Discussion
vonhosen said:
The prosecution thresholds for cameras were decided by Police officers.
If you don't speed you don't have to spend your time looking out for cameras.
Limits have been around a long time & there have been changes in vehicle technology. There have also been changes in traffic density & why do you assume that safety benefits from vehicle technology would be used to increase speeds/risk rather than to simply benefit from reduced risks?
Limits are reviewed regularly & some stay the same, some go down & some even go up.
The only reason 20 years ago it was rarer to have points was that detection/prosecutions were less efficient than today.
Not the same as having a Policeman who saw what you did, how, where and when - I was stopped regularly when I was younger, probably 1 in 3 times would I get a ticket and frequently for a lesser speed than I was doing.If you don't speed you don't have to spend your time looking out for cameras.
Limits have been around a long time & there have been changes in vehicle technology. There have also been changes in traffic density & why do you assume that safety benefits from vehicle technology would be used to increase speeds/risk rather than to simply benefit from reduced risks?
Limits are reviewed regularly & some stay the same, some go down & some even go up.
The only reason 20 years ago it was rarer to have points was that detection/prosecutions were less efficient than today.
Traffic density - good point - so the limits are raised on a deserted road at 5am ? Of course they aren't with a camera but they are IME with an Officer.
Limits are reviewed for many reasons - actual safety is rarely one of them.
Not in my experience as previously mentioned.
Greendubber said:
So wheel your stats out all you want, I dont recall any drivers getting done for driving within the law.
Really? You are not looking hard enough.Likewise, certain camera companies operating outside of it.
They rely on people like you to get away with it - although not all do.
Digby said:
Greendubber said:
So wheel your stats out all you want, I dont recall any drivers getting done for driving within the law.
Really? You are not looking hard enough.Likewise, certain camera companies operating outside of it.
They rely on people like you to get away with it - although not all do.
V8RX7 said:
vonhosen said:
The prosecution thresholds for cameras were decided by Police officers.
If you don't speed you don't have to spend your time looking out for cameras.
Limits have been around a long time & there have been changes in vehicle technology. There have also been changes in traffic density & why do you assume that safety benefits from vehicle technology would be used to increase speeds/risk rather than to simply benefit from reduced risks?
Limits are reviewed regularly & some stay the same, some go down & some even go up.
The only reason 20 years ago it was rarer to have points was that detection/prosecutions were less efficient than today.
Not the same as having a Policeman who saw what you did, how, where and when - I was stopped regularly when I was younger, probably 1 in 3 times would I get a ticket and frequently for a lesser speed than I was doing.If you don't speed you don't have to spend your time looking out for cameras.
Limits have been around a long time & there have been changes in vehicle technology. There have also been changes in traffic density & why do you assume that safety benefits from vehicle technology would be used to increase speeds/risk rather than to simply benefit from reduced risks?
Limits are reviewed regularly & some stay the same, some go down & some even go up.
The only reason 20 years ago it was rarer to have points was that detection/prosecutions were less efficient than today.
V8RX7 said:
Traffic density - good point - so the limits are raised on a deserted road at 5am ? Of course they aren't with a camera but they are IME with an Officer.
The limit is the maximum in optimal conditions, on managed motorways you'll see it reduced in less than optimal conditions.At other times you are expected to drive at a speed less than the limit in less than optimal conditions should it require it.
V8RX7 said:
Limits are reviewed for many reasons - actual safety is rarely one of them.
Safety is one of them.V8RX7 said:
Not in my experience as previously mentioned.
If we are doing it on personal experience your experience is probably more limited than mine in dealing with Traffic offences.Officers can't process as many offenders because of the effects on their availability to Police with filling out the paperwork & court time etc. That's why you got a lot of warnings. The cameras don't suffer those same problems, they can far more efficiently process far more offenders.
vonhosen said:
The odds have just changed that's all.
The limit is the maximum in optimal conditions
If we are doing it on personal experience your experience is probably more limited than mine in dealing with Traffic offences.
That is entirely the point - the rules of the game were set with the odds at the time, now the odds have massively changed - hence the complaints.The limit is the maximum in optimal conditions
If we are doing it on personal experience your experience is probably more limited than mine in dealing with Traffic offences.
Please post links to people being prosecuted for driving at the limit in rush hour in the rain - YOU CAN'T because it doesn't happen. Now explain how the "safe limit" is the same for 6pm on a Friday the rain and 6am on a Sunday morning.
Yes but I don't just read a book of "rules" and blindly accept them - I question them and ask why they are there and how they could be improved.
Greendubber said:
Well due to the lack of news taken up by stories of motorists being potted for 25 in a 30 you're going to have to enlighten me.
A simple question.Do you think the safety of you and your loved ones should be based on a system sold with some of the main selling points as it being like "Blank cheque books" and that "You will have so much money coming in, you won't know what to do with it all" ?
Should they be purchased by councils and operated in such a way that this is the likely outcome based on that sales pitch?
If you say no (which everyone should), well done!
If you say yes, well, why would you?
vonhosen said:
The prosecution thresholds for cameras were decided by Police officers.
And one of the very first officers involved when cameras were in their infancy and being tested admitted they were only ever supposed to catch the absolute worst abusers of speed limits. He also admits it is now about targets and money rather than safety.Edited by Digby on Thursday 15th September 17:58
Heaveho said:
What a dull, stereotypically brainwashed response. It goes without saying that if you get caught, and it's a legitimately dealt with procedure, you " take your medicine like a big boy ".
The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety. The problem we should be dealing with are the drivers who don't drive within the law for other reasons not getting dealt with adequately or at all in many cases.
I see both your points but raise you this:The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety. The problem we should be dealing with are the drivers who don't drive within the law for other reasons not getting dealt with adequately or at all in many cases.
Edited by Heaveho on Thursday 15th September 09:27
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-15/mobile-phone-dr...
"One in four car accidents caused by cell phone use! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2591148/On...
FAR more people die due to distracted driving but all we ever hear about is same old same old - safe drivers being nailed for 36mph exiting 30's; job done; bang to rights; take it like a man. Same simplistic focus, same crowing, same patting themselves on the back. Same medicine curing an illness that is rarely a threat. This isn't really where its at in the real world but it is what commerce, industry and 'partnerships' are geared up for: just this ONE issue which I find staggering and its getting bigger as its lucrative and self sustaining. The rest of the far more significant issues are a side show.
[i] US Deaths
In 2013, 3,154 people were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver, compared to 3,328 in 2012.
In 2013, 424,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver, an almost 10% increase since 2011.
In 2013, nearly one in five crashes (18%) in which someone was injured involved distracted driving. [/i]
No one I'd respect moans about speed limits or having their wings clipped - we are all big boys and know that they are absolutely essential; especially in our street and our town. We know where we can safely push when conditions allow - and that isn't a dual carriageway full of cars in Slough...
"About 1.3million accidents, or 26 per cent of all pileups, are blamed on drivers using cell phones"
"164 UK road deaths are blamed on under inflated car tyres in the past five years"
What we need is a kick up the @rse of the whole system. A drop back to integrity and honesty by those that make a living from administrating and enforcing issues of road safety and a far greater focus on things that really concern society and genuinely cause harm and misery. They plough the same furrow with the same one trick pony and its just getting deeper - so deep they cant see out the sides any more at and miss all the other stuff of far greater concern to most people.
I know i'm flogging a dead horse but...
Digby said:
Greendubber said:
Well due to the lack of news taken up by stories of motorists being potted for 25 in a 30 you're going to have to enlighten me.
A simple question.Do you think the safety of you and your loved ones should be based on a system sold with some of the main selling points as it being like "Blank cheque books" and that "You will have so much money coming in, you won't know what to do with it all" ?
Should they be purchased by councils and operated in such a way that this is the likely outcome based on that sales pitch?
If you say no (which everyone should), well done!
If you say yes, well, why would you?
Edited by Digby on Thursday 15th September 17:58
Greendubber said:
Exactly.
Follow a forces traffic units twitter feed to get an idea of what they do. Very little of it is speed related, its nearly all no insurance, phones, disqual drivers, stolen motors, arrests of wanted people.
Camera based, which is fine. What we are missing is the stuff that is a bit harder, as the feet on the street are replaced by cameras. There is a huge increase in mobile phone/driving usage, drug driving and careless/incompetent driving, all seemingly invisible to the police/lawmakers.Follow a forces traffic units twitter feed to get an idea of what they do. Very little of it is speed related, its nearly all no insurance, phones, disqual drivers, stolen motors, arrests of wanted people.
Speeding is an industry, not actually law enforcement. Low hanging fruit, easy and cheap, privatised and faceless.
I take your point, though, I'd rather be done by a person than a robocop, and I'd rather all aspects of bad driving were persecuted with equal vigour.
Digby said:
Greendubber said:
Are they actually the main selling points or do you just want them to be?
Well ignored. And so it begins, just as predicted 
I honestly couldnt care less how the cameras come about. I know the limit, I know that if I decide to ignore it I run the risk of being caught by camera or by bobby with a laser gun. I'll happily put my hands up to it as I dont have the sense of entitlement to decide which laws to ignore unlike some.
Greendubber said:
I honestly couldnt care less how the cameras come about.
Yes, that's a common response, as predicted. Last time this topic came up, we even had the mighty Von suggesting the system wasn't perfect (quite a proud moment for me, that one) and others suggesting "So what?" when it was suggested corruption and bribery charges etc were being brought against a certain camera company with links to Transport For London cameras. I think someone suggested they didn't care if we were being ripped off and innocent people were being fined because all big businesses are in it to make money and most are less than ethical in their approach to making large amounts of cash.At least your post has saved us both some time. Fortunately, lots of people do care hence it's not hard to find tales of reimbursed drivers and judges forcing camera companies to remove their methods of entrapment etc. It's a global issue for obvious reasons.
And here's little old me, not anti-camera in the slightest, simply asking why we can't have a system in place as was intended - before profit and targets took over- having to watch the same people get angry, frustrated and offering up their best defence of "So what?" and "I don't care". If you don't care, stop posting.
Digby said:
Greendubber said:
I honestly couldnt care less how the cameras come about.
Yes, that's a common response, as predicted. Last time this topic came up, we even had the mighty Von suggesting the system wasn't perfect (quite a proud moment for me, that one) and others suggesting "So what?" when it was suggested corruption and bribery charges etc were being brought against a certain camera company with links to Transport For London cameras. I think someone suggested they didn't care if we were being ripped off and innocent people were being fined because all big businesses are in it to make money and most are less than ethical in their approach to making large amounts of cash.At least your post has saved us both some time. Fortunately, lots of people do care hence it's not hard to find tales of reimbursed drivers and judges forcing camera companies to remove their methods of entrapment etc. It's a global issue for obvious reasons.
And here's little old me, not anti-camera in the slightest, simply asking why we can't have a system in place as was intended - before profit and targets took over- having to watch the same people get angry, frustrated and offering up their best defence of "So what?" and "I don't care". If you don't care, stop posting.
V8RX7 said:
vonhosen said:
The odds have just changed that's all.
The limit is the maximum in optimal conditions
If we are doing it on personal experience your experience is probably more limited than mine in dealing with Traffic offences.
That is entirely the point - the rules of the game were set with the odds at the time, now the odds have massively changed - hence the complaints.The limit is the maximum in optimal conditions
If we are doing it on personal experience your experience is probably more limited than mine in dealing with Traffic offences.
Please post links to people being prosecuted for driving at the limit in rush hour in the rain - YOU CAN'T because it doesn't happen. Now explain how the "safe limit" is the same for 6pm on a Friday the rain and 6am on a Sunday morning.
Yes but I don't just read a book of "rules" and blindly accept them - I question them and ask why they are there and how they could be improved.
The rules of the game were that if you exceeded the limit you could be prosecuted.
Those are still the rules.
it's just that now they can process more efficiently.
You were lucky they couldn't before, you're not so lucky now.
That said the odds are still heavily in your favour because the resources used are still small, so the coverage of the network at any one time is very small.
In the rush hour you can't generally drive at the limit in the rain on a lot of roads, it's stop/start traffic.
The limits anyway are conservatively set, there is little point in having limits if you set them at the maximum possible that could be achieved in optimal conditions. They aren't set at what a fabulous driver, in a fabulous car, in fabulous weather on a fabulous surface could potentially achieve.
They are however the maximum for that road in the best conditions & then you are expected to drive slower where the conditions demand it.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 15th September 19:09
Digby said:
And one of the very first officers involved when cameras were in their infancy and being tested admitted they were only ever supposed to catch the absolute worst abusers of speed limits. He also admits it is now about targets and money rather than safety.
They never had the resource back up to do any more at the start. They now have more.The government want more from less in all departments. The cameras are good at that.
The Police set the prosecution thresholds back then & they still do now. They've had plenty of opportunity to change them over the 'decades' if it was out of kilter with what was wanted.
Greendubber said:
I honestly couldnt care less how the cameras come about. I know the limit, I know that if I decide to ignore it I run the risk of being caught by camera or by bobby with a laser gun. I'll happily put my hands up to it as I dont have the sense of entitlement to decide which laws to ignore unlike some.
A standard fob off response of many - even when dealing with those that have squeaky clean licenses for a decade and thus dont even posses an axe - let alone a grinder! The argument isn't about 'all speed limits are nasty/bad' 
its about the 'hyperactivity' around them to the utter detriment of issues of far greater significance. 10,000 people invoiced £100 for 79mph gets a pat on the back from you but I'd far rather they caught a few drunk drivers, a few bald tyres and a couple of life threatening texters instead. Life is more precious than money after all...Edited by Ken Figenus on Thursday 15th September 19:13
Greendubber said:
Still not providing any evidence to support your claims though?
That's the second thing always said.It's always said by those who despite appearing to have such an interest in these topics, have looked at absolutely nothing for themseleves. I never have understood that. How can one make an informed decision?
If I start to provide any information which will paint speed cameras and those involved in a bad light, you, like many before, simply chuck them on your "I don't care" pile.
You have ignored my very first question. I have been down this road many times on here and won't be doing it again when the "I don't care" joker has been played so early on!
Ken Figenus said:
Greendubber said:
Well it appears you ignored my earlier request to enlighten me about all those being potted for driving below the limit...
I honestly couldnt care less how the cameras come about. I know the limit, I know that if I decide to ignore it I run the risk of being caught by camera or by bobby with a laser gun. I'll happily put my hands up to it as I dont have the sense of entitlement to decide which laws to ignore unlike some.
A standard fob off response of many - even when dealing with those that have squeaky clean licenses for a decade and thus dont even posses an axe - let alone a grinder! The argument [b]isn't[/] about 'all speed limits are nasty/bad' I honestly couldnt care less how the cameras come about. I know the limit, I know that if I decide to ignore it I run the risk of being caught by camera or by bobby with a laser gun. I'll happily put my hands up to it as I dont have the sense of entitlement to decide which laws to ignore unlike some.
its about the 'hyperactivity' around them to the utter detriment of issues of far greater significance. 10,000 people invoiced £100 for 79mph gets a pat on the back from you but I'd far rather they caught a few drunk drivers, a few bald tyres and a couple of life threatening texters instead. Life is more precious than money after all...And of course drink drivers and people on the phone need to be dealt with but witk 20k less bobbies on the streets compared to 5 years ago the level of enforcement simply cannot be equal to that of a network of cameras/camera vans can it?
Digby said:
Greendubber said:
Still not providing any evidence to support your claims though?
That's the second thing always said.It's always said by those who despite appearing to have such an interest in these topics, have looked at absolutely nothing for themseleves. I never have understood that. How can one make an informed decision?
If I start to provide any information which will paint speed cameras and those involved in a bad light, you, like many before, simply chuck them on your "I don't care" pile.
You have ignored my very first question. I have been down this road many times on here and won't be doing it again when the "I don't care" joker has been played so early on!
If a Police officers fits somebody up for a burglary that doesn't make prosecuting burglars bad, it means you have a corrupt officer. it's still fine to enforce the law around burglary & prosecute burglars.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff