RE: MPs miss speed camera point
Wednesday 11th October 2006
No-one is calling for fewer GatsosA group of MPs reckons that reliance on speed cameras for road policing has led to an increase in uninsured drivers.
MPs miss speed camera point
Link between accidents and scameras ignored
No-one is calling for fewer Gatsos
Tory shadow transport spokesman Chris Grayling said that the increase in hit and run accidents, allegedly up by 30 per cent since 1997, is as a result of drivers knowing that they can get away with it because there are fewer traffic police around.
The Tories' solution was to call for stiffer penalties. They want to amend the Road Safety Bill (see link below) to increase the sentence for deliberately fleeing the scene of an accident to a maximum of 14 years.
They didn't call for a decrease in the numbers of speed cameras.
Meanwhile the government said that it had placed more traffic police on the roads and that technology such as the automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) systems meant it could be ascertained whether a driver was registered, making the roads safer.
A report in last Sunday's Observer pointed out that: "Speed cameras generated more than £114 million in fines last year. Figures show that most drivers' speed had dropped as the number of cameras increased."
What they don't show is a decrease in accidents.
Links
Discussion
"Figures show that most drivers' speed had dropped as the number of cameras increased."
What they don't show is a decrease in accidents"
The only way to decrease the number of accident is that we stop moving. So what I'm proposing is that we should all stop moving.
Simple!
Only snag would be that the economy would come crashing down!
What they don't show is a decrease in accidents"
The only way to decrease the number of accident is that we stop moving. So what I'm proposing is that we should all stop moving.
Simple!
Only snag would be that the economy would come crashing down!
article said:
Tory shadow transport spokesman Chris Grayling said that the increase in hit and run accidents, allegedly up by 30 per cent since 1997, is as a result of drivers knowing that they can get away with it because there are fewer traffic police around.
article also said:
...They want to amend the Road Safety Bill to increase the sentence for deliberately fleeing the scene of an accident to a maximum of 14 years.
Errrm, am I missing something but if they are getting away with it now, how is increasing the penalties going to help?
"...A report in last Sunday's Observer pointed out that: "Speed cameras generated more than £114 million in fines last year. Figures show that most drivers' speed had dropped as the number of cameras increased...What they don't show is a decrease in accidents..."
Isn't it strange
that it's the last fact, perhaps the most important...surely which seems to have been ignored? (Meanwhile, the revenue keeps rolling in...)
Isn't it strange
that it's the last fact, perhaps the most important...surely which seems to have been ignored? (Meanwhile, the revenue keeps rolling in...)profstoff said:
article said:
Tory shadow transport spokesman Chris Grayling said that the increase in hit and run accidents, allegedly up by 30 per cent since 1997, is as a result of drivers knowing that they can get away with it because there are fewer traffic police around.
article also said:
...They want to amend the Road Safety Bill to increase the sentence for deliberately fleeing the scene of an accident to a maximum of 14 years.
Errrm, am I missing something but if they are getting away with it now, how is increasing the penalties going to help?
The penalty is a deterrent so increasing the penalty increases the deterrent.
herewego said:
profstoff said:
article said:
Tory shadow transport spokesman Chris Grayling said that the increase in hit and run accidents, allegedly up by 30 per cent since 1997, is as a result of drivers knowing that they can get away with it because there are fewer traffic police around.
article also said:
...They want to amend the Road Safety Bill to increase the sentence for deliberately fleeing the scene of an accident to a maximum of 14 years.
Errrm, am I missing something but if they are getting away with it now, how is increasing the penalties going to help?
The penalty is a deterrent so increasing the penalty increases the deterrent.
but if there is no one around to aprehend you then what's the point? it's like someone packing a keepnet to go fishing but not bothering with a rod
Politicians all want control, and cameras promise them a massive extension of this, all comfortably disguised as a 'safety' improvement.
It's the same lust for power that sees our civil rights disppearring under the mantle of identity card legislation.
It's nearly time to take to the streets or abandon the UK to the sheep.
It's the same lust for power that sees our civil rights disppearring under the mantle of identity card legislation.
It's nearly time to take to the streets or abandon the UK to the sheep.
[quote="News story"]Figures show that most drivers' speed had dropped as the number of cameras increased."[/quote]
My new pet crusade: statistics taken out of context.
1. As has already been stated, they're supposed to be "safety" cameras, not "speed" cameras, so why laud the lowering of speed as a win
2. Traffic volumes have no doubt also increased over this same period. Therefore this isn't an independent statistic
3. Average speed may have lowered, but what about the speed of those in dangerous-driving, etc. accidents?
Aside #1: Have we got some statistics on the average speed that crashes occur at in the UK? I'm assuming that the number of crashes is going up and the speed of them is lowering (as the placement of cameras will cause more low-ish speed accidents). If the government's solution to this is to keep lowering speed limits, I wonder how many accidents we'll have when the NSL is 10mph, with cameras every mile, and people speeding up to 60-70+ inbetween each. You might as well put random high-profile speed-bumps in the middle of motorways. Hell, stick in tyre-shredders too and be done with it...
Aside #2: Given that cars are less economical at 30mph (or the variable acceleration/decceleration from/to 25mph that they're likely to go through scameras at) than at 50-60mph constant velocity, surely this is contravening carbon neutrality quite badly. Not to mention the materials in producing those nasty refined metal scameras. And powering them. How about we rip each one up and put a mini wind-turbine in its place? Or plant a tree in front of each?
My new pet crusade: statistics taken out of context.
1. As has already been stated, they're supposed to be "safety" cameras, not "speed" cameras, so why laud the lowering of speed as a win
2. Traffic volumes have no doubt also increased over this same period. Therefore this isn't an independent statistic
3. Average speed may have lowered, but what about the speed of those in dangerous-driving, etc. accidents?
Aside #1: Have we got some statistics on the average speed that crashes occur at in the UK? I'm assuming that the number of crashes is going up and the speed of them is lowering (as the placement of cameras will cause more low-ish speed accidents). If the government's solution to this is to keep lowering speed limits, I wonder how many accidents we'll have when the NSL is 10mph, with cameras every mile, and people speeding up to 60-70+ inbetween each. You might as well put random high-profile speed-bumps in the middle of motorways. Hell, stick in tyre-shredders too and be done with it...
Aside #2: Given that cars are less economical at 30mph (or the variable acceleration/decceleration from/to 25mph that they're likely to go through scameras at) than at 50-60mph constant velocity, surely this is contravening carbon neutrality quite badly. Not to mention the materials in producing those nasty refined metal scameras. And powering them. How about we rip each one up and put a mini wind-turbine in its place? Or plant a tree in front of each?
None of you have noticed the mis-spelling of 'gormless'- go and get a job in politics!
It is abundantly clear that politicians' gobshite no longer aligns with the opinions of most people I know and they are merely self-serving.
I suspect that civil disobedience will eventually break out.
It is abundantly clear that politicians' gobshite no longer aligns with the opinions of most people I know and they are merely self-serving.
I suspect that civil disobedience will eventually break out.
As James_J says, surely the point is simple. SAFETY cameras would make us safer. Continuing the same amount of accidents is clearly not making us safer. Ergo, the facts speak for themselves, the Safety cameras are not working.
BUT, I am quite sure the Govt know this, but are a bit busy ensuring their index linked and well protected pensions remain so.
BUT, I am quite sure the Govt know this, but are a bit busy ensuring their index linked and well protected pensions remain so.
J_S_G said:
Aside #2: Given that cars are less economical at 30mph (or the variable acceleration/decceleration from/to 25mph that they're likely to go through scameras at) than at 50-60mph constant velocity, surely this is contravening carbon neutrality quite badly. Not to mention the materials in producing those nasty refined metal scameras. And powering them. How about we rip each one up and put a mini wind-turbine in its place? Or plant a tree in front of each?
1. Are you saying that you want to do 50-60 in a 30 limit?
2. Is it right that you think you can save the planet that way?
fluffnik said:
herewego said:
The penalty is a deterrent so increasing the penalty increases the deterrent.
Nope.
Getting caught is the deterrent, increasing the penalty makes avoiding detection more attractive.
Also what is the point of increasing the maximum when the courts tend to only hand out the minimum sentences anyway because the prisons are already full?
fluffnik said:
herewego said:
The penalty is a deterrent so increasing the penalty increases the deterrent.
Nope.
Getting caught is the deterrent, increasing the penalty makes avoiding detection more attractive.
Nope.
In this case we’re talking about avoiding detection being itself the crime. So the crime doesn’t exist until someone leaves the scene of the accident. The driver has to decide at that point whether to be accountable or run for it and risk a substantial gaol term.
fat richie said:
scoobiewrx said:
GOVERMENT:
Gormeless
Overbearing
Vile
Egotistical
Rippoff
Mean
Eggsucking
Nasty
Tossers
Agree with the sentiment, shame about the spelling – government…
I totally agree, i missed an N, apologies for that. So that would be N for Nobsucking. can we have that?
black S2K said:
None of you have noticed the mis-spelling of 'gormless'- go and get a job in politics!
It is abundantly clear that politicians' gobshite no longer aligns with the opinions of most people I know and they are merely self-serving.
I suspect that civil disobedience will eventually break out.
It is abundantly clear that politicians' gobshite no longer aligns with the opinions of most people I know and they are merely self-serving.
I suspect that civil disobedience will eventually break out.
You're sort of right as well. The common spelling is gormless and that is in the dictionary too, however i have seen it spelt often the way i spelt it, so i wasn't aware i was wrong. And in my defence it's not a word i use too often so can i be excused for the ahem... TYPO!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff