Fixed speed cams blamed for dangerous braking blackspots
Discussion
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/93252/fixed-...
Just spotted this, from October 2015. If it's been covered before, I missed it.
No surprise here, then.
Just spotted this, from October 2015. If it's been covered before, I missed it.
No surprise here, then.
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
Hide them is an obvious answer.
But then you'd be failing in your duty to highlight dangerous black spots. Tut tut. You'd be making much more money, though, I'll give you that.
If they are speeding, just braking for the cameras & having collisions they aren't doing whats required anyway.
Big brother tactics, money making at the expense of those who you are supposedly protecting by claiming they are all lawbreakers. People brake because they are ensuring that they enter the 'danger zone' designated by the camera positioning at the correct speed as dictated by your signage, if you fail to show these supposed 'hotspots' and try to teach people through covert tactics, you would create a 'us against them' atmosphere way more dangerous than it already does. Remember the days when covert grey boxes were set alight, blown up, knocked over? Doesn't happen so much now does it? Maybe it will if the atmosphere changes back to one of a police state...... this isn't communist Russia! Used to be hilarious videos of exploding boxes and lorries dragging equipment away on YouTube
A few years ago I spoke to a camera van man about where he was parked and how it was causing people to brake exiting a corner when they saw him, potentially causing a crash . His response was "not my problem, they shouldn't be speeding"
So much for the big capital letters on the side of his van that say SAFETY CAMERA.
So much for the big capital letters on the side of his van that say SAFETY CAMERA.
daytona355 said:
Big brother tactics, money making at the expense of those who you are supposedly protecting by claiming they are all lawbreakers. People brake because they are ensuring that they enter the 'danger zone' designated by the camera positioning at the correct speed as dictated by your signage, if you fail to show these supposed 'hotspots' and try to teach people through covert tactics, you would create a 'us against them' atmosphere way more dangerous than it already does. Remember the days when covert grey boxes were set alight, blown up, knocked over? Doesn't happen so much now does it? Maybe it will if the atmosphere changes back to one of a police state...... this isn't communist Russia! Used to be hilarious videos of exploding boxes and lorries dragging equipment away on YouTube
The camera follows the signage, it's not before it. Obey the signs before the camera & you don't get caught. The speed limits don't only apply at the exact location of the camera, they apply for the whole area they are signed. Covert camera there is nothing to spot to brake for, encourages compliance throughout entire area.And if the cameras are hidden, and people see them at an even shorter distance than when they are yellow but normally partially hidden anyway, people brake EVEN HARDER, EVEN LATER, so more crashes, and more that are very serious, much more than a bit of a skid and a few near misses, maybe the camera will be able to photograph the car that hits the front one under braking as it flys through the air? Sounds very safe to me......... But hey, makes money doesn't it, spend some of it on more ambulances and NHS emergency services, they'll pay for the accidents they cause as well...... Spot on, do it.......
Ridiculous.
Being a free country, this means that police, safety services, everyone, MUST BE TRANSPARENT in their approaches, they can't go hiding things that are meant for safety purposes. If it means they catch less people, tough luck, it's about safety, not the money. You guys should be crowing about cameras when they make NO MONEY, not when you list the top ten earning camaras in the country, that just means they don't work, or can't you see that?
Ridiculous.
Being a free country, this means that police, safety services, everyone, MUST BE TRANSPARENT in their approaches, they can't go hiding things that are meant for safety purposes. If it means they catch less people, tough luck, it's about safety, not the money. You guys should be crowing about cameras when they make NO MONEY, not when you list the top ten earning camaras in the country, that just means they don't work, or can't you see that?
daytona355 said:
And if the cameras are hidden, and people see them at an even shorter distance than when they are yellow but normally partially hidden anyway, people brake EVEN HARDER, EVEN LATER, so more crashes, and more that are very serious, much more than a bit of a skid and a few near misses, maybe the camera will be able to photograph the car that hits the front one under braking as it flys through the air? Sounds very safe to me......... But hey, makes money doesn't it, spend some of it on more ambulances and NHS emergency services, they'll pay for the accidents they cause as well...... Spot on, do it.......
Ridiculous.
Being a free country, this means that police, safety services, everyone, MUST BE TRANSPARENT in their approaches, they can't go hiding things that are meant for safety purposes. If it means they catch less people, tough luck, it's about safety, not the money. You guys should be crowing about cameras when they make NO MONEY, not when you list the top ten earning camaras in the country, that just means they don't work, or can't you see that?
Completely covert, looking nothing like a camera & moved around so that people can't work out where they are.Ridiculous.
Being a free country, this means that police, safety services, everyone, MUST BE TRANSPARENT in their approaches, they can't go hiding things that are meant for safety purposes. If it means they catch less people, tough luck, it's about safety, not the money. You guys should be crowing about cameras when they make NO MONEY, not when you list the top ten earning camaras in the country, that just means they don't work, or can't you see that?
The approach is transparent. Speeding = risk of prosecution. Signage will be there to warn you of the limit & enforcement. You choose to do what is required or risk prosecution.
Do what's required it makes no money, you've seen the warnings & decided to run the gauntlet if you get caught.
If they are serious about limit enforcement it's the more sensible.
You realise the police are supposed to work for the people, not the other way around? Trying to criminalise the driving population is a ridiculous opinion to hold, I'd be considering your position if I were you, sounds like you are too biased to be making any policy with regards to such a sensitive issue as the safety of the public.
If you try to hide cameras, people will still look for them, they will brake at every wheelie bin that is out of place, every iffy van parked on the side of the road, very tramp that has something in his hand, and cause carnage very quickly. There is a reason cameras were painted yellow in the first place, it was decided that if they are about safety, they should draw attention to the need for safety and control at those dangerous parts of the road. If they are about criminalisation, money, and trying to catch out the average driver who might creep over a mediocre and inappropriate speed limit, then the decision would not have been made to paint them, nor would they be safety cameras.
Make your mind up, are they really for safety. Plenty of studies pour scorn on their effectiveness. Plenty of roads without cameras have no crashes, or very few crashes, yet I bet speeding still occurs on them. Is there really a true link of speeding to crashes, NO, every study says there isn't. A reduced speed can mean when a crash occurs it is less deadly, but crashes still occur. How many times do dopey old people still hold licences, and end up on the tv explaining to the news how they ended up parked in their neighbours garden, or on top of the railings outside the post office, or reversed into the bowls club. Where are the stringent tests to take their licences away when they are unsafe? What about those that are banned for drinking and driving multiple times, yet still get back behind the wheel and drive, only to get banned again, and drive again. They aren't on cameras of course because they can see five cameras for every real one, so they go everywhere at 10 mph, but via a weaving motion.
Road craft causes crashes, let these kids learn that driving is just a process you go through to get a to b, this won't stop, teach them no phones, no texts, no drugs, and concentrate 100% on driving, they could traverse the country at twice the speed limit yet have barely a scratch in 1000's of miles. Speed doesn't cause the accident, it's the driver themselves. Cameras will never solve that, education and training does, and that should be done from the first lesson, not once they have passed and think they are James hunt or fernando Alonso.
If you try to hide cameras, people will still look for them, they will brake at every wheelie bin that is out of place, every iffy van parked on the side of the road, very tramp that has something in his hand, and cause carnage very quickly. There is a reason cameras were painted yellow in the first place, it was decided that if they are about safety, they should draw attention to the need for safety and control at those dangerous parts of the road. If they are about criminalisation, money, and trying to catch out the average driver who might creep over a mediocre and inappropriate speed limit, then the decision would not have been made to paint them, nor would they be safety cameras.
Make your mind up, are they really for safety. Plenty of studies pour scorn on their effectiveness. Plenty of roads without cameras have no crashes, or very few crashes, yet I bet speeding still occurs on them. Is there really a true link of speeding to crashes, NO, every study says there isn't. A reduced speed can mean when a crash occurs it is less deadly, but crashes still occur. How many times do dopey old people still hold licences, and end up on the tv explaining to the news how they ended up parked in their neighbours garden, or on top of the railings outside the post office, or reversed into the bowls club. Where are the stringent tests to take their licences away when they are unsafe? What about those that are banned for drinking and driving multiple times, yet still get back behind the wheel and drive, only to get banned again, and drive again. They aren't on cameras of course because they can see five cameras for every real one, so they go everywhere at 10 mph, but via a weaving motion.
Road craft causes crashes, let these kids learn that driving is just a process you go through to get a to b, this won't stop, teach them no phones, no texts, no drugs, and concentrate 100% on driving, they could traverse the country at twice the speed limit yet have barely a scratch in 1000's of miles. Speed doesn't cause the accident, it's the driver themselves. Cameras will never solve that, education and training does, and that should be done from the first lesson, not once they have passed and think they are James hunt or fernando Alonso.
The laws are introduced through our elected government & the Police are tasked with upholding the laws of the land.
Don't want to criminalise anyone, quite the opposite.
The idea is that they don't feel comfortable speeding, because of the chances of being caught, so don't do it.
The cameras don't criminalise people, people's actions dictate that.
A thief who doesn't get caught is still a thief, they aren't only a thief if they get caught.
I'm not sure who the them & us you are talking about are.
Don't want to criminalise anyone, quite the opposite.
The idea is that they don't feel comfortable speeding, because of the chances of being caught, so don't do it.
The cameras don't criminalise people, people's actions dictate that.
A thief who doesn't get caught is still a thief, they aren't only a thief if they get caught.
I'm not sure who the them & us you are talking about are.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 10th March 22:59
vonhosen said:
Completely covert, looking nothing like a camera & moved around so that people can't work out where they are.
The approach is transparent. Speeding = risk of prosecution. Signage will be there to warn you of the limit & enforcement. You choose to do what is required or risk prosecution.
Do what's required it makes no money, you've seen the warnings & decided to run the gauntlet if you get caught.
If they are serious about limit enforcement it's the more sensible.
Sensible?The approach is transparent. Speeding = risk of prosecution. Signage will be there to warn you of the limit & enforcement. You choose to do what is required or risk prosecution.
Do what's required it makes no money, you've seen the warnings & decided to run the gauntlet if you get caught.
If they are serious about limit enforcement it's the more sensible.
With unjustifiably low speed limits that are getting lower, many drivers are so twitchy they're searching for cameras when they should be concentrating on hazards. Don't say it doesn't happen, I've seen it from the passenger seat time and time again.
If you hide cameras, they're going to be ultra twitchy and looking for places a camera might be hidden all the time.
This is not the way to make roads safer, it's an irresponsible policy that makes the roads more dangerous.
Cue von, saying they shouldn't be "speeding"...loop back to "unjustifiably low".
If deployed, there would be more cloned plates for avoidance and a bigger headache for von as he's required to track down the real car that hit you and drove off.
Edited by mybrainhurts on Thursday 10th March 23:09
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
Completely covert, looking nothing like a camera & moved around so that people can't work out where they are.
The approach is transparent. Speeding = risk of prosecution. Signage will be there to warn you of the limit & enforcement. You choose to do what is required or risk prosecution.
Do what's required it makes no money, you've seen the warnings & decided to run the gauntlet if you get caught.
If they are serious about limit enforcement it's the more sensible.
Sensible?The approach is transparent. Speeding = risk of prosecution. Signage will be there to warn you of the limit & enforcement. You choose to do what is required or risk prosecution.
Do what's required it makes no money, you've seen the warnings & decided to run the gauntlet if you get caught.
If they are serious about limit enforcement it's the more sensible.
With unjustifiably low speed limits that are getting lower, many drivers are so twitchy they're searching for cameras when they should be concentrating on hazards. Don't say it doesn't happen, I've seen it from the passenger seat time and time again.
If you hide cameras, they're going to be ultra twitchy and looking for places a camera might be hidden all the time.
This is not the way to make roads safer, it's an irresponsible policy that makes the roads more dangerous.
Cue von, saying they shouldn't be "speeding"...loop back to "unjustifiably low".
Councils have been tasked with reviewing limits, I don't see a lot of unjustifiably low limits out there when driving around. i'm not saying 'none' exist, just that in the main limits seem quite reasonable bearing in mind they are a compromise.
I don't get twitchy looking for cameras, where they are most likely to be I tend to try & stick to a speed that they aren,t going to be a concern. Don't have to waste any resources looking for them.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 10th March 23:12
And yet on the motorway you notice people charging up behind a cop car, seemingly oblivious, and suddenly slam the anchors on, even when they are under the limit, while they quickly check their speed, and attempt to creep past the cops, et out of sight, and then drive normally again? And these are highly visible cars with lights and everything. The yellow cameras are hard enough to spot from a distance and yet some people have issues seeing them till the last minute and braking, even these supposed life threatening killer speeders are most likely sensible enough to be vigilant, see the camera, slow in a controlled manner and avoid drawing attention to themselves.
Cameras don't cause good drivers to slam the anchors on, they cause bad drivers to do so, people who are too busy watching their speedo and not seeing what is directly ahead of them, and don't necessarily actually notice the speed limit, so slow to 30 as quick as they can, even if the limit is 40 or even 60 just to go past the camera as they are so wrapped up in their own little world. Good drivers notice, they plan, and yes, they may speed a bit, but they rarely crash. I haven't had a crash ever in a car, yet you all seem to feel I'm a killing machine waiting for my opportunity.... Be a long wait I can tell you.
Cameras don't cause good drivers to slam the anchors on, they cause bad drivers to do so, people who are too busy watching their speedo and not seeing what is directly ahead of them, and don't necessarily actually notice the speed limit, so slow to 30 as quick as they can, even if the limit is 40 or even 60 just to go past the camera as they are so wrapped up in their own little world. Good drivers notice, they plan, and yes, they may speed a bit, but they rarely crash. I haven't had a crash ever in a car, yet you all seem to feel I'm a killing machine waiting for my opportunity.... Be a long wait I can tell you.
vonhosen said:
Unjustifiably low?
Councils have been tasked with reviewing limits, I don't see a lot of unjustifiably low limits out there driving around. (i'm not saying 'none' exist, just that in the main limits seem quite reasonable bearing in mind they are a compromise.
Gwyneth Dunwoody revised the criteria for limits and, as a result, Councils are making some ridiculous decisions. If you don't see them in your neck of the woods, you're very lucky. Around here, few people obey them and this is bound to engender contempt for the law and likely to encourage people to ignore limits that are necessary.Councils have been tasked with reviewing limits, I don't see a lot of unjustifiably low limits out there driving around. (i'm not saying 'none' exist, just that in the main limits seem quite reasonable bearing in mind they are a compromise.
vonhosen said:
I don't get twitchy looking for cameras, where they are most likely to be I tend to try & stick to a speed that they aren;t going to be a concern. Don't have to waste any resources looking for them.
What you do is not relevant. What a large number of other people do IS relevant. You don't seem to factor human nature into a lot of your arguments.mybrainhurts said:
If deployed, there would be more cloned plates for avoidance and a bigger headache for von as he's required to track down the real car that hit you and drove off.
How many would there be?You don't know because, you are just throwing something without basis out there.
No headache for me, I don't have anything to do with it.
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
OTBC said:
So if a driver suddenly brakes if he sees a police car, it's the police car's fault?
Stupid analogy. Police cars are not fixed. Suggest you check the authors of the report.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff