"We want more cameras"
Discussion
safespeed said:
safespeed said:
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"><a href="http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html">www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html</a></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
He hasn't been briefed correctly on the rules as they allow enforcement at such sites for 15% of the time. How did you miss that in your copy?
destroyer said:
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."
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/displayPopup/0,,29128,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/displayPopup/0,,29128,00.html</a>
He hasn't been briefed correctly on the rules as they allow enforcement at such sites for 15% of the time. How did you miss that in your copy?
What makes you think I missed it? Do you think it's OK that 85% of cameras must be placed where it's safe to speed?
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?
Absolutely.
In what we might call the good old days when trafpol would sometimes tell you off rather than mechanistically ticket people, people would still moan "why don't you catch some proper criminals" but they didn't actually MEAN it ; it was just a grunt. I have to say on the 4 or 5 times (over 20 years) I've been stopped by trafpol for speeding they've actually had a point.
Even those who complained knew basically the trafpol were in the right.
However, people genuinely believe (includes me) that Scameras are simply set up to extract revenue. You only have to drive round Norwich where I live, home of the infamous Grapes Hill camera - and that isn't the worst. Scamera target the A11 Norwich/Thetford road - it's probably the SAFEST road in the whole county, it's the only decent road simply because people drive down it at 75-80 mph.
safespeed said:
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."
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/displayPopup/0,,29128,00.html">
He hasn't been briefed correctly on the rules as they allow enforcement at such sites for 15% of the time. How did you miss that in your copy?
What makes you think I missed it? Do you think it's OK that 85% of cameras must be placed where it's safe to speed?
I would imagine that Mr Brunstrom is hoping to be able to place more cameras on roads with no speed-related accident history (ie. where speeding is safe). I don't imagine he has a plan to place speed cameras on roads where the majority of drivers intrinsically understand that the speed limit is too high for safety and drive much more slowly.
Safespeed's point is that most cameras are already placed on roads where the safest speed is above the speed limit, and NOT on roads where it is unsafe to speed.
Peter,
Before anyone else does, I'd like to correct one point from your last post:-
The "safest" speed won't ever be above the speed limit.
But, and this is what I guess you meant, there are roads where the speed limit is set lower than the highest "safe" speed to travel on that road at, i.e. a speed which still allows you to manoeuvre and/or stop should you spot a typical hazard ahead of you.
e.g. a dead-straight roman road with very few junctions - if you can see for over 1/2 a mile, and it's clear, you could conceivably do well over 100mph in a modern car (NOT that I'd advise it), simply because between seeing a hazard, reacting, and braking/manouevering, you'd still have hundreds of yards spare!!!
Before anyone else does, I'd like to correct one point from your last post:-
The "safest" speed won't ever be above the speed limit.
But, and this is what I guess you meant, there are roads where the speed limit is set lower than the highest "safe" speed to travel on that road at, i.e. a speed which still allows you to manoeuvre and/or stop should you spot a typical hazard ahead of you.
e.g. a dead-straight roman road with very few junctions - if you can see for over 1/2 a mile, and it's clear, you could conceivably do well over 100mph in a modern car (NOT that I'd advise it), simply because between seeing a hazard, reacting, and braking/manouevering, you'd still have hundreds of yards spare!!!
havoc said:
Peter,
Before anyone else does, I'd like to correct one point from your last post:-
The "safest" speed won't ever be above the speed limit.
Nope. The safest speeds are frequently above the speed limit. In several different ways actually.
Firstly we have the 85th percentile rule. It's well known that the lowest acciednet rates are experienced by drivers at the 85th or 90th percentile of traffic speed. The 85th percentile speed is frequently well above the speed limit.
Secondly we have to deal with the case of an absurd speed limit. (Oxford!) Doing 30mph on a road that was safe and appropriate yesterday at 60mph does not improve safety.
Thirdly we have to consider driver attention and time exposed to danger. If I have to do 100 miles late at night on a very quiet motorway, my risk of falling asleep is reduced in two ways if I choose a high but appropriate speed. a) I complete the journey more quickly (less time exposed to the danger of falling asleep) and b) I get my attention on the task in the optimal range. 70mph on an empty motorway is a sleep-promoting speed in a good vehicle.
Fourthly, every set of circumstances has an optimal speed depending on road, driver, vehicle, other vehicles and so on. The optimal speed varies wildly and is frequently in excess of the speed limit.
I carry a swiss army knife normally. Can I be arrested for the mens rea of opening boxes and unscrewing compaq security screws? Knife law is no more black and white than speeding. Carrying a kebab knife into a fight is vastly different from carrying a 2 inch blade that you use at work. Zero tolerance rulings on this would make it very hard to take your 6 inch ikea steak knives home from the shop
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff