RE: £1m Scamera 'Not For Casualty Reduction'

[M666 EVO]

tobster911 said:

JSE993 said:

There is always the option of not responding to the fixed penalty notice and waiting to see if you get a court summons. If everyone did that I bet they wouldn't have the staff or resources to be able to process all the court summonses and would do nothing to follow it up. I had exactly this experience myself in another county. Call their bluff!

I went a step further and wrote back asking to see evidence as 'i couldn't remember who was driving on that day' thinking they'll just think fk that and get on with doing something useful.

But no, after about a couple of months, when I'd forgotten about it, I got a picture of my ugly mug at the wheel recklessly speeding at 70mph in a 50 on a motorway late at night with no other traffic around (not road works - just approaching the severn crossing it drops to 50 I now know!). I was obviously about to cause a major pile up causing death and destruction by my careless behaviour!

Dam the dangers of using cruise control when you dont need to get anywhere fast.

Agreed, I did the same, denied all knowledge then a month later, received a nice multiple picture letter with me doing an illegal U turn on a road with NO other traffic in either direction for 50 metres including a close up of my number plates. F c u k e r s..

[fluffnik]

ALL those involved with SCPs are racketeers, they should by regarded as no more socially acceptable than pimps and kiddy fiddlers.

Shun them, drive them from polite society.

[whythem]

Jasandjules said:

On the plus side it is more publicity to just show that the scameras are for revenue only.

unfortunately its only people like us who will even read the story. In any case we the Breetish public wont do anything about it, apathetic people we are. If it were Spain the thing would be burnt and not a story. Sad and funny at the same time.

[TheOrangePeril]

Absolute tripe. I've driven that section of road a thousand times, there's no need for a 30. The notion of an 'anti skid' surface is utter bks, how about some anti skid driving? And as for the f*cking pedestrian, why are you causing cars to nearly hit you in the first place!? There are pedestrian crossing and the road is located between a train line and a huge expanse of water, hardly busy foot traffic necessary! It's also worth remarking that the design of the road could easily handle 50mph. If anyone has visited that junction, it's plain to see that the visibility is excellent and the highway, wide. I drive a 54 year old car and I've never had any problem stopping in time for the lights.
Pure money grabbing. I agree that scameras can come in handy in certain situations but this is not one of them.

[saaby93]

bluesboy said:

By the way, I'd love to show you the picture of me being caught on camera - it is a four lane road with not another car, house, shop, factory or anything else of consequence within 100 metres of the camera.

If that's the case it not only doesnt meet the guidelines for speed limits, it doesnt meet the ones for installing and using a speed camera.
At least it shows present and past government is against it too

[Hooli]

fluffnik said:

ALL those involved with SCPs are racketeers, they should by regarded as no more socially acceptable than pimps and kiddy fiddlers.

Shun them, drive them from polite society.

This.

[Puff the magic..]

saaby93 said:

bluesboy said:

By the way, I'd love to show you the picture of me being caught on camera - it is a four lane road with not another car, house, shop, factory or anything else of consequence within 100 metres of the camera.

If that's the case it not only doesnt meet the guidelines for speed limits, it doesnt meet the ones for installing and using a speed camera.
At least it shows present and past government is against it too

Ah! The rules.

There are no rules to place a speed camera other than there has to be a speed limit before the camera can enforce it. Yes there are guidelines but variations from that guidance can be made if it is justified; that's why it's guidance.

Now if you want the speed enforcement agencies to stick to the rules that they have to abide by why do you not apply that to a driver?

What about the rule that says something like "thou shall not drive faster than you are allowed" for within those [u]rules[/u] there is nothing that provides options for the driver on whether they are to be observed or otherwise?

[saaby93]

Puff the magic.. said:

Now if you want the speed enforcement agencies to stick to the rules that they have to abide by why do you not apply that to a driver?

What about the rule that says something like "thou shall not drive faster than you are allowed" for within those [u]rules[/u] there is nothing that provides options for the driver on whether they are to be observed or otherwise?

I want both
Its a chicken and egg situation
There are guidelines for setting speed limits and cameras, and if theyre adhered to most people will follow them and a minimla number of people will need enforcing.

If the guidelines aren't used as in this thread - they'll find there's a fair degree of non compliance - in some places it can approach 100%.
(anyone like to quote dangerous dogs or killing a Welshman on a Sunday in Hereford)
With rights come responsibilities.
If someone has the right to set speed limits ( or cameras) they have a responsibility to do it as required.

How long can this circular argument go

[GestapoWatch]

saaby93 said:

How long can this circular argument go

Forever and ever unfortunately

We KNOW its illegal to break the speed limit and we don't contest that current fact however we would like to see that fact changed.

We want to be able to legally select speeds for the conditions or at least be given a higher legal boundary (i.e. 80 on motorways).

Further we need to continue to question the use of speed enforcement devices - for all their expense and hype they do nothing more than slow people down within the enforced area. Which achieves what exactly?

It will rage on and idiots like Monbiot and Brake will continue to perpetuate mass hysteria at every given opportunity, stifling debate and rational assessment

[Puff the magic..]

saaby93 said:

Puff the magic.. said:

Now if you want the speed enforcement agencies to stick to the rules that they have to abide by why do you not apply that to a driver?

What about the rule that says something like "thou shall not drive faster than you are allowed" for within those [u]rules[/u] there is nothing that provides options for the driver on whether they are to be observed or otherwise?

I want both
Its a chicken and egg situation
There are guidelines for setting speed limits and cameras, and if theyre adhered to most people will follow them and a minimla number of people will need enforcing.

If the guidelines aren't used as in this thread - they'll find there's a fair degree of non compliance - in some places it can approach 100%.
(anyone like to quote dangerous dogs or killing a Welshman on a Sunday in Hereford)
With rights come responsibilities.
If someone has the right to set speed limits ( or cameras) they have a responsibility to do it as required.

How long can this circular argument go

It isn't a circular argument.
The authorities setting the limits believe they have done so correctly. That may not be your belief but as far as they are concerned they are the ones that have interpreted the situations and set the limits according to the guidance and regulations; someone like you pops past the location of sees it on a Google Street View image and can judge the correct speed limit in an instant.
Here's and idea! Why don't you offer up the services of you, Google Street View and your armchair to the Roads Minister and he can save the country millions because it appears all of these trained highways engineers and road safety officers haven't picked up what you have from the official documents and guidance. Documents, regulations, guidance and knowledge they obviously don't use.
To continue the circle you would have to be offering up something reasonable and worth consideration. Saaby93 and his passing knowledge gleaned from a few months browsing the Internet isn't going to stand up and perpetuate debate I reckon.

[Puff the magic..]

GestapoWatch said:

saaby93 said:

How long can this circular argument go

Forever and ever unfortunately

The argument isn't circular.

GestapoWatch said:

We KNOW its illegal to break the speed limit and we don't contest that current fact however we would like to see that fact changed.

Some do contest it.

GestapoWatch said:

We want to be able to legally select speeds for the conditions or at least be given a higher legal boundary (i.e. 80 on motorways).

It is expected that drivers will, at all times, legally select speeds for the conditions.
The crux of the matter is you are suggesting that it be higher that currently allowed.

GestapoWatch said:

Further we need to continue to question the use of speed enforcement devices - for all their expense and hype they do nothing more than slow people down within the enforced area. Which achieves what exactly?

Well when it achieves a reduction in the average speed of traffic when collisions do occur, they are inevitable unfortunately, the resulting injuries will be less severe. Lower average traffic speeds will reduce severity in collisions; that is a well established fact.

GestapoWatch said:

It will rage on and idiots like Monbiot and Brake will continue to perpetuate mass hysteria at every given opportunity, stifling debate and rational assessment

"mass hysteria"! Is that really taking place? I think not. After years of speed camera enforcement and reductions in casualty figures there are very few detractors to the method. It can't be denied that there is some dissatisfaction but "mass hysteria" no.
Now take the introduction of tuition fees; look at the reaction and protest there. Still not "mass hysteria" but feelings are high on that matter. French sheep farmers, now there's a group who get angry.
Tap-tapping on your keyboard when you have narrowed the issue down to one, raising the speed limit, then doing nothing about it isn't going to get you far is it?
Perhaps you should run raising the speed limit past the roads minister but before you do you may need to know he used to be in the Fire and Rescue service so is no stranger to filling body-bags with squashed and mangled people.

[saaby93]

Puff the magic.. said:

Here's and idea! Why don't you offer up the services of you, Google Street View and your armchair to the Roads Minister and he can save the country millions because it appears all of these trained highways engineers and road safety officers haven't picked up what you have from the official documents and guidance. Documents, regulations, guidance and knowledge they obviously don't use.

Theres no point offering services to the road minister because their guidance confirms what's been said. From a highways engineers point of view Tvrgit's already talked of the political isuss of implementation - how many people would currently believe that raising a limit could reduce accidents? Dont just listen to me - it's easy to check what proportion believe speed limits are correct by putting a speed counter across the road, and check how many have accidents.

[rewc]

Puff the magic.. said:

[Perhaps you should run raising the speed limit past the roads minister but before you do you may need to know he used to be in the Fire and Rescue service so is no stranger to filling body-bags with squashed and mangled people.

He would have had no practice of this at the Holes Bay Speed on Green site. The Council and Police confirm there is no accident record at this site and it is not about casualty reduction. 7,000 drivers caught in 3 months and still rising but not a single accident let alone a KSI one.
Coucillor's are starting to question it and even the Police / Camera Partnership try to distance theemselves from it by insisting that the speed limit has been set by the Council as was the decision to have the camera and nothing to do with them.

When the law and speed enforcement has become a farce as in this case then it devalues the real road safety message. I do not have to look at the site on google I live locally and I can assure you that it has made the Council, police and Partnership subject to ridicule.

[Puff the magic..]

saaby93 said:

Puff the magic.. said:

Here's and idea! Why don't you offer up the services of you, Google Street View and your armchair to the Roads Minister and he can save the country millions because it appears all of these trained highways engineers and road safety officers haven't picked up what you have from the official documents and guidance. Documents, regulations, guidance and knowledge they obviously don't use.

Theres no point offering services to the road minister because their guidance confirms what's been said. From a highways engineers point of view Tvrgit's already talked of the political isuss of implementation - how many people would currently believe that raising a limit could reduce accidents? Dont just listen to me - it's easy to check what proportion believe speed limits are correct by putting a speed counter across the road, and check how many have accidents.

You are missing the point.
It isn't the number of accidents that is important. It is the number and proportion of the CASUALTIES in those accidents that is.

Say you raised a limit 10mph to reduce accidents.

NOTE I do not endorse that principle.

Now let's say that the ACCIDENTS went down 10%.

Now lets also say that because the average speed of the traffic increased, let's say by 10mph, the number of serious and fatal CASUALTIES increased.

Less collisions (accidents) but more serious casualties and deaths!

Now "how many people would currently believe that raising a limit could reduce accidents AND AT THE SAME TIME INCREASE SERIOUS AND FATAL INJURIES?

Do you see the difference and the significant point you are omitting to consider? Significant points that those with more knowledge and practice than you are knowledgeable of.

I think I have made the point very simply, maybe you can read it very slooooooooowly and lots of times.

[Puff the magic..]

rewc said:

Puff the magic.. said:

[Perhaps you should run raising the speed limit past the roads minister but before you do you may need to know he used to be in the Fire and Rescue service so is no stranger to filling body-bags with squashed and mangled people.

He would have had no practice of this at the Holes Bay Speed on Green site. The Council and Police confirm there is no accident record at this site and it is not about casualty reduction. 7,000 drivers caught in 3 months and still rising but not a single accident let alone a KSI one.
Coucillor's are starting to question it and even the Police / Camera Partnership try to distance theemselves from it by insisting that the speed limit has been set by the Council as was the decision to have the camera and nothing to do with them.

When the law and speed enforcement has become a farce as in this case then it devalues the real road safety message. I do not have to look at the site on google I live locally and I can assure you that it has made the Council, police and Partnership subject to ridicule.

Well if the council, police and partnership don't see a need for it who's left to insist it stays? I can't see who would be putting it there and operating it if those 3 organisations were not in total agreement.
Sounds like some individuals who don't have the facts that are within one or some of those organisations have been asked about it and have not bothered to gather the facts. They really should do so or the legend will develop that the site is not placed for the public benefit.....Oh! it has, then they have not performed their duty well enough and should consider their position; those that haven't bothered to find out the facts that is NOT those who have placed it there.

[fatboy18]

Just throw a bloody tyre round the thing

[saaby93]

Puff the magic.. said:

You are missing the point.
It isn't the number of accidents that is important. It is the number and proportion of the CASUALTIES in those accidents that is.

Say you raised a limit 10mph to reduce accidents.

NOTE I do not endorse that principle.

Now let's say that the ACCIDENTS went down 10%.

Now lets also say that because the average speed of the traffic increased, let's say by 10mph, the number of serious and fatal CASUALTIES increased.

Less collisions (accidents) but more serious casualties and deaths!

Now "how many people would currently believe that raising a limit could reduce accidents AND AT THE SAME TIME INCREASE SERIOUS AND FATAL INJURIES?

ok I used the wrong word. If you raise the limit so it's in line with what most people consider a safe speed for the road - it's FSIs that reduce as well as collisions/accidents. Your assumptions about 'more' dont tie in both in terms of average speeds and FSIs

[Salom]

fatboy18 said:

Just throw a bloody tyre round the thing

At the risk of repeating myself, I agree!
I spend a lot of time in France, if a sign is put up saying "No shooting" the next day it's been destroyed by shotgun fire, Speed Cameras get the same treatment...

[Puff the magic..]

saaby93 said:

Puff the magic.. said:

You are missing the point.
It isn't the number of accidents that is important. It is the number and proportion of the CASUALTIES in those accidents that is.

Say you raised a limit 10mph to reduce accidents.

NOTE I do not endorse that principle.

Now let's say that the ACCIDENTS went down 10%.

Now lets also say that because the average speed of the traffic increased, let's say by 10mph, the number of serious and fatal CASUALTIES increased.

Less collisions (accidents) but more serious casualties and deaths!

Now "how many people would currently believe that raising a limit could reduce accidents AND AT THE SAME TIME INCREASE SERIOUS AND FATAL INJURIES?

ok I used the wrong word. If you raise the limit so it's in line with what most people consider a safe speed for the road - it's FSIs that reduce as well as collisions/accidents.

Really! How so? Is that a guess or idle allegation?

saaby93 said:

Your assumptions about 'more' dont tie in both in terms of average speeds and FSIs

You still don't understand do you?

Maybe a read of thiswould help you.

[saaby93]

Puff the magic.. said:

saaby93 said:

ok I used the wrong word. If you raise the limit so it's in line with what most people consider a safe speed for the road - it's FSIs that reduce as well as collisions/accidents.

Really! How so? Is that a guess or idle allegation?

Neither. Apart from it being obvious given more than a few seconds thought, it's in the guidance we talked about earlier

Puff the magic.. said:

saaby93 said:

Your assumptions about 'more' dont tie in both in terms of average speeds and FSIs

You still don't understand do you?

Maybe a read of thiswould help you.

That's obvious too - Accident severity depends on speed of collision.
What we're discussing is preventing accidents. Obviously if you prevent all accidents the severity becomes irrelevant.
I think it was said there were none in the OP - despite the speed limit being too low.

Puff I think you need to look into the causal factors of accidents and the results in the FSI figures, before supporting use of cameras and limits against the relevant guidance
ok