Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Poll: Speed Cameras, are they for safety, or revenue?
Total Members Polled: 478
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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. Automated enforcement isn't set at zero tolerance, so a degree of latitude is in built in the end users favour.
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Society changes & so do it's concerns. There are more considerations now than just those to which the 85th percentile concerned itself.
Can you elaborate?And why would society wish to render unlawful the careful actions of a competent driver?
As I previously said, adherence to road traffic law is a part of what being a careful competent driver is about. When you fail to adhere you start to fall outside of careful & competent. We are all fallible, so we all fall outside it from time to time. Of course that's not a great problem because there is tolerance of small indiscretions, but the more often (&/or further) we fall short of the standard the more likely it is to expose us to problems with enforcement.
Exige77 said:
vonhosen said:
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. Automated enforcement isn't set at zero tolerance, so a degree of latitude is in built in the end users favour.
Discretion is with the one judging, not the one acting, the power of 'who deserves it' is with them.
There is always likely to be somebody upset by the discretion decision one way or another.
You think you're worthy of leniency, I don't, you get upset.
You think you're worthy of leniency, I agree, but an external observer doesn't, they get upset.
Driver's want discretion because they live in the hope that they will gain from it, that's a natural human reaction. They want it because it's another little string in the bow of getting away with what they already know was forbidden, irrespective of what anyone else considers worthy.
They hope that with discretion they'll be able to continue getting away with doing what they already know has been forbidden in law.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd January 16:19
singlecoil said:
What idiot would encounter a dangerous situation and fail to deal with it by watching for cameras or staring at his speedometer?
Most dangerous situations are seen, or anticipated, in good time to be able to slow down or take some other action to mitigate the danger.But it's the few situations which arrive suddenly with little or no warning which you have to watch for. And it's in such situations which leave you little or no time to think that you don't want to have your mind on extraneous factors.
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?
But how do you then judge a careful, competent driver? I would suspect boy racers think they're safe because they've done a track day or two. Does that mean they are right? If nothing else PH shows that "most" people are terrible drivers with no observational skills etc. However would those people think they're bad drivers? Most of them would not, so they would be happy to go much faster if given the opportunity of their own judgement. Are you happy with that?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?
mybrainhurts said:
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.
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
What idiot would encounter a dangerous situation and fail to deal with it by watching for cameras or staring at his speedometer?
Most dangerous situations are seen, or anticipated, in good time to be able to slow down or take some other action to mitigate the danger.But it's the few situations which arrive suddenly with little or no warning which you have to watch for. And it's in such situations which leave you little or no time to think that you don't want to have your mind on extraneous factors.
vonhosen said:
The purpose of enforcement is to uphold the limit.
Why do we have limits at all? It's all about control. 
We had none until the safest roads in Britain were starting to be built: before 1965 we could drive as fast as we liked outside of built-up areas in cars that were partly made of wood, some of which could exceed 120mph.
Yet millions of us are still here....
singlecoil said:
Well, maybe you are the kind of driver who, instead of dealing with an emergency that arises unexpectedly, would instead be distracted by thoughts of cameras etc, fortunately the rest of us aren't like that.
Can you explain how being observant (to see cameras) is different to being observant (for other dangers)? fangio said:
vonhosen said:
The purpose of enforcement is to uphold the limit.
Why do we have limits at all? It's all about control. fangio said:
We had none until the safest roads in Britain were starting to be built: before 1965 we could drive as fast as we liked outside of built-up areas in cars that were partly made of wood, some of which could exceed 120mph.
Yet millions of us are still here....
That's not true Yet millions of us are still here....
Speed limits were around over 100 years ago, they didn't suddenly appear in 1965.
It's just that not all roads had speed limits until the 1960s.
The reason why limits exist at all & that they were introduced onto all roads in the 1960s, was that people failed to drive at an appropriate speed for the circumstances in sufficient numbers (& with sufficient adverse outcome) as to be a concern to the governments of the day & subsequent governments.
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
There are (for instance) different environmental & social concerns than when the 85th percentile was introduced.
That's not elaborating.Noise, pollution & health/safety (all environmental/social concerns) were less of a concern when the 85th percentile was introduced than today.
singlecoil said:
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
What idiot would encounter a dangerous situation and fail to deal with it by watching for cameras or staring at his speedometer?
Most dangerous situations are seen, or anticipated, in good time to be able to slow down or take some other action to mitigate the danger.But it's the few situations which arrive suddenly with little or no warning which you have to watch for. And it's in such situations which leave you little or no time to think that you don't want to have your mind on extraneous factors.
How can you be sure you don't exceed the limit in dynamic traffic conditions, where you're speeding up and slowing down all the time, without looking at your speedo?
singlecoil said:
Jasandjules said:
Right, given that it appears some feel that speed cameras are about safety whilst I believe they are about Revenue and that it is inherently illogical to suggest that sticking to a speed limit is "safe".
This Poll is, in all the circumstances, open to those members who have been here in excess of five years.
So, please vote.......
Oh God, not that boring stupid strawman argument again!This Poll is, in all the circumstances, open to those members who have been here in excess of five years.
So, please vote.......
No-one has ever even suggested that sticking to a speed limit is safe. No-one, ever.
The only people who use it are the 'I want to go faster' brigade.
NRS said:
But how do you then judge a careful, competent driver?
The 85th percentile is a good guide.NRS said:
I would argue for most motorists a lot of them will only be observing because of speed cameras and checks. So it would actually help those pedestrians and so on.
What makes you observe when you're driving?To all those quoting the 85th percentile, how do you measure that now? a 30moh limit would possibly be too high, ditto all other limits. Or isn't a case of leave it completely derestricted and see what speed people do. I'll guarantee even the widest of dead straight roads with perfect visibility would struggle to get 60mph as their new limit.
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
Phatboy317 said:
singlecoil said:
What idiot would encounter a dangerous situation and fail to deal with it by watching for cameras or staring at his speedometer?
Most dangerous situations are seen, or anticipated, in good time to be able to slow down or take some other action to mitigate the danger.But it's the few situations which arrive suddenly with little or no warning which you have to watch for. And it's in such situations which leave you little or no time to think that you don't want to have your mind on extraneous factors.
How can you be sure you don't exceed the limit in dynamic traffic conditions, where you're speeding up and slowing down all the time, without looking at your speedo?
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...
mybrainhurts said:
singlecoil said:
Jasandjules said:
Right, given that it appears some feel that speed cameras are about safety whilst I believe they are about Revenue and that it is inherently illogical to suggest that sticking to a speed limit is "safe".
This Poll is, in all the circumstances, open to those members who have been here in excess of five years.
So, please vote.......
Oh God, not that boring stupid strawman argument again!This Poll is, in all the circumstances, open to those members who have been here in excess of five years.
So, please vote.......
No-one has ever even suggested that sticking to a speed limit is safe. No-one, ever.
The only people who use it are the 'I want to go faster' brigade.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff