"We want more cameras"
Discussion
FourWheelDrift said:
Let me describe what the vast majority of motorists (those that have no convictions, points anything, the ones that have been driving for "donkeys years") do when they see a camera. I have witnessed this many times as a passenger and observer.
Despite travelling at or below the speed limit shown, they spot the camera, their attention is immediately diverted from the road, they brake without warning, looking at their speedometer constantly shifting between speedo and camera as they drive past, then looking in their mirror to see if it flashes after driving past.
As I say I have witnessed this and it's because these normally safe drivers and totally safe before camera's were installed are scared of getting any kind of criminal record or fine in a completely unblemished driving life.
I wonder how many cameras have caught rear-ender shunts when the first car brakes without warning........oh, of course they won't because they wouldn't have been going above the limit in the first place
I see no point to camera's even outside schools as everyone who's got a brain watches their speed in these areas, anyone who doesn't would still drive though too fast even if there was a camera there because they have no observation skills anyway.
As for dangerous junctions/bends etc.... if the highways authority actually cuts the grass regularly, makes hedge & road adjustments for better visibility for junctions on corners, installs proper roadsigns warning of what's ahead then this will cut the deaths far more effectively than a camera.
You know, you are exactly right. I am that person you described in the first sentence. I do exactly what you said also.
Grouch.
Dibble said:
...it's a great shame that there's no such thing as a magic accident reducing machine.
Yes there is. Me. And other TrafPol.
Standing by to get flamed for such huge arrogance. But surely I'm better than complete automation?
You won't get flamed from me.
We need you guys. And we don't need cameras. The death toll in Essex is up, and guess what? they are gonna fit more cameras! how clever. When there are no more BiB on traffic, I will remove the plates & stop worrying about being caught, ever. AS will every one else.
Streetcop said:
I can't tell when I've stopped someone for simple speeding whether or not they are a good driver or not...
Street
Surely you can if you've followed them for a short while.
If you merely stop them after pointing your hair dryer at them that's rather less of a guide to their driving ability, speed limit compliance apart.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
safespeed said:
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.
Agreed. The press on regardless types are the ones that bother me most.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Streetcop said:So it's just an urban myth that when the police target misuse of disabled parking bays they get loadsa scrotes? Or doesn't that count because they aren't actually driving at the time? Or are they the exceptions?
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....
Streetcop said:Strange, but round my way the number of scrote fatalities seem to be exceeding our ration of killed all on their own. And they reckon fatalities are falling what with all the speed cameras. How does that work then?
Where the vast majority of KSI collisions involve 'decent' people in 'decent' cars.....
Street
TripleS said:
I can't tell when I've stopped someone for simple speeding whether or not they are a good driver or not...
Street
Surely you can if you've followed them for a short while.
If you merely stop them after pointing your hair dryer at them that's rather less of a guide to their driving ability, speed limit compliance apart.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I was really referring to the 'hairdryer' incidents...
Street
Streetcop said:
Streetcop said:
I can't tell when I've stopped someone for simple speeding whether or not they are a good driver or not...
Street
Surely you can if you've followed them for a short while.
If you merely stop them after pointing your hair dryer at them that's rather less of a guide to their driving ability, speed limit compliance apart.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I was really referring to the 'hairdryer' incidents...
Street
Which could be evidence why this system does not prove cconclusively who is dangerous and who is not
Streetcop said:
which is why you are done for 'exceeding the speed limit' and not 'dangerous driving'
Street
Ah! But did these people cause any accidents whilst they were exceeding the speed limit
And if they are potential risk - how do you get them to understand - as the fine only seems to cause resentment and no learning safespeed said:
I was really referring to the 'hairdryer' incidents...
I think we're getting through to you aren't we?
Look, just use your damn hairdryer on the approach to a hazard and ticket the ones who don't respond to the hazard.
You know it makes sense.
Sounds just like the safety camera system. Put in speed enforcement near a hazard/accident black-spot and issue tickets to those that don't respond.
I never thought I'd see it but here it is SafeSpeed giving endorsement to the safety camera ideology.
destroyer said:
Streetcop said:
I was really referring to the 'hairdryer' incidents...
I think we're getting through to you aren't we?
Look, just use your damn hairdryer on the approach to a hazard and ticket the ones who don't respond to the hazard.
You know it makes sense.
Sounds just like the safety camera system. Put in speed enforcement near a hazard/accident black-spot and issue tickets to those that don't respond.
I never thought I'd see it but here it is SafeSpeed giving endorsement to the safety camera ideology.
Unfortunately, the fools in charge of the speed camera programme specifically exclude such use:
www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html
No wonder public confidence has been smashed.
safespeed said:
safespeed said:
Streetcop said:
I was really referring to the 'hairdryer' incidents...
I think we're getting through to you aren't we?
Look, just use your damn hairdryer on the approach to a hazard and ticket the ones who don't respond to the hazard.
You know it makes sense.
Sounds just like the safety camera system. Put in speed enforcement near a hazard/accident black-spot and issue tickets to those that don't respond.
I never thought I'd see it but here it is SafeSpeed giving endorsement to the safety camera ideology.
Unfortunately, the fools in charge of the speed camera programme specifically exclude such use:
www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html
No wonder public confidence has been smashed.
I think only you could change "putting speed enforcement cameras next to or at accident locations" to "not putting speed enforcement cameras next to or at accident locations".
destroyer said:like schools, high streets and urban areas, where the majority occur? Or on motorways and dual carriageways where, oddly enough, cameras are most numerous?
I think only you could change "putting speed enforcement cameras next to or at accident locations" to "not putting speed enforcement cameras next to or at accident locations".
destroyer said:
Sounds just like the safety camera system. Put in speed enforcement near a hazard/accident black-spot and issue tickets to those that don't respond.
I never thought I'd see it but here it is SafeSpeed giving endorsement to the safety camera ideology.
Unfortunately, the fools in charge of the speed camera programme specifically exclude such use:
<a href="http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html">www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html</a>
No wonder public confidence has been smashed.
I think only you could change "putting speed enforcement cameras next to or at accident locations" to "not putting speed enforcement cameras next to or at accident locations".
I think there's something seriously wrong with your comprehension.
Even Brunstrom agrees. The Times reported:
"Mr Brunstrom is also lobbying for the abolition of the rule which requires police to demonstrate that the vast majority of cars break the speed limit on a road before they can deploy a camera. He believes that this prevents forces from targeting roads where the danger comes from the occasional reckless driver breaking the limit by a large margin."
www.timesonline.co.uk/displayPopup/0,,29128,00.html
destroyer said:
Sounds just like the safety camera system. Put in speed enforcement near a hazard/accident black-spot and issue tickets to those that don't respond.
I never thought I'd see it but here it is SafeSpeed giving endorsement to the safety camera ideology.
Like on bridges over free flowing motorways with no accident history?
You could also take the Herts SCP approach and position a camera AFTER a "dangerous" junction, round a bend and partially obscured behind a bus stop. A junction, coincidentally, that has only improved now a set of traffic lights has gone in, as most, if not all of the incidents that occured were poor right turns. What do you suppose will get the credit for any reduction in accidents that occurs? Even if you believe that cameras are the solution to all our motoring ills, as Destroyer seems to, how on earth can siting a camera after a blackspot benefit ANYONE? Surely logic dictates that if speed is a problem on that road (big if) and you have a dangerous junction, siting a camera that made people slow down BEFORE the junction might be a better idea than letting them drive through the junction at a reckless 36mph THEN get pinged?
The stretch of road before the junction is straight for about half a mile, yet they've stuck the camera round a bend. Why would that be I wonder? More worryingly, what happens if someone comes round the corner a little hot and stamps on the brakes? Where are they going to slide if they lose control? Into oncoming traffic! Bravo! How safe.
>> Edited by hornet on Sunday 17th October 19:04
Mad Moggie said:
People walking around with knives in their pockets haven't caused any injuries, yet..
Street
And should they do - then we have deliberate intent to do harm - mens rea
You don't need any of that....ask your army of BiB, lawyer, judges, politician family members...
Don't need deliberate intent or the bandying of the term 'mens rea' it's an offence...per se!
Street
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff