Interesting article on speed cameras
Discussion
How long before the funky and destructive ones appear?
Andrew English, one of my favourite motor-noters, well written and objective article.
Yes I remember the Twickenham Bridge Gatsos and have commented on it before. City boys in Porkers etc were going over the bridge well into three figs , yes well into three figs in a 30, and falling off the island at the next 90 right.
Also true that the film was used up in 30 minutes, and also true that the trigger speed was set only to catch the real mickey takers.
Now of course we have trigger limits which, in West Mercia and no reason to doubt elsewhere, mean that an involuntary sneeze could mean a reflex action which pushes the vehicle over the trigger. Cases dropped in pre trial review because that defence would have had the legs.
Let us suppose that everyone does exactly what the funky one suggests, and in fact is what I do, which is 125% determination not to contribute one penny to the scamera coffers.
Of course what will happen, not that I expect funkyrobot or destructor to accept this, is that trigger limits would come down as they are beginning to do.
The collisions would still happen, and so then they will say, hmmm must be the limits that are wrong. So limits will come down and down until we are all driving everywhere at 20 mph, nobody can earn a living anymore, and so all those Giros can't be paid because nobody earns anything to pay any tax.
The limit reduction phase is already well under way.
Now as you know from those other photo threads I supported the M4 protest in my own way, hope it was of use.
We are constantly told, if the law is wrong, you don't put things right by bending the law but by changing it. Correct in theory, but when the other side isn't listening?
Just wonder how long before further protests become French farmer like? Clearly today the protest at times was less than effective because of keeping it legal. The most effective part was eastbound no 2 where the boundaries were pushed to create a convoy. Early on things became too easily split.
The dilemma is that apart from all the arguments we can put together about the inaccuracy and other inadequacies of the scamera system, the real problem is that the limits are wrong and need total review on every road.
Trouble is, if that happens with the current mindset of the authorities, these really will be the good old days of the open road.
Thanks for listening or should it be reading. Well you know what I mean.
Over & out.
FiF
Andrew English, one of my favourite motor-noters, well written and objective article.
Yes I remember the Twickenham Bridge Gatsos and have commented on it before. City boys in Porkers etc were going over the bridge well into three figs , yes well into three figs in a 30, and falling off the island at the next 90 right.
Also true that the film was used up in 30 minutes, and also true that the trigger speed was set only to catch the real mickey takers.
Now of course we have trigger limits which, in West Mercia and no reason to doubt elsewhere, mean that an involuntary sneeze could mean a reflex action which pushes the vehicle over the trigger. Cases dropped in pre trial review because that defence would have had the legs.
Let us suppose that everyone does exactly what the funky one suggests, and in fact is what I do, which is 125% determination not to contribute one penny to the scamera coffers.
Of course what will happen, not that I expect funkyrobot or destructor to accept this, is that trigger limits would come down as they are beginning to do.
The collisions would still happen, and so then they will say, hmmm must be the limits that are wrong. So limits will come down and down until we are all driving everywhere at 20 mph, nobody can earn a living anymore, and so all those Giros can't be paid because nobody earns anything to pay any tax.
The limit reduction phase is already well under way.
Now as you know from those other photo threads I supported the M4 protest in my own way, hope it was of use.
We are constantly told, if the law is wrong, you don't put things right by bending the law but by changing it. Correct in theory, but when the other side isn't listening?
Just wonder how long before further protests become French farmer like? Clearly today the protest at times was less than effective because of keeping it legal. The most effective part was eastbound no 2 where the boundaries were pushed to create a convoy. Early on things became too easily split.
The dilemma is that apart from all the arguments we can put together about the inaccuracy and other inadequacies of the scamera system, the real problem is that the limits are wrong and need total review on every road.
Trouble is, if that happens with the current mindset of the authorities, these really will be the good old days of the open road.
Thanks for listening or should it be reading. Well you know what I mean.
Over & out.
FiF
Quite an interesting article with probably the most balanced views I've seen in 2 years from a journalist. There are some inaccuracies, particularly the capabilities of radar detectors (or laser for that matter) I think their imapct on the speed enforcement agencies was overstated.
I support GPS detectors and pass on locations of sites when requested them. Perhaps a better interaction with these vendors could allow the passing of further safety information regarding danger areas/hazards, I'm up for that.
Some of the article that stuck with me was:
This is exactly what I have been saying for more than 2 years of contribution to forums such as this.
Radar detectors are of extremely limited use. If that upsets their vendors then tough, Police and Safety Camera Partnerships now use mostly laser technology with a few radar devices being used by Local Policing Teams. Gatso cameras radiate most of their energy away from the approaching vehicle in the measurement lane also. Laser detectors on the other hand, on the rare occasions they pick up a laser device, will merely tell you to expect a ticket if you were exceeding the speed limit at the time. They should be banned, not for safety reasons or for obstructing justice but because they allow the unscrupulous to extrot money from the gullible.
There is a simple answer to avoiding losing your licence for the collection of speeding points and I'm not going to insult the intelligence of the readers herein by repeating it.
I can't see the joke in taking a long time to pass a law. That's a good thing I would think.
Communicating GPS to increase the broadcast of accident hot spots (camera sites) brilliant, crack on and as soon as this is available I'll get one.
Here, Here!
Most definitely, I know of no person in any safety camera partnership I have met that wouldn't agree with this and I am mindful that this remains the case as far as I can help. What is key is that where it is justified it shouldn't be prevented either.
>> Edited by destroyer on Sunday 1st May 15:13
I support GPS detectors and pass on locations of sites when requested them. Perhaps a better interaction with these vendors could allow the passing of further safety information regarding danger areas/hazards, I'm up for that.
Some of the article that stuck with me was:
telegraph said:
And whatever the antis say, speed increases risk. Going faster means less time, less grip, less margin for error and more mental pressure, and the extra kinetic energy you carry means the consequences of getting it wrong are worse. Common sense (including that of the police) tells us that the cause of virtually every accident is not speed per se, but a driver error or misjudgment of some kind. Speed gets you nearer to having that misjudgment and then punishes it more harshly.
This is exactly what I have been saying for more than 2 years of contribution to forums such as this.
telegraph said:
Perhaps the biggest irony surrounding the Road Safety Bill is that the public have voted with their feet anyway. Sales of radar detectors are now very few compared with those of GPS speed-camera locators, although we have heard of cases of unscrupulous salespeople trying to mislead the public about the future legality of radar detectors, so be careful of what you are buying. If you have a dual system with a GPS and laser/radar detection then you will have to have the latter circuitry rendered unusable, or it will be illegal to carry it in the car.
Radar detectors are of extremely limited use. If that upsets their vendors then tough, Police and Safety Camera Partnerships now use mostly laser technology with a few radar devices being used by Local Policing Teams. Gatso cameras radiate most of their energy away from the approaching vehicle in the measurement lane also. Laser detectors on the other hand, on the rare occasions they pick up a laser device, will merely tell you to expect a ticket if you were exceeding the speed limit at the time. They should be banned, not for safety reasons or for obstructing justice but because they allow the unscrupulous to extrot money from the gullible.
telegraph said:
There's also the problem that by effectively endorsing GPS, the Government will make possession of a camera locator virtually mandatory for those in fear of losing their licences, thereby vastly reducing the revenue-raising effectiveness of fixed cameras while increasing that of the soon-to-be undetectable mobile cameras.
There is a simple answer to avoiding losing your licence for the collection of speeding points and I'm not going to insult the intelligence of the readers herein by repeating it.
telegraph said:
Yet the biggest joke is that GPS location technology is moving faster than ministers can pass new laws. Its future as a basis for road-charging schemes might be in doubt, but when linked with today's always-on mobile-phone technology, GPS locators become interactive. So one driver can push a button when he sees a mobile speed camera and broadcast the location to millions of others.
I can't see the joke in taking a long time to pass a law. That's a good thing I would think.
Communicating GPS to increase the broadcast of accident hot spots (camera sites) brilliant, crack on and as soon as this is available I'll get one.
telegraph said:
No one has the right or a licence to speed, and if you do, you are taking other people's lives into your hands. The trouble is, that's exactly the responsibility you assume when you drive any vehicle at any speed, and as countless police officers and safety experts have recognised, it's getting drivers to take responsibility - for their vehicles, for their passengers, for other road users and ultimately for their own actions - that is at the heart of road safety.
Here, Here!
telegraph said:
Speed enforcement is an essential tool of any road-casualty reduction scheme, but it shouldn't be the only one.
Most definitely, I know of no person in any safety camera partnership I have met that wouldn't agree with this and I am mindful that this remains the case as far as I can help. What is key is that where it is justified it shouldn't be prevented either.
>> Edited by destroyer on Sunday 1st May 15:13
james_j said:
Destroyer, you keep saying the same things and now, just because a journalist says the same thing as you, your rejoicing is almost audible from here. But why should a journalist suddenly speak "sense"? It seems the answer is when the article in question supports your revenue stream.
Hang on!
8Pack and towman thought the article was OK too.
Pehaps I may be rejoicing (I wasn't as it happens) in the fact that some of the members here thought that this balanced article put over the aruments for and against well, I thought so too.
The only one with a shallow and somewhat unfounded view is you so far.
And yes I do keep saying the same things, a lot of them almost exactly the same as this article, now why is it OK for some to agree with it and not myself.
>> Edited by destroyer on Sunday 1st May 16:47
Flat in Fifth said:
The limit reduction phase is already well under way.
This is simply not true.
Flat in Fifth said:
The dilemma is that apart from all the arguments we can put together about the inaccuracy and other inadequacies of the scamera system, the real problem is that the limits are wrong and need total review on every road.
If you think that then you may just get somewhere with this approach. Why not concentrate on that?
That's probably the best piece of press to date.
Brings into sharp focus the absolute incompetence and absence of comprehension on the part of government, ACPO and all the other "expert advisors" whose emotive nonsense is lapped up by dear old Gwyneth Dunwoody and her trusty Commons Transport Select Committee.
Government does not work.
Brings into sharp focus the absolute incompetence and absence of comprehension on the part of government, ACPO and all the other "expert advisors" whose emotive nonsense is lapped up by dear old Gwyneth Dunwoody and her trusty Commons Transport Select Committee.
Government does not work.
destroyer said:
Destroyer, you keep saying the same things and now, just because a journalist says the same thing as you, your rejoicing is almost audible from here. But why should a journalist suddenly speak "sense"? It seems the answer is when the article in question supports your revenue stream.
Hang on!
8Pack and towman thought the article was OK too.
Pehaps I may be rejoicing (I wasn't as it happens) in the fact that some of the members here thought that this balanced article put over the aruments for and against well, I thought so too.
The only one with a shallow and somewhat unfounded view is you so far.
And yes I do keep saying the same things, a lot of them almost exactly the same as this article, now why is it OK for some to agree with it and not myself.
>> Edited by destroyer on Sunday 1st May 16:47
I get a bit tired of your often sanctimonious tone and simplistic treatment of road safety, namely speed; presumably because you have a vested interest in enforcing a law which really only addresses 3% of accident causation.
...and another thing that irritates me, is when you go quiet when a particularly good point has been made, numerous examples of which are present on one or two forums.
james_j said:
I get a bit tired of your often sanctimonious tone and simplistic treatment of road safety, namely speed; presumably because you have a vested interest in enforcing a law which really only addresses 3% of accident causation.
You know that is complete nonesense and the post I made in my first reply says that I do not support speed enforcement alone. So what's your point as you do not seem to be reading what I have typed. I have not made any remarks in the post that gave any indication of a "simplistic treatment of road safety, namely speed;" so how come you are claiming so?
james_j said:
...and another thing that irritates me, is when you go quiet when a particularly good point has been made, numerous examples of which are present on one or two forums.
I serously doubt your ability to recognise one, see my reply immediately above in this post.
I've just read the whole article in the link. Thanks for posting it. It seems to me to be an extremely valuable article that demonstrates the major issues surrounding both the focus on speed as the largest single cause of KSIs and the implementation of cameras as the only means of addressing that cause. As speed is not the largest single cause, it's hardly surprising that cameras have not had the effects claimed.
Slipped into the article is the indication that traffic moves away from cameras and accidents then happen elsewhere -- the absolutely obvious (to all except scumera partnership types) effect of cameras and the explanation for any reduction in accidents at camera sites.
The paragraphs which destroyer picks on -- gleefully or otherwise -- are the boilerplate which any such article has to include in order to avoid accusations of anti-government propaganda. Read any such article and those words, or some very similar indeed, are always included at the end. They are not meant to be taken seriously as a counter-argument, but are simply there to add the "balance" that everyone (except the BBC) has to provide.
There are so many interesting facts in this article:
- accidents being moved onto other roads away from cameras (haven't we said this before?)
- accident stats dropping all over London, not just on the roads with the first 22 cameras (stunning!)
- TRL report indicating cars are getting safer but drivers are not concentrating (surprise -- why should they when the most important decision is taken away from them?)
- the 3-year camera review used "careful selection of the base of years and data" (it took Paul Smith to get this point over)
- research -- and researchers -- being influenced by money (just like climate change, then! Who would trust PA Consulting to provide an independent report now?)
- speed cameras are the government's only tool to achieve its 40% reduction target (no wonder there's such a focus on speed!)
- the knock-on effects of cameras is turning people against the police in other areas (as we've said before)
- some of the safest drivers drive above the limit out of towns (yes, where "derestricted" used to mean just that)
- such safe drivers are observant (hello Wildy, cue COAST mit
und , usw).
I think the tide is beginning to turn. It's happening because people are finally waking up to the issue of trust in the government. The trouble with being "in power" for a long time is that you are there at the end of your "5-year plans" and your "10-year targets", when people will see how threadbare they were. So unfortunately I don't expect it will make a difference this time round, but perhaps in 4-5 years it will be just one of the many factors in a rout which will make 1997 look like a hung parliament.
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Sunday 1st May 19:16
Slipped into the article is the indication that traffic moves away from cameras and accidents then happen elsewhere -- the absolutely obvious (to all except scumera partnership types) effect of cameras and the explanation for any reduction in accidents at camera sites.
The paragraphs which destroyer picks on -- gleefully or otherwise -- are the boilerplate which any such article has to include in order to avoid accusations of anti-government propaganda. Read any such article and those words, or some very similar indeed, are always included at the end. They are not meant to be taken seriously as a counter-argument, but are simply there to add the "balance" that everyone (except the BBC) has to provide.
There are so many interesting facts in this article:
- accidents being moved onto other roads away from cameras (haven't we said this before?)
- accident stats dropping all over London, not just on the roads with the first 22 cameras (stunning!)
- TRL report indicating cars are getting safer but drivers are not concentrating (surprise -- why should they when the most important decision is taken away from them?)
- the 3-year camera review used "careful selection of the base of years and data" (it took Paul Smith to get this point over)
- research -- and researchers -- being influenced by money (just like climate change, then! Who would trust PA Consulting to provide an independent report now?)
- speed cameras are the government's only tool to achieve its 40% reduction target (no wonder there's such a focus on speed!)
- the knock-on effects of cameras is turning people against the police in other areas (as we've said before)
- some of the safest drivers drive above the limit out of towns (yes, where "derestricted" used to mean just that)
- such safe drivers are observant (hello Wildy, cue COAST mit
und , usw). I think the tide is beginning to turn. It's happening because people are finally waking up to the issue of trust in the government. The trouble with being "in power" for a long time is that you are there at the end of your "5-year plans" and your "10-year targets", when people will see how threadbare they were. So unfortunately I don't expect it will make a difference this time round, but perhaps in 4-5 years it will be just one of the many factors in a rout which will make 1997 look like a hung parliament.
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Sunday 1st May 19:16
Destroyer - I would welcome your comments (genuinely) on the following thread..... Sorry, the title is a bit misleading and I don`t know how to change/edit it.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=175084
The data presented really highlights the inadequacies of the speed camera system as a whole. I am not looking for an arguement, just genuinely interested in your opinion of the report conclusions.
Steve
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=175084
The data presented really highlights the inadequacies of the speed camera system as a whole. I am not looking for an arguement, just genuinely interested in your opinion of the report conclusions.
Steve
towman said:
Destroyer - I would welcome your comments (genuinely) on the following thread..... Sorry, the title is a bit misleading and I don`t know how to change/edit it.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=175084
The data presented really highlights the inadequacies of the speed camera system as a whole. I am not looking for an arguement, just genuinely interested in your opinion of the report conclusions.
Steve
Done
Thanks Peter, with some time having elapsed and reading your post, I feel somewhat calmer.
I realise the article needs to add "the other side of the story" for reasons of "balance" but think when this is done, the meaning behind the message could be lost for some people (i.e. the irrelevance of concentration on speed).
I also feel that camera partnership representatives may wish to push on with their agenda under cover of an article like this, using it as an opportunity to suggest cameras as "just part of the mechanism of safety on the roads" which I feel they are nothing of the sort and should not exist in any form whatsoever.
I realise the article needs to add "the other side of the story" for reasons of "balance" but think when this is done, the meaning behind the message could be lost for some people (i.e. the irrelevance of concentration on speed).
I also feel that camera partnership representatives may wish to push on with their agenda under cover of an article like this, using it as an opportunity to suggest cameras as "just part of the mechanism of safety on the roads" which I feel they are nothing of the sort and should not exist in any form whatsoever.
james_j said:
I also feel that camera partnership representatives may wish to push on with their agenda under cover of an article like this, using it as an opportunity to suggest cameras as "just part of the mechanism of safety on the roads" which I feel they are nothing of the sort and should not exist in any form whatsoever.
Camera Pertnerships have been doing this for ages. They do not need any such article to "push on" at all. This article follows what Camera Partnerships have been saying and is NOT the initiator of such ideas from them.
Camera Partnerships have always been just a part of the road safety toolbox and can never be any more. The DfT Handbook has a condition in it which requires this idea, the camera must be the last resort, it's in Rule 7 (or is it 6?) as far as I recall without the book to hand.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff