The new Average speed cameras on the A40 /westway West Lond

[Pete317]

DonkeyApple said:

Pete317 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Pete317 said:

Let's just say that I probably understand a lot more than you think,

Believe me, if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you've hugely exceeded my expectations of you.

I'll bet you say that to all the girls

Ooooh, it was going well. A quality rally was unfolding between both of you but when met with his last rerun you just hit yourself in the face with your own racket. Such a shame.

You can have him - I can't be arsed

[Ken Figenus]

Playground. Pathetic.

[Pete317]

Yes, sorry about that.
Twig decided to go down the path of ridicule instead of continuing the discussion, and I, not being in the best of moods, rose to the bait.

[Ken Figenus]

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

GPSHead said:

Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?

I think you've got it the wrong way around.

The cameras are simply to enforce the legal limit. Legal limits apply 24/7 365.
That would be no different if you had a traffic car following you down the toad.

You can argue for different limits, but if a lower limit is required on that road at some point, unless you are going to have variable limits the lower limit is likely to remain all the time. Variable limits require greater investment than lower limits.

Arguing for non enforcement of a legal limit is a non starter really, you've got to go for no legal limit or a change to the limit itself.

Yes, the law's the law's the law.

It's nice when one can always divert to either the limits or the law, depending on which suits - it just means you can assert rather than debate.

Reminds me of the VW boss putting the blame for the emissions testing fiasco on a couple of software engineers

ETA: When you have 24/7 enforcement of a limit which is set below the speed which most drivers would choose in its absence then there's arguably something wrong with both the limit and its enforcement

What's flawed is saying don't enforce the law.
The correct procedure is change the law. Therefore the argument you need to win is the one to change the law.
Arguing to just not enforce it, but it still be there, is daft.

[vonhosen]

V8 Fettler said:

vonhosen said:

GPSHead said:

Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?

I think you've got it the wrong way around.

The cameras are simply to enforce the legal limit. Legal limits apply 24/7 365.
That would be no different if you had a traffic car following you down the toad.

You can argue for different limits, but if a lower limit is required on that road at some point, unless you are going to have variable limits the lower limit is likely to remain all the time. Variable limits require greater investment than lower limits.

Arguing for non enforcement of a legal limit is a non starter really, you've got to go for no legal limit or a change to the limit itself.

With a broad brush: the UK used to have the safest roads in the world, then scameras arrived, now we no longer have the safest roads in the world.

The above analysis is flawed, but only as flawed as the analyses used to support the introduction of speed cameras.

Top spot will always fluctuate, we're still up there with best.

The above analysis isn't flawed.
Making laws & not enforcing them is flawed/pointless.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

GPSHead said:

Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?

I think you've got it the wrong way around.

The cameras are simply to enforce the legal limit. Legal limits apply 24/7 365.
That would be no different if you had a traffic car following you down the toad.

You can argue for different limits, but if a lower limit is required on that road at some point, unless you are going to have variable limits the lower limit is likely to remain all the time. Variable limits require greater investment than lower limits.

Arguing for non enforcement of a legal limit is a non starter really, you've got to go for no legal limit or a change to the limit itself.

Yes, the law's the law's the law.

It's nice when one can always divert to either the limits or the law, depending on which suits - it just means you can assert rather than debate.

Reminds me of the VW boss putting the blame for the emissions testing fiasco on a couple of software engineers

ETA: When you have 24/7 enforcement of a limit which is set below the speed which most drivers would choose in its absence then there's arguably something wrong with both the limit and its enforcement

What's flawed is saying don't enforce the law.
The correct procedure is change the law. Therefore the argument you need to win is the one to change the law.
Arguing to just not enforce it, but it still be there, is daft.

It seems that the more a law is likely to be broken by ordinary people just going about their daily business, the more likely it is to be enforced to the letter, 24/7 with no discretion, even if that doesn't quite fit with the spirit of the law.

Funny that.

As for changing the law, it seems it's always much easier for some to change it in one direction than for others to change it in the other direction.

[GuitarPlayer63]

Not sure if I actually saw it on here - but passed a very large illuminated sign just before Northolt this morning going eastbound on the A40 saying the Average Speed Cameras were now live - and they certainly were all lit all the way into Paddington at around 6.30am this morning.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

GPSHead said:

Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?

I think you've got it the wrong way around.

The cameras are simply to enforce the legal limit. Legal limits apply 24/7 365.
That would be no different if you had a traffic car following you down the toad.

You can argue for different limits, but if a lower limit is required on that road at some point, unless you are going to have variable limits the lower limit is likely to remain all the time. Variable limits require greater investment than lower limits.

Arguing for non enforcement of a legal limit is a non starter really, you've got to go for no legal limit or a change to the limit itself.

Yes, the law's the law's the law.

It's nice when one can always divert to either the limits or the law, depending on which suits - it just means you can assert rather than debate.

Reminds me of the VW boss putting the blame for the emissions testing fiasco on a couple of software engineers

ETA: When you have 24/7 enforcement of a limit which is set below the speed which most drivers would choose in its absence then there's arguably something wrong with both the limit and its enforcement

What's flawed is saying don't enforce the law.
The correct procedure is change the law. Therefore the argument you need to win is the one to change the law.
Arguing to just not enforce it, but it still be there, is daft.

It seems that the more a law is likely to be broken by ordinary people just going about their daily business, the more likely it is to be enforced to the letter, 24/7 with no discretion, even if that doesn't quite fit with the spirit of the law.

Funny that.

As for changing the law, it seems it's always much easier for some to change it in one direction than for others to change it in the other direction.

Speed limits aren't enforced to the letter ever & there is a graduated penalty system when they are enforced.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

GPSHead said:

Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?

I think you've got it the wrong way around.

The cameras are simply to enforce the legal limit. Legal limits apply 24/7 365.
That would be no different if you had a traffic car following you down the toad.

You can argue for different limits, but if a lower limit is required on that road at some point, unless you are going to have variable limits the lower limit is likely to remain all the time. Variable limits require greater investment than lower limits.

Arguing for non enforcement of a legal limit is a non starter really, you've got to go for no legal limit or a change to the limit itself.

Yes, the law's the law's the law.

It's nice when one can always divert to either the limits or the law, depending on which suits - it just means you can assert rather than debate.

Reminds me of the VW boss putting the blame for the emissions testing fiasco on a couple of software engineers

ETA: When you have 24/7 enforcement of a limit which is set below the speed which most drivers would choose in its absence then there's arguably something wrong with both the limit and its enforcement

What's flawed is saying don't enforce the law.
The correct procedure is change the law. Therefore the argument you need to win is the one to change the law.
Arguing to just not enforce it, but it still be there, is daft.

It seems that the more a law is likely to be broken by ordinary people just going about their daily business, the more likely it is to be enforced to the letter, 24/7 with no discretion, even if that doesn't quite fit with the spirit of the law.

Funny that.

As for changing the law, it seems it's always much easier for some to change it in one direction than for others to change it in the other direction.

Speed limits aren't enforced to the letter ever & there is a graduated penalty system when they are enforced.

Pete317 said:

It's nice when one can always divert to either the limits or the law, depending on which suits - it just means you can assert rather than debate.

'Nuff said

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

It's nice when one can always divert to either the limits or the law, depending on which suits - it just means you can assert rather than debate.

I've already clearly stated my position. There is no sensible debate to be had on whether a law should be enforced or not, only on whether the law should be there or not.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

It's nice when one can always divert to either the limits or the law, depending on which suits - it just means you can assert rather than debate.

I've already clearly stated my position. There is no sensible debate to be had on whether a law should be enforced or not, only on whether the law should be there or not.

Have you ever attempted to debate on the latter on this forum?

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

It's nice when one can always divert to either the limits or the law, depending on which suits - it just means you can assert rather than debate.

I've already clearly stated my position. There is no sensible debate to be had on whether a law should be enforced or not, only on whether the law should be there or not.

Have you ever attempted to debate on the latter on this forum?

There have been plenty of debates on whether we should have speed limits &/or what they should be set at. The arguments put forward by all quarters tend to be cyclical though.

[Ken Figenus]

Pete317 said:

It seems that the more a law is likely to be broken by ordinary people just going about their daily business, the more likely it is to be enforced to the letter, 24/7 with no discretion, even if that doesn't quite fit with the spirit of the law.

I agree Pete, and its all being dumbed down daily, but Vonhosen is right in his counterpoint - the law is either the law or it isn't a law. What has happened is that 'the spirit of the law' as you call it has been taken out of the equation. A coppers' natural discretion and common sense when enforcinhg the law has been removed in many scenarios. Its now about absolutes (whatever time of teh day or the conditions) and also influenced by revenue and brand new bodies with a self propagating interest and a motivation for 'cost neutral' proliferation. I miss the more visible days of the copper with common sense - covert fines generally breed resentment and anger whereas a copper would have educated and given you the 'who do you think you are? Roger Clark?' chat which I once found quite sobering and very effective.

[Terminator X]

giggity said:

Well call me Mr conspiracy but...

Average cameras on A406, A40, A13 crippling London.

More standstill cars in London longer = more emissions...

Ban diesels and also extend the congestion charging zones. It's only a matter of time.

This is only just beginning...

Islington have a blanket 20mph limit, Hammersmith and Fulham are trying to do the same.

It's all bonkers. The tubes and busses cant even cope anyway. After all the trouble of getting a place in London it does just make you think fk it. This is a load of st.

Least I can vent on here

Perhaps they want you to walk everywhere? When I worked in London I used to walk rather than take the tube etc even if it took half an hour to get there!

TX.

[Terminator X]

vonhosen said:

GPSHead said:

Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?

I think you've got it the wrong way around.

The cameras are simply to enforce the legal limit. Legal limits apply 24/7 365.
That would be no different if you had a traffic car following you down the toad.

You can argue for different limits, but if a lower limit is required on that road at some point, unless you are going to have variable limits the lower limit is likely to remain all the time. Variable limits require greater investment than lower limits.

Arguing for non enforcement of a legal limit is a non starter really, you've got to go for no legal limit or a change to the limit itself.

But this brings you back round to the silly low limits, if robots will be enforcing limits then they need to be raised to reasonable levels first. Back in the day it wasn't so bad as the chances of getting caught were slim of course however that chance seems to be on the up.

TX.

[The Moose]

From my observations, I suspect the idea of the speed limits in place seems to be to try to stop people arriving at the set of lights at the top of the Old Marylebone Road as quickly as if they hack in at 70mph+.

With these average speed cameras all that I can see that happens is the traffic will be moved slightly out of town...and then build up in town anyway as there are so many sets of badly sequenced lights all over the place.

From my trip up to town last week, it seems that was probably correct...

[V8 Fettler]

vonhosen said:

V8 Fettler said:

vonhosen said:

GPSHead said:

Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?

I think you've got it the wrong way around.

The cameras are simply to enforce the legal limit. Legal limits apply 24/7 365.
That would be no different if you had a traffic car following you down the toad.

You can argue for different limits, but if a lower limit is required on that road at some point, unless you are going to have variable limits the lower limit is likely to remain all the time. Variable limits require greater investment than lower limits.

Arguing for non enforcement of a legal limit is a non starter really, you've got to go for no legal limit or a change to the limit itself.

With a broad brush: the UK used to have the safest roads in the world, then scameras arrived, now we no longer have the safest roads in the world.

The above analysis is flawed, but only as flawed as the analyses used to support the introduction of speed cameras.

Top spot will always fluctuate, we're still up there with best.

The above analysis isn't flawed.
Making laws & not enforcing them is flawed/pointless.

For clarification, my analysis that "the introduction of UK speed cameras = drop down the league table of safe roads" is flawed, but only as flawed as the analyses used to support the introduction of speed cameras.

I'm sure we were top of the table by a long way for decades, mainland Europe being dragged down by poor driving standards and the Scandinavians crashing into large animals whilst under the influence of alcohol.

[Mandat]

I saw a temporary matrix sign today, stating that the average speed enforcement is to commence from 27 October.

[masermartin]

Mandat said:

I saw a temporary matrix sign today, stating that the average speed enforcement is to commence from 27 October.

Thank you for the update. Is this just on the A40, or on the other schemes mentioned as well, do you know.