The new Average speed cameras on the A40 /westway West Lond
Discussion
Ken Figenus said:
tapereel said:
If someone is detected speeding on the A40 then a prosecution is justified because the limit is 40 and the driver subject to that prosecution has been informed what the limit is before it is broken.
It really is about time drivers realised that limits are not conditional and that enforcement of them is not subject to justifications that are pure fantasy.
A really clear position. And about an absolute. So by that definition, say by 10 years time would you be perfectly OK with a connected black box type device in your vehicle that would ping a central server every time you break a speed limit and automatically add points to your licence and hit your bank account with a a direct debit? It is the logical conclusion to your statement. But is that really your vision for the greater good and a better society?It really is about time drivers realised that limits are not conditional and that enforcement of them is not subject to justifications that are pure fantasy.
Edited by tapereel on Wednesday 21st October 21:39
I guess you are right - if they take the throttle control away from the fallible then the huge enforcement industry/machine will become redundant. The notion that you could 'auto' do 80 on the Westway with no hassle and in greater safety (as the radar beams & algorithms keep impacts at bay) sounds like the biggest safety measure possible - and with added progress! Still I'll be in my Flying Car by them wont I 
vonhosen said:
The main question though is not about speed cameras, it's about limits (as I keep saying).
It's the benefits (or not) of speed limits that matters. if they outweigh the negatives of enforcement then enforcement is still worthwhile because of the net gain.
If we decide we want speed limits we have to accept speed enforcement, because limits without the possibility of enforcement anytime anywhere is pointless.
So you're saying that if speed limits bring benefits and speed cameras cause damage, you still support the use of speed cameras so long as they don't cause more damage than the speed limits provide? A "net gain" (as you call it) of the two combined.It's the benefits (or not) of speed limits that matters. if they outweigh the negatives of enforcement then enforcement is still worthwhile because of the net gain.
If we decide we want speed limits we have to accept speed enforcement, because limits without the possibility of enforcement anytime anywhere is pointless.
That is an interesting view but consider the options:
1) speed limits, but no enforcement
2) speed limits enforced when "in the public interest" (ie traffic Police)
3) speed limits rigidly enforced whether in the public interest or not (ie speed cameras)
If speed cameras were run within scientific trials, we would at least know the main effect of option 3.
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
The main question though is not about speed cameras, it's about limits (as I keep saying).
It's the benefits (or not) of speed limits that matters. if they outweigh the negatives of enforcement then enforcement is still worthwhile because of the net gain.
If we decide we want speed limits we have to accept speed enforcement, because limits without the possibility of enforcement anytime anywhere is pointless.
So you're saying that if speed limits bring benefits and speed cameras cause damage, you still support the use of speed cameras so long as they don't cause more damage than the speed limits provide? A "net gain" (as you call it) of the two combined.It's the benefits (or not) of speed limits that matters. if they outweigh the negatives of enforcement then enforcement is still worthwhile because of the net gain.
If we decide we want speed limits we have to accept speed enforcement, because limits without the possibility of enforcement anytime anywhere is pointless.
That is an interesting view but consider the options:
1) speed limits, but no enforcement
2) speed limits enforced when "in the public interest" (ie traffic Police)
3) speed limits rigidly enforced whether in the public interest or not (ie speed cameras)
If speed cameras were run within scientific trials, we would at least know the main effect of option 3.
2) In the public interest isn't decided by the offender or public, it's decided by the prosecuting authorities. What makes you think a traffic officer won't take the action that a camera does?
3) Speed limits aren't rigidly enforced by camera or officer. Small margins result in no action, increased margins result in a graduated scale of disposal. Disposal options are increasingly being taken away from officers & the disposal option decided by someone in an office following the formula. Just as happens with the camera.
The scientific trial is superfluous & unnecessary. We have the limit so we must have enforcement. The camera merely does what the prosecuting authorities tell it to do. It provides the enforcement they ask it to do in relation to the limits set (& that isn't enforcement to the letter of the law).
If you want a scientific study it's better to look at benefits/costs of speed limits.
If you are reported by camera or officer it doesn't really make a lot of difference.
Dave - we are already too far down the slippery slope I fear. Jeez the nonsense just over bin enforcement in my area is Orwellain...!
Von at least an officer that pulls you checks MOT & Insurance & roadworthiness & tyres - far greater things...once. He may even smell your breath and check your pupils... You would often land a greater catch once you had hooked a speeding minnow wouldn't you...? Better days.
Von at least an officer that pulls you checks MOT & Insurance & roadworthiness & tyres - far greater things...once. He may even smell your breath and check your pupils... You would often land a greater catch once you had hooked a speeding minnow wouldn't you...? Better days.
Ken Figenus said:
Dave - we are already too far down the slippery slope I fear. Jeez the nonsense just over bin enforcement in my area is Orwellain...!
Von at least an officer that pulls you checks MOT & Insurance & roadworthiness & tyres - far greater things...once. He may even smell your breath and check your pupils... You would often land a greater catch once you had hooked a speeding minnow wouldn't you...? Better days.
The few officers that are out there can concentrate on the other things leaving speed enforcement to cameras. Speed enforcement is ideal for automation. It requires no assessment & is black/white with a graduated disposal policy being employed. The camera can also supply the evidence for no insurance/MOT.Von at least an officer that pulls you checks MOT & Insurance & roadworthiness & tyres - far greater things...once. He may even smell your breath and check your pupils... You would often land a greater catch once you had hooked a speeding minnow wouldn't you...? Better days.
vonhosen said:
1) Speed limits without enforcement are no limit, they can be ignored without sanction.
2) In the public interest isn't decided by the offender or public, it's decided by the prosecuting authorities. What makes you think a traffic officer won't take the action that a camera does?
3) Speed limits aren't rigidly enforced by camera or officer. Small margins result in no action, increased margins result in a graduated scale of disposal. Disposal options are increasingly being taken away from officers & the disposal option decided by someone in an office following the formula. Just as happens with the camera.
The scientific trial is superfluous & unnecessary. We have the limit so we must have enforcement. The camera merely does what the prosecuting authorities tell it to do. It provides the enforcement they ask it to do in relation to the limits set (& that isn't enforcement to the letter of the law).
If you want a scientific study it's better to look at benefits/costs of speed limits.
If you are reported by camera or officer it doesn't really make a lot of difference.
I can see you have a very strong opinion irrespective of the evidence but may I ask: if you believe that speed limits should be enforced irrespective of whether it's in the public interest, do you extend that principal to all other laws?2) In the public interest isn't decided by the offender or public, it's decided by the prosecuting authorities. What makes you think a traffic officer won't take the action that a camera does?
3) Speed limits aren't rigidly enforced by camera or officer. Small margins result in no action, increased margins result in a graduated scale of disposal. Disposal options are increasingly being taken away from officers & the disposal option decided by someone in an office following the formula. Just as happens with the camera.
The scientific trial is superfluous & unnecessary. We have the limit so we must have enforcement. The camera merely does what the prosecuting authorities tell it to do. It provides the enforcement they ask it to do in relation to the limits set (& that isn't enforcement to the letter of the law).
If you want a scientific study it's better to look at benefits/costs of speed limits.
If you are reported by camera or officer it doesn't really make a lot of difference.
For my part, I just want speed cameras to be run within scientific trials so that everyone has the high-quality evidence needed to assist in making an informed decision.
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
1) Speed limits without enforcement are no limit, they can be ignored without sanction.
2) In the public interest isn't decided by the offender or public, it's decided by the prosecuting authorities. What makes you think a traffic officer won't take the action that a camera does?
3) Speed limits aren't rigidly enforced by camera or officer. Small margins result in no action, increased margins result in a graduated scale of disposal. Disposal options are increasingly being taken away from officers & the disposal option decided by someone in an office following the formula. Just as happens with the camera.
The scientific trial is superfluous & unnecessary. We have the limit so we must have enforcement. The camera merely does what the prosecuting authorities tell it to do. It provides the enforcement they ask it to do in relation to the limits set (& that isn't enforcement to the letter of the law).
If you want a scientific study it's better to look at benefits/costs of speed limits.
If you are reported by camera or officer it doesn't really make a lot of difference.
I can see you have a very strong opinion irrespective of the evidence but may I ask: if you believe that speed limits should be enforced irrespective of whether it's in the public interest, do you extend that principal to all other laws?2) In the public interest isn't decided by the offender or public, it's decided by the prosecuting authorities. What makes you think a traffic officer won't take the action that a camera does?
3) Speed limits aren't rigidly enforced by camera or officer. Small margins result in no action, increased margins result in a graduated scale of disposal. Disposal options are increasingly being taken away from officers & the disposal option decided by someone in an office following the formula. Just as happens with the camera.
The scientific trial is superfluous & unnecessary. We have the limit so we must have enforcement. The camera merely does what the prosecuting authorities tell it to do. It provides the enforcement they ask it to do in relation to the limits set (& that isn't enforcement to the letter of the law).
If you want a scientific study it's better to look at benefits/costs of speed limits.
If you are reported by camera or officer it doesn't really make a lot of difference.
Speed limits & enforcement go hand in hand. You can't have the former without the latter. If the possibility of enforcement doesn't exist, then the limit may as well not be there.
No evidence changes that.
The whole raison d'être of speed limits is to impose an upper limit on speed choice by the threat of prosecution. If there is no possibility of enforcement there is no threat of prosecution.
Dave Finney said:
For my part, I just want speed cameras to be run within scientific trials so that everyone has the high-quality evidence needed to assist in making an informed decision.
Quality evidence of what?Scientific trials on speed cameras don't help us in whether we should have speed limits or not, you need scientific trials on whether speed limits assist in achieving outcomes you desire.
If the conclusions are that we don't need speed limits, then there will be no speed limit to enforce & no speed cameras.
If the conclusions are that we need speed limits, then we need enforcement of it & the possibility of you getting caught anytime you exceed it.
With something like speed limits I don't believe it's reasonable to have a zero tolerance, but then we don't have that.
Some other offences do justify a zero tolerance for action on detection.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 22 October 06:55
Ken Figenus said:
Von - they don't check MOT insurance when invoicing for £100 do they??? Be happy if they did.
Joined up use of a system to genuinely serve in the "public interest". No way, it's far too obvious 
Also, imagine the BiB/summons workload it would generate from the A40....
vonhosen said:
Quality evidence of what?
Evidence of what effect speed cameras have on road safety.I believe our fellow citizens have a right to the best quality evidence in every field of safety engineering, and that they also have a right to expect honesty from the authorities. They are not getting either of these in road safety.
In effect all I'm suggesting is that we bring road safety up to the standards that we demand from all other fields of safety engineering.
Dave you are trying to link the much claimed safety benefit of speed cameras to real evidence. I get that - especially after that self serving proclamation bagged by Mr Tea above and the way they always add all external factors to their 'superb safety service' stats inc road improvements and safety benefits from car technology developments (compare a base tech 2000 Mini Metro v any 2015 Euro hatchback with 5 star NCAP rating, 10 airbags which can brake individual wheels if it detects loss of control + ABS etc).
Von suggests its a non question as either limits are enforced or they are not real limits so the above doesn't really matter.
Me? I'd just like to trust and believe them. But they are not credible.
Von suggests its a non question as either limits are enforced or they are not real limits so the above doesn't really matter.
Me? I'd just like to trust and believe them. But they are not credible.
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
Quality evidence of what?
Evidence of what effect speed cameras have on road safety.I believe our fellow citizens have a right to the best quality evidence in every field of safety engineering, and that they also have a right to expect honesty from the authorities. They are not getting either of these in road safety.
In effect all I'm suggesting is that we bring road safety up to the standards that we demand from all other fields of safety engineering.
Speed cameras are just a consequence of the existence of speed limits & the necessity of enforcement because of that existence.
We have more roads, more people driving greater distances on them & fewer Police to patrol them & enforce those limits (& the numbers are going to get significantly lower still). That makes speed cameras a necessity for the enforcement threat.
vonhosen said:
To be honest the future is likely to head towards involving very little human element in vehicle movement. You punch in the destination & it does the rest.
Personally I don't think driverless cars will ever happen in a big way (at least not until we have flying vehicles, and probably not even then). There are just too many fundamental technical and liability issues.And I'm bloody glad about that. You only have to look at some of the anti-motorist types who are enthusiastically advocating driverless cars. Already they are predictably trying to shut down any possible advantage of driverless cars (e.g. parking by themselves, driving you home from the pub) by saying that there should always be a qualified, sober driver ready to take the wheel in case things "go wrong" (I thought it was supposed to be make things safer?)
And one of the main arguments against having, say, 5mph limits everywhere (that drivers would become understimulated and frustrated) would no longer apply, paving the way for "a child could run out without warning absolutely anywhere, and crawling along at 5mph is the only way to guarantee they won't be run over, and never mind how much it lengthens journeys because if it saves just one life"...
Von – I know its early days but I did have a chuckle at a Tesla in full autopilot mode getting a pull for speeding. Its at 12'43” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CZe5DXeYzw Nicely he got let off with a 'speed warning' $10 ticket. But was it Elon Musk that should have paid or taken any points!?
Here is a terrifying near miss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrwxEX8qOxA
I think the fallibility simply gets swapped from human to machine or is dependent on continuity on carriageway markings. Absolutely utterly terrifies me – Beta or no Beta.
Here is a terrifying near miss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrwxEX8qOxA
I think the fallibility simply gets swapped from human to machine or is dependent on continuity on carriageway markings. Absolutely utterly terrifies me – Beta or no Beta.
Ken Figenus said:
Von – I know its early days but I did have a chuckle at a Tesla in full autopilot mode getting a pull for speeding. Its at 12'43” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CZe5DXeYzw Nicely he got let off with a 'speed warning' $10 ticket. But was it Elon Musk that should have paid or taken any points!?
Here is a terrifying near miss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrwxEX8qOxA
I think the fallibility simply gets swapped from human to machine or is dependent on continuity on carriageway markings. Absolutely utterly terrifies me – Beta or no Beta.
Look at that complete cock nugget! Barely paying any attention at all. This is why Musk deserves a kicking.Here is a terrifying near miss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrwxEX8qOxA
I think the fallibility simply gets swapped from human to machine or is dependent on continuity on carriageway markings. Absolutely utterly terrifies me – Beta or no Beta.
I accept Von's remarks with regards to the speed camera's being effective in the processing of sending out fines for speeding but a consequence of the speed cameras going up is the fact that other motoring offences on the same stretch of road are then not captured and so are not recorded.
If I had a £1 for each driver I have passed using their mobile phone... and these are male and female drivers , young and old, commercial vehicles and private vehicles.
John
If I had a £1 for each driver I have passed using their mobile phone... and these are male and female drivers , young and old, commercial vehicles and private vehicles.
John
fergus said:
Yep. The average speed can be determined between any two of the circa 10 Vector cameras along the entire 13 mile route. It could be #1 and#6, #3 and #5, or between all of them, etc. etc. There is no escape. Annoyingly, there is a 30mph limit in place under Hangar Lane roundabout.
Most of the traffic has already slowed right down in advance of it going live, although people seem to now be cruising at either 60mph (typically in a 50mph zone) or some people simply don't understand what "average" means, and brake when they see the cameras and then speed up.
The annoying bit is the Westway flyover. Why this 3 lane road with no exits, pavements, etc is 40mph, who knows (other than it being a response to the same engineering problems which have beset Hammersmith flyover....). It used to be a regular 90-100mph ride...
Some of these f.wits will give themselves a totting up ban prior to receiving the first (of many) NIP....
PS the first Vector camera in the series is hidden behind the gantry immediately as you get on the flyover from the end of the Marylebone road. It's hard to spot, but you can definitely see the "arrow" marks on the road.
Ah, the average speed cameras. The only device that slows us down. For the duration.Most of the traffic has already slowed right down in advance of it going live, although people seem to now be cruising at either 60mph (typically in a 50mph zone) or some people simply don't understand what "average" means, and brake when they see the cameras and then speed up.
The annoying bit is the Westway flyover. Why this 3 lane road with no exits, pavements, etc is 40mph, who knows (other than it being a response to the same engineering problems which have beset Hammersmith flyover....). It used to be a regular 90-100mph ride...
Some of these f.wits will give themselves a totting up ban prior to receiving the first (of many) NIP....
PS the first Vector camera in the series is hidden behind the gantry immediately as you get on the flyover from the end of the Marylebone road. It's hard to spot, but you can definitely see the "arrow" marks on the road.
Ken Figenus said:
A really clear position. And about an absolute. So by that definition, say by 10 years time would you be perfectly OK with a connected black box type device in your vehicle that would ping a central server every time you break a speed limit and automatically add points to your licence and hit your bank account with a a direct debit? It is the logical conclusion to your statement. But is that really your vision for the greater good and a better society?
Tut tut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdumYou could, for additional "debating like a Harry Enfield character" points add "is that what you want? Because that's what'll happen!" to the end of your posts.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff