Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Poll: Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Total Members Polled: 478
Discussion
Phatboy317 said:
And in my neck of the woods there have been endless complaints from all and sundry about the way speed limits have been constantly ratcheted down over the last few years
Your neck of the woods is as subject to the will of the voters as every other area of the country. Endless complaints from a minority.g3org3y said:
Brake said:
Driving slowly is one of the most important things drivers can do to protect themselves and others. That means staying well within limits, slowing down to 20mph around homes, schools and shops, slowing right down for bends, brows and bad weather, and avoiding overtaking
Brake said:
Stay well under limits, rather than hovering around them.
Brake said:
The derestricted limit (60mph for cars and vans) is generally far too fast for safety – so stay well beneath this and slow right down for bends, brows, dips and junctions
Brake said:
Overtaking on single carriageways is incredibly risky and should be avoided. It is impossible to accurately judge the speed of approaching traffic, or the length of empty road in front of you, and when overtaking this can be fatal.
Encouraging people to stay well under speed limits and discouraging overtaking is a car-hater's dream, because it means lots of nice unnecessary congestion. Of course, this will lead to much frustration, which will lead to greater likelihood of collisions, but since when did actual safety matter?
vonhosen said:
And as I said people only like discretion when it's in their favour.
No, that's not necessarily so at all. Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 3rd January 16:19
If someone can understand why a discretion has been exercised against them, and that they've had whatever points may be in their favour fairly taken into consideration (even if ultimately discounted), I think you'll find that the vast majority of people will like the exercise of a discretion, even if the result is against them.
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
You want people to be obeying the limit everywhere, not just at the site where a camera is (the same reason you have covert Police cars as well as marked to enforce all road laws, so that people moderate their driving when a marked car isn't visible).
You keep trotting this one out.A talented encyclopaedia of the law you might be, but you're absolutely crap when it comes to human nature.
Your average person gets complacent and I'd risk a little bet that a huge majority of people don't give a second thought to your ambush cars.
Get all your unmarked cars liveried up and you'll remind more people to be careful.
Doing anything less is irresponsibly negligent and ought to be an offence...
All that you're proving is that there is insufficient covert enforcement to work with that human nature & I agree
If the government were really serious about system wide strict compliance there'd be far more (& inventive) covert enforcement.
You don't want out of sight out of mind for system wide compliance, you need to feel a much higher level of scrutiny is taking place than just that which is visible.
Unmarked cars are a waste of resources. I repeat, people are complacent. People are also forgetful. People are never going to regulate themselves just because an ambush vehicle might be present.
You will never have the resources to run sufficient numbers of unmarked cars to change this, so you will rely on the bluff that they are everywhere. People largely ignore gantry signs because their information is usually duff and they'd soon see through your bluffing tactics with a little thought.
All your theorising pales into insignificance when unmarked cars pose a threat to road safety, and this is my primary objection.
I once found myself in the centre of what was very nearly a multi vehicle collision when an unmarked car decided to chase another up lane three. The chased driver appeared to panic and stupidly cut across lanes two and one to stop on the hard shoulder, through lines of vehicles in both lanes, necessitating other drivers to brake hard and switch lanes to avoid each other. No-one seemed to know why this had happened and, as they recovered, the unmarked car, with stobes behind its grille and no siren, cut across lanes two and one to get onto the hard shoulder. Cue more panic, braking and swerving.
The unmarked car had a driver and no passenger and was well known in its area as a traffic car, as I discovered when I subsequently asked a question here. There was no obvious unusual justification for this pull, the car was a new Lexus with a well dressed family on board, passing us at, I guess, 85-90mph.
Like the Spanish Inquisition, no-one expected that.
After this little episode, it's clear that unmarked cars can be a dangerous menace.
And you're all in favour of removing dangerous menaces.....aren't you?
vonhosen said:
LoonR1 said:
To all those quoting the 85th percentile, how do you measure that now?
It's never measured, because to do so you'd have to have no limit in force in the first place for it not to affect the driver's speed choice.Even most of those that intentionally speed do so with a mind to what the limit in force is, so you never see a true 85th percentile.
Phatboy317 said:
LoonR1 said:
To all those quoting the 85th percentile, how do you measure that now?
With difficulty, now that the waters have been muddied.Greg66 said:
No, that's not necessarily so at all.
If someone can understand why a discretion has been exercised against them, and that they've had whatever points may be in their favour fairly taken into consideration (even if ultimately discounted), I think you'll find that the vast majority of people will like the exercise of a discretion, even if the result is against them.
So what you are saying is that as long as they agree with why they have been punished, they will be ok with it?If someone can understand why a discretion has been exercised against them, and that they've had whatever points may be in their favour fairly taken into consideration (even if ultimately discounted), I think you'll find that the vast majority of people will like the exercise of a discretion, even if the result is against them.
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
You want people to be obeying the limit everywhere, not just at the site where a camera is (the same reason you have covert Police cars as well as marked to enforce all road laws, so that people moderate their driving when a marked car isn't visible).
You keep trotting this one out.A talented encyclopaedia of the law you might be, but you're absolutely crap when it comes to human nature.
Your average person gets complacent and I'd risk a little bet that a huge majority of people don't give a second thought to your ambush cars.
Get all your unmarked cars liveried up and you'll remind more people to be careful.
Doing anything less is irresponsibly negligent and ought to be an offence...
All that you're proving is that there is insufficient covert enforcement to work with that human nature & I agree
If the government were really serious about system wide strict compliance there'd be far more (& inventive) covert enforcement.
You don't want out of sight out of mind for system wide compliance, you need to feel a much higher level of scrutiny is taking place than just that which is visible.
Unmarked cars are a waste of resources. I repeat, people are complacent. People are also forgetful. People are never going to regulate themselves just because an ambush vehicle might be present.
mybrainhurts said:
You will never have the resources to run sufficient numbers of unmarked cars to change this, so you will rely on the bluff that they are everywhere. People largely ignore gantry signs because their information is usually duff and they'd soon see through your bluffing tactics with a little thought.
I agree for total compliance, but the larger the number the larger the real threat & the more people who will fall into the net of being affected below total compliance. As I said, for many the threshold is already high enough to moderate their behaviour away from just visible sites.it's not just unmarked cars, it's unmarked camera vans, unmarked/partially hidden static cameras etc.
mybrainhurts said:
I once found myself in the centre of what was very nearly a multi vehicle collision when an unmarked car decided to chase another up lane three. The chased driver appeared to panic and stupidly cut across lanes two and one to stop on the hard shoulder, through lines of vehicles in both lanes, necessitating other drivers to brake hard and switch lanes to avoid each other. No-one seemed to know why this had happened and, as they recovered, the unmarked car, with stobes behind its grille and no siren, cut across lanes two and one to get onto the hard shoulder. Cue more panic, braking and swerving.
The unmarked car had a driver and no passenger and was well known in its area as a traffic car, as I discovered when I subsequently asked a question here. There was no obvious unusual justification for this pull, the car was a new Lexus with a well dressed family on board, passing us at, I guess, 85-90mph.
Like the Spanish Inquisition, no-one expected that.
After this little episode, it's clear that unmarked cars can be a dangerous menace.
And you're all in favour of removing dangerous menaces.....aren't you?
People react stupidly to marked cars as well, that isn't reason not to have them.The unmarked car had a driver and no passenger and was well known in its area as a traffic car, as I discovered when I subsequently asked a question here. There was no obvious unusual justification for this pull, the car was a new Lexus with a well dressed family on board, passing us at, I guess, 85-90mph.
Like the Spanish Inquisition, no-one expected that.
After this little episode, it's clear that unmarked cars can be a dangerous menace.
And you're all in favour of removing dangerous menaces.....aren't you?
It's all a compromise & the benefits outweigh the risks of the odd incidence of stupidity.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd January 18:29
Greg66 said:
Conversely, unless he is not telling us the whole story, he speeds a lot without having accidents. So there' say disconnect between safety and speed limits, at least in his case (and I daresay other cases too).
The problem with this view is that it's a situation that involves the statistics of very big numbers. The probability of an individual having a crash and being injured or killed is very low but because there are a very large number of drivers on the road the probability that someone will be killed on any one day is very high. Even if you double the risk of an individual having a crash and being injured/killed, by say speeding all the time, that individual still isn't very likely to crash. However if everyone doubled their risk then you'd end up with twice as many KSI. On a national level killing 4000 people rather than 2000 is a big deal, even if at an individual level most people won't notice the difference. This is why the "I haven't died and I speed all the time" argument isn't especially valid.GPSHead said:
I would be interested to hear how many of those statements the likes of Countdown, singlecoil and Devil2575 agree with. Not all of them, I'm sure: after all, the single carriageway NSL for non-car-derived vans is 50mph.
Encouraging people to stay well under speed limits and discouraging overtaking is a car-hater's dream, because it means lots of nice unnecessary congestion. Of course, this will lead to much frustration, which will lead to greater likelihood of collisions, but since when did actual safety matter?
If people cause accidents due to being frustrated by the congestion that they themselves are causing then they need to be banned from driving - handily this will reduce congestion.Encouraging people to stay well under speed limits and discouraging overtaking is a car-hater's dream, because it means lots of nice unnecessary congestion. Of course, this will lead to much frustration, which will lead to greater likelihood of collisions, but since when did actual safety matter?
Pro tip: "being frustrated" is a valid excuse for poor behaviour for a 2 year old, not for anyone older than that.
LoonR1 said:
Phatboy317 said:
LoonR1 said:
To all those quoting the 85th percentile, how do you measure that now?
With difficulty, now that the waters have been muddied.Yes it is largely theoretical, but road engineers do have a pretty good idea of the expected 85th percentile speed, given the road layout, geometry etc.
vonhosen said:
Stuff
You're very confusing, von. In one breath, you say driving standards are so low that speed limits are set to control the lowest competence.
In the next breath, you say people are so switched on, they pussy foot about because they know there might be an unmarked car around.
I don't doubt you drive with this in mind but, observing others, day in, day out, I am absolutely certain the majority of drivers do not.
By the way, I, like you, am always looking over my shoulder to identify possible ambushes from behind. I really ought to be concentrating on other things, don't you think?
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
Stuff
You're very confusing, von. In one breath, you say driving standards are so low that speed limits are set to control the lowest competence.
In the next breath, you say people are so switched on, they pussy foot about because they know there might be an unmarked car around.
I don't doubt you drive with this in mind but, observing others, day in, day out, I am absolutely certain the majority of drivers do not.
By the way, I, like you, am always looking over my shoulder to identify possible ambushes from behind. I really ought to be concentrating on other things, don't you think?
By doing what I'm supposed to be doing I don't have to look out for the hidden threat, because it's no longer a threat
It's by not doing what I should be doing I would have to be on that look out.
Do what you are supposed to do & relax
Phatboy317 said:
LoonR1 said:
Phatboy317 said:
LoonR1 said:
To all those quoting the 85th percentile, how do you measure that now?
With difficulty, now that the waters have been muddied.Yes it is largely theoretical, but road engineers do have a pretty good idea of the expected 85th percentile speed, given the road layout, geometry etc.
The ring road near me was an NSL until recently. Then it was widened, a separate cycle lane created and a central reservation put in place, but the speed limit was reduced to 50. It frustrates me now, but I reckon the 85th per tile would've been c50mph. If they did it now it'd be at best a 40 limit.
mybrainhurts said:
singlecoil said:
It certainly will be if the anti-Brake mob can't come up with some logical arguments,
The implication here is that you support BRAKE. I'm very curious to know why.
t.For instance, Phatboy's insisting that people can't check their speed or take in the information from road signs without looking away from the road. It's completely untrue for normal people and anybody hearing that argument against speed limits and their enforcement is going to laugh and/or dismiss it as the nonsense it is.
If there is an argument against lower limits then it has to be an economic one, and that's what people who don't want lower limits should concentrate on.
Griping about cameras just sounds like naughty children who, instead of admitting they were caught fair and square one time in probably a thousand when they weren't caught, just moan and groan about the means by which they were caught.
Devil2575 said:
Greg66 said:
Conversely, unless he is not telling us the whole story, he speeds a lot without having accidents. So there' say disconnect between safety and speed limits, at least in his case (and I daresay other cases too).
The problem with this view is that it's a situation that involves the statistics of very big numbers. The probability of an individual having a crash and being injured or killed is very low but because there are a very large number of drivers on the road the probability that someone will be killed on any one day is very high. Even if you double the risk of an individual having a crash and being injured/killed, by say speeding all the time, that individual still isn't very likely to crash. However if everyone doubled their risk then you'd end up with twice as many KSI. On a national level killing 4000 people rather than 2000 is a big deal, even if at an individual level most people won't notice the difference. This is why the "I haven't died and I speed all the time" argument isn't especially valid.I also haven't been penalised for speeding since 1999.
I speed every single time I drive or ride and cover around 20,000 miles a year now down form the heady days of 40,000 a year in the late 90s early 2000s.
Someone will do some correlation now.
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
Unmarked cars are a waste of resources. I repeat, people are complacent. People are also forgetful. People are never going to regulate themselves just because an ambush vehicle might be present.
That's not true, I do (as do plenty of others) because of the threat of covert enforcement. If not for the risk of getting caught, would you also go around robbing banks and mugging old ladies?
Speed limits are almost unique in law in that to break most other laws requires a deliberate, conscious effort on the part of a criminal mind, whereas complying with many speed limits nowadays requires deliberate, conscious effort on the part of someone going about their daily business.
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
Unmarked cars are a waste of resources. I repeat, people are complacent. People are also forgetful. People are never going to regulate themselves just because an ambush vehicle might be present.
That's not true, I do (as do plenty of others) because of the threat of covert enforcement. If not for the risk of getting caught, would you also go around robbing banks and mugging old ladies?
Speed limits are almost unique in law in that to break most other laws requires a deliberate, conscious effort on the part of a criminal mind, whereas complying with many speed limits nowadays requires deliberate, conscious effort on the part of someone going about their daily business.
Speed limits aren't unique in law in the respect you say, Sec 3 RTA is another example where no conscious effort is required to transgress & a conscious effort is required to comply.
GPSHead said:
I would be interested to hear how many of those statements the likes of Countdown, singlecoil and Devil2575 agree with. Not all of them, I'm sure: after all, the single carriageway NSL for non-car-derived vans is 50mph.
Encouraging people to stay well under speed limits and discouraging overtaking is a car-hater's dream, because it means lots of nice unnecessary congestion. Of course, this will lead to much frustration, which will lead to greater likelihood of collisions, but since when did actual safety matter?
I don't agree with Brake on much. Single issue groups based around an ideological viewpoint are rarely worth listening too.Encouraging people to stay well under speed limits and discouraging overtaking is a car-hater's dream, because it means lots of nice unnecessary congestion. Of course, this will lead to much frustration, which will lead to greater likelihood of collisions, but since when did actual safety matter?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff