RE: Police trash speed cameras policy

[Flat in Fifth]

Question: If the process of a speedo check significantly compromises safety are you going too fast for the circumstances in the first place?

That imo might apply in DF's example of the camera outside a school at kicking out time when 5mph is too fast judging by daughter's school.

But then empty and quiet motorway roadworks with a temporary 40 limit, not sure it applies there.

Of course the scamps are located in the roadworks.

Trouble with being able to see both sides of the argument.

[NugentS]

Peter Ward said:

dcb said: victormeldrew said: She knows she wasn't speeding, so do I, If you are sure, then time to go to court and fight then, isn't it ? Mistakes do get made - the system isn't perfect. Two of you against one of them and a dodgyscope. Should be easy, shouldn't it! Yes, it does take a brush with the law before many people realise the truth of the situation. But then again, there's an extra 2m-plus each year getting that brush. No wonder the police are starting to distance themselves from their own partners -- with friends like that, etc.

www.pepipoo.com

[havoc]

deltafox said:

havoc said: Speed cameras outside schools, hospitals and shopping centres make a lot of sense. Speed cameras AT (i.e. within 100yds of) a genuine accident blackspot make a fair amount of sense. Talivans and fixed cameras anywhere else are just revenue raising.

Gotta disagree with you Havoc for the following reasons.
Anything that creates a distraction in the areas youve mentioned is a cause of danger.
If attention isnt focussed fully on anticipation and avoidance then the risk of hitting something/someone goes up.
Cameras create diversion of attention from the road to the speedo, every single time someone comes into to their field of influence.
If youre not looking at the road, you cannot react to a situation. Its that simple.
It takes 0.8 seconds to do a speedo check and at 30 mph (if my maths isnt shot) thatll equate to around 43 feet per second travelled without any attention focussed on the road at all.
It gets even worse the longer you travel for.
If you take a conservative figure for speedo checks at say 7 times per mile and your journey is 100 miles; thats over 9 whole minutes with your attention off the roads. You May as well have your eyes shut for those 9 minutes.
And the very last place you want some cash cow camera is outside a school where attention is diverted off of the little beasts exiting the school to your speedo where you effectively have your eyes shut.
The rest of the roads also have no need for cameras for the reasons stated.
[/quote]
Not convinced - you are assuming that all drivers pay attention, which is patently not true. Also, paying attention is not a substitute for driving at/below the speed limit if you're doing 40+ in a large SUV.

I don't like speed cameras, but in the absence of other measures (and modern SUVs can ignore speed humps...hell, a mate's 406 can take them at over 30 comfortably!), you need something to dissuade the idiots from speeding in such locations.

So...40+mph SUV outside of school...what is the solution then, assuming the sort of driver who is more concerned about what Tarquin is up to in the back than with the road in front of her?!?

[deltafox]

Havoc said:

Not convinced - you are assuming that all drivers pay attention, which is patently not true.

Lol no assumptions on that score matey!
But even those that arent paying attention (or full attention at least) are still not(amazingly) lethal weapons on the roads.

Havoc said:

Also, paying attention is not a substitute for driving at/below the speed limit if you're doing 40+ in a large SUV.

I think youll find it has a hand in anticipating the unexpected and doing something about it though.
A big truck would be inadvised to do 30 mph past a school at chucking out time, so the size of the vehicle really doesnt come into the argument. It dosent drive itself so the fault dosent lie within the vehicle type.

Havoc said:

I don't like speed cameras,

Amen brother!

Havoc said:

but in the absence of other measures (and modern SUVs can ignore speed humps...hell, a mate's 406 can take them at over 30 comfortably!), you need something to dissuade the idiots from speeding in such locations.

Well yes SUV's can do that. But so can any other vehicle ill wager if you hit a hump at the right speed.
The idiots youre talking about incidentally (in the SUV's) seem to be driven by the parents(poss generalisation here) who pick up their offspring. Whether or not theyre the "idiots" you describe, i really couldnt say. However the suspicion is there they are.
That being so, what difeerence is a speed camera going to make to these "idiots"? None whatsover as they dont heed warnings cos theyre "idiots".

Havoc said:

So...40+mph SUV outside of school...what is the solution then, assuming the sort of driver who is more concerned about what Tarquin is up to in the back than with the road in front of her?!?

The place to start isnt at Serco's Gatso factory i can tell you that.
An intensive and ongoing road education programme at every school with regular exams and information screenings might be a starting point, after all, nobody makes you run out into the road and get hit....i should know, ive been "that kid".
If i knew then what i know now, do you think id have run out in front of a bus all those years ago? Nope id have had respect for and fear of traffic drilled into me. And rightly so too.
The next place to start is with the driver education programme.
Far too many "attitudes" are being allowed behind the wheel trying to demonstrate to everyone they theyre " the best" when theyre the absolute worst.
Couple that with people who (and it seems far more common these days...) have a defcit of attention and plain old common sense (bloody E numbers and additives) a lack of spatial awareness and the dumbing down of driving through "aids" to get these pricks out of trouble and youre left with the current situation.
Obviously these kinds of people shouldnt be in charge of a duck pond let alone a car.
Clearly the driver programme needs to be a heck of a lot more rigorous than it is now, with Motorway driving and skid control as an integral part of it to name a few.

The trouble with sticking a scamera up is just what ive previously said: It diverts attention. And when youre dealing with people who have a lack of that vital element in the first place, youre just asking for trouble.
Education not scamera enforcement. It dosent work, it costs lives, but by heck, it dont half make a profit.
There are NO circumstances that ANYONE can describe where a scamera will cure road accidents no matter what their proponents may feel. They introduce far more problems than they could ever possibly hope to cure.
Thats my take on it and im sticking to it unless convinced otherwise.

[havoc]

Reasoned and fair argument. Can't argue that education will be, in general, more effective.

But I think it'd be prohibitively expensive, certainly for any mainstream government to implement (unfortunate, but look at what people vote for in this country - tax cuts!!! So we've got the government we deserve! ).

And it'll be unpopular - some of these sort of people won't appreciate being told how to drive, I'm sure...so what WILL work short of threatening their licence?!? All measures will get through to MOST people, it's the hardcore of selfish, arrogant, dangerous and/or wilfully blind numpties we need to protect against...but then you're back to the current policy of policing to the lowest common denominator, which is the first step to a police state...

So...if driver education is the holy grail, but probably in reality unrealistic, at least to the extent required:-
- school education!
- traffic calming - road narrowing with concrete-bollarded islands would be rather effective, better than humps.
- ...?!?

[black-k1]

[quote=deltafox
The trouble with sticking a scamera up is just what ive previously said: It diverts attention. And when youre dealing with people who have a lack of that vital element in the first place, youre just asking for trouble.
Education not scamera enforcement. It dosent work, it costs lives, but by heck, it dont half make a profit.
There are NO circumstances that ANYONE can describe where a scamera will cure road accidents no matter what their proponents may feel. They introduce far more problems than they could ever possibly hope to cure.
Thats my take on it and im sticking to it unless convinced otherwise.
[/quote]

While I agree that “There are NO circumstances that ANYONE can describe where a scamera will cure road accidents” – the key word is cure - to suggest that there are NO circumstances where a scamera will reduce accidents is as naive and simplistic as saying cameras save lives! Thus, what is required is a detailed, unbiased review of what safety improvements are required for each and every different circumstance. The requirement may be a scamera or (likely) may be something else such as road redesign.

I am sure there are certain locations where driving even slightly over the limit is a major road safety risk due to circumstances not immediately obvious even to good drive, especially if they are unfamiliar with that particular road. In my view, cameras sited at such locations would be justified.

I don’t agree with the argument about scameras diverting attention. If (and that’s a big IF) the driver is paying attention then the existence of the camera will not take their concentration away any more than good looking persons of the opposite sex walking along the pavement or the latest Ferrari/Porsche/Aston etc parked just up a side street Should we also campaign for the removal of such distractions?

[deltafox]

black-k1 said:

While I agree that “There are NO circumstances that ANYONE can describe where a scamera will cure road accidents” – the key word is cure - to suggest that there are NO circumstances where a scamera will reduce accidents is as naive and simplistic as saying cameras save lives!

Disagreement here. There are no circumstances in which receiving a £60 fine in the post 2 weeks after a scamera flashes you, where the camera actually made a contribution to the safety of the situation at the time it took your picture. As millions of drivers will attest. So it saved no-one at the time and no one after.
Seeing as how 95% of all accidents happen entirely within the speed limits, i fail to see how a scamera can have any postive influence on them.

black-k1 said:

Thus, what is required is a detailed, unbiased review of what safety improvements are required for each and every different circumstance.

Id go with that.

black-k1 said:

The requirement may be a scamera or (likely) may be something else such as road redesign.

The requirement dosent seem to be considered with the scamships as their only remit appears to be scamera placement and cash generation issues.
Thus road redesign wont ever be considered 1st cos its a cost item, a scamera is a profit item.
Which do you think theyll go for? A road redesign thatll cost em hundreds of thousands, or a scamera thatll earn them that same amount and which they can ply the gullible with bogus stats to keep the machine rolling?

black-k1 said:

I am sure there are certain locations where driving even slightly over the limit is a major road safety risk due to circumstances not immediately obvious even to good drive, especially if they are unfamiliar with that particular road. In my view, cameras sited at such locations would be justified.

Thats a narrow perspective. Youre hinting at "exceeding" the speed limit as being the safety issue; its not. Its perfectly possible for the safety of a situation (such as in your example above) to be compromised well within the speed limit. Close your eyes and see how long before you veer off the tarmac....

black-k1 said:

I don’t agree with the argument about scameras diverting attention.

So all those drivers who say opposite are wrong then? Theyre all lying when they say they constantly look at their speedos in a scamera area (heck theyre not looking at the road?!) and panic braking? Speed cameras DONT divert attention? Not even for a short time? Do you want to have another think about that one? I think youre seriously wrong and the very last thing we need in an accident prone area is another source of diversion of attention which scameras demonstrably do!

black-k1 said:

If (and that’s a big IF) the driver is paying attention then the existence of the camera will not take their concentration away any more than good looking persons of the opposite sex walking along the pavement or the latest Ferrari/Porsche/Aston etc parked just up a side street Should we also campaign for the removal of such distractions?

One we can do something about, the others we cant. Theres no excuse for not grasping the nettle and getting these blasted machines off of our streets, and theres zero justification for adding to a drivers distractions.

Regards DF.

[black-k1]

deltafox said:

… Said many things which are valid ….

…But

The key point here is that as speed increases so does the risk to safety! If we have no speed at all there will be no accidents! (No one will get anywhere but statistically it would be a total triumph!) I am sure that you would also agree that if we all were to drive flat out all the time then there would be many more accidents than there are now. All very simplistic I know, but does show that there is a direct relation between speed and the RISK of accidents. Going faster doesn’t guarantee an accident (as implied by the “speed kills” brigade), but it does increase the risk.

What we all do every time we drive is balance the risk and the benefit. By going faster, we increase risk but we make a judgement call as to the acceptability of that risk based on the surroundings and the circumstances. The thing to remember is that every driver on the road is making separate judgements all the time, and you only have to read the vast array of “Moron other driver” threads on PH to understand that everyother driver out there (except PHers, naturally!) is not mentally capable of making such judgements

Positioning scameras in locations where judging risk based on the surroundings and the circumstances is difficult, but where increased speed would also give a disproportionate increase in risk, will impose the threat of a £60 fine and 3points. This will cause some of the traffic to slow thus reducing the risk. Likewise, the driver who ignores this first time through, then receives the fine and points, is very likely to be more careful next time they drive that section of road.

I think there are too many cameras on the roads today and that they are generally being located in places where they have little to no impact on road safety, but have a big impact on revenue generation. As stated, I think that each and ever situation requires an unbiased review with a number of different options for improving safety. But, I also think that there are some (not many!) circumstances where the scamera can genuinely help reduce the risk of accidents and thus improve road safety.

Regards

Black-K1

[deltafox]

black-k1 said:

The key point here is that as speed increases so does the risk to safety!

Not true im afraid! Take for example a motorway, our safest roads. Now the limit is 70, thats double and then some of a 30 zone, yet less accidents.
Ill wager that if the traffic was removed from the motorways for a day and a driver did 200mph along one of them that he'd be in ok shape at the end of it.
Its not the speed that increases the risk, its external factors like traffic density and pedestrian density, local conditions, road type and location thats the main determinator of risk.
Admittedly if you attempt to do 100 in a 30 zone, youre just asking for trouble, but its more than possible dependent on conditions at the time you do it. 3.25am for eg is a heck of a lot safer than 3.25pm (kicking out time for the sprogs).

black-k1 said:

I am sure that you would also agree that if we all were to drive flat out all the time then there would be many more accidents than there are now.

Absolutely. But thats all to do with setting a safe speed for conditions prevailing and nothing to do with exceeding a "limit" that isnt really a "limit" at all.

black-k1 said:

All very simplistic I know, but does show that there is a direct relation between speed and the RISK of accidents. Going faster doesn’t guarantee an accident (as implied by the “speed kills” brigade), but it does increase the risk.

Simple is good, i like simple. KISS theory. Still not convinced that going faster than a signed speed limit automatically increases risk. It again depends on local conditions at the site youre doing it.

black-k1 said:

By going faster, we increase risk but we make a judgement call as to the acceptability of that risk based on the surroundings and the circumstances.

Basically what i was saying.

black-k1 said:

The thing to remember is that every driver on the road is making separate judgements all the time, and you only have to read the vast array of “Moron other driver” threads on PH to understand that everyother driver out there (except PHers, naturally!) is not mentally capable of making such judgements

I wouldnt go so far as to say that PHers are somehow better drivers than the rest of the population, you only have to read some of the threads with refs to who spun which car on what roundabout etc....

black-k1 said:

Positioning scameras in locations where judging risk based on the surroundings and the circumstances is difficult, but where increased speed would also give a disproportionate increase in risk, will impose the threat of a £60 fine and 3points. This will cause some of the traffic to slow thus reducing the risk. Likewise, the driver who ignores this first time through, then receives the fine and points, is very likely to be more careful next time they drive that section of road.

Sorry, that strategy depends on offenders being prosecuted. The slowly dawning fact on the scammers and their useful idiot supporters is that it aint working as evidenced by the rising numbers of fines being doled out.
If scameras slowed drivers down then the opposite would happen and its not.
Also in order for a driver to learn from being scammed at a location he has to know what the actual speed limits are, something the scammers are not keen to have painted on their treasure chests.
At the end of the day the scammers couldnt care less about our lives or saving them, they just want your cash and or your licence, its in the interests to do so.

black-k1 said:

I think there are too many cameras on the roads today and that they are generally being located in places where they have little to no impact on road safety, but have a big impact on revenue generation.

Lol you got that one right!

black-k1 said:

As stated, I think that each and ever situation requires an unbiased review with a number of different options for improving safety. But, I also think that there are some (not many!) circumstances where the scamera can genuinely help reduce the risk of accidents and thus improve road safety.

I dont concur because in order to make it work (being fined then learning from being scammed) every single driver in the country (25 mill? ) would have to be scammed at each site (some are still covert like the talivans) and thats 25mill X £60=£1.5 billionX number of scam sites= Loads!
With each driver getting done a number of times a year its obvious what scameras are really about and its nothing to do with safety issues.
Any driver anywhere who got a fine in the post proves the futility of scameras as a safety device cos the simple facts are that if scameras slow you down, then where are all these fines coming from? There shouldnt be any speeding tickets going out. Remember "Its working".....not.

[james_j]

Well-argued DeltaF, agree with you on all points.

[deltafox]

james_j said:

Well-argued DeltaF, agree with you on all points.

Thank you!

[apache]

One misconception is that, with the removal of a speed limit everyone will drive flat out but it doesn't seem to be a problem in Germany.
Unfortunately that is not going to happen though is it, the govt have painted themselves into a corner with 'speed' and there is no way back now, all we can hope for is less anal retention over adherance to these limits and a return to 'real' policing

[james_j]

apache said:

One misconception is that, with the removal of a speed limit everyone will drive flat out but it doesn't seem to be a problem in Germany.

That's right - as if everyone will roll their car at the first corner just because they're not told what speed to go at.

[JoolzB]

"Their benefits are strictly limited to speeding offences and do nothing to tackle the array of other dangerous driving offences"
This implies to me that speeding is still considered dangerous driving.

What is encouraging is that there seems alot of focus on the scameras recently, newspapers mainly and now the police are joining in, perhaps because the government seems to becoming more aware of Joe Po's anger over their use and their after affects.

I do find it a bit ironic how the police are now starting to criticise and yet some of the worst speed traps I have seen have been manned by cops, often hidden.

[black-k1]

deltafox said:

Not true im afraid! Take for example a motorway, our safest roads. Now the limit is 70, thats double and then some of a 30 zone, yet less accidents. Ill wager that if the traffic was removed from the motorways for a day and a driver did 200mph along one of them that he'd be in ok shape at the end of it. Its not the speed that increases the risk, its external factors like traffic density and pedestrian density, local conditions, road type and location thats the main determinator of risk.

You are not comparing like with like here. (Careful, that’s how the government “prove” the benefit of cameras!!!! ) Firstly, motorways are specifically engineered to reduce risk at higher speeds where most other roads are not. Additionally, in your example of a 200mph run on a motorway you have not allowed for mechanical failure. If you were to do a large number of such runs then, statistically, there will be a mechanical failure at some point. This may or may not result in an accident but at 200mph, the result could be …. Spectacular!!!! If the same runs were undertaken at 30mph then:

a) The likelihood of mechanical failure is reduced as the stress placed on the vehicle is less.
b) If the failure does occur and an accident follows then the likelihood of there being a KSI is considerably less as the forces involved are so much less.

Likewise, the ability of the driver, (who is concentrating – and there are few of them!), to process information does not change with speed thus, at 200mph, unplanned events will come upon him "quicker".

While all of the factors you give do increase the risk, there would still be no accidents whatever if there was no vehicle speed. A full motorway with a very bad surface and with pedestrians walking all over it would be totally safe if the vehicles were not moving!!!

Sorry - Have to post response in two halves! (Can't we waffle??? )

[black-k1]

deltafox said:

Absolutely. But thats all to do with setting a safe speed for conditions prevailing and nothing to do with exceeding a "limit" that isnt really a "limit" at all.

Agreed but there are too many morons out there who don’t know what a safe speed for the conditions is and even the best drivers get it wrong some times. Thus, there has to be some sort of rule to ensure that excessive speed is not used. This is done by stating a maximum for any given location.

As soon as you have any rule you also have to have a policy, with penalties, for dealing with those who break that rule. A scamera is a very efficient device for detecting those who break THAT rule.

The issue is that a very large percentage of the driving population (rightly) don’t feel there is any road safety benefit from the current location of speed scameras thus tend not to adjust there driving other than to avoid being caught. If scameras were ONLY positioned in locations where speed did pose a seriously increased risk then I think most people would ensure that they drove both very carefully and within the limit in those locations. In such circumstances, speed cameras would be viewed in the same way as red light cameras. Sure, they occasionally got it wrong, as does any "rule enforcement method", but in the majority of circumstances, they did a good job. The difficulty is getting from where we are now to such a situation.

PS – Sorry to lucozade for the thread hijack