Theoretical question ...
Discussion
Chaps,
Purely theoretical this one, but ...
IF all the vehicles on the road were taxed, insured, MOT'd and driven by people with licences (i.e. legit and tracable) ....
AND Speed Cameras were placed in genuine accident blackspots, with good signage of their presence before you got to them AND clearly posted speed limits ...
Would you support their use?
If so, what would you consider to be a good way to spend their fines? (Choices could be public transport, road improvements, victim support, battersea dogs home, cream cakes for Mr Bliar, or anything else you choose.)
Sensible answers only please!
Oli.
Purely theoretical this one, but ...
IF all the vehicles on the road were taxed, insured, MOT'd and driven by people with licences (i.e. legit and tracable) ....
AND Speed Cameras were placed in genuine accident blackspots, with good signage of their presence before you got to them AND clearly posted speed limits ...
Would you support their use?
If so, what would you consider to be a good way to spend their fines? (Choices could be public transport, road improvements, victim support, battersea dogs home, cream cakes for Mr Bliar, or anything else you choose.)
Sensible answers only please!
Oli.
Absolutely. I don't think there's anything wrong with the concept of speed cameras as a way of helping to control the speed of road traffic in known accident areas.
The problem we have is in the implementation of them in this country. They are used as replacements for trafpols and as revenue generators for local councils. Furthermore, the revenue that is generated is not publicly accounted for so what don't even know what it is used for.
So, I would support the use of cameras as in your hypothetical, if the number of trafpols was not affected.
Keith
The problem we have is in the implementation of them in this country. They are used as replacements for trafpols and as revenue generators for local councils. Furthermore, the revenue that is generated is not publicly accounted for so what don't even know what it is used for.
So, I would support the use of cameras as in your hypothetical, if the number of trafpols was not affected.
Keith
Undeniably NO! Speed cameras are unecessary and unwanted.
I will never support their use under any circumstances as its pretty obvious that they dont do what it says on the tin.
Consider this: If one speed camera anywhere takes one picture, then it has failed in its job to deter a driver form exceeding the speed limit.
Therefore it becomes an instrument of prosecution after the fact. If cameras stop speeders, then theyd have no prosecutions. Its as simple as that.
No to speed cameras in ANY position, No to them under ANY circumstances.
And NO to them because they dont bloody work!
lol think ive answered honestly.....
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 15th January 13:22
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 15th January 13:22
I will never support their use under any circumstances as its pretty obvious that they dont do what it says on the tin.
Consider this: If one speed camera anywhere takes one picture, then it has failed in its job to deter a driver form exceeding the speed limit.
Therefore it becomes an instrument of prosecution after the fact. If cameras stop speeders, then theyd have no prosecutions. Its as simple as that.
No to speed cameras in ANY position, No to them under ANY circumstances.
And NO to them because they dont bloody work!
lol think ive answered honestly.....
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 15th January 13:22
>> Edited by deltaf on Thursday 15th January 13:22
zcacogp said:
Chaps,
Purely theoretical this one, but ...
IF all the vehicles on the road were taxed, insured, MOT'd and driven by people with licences (i.e. legit and tracable) ....
AND Speed Cameras were placed in genuine accident blackspots, with good signage of their presence before you got to them AND clearly posted speed limits ...
Would you support their use?
I certainly would have done a year ago. But no longer.
Two main reasons:
1) Drivers are distracted from safe driving by the THOUGHT of speed cameras. As long as there are speed cameras this distraction will continue.
2) TRL research last year (TRL548 available from the TRL web site) discovered that vehicle activated warning signs were three times more effective at slowing vehicles in areas of danger at one third of the cost.
I rest my case.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
>> Edited by safespeed on Thursday 15th January 13:43
I cant believe all of the "yes" answers! Have you all not forgotten something important?
Remember, the vast majority of accidents occur WITHIN the speed limit, so it makes a mockery of having a bloody speed scamera up in the first place. Whats the point of having them when accidents occure below the trigger threshold??
Remember, the vast majority of accidents occur WITHIN the speed limit, so it makes a mockery of having a bloody speed scamera up in the first place. Whats the point of having them when accidents occure below the trigger threshold??
Having given this some consideration.
An extremely qualified yes but……..
Only if
having proved that accidents were truly due to excess speed above the limit
and proper road engineering had done all it could and proven not to be the solution
and flashing signs , bunches of flowers at the site, etc had been deployed and proven to still fail to deal with it, then, and only then could a speed camera site be declared (static or mobile)
and none of this triggering at 34 in a 30 bollocks either. A trigger limit to get those who really are extracting the urine.
and then a fine issued ONLY after the driver had been properly identified by someone who is properly qualified personally going along the trail of registered keeper and having a direct discussion with the individuals concerned. Much more difficult to face down I can't remember who was driving, or whether I was on that road, or I wasn't going that quickly, or it was totally safe in an eyeball to eyeball situation.
Accepted this does not deal with the 10% plus down the unregistered black hole. Other ways of dealing with that.
Also accepted that the above qualifications means that effectively the things would end up down the tip and is also economically and logistically unsustainable, but hey you asked for my opinion and fwiw that’s it.
An extremely qualified yes but……..
Only if
having proved that accidents were truly due to excess speed above the limit
and proper road engineering had done all it could and proven not to be the solution
and flashing signs , bunches of flowers at the site, etc had been deployed and proven to still fail to deal with it, then, and only then could a speed camera site be declared (static or mobile)
and none of this triggering at 34 in a 30 bollocks either. A trigger limit to get those who really are extracting the urine.
and then a fine issued ONLY after the driver had been properly identified by someone who is properly qualified personally going along the trail of registered keeper and having a direct discussion with the individuals concerned. Much more difficult to face down I can't remember who was driving, or whether I was on that road, or I wasn't going that quickly, or it was totally safe in an eyeball to eyeball situation.
Accepted this does not deal with the 10% plus down the unregistered black hole. Other ways of dealing with that.
Also accepted that the above qualifications means that effectively the things would end up down the tip and is also economically and logistically unsustainable, but hey you asked for my opinion and fwiw that’s it.
Speed cameras would be OK if you can guarantee they catch people who are causing an unacceptable danger through inappropriate speed, and don't catch anyone else. Speed on its own is a very poor measure of how dangerously somebody is driving though.
To achieve this the camera threshold would need to be set considerably higher than the generally safe speed for the road, and the threshold would either need to vary with the conditions, or be set to the value corresponding to the best conditions ever likely to be encountered.
The only time and place where I can see that speed cameras in their current form could be justified, would be in heavily built up areas where there is a significant and unavoidable risk of pedestrian/car collisions. In these situations, the purpose of the speed camera would be not to reduce the likelihood of an accident (there are far more effective ways to do that), but to keep the vehicle speed low enough for a collision to be survivable to the pedestrian when it does eventually happen.
To achieve this the camera threshold would need to be set considerably higher than the generally safe speed for the road, and the threshold would either need to vary with the conditions, or be set to the value corresponding to the best conditions ever likely to be encountered.
The only time and place where I can see that speed cameras in their current form could be justified, would be in heavily built up areas where there is a significant and unavoidable risk of pedestrian/car collisions. In these situations, the purpose of the speed camera would be not to reduce the likelihood of an accident (there are far more effective ways to do that), but to keep the vehicle speed low enough for a collision to be survivable to the pedestrian when it does eventually happen.
No, as Paul says, speed cameras are a distraction. They reduce the amount of attention the average driver is giving to the road ahead.
As for blackspots, I recall the large "accident blackspot" signs many years ago complete with a large black spot symbol surprisingly enough. These were very effective because they made the driver think "shit better keep my eye peeled here and cover the brake" (or stuff like that). They treated drivers like intelligent beings.
As for blackspots, I recall the large "accident blackspot" signs many years ago complete with a large black spot symbol surprisingly enough. These were very effective because they made the driver think "shit better keep my eye peeled here and cover the brake" (or stuff like that). They treated drivers like intelligent beings.
Even within the theoretical framework presented the answer has to be no. The use of any measure which increases death is state sponsored murder. The money gained from the sequestration of the assets of charities such as Brake and T2000 should go to the victims of speed camera crime. The motorists who have died as a result of government neglect.
zcacogp said:Yes
Chaps,
Purely theoretical this one, but ...
IF all the vehicles on the road were taxed, insured, MOT'd and driven by people with licences (i.e. legit and tracable) ....
AND Speed Cameras were placed in genuine accident blackspots, with good signage of their presence before you got to them AND clearly posted speed limits ...
Would you support their use?
zcacogp said:
Chaps,
Purely theoretical this one, but ...
IF all the vehicles on the road were taxed, insured, MOT'd and driven by people with licences (i.e. legit and tracable) ....
kinda pointless speculation really
zcacogp said:
AND Speed Cameras were placed in genuine accident blackspots, with good signage of their presence before you got to them AND clearly posted speed limits ...
Why not remove the reason for that spot being black in the first place? or is making revenue from misfortune the real modus operandi?
zcacogp said:
Would you support their use?
An unequivocal yes........just as soon as that squadron of pigs lands, refuels and f**ks off
Hertsbiker,
That's be best compliment I have had in a long while - I'm OK!!!
No seriously, you made some good points, and made me think. I suspect that apology should work the other way around.
No hard feelings either way. (What someone needs to develop is a facility that will allow you to buy someone a beer, on-line. Anyone any ideas?)
Keep coming with the answers about the cameras BTW. I'm finding this most interesting.
Oli.
That's be best compliment I have had in a long while - I'm OK!!!
No seriously, you made some good points, and made me think. I suspect that apology should work the other way around.
No hard feelings either way. (What someone needs to develop is a facility that will allow you to buy someone a beer, on-line. Anyone any ideas?)
Keep coming with the answers about the cameras BTW. I'm finding this most interesting.
Oli.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff