This is just pure B0llox.............
Discussion
www.sussexsafetycameras.gov.uk/facts.htm
So why not just use the ones which display your speed then?
Oh really? How is a camera going to STOP people? Replace "Stop" with "catch" and I might believe it.
I have no problem with red light cameras, it`s just that this propaganda makes my blood boil.
If they were to simply say "We use these to catch offenders", I would have a little more respect.
Webshite said:
Safety cameras are designed to remind motorists to drive within the speed limit
So why not just use the ones which display your speed then?
Webshite said:
Cameras are installed at traffic lights to stop people jumping the red light
Oh really? How is a camera going to STOP people? Replace "Stop" with "catch" and I might believe it.
I have no problem with red light cameras, it`s just that this propaganda makes my blood boil.
If they were to simply say "We use these to catch offenders", I would have a little more respect.
Go to the 'Your Comments' section - I bet they all come from the local WI, BRAKE and Blue Peter as the word 'w@nkers' does not appear once.
Also, click on the 'disclaimer' hyperlink. It basically states that the site content has nothing to do with Sussex Plod, it's all bullsh*t and represesnts no part of the Scamera Pratnerships profiteering practices...all-in-all just another load of 'Blair hot air'.
The Web equivalent of watching a plank warp.
Also, click on the 'disclaimer' hyperlink. It basically states that the site content has nothing to do with Sussex Plod, it's all bullsh*t and represesnts no part of the Scamera Pratnerships profiteering practices...all-in-all just another load of 'Blair hot air'.
The Web equivalent of watching a plank warp.
combemarshal said:
I actually think red light cameras do help and have no problem with them, I know people that will take a gamble if there is no camera!
I don't have a problem with them either.
What I do have a problem with though is cameras being billed as a miracle cure. A camera cannot stop anything, it can only detect something (like speed, but not causing danger)
CCTV, speed cameras and redlight cameras cannot prevent anything - it's policing at its laziest. The only way to improve things is through active policing with real people (shock!) who can determine whether someone is posing a danger to someone else (be it through driving, holding a weapon etc) and take appropriate action.
egomeister said:
I actually think red light cameras do help and have no problem with them, I know people that will take a gamble if there is no camera!
I don't have a problem with them either.
Sadly, all the evidence shows that accident rates rise at junctions equipped with red light cameras. So you have to ask yourself if these cameras are there to enforce the law, no matter what, or are they to improve road safety? Because if it's the latter, they should be removed.
combemarshal said:
I actually think red light cameras do help and have no problem with them, I know people that will take a gamble if there is no camera!
They were abused big time in the US. Authorities accused of shortening the amber "on" time amber to make red light junping more profitable.
Tafia said:
I actually think red light cameras do help and have no problem with them, I know people that will take a gamble if there is no camera!
They were abused big time in the US. Authorities accused of shortening the amber "on" time amber to make red light junping more profitable.
Surley, if people know about it, it would encourage people to drive a little more carefully? I thought the idea of punishment was to make people think twice about doing the same thing again? Or do 'amber gamblers' now feel persecuted?
Maybe modern man seems to feel that a fine is just a levy for doing something wrong, rather than a punishment and/or deterrent?
>> Edited by morrisman on Monday 27th February 18:25
morrisman said:
I actually think red light cameras do help and have no problem with them, I know people that will take a gamble if there is no camera!
They were abused big time in the US. Authorities accused of shortening the amber "on" time amber to make red light junping more profitable.
Surley, if people know about it, it would encourage people to drive a little more carefully? I thought the idea of punishment was to make people think twice about doing the same thing again? Or do 'amber gamblers' now feel persecuted?
Maybe modern man seems to feel that a fine is just a levy for doing something wrong, rather than a punishment and/or deterrent?
>> Edited by morrisman on Monday 27th February 18:25
Just how does shortening the amber time make things safer? Part of prat speak is that "stopping distances have not changed"
So are we saying cars stop better and faster and safer if we shorten the amber change duration - but stopping distance is compromised greatly if 1 mph avove the lollipop ons incn into the lower limit zone?
Oh and by the way - people did not "know about it."
On and the accident which occurred on A580 couple of weeks or so ago at Atherleigh Way?
Per Bolton Evening News - at the traffic lights.
I have "met" those traffic lights on four different occasions in past two years or so. (Have relatives down in Manchester, Astley, Bolton and Worsley) Each time I meet these lights I have to fight an urge to hire an angle grinder...
There is a red light camera - nice little earner for this T -junction
Those lights barely let one car through on the East bound carriageway... which allows for a left and straight on.
They are staggered lights as well. The West -Liverpool bound remain on green for longer and the cars turn right into Atherleigh Way
Not rocket science to work out what happened ... car probably started to acelerate thinking the lights would allow more than one car to pass whilst on change to green - only htey changed and the car collided per news paper report with car turning left into the A580 and the driver of this car died...
Still want to say short amber is "great" for safety...
morrisman said:
I actually think red light cameras do help and have no problem with them, I know people that will take a gamble if there is no camera!
They were abused big time in the US. Authorities accused of shortening the amber "on" time amber to make red light junping more profitable.
Surley, if people know about it, it would encourage people to drive a little more carefully? I thought the idea of punishment was to make people think twice about doing the same thing again? Or do 'amber gamblers' now feel persecuted?
Maybe modern man seems to feel that a fine is just a levy for doing something wrong, rather than a punishment and/or deterrent?
>> Edited by morrisman on Monday 27th February 18:25
Well if we are approaching a green light, we assume that when it changes to amber, we will either have time to stop safely before the red or, if too close to the line to do safely, clear the junction.
With a short amber we have to treat every green as a potential red with no leeway provided by a warning amber "stop".
At Two Mills on the Welsh Road in Cheshire there is a red light camera and, not knowing if the amber is short or not, I find myself slowing right down just in case I get a sudden switch. I know this is not good practice as the road is a national limit but to avoid a ticket, what is one to do?
More from Baltimore on this here; including recommended amber times for various speed limits and also complaints of short ambers turning junctions into traps.
www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/reports/02-baltimore.asp
>> Edited by Tafia on Tuesday 28th February 11:44
>> Edited by Tafia on Tuesday 28th February 11:54
egomeister said:
I actually think red light cameras do help and have no problem with them, I know people that will take a gamble if there is no camera!
I don't have a problem with them either.
What I do have a problem with though is cameras being billed as a miracle cure. A camera cannot stop anything, it can only detect something (like speed, but not causing danger)
CCTV, speed cameras and redlight cameras cannot prevent anything - it's policing at its laziest. The only way to improve things is through active policing with real people (shock!) who can determine whether someone is posing a danger to someone else (be it through driving, holding a weapon etc) and take appropriate action.
How do you mean cameras can't prevent anything. Are you saying that speed cameras don't stop some folk speeding (forget the constant debate about dangerous just for the minute). Are you saying that red light cameras don't stop some people jumping the red lights. When you say "the only way to improve things..." dont you mean "one way to improve things....".
Cameras work , simply because some people see them and say if I do that I will be caught. I'm sure you and I both approach lights in such a manner, speed, gear and attitude such that we can stop in time. However, for the numptys out there (e.g. the Chavs and the Chav Nots) a red light camera can and does stop them.
The thing is, the Highway Code, etc., is pretty specific. You are not supposed to go through on red. It doesn't say it's okay if you happen to think it's safe, or if you don't agree with the rule, or there is no-one else around. Some folk go through on red. Some are total dickheads who think they know best. Some are innattentive, and can't stop in time when they should.
The cameras catch them. Why is that a major problem for you?
big Fat F'er said:I don't think he had a problem with that at all. He said the text on the website was bollox. It says cameras stop things, and he points out that they don't ... i.e. they don't hop off their post and march out in front of moving car with a stinger. All they can do is act as a deterrent. If you want to discuss their effectivness, fine, but that wasn't what he was complainig about.
The cameras catch them. Why is that a major problem for you?
ATG said:
The cameras catch them. Why is that a major problem for you?
I know that ain't what he was complaining about. However, he said cameras don't stop things. They do. I think that you and him both know that, but you choose not to admit it because it weakens your argument.
You must have driven down a road, and been forced to slow down because there was a camera (if you haven't, I'm sure you accept that others have). Therefore, the camera stopped the speeding (see, I've still not said it's dangerous, just speeding).
I've seen folk stop before a light, saying "there's a camera on here". Thats why they didn't run it (their words). Therefore, the camera stopped them jumping a light.
My point was that cameras do stop things. You might not agree with what they are stopping, but surely you can see it.
My "why is that a major problem" is simple....Don't sweat the small stuff.
Big Fat F'er said:
However, he said cameras don't stop things. They do.
They do not.
They deter some, but simply do not stop red light jumpers. As an example, if a driver is in a stolen or cloned vehicle will the presence of a Red light camera stop him/her? Answer is No.
I rest my case.
towman said:
However, he said cameras don't stop things. They do.
They do not.
They deter some, but simply do not stop red light jumpers. As an example, if a driver is in a stolen or cloned vehicle will the presence of a Red light camera stop him/her? Answer is No.
I rest my case.
Oh dear.
The cameras stop SOME offences. It's not a difficult concept. You may not like it, but you know deep down that they do. To say they "simply do not stop red light jumpers" is silly, naive, and simplistic. What you should be saying is that they do not stop ALL red light jumpers. However, they do stop SOME. If you say you can't see that you are being:
a) deliberately obtuse.
b) thick.
I think it's a).
Will the camera stop a stolen vehicle. No. Will a trafpol always stop a stolen vehicle. No. Will the Trafpol sometimes stop a vehicle. Yes. Does a camera sometimes stop some people. Yes.
So again, what is your problem. If you can't control your approach such that you go through the red, don't moan about the camera, moan about your lack of driving skill. The red light camera ain't there to stop the t-leaf, it's there to stop those who would otherwise say "bollox to it".
Stick to the rules, drive with skill, and the cameras won't worry you. Drive like a numpty, and they will catch you.
As I said, dont sweat the small stuff.
Big Fat F'er said:
If you say you can't see that you are being:
a) deliberately obtuse.
b) thick.
Oh dear. There really was no need for that really was there?
The trouble with the interlectually challenged is that they honestly believe that everyone else has the same limited understanding as themselves.
That is not the case.
I waste no further breath.
towman said:
If you say you can't see that you are being:
a) deliberately obtuse.
b) thick.
Oh dear. There really was no need for that really was there?
The trouble with the interlectually challenged is that they honestly believe that everyone else has the same limited understanding as themselves.
That is not the case.
I waste no further breath.
No, there really was no need for that really was there really.
Please, don't waste your breath, and don't stop arguing your point. All I ask is that you state your case and back it up, but accept logic may highlight a flawed argument. It was you and yours that said cameras do not stop things, when they clearly do. I personally believe that you are being deliberately obtuse.
Don't sweat......
>> Edited by Big Fat F'er on Tuesday 28th February 14:52
Richard C said:
the usual " whats your problem stuff"
You really can't avoid coming over short on politeness ( verging on the abusive) can you ? It gets peoples backs up and dilutes what litlle content there is to your postings
Nay nay, Richard. Read my first response.
I questioned the point that cameras don't stop anything. Then asked what the problem is. We're all adults together, so surely there's nothing wrong with the content, or how it came across. Don't tell me you are not big enough, or mature enough, to take a little sarcasm.
I said that I think the chappie was deliberately obtuse. I stand by that.
Don't get upset...get even...but use facts.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff