RE: Digital speed cameras arrive
Discussion
lol think hes on the wrong website... discuss the speeding fines being used to provide a better service at www.labour.org.uk/home ... oh wait they wouldn't dream of a discussion forum becuase they would get so many complaints, this is a democracy after all!
Deltafox said:
It cant contribute to safety at the time the photo is taken because the transgression has already happened.
I've always had this opinion, including CCTV. It's great for filiming someone getting beaten up, mugged, etc. But wouldn't it be better if that person wasn't beaten up, mugged, etc in the first place? Same for speed cameras, more trafpol to educate bad motorists and improve driving standards, and prosecute when deemed nessecary.
catso said:Bugger - that's just up the road from where I used to live, and my folks still do ...
RedSpeed International Limited
Unit 21
Birchen Coppice Trading Estate
Stourport Road
Kidderminster
Worcestershire
DY11 7QY
Tel: +44 (0) 1562 825556
Fax: +44 (0) 1562 747165
E-mail: sales@redspeed-int.com
May be worth a trip.
Oli.
xanderjones said:
It cant contribute to safety at the time the photo is taken because the transgression has already happened.
I've always had this opinion, including CCTV. It's great for filiming someone getting beaten up, mugged, etc. But wouldn't it be better if that person wasn't beaten up, mugged, etc in the first place? Same for speed cameras, more trafpol to educate bad motorists and improve driving standards, and prosecute when deemed nessecary.
It's nice to see some people can think straight.
FestivAli said:
And arguably contributing to society by donating his fine to provide better services... (theoretically)
Ali.
Better services? Are you having a laugh? More like 50,000 more speed cameras, holidays for Tony on the queen's jet, millenium domes and invading the middle east.
james_j said:
Anyone want to bet on how easy these will be to destroy/disable?
Ive spotted a fatal flaw in their deployment and construction
Put em up, theyll soon come down!
Would take you no more than 20-30 seconds to render it limp, just like Blairs "tough on the causes of crime" c*ck.
I imagine the strips / sensors in the road to be quite delicate...
Theoretically of course the best means of physical attack would have to be to the peizo detectors in the road surface. Major fault finding then disruption to fix one of those. All you'd need would be a big drill. Imagine having to close the road to repair it every week!
As for a legal defense against a speeding fine I notice that the website states "By using key encryption codes (KEKS) for encryption an image is transformed into random data, ensuring the nature of the data is unrecognisable to an unauthorised observer. This makes it totally impossible to select or alter any part of an image or even to monitor it, which allows for maximum security." If there was someway of proving that the encryption wasn't secure then you could argue that the 'evidence' could have been tampered with hence it is insecure. Might get you off, I suggest finding a software encryption expert willing to provide some 'expert' opinion on the subject!
So, on this page:
www.redspeed-int.com/en/customers_case_studies_contra_flow.htm
...."Project Manager, Dick Bowen, from the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership commented:
“Temporary 40mph and 50mph limits have been introduced to reduce the risk of accidents, protect the motoring public and ensure the safety of workers carrying out this essential work on the motorway. The speed limits are well-signed in advance and we appeal to drivers to control their speed to avoid being involved in a collision in which they or others could be seriously injured” ......
Why then is the Ford Focus (NC04 VWF) driver on the violation list for doing 36.2 m.p.h?
I also really like the new ability to 'Export Violations'.
www.redspeed-int.com/common/images/case_study/image03.jpg
Oh dear - should have stopped reading there, but on the same page:
"...Health and Safety is probably one the biggest concerns for a road works project of this size as it is so close to fast moving traffic. In the year 2000 over 1500 people on motorways and trunk roads were injured in road works in more than 800 accidents. Between the years 2000 and 2002, 11 road workers were actually killed. Following these statistics it has been said that road workers have the 16 th most hazardous occupation in Great Britain , higher than the military personnel."
Could this be correct? Any actuaries here that can assist?
www.redspeed-int.com/en/customers_case_studies_contra_flow.htm
...."Project Manager, Dick Bowen, from the Avon and Somerset Safety Camera Partnership commented:
“Temporary 40mph and 50mph limits have been introduced to reduce the risk of accidents, protect the motoring public and ensure the safety of workers carrying out this essential work on the motorway. The speed limits are well-signed in advance and we appeal to drivers to control their speed to avoid being involved in a collision in which they or others could be seriously injured” ......
Why then is the Ford Focus (NC04 VWF) driver on the violation list for doing 36.2 m.p.h?
I also really like the new ability to 'Export Violations'.
www.redspeed-int.com/common/images/case_study/image03.jpg
Oh dear - should have stopped reading there, but on the same page:
"...Health and Safety is probably one the biggest concerns for a road works project of this size as it is so close to fast moving traffic. In the year 2000 over 1500 people on motorways and trunk roads were injured in road works in more than 800 accidents. Between the years 2000 and 2002, 11 road workers were actually killed. Following these statistics it has been said that road workers have the 16 th most hazardous occupation in Great Britain , higher than the military personnel."
Could this be correct? Any actuaries here that can assist?
havoc said:
lexham...interesting that their data is from 2000-02! What's wrong with more recent data? Does it show that 00-02 was a statistical blip, and that roadwork-accidents aren't as dangerous as they claim?!?
Road works are dangerous, more so when a camera is present www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html
M3BHP said:
One was installed on Portsmouth Road just outside of Kingston town centre a week ago, well hidden in the dark! There's no 'Speed Camera' signs around it either so it's proabably paid for itself already...
That is actually illegal - all speed cameras must have signage withing 1km (IIRC) to show where they are, and the speed limit has to be posted.
nubbin said:
One was installed on Portsmouth Road just outside of Kingston town centre a week ago, well hidden in the dark! There's no 'Speed Camera' signs around it either so it's proabably paid for itself already...
That is actually illegal - all speed cameras must have signage withing 1km (IIRC) to show where they are, and the speed limit has to be posted.
Correct but it's not as simple as that. There only needs to be one sign on route to the enforcement zone (source: DfT handbook of rules). The route taken to the enforcement site may not include the warning sign; hence it stands to reason that many drivers will not get any warning.
I've seen two of these going up on the A14 west in Cambridge, not the main road but the last uphill/downhill stretch before the road becomes one lane and turns into the A428. They've been onveniently placed near the bridge so that you only see them last-minute, that is what really get's my back up: by hiding them they want you to be caught so in effect they want you to break the speed limit not slow down. They should be about compliance not capture. I've driven that stetch of road for years and NEVER seen an accident there. It's utterly ludicrous, and I'm not even against speed cameras in principle, I think they have a limited role. If you get plenty of warning and they're at a potential accident spot like a country road funneling onto a dual carriageway, then fine slow the traffic at that point but far too many are misplaced.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff