Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?

[Digby]

singlecoil said:

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

You either choose to ignore much of what is written, genuinely have a problem following topics, or are, by definition, simply 'trolling'
They are the only three options for this and other suggestions you are now making given that the opposite is true and written in this very thread.
Save us some time, which is it?

singlecoil said:

...daft reasons why its not their fault that they have to pay fines, and why they shouldn't have to.

Daft as in the thousands of motorists who have been given fine money back for numerous reasons after investigations were carried out etc? That kind of daft?

[singlecoil]

Digby said:

singlecoil said:

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

You either choose to ignore much of what is written, genuinely have a problem following topics, or are, by definition, simply 'trolling'
They are the only three options for this and other suggestions you are now making given that the opposite is true and written in this very thread.
Save us some time, which is it?

Yes, Mr Pot.

Digby said:

singlecoil said:

...daft reasons why its not their fault that they have to pay fines, and why they shouldn't have to.

Daft as in the thousands of motorists who have been given fine money back for numerous reasons after investigations were carried out etc? That kind of daft?

That's obviously not the same thing, and you know it.

Have you really nothing sensible to say at all?

[Jazy67]

I find that that the speed camera has become the automated policeman that can only see speeding cars, but totally ignores the other more serious traffic crimes that are on the increase,.Has anyone noticed how many cars have faulty lights , illegal tyres, or the vast amount of drivers looking down at their laps using a mobile phone. unfortunately automated systems and reduced manual policing,is allowing other more serious crimes to go unchecked. This is so frustrating as it's the fool on the phone in the fast lane or the driver of an unfit car that's going to cause a serious accident ,more so then the average person driving on a motorway and exceeding the speed limit
It's about time the revenue generated from speeding fines is put back into employing more police to keep the driving criminals off the road

[singlecoil]

Jazy67 said:

It's about time the revenue generated from speeding fines is put back into employing more police to keep the driving criminals off the road

I think that would be a good idea.

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

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

I very clearly stated the definition of reasonable as that of a normal person & gave what in my opinion is a good example.

If you have to use distortions then your case is weak.

[singlecoil]

Rovinghawk said:

If you have to use distortions then your case is weak.

I'm not distorting anything. I clearly laid out the democratic process for you and you've chosen to ignore it because it doesn't suit you. You wish to be the person who chooses speed limits because you disagree with the majority.

[CAFEDEAD]

singlecoil said:

you disagree with the majority.

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

I'm not distorting anything.

At the risk of descending to pantomime, "Oh yes you are".

singlecoil said:

I clearly laid out the democratic process for you and you've chosen to ignore it because it doesn't suit you.

I haven't ignored it- I've said that it isn't used particularly well.

singlecoil said:

You wish to be the person who chooses speed limits because you disagree with the majority.

How many times do I have to repeat it before it percolates through to you that I have stated that I want reasonable limits as chosen by supposedly sensible people? I can repeat it for you but I unfortunately can't understand it for you.

[Digby]

singlecoil said:

Digby said:

singlecoil said:

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

You either choose to ignore much of what is written, genuinely have a problem following topics, or are, by definition, simply 'trolling'
They are the only three options for this and other suggestions you are now making given that the opposite is true and written in this very thread.
Save us some time, which is it?

Yes, Mr Pot.

So, which is it?

singlecoil said:

...daft reasons why its not their fault that they have to pay fines, and why they shouldn't have to.

Digby said:

Daft as in the thousands of motorists who have been given fine money back for numerous reasons after investigations were carried out etc? That kind of daft?

singlecoil said:

That's obviously not the same thing, and you know it.

Have you really nothing sensible to say at all?

It's an important point.It proves without question that the system you deem so perfect and of high moral principles has been, in numerous cases, far from it.Should I list all the incidents, those involved, the FOI requests relating to some of them, the responses (or lack of), the amounts repaid and the systems put in place to try and keep from having to pay anything back etc? That would be sensible, right?

Why not take it a step further and start listing dodgy council practices in other areas.In fact, seeing as some of the 'evidence' you tried to post earlier wasn't even UK based, let me take you on a trip round the world where this type of stuff is just as common?

Would that lend any weight to mine and Tele-Traffics "blank chequebook" suggestions for many of these cameras and their reasons for being there?

Obviously a lot will depend on your answer to the other Q..

Edited by Digby on Monday 2nd February 23:59

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

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)

As I said anything you can choose.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Digby said:

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)

As I said anything you can choose.

Ok.

[Devil2575]

Hungrymc said:

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.

I do understand the importance of the data and that bad data is worse than no data in some respects. However I haven't seen anything that I would say was terribly flawed. The main issue is that the data is limited.

I don't think that the issue is that the powers that be just don't have a desire to collect it. Research and data collection costs time and money and this is a complex issue with no easy answers. The problem with driving is the person behind the wheel does what all humans do and fks up. People get funding for reasearch when there's a financial carrot, such as developing a new medication or where there is some percieved value, such as Nuclear fusion. Who wants to spend money on research into road safety, particularly as it happens in the real world so it's almost impossible to control any aspect of it, and fix some of the many variables.
The research is going into driverless cars, because if you want to stop cars crashing you need to get rid of the Human driver.

[Rovinghawk]

Devil2575 said:

I don't think that the issue is that the powers that be just don't have a desire to collect it.

I think maybe that is the issue. Perhaps because it won't suit them?

Rule of acquisition #208- Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer.
( I'm a trekkie)

[Phatboy317]

Devil2575 said:

The research is going into driverless cars, because if you want to stop cars crashing you need to get rid of the Human driver.

At least, that's the theory

[Moonhawk]

Jazy67 said:

I find that that the speed camera has become the automated policeman that can only see speeding cars, but totally ignores the other more serious traffic crimes that are on the increase,.Has anyone noticed how many cars have faulty lights , illegal tyres, or the vast amount of drivers looking down at their laps using a mobile phone. unfortunately automated systems and reduced manual policing,is allowing other more serious crimes to go unchecked. This is so frustrating as it's the fool on the phone in the fast lane or the driver of an unfit car that's going to cause a serious accident ,more so then the average person driving on a motorway and exceeding the speed limit
It's about time the revenue generated from speeding fines is put back into employing more police to keep the driving criminals off the road

This ^^

Department for transport stats show that the majority of accidents are caused by factors other than speed - yet the increase in speed cameras has seemingly been accompanied by reducing the number of traffic officers out on the roads - thereby making the detection of these non-speed related causes (poor lane discipline, mobile phone use, poorly maintained vehicle etc) more difficult.

There is another thread discussing an apparent increase in the number of accidents occurring on the roads........could this be linked?

[Devil2575]

Phatboy317 said:

Devil2575 said:

The research is going into driverless cars, because if you want to stop cars crashing you need to get rid of the Human driver.

At least, that's the theory

You will never completely eliminate crashes, because no system is 100% reliable. However the highest integrity safety system that are used on chemical palnts and nuclear power stations don't have any human element to them as this is where the failure normally occurs. The only times humans get involved is in routine testing.

[Phatboy317]

Devil2575 said:

Phatboy317 said:

Devil2575 said:

The research is going into driverless cars, because if you want to stop cars crashing you need to get rid of the Human driver.

At least, that's the theory

You will never completely eliminate crashes, because no system is 100% reliable. However the highest integrity safety system that are used on chemical palnts and nuclear power stations don't have any human element to them as this is where the failure normally occurs. The only times humans get involved is in routine testing.

Neither do they have to cope with pedestrians, bicycles, animals, non-autonomous vehicles etc.
And human drivers do at least have the advantage of often being able to anticipate what other road-users are about to do.
If you want to eliminate crashes as much as possible, autonomous cars or not, it helps to first have a good handle on the causes of crashes.
A small fortune spent on proper research now can potentially save a large fortune in the future - not to mention life and limb

Edited by Phatboy317 on Tuesday 3rd February 13:49

[Moonhawk]

deleted - posted in wrong thread.

[Devil2575]

Phatboy317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Phatboy317 said:

Devil2575 said:

The research is going into driverless cars, because if you want to stop cars crashing you need to get rid of the Human driver.

At least, that's the theory

You will never completely eliminate crashes, because no system is 100% reliable. However the highest integrity safety system that are used on chemical palnts and nuclear power stations don't have any human element to them as this is where the failure normally occurs. The only times humans get involved is in routine testing.

Neither do they have to cope with pedestrians, bicycles, animals, non-autonomous vehicles etc.
And human drivers do at least have the advantage of often being able to anticipate what other road-users are about to do.
If you want to eliminate crashes as much as possible, autonomous cars or not, it helps to first have a good handle on the causes of crashes.
A small fortune spent on proper research now can potentially save a large fortune in the future.

Except that if you have autonomous cars then they can be entirely predictable. Remove people and you remove the need to try and predict the unpredictable.

It's also worth noting that computers can react a lot quicker than people and can do multiple tasks at the same time.

There is no point in spending millions on research to understand why people crash cars. We know the answer, because they make mistakes, break rules, take risks and/or are negligent. These are the same issues that I encounter in the work place and the reasons why people get injured.
I have yet to encounter an accident in the workplace, either within my own company or an external evcent we have studied in order to extract the learning, that was caused by nothing other than the failure of an automated system.

Edited by Devil2575 on Tuesday 3rd February 14:08

[Moonhawk]

Devil2575 said:

Except that if you have autonomous cars then they can be entirely predictable. Remove people and you remove the need to try and predict the unpredictable.

It's not just cars that use the roads though. Unless we can completely separate automated road vehicles from non automated ones + people + animals - there will still be an element of unpredictability that needs to be accounted for.

This will never happen in our lifetime and may not even be possible - after all you only need to look at the railways to see that complete separation of vehicles intended to use the rails and people/vehicles/animals not intended to use them isn't possible.

I think the biggest impact in road safety in the immediate future will come as a result of things like in car pedestrian detection systems, collision detection, automatic braking etc (i.e. cars that are semi autonomous rather than fully autonomous).

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 3rd February 14:30