RE: More lies over scameras revealed
Discussion
I'm no fan of speed camera's and agree with most sensible comments and findings published here. However, if cameras are not used on dual carraigeways and motorways within roadwork zones then how is the speed of some motorists to be curtailed to a reasonable speed. If like me you have almost met your maker, whilst engaged on road works, thru some idiot blasting along in his lorry then you may understand my point that I try to make.
crankedup said:
I'm no fan of speed camera's and agree with most sensible comments and findings published here. However, if cameras are not used on dual carraigeways and motorways within roadwork zones then how is the speed of some motorists to be curtailed to a reasonable speed. If like me you have almost met your maker, whilst engaged on road works, thru some idiot blasting along in his lorry then you may understand my point that I try to make.
Traffic police, like in the old days when KSI's were going down
crankedup said:
I'm no fan of speed camera's and agree with most sensible comments and findings published here. However, if cameras are not used on dual carraigeways and motorways within roadwork zones then how is the speed of some motorists to be curtailed to a reasonable speed. If like me you have almost met your maker, whilst engaged on road works, thru some idiot blasting along in his lorry then you may understand my point that I try to make.
The point is that cameras make no difference to safety - so that idea is off the menu.
Asking how to improve safety is a far better question with obviously complex andswers.
jacobyte said:
Safespeed donation made. Keep up the good work!
Come one anyone who hasn't donated yet - if Paul weren't getting off his arse to do this, who would? Even a small amount will give him enough fuel to get to the next radio show.
One donation received this afternoon. Thanks for that.
crankedup said:
However, if cameras are not used on dual carraigeways and motorways within roadwork zones then how is the speed of some motorists to be curtailed to a reasonable speed.
What sort of speed enforcement was used prior to the speed cameras invention?
As you know , a camera will only slow traffic at that exact point, after which the flow speeds up again.
One way to control vehicle speeds thru out
the entire length of the roadworks would be to use the 'specs' system.
But would forcing three lanes of traffic down to 35-39 mph, bunched up and side to side be any safer? I seriously think not.
Would the specs be switched off when conditions are quiet in the midle of the night, or would you be the only car on the worker-less road still having to do 39? Lets encourage drivers to fall asleep!
Some wouldn't realise or know what the specs are, so the supposed intention of slowing their speed wouldn't be achieved. The cash would roll in that's for sure.
At the risk of sounding stupid but the bloody great concrete blocks use tend to focus my attention. So why not use a few more. Just move them as the road works move. At least it will get rid of a few numpties. Might even generate a few darwin awards 
We need people to fix the roads. So don't run over the hand/foot that fixes the roads
We need people to fix the roads. So don't run over the hand/foot that fixes the roads
GreenV8S said:
Making people aware of speed limit signs and cameras and drive at the speed limit addresses that risk of losing their license or being fined, but this is an artificial hazard that diverts driver attention away from the real hazards around them - it is the real hazards that they should be focussing on.
Ah, that old chestnut.
The idea is that you are competent enough to watch out for hazards AND remain within the speed limits. If anyone can't manage this then I suggest they get further driver training or handing back their licence.
spnracing said:
Making people aware of speed limit signs and cameras and drive at the speed limit addresses that risk of losing their license or being fined, but this is an artificial hazard that diverts driver attention away from the real hazards around them - it is the real hazards that they should be focussing on.
Ah, that old chestnut.
The idea is that you are competent enough to watch out for hazards AND remain within the speed limits. If anyone can't manage this then I suggest they get further driver training or handing back their licence.
Not many people have the superhuman ability to constantly monitor both the hazards outside their vehicle and the speedometer under their nose. Anybody who attempts to do so by constantly adjusting their visual concentration and focus is necessarily compromising their concentration, as they are not concentrating whilst 'adjusting'. Wouldn't it be nice if a sensible speed guaged by monitoring the passage of ones surroundings (ie observing the conditions around you) was deemed acceptable, with occasional 'calibration' by looking at the speedo? Sadly such a sensible speed does not always accord with the prevailing speed limit, nor the tolerance of the detection equipment employed. Nor are everybody's abilities on a par of course - but that's a training/qualification issue, not one of enforcement. See the whole 'one speed / all drivers/cars/conditions' topic...
spnracing said:
Making people aware of speed limit signs and cameras and drive at the speed limit addresses that risk of losing their license or being fined, but this is an artificial hazard that diverts driver attention away from the real hazards around them - it is the real hazards that they should be focussing on.
Ah, that old chestnut.
The idea is that you are competent enough to watch out for hazards AND remain within the speed limits. If anyone can't manage this then I suggest they get further driver training or handing back their licence.
Im quite sure we could all manage to remain within the speed limits and fulfill your competency requirements if it were really necessary, it would take great effort at times though in this day of artificially low limits.
However, the fact that in terms of safety it is pointless and time wasting to do so is maybe what makes virtually every driver exceed the limit.
Hands up, we should all hand back our licences as you rightly point out! How could we ever have survived so long! Lucky us!
spnracing said:
I can only see it a eventual political suicide to follow the route of alienating the british motorist.
How long is 'eventual'?
Speed cameras have been around for many years now and we've just had yet another large Labour majority despite the Iraq war.
Many many more people voted against Labour than for them!
deeps said:
What sort of speed enforcement was used prior to the speed cameras invention?
As you know , a camera will only slow traffic at that exact point, after which the flow speeds up again.
One way to control vehicle speeds thru out
the entire length of the roadworks would be to use the 'specs' system.
But would forcing three lanes of traffic down to 35-39 mph, bunched up and side to side be any safer? I seriously think not.
Would the specs be switched off when conditions are quiet in the midle of the night, or would you be the only car on the worker-less road still having to do 39? Lets encourage drivers to fall asleep!
Some wouldn't realise or know what the specs are, so the supposed intention of slowing their speed wouldn't be achieved. The cash would roll in that's for sure.
Having driven through the specs on the M1 roadworks for the first time last week, I can safely say that driving that particular stretch of road was definitely the most perilous of my journey. No-one overtook, everyone was driving in everyone else's blind spot. Cars were stuck alongside HGVs, and there was the most peculiar atmosphere - it was very eerie - you could tell by the cars' body language that the drivers were jittery. Not safe at all.
spnracing said:
I can only see it a eventual political suicide to follow the route of alienating the british motorist.
Keep the faith. All the signs are that a recent AA survey of members' opinions showed support for gatsos was through the floor - and there was a small balance of members' support before. Not any more. It will be part of Bliar's or Brown's poll tax on wheels.
spnracing said:
Ah, that old chestnut.
The idea is that you are competent enough to watch out for hazards AND remain within the speed limits. If anyone can't manage this then I suggest they get further driver training or handing back their licence.
That is a very arrogant point of view, and I don't think the arrogance is justified.
I've got a finite amount of concentration available. The more hazardous the situation the more of my concentration goes towards seeking out and monitoring possible hazards. I may need to adjust my course or speed in response to these potential hazards, and in busy traffic I will often end up doing this continually, for example when negotiating possible hidden pedestrians I may decide to slow down, cover the brakes and take a line that gives me the best chance to avoid them if they suddenly appear. It's a continuous process that we all have to do, and I pride myself on doing a pretty good job of it. It's worth noting that on the whole this process does not rely on the speedo, it is based on my subjective assessment of my speed based on observations of the surroundings. You could take the speedo away and I would be no more dangerous. If you have to look at your speedo in order to work out whether you are travelling at a safe speed then may I suggest you get further training or hand back your license.
Now on top of this there is a fixed speed limit that it is not legal to exceed. So while I am adjusting my speed, I also have to ensure that I don't exceed the speed limit even when my hazard assessment indicates that it would be safe to do so. There's no particular relationship between the safe speed implied by the circumstances and the absolute speed limit, so in addition to driving at a safe speed now I have to spend some time monitoring the speedo as well as monitoring potential hazards outside the car. This is not something that fits naturally into my monitoring of the outside world, I have to deliberately drop my gaze and refocus on the dashboard then look up and refocus on the surroundings, it is a significant disruption to my attention. The more emphasis is placed on the speed limit the more of my concentration will need to go on ensuring that I don't inadvertently exceed it. It is obvious that this leaves less concentration available to monitor external hazards.
>> Edited by GreenV8S on Tuesday 9th August 21:20
It didn't mean to be arrogant, just playing the devil's advoctate of the average non-petrolhead who has a very different point of view.
Your arguments are against speed limits - not speed cameras. The arguments against speed limits are even harder to win since they are used almost everywhere in the modern world. If we have speed limits then they need to be enforced or they are pointless.
I have also driven through the SPECS managed M1 roadworks and thought they were eerily safe. Further down the M1 on Sunday night there was a temporary 50 MPH limit while some workmen coned off lane 3. I obeyed the limit but probably 1/4 of the cars on the road didn't. As we approached the end of the cones there were men dashing backwards and forwards from the hard shoulder to lane 3 to put the cones out, trying to avoid cars still doing 85+ towards them. As a matter of fact they didn't look too pertubed but if I'd have been one of them I'd have been mighty pissed off. Now if there'd been a camera there to control the speed....
The 'speed cameras are hazards and distract drivers form other ones' argument is a poor one in my opinion, it asks for the kind of repsonse that I gave. If speed cameras are hazards then so are women, billboards, flash cars, for sale signs, in fact anything that could distract a driver.
If the campaign is against speed limits then it should focus on that - not speed cameras that are just a convenient automated way to uphold the law. Buy a Snooper and get on with life.
Your arguments are against speed limits - not speed cameras. The arguments against speed limits are even harder to win since they are used almost everywhere in the modern world. If we have speed limits then they need to be enforced or they are pointless.
I have also driven through the SPECS managed M1 roadworks and thought they were eerily safe. Further down the M1 on Sunday night there was a temporary 50 MPH limit while some workmen coned off lane 3. I obeyed the limit but probably 1/4 of the cars on the road didn't. As we approached the end of the cones there were men dashing backwards and forwards from the hard shoulder to lane 3 to put the cones out, trying to avoid cars still doing 85+ towards them. As a matter of fact they didn't look too pertubed but if I'd have been one of them I'd have been mighty pissed off. Now if there'd been a camera there to control the speed....
The 'speed cameras are hazards and distract drivers form other ones' argument is a poor one in my opinion, it asks for the kind of repsonse that I gave. If speed cameras are hazards then so are women, billboards, flash cars, for sale signs, in fact anything that could distract a driver.
If the campaign is against speed limits then it should focus on that - not speed cameras that are just a convenient automated way to uphold the law. Buy a Snooper and get on with life.
Speed limits are a good way to set the 'rules of engagement' and set general expectations of speed in an area. Somebody traveling through an area well in excess of the 85%ile speed deserves attention, perhaps they misjudged or failed to recognise the hazards. Perhaps they thought that the speed they were travelling at was safe under those circumstances. Perhaps they were right.
Speed cameras as hazards are substantially different to other hazards. Firstly and obviously because if the camera sees me exceeding a speed limit nobody gets hurt, except by the penalties that are imposed on me afterwards. In that sense it's an artificial hazard. Secondly by giving me a very string incentive to keep my speed under an arbitrary limit it puts an extra workload on me to monitor my speed closely which conflicts with my need to concentrate on real hazards.
I agree that choosing an appropriate speed is a vitally important skill. Interfering with that choice by saying, in effect, "choose an appropriate speed but don't go over this arbitrary limit" teaches me to concentrate on the limit rather than teaching me to choose an appropriate speed. It distracts me from the important job of negotiating hazards safely, and teaches me to concentrate on something which is *not* fundamental to road safety i.e the arbitrary limit.
Speed cameras as hazards are substantially different to other hazards. Firstly and obviously because if the camera sees me exceeding a speed limit nobody gets hurt, except by the penalties that are imposed on me afterwards. In that sense it's an artificial hazard. Secondly by giving me a very string incentive to keep my speed under an arbitrary limit it puts an extra workload on me to monitor my speed closely which conflicts with my need to concentrate on real hazards.
I agree that choosing an appropriate speed is a vitally important skill. Interfering with that choice by saying, in effect, "choose an appropriate speed but don't go over this arbitrary limit" teaches me to concentrate on the limit rather than teaching me to choose an appropriate speed. It distracts me from the important job of negotiating hazards safely, and teaches me to concentrate on something which is *not* fundamental to road safety i.e the arbitrary limit.
GreenV8S said:
Speed limits are a good way to set the 'rules of engagement' and set general expectations of speed in an area. Somebody traveling through an area well in excess of the 85%ile speed deserves attention, perhaps they misjudged or failed to recognise the hazards. Perhaps they thought that the speed they were travelling at was safe under those circumstances. Perhaps they were right.
Speed cameras as hazards are substantially different to other hazards. Firstly and obviously because if the camera sees me exceeding a speed limit nobody gets hurt, except by the penalties that are imposed on me afterwards. In that sense it's an artificial hazard. Secondly by giving me a very string incentive to keep my speed under an arbitrary limit it puts an extra workload on me to monitor my speed closely which conflicts with my need to concentrate on real hazards.
I agree that choosing an appropriate speed is a vitally important skill. Interfering with that choice by saying, in effect, "choose an appropriate speed but don't go over this arbitrary limit" teaches me to concentrate on the limit rather than teaching me to choose an appropriate speed. It distracts me from the important job of negotiating hazards safely, and teaches me to concentrate on something which is *not* fundamental to road safety i.e the arbitrary limit.
I've rarely seen the point made so well.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff