Speeding Cameras - Latest

[Dominic]

Thought it might interest a few of you. It basically boils down to:

Roads where everyone naturally drives below the speed limit (the typical narrow, windy residential roads) because even DOING the limit would be dangerous, never mind breaking the limit, CANNOT have a speed camera placed on them to catch people breaking the limit, even though these are the roads where speeders are at their most dangerous.

Page 1
Page 2

[Mark Davies]

<font color='#000080'>I know this is a favourite topic of yours, Dom, but the argument within the article is disengenious at best, at worst total bollocks.

I relies entirely on the graphs that show that accident risk exceeds chosen speeds at both ends of the speed scale and is therefore saying &quot;Why are cameras not put where people have accidents at low speeds - speed cameras must just be to make money&quot;. It's rubbish.

What the graph does not show is at what speeds they're talking about. Those accidents at low speed are car park bumps. The reason speed cameras are not put into car parks is that people very rarely get killed in 2mph accidents. People do get killed at higher speeds - that's the priority and that is why the cameras are there.

This is a classic example of statistics being misrepresented and shoe-horned into the desired story for the purpose of propaganda.

I get sick of the arguments about speed cameras being nothing more than revenue raisers. Speeding fines do not pay my wages, provide my equipment or go anywhere near other police budgets. The revenue retained by the police only goes towards the maintenence of the cameras. There are strict rules in place to govern this. So there is no financial incentive for using speed cameras.

No, cameras do not have any discretion and cannot make judgements on relative safety, and so people will get done for speeding when they haven't been any danger (say on a deserted road at night). I'll listen to those arguments and offer some agreement. However, until this country has 2 million police officers with one on every street cameras are the only viable and cost effective method to retain road safety.

The simple answer is this. Don't break the democratic law and you don't have to worry. I've made this argument elsewhere and I know you've read it, so I won't repeat it, but your reasons for wanting to break the speed limit are entirely selfish, frivolous and totally unjustifiable.

[Dominic]

But that's not what the article says - it points out that the places where it would be most dangerous to break a 30 limit are also the places where it's against the rules to place them.

Besides, I don't break the speed limit, nor have any desire to. I don't even have a problem with speed cameras per se - it's their massive over-use I dislike, and the increase in fatalities that have arisen since they were introduced that I despise.

[Andy Phillips]

I have to say I am entirely with Dom on this one, and, to be honest, I am not immune to driving a &quot;bit quick&quot; at times. I drive a lot, most years ths is over 30,000 miles. Some of the cameras I have seen are in insane places that can not possibly serve road saftey in any way.

An example, on the way into Edinburgh on the A1, there is a camera on a stretch of dual carridgeway, there are no roads entering or exiting, there are no houses either side of the road, nor infact within eyesight of the road. The camera is very neatly placed just after a road bridge going over the carridgeway (you can't see it until it is almost to late, it would require some serious braking to get your speed down).

Someone explain to me what that camera is there for other than to collect money.

I also have no problem with the cameras, but, they must be used in the correct places.

Andrew

[Rupert Bear]

There is an incentive since local councils get to keep the money, any revenue cuts the council tax!
&nbsp;Strathclyde are the biggest offenders when trying to hide cameras, ( they are supposed to be visible to deter speeding, not catch speeders, or at least that is the argument I have heard for them) when the rules changed that they had to be Hi viz in colour they repainted them from dark grey to ............very dark blue!

[Gavin Yates]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (andyp @ Jan. 28 2004,10:47)]An example, on the way into Edinburgh on the A1, there is a camera on a stretch of dual carridgeway ...

<font color='#000F22'>Andy I know exactly the camera you're talking about. The camera is there to stop arseholes doing 100 mph on that stretch where it can often be slippy (water run-off from the bridge doesn't help I'll admit) and sometimes queueing vehicles for the bypass turn-off which is a long way along but it can back up.

Some cameras appear to be badly situated but at least on the A1 near Embra they are clearly marked - brightly coloured etc .. there is no excuse to get pinged unless you completely disregard them.

Speak to my Missus about speeding on the A1. She gets a lot of trade (she prosecutes them )with speeding motorists after they've crashed whilst doing in excess of 90mph on the A1.

Obviously sometimes she doesn't always get to prosecute - corpses are difficult to get a conviction with.

Don't get me wrong - I do speed - but if &nbsp;get nicked then that's my fault.

[aclivity]

<font color='#810541'>Put speed cameras on every street. &nbsp;In fact, put transponders in every car so that any speeding car can be caught and fined immediately.

Oops, I came over all Daily Mail then .... except the Daily Mail, usually a bastion of support for the following of the letter of the law, seems to be against speed cameras. &nbsp;Funny that. &nbsp;Speeding is against the law of the land. &nbsp;If you like to drive a 'bit fast' then rather than campaign against speed cameras, campaign to raise speed limits where appropriate. &nbsp;I like to drive a 'bit fast' as well, sometimes, but I have more fun in my little GTi on the a-roads and b-roads than on dual carriageways or motorways, and I submit that you can often have more fun between 20 and 40 mph on a nice B-road than flat out on a straight road. &nbsp;If it's just about getting 'there' faster ..... I don't really understand that. Either leave earlier or (of you are like me and cannot get out of the house on time) build a reputation amongst friends, family and colleagues for arriving late. &nbsp;They will compensate by telling you an earlier time for important events.

Now then, back to my Daily Mail mood ..... take away 'drivers airbags' and replace them with a big sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel. &nbsp;Whilst we're about it, take away drivers seat belts, as that gives a sense of security to drivers that they would survive a crash ......


Andy

[Andy Phillips]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]The camera is there to stop arseholes doing 100 mph on that stretch where it can often be slippy (water run-off from the bridge doesn't help I'll admit)

Yep, I can understand that, but, if your stupid enough to go fast enough to get caught by a camera when there is enough water about to be dangerous, then I entirely agree with you, and the camera for that matter. With this particular camera, it was the hiding it behind the bridge that I find offensive, there have been a couple of times when I have been going up there, minding my own business at 70 ish MPH (tend to go at night and sleep in a hotel, so no need to hurry) when the guy infront of me has just spotted the camera and is now pushing the brake pedel with two feet, I have had to make some hasty lane adjustments. One day someone will get me.

Andrew

[Mark Davies]

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Gavin Yates @ Jan. 28 2004,11:11)]Don't get me wrong - I do speed - but if  get nicked then that's my fault.

<font color='#000080'>Which is exactly the attitude, Gav.

Right, for the last time. The police do not get to keep the revenues from speeding tickets. Local councils do (as has been pointed out). The councils do not set up speed cameras. The police do. The council does not tell the police where to put up cameras or how many. So the decision to set up a camera is not made by, or influenced by, the body that gets the money.

So, perhaps if I say this slowly it might sink in.

THERE IS NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR PUTTING UP SPEED CAMERAS.

The only issue is safety - saving lives. Just because you don't understand why a camera is where it is, it doesn't follow that there isn't a reason. As has been so admirably illustrated above.

[Mark Davies]

<font color='#000080'>

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Dominic @ Jan. 28 2004,09:59)]But that's not what the article says - it points out that the places where it would be most dangerous to break a 30 limit are also the places where it's against the rules to place them.

That's what the article says, but the evidence it puts forward to make the argument simply does not support it. To make that statement the article relies on the idea that where it is genuinely dangerous people slow down to the speed limit anyway. Bollocks.

It says that cameras can only be placed in areas where:

1) There have been at least 4 deaths,
2) One of those deaths must be directly attributable to speeding,
3) The 85 percentile must be exceeded.

Now regarding the third point, the article conveniently says &quot;well this is complicated but what it comes down to is...&quot;. In other words, they provide no explanation of why this supports their case. It doesn't.

The third rule means that cameras are put in places where people are predominantly driving  significantly faster than the speed limit. That's all.

Where the article fails in it's understanding is by equating the blue curve with &quot;safe speed&quot;. The curve indicates what people think is safe - not what is safe. That's the crux of the problem. The simple fact is that the standard of driving in the UK is poor. The vast majority of drivers have very little concept of what is safe and what isn't and generally choose to drive too quickly.

This whole campaign is based on the idea that people should be left to choose what is a safe speed for the conditions and should only be prosecuted when it's proven otherwise. Well, there simply are not the resources to catch everyone driving at dangerous speeds and, quite frankly, the motorist cannot be trusted to make that judgement - they don't have the necessary skill to do it. Studies indicate that around 80% of motorists think their driving skills are above average. Well, that says it all; over-confidence. Until someone shows you how to drive properly you just don't realise how bad (and how dangerous) you are.