Flawless driving conditions = Speed vans everywhere?
Discussion
I've noticed this year on year...
How come?
Personally, it doesn't do wonders for my respect for speed limits when they are quite blatantly policing them when more people are likely to be breaking them (i.e. when Joe Public is aware conditions are very safe)
Excluding notching up a.another speeder on a scoreboard, surely it makes more sense to be policing the limits when conditions are poor rather than when they are perfect? Is it really simply a case of catching most people?
How come?
Personally, it doesn't do wonders for my respect for speed limits when they are quite blatantly policing them when more people are likely to be breaking them (i.e. when Joe Public is aware conditions are very safe)
Excluding notching up a.another speeder on a scoreboard, surely it makes more sense to be policing the limits when conditions are poor rather than when they are perfect? Is it really simply a case of catching most people?
Thanks for the stock response!
Seriously though...
Speed limits are there primarily for safety and are followed because people respect them. For people to respect them there has to be good justification for them. To justify limits on grounds of safety surely you want to instil that in peoples heads. To have a very visible policing presence when it's safest to drive at the limit surely goes against this?
Seriously though...
Speed limits are there primarily for safety and are followed because people respect them. For people to respect them there has to be good justification for them. To justify limits on grounds of safety surely you want to instil that in peoples heads. To have a very visible policing presence when it's safest to drive at the limit surely goes against this?
Edited by Rigs on Wednesday 23 June 20:48
Not that i particularly follow them to the inch... the speed limit is a maximum speed, poorer conditions justify driving slower, which in the wet is very wise, most people do not realise how difficult it is to manouver a car in the wet.
If the weather is great there is more chance of catching speeders in a short space of time thus being very efficient.
Not much fun in the wet when most people are driving slower, that could take all day to get the number of convitions targeted.
It is what it is...
If the weather is great there is more chance of catching speeders in a short space of time thus being very efficient.
Not much fun in the wet when most people are driving slower, that could take all day to get the number of convitions targeted.
It is what it is...
Rigs said:
Thanks for the stock response!
Seriously though...
Speed limits are there primarily for safety and are followed because people respect them. For people to respect them there has to be good justification for them. To justify limits on grounds of safety surely you want to instil that in peoples heads. To have a very visible policing presence when it's safest to drive at the limit surely goes against this?
There are times it's safe to exceed the limit, but the whole premise of them is that you aren't to exceed them at any time, that's why it's called a limit. If limits are to mean anything they have to be upheld with enforcement in all conditions, otherwise there is no point in having a limit in the first place.Seriously though...
Speed limits are there primarily for safety and are followed because people respect them. For people to respect them there has to be good justification for them. To justify limits on grounds of safety surely you want to instil that in peoples heads. To have a very visible policing presence when it's safest to drive at the limit surely goes against this?
They are the maximum in good conditions, not what speed you should drive at in adverse conditions.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 June 21:44
I'd be lying if I said I keep to the limit all the time but I do currently have a reasonable amount of respect for them and will rarely be found straying much over them...
I just wanted to ask the question/spark a discussion etc...
Continuing...
I just wanted to ask the question/spark a discussion etc...
Continuing...
- snipped to avoid going off topic and it turning in to another speed limit debate*
Edited by Rigs on Wednesday 23 June 21:46
Edited by Rigs on Wednesday 23 June 21:54
vonhosen said:
Rigs said:
vonhosen said:
If limits are to mean anything they have to be upheld with enforcement in all conditions...
Upheld with enforcement in all conditions.Agreed entirely and this is my point
Why is it not so?
I do a LOT of miles all over the place and every year I have a sudden run of seeing the vans everywhere. I have seen more vans parked up in the last week (since the sun came out) than the previous 9 months combined.
This is what caused the question...
otolith said:
Depends whether you think the enforcement is in the interests of safety or of the blind obedience of law. If the former, targeting speeding when it does least harm is idiotic, if the latter it's perfectly logical.
I don't see it like that.The general premise of limiting speeds is partly for safety, but if we are to then have them prosecuting for simply not obeying them (whatever the conditions) is perfectly logical. The law in relation to them is written for blind obedience in relation to the upper limit, with no requirement to show a lack of safety in the driving. Other legislation exists for that (where it occurs above or below the limit).
vonhosen said:
otolith said:
Depends whether you think the enforcement is in the interests of safety or of the blind obedience of law. If the former, targeting speeding when it does least harm is idiotic, if the latter it's perfectly logical.
I don't see it like that.The general premise of limiting speeds is partly for safety, but if we are to then have them prosecuting for simply not obeying them (whatever the conditions) is perfectly logical. The law in relation to them is written for blind obedience in relation to the upper limit, with no requirement to show a lack of safety in the driving. Other legislation exists for that (where it occurs above or below the limit).
well, when the safety camera schemes were introduced, the idea was that the entire funding of the scheme could be met from the fines recieved from those that broke the speed limit. The offenders effectively pay for the running costs of the scheme freeing up the money that was originally earmarked for road safety onto other, perhaps more deserving things.
All is good.
However, the definition of 'running costs' can be quite widely encompassing...
Office relocations into lovely listed buildings, air conditioning, private parking spaces for the bosses of the sceme, 'fact finding' missions to sunnier climates, - you get the picture.
You do however need people to sit in vans all day, who have (had) to be a police officer. Well, thats easy - Police officers have mortgages to pay too, so dangling a few hundred quid of overtime for an 8 hour shift for just sitting in a van is quite a temptation.
Start to drop the speed trigger limits, and you have yourself a lucrative little set up here, and you can always justify it by standing on the 'safety' soapbox, which makes oponents of the scheme appear irrational and 'speed freaks'
As the SCP's became more unpopular it became necessary to employ people to drive home how brilliant the schemes were, so PR people were brought in. Nearly all these people claimied to be safety experts, but infact (when you look up the letters after their names in some instances) you find they are actually experts in marketting - nothing to do with safety at all.
So, lots of lovely new sound bites were created - Arrive Alive, Speed Kills, 20's plenty,
'Drifting over the speed limit is the same as drifting a knife into someone', Catching Killers,
They did, to some, appear to be becoming a little hysterical.
Statistics were then used to convinced the cynics, and on the fact of it they were quite convincing, though in many cases they were confusing 'causation' with 'correlation', or ignoring the concept of 'regression to the mean'
The reality is that many many many completely safe drivers were being fined for completely safe (if technically illegal) driving. And that isn't a good thing.
Some time ago, the arrangement where the SCPs could keep the fines was revoked, and fines now go directly to the treasury. The number of vans out and about fell overnight! but now, you're seeing them out again.
The 'new' initiative is to offer 'speed awareness' courses. This is where you can circumvent the £60 and 3 points if you pay to go along to a lecture for half a day. This way the money can come back in again, if much much less than before. On a positive note, the courses are actually quite good from what i've heard from people who have been on them, though they aren't filled with chavvy speed merchants as you may think, just normal decent generally safe folk who don't wants points on their clean licences (clean for decades in some instances)
So, there you are.
All is good.
However, the definition of 'running costs' can be quite widely encompassing...
Office relocations into lovely listed buildings, air conditioning, private parking spaces for the bosses of the sceme, 'fact finding' missions to sunnier climates, - you get the picture.
You do however need people to sit in vans all day, who have (had) to be a police officer. Well, thats easy - Police officers have mortgages to pay too, so dangling a few hundred quid of overtime for an 8 hour shift for just sitting in a van is quite a temptation.
Start to drop the speed trigger limits, and you have yourself a lucrative little set up here, and you can always justify it by standing on the 'safety' soapbox, which makes oponents of the scheme appear irrational and 'speed freaks'
As the SCP's became more unpopular it became necessary to employ people to drive home how brilliant the schemes were, so PR people were brought in. Nearly all these people claimied to be safety experts, but infact (when you look up the letters after their names in some instances) you find they are actually experts in marketting - nothing to do with safety at all.
So, lots of lovely new sound bites were created - Arrive Alive, Speed Kills, 20's plenty,
'Drifting over the speed limit is the same as drifting a knife into someone', Catching Killers,
They did, to some, appear to be becoming a little hysterical.
Statistics were then used to convinced the cynics, and on the fact of it they were quite convincing, though in many cases they were confusing 'causation' with 'correlation', or ignoring the concept of 'regression to the mean'
The reality is that many many many completely safe drivers were being fined for completely safe (if technically illegal) driving. And that isn't a good thing.
Some time ago, the arrangement where the SCPs could keep the fines was revoked, and fines now go directly to the treasury. The number of vans out and about fell overnight! but now, you're seeing them out again.
The 'new' initiative is to offer 'speed awareness' courses. This is where you can circumvent the £60 and 3 points if you pay to go along to a lecture for half a day. This way the money can come back in again, if much much less than before. On a positive note, the courses are actually quite good from what i've heard from people who have been on them, though they aren't filled with chavvy speed merchants as you may think, just normal decent generally safe folk who don't wants points on their clean licences (clean for decades in some instances)
So, there you are.
I know what you mean. Having crawled home at 15mph, I get to the only free-moving road in 10 miles and just make 30mph on this wide long straight road - and there they are, regularly 9-5, harassing people going home at 35mph and probably fining them at the end of a hard day's work. There simply isn't a safety problem during the day. BUT I know that very same road is on a boy racer circuit, and well into the early hours I can hear (and have often seen) cars doing 90+ without a care. Also my road (a main road) has had numerous fatal accidents, but it has never had a mobile unit in the last 10 years. Probably again because it is too congested 9-5 to be profitable. Makes no sense whatsoever. Well actually it does, perfect sense.
vdp1 said:
vonhosen said:
otolith said:
Depends whether you think the enforcement is in the interests of safety or of the blind obedience of law. If the former, targeting speeding when it does least harm is idiotic, if the latter it's perfectly logical.
I don't see it like that.The general premise of limiting speeds is partly for safety, but if we are to then have them prosecuting for simply not obeying them (whatever the conditions) is perfectly logical. The law in relation to them is written for blind obedience in relation to the upper limit, with no requirement to show a lack of safety in the driving. Other legislation exists for that (where it occurs above or below the limit).
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 June 22:15
vonhosen said:
vdp1 said:
vonhosen said:
otolith said:
Depends whether you think the enforcement is in the interests of safety or of the blind obedience of law. If the former, targeting speeding when it does least harm is idiotic, if the latter it's perfectly logical.
I don't see it like that.The general premise of limiting speeds is partly for safety, but if we are to then have them prosecuting for simply not obeying them (whatever the conditions) is perfectly logical. The law in relation to them is written for blind obedience in relation to the upper limit, with no requirement to show a lack of safety in the driving. Other legislation exists for that (where it occurs above or below the limit).
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 23 June 22:15
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff