RE: Digital speed cameras arrive

[smeggy]

I would pick ii) but with very little focus on speed (above or below 'the limit').
Either an action is dangerous or it isn’t. OK a plod might be having a bad day or might interpret a situation wrong but mandatory use of video evidence (we have the technology and it’s really cheap) will give the accused the chance to exonerate themselves at the next stage. Alongside that we need a campaign demonstrating to drivers what level of speed is inappropriate for a given condition and why. I really think that would be the first step to a really effective and fair solution. Speed cameras can still be used but only in areas where a certain level of speed would automatically be considered to be irresponsible.

[7db]

turbobloke said:

Having people do the assessment allows, even if it's subconsciously in the most robotic of enforcers, a consideration of the degree of risk in the particular situation observed. Ideally this ought (all this imo of course) to be an essential element of the whole speed enforcement process where and when reasonable limits are in use. Since speed isn't dangerous of itself there need to be situational factors that justify enforcement. Automated speed enforcement is flawed partly because speed alone is rarely a problem.

I think you're talking about human enforcement of numerical speed limits. My post was about scrapping numerical limits and having human judgement of "too fast for the conditions". This would mean the offence was complete whenever the human enforcer formed the opinion that the motorist was going "a bit quick". Against this there would be little defence. It is similarly a strict liabiltiy offence, only the burden is subjective not objective.

Obviously separate offences for careless and dangerous driving would still exist for those who were more than "a bit quick" and were dangerous in ways other than speed, with their own definitions and burdens of proof.

[turbobloke]

7db said:

I think you're talking about human enforcement of numerical speed limits. My post was about scrapping numerical limits and having human judgement of "too fast for the conditions".

Yes, I mentioned going a bit further partly for that reason but my intro was snipped

7db said:

This would mean the offence was complete whenever the human enforcer formed the opinion that the motorist was going "a bit quick". Against this there would be little defence. It is similarly a strict liabiltiy offence, only the burden is subjective not objective.

Oooer. The worst of both worlds...

This just makes me more and more certain that police and officialdom need to end their hate affair with speed althogether. There are far more important safety considerations to occupy time with. However the addiction of control freaks to easy enforcement at no cost - or even a profit of maybe a few £hundred millions - and the appeal of an ideological war against private transport will be just too much for nu labia to countenance. Time for a change.

[havoc]

I don't think the police hate the motorist or speeders. I think that the motorist has become an easy political target, and political animals like Brunstrom spotted this as an easy route to advancement.

I think, however, that the motorist as a voting group needs to flex it's collective muscle soon, otherwise we're all royally screwed!!!

[fluffnik]

7db said:

Davi said: havoc said: People 'felt' the system was fair, even if it was inconsistently applied, from a numerical standpoint. (odd eh?!?) Not odd at all, because that's completely the point. Speed, or what could be considered excess speed to be more accurate, is TOTALLY dependant on the conditions at the time, therefore a number enforced by a machine that cannot take account of these is unfair. And similarly the view of the conditions taken by a human enforcer will be unpredicatble and so unfair. It is important to realise that having people do the assessment doesn't make the errors go away -- it just changes around the group of people who get unfairly done and those who unfairly get away with it.

The simple fact is that asrbitrary numerical speed limits cannot be fairly enforced.

Only abolishion is just.

[fluffnik]

7db said:

I think you're talking about human enforcement of numerical speed limits. My post was about scrapping numerical limits and having human judgement of "too fast for the conditions". This would mean the offence was complete whenever the human enforcer formed the opinion that the motorist was going "a bit quick". Against this there would be little defence. It is similarly a strict liabiltiy offence, only the burden is subjective not objective. Obviously separate offences for careless and dangerous driving would still exist for those who were more than "a bit quick" and were dangerous in ways other than speed, with their own definitions and burdens of proof.

Either "a bit quick" means there is a lack of care, or even actual danger, or there should be no offence.

[fluffnik]

havoc said:

I don't think the police hate the motorist or speeders. I think that the motorist has become an easy political target, and political animals like Brunstrom spotted this as an easy route to advancement. I think, however, that the motorist as a voting group needs to flex it's collective muscle soon, otherwise we're all royally screwed!!!

I'm corresponding with all my elected critters letting them know that I strongly disapprove of scameras and arbitrary blanket limits such as the NSL; so should we all.

A vocal minority worries politicians far more than a silent apathetic majority.

[mr2aw11]

Only just looked at this thread - so now I know why the scameras on the A595 at Howgate in Cumbria look smaller than Gatsos.
I find it worrying (as no doubt others have expressed - I haven't read all eight pages!) that digital is allowed, given that such images are so easily manipulated; after all, if insurance co.s and police advise on taking photos on film following an accident to avoid any potential claims of photoshopping by unscrupulous folks, why is it okay for SCPs to use such images when their very survival relys on the revenue they generate?

As an aside, one of the scams on the A595 was the target of an arson attack last Thursday night... [url]www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/viewarticle.aspx?id=363696[/url]

The article mentions that noise/speed has been reduced as a result of the cameras; from my experience driving passed these things, speed has been reduced, i.e., numpties go by at 30 in a 40 ffs! And noise can't have been reduced, cos the same numpties then floor it to get back up to 45 once past the damn things (which are located only twenty yards from a busy pub car park - just what you want, potential for drivers pulling out of a pub, whilst the local eejits are fixated on a small yellow box and their speedometer! But I digress...)

edit for typo

>> Edited by mr2aw11 on Tuesday 9th May 08:05

[vipers]

mr2aw11 said:

numpties go by at 30 in a 40 ffs! then floor it to get back up to 45 once past the damn things, whilst the local eejits are fixated on a small yellow box and their speedometer!

Absolutely correct, but why do they do 30 in 40, and why the fixation on the yellow boxes and speedometers?

Isnt part and parcel of driving to not only to be aware of the speed limits (whether you agree with them or not), and be aware of what speed you are doing? I like many others have absolutely no trouble at all maintaining a constant speed, whether it be 30, 40, 50 or 70, if it was that difficult, would not every driver in the country by now have been done for exceeding set limits?

I often find I am cruising at 70, only to have another car zip past, and slam on the anchors coz he has spotted a camera, more than once these drivers have pulled back in front of me after overtaking, only to slam on the anchors causing me to break sharply, as they drop way below 70 mph. Numpties may well describe them, but other words spring to mind on occasions.