Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?

[LoonR1]

twister said:

Hang on a minute, I don't think it's fair to lump in traffic police there, as unlike the other cameras/traps/whatever you want to call them they have the unique ability to not only measure speed (not to mention all the other traffic offences they're also able to detect) but also act on it immediately, even if the person speeding is doing so in a stolen/incorrectly registered/false or damaged plate wearing vehicle which would allow them to escape the punishment doled out by every other camera system deployed on UK roads.

Why? They have speed cameras in their cars and this seems to be about fixed and mobile cameras, so by definition it must include them. There's no qualification about whether they can stop you immediately or not. Unless the thread is that only the police should be able to catch and penalise you for speeding.

I wouldn't mind that, I always remember my parents getting away with all sorts in the 1970s and early 80s. In fact my early driving days were quite good fun too.

[Exige77]

LoonR1 said:

twister said:

Hang on a minute, I don't think it's fair to lump in traffic police there, as unlike the other cameras/traps/whatever you want to call them they have the unique ability to not only measure speed (not to mention all the other traffic offences they're also able to detect) but also act on it immediately, even if the person speeding is doing so in a stolen/incorrectly registered/false or damaged plate wearing vehicle which would allow them to escape the punishment doled out by every other camera system deployed on UK roads.

Why? They have speed cameras in their cars and this seems to be about fixed and mobile cameras, so by definition it must include them. There's no qualification about whether they can stop you immediately or not. Unless the thread is that only the police should be able to catch and penalise you for speeding.

I wouldn't mind that, I always remember my parents getting away with all sorts in the 1970s and early 80s. In fact my early driving days were quite good fun too.

Maybe the definition of Speed Cameras in his case is "Automtic" speed cameras that just issue tickets regardless of circumstances. The cameras in Police Cars can be used if the Policeman thinks it's appropriate or may use his discretion ?

[vonhosen]

jondude said:

vonhosen said:

jondude said:

Have not been to the UK recently so I do not know if they have done this, but to me if it was about safety there would be massive signs warning people they are 1k or whatever from 'a safety zone monitored by cameras'. And the camera on a countdown (as it is here in Asia).

Then you would also get another 1k of vehicles slowing and yes, being more safe.

If that has happened, great for then I will say they are to promote safety. But if they still are hidden and often placed in dubious spots (like the one covered by a tree at the bottom of a steep hill that would have got me unless the local ahead blocked me) then no.

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'll get warning signs that you are in a camera enforcement area.

I disagree - as an ideal you want people to be driving with care. We label people as 'speeders' as if they automatically are bad drivers, criminals, when someone doing 35 in a 30 could well be far less dangerous than someone on 29 but not giving a damn about car control or manners to others.

I am not sure sending people a ticket 14 days after an offence really achieves much, except alienate the masses from the police, especially when it is 35mph at 2 am on a clearly deserted road, the exact scenario where a ticking off from a real police officer may indeed induce a change in behaviour.

We presently have a system with cameras where, so long as you slow for them, you can tailgate, speed up when others overtake and generally be a danger to everyone, with little or no risk to your license.

That is not a good ideal or objective to have (or more accept) as a policing force or government.

Adhering to speed limits is part of driving with care, it's part of what's expected of a careful competent driver, along with adhering to the other rules of the road. Speeding doesn't mean you're a bad driver, the statement 'bad driver' is a subjective one anyway (depending on what the observer's values/beliefs are in relation to driving). If you speed or not it's an objective one, just as whether you go through a red light is. You either did it or you didn't. Speed limits aren't about defining danger.

Getting a NIP 14 days after the event does more to change behaviour than not getting stopped at all for it. You're more likely to get a NIP from a camera than stopped by a police officer, ergo they are more effective at changing behaviour in relation to speed than the latter.

Not getting reported for tailgating etc isn't the failing of speed cameras, it's because of a lack of funding in roads Policing. Indeed all cameras do is free up Police officer time to deal with the other offences. Speed enforcement (or any other black/white issue) is ideal for automated enforcement because it doesn't require anything other than a binary assessment to the question being asked.

The luck for those that exceed limits is that there is relatively little enforcement of them, rather than getting caught is unlucky.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd January 14:39

[LoonR1]

Exige77 said:

Maybe the definition of Speed Cameras in his case is "Automtic" speed cameras that just issue tickets regardless of circumstances. The cameras in Police Cars can be used if the Policeman thinks it's appropriate or may use his discretion ?

The thing is though that "the circumstances" are that a speed limit is set and that's the rule. Exceed the limit and you are committing an offence. You might think it's fine to exceed it, as I do. However, that doesn't alter the fact that an offence has been committed. Technically, they shouldn't use discretion. After all, PHers regularly up in arms when a court uses discretion and doesn't jail someone committing an offence other than speeding eg car theft.

[Phatboy317]

I don't think many people would have issue with speed limits and their enforcement if the limits were properly set.
It's all very well saying that a careful, competent driver should be expected to abide by the limits, but that rather misses the point.
By definition, a careful, competent driver can be expected to be driving at an appropriate speed of their own volition, so why should they be burdened with the additional task of having to ensure that they're complying with some artificially low limit?

[Exige77]

LoonR1 said:

The thing is though that "the circumstances" are that a speed limit is set and that's the rule. Exceed the limit and you are committing an offence. You might think it's fine to exceed it, as I do. However, that doesn't alter the fact that an offence has been committed. Technically, they shouldn't use discretion. After all, PHers regularly up in arms when a court uses discretion and doesn't jail someone committing an offence other than speeding eg car theft.

I think that's the main issue many are unhappy with regarding Speed Cameras. No discretion.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

I don't think many people would have issue with speed limits and their enforcement if the limits were properly set.
It's all very well saying that a careful, competent driver should be expected to abide by the limits, but that rather misses the point.
By definition, a careful, competent driver can be expected to be driving at an appropriate speed of their own volition, so why should they be burdened with the additional task of having to ensure that they're complying with some artificially low limit?

People often drive less than carefully & competently, hence near misses, collisions etc & the introduction of the laws to deal with identified problems.

The speed limit is a way of helping to safeguard against that (amongst other things), by introducing a proactive administratively easier way of dealing with it.

[vonhosen]

Exige77 said:

LoonR1 said:

The thing is though that "the circumstances" are that a speed limit is set and that's the rule. Exceed the limit and you are committing an offence. You might think it's fine to exceed it, as I do. However, that doesn't alter the fact that an offence has been committed. Technically, they shouldn't use discretion. After all, PHers regularly up in arms when a court uses discretion and doesn't jail someone committing an offence other than speeding eg car theft.

I think that's the main issue many are unhappy with regarding Speed Cameras. No discretion.

And people only like discretion if it acts in their favour/interests.

Automated enforcement isn't set at zero tolerance, so a degree of latitude is in built in the end users favour.

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

I don't think many people would have issue with speed limits and their enforcement if the limits were properly set.
It's all very well saying that a careful, competent driver should be expected to abide by the limits, but that rather misses the point.
By definition, a careful, competent driver can be expected to be driving at an appropriate speed of their own volition, so why should they be burdened with the additional task of having to ensure that they're complying with some artificially low limit?

People often drive less than carefully & competently, hence near misses, collisions etc & the introduction of the laws to deal with identified problems.

The speed limit is a way of helping to safeguard against that (amongst other things), by introducing a proactive administratively easier way of dealing with it.

Did you read my first sentence?

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

I don't think many people would have issue with speed limits and their enforcement if the limits were properly set.
It's all very well saying that a careful, competent driver should be expected to abide by the limits, but that rather misses the point.
By definition, a careful, competent driver can be expected to be driving at an appropriate speed of their own volition, so why should they be burdened with the additional task of having to ensure that they're complying with some artificially low limit?

People often drive less than carefully & competently, hence near misses, collisions etc & the introduction of the laws to deal with identified problems.

The speed limit is a way of helping to safeguard against that (amongst other things), by introducing a proactive administratively easier way of dealing with it.

Did you read my first sentence?

Yes.

But I think those that have a problem with what they are set at are fewer than those who don't.

[Countdown]

Phatboy317 said:

Try this experiment:

Sign your name on a piece of paper.
Then, with your left hand (or other hand), draw a circle.
Easy, isn't it?

Now try doing them both at the same time...

People can multitask, but they can't have their mind on more than one task at any moment in time.

If you find yourself in a situation where a fraction of a second can mean the difference between life and death, you don't want to be spending that same fraction of a second thinking about cameras.

Good example. It seems the faster I try to do it, the harder it is.

Maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere.......

[LoonR1]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

I don't think many people would have issue with speed limits and their enforcement if the limits were properly set.
It's all very well saying that a careful, competent driver should be expected to abide by the limits, but that rather misses the point.
By definition, a careful, competent driver can be expected to be driving at an appropriate speed of their own volition, so why should they be burdened with the additional task of having to ensure that they're complying with some artificially low limit?

People often drive less than carefully & competently, hence near misses, collisions etc & the introduction of the laws to deal with identified problems.

The speed limit is a way of helping to safeguard against that (amongst other things), by introducing a proactive administratively easier way of dealing with it.

Did you read my first sentence?

So why aren't they properly set? How would you propose setting the limits? Don't quote the ones that you disagree with, explain how you would do it better.

Personally I'd go for all roads near me should be 20 mph limits and heavily policed (with nearby residents all having a 100% excess threshold, but all others having a 0% excess threshold). All other roads should be a free for all.

[Nigel Worc's]

Speed limits seem to be rarely set with any regard for the driver these days.

Even when the authorities (especially including the Police) try to get them set sensibly, the anti car brigade seem to get their way.

Allowing speed limits to be set locally is the issue here (along with allowing road markings to be set locally, traffic islands etc).

It is all somewhat of a mess, and creates the divide and rule situation we have now, with far too many agendas.

[Dammit]

Given that "drivers"* would probably want all roads to have a limit of ~140mph then they're probably the last group of people who should be given any input, Nige.

- *I'm guessing by this you mean "people like me".

[Phatboy317]

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

I don't think many people would have issue with speed limits and their enforcement if the limits were properly set.
It's all very well saying that a careful, competent driver should be expected to abide by the limits, but that rather misses the point.
By definition, a careful, competent driver can be expected to be driving at an appropriate speed of their own volition, so why should they be burdened with the additional task of having to ensure that they're complying with some artificially low limit?

People often drive less than carefully & competently, hence near misses, collisions etc & the introduction of the laws to deal with identified problems.

The speed limit is a way of helping to safeguard against that (amongst other things), by introducing a proactive administratively easier way of dealing with it.

Did you read my first sentence?

Yes.

But I think those that have a problem with what they are set at are fewer than those who don't.

A great deal more than if the limits were set according to the 85th percentile speed, like they used to be.

[Phatboy317]

Countdown said:

Phatboy317 said:

Try this experiment:

Sign your name on a piece of paper.
Then, with your left hand (or other hand), draw a circle.
Easy, isn't it?

Now try doing them both at the same time...

People can multitask, but they can't have their mind on more than one task at any moment in time.

If you find yourself in a situation where a fraction of a second can mean the difference between life and death, you don't want to be spending that same fraction of a second thinking about cameras.

Good example. It seems the faster I try to do it, the harder it is.

Maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere.......

Yes there is - the less time that's permitted by circumstances in any situation, the faster you need to think.

[Nigel Worc's]

Dammit said:

Given that "drivers"* would probably want all roads to have a limit of ~140mph then they're probably the last group of people who should be given any input, Nige.

- *I'm guessing by this you mean "people like me".

I doubt they would to be honest (want 140 limits).

One of the big issues here, is in this country, speed limits have never really been enforced with any vigour, they are more enforced now (but actually not by a whole lot), and I/some of us don't like it.

[vonhosen]

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

vonhosen said:

Phatboy317 said:

I don't think many people would have issue with speed limits and their enforcement if the limits were properly set.
It's all very well saying that a careful, competent driver should be expected to abide by the limits, but that rather misses the point.
By definition, a careful, competent driver can be expected to be driving at an appropriate speed of their own volition, so why should they be burdened with the additional task of having to ensure that they're complying with some artificially low limit?

People often drive less than carefully & competently, hence near misses, collisions etc & the introduction of the laws to deal with identified problems.

The speed limit is a way of helping to safeguard against that (amongst other things), by introducing a proactive administratively easier way of dealing with it.

Did you read my first sentence?

Yes.

But I think those that have a problem with what they are set at are fewer than those who don't.

A great deal more than if the limits were set according to the 85th percentile speed, like they used to be.

Society changes & so do it's concerns. There are more considerations now than just those to which the 85th percentile concerned itself.

[Countdown]

Phatboy317 said:

Countdown said:

Phatboy317 said:

Try this experiment:

Sign your name on a piece of paper.
Then, with your left hand (or other hand), draw a circle.
Easy, isn't it?

Now try doing them both at the same time...

People can multitask, but they can't have their mind on more than one task at any moment in time.

If you find yourself in a situation where a fraction of a second can mean the difference between life and death, you don't want to be spending that same fraction of a second thinking about cameras.

Good example. It seems the faster I try to do it, the harder it is.

Maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere.......

Yes there is - the less time that's permitted by circumstances in any situation, the faster you need to think.

Slowing down increases the time available.

[singlecoil]

Phatboy317 said:

If you find yourself in a situation where a fraction of a second can mean the difference between life and death, you don't want to be spending that same fraction of a second thinking about cameras.

What idiot would encounter a dangerous situation and fail to deal with it by watching for cameras or staring at his speedometer?

If you don't like being fined or given points, stop speeding. If you can't bring yourself to stop speeding, then hopefully you will be caught often enough that your licence will be taken away.

I speed, sometimes, but if I get caught, I don't bellyache about whatever caught me. Most of the time, I get up earlier and set out earlier, so don't need to speed.