"We want more cameras"
Discussion
Streetcop said:
I must be a bad one then....as I can't tell the difference 100% of the time...or even 50% of the time....
I bet you can. I bet if you see a vehicle and think there's a problem there usually will be. I bet you just have to trust your instincts more.
"Gut reactions" are frequently highly accurate in experienced people because of a psychological selection process that I can only describe in electronics terms. I call it "first through the noise floor". This is where, in a general background of plenty of signals and information, something briefly stands out. This often happens because the outstanding thing is just slightly "louder" (i.e. has more amplitude) than the surrounding things.
When people say they spotted somthing by instinct there's usually a "first through the noise floor" mechanism behind it somewhere.
telecat said:
I'm afraid in my coreespondence with the person in charge of West yorks scameras(Hello Philip), I did not feel he took any note of my concerns and objections regarding his "Scameras". He merely sent out pre-prepared emails in response to my reasonable questions. I was also warned by other PH'ers that in the past he has also passed on email addresses to "spammers" in order to get them off his back. Not exactly the person you would want in charge!
Can't they have him under data protection?
Even an unsuccessful investigation would hurt him.
safespeed said:
I was talking with a bunch of seriously mad bikers. They thought speed cameras were just great because they could ride as nutty as they wanted between them.
Sadly there are a lot of halfbaked pretzels in jazzed up scrote-mobiles who think as above. But these are the people who challenge you to pursuit are they not? My cousin in North East has been been involved in a highish profile hammering of these guys. Successful to a point - he says.
Streetcop said:
The bottom line is that the group of folk nicked by speed cameras is NOT the group who use speed dangerously - it's pretty random.
What?
Camera debate aside...Why isn't it the group that speed dangerously?
Could it be that whenever I've done people for speeding, that is the first time they've ever done it?
Of course it is not the first time they exceeded a speed limit. We all do - even you - and you once said you "feel the speed at 37mph" couple of thousand posts back, Liebchen. Do that in Lancs and Dibbles won't be "'avin' ya !" - but his robopal in yellow suit will. And you will be invited to a little course
Point is that Dibble, like my cousin in Durham, and yourself probably and hopefully, look at the speed (blip, or deliberate blat, or even dead from neck up and never seen the lollipop or whatever
) of vehicle, the road conditions at the time, and take in the how the car was driven - safely, smoothly or carelessly, and decide whether or not to give stern lecture or an FP. Streetcop said:
It's a bit like the no seat belt merchant. "I normally always wear it"...
Either I'm the luckiest police officer in the world to catch everybody the first time they commit an offence, or each of them is the unluckiest as the first time they do something wrong they get caught..
It must be your influence on people - Liebchen..
Streetcop said:
Now Trafpol, by complete contrast, have a statistically proven nose for trouble. You just have to remember to use your instincts and your experience all the time.
That's all very well...but scrotes and such like don't cause that many crashes. They drive about like Miss Daisy because they don't want to draw attention. Of course, there are exceptions....
Where the vast majority of KSI collisions involve 'decent' people in 'decent' cars.....
Street
You saying that these scrotes who do not have licences are "toppest drivers" Liebchen?
My cousin BiB tells me he tends to go for young scrote in car who is driving "too cautiously" as his instinct says "check out!" His area's KSI figures feature more scrotes in them than "decent folk" - and they did not occur because he chased them either - there is a pocket up there where they are dealing with chav tearaways and born again bikers who hurtle around at almost 200 mph
- regularly and he is getting a bit fed up of picking up limbs here... As for the decent folk who are unlucky enough to be involved in accident - the very people who would benefit and take note of COAST if given such advice by you if you pull them, and my eldest (new driver of two days) has just been on solo drive today and said Lancs has placed bits of COAST on the back of a bus..in a "THINK!"..
They are lurking here 
safespeed said:
I must be a bad one then....as I can't tell the difference 100% of the time...or even 50% of the time....
I bet you can. I bet if you see a vehicle and think there's a problem there usually will be. I bet you just have to trust your instincts more.
Absolutely..but that's for scrotes with no insurance or no licence...or wanted on warrant...or drugs in the car...etc etc....
I have an excellent record for that...and have a good reputuation in my police station...(I'm proud..as reputation are easy to come by and hard to shake in the police)..
BUT,
I can't tell when I've stopped someone for simple speeding whether or not they are a good driver or not...
Street
WildCat said:
You saying that these scrotes who do not have licences are "toppest drivers" Liebchen?
No I'm just saying for every scrote KSI..there are 20 KSIs involving decent people in decent cars...
WildCat said:
As for the decent folk who are unlucky enough to be involved in accident - the very people who would benefit and take note of COAST if given such advice by you if you pull them
I often do stop many people and give them advice...However, sad as it is.....people tend to learn when they're hit in the pocket.....sad but true..
Street
Streetcop said:
BUT,
I can't tell when I've stopped someone for simple speeding whether or not they are a good driver or not...
I expect that's because you're stopping folk on the basis of their speed alone. You're not applying the filter, and you're getting a random sample.
There's a far better way... Use your instincts.
The whole "are they driving well even if they're over the limit (speed)" is a dangerous / difficult one - unless you follow a car for a couple of miles or more, I can imagine it IS difficult to accurately assess their driving ability.
However...one thing that is consistently omitted, but which cameras can't judge, is road conditions
Whether it's busy or quiet, night or day, wet / dry / foggy / icy, or even whether there are kids about or not. All of these a good driver will consider when setting their speed, and all of these a copper will (hopefully) consider when deciding at what point to pull someone over.
However...one thing that is consistently omitted, but which cameras can't judge, is road conditions
Whether it's busy or quiet, night or day, wet / dry / foggy / icy, or even whether there are kids about or not. All of these a good driver will consider when setting their speed, and all of these a copper will (hopefully) consider when deciding at what point to pull someone over.
Dibble said:
...and my eldest (new driver of two days) has just been on solo drive today
Well done. Hope he stays safe on the roads.
Cheers! Hope so too.
He is doing his "Pass Plus" thingy now and then intends to follow "family tradition" by doing an IAM asap etc. Skid pan/braking course has been arranged before winter sets in - I need to know my eldest "baby" can handle a skid in bad weather conditions....we get lots of micro-climates around here....
havoc said:
The whole "are they driving well even if they're over the limit (speed)" is a dangerous / difficult one - unless you follow a car for a couple of miles or more, I can imagine it IS difficult to accurately assess their driving ability.
Let me turn this around a bit. If they are not driving badly by some measure, why bother to pull them over? What's the benefit?
The problem is that we have somehow got to a point where bad driving is sometimes judged by reference to a speed expressed in miles per hour alone. But that's wrong wrong wrong.
You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour.
safespeed said:Or to put it another way, do you mean that when you stop someone for "simple speeding" there is no other cause for concern, i.e. there is no evidence of dangerous driving? If this is the case then by stopping someone for "simple speeding" alone you are replicating a scamera are you not?
BUT,
I can't tell when I've stopped someone for simple speeding whether or not they are a good driver or not...
I expect that's because you're stopping folk on the basis of their speed alone. You're not applying the filter, and you're getting a random sample.
There's a far better way... Use your instincts.
Quite honestly, given your history of posting on here, I very much doubt of you ever stop someone for just "simple speeding". In the interests of you future credibility please confirm that this is the case!
WYSCP said:
West Yorkshire's Safety Camera Partnership states:
You might be surprised at how many concerned individuals, community groups and neighbourhood representatives contact us every month to ask if we can help improve local conditions by setting up safety cameras.
Might be surprised, but apparently not allowed to be surprised... The information isn't allowed to be made public, it seems - from a conversation a few moments ago. Hmmm....
safespeed said:
Let me turn this around a bit. If they are not driving badly by some measure, why bother to pull them over? What's the benefit?
Hmmm ... "driving badly by some measure" could include failure to observe following BiB and adjust speed (perhaps less so in case of unmarked BiB). If that is a fair test, BiB would pull everybody (after period of following) who hasn't slowed no matter how safe driving is otherwise.
observer said:
Let me turn this around a bit. If they are not driving badly by some measure, why bother to pull them over? What's the benefit?
Hmmm ... "driving badly by some measure" could include failure to observe following BiB and adjust speed (perhaps less so in case of unmarked BiB). If that is a fair test, BiB would pull everybody (after period of following) who hasn't slowed no matter how safe driving is otherwise.
In short, the speed you travel at has little bearing on the "safety" of the situation.
observer said:
Let me turn this around a bit. If they are not driving badly by some measure, why bother to pull them over? What's the benefit?
Hmmm ... "driving badly by some measure" could include failure to observe following BiB and adjust speed (perhaps less so in case of unmarked BiB). If that is a fair test, BiB would pull everybody (after period of following) who hasn't slowed no matter how safe driving is otherwise.
Well, of course. The next thing we would need to do is define useful measures.
However, I suspect that our skilled traffic officers can derive a useful measure by applying instinct to the simple act of observation.
One useful measure is observing someone who fails to reduce speed when approaching a hazard (given that the hazard in question suggests that speed reduction is required). I see oodles of other drivers "rushing into danger" - these are the excessive speed problem drivers - not the ones exceeding a speed limit in clear conditions.
If I was tasked to nick speeders, I'd set myself up on the approach to a hazard and nick those that didn't respond to it safely.
deltaf said:
In short, the speed you travel at has little bearing on the "safety" of the situation.
Agreed. But failing to reduce speed in proximity to BiB could/would reasonably influence BiB's perception of how 'safe' a driver is and, accordingly, decision whether to pull or not. BiB will speak for themselves but if I had been speeding with BiB following for a minute or two and shown no sign of noticing them, I wouldn't be surprised to be pulled and (at least) reminded to use my mirrrors, no matter how good my driving otherwise appeared.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff