over speed limits?

[singlecoil]

Rovinghawk said:

You're funny. Democracy over speed limits?

Speed limits are a result of the democratic process. It's not one you are happy with, evidently, but that just means you are in the minority in this case.

[2013BRM]

singlecoil said:

2013BRM said:

Well, for one thing that assumes your quality of argument is superior to others, I dispute this because you seem unable to see two sides to an argument nor concede a reasonable point, it's as if you are driven.

I don't see any reason why I should see two sides of the argument when no-one else does.

And the quality of my argument (not that I need one as I'm ok with the status quo) is indeed superior to that gem from you.

hope you're not getting light headed up there

[singlecoil]

2013BRM said:

singlecoil said:

2013BRM said:

Well, for one thing that assumes your quality of argument is superior to others, I dispute this because you seem unable to see two sides to an argument nor concede a reasonable point, it's as if you are driven.

I don't see any reason why I should see two sides of the argument when no-one else does.

And the quality of my argument (not that I need one as I'm ok with the status quo) is indeed superior to that gem from you.

hope you're not getting light headed up there

The quality of your argument has a little way to go yet, but keep trying.

You'll do better if you stick to the topic.

[Phatboy317]

Devil2575 said:

Also while correlation is not causation, it certainly helps the case if the data is moving in the desired direction, even if you can't prove conclusively what is causing it.

I think you'll find that the devil is very much in the detail, so to speak.

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

Speed limits are a result of the democratic process.

This absurd bks. I was never asked what I wanted- neither was anyone else I know.

On the rare occasions people's opinion is asked the authorities seldom do anything other than that which they originally intended.

[singlecoil]

Rovinghawk said:

singlecoil said:

Speed limits are a result of the democratic process.

This absurd bks. I was never asked what I wanted- neither was anyone else I know.

On the rare occasions people's opinion is asked the authorities seldom do anything other than that which they originally intended.

You were asked, at the last election. If you don't like what the incumbents are doing, vote them out. If none of the other parties show any interest in your cause, that should tell you something about how popular it is. If you disagree with their assessment, and you are right, then you stand a good chance of getting elected yourself.

[Digby]

2013BRM said:

singlecoil said:

Digby said:

"There will be so much money coming in you won't know what to do with it" - Chief executive of Tele-Traffic (supplies cameras to virtually every
police force in Britain)

And yet that has turned out to be untrue.

salesspeak

although £248 million in 2 years ain't too shabby

Sales pitch? Quite possibly.Pitched to everyone, of course.That must be why all those involved with cameras and road safety refused to order these products due to being disgusted with the suggestions of profit before safety.If they had placed orders based on the sales pitch, we would now be seeing thousands of cameras springing up across the country and............oh, wait a minute!!!

[Digby]

singlecoil said:

If you are wondering why I participate in these threads, it's because I am both appalled and amused at the quality of arguments put forward by those who either want no speed limits, or who want no enforcement (which, of course, amounts to the same thing).

Has anyone said as much in this and other threads? I am happy to be corrected, but I don't remember what you suggest being put forward in this or other related topics.

[Rovinghawk]

Digby said:

Has anyone said as much in this and other threads? I am happy to be corrected, but I don't remember what you suggest being put forward in this or other related topics.

FFS! This isn't about facts & you know it. Maybe nobody said it, maybe nobody even thought it, but if they had done then he'd be perfectly correct (even more so than usual).

SC- Perhaps many people voted for CMD when he promised "an end to the war on the motorist". If so, that supports my point that the idea of democracy vis-à-vis excessive & unreasonable speed legislation & enforcement is not entirely effective.

[singlecoil]

Digby said:

Has anyone said as much in this and other threads? I am happy to be corrected, but I don't remember what you suggest being put forward in this or other related topics.

It could be that I misunderstood. I had kind of got the impression that people here disapproved of speed cameras, which forced me to the conclusion that they didn't want to see speed limits enforced.

I hope you are not now going to go all Rovinghawk on my ass and say that you are perfectly ok with the speed limits that you approve of.

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

I hope you are not now going to go all Rovinghawk on my ass and say that you are perfectly ok with the speed limits that you approve of.

There you go again, claiming stuff that was never actually said. I mentioned reasonable limits; you were the one that suggested limits of which I personally approve.

If lies & disingenuous statements are all you have then you're hardly helping your side of the debate.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

How's the poll going, anyway?

More importantly who cares & will it make any difference?

Any difference to what?

To anything

Such as? (I will answer your Q when I know what it is)

[Hungrymc]

Devil2575 said:

When I was younger...... And lots of sensible stuff

I agree with the majority of your post.

But in your field, you will appreciate the risks of trusting data that is produced through flawed methods or perhaps only measuring one aspect of a complex system.

I don't dispute that managing and policing speed is generally good for safety. My issue is the single issue focus has diverted attention from other (equally important if not more important) aspects of road satefy.

Everyone is asking for evidence and statistics, which unfortunately, the powers that be do not want to compile as speed is so much easier to police than any other aspect of driving standards - and the correlation can be claimed as clear evidence of causation incorrectly by many. How many accidents (call them what you will) have poor observation and poor decision making as the primary cause? But that can't be policed by cameras - and therefore isn't financialy viable.

Just for info, I'm not a speeder (rare moments). I believe we need a real push on responsible driving, with good observations, and good decision making.

[singlecoil]

Rovinghawk said:

singlecoil said:

I hope you are not now going to go all Rovinghawk on my ass and say that you are perfectly ok with the speed limits that you approve of.

There you go again, claiming stuff that was never actually said. I mentioned reasonable limits; you were the one that suggested limits of which I personally approve.

You are the one who decides which are reasonable, so it amounts to the same thing.

You proved it with your vague example of a DC in Birmingham, which has a limit decided by an elected body.