Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Poll: Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Total Members Polled: 478
Discussion
LoonR1 said:
vonhosen said:
They're for neither.
They are for enforcing the limit.
The question should be is the imposition of speed limits for safety or revenue.
That's scarily close to my first post on this thread. They are for enforcing the limit.
The question should be is the imposition of speed limits for safety or revenue.
Anyway, it's revenue, always has been, always will be.
Speed cameras and unmarked trafpol tend to be put up or hang around one of the following areas:
1. Where there's been lots of accidents
2. Where there's plenty of space
3. Where people don't really concentrate and go into autopilot mode (i.e. motorways)
This is exactly why I don't speed on dual carriageways, motorways, or other roads where it's pretty obvious they can either mount a camera or sit a car with ease. Anyone who speeds in areas like that are pretty much just asking to be flashed or given a tug: It's too easy. I don't disagree that some limits are horrendously inappropriate, but I also don't understand why people speed in the very places where it's incredibly likely you could get caught.
By all means, on the nice well sighted NSL roads where it's actually fun to drive then fill your boots, but on a dull NSL DC with plenty of laybys and overhead gantries? Nah, I don't see the point.
But anyway, that's miles off tangent now. So yeah, I don't think they're there for revenue, I think they're there because of both an attempt at helping make the roads safer as well as a good way to boost crime detection numbers.
1. Where there's been lots of accidents
2. Where there's plenty of space
3. Where people don't really concentrate and go into autopilot mode (i.e. motorways)
This is exactly why I don't speed on dual carriageways, motorways, or other roads where it's pretty obvious they can either mount a camera or sit a car with ease. Anyone who speeds in areas like that are pretty much just asking to be flashed or given a tug: It's too easy. I don't disagree that some limits are horrendously inappropriate, but I also don't understand why people speed in the very places where it's incredibly likely you could get caught.
By all means, on the nice well sighted NSL roads where it's actually fun to drive then fill your boots, but on a dull NSL DC with plenty of laybys and overhead gantries? Nah, I don't see the point.
But anyway, that's miles off tangent now. So yeah, I don't think they're there for revenue, I think they're there because of both an attempt at helping make the roads safer as well as a good way to boost crime detection numbers.
mybrainhurts said:
Go on, then, tell us how, now the aerials are gone and assuming you can't see in through the windows due to light conditions and it's parked up on the other side of the road.
Or the dodgy hidden, but illegally parked transits, the verdigris encrusted warning signs, just at the overtaking points. You aren't supposed to spot them, its revenue negative.Set the cruise control to the limit +2% and relax. They will hate you.
Ekona said:
Speed cameras and unmarked trafpol tend to be put up or hang around one of the following areas:
1. Where there's been lots of accidents
2. Where there's plenty of space
3. Where people don't really concentrate and go into autopilot mode (i.e. motorways)
This is exactly why I don't speed on dual carriageways, motorways, or other roads where it's pretty obvious they can either mount a camera or sit a car with ease. Anyone who speeds in areas like that are pretty much just asking to be flashed or given a tug: It's too easy. I don't disagree that some limits are horrendously inappropriate, but I also don't understand why people speed in the very places where it's incredibly likely you could get caught.
By all means, on the nice well sighted NSL roads where it's actually fun to drive then fill your boots, but on a dull NSL DC with plenty of laybys and overhead gantries? Nah, I don't see the point.
But anyway, that's miles off tangent now. So yeah, I don't think they're there for revenue, I think they're there because of both an attempt at helping make the roads safer as well as a good way to boost crime detection numbers.
I've done 100,000s of miles on motorways and DCs, wherever possible significantly above the speed limit and "cruise" at an indicated 90. I've been caught twice in all that time, the last one being in 1998, hardly the sign of a regular and high police presence is it?1. Where there's been lots of accidents
2. Where there's plenty of space
3. Where people don't really concentrate and go into autopilot mode (i.e. motorways)
This is exactly why I don't speed on dual carriageways, motorways, or other roads where it's pretty obvious they can either mount a camera or sit a car with ease. Anyone who speeds in areas like that are pretty much just asking to be flashed or given a tug: It's too easy. I don't disagree that some limits are horrendously inappropriate, but I also don't understand why people speed in the very places where it's incredibly likely you could get caught.
By all means, on the nice well sighted NSL roads where it's actually fun to drive then fill your boots, but on a dull NSL DC with plenty of laybys and overhead gantries? Nah, I don't see the point.
But anyway, that's miles off tangent now. So yeah, I don't think they're there for revenue, I think they're there because of both an attempt at helping make the roads safer as well as a good way to boost crime detection numbers.
Nigel Worc's said:
Worrying when you find yourself almost agreeing with him, isn't it ?
Anyway, it's revenue, always has been, always will be.
VeryAnyway, it's revenue, always has been, always will be.
Terminator X said:
Those 40 limit dual carriageways are ever so sensible of course. Ditto the 20 zones. Etc.
TX.
Thing is that it's easy to speed on them without getting caught by a speed camera. If you look out for those bright yellow boxy things there's usually a clue there. If you don't know the area go with the flow of the traffic amd watch for them anchoring on. TX.
It's quite easy really.
LoonR1 said:
Terminator X said:
Those 40 limit dual carriageways are ever so sensible of course. Ditto the 20 zones. Etc.
TX.
Thing is that it's easy to speed on them without getting caught by a speed camera. If you look out for those bright yellow boxy things there's usually a clue there. If you don't know the area go with the flow of the traffic amd watch for them anchoring on. TX.
It's quite easy really.
mybrainhurts said:
Yes but, instead of spending time "watching for them anchoring on", wouldn't it be more productive to scan around you for pedestrians, cyclists, emerging vehicles, animals and the like?
I was specifically dealing with the speed camera issue. I'd agree that spotting one is a doddle though for any vaguely competent driver, sadly even that level of ability is disappearing. vonhosen said:
They're for neither.
They are for enforcing the limit.
The question should be is the imposition of speed limits for safety or revenue.
If X = Y, and Y = Z, therefore X = Z.They are for enforcing the limit.
The question should be is the imposition of speed limits for safety or revenue.
Now that we've established the obvious, is the "enforcement" using speed cameras intended for safety or revenue?
No fence sitting required.
What would the alternative be?
Speeding is an offence where you can go from petty (~8mph over) to serious (double the limit+), so the method of punishment should be linked to the nature of the transgression.
A financial penalty is a fairly easy way of doing that, along with a certain amount of points.
But if the objection here is to HMRC getting their hands on (a fairly paltry) amount of your cash what would the PH masses accept instead?
10mph over - 100 hours community service.
20mph over - 150 hours
30 over - 300 hours
etc?
Surely no one could object to this as their is no revenue component, and we are all upstanding members of our community who would wish to contribute?
If you were offered the choice of 100 hours, or £100 fine - who would pay the fine?
Speeding is an offence where you can go from petty (~8mph over) to serious (double the limit+), so the method of punishment should be linked to the nature of the transgression.
A financial penalty is a fairly easy way of doing that, along with a certain amount of points.
But if the objection here is to HMRC getting their hands on (a fairly paltry) amount of your cash what would the PH masses accept instead?
10mph over - 100 hours community service.
20mph over - 150 hours
30 over - 300 hours
etc?
Surely no one could object to this as their is no revenue component, and we are all upstanding members of our community who would wish to contribute?
If you were offered the choice of 100 hours, or £100 fine - who would pay the fine?
LoonR1 said:
Terminator X said:
Those 40 limit dual carriageways are ever so sensible of course. Ditto the 20 zones. Etc.
TX.
Thing is that it's easy to speed on them without getting caught by a speed camera. If you look out for those bright yellow boxy things there's usually a clue there. If you don't know the area go with the flow of the traffic amd watch for them anchoring on. TX.
It's quite easy really.
I was caught recently by a camera van in a spot where I knew they sit, that I was watching for, but hadn't seen one parked there for nearly 10 years. I saw it straight away and stamped on the brake pedal, but I don't think I'd scrubbed off very much speed in time at all, if any. Previously that's been enough but I guess he was just very quick off the mark at forming his perception of speeding, aiming and hitting the trigger. Far enough away that I could've stopped, accelerated back up to the limit and repeated several times over before reaching him.
I've also been caught out a by a yellow box I'd not seen obscured by some lorries I was overtaking and a police motorcyclist who found himself a pile of road cones to crouch behind at the side of a dual carriageway that had finished being resurfaced the previous week but still had the temporary 40mph signs in place.
I'd imagine this is what it's like for most people; usually either on zero or three points, maybe occasionally six, with money gradually accruing in the pockets of a few. Meanwhile insurers are forced to accept collecting a few points is just noise and drivers continue not to modify their driving styles because for the most part, as this poll shows the perception even in SP&L is, the safety angle is and always was at best questionable and today is little other than a con.
mybrainhurts said:
Yes but, instead of spending time "watching for them anchoring on", wouldn't it be more productive to scan around you for pedestrians, cyclists, emerging vehicles, animals and the like?
It's not an Either /Or situation. A competent driver should be capable of doing both.If it was purely for revenue they wouldn't have the points system. Here in Switzerland there's no points so you can get caught every day if you like and have deep enough pockets. The cameras can be completely hidden too and if you go fast enough they'll even fine you a % of your income. That's how you run cameras for revenue.
0000 said:
Not always.
I was caught recently by a camera van in a spot where I knew they sit, that I was watching for, but hadn't seen one parked there for nearly 10 years. I saw it straight away and stamped on the brake pedal, but I don't think I'd scrubbed off very much speed in time at all, if any. Previously that's been enough but I guess he was just very quick off the mark at forming his perception of speeding, aiming and hitting the trigger. Far enough away that I could've stopped, accelerated back up to the limit and repeated several times over before reaching him.
I've also been caught out a by a yellow box I'd not seen obscured by some lorries I was overtaking and a police motorcyclist who found himself a pile of road cones to crouch behind at the side of a dual carriageway that had finished being resurfaced the previous week but still had the temporary 40mph signs in place.
I'd imagine this is what it's like for most people; usually either on zero or three points, maybe occasionally six, with money gradually accruing in the pockets of a few. Meanwhile insurers are forced to accept collecting a few points is just noise and drivers continue not to modify their driving styles because for the most part, as this poll shows the perception even in SP&L is, the safety angle is and always was at best questionable and today is little other than a con.
SPEED CAMERAS NOT SPEED TRAPS. I was caught recently by a camera van in a spot where I knew they sit, that I was watching for, but hadn't seen one parked there for nearly 10 years. I saw it straight away and stamped on the brake pedal, but I don't think I'd scrubbed off very much speed in time at all, if any. Previously that's been enough but I guess he was just very quick off the mark at forming his perception of speeding, aiming and hitting the trigger. Far enough away that I could've stopped, accelerated back up to the limit and repeated several times over before reaching him.
I've also been caught out a by a yellow box I'd not seen obscured by some lorries I was overtaking and a police motorcyclist who found himself a pile of road cones to crouch behind at the side of a dual carriageway that had finished being resurfaced the previous week but still had the temporary 40mph signs in place.
I'd imagine this is what it's like for most people; usually either on zero or three points, maybe occasionally six, with money gradually accruing in the pockets of a few. Meanwhile insurers are forced to accept collecting a few points is just noise and drivers continue not to modify their driving styles because for the most part, as this poll shows the perception even in SP&L is, the safety angle is and always was at best questionable and today is little other than a con.
Speed cameras are those bright yellow boxy things at the side of the road. There are many types, but they are all fixed site computery, sometimes flashy things
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff