Scamps at it again
Discussion
Warwickshire scamps said:So cameras definitely don't work - surely the idea is to make drivers safer by kerb crawling limits and oppressive enforcement with fines (to go, no fries).
The more times you have been caught by a speed camera, the more likely you are to be involved in a crash, a research project conducted in the Midlands will reveal.
And they even plot the trend for us...more points, more crashes, so progressively getting caught clearly does NOT change driver behaviour in the way claimed.
Add this to all the other evidence and it's curtains for greedcams.
The users of these beloved weapons of mass prosecution have just signed their own failure warrant.
You mean they're catching high mileage drivers on the basis of probability?
High milers will have less chance of avoiding being prosecuted for driving safely, more chance of being pinged, and will also by virtue of their high mileage be more likely to be involved in an accident.
If that's your view of the right people, you need the same lesson on variables and cause / effect as vh did with his pointless trip up the autobahn. The two variables in the study are correlated but are not a cause and effect issue, it looks like they're related to a third: mileage.
So, no, as you would see if you thought about it for a second, revenue cameras catch the wrong people. They mostly catch people driving safely a few mph over an arbitrary limit. Catching them - according to the report - doesn't then make them any safer. How could randomly prosecuting safe driving improve road safety? What a risible notion.
Cameras need to catch people who are driving dangerously regardless of any arbitrary speed limit, those not observing / anticipating / spotting hazards / using mirrors / driving too closely / driving untrained and unlicensed / uninsured / under the influence etc etc.
Only thing is - cameras can't catch these people. Anyone who says they can, has a weird sense of humour and no idea.
Cameras are catching the wrong people.
High milers will have less chance of avoiding being prosecuted for driving safely, more chance of being pinged, and will also by virtue of their high mileage be more likely to be involved in an accident.
If that's your view of the right people, you need the same lesson on variables and cause / effect as vh did with his pointless trip up the autobahn. The two variables in the study are correlated but are not a cause and effect issue, it looks like they're related to a third: mileage.
So, no, as you would see if you thought about it for a second, revenue cameras catch the wrong people. They mostly catch people driving safely a few mph over an arbitrary limit. Catching them - according to the report - doesn't then make them any safer. How could randomly prosecuting safe driving improve road safety? What a risible notion.
Cameras need to catch people who are driving dangerously regardless of any arbitrary speed limit, those not observing / anticipating / spotting hazards / using mirrors / driving too closely / driving untrained and unlicensed / uninsured / under the influence etc etc.
Only thing is - cameras can't catch these people. Anyone who says they can, has a weird sense of humour and no idea.
Cameras are catching the wrong people.
turbobloke said:
You mean they're catching high mileage drivers on the basis of probability?
High milers will have less chance of avoiding being prosecuted for driving safely, more chance of being pinged, and will also by virtue of their high mileage be more likely to be involved in an accident.
Yes but certain high milers are more likley to have more blame worthy collisions than others & the causes identified in their collisions will vary from group to group.
It isn't high exposure to risk that leads to someone being blameworthy in collisions. Higher exposure to risk for poor drivers, could lead to them having more blamworthy collisions though.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th April 00:02
vonhosen said:Cameras can tell which high milers are your certain group? 97% of the time (as an upper limit) the answer is no.
You mean they're catching high mileage drivers on the basis of probability?
High milers will have less chance of avoiding being prosecuted for driving safely, more chance of being pinged, and will also by virtue of their high mileage be more likely to be involved in an accident.
Yes but certain high milers are more likley to have more blame worthy collisions than others & the causes identified in their collisions will vary from group to group.
You are a one vh, you crease me up.
vonhosen said:
You mean they're catching high mileage drivers on the basis of probability?
High milers will have less chance of avoiding being prosecuted for driving safely, more chance of being pinged, and will also by virtue of their high mileage be more likely to be involved in an accident.
Yes but certain high milers are more likley to have more blame worthy collisions than others & the causes identified in their collisions will vary from group to group.
It isn't high exposure to risk that leads to someone being blameworthy in collisions. Higher exposure to risk for poor drivers, could lead to them having more blamworthy collisions though.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 27th April 00:02
Having been a very high mileage driver for many years, statistically I should be dead by now or be a number in the KSI figures, based on 2 or 3 accidents a year going by my 60-70k a year annual mileage.
However I took some roadcraft training 15 years ago & have never regretted it, it has literally saved my life on several if not many occasions, I've not had accident in 10 years too. Unfortunatly I'm also the type of driver is now doomed to lose their licence sooner or later. A daily drive for me, frequently involves being pinged more than once by the scamerati & for someone who drives safely but according to the conditions thats a very big problem. I don't want to become a speedo watching moron & will continue to drive safely until its time to leave the country, simple as that.
I see more dangerous or incompetent driving on daily basis that should warrant licence removal, than speeding ever does.
>> Edited by cptsideways on Thursday 27th April 00:31
cptsideways said:
I don't want to become a speedo watching moron & will continue to drive safely until its time to leave the country, simple as that.
I see more dangerous or incompetent driving on daily basis that should warrant licence removal, than speeding ever does.
Yep, totally agree. Doing 30K per annum on average, it never ceases to amaze me at some of the antics of various drivers of all types of vehicles and ages.
And you just know THESE are the ones who get away with it, more often than not.
>> Edited by pjskel on Thursday 27th April 01:11
turbobloke said:
You mean they're catching high mileage drivers on the basis of probability?
It would be worth it just so we don't have to put up with the reps driving like numpties but who *must* be safe because "I drive 50k miles a year, me, an' who needs training when I get so much practice in? The problem is the people who won't get out of my way".
It these high-milers were driving unimpeachably (ie in a way in which they could never be involved in an accident), but fast, then wouldn't we see a lack of corelation between the numbers?
turbobloke said:
The more times you have been caught by a speed camera, the more likely you are to be involved in a crash, a research project conducted in the Midlands will reveal.
And they even plot the trend for us...more points, more crashes, so progressively getting caught clearly does NOT change driver behaviour in the way claimed.
Add this to all the other evidence and it's curtains for greedcams.
The users of these beloved weapons of mass prosecution have just signed their own failure warrant.
There are two ways of reading this:
There is your way in that they are catching the wrong people by the default that they drive more.
The other way which is some proof on how the scamerati are blindly 'figures led' is that this is absolute proof that these drivers who are most likely to get caught are not only not affected by the warning of speed cameras but it is proof that they are entirely uneffective even *after* people have been flashed, even perhaps several times.
If they thought outside of their own 'people caught X increase each year = my job' enclosed box of thinking then this might seem more obvious!
The most ridiculous thing is that the fact that there is proof that their ethos is inaffective and thus *not* preventing accidents is spun around into PR which demonises those who get nabbed as 'accident causers' and perhaps thus killers.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 27th April 09:55
7db said:No because getting pinged is a matter of chance, it isn't a signal of unsafe or safe driving. Ask all the advanced police, IAM and RoSPA drivers with points for driving safely that happened to be in contravention of an archaic and unreasonably slow speed limit.
It these high-milers were driving unimpeachably (ie in a way in which they could never be involved in an accident), but fast, then wouldn't we see a lack of corelation between the numbers?
turbobloke said:
It these high-milers were driving unimpeachably (ie in a way in which they could never be involved in an accident), but fast, then wouldn't we see a lack of corelation between the numbers?
A matter of chance? Perhaps, but the dice are loaded. Those who systematically fail to observe (big yellow boxes) and who drive above the posted limit, are rolling ones more than most.
7db said:Yes and you have just demonstrated the flaw of the Stradling report which this thread and a later one running in SPL are discussing...you now have another key 'third variable' to add to fast and safe high mileage drivers, namely, observation.
Those who systematically fail to observe (big yellow boxes) and who drive above the posted limit, are rolling ones more than most.
We are now considering the combination of high mileage fast driving with lower levels of attention and observation - driver behaviour that would spot hazards, be they visible yellow boxes or other kinds. This is a less safe form of driver than the safe high miler who uses speed appropriately but gets causght by chance due to the arbitrary nature of limits (often unrelated to safety) and the random nature of some covert or semi-covert enforcement.
Clearly by the conclusion of the very report that scamps are trying to use to bolster their position, criminalising high mileage drivers with low levels of attention and observation does NOT make them more attentive and observant, they continue to get caught and continue to have crashes. No remedy, no improvement to safety. these drivers need retraining and possibly retesting before resuming their driving careers. The report shows that scamming doesn't help them, cameras can't tell the difference between the two types of high mile faster driver discussed in this post and so cannot provide a diagnosis to allow a differentiated response that would improve road safety. That needs something more human, or at least several magnitudes more sophisticated than scameras.
Another nail in the coffin of speed cameras.
turbobloke said:
...clearly by the conclusion of the very report that scamps are trying to use to bolster their position, criminalising high mileage drivers with low levels of attention and observation does NOT make them more attentive and observant
Let's be clear, it's not the report or the scamps who are criminalising these people -- they *are* breaking the law, and furthermore driving without good observation. I mean this *is* the behaviour that we (as society) wish to see punished, is it not?
Cameras *are* a rather blunt tool, but do seem to be catching them. Personally I'll take what comes, and reckon that I can spot a big yellow box and deal with all the attendant hazards (mainly drivers who cannot). Sneaky, sneaky people hiding in vans - well they are out there. We all know that. Although we also know where they are by-and-large. Unlike marked partol cars. Truly covert enforcement is done by trafpol in unmarked vehicles, and they are not as lenient wth high speeds as you might suggest and like -- certainly there are plenty of people who havfe tales of driving perfectly safely, just "too fast" -- who have tickets from them.
So there's a three tier enforcement going on at the moment. Highly visible, overt and covert. Sounds like a pretty good net to me. It would sort of make sense if the highly visible stuff was pretty strict -- I mean you'd have to be unobservant to motor past a big yellow box at much over the speed limit. Perhaps there should be a greater leniency in the covert enforcement. And indeed there is.
There's a lot to be improved, for sure:- I'm sure we'd all like to understand the truth behind laser-gun accuracy - particularly in heavy traffic situations. I'd like to have more confidence that the chaps in vans took some middle line of enforcement threshold, but since these numbers aren't published, I really don't know.
However, I don't see anything in that article which suggests it is
turbobloke said:
Another nail in the coffin of speed cameras.
People routinely exceed the speed limit. They've done it for years, without any apparent harm. Historically, the police have not penalised people for minor* transgressions of the speed limit unless the circumstances were dangerous.
That's changing now as speed limit enforcement becomes automated and more widespread. The argument that you shouldn't get caught presupposes that enforcement is highly visible and applies a similar common-sense tolerance. It often isn't, it usually doesn't. It's just a roll of the dice whether you happen to encounter a hidden speed trap wih a low threshold while you are driving normally and safely. The proportion of our roads that are covered by speed cameras is still small, but it's growing. The more speed cameras there are, the more harm they do.
* I consider 20% to be a minor transgression.
That's changing now as speed limit enforcement becomes automated and more widespread. The argument that you shouldn't get caught presupposes that enforcement is highly visible and applies a similar common-sense tolerance. It often isn't, it usually doesn't. It's just a roll of the dice whether you happen to encounter a hidden speed trap wih a low threshold while you are driving normally and safely. The proportion of our roads that are covered by speed cameras is still small, but it's growing. The more speed cameras there are, the more harm they do.
* I consider 20% to be a minor transgression.
Welcome back, Greenie.
Your post doesn't really differentiate between highly visible big yellow boxes and the overt enforcement of mobile camera vans.
I agree that if you are driving illegally fast (and indeed more than their enforcement threshold), but otherwise safely, past an area where mobile speed traps are known to operate, then you are taking a bit of a gamble with the contents of your wallet. You don't get a lot of chance to see them and slow down, it's true.
Similarly if you are driving anywhere, then that car sliding in behind you might be trafpol examining your speed, preparing for a pull. That's a bit of a gamble too.
My experience might be skewed, but I don't see many mobile speed traps at all these days. Most enforcement that I see is big-yellow-camera-based. I see trafpol on patrol more than I see mobile enforcement.
Your post doesn't really differentiate between highly visible big yellow boxes and the overt enforcement of mobile camera vans.
I agree that if you are driving illegally fast (and indeed more than their enforcement threshold), but otherwise safely, past an area where mobile speed traps are known to operate, then you are taking a bit of a gamble with the contents of your wallet. You don't get a lot of chance to see them and slow down, it's true.
Similarly if you are driving anywhere, then that car sliding in behind you might be trafpol examining your speed, preparing for a pull. That's a bit of a gamble too.
My experience might be skewed, but I don't see many mobile speed traps at all these days. Most enforcement that I see is big-yellow-camera-based. I see trafpol on patrol more than I see mobile enforcement.
GreenV8S said:
People routinely exceed the speed limit. They've done it for years, without any apparent harm. Historically, the police have not penalised people for minor* transgressions of the speed limit unless the circumstances were dangerous.
That's changing now as speed limit enforcement becomes automated and more widespread. The argument that you shouldn't get caught presupposes that enforcement is highly visible and applies a similar common-sense tolerance. It often isn't, it usually doesn't. It's just a roll of the dice whether you happen to encounter a hidden speed trap wih a low threshold while you are driving normally and safely. The proportion of our roads that are covered by speed cameras is still small, but it's growing. The more speed cameras there are, the more harm they do.
* I consider 20% to be a minor transgression.
So do I - an extremely small transgression - not worth bothering about.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
7db said:
My experience might be skewed, but I don't see many mobile speed traps at all these days. Most enforcement that I see is big-yellow-camera-based. I see trafpol on patrol more than I see mobile enforcement.
Cartainly your experience (in London?) is different form mine down here in the west country. Even with good observation by the time you spot a scameravan they've already zapped you. The Avon and Somerset Scameraship are issuing far more tickets from scameravans than from yellow boxes (I vaguely recall reading 80% of the scamera partnership NIPS being from talivans rather than the fixed gatsos).
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Friday 28th April 10:52
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff