Twisted logic.....
Discussion
Why do some folks who believe that speed dosent kill, accept that we should have speed cameras at accident blackspots and outside schools of all places?
I see it this way.
I dont for one minute believe that speeding on its own will cause a crash, so it would also follow that it isnt necessarily a dangerous act.
So why on earth would anyone support their usage in an area where accidents are occurring at UNDER the speed limit? The majority of accidents DO occur at under the limit and involve idiot pedestrians doing what they do best; walking out while not looking.
Just what is the point of a speed camera in such a circumstance?
If you believe and accept that speed dosent kill, then explain why its acceptable to install cameras anywhere.
The point being that if you actually do believe that speed dosent kill, then logic should dictate that cameras are unecessary, in any circumstances, because speed isnt the primary cause, and speed dosent kill!
Any other response other than saying that speed dosent kill, would indicate a lack of belief in such an idea.
Any other response would indicate twisted logic....to me at any rate.
I see it this way.
I dont for one minute believe that speeding on its own will cause a crash, so it would also follow that it isnt necessarily a dangerous act.
So why on earth would anyone support their usage in an area where accidents are occurring at UNDER the speed limit? The majority of accidents DO occur at under the limit and involve idiot pedestrians doing what they do best; walking out while not looking.
Just what is the point of a speed camera in such a circumstance?
If you believe and accept that speed dosent kill, then explain why its acceptable to install cameras anywhere.
The point being that if you actually do believe that speed dosent kill, then logic should dictate that cameras are unecessary, in any circumstances, because speed isnt the primary cause, and speed dosent kill!
Any other response other than saying that speed dosent kill, would indicate a lack of belief in such an idea.
Any other response would indicate twisted logic....to me at any rate.
I agree that cameras outside schools are not going to be very effective. I often pass schools at intake or chucking out time, and you can barely move for badly parked 4x4s, let alone exceed the speed limit! 
I do think that cameras at other blackspots can do some good though. Although the final impact speed of an accident may be below the posted limit, I think that some of them could be avoided or be made less severe if drivers were going slower. They could also be avoided if drivers were paying more attention though...so I'm not saying that speed is the cause.
The problem I see with speed cameras is that they are being used as a replacement for traffic policing, rather than as an extra tool available. The fact that most speed cameras are not controlled by the police, but are in fact controlled by an unaccountable organisation is not helping.
I do think that cameras at other blackspots can do some good though. Although the final impact speed of an accident may be below the posted limit, I think that some of them could be avoided or be made less severe if drivers were going slower. They could also be avoided if drivers were paying more attention though...so I'm not saying that speed is the cause.
The problem I see with speed cameras is that they are being used as a replacement for traffic policing, rather than as an extra tool available. The fact that most speed cameras are not controlled by the police, but are in fact controlled by an unaccountable organisation is not helping.
Why do you believe that cameras at accident blackspots will do some good?
Remember, most crashes arent caused by speeding(other factors involved), just 4.3% were deemed to be directly related to excessive speed (west mids accident review).
So wheres the justification?
If you implicitly believe that speed dosent cause crashes (it comes into play as the crash is occuring) like i do, then given the facts that speed dosent cause crashes per se, its minor involvement in accident causation; How is it possible to believe that they can accomplish anything,at all, even at blackspots, when most accidents happen below the speed limits?
The expression "does not compute!" springs to mind.
Remember, most crashes arent caused by speeding(other factors involved), just 4.3% were deemed to be directly related to excessive speed (west mids accident review).
So wheres the justification?
If you implicitly believe that speed dosent cause crashes (it comes into play as the crash is occuring) like i do, then given the facts that speed dosent cause crashes per se, its minor involvement in accident causation; How is it possible to believe that they can accomplish anything,at all, even at blackspots, when most accidents happen below the speed limits?
The expression "does not compute!" springs to mind.
'scuse me being simple.... but are you saying that as most accidents happen at BELOW the speed limit, that a camera wouldn't do anything to prevent such an accident?
Yep, I think you ARE suggesting that. Good point. Errr, I wait for answers. By this reasoning, cameras will NEVER prevent ALL accidents.
So once we are all crawling along, and there are still crashes, what next?
Yep, I think you ARE suggesting that. Good point. Errr, I wait for answers. By this reasoning, cameras will NEVER prevent ALL accidents.
So once we are all crawling along, and there are still crashes, what next?
While the cause of accidents might not be excessive speed, the consequences are reduced if the speeds involved are lower.
My view is that driver error is the main cause of accidents, and that a driver going faster but paying attention, is safer than one going below the speed limit but devoting runtime to something else...be it mobile phone, kids etc!
However, you can't get away from the fact that there are a lot of people out there who don't pay as much attention to their driving as you or I do. They're also the sort of person who will think that they've got to drive slower because of all the cameras. Whereas you or I will know where the cameras are, and treat them like any other road hazard?
The other problem I've got with the whole speed camera arrangement is that there's no proper judgement involved. It should be possible for the people who review the pics to decide whether or not to send out a NIP dependant on conditions, exactly as Trafpol can.
I DO believe that speed cameras can play a positive role in reducing road deaths if operated properly.
My view is that driver error is the main cause of accidents, and that a driver going faster but paying attention, is safer than one going below the speed limit but devoting runtime to something else...be it mobile phone, kids etc!
However, you can't get away from the fact that there are a lot of people out there who don't pay as much attention to their driving as you or I do. They're also the sort of person who will think that they've got to drive slower because of all the cameras. Whereas you or I will know where the cameras are, and treat them like any other road hazard?
The other problem I've got with the whole speed camera arrangement is that there's no proper judgement involved. It should be possible for the people who review the pics to decide whether or not to send out a NIP dependant on conditions, exactly as Trafpol can.
I DO believe that speed cameras can play a positive role in reducing road deaths if operated properly.
apache said:The moment a camera doesn't fire is the moment it has just proven it ability to stop speeding?
The moment a camera fires it's first shot is the moment it has just proven it's inability to stop speeding
P.S. I'm not a Guardian reading lentilista, I just think that cameras can actually be of use if operated properly!
danhay said:
The moment a camera fires it's first shot is the moment it has just proven it's inability to stop speeding
The moment a camera doesn't fire is the moment it has just proven it ability to stop speeding?
P.S. I'm not a Guardian reading lentilista, I just think that cameras can actually be of use if operated properly!
be of use can they
. If you mean to rase case then of course there usefull
danhay said:
The moment a camera fires it's first shot is the moment it has just proven it's inability to stop speeding
The moment a camera doesn't fire is the moment it has just proven it ability to stop speeding?
P.S. I'm not a Guardian reading lentilista, I just think that cameras can actually be of use if operated properly!
How? Ya see i acknowledge that speed makes a crash worse...thats physics.
Where i have a problem, a big one, is when people think that on the one hand speed dosent cause crashes, but on the other believe in the ability of a camera to address non speed related accidents at a blackspot.
Its widely known that most occur below the limit, so why will a camera influence the outcome of a crash that happens below the limit?
Do you see what im saying? Its a little difficult to get a handle on if you have any belief in the abilities of scameras,and also believe speed isnt a problem; and dead easy to grasp if you dont believe in cameras!!
hertsbiker said:
'scuse me being simple.... but are you saying that as most accidents happen at BELOW the speed limit, that a camera wouldn't do anything to prevent such an accident?
Yep, I think you ARE suggesting that. Good point. Errr, I wait for answers. By this reasoning, cameras will NEVER prevent ALL accidents.
So once we are all crawling along, and there are still crashes, what next?
yes Carl, i am saying that, but im also trying to address peoples screwy logic. You cannot believe in speed DOSENT kill, not truly believe it, and on the other accept that cameras do anything to address crash outcomes!
Simply due to most of them happening below the limit!
It makes no sense!
If you think for a momement that a camera can exert some influence on all of those below the limit crashes, then there has to be an element of doubt in your mind regarding the safety of speed. There has to be.
(i think??) lololol
You've got to see past the way they're operated at the moment...which I agree is doing nobody any favours. They're often located in the wrong places and are not reducing fatalities.
In an average week, I pass about a dozen speed cameras.
2 of them are in a 30 limit, where 40-50 is quite reasonable because there are no houses on the road, and there's very good visibility.
5 of them are at traffic lights, where most people wouldn't have the opportunity of speeding due to the weight of traffic. And if the weight of traffic allows speeding, then it's not so much of a problem!
The other 5 could actually be doing some good, but again, only if the photo reviewers can show some common sense.
In an average week, I pass about a dozen speed cameras.
2 of them are in a 30 limit, where 40-50 is quite reasonable because there are no houses on the road, and there's very good visibility.
5 of them are at traffic lights, where most people wouldn't have the opportunity of speeding due to the weight of traffic. And if the weight of traffic allows speeding, then it's not so much of a problem!
The other 5 could actually be doing some good, but again, only if the photo reviewers can show some common sense.
I can see what youre saying Dan, but you also have to try and see thru something.
Speed dosent kill, its a proven fact. Paul Smith (a man of far superior abilities to myself) has spent a huge amount of effort refining and poking and digging to get to a state where he can demonstrate why this is so.
If we put aside speed kills for a moment, and concentrate on the "majority" of crashes.
We already know that most of them happen below the speed limit.
If we put a camera on road A, why is there any belief that it can affect the outcomes of accidents happening *below* the limit(the vast majority)?
In order to place faith in the thing, you have to start to believe speed kills; you have to have some doubt about the safety of speed in itself.
This is why i dont believe in cameras, at all, anywhere. I have absolute belief that speed dosent kill.
The only thing they CAN do, is to catch someone travelling at ABOVE a speed limit and thats not where the majority of crashes happen.
Therefore, whats its function? Whats the point of it?
Cant be safety related...aint possible. If its safety related, whys it not influencing the outcomes of accidents BELOW the speed limit?
I realise that its a little difficult to grasp, but grasp it you must as its fundamental to clearing out the idea that we somehow need cameras anywhere. We dont, and never did.
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 15th January 23:58
Speed dosent kill, its a proven fact. Paul Smith (a man of far superior abilities to myself) has spent a huge amount of effort refining and poking and digging to get to a state where he can demonstrate why this is so.
If we put aside speed kills for a moment, and concentrate on the "majority" of crashes.
We already know that most of them happen below the speed limit.
If we put a camera on road A, why is there any belief that it can affect the outcomes of accidents happening *below* the limit(the vast majority)?
In order to place faith in the thing, you have to start to believe speed kills; you have to have some doubt about the safety of speed in itself.
This is why i dont believe in cameras, at all, anywhere. I have absolute belief that speed dosent kill.
The only thing they CAN do, is to catch someone travelling at ABOVE a speed limit and thats not where the majority of crashes happen.
Therefore, whats its function? Whats the point of it?
Cant be safety related...aint possible. If its safety related, whys it not influencing the outcomes of accidents BELOW the speed limit?
I realise that its a little difficult to grasp, but grasp it you must as its fundamental to clearing out the idea that we somehow need cameras anywhere. We dont, and never did.
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 15th January 23:58
I live next to a school entrance. About 10 yards from the yellow zig zags. Unfortunately I get home from work about the same time as the school run. On occasion I have abandoned my car in the middle of the street because of parents not only parking on both sides of the road, but also over my drive. It's amazing how many people get pissed off when you block the road!
I've also got relatives to park in front and behind them with no space, but yet again people seem to get upset by this. The only people I see speeding down the roads are parents in 4x4's taking God knows how many annoying oiks home with no regard for their fellow parents or any of the little shites that actually walk home.
I personally would love a speed camera outside my house.
After the first two weeks it would catch all the numpties on the school run, I could then spend my evenings whirling a tin can around and firing paintballs at it through the bedroom window.
I've also got relatives to park in front and behind them with no space, but yet again people seem to get upset by this. The only people I see speeding down the roads are parents in 4x4's taking God knows how many annoying oiks home with no regard for their fellow parents or any of the little shites that actually walk home.
I personally would love a speed camera outside my house.
After the first two weeks it would catch all the numpties on the school run, I could then spend my evenings whirling a tin can around and firing paintballs at it through the bedroom window.
deltaf said:
You cannot believe in speed DOSENT kill, not truly believe it, and on the other accept that cameras do anything to address crash outcomes!
Hang about - there is another way of looking at this...
What about the nutters? I'm sure we all agree that there's a small percentage of reckless drivers on the road who drive dangerously fast on occasion and need the attentions of the law.
The good news for like minded folk is that cameras are pretty crap at catching the nutters. One reason is that folk of the boy racer type often stay local where their mates are (and anyway they have spent all their cash on the motor and can't afford fuel). They know where the cameras are and slow down for them.
danhay said:
The moment a camera fires it's first shot is the moment it has just proven it's inability to stop speeding
The moment a camera doesn't fire is the moment it has just proven it ability to stop speeding?
P.S. I'm not a Guardian reading lentilista, I just think that cameras can actually be of use if operated properly!
Please enlighten me. In 29 years of driving I have had 9 points in total, 3 current, I still speed. I imagine from govt statistics that shows a revenue of, how many million pounds? that the same can be said of the general public. I used to think, like you, that there might be some use for these damned things but logic and experience has altered my opinion.
Take, for instance, a chap who sees a yellow camera, he slows down for the few requisite metres then speeds up again. The same chap encounters a hidden camera, does he slow down? of course not, he gets his fine and points and remembers that spot for the next time, does this make him see the error of his ways, repent, say three hail marys and never speed again? no. He will in all probability spend more time looking out for speed cameras and put watching out for hazards, kids and other drivers unusual driving antics on the back burner.
If your car has cruise try a little experiment, drive through a 30 limit and set the cruise, you will be gobsmacked at how much more observant you can be when you are not looking at your speedo and looking out for the yellow boxes.
These things are causing poor driving to go unchallenged, unroadworthy cars to be used in gay abandon, road rage, unlicenced, uninsured and cars with no MOT to be driven on the roads. They are taking the role of policing away from trafpol.
There are far more efficient ways of combating nutters hurtling through your village, far cheaper too, the trouble is they do not earn their keep (apart from saving lives that is)
Cameras are like western medicine, they treat the symptom not the cause so please see it from my point of view, I've seen it from yours for long enough.
apache said:I am in TOTAL agreement with your post. All I'm saying is that if used correctly, cameras could reduce fatalities.
Please enlighten me. In 29 years of driving I have had 9 points in total, 3 current, I still speed. I imagine from govt statistics that shows a revenue of, how many million pounds? that the same can be said of the general public. I used to think, like you, that there might be some use for these damned things but logic and experience has altered my opinion.
Take, for instance, a chap who sees a yellow camera, he slows down for the few requisite metres then speeds up again. The same chap encounters a hidden camera, does he slow down? of course not, he gets his fine and points and remembers that spot for the next time, does this make him see the error of his ways, repent, say three hail marys and never speed again? no. He will in all probability spend more time looking out for speed cameras and put watching out for hazards, kids and other drivers unusual driving antics on the back burner.
If your car has cruise try a little experiment, drive through a 30 limit and set the cruise, you will be gobsmacked at how much more observant you can be when you are not looking at your speedo and looking out for the yellow boxes.
These things are causing poor driving to go unchallenged, unroadworthy cars to be used in gay abandon, road rage, unlicenced, uninsured and cars with no MOT to be driven on the roads. They are taking the role of policing away from trafpol.
There are far more efficient ways of combating nutters hurtling through your village, far cheaper too, the trouble is they do not earn their keep (apart from saving lives that is)
Cameras are like western medicine, they treat the symptom not the cause so please see it from my point of view, I've seen it from yours for long enough.
I know of some roads where there is a potential hazard that should require you to slow down. But unless you have been down that road you will not know of the hazard.
If there were a speed camera, it would make you slow down even though the hazard wasn't apparent. In this case a speed camera could help in reducing casualties.
The problem seems to me to be that the 'Powers that Be' decide that there is a high proportion of accidents on the B2110. Rather than siting a camera at the blackspot, they site it where it's easiest to detect speeders (i.e. where the road is straight) in the hope that it will reduce average speeds on that whole stretch of road. This is quite literally a fatally flawed policy. But if they placed the camera in the right place it could reduce fatalities.
If there were a speed camera, it would make you slow down even though the hazard wasn't apparent. In this case a speed camera could help in reducing casualties.
The problem seems to me to be that the 'Powers that Be' decide that there is a high proportion of accidents on the B2110. Rather than siting a camera at the blackspot, they site it where it's easiest to detect speeders (i.e. where the road is straight) in the hope that it will reduce average speeds on that whole stretch of road. This is quite literally a fatally flawed policy. But if they placed the camera in the right place it could reduce fatalities.
I see what you're saying, if the camera is visible the the speeder will slow down for that part of the road?
I was hoping for a reply but guess you've hit the sack. If this is your argument it sucks, badly. To have the effect you require ( reduce speeds in a dangerous part of the road) why a camera? how would fining and penalising someone after the event make him slow down? for your requirement he would need to see the camera, paint it yellow, he would slow down for that bit of road, why bother with a camera, why fine and penalise? Would it not be better to place a flashing 30 mph sign or a 'blackspot' warning sign till the dangerous aspect of that bit of road could be re engineered?
>> Edited by apache on Friday 16th January 00:32
I was hoping for a reply but guess you've hit the sack. If this is your argument it sucks, badly. To have the effect you require ( reduce speeds in a dangerous part of the road) why a camera? how would fining and penalising someone after the event make him slow down? for your requirement he would need to see the camera, paint it yellow, he would slow down for that bit of road, why bother with a camera, why fine and penalise? Would it not be better to place a flashing 30 mph sign or a 'blackspot' warning sign till the dangerous aspect of that bit of road could be re engineered?
>> Edited by apache on Friday 16th January 00:32
apache said:Exactly...my experience of the way speed cameras have been implemented quite clearly shows that they're not being used at their most effective. That's not to say that they couldn't be more effective if used correctly.
I used to think, like you, that there might be some use for these damned things but logic and experience has altered my opinion.
apache said:I haven't hit the sack yet, I'm no lightweight!
I see what you're saying, if the camera is visible the the speeder will slow down for that part of the road?
I was hoping for a reply but guess you've hit the sack. If this is your argument it sucks, badly. To have the effect you require ( reduce speeds in a dangerous part of the road) why a camera? how would fining and penalising someone after the event make him slow down? for your requirement he would need to see the camera, paint it yellow, he would slow down for that bit of road, why bother with a camera, why fine and penalise? Would it not be better to place a flashing 30 mph sign or a 'blackspot' warning sign till the dangerous aspect of that bit of road could be re engineered?
>> Edited by apache on Friday 16th January 00:32
Cameras ARE painted yellow to help you:
a) slow down
b) avoid points & a fine!
In my experience, there's nothing like the prospect of points and a fine to concentrate the mind.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff