+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 70
General Chat Thread, New Speed Cameras in General; Originally Posted by IanT All speed cameras are there to JUST make money imo, don't like my opinion, don't comment, ...
  1. #16

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,096
    Thank Post
    511
    Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,786 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by IanT View Post
    All speed cameras are there to JUST make money imo, don't like my opinion, don't comment, simple.
    Opinions are usually formed from evidence/facts.

    Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your opinion? I could present a fair few studies and statistics showing reductions in accidents and deaths due to speed cameras to support mine...

  2. #17
    IanT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    @ the back of my server racks farting.....
    Posts
    1,887
    Thank Post
    2
    Thanked 118 Times in 109 Posts
    Rep Power
    59
    I am entitled to my opinion.

    Many Thanks.

  3. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,144
    Thank Post
    113
    Thanked 518 Times in 447 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    121
    @Martin - I think you're missing the point. The Daily Mail article doesn't seem to be objecting to the law, just the enforcement of the law. If they think it's wrong to enforce speed limits (or just to enforce some limits in particular places) then they should say that and campaign against that law so that it can be changed. They don't do this - the campaign against law enforcement which I just find very, very strange (at least I would if this wasn't the Daily Mail which I believe is written by some kind of weird alien!)

    @IanT, I appreciate you've taken the ball home and are no longer playing but I simply cannot see how you can treat a fine for breaking the law as a money making exercise. If the cameras were hidden away and no-one was told about them then I might agree with you. As it is, the roads (generally) have clearly signed speed limits, the cameras themselves are painted bright yellow and (generally!) anyone who gets caught by a speed camera is just choosing to break the law and gambling that the camera won't be working.

    The report that drivers were "clobbered" with 1 million tickets in 2008 just goes to show the stupidity of a large number of drivers. That's orders of magnitude more than can be explained by the odd confusing speed sign or one which has been overgrown by trees or whatever.

  4. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    408
    Thank Post
    71
    Thanked 75 Times in 58 Posts
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Opinions are usually formed from evidence/facts.

    Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your opinion? I could present a fair few studies and statistics showing reductions in accidents and deaths due to speed cameras to support mine...
    There is a technique used to help justify the installation of speed cameras call "return to the mean" (RTTM).

    When the original "Hypothecation Trials" were conducted in 1999/2000, almost all of the forces involved in the pilot scheme had an unusually large number of fatalities in the year before speed cameras were installed. Thus there would be an almost guaranteed drop in fatalities the following year which would conveniently be attributed to those cameras.

    Look at the combined fatality statistics in all six trial areas in the lead up to the pilot...



    and compare this to the England national average...



    ...so of course fatalities are going to fall in the year that speed cameras are installed - but nothing to do with the cameras themselves!!!

    Similar lies were made in London to justify speed cameras, saying that fatalities dropped from 276 in 1997 down to 226 in 1998.

    Strange that there were only 214 fatalities in 1995, and even stranger that they were back up to 264 in 1999!!

    In addition, other measures are often put in place at the same time as installing cameras. Near to me is a road that had a higher than average number of accidents - but these were typically the result of people being hit whilst turning right off the main road and due to dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

    The limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph, many gallons of paint were applied to the road and keep left bollards were installed (including creating right-turn refuges) as well as the installation of speed cameras.

    Right-turners were now much safer, and you can no longer overtake - but guess which item got the credit for a reduction in accidents

    Oh, and to look at things in a different way, i am sure that the Daily Mail haters will cringe when they read Town that scrapped 'motorist tax' speed cameras sees no increase in accidents.

    Yup, i agree with IanT - speed cameras are a money-making scam!!!

    mb

  5. #20
    IanT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    @ the back of my server racks farting.....
    Posts
    1,887
    Thank Post
    2
    Thanked 118 Times in 109 Posts
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    @Martin - I think you're missing the point. The Daily Mail article doesn't seem to be objecting to the law, just the enforcement of the law. If they think it's wrong to enforce speed limits (or just to enforce some limits in particular places) then they should say that and campaign against that law so that it can be changed. They don't do this - the campaign against law enforcement which I just find very, very strange (at least I would if this wasn't the Daily Mail which I believe is written by some kind of weird alien!)

    @IanT, I appreciate you've taken the ball home and are no longer playing but I simply cannot see how you can treat a fine for breaking the law as a money making exercise. If the cameras were hidden away and no-one was told about them then I might agree with you. As it is, the roads (generally) have clearly signed speed limits, the cameras themselves are painted bright yellow and (generally!) anyone who gets caught by a speed camera is just choosing to break the law and gambling that the camera won't be working.

    The report that drivers were "clobbered" with 1 million tickets in 2008 just goes to show the stupidity of a large number of drivers. That's orders of magnitude more than can be explained by the odd confusing speed sign or one which has been overgrown by trees or whatever.
    I've brought my ball back, I stand with my opinion still, its a free country.

  6. #21

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,096
    Thank Post
    511
    Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,786 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin View Post
    There is a technique used to help justify the installation of speed cameras call "return to the mean" (RTTM).

    When the original "Hypothecation Trials" were conducted in 1999/2000, almost all of the forces involved in the pilot scheme had an unusually large number of fatalities in the year before speed cameras were installed. Thus there would be an almost guaranteed drop in fatalities the following year which would conveniently be attributed to those cameras.
    Sorry but 'almost guaranteed'. That's nonsense to be honest. How would you know this, or anyone? You can't, plain and simple.

    Look at the combined fatality statistics in all six trial areas in the lead up to the pilot...



    and compare this to the England national average...



    ...so of course fatalities are going to fall in the year that speed cameras are installed - but nothing to do with the cameras themselves!!!
    Sorry but what do those graphs show? The scales are wildly different, so comparing them is a little difficult.

    Similar lies were made in London to justify speed cameras, saying that fatalities dropped from 276 in 1997 down to 226 in 1998.

    Strange that there were only 214 fatalities in 1995, and even stranger that they were back up to 264 in 1999!!
    As with any system, there are always anomalies. You can not use a single year as an indicator of how well a system works.

    In addition, other measures are often put in place at the same time as installing cameras. Near to me is a road that had a higher than average number of accidents - but these were typically the result of people being hit whilst turning right off the main road and due to dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

    The limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph, many gallons of paint were applied to the road and keep left bollards were installed (including creating right-turn refuges) as well as the installation of speed cameras.

    Right-turners were now much safer, and you can no longer overtake - but guess which item got the credit for a reduction in accidents
    Yes, other measures are sometimes put in too, but to claim that speed cameras make no difference is patently absurd.

    Oh, and to look at things in a different way, i am sure that the Daily Mail haters will cringe when they read Town that scrapped 'motorist tax' speed cameras sees no increase in accidents.
    That has to be the single worst study I have ever seen. Turning off 4 cameras as an indicator of how all speed cameras are a money making scam? Again, that is what could very easily be within the margin of error for any statistics produced.

    Yup, i agree with IanT - speed cameras are a money-making scam!!!
    Put it this way - they are fining people who are breaking the law. Why should people who are breaking the law NOT be fined? Are you saying that speed limits should be abolished? As I said to IanT - if you have a problem with a particular speed limit, contact your council - they're the ones that set them...

    As it is, your statistical analysis leaves much to be desired!

  7. #22

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,096
    Thank Post
    511
    Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,786 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by IanT View Post
    I've brought my ball back, I stand with my opinion still, its a free country.
    Really struggling to understand your opinion, without you providing anything to support it... How do we discuss it if you don't support yourself?

  8. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    408
    Thank Post
    71
    Thanked 75 Times in 58 Posts
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by srochford View Post
    @Martin - I think you're missing the point. The Daily Mail article doesn't seem to be objecting to the law, just the enforcement of the law.
    The problem with automated, robotic law enforcement is that the primary objective becomes the enforcement of "the law". It is irrelevant whether contravening "the law" is potentially harming anyone, or damaging the environment etc. - you broke "the law" and you will be punished. There is no Policeman to explain what you did wrong at the time, to educate you, to make you think about your actions - nope, just a bill a couple of weeks later!

    And as enforcing "the law" may not actually provide any real benefits (see my earlier post), there is a tendency to tighten up "the law" to give the impression that it is a good thing - irrespective of the facts.

    Let me give you an example of "the law" being abused from only yesterday. I was driving up the M40 at a similar speed to all the other traffic. As we approached the M42 intersection the (now extended) ATM had been activated at 16:30 on a quiet motorway on a sunny Saturday afternoon. The mandatory speed limit had been reduced to 40mph across all four lanes on the approach to the M42 slip-road and continued up that slip-road. After having to brake to slow down in time (these limits are enforced by speed cameras), in the two-lane section of the slip-road the limit in the left-hand lane then reduced to TWENTY MILES PER HOUR - on a nearly deserted motorway FFS!!!!

    I pulled into lane 2 after a range rover overtook me (so that i could continue at a still unreasonable 40mph) - i normally try to keep left, but not in this situation. Shortly after a car undertook me in lane 1 at i estimate 60mph - in other words over three times that allowed by "the law" - even though both the 20mph and 40mph restrictions were utterly ridiculous!!

    After 3 or 4 gantries with 20mph and 40mph limits there was actually an info-sign saying "obstruction" - in other words, potentially useful information and not just a number in a lolly, so why could this not have been displayed much earlier??

    Oh, and was there any obstruction of any kind worth justifying a 20mph speed limit on an almost deserted motorway? No there wasn't!!

    I also disagree with your comment to IanT "As it is, the roads (generally) have clearly signed speed limits". Part of implementing the "scam" is to obfuscate and hide the actual limits!

    The stretch of road that i mentioned earlier enters the Birmingham area as Chester Road. It is dead straight (although slightly undulating), is almost two lanes wide in each direction, has central islands and turning refuges, and most houses, shops etc. are behind by parallel "access roads" - so the original 40mph limit was perfectly reasonable.

    However a couple of years ago the council decided to reduce the speed limit t0 30mph, and this they did by simply removing the 40mph "repeaters" and taking down the 40mph entry signs on the side roads.

    As the road has a system of streetlights, "the law" says that they cannot install 30mph repeaters, but neither did they install any other signs saying "new speed limit in force". Of course all the (many) GATSOs were re-calibrated to the lower limit to enforce "the law".

    A couple of weeks later, hundreds of motorists received "bills" through their letterboxes, including many locals and residents of that road. Sure, technically they had broken "the law", but they were more than a bit unhappy

    The more technology is introduced, the more that "the law" will be abused by the authorities

    mb

  9. Thanks to Martin from:

    CHR1S (26th April 2010)

  10. #24
    IanT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    @ the back of my server racks farting.....
    Posts
    1,887
    Thank Post
    2
    Thanked 118 Times in 109 Posts
    Rep Power
    59
    I believe that speed cameras don't offer much, they don't make certain areas safer.

    I know a few coppers and they've even said to me "there a waste of time and money", says it all really.

  11. #25

    LeMarchand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The deepest pits of hell
    Posts
    2,020
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 293 Times in 213 Posts
    Rep Power
    134
    I too find it odd that the Mail is constantly banging on about the way that the law is being flouted, but hypocritically has campaigns that their readers are being "persecuted" when they break the laws on speeding (and rubbish recycling). I don't understand the complaints about speed cameras either: you don't speed, you don't get a fine. Yes, occasionally the speed limit might be ridiculous or the signage might not be adequate but most of the time fines are issued to those that were knowingly breaking the law (or weren't paying attention). I'm all for the banning of any new car/bike that can go above 70mph (possibly a little higher to keep some acceleration"spare") and an incentive to have older vehicles retrofitted. Boys, if driving/riding fast gets you off there are many places where you can do it legally.

    As for the police not liking cams, I've often seen police vehicles speeding (without lights/sirens) so no surprise there...

  12. #26

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,051
    Thank Post
    275
    Thanked 722 Times in 550 Posts
    Rep Power
    326
    I think what the mail was complaining about was the fact that these cameras are linked together and track your route and of course that data will be on a nice 'government database' tucked away somewhere.
    The problem with reliance on speed cameras is that they only measure one factor of dangerous driving, which is speed, they don't tackle the plethora of other causes of dangerous driving which need human assessment in the form of police to assess properly.

  13. #27

    LeMarchand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The deepest pits of hell
    Posts
    2,020
    Thank Post
    284
    Thanked 293 Times in 213 Posts
    Rep Power
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    I think what the mail was complaining about was the fact that these cameras are linked together and track your route and of course that data will be on a nice 'government database' tucked away somewhere.
    Fair point, and it is a worry, though they also complain about "normal" speed cameras spoiling the fun of those who feel themselves above the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    The problem with reliance on speed cameras is that they only measure one factor of dangerous driving, which is speed, they don't tackle the plethora of other causes of dangerous driving which need human assessment in the form of police to assess properly.
    True, and something does need to be done about those other causes, but at least that one factor could be dealt with.

  14. #28

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    9,881
    Thank Post
    1,316
    Thanked 1,738 Times in 1,087 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by IanT View Post
    I believe that speed cameras don't offer much, they don't make certain areas safer.

    I know a few coppers and they've even said to me "there a waste of time and money", says it all really.
    I know a few coppers of the same opinion. I know other coppers that would prefer to see limiters and a nationwide average speed camera network.

    Personally, I cannot see the issue with the idea that you break a law you pay a penalty. If you disagree with the law (as in how the speed limit has been set in your particular area) then challenge it. The issue of a nationwide tracking system (big brother) is another matter. There are a lot of concerns to be had about that.

    In the UK there is a link between speed and the increased chances of being involved in a collision likely to cause serious injury or death. That is why limits change around certain junctions.

    The issue about variable speed limits on major roads is slightly different though. The use of variable speed limits varies from road safety (due to weather conditions, traffic collisions, road debris or high traffic volume) to keeping a steady flow of traffic moving at all times (ranging from road repairs or road improvement works through to high volumes of traffic). There is evidence that for general road usage by reducing the speed can keep traffic flowing smoother. We have all seen the bunching effect you get in high traffic volumes but the stop start causes more problems at higher speeds ... and yes, it is made even worse when you get lane swappers, intent on getting a few more metres ahead than everyone else .... often not caring that the person who has left enough stopping distance to the car in front of them (which has been filled by a lane swapper) now has to slow down to keep a safe distance, causing the car behind to slow ... and so the ripple continues.

    Speed kills. Some people are better drivers than others and are less likely to be involved in collisions at higher speed ... but this is an area where we do have to stick to reasonable limits.

    It was quite interesting to listen to Jezza on Wossy on Friday ... Jezza was moaning that Hamster was terribly law-abiding and stuck to the speed limit when coming back from Europe during the week. Thumbs up to Hamster and boo hiss to Jezza. Jezza may be a fantastic driver but others will try to follow his example about do stupid stuff ... he may not care that much about the environment but I wonder what his position would be if someone who has mown down a family turns round and say, "well Jezza says it is ok to speed!"

  15. #29

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    9,881
    Thank Post
    1,316
    Thanked 1,738 Times in 1,087 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by teejay View Post
    I think what the mail was complaining about was the fact that these cameras are linked together and track your route and of course that data will be on a nice 'government database' tucked away somewhere.
    The problem with reliance on speed cameras is that they only measure one factor of dangerous driving, which is speed, they don't tackle the plethora of other causes of dangerous driving which need human assessment in the form of police to assess properly.
    I'm trying to dig out who is doing the research at the moment ... but I had been told that last year and over the next 2 years research is going on to examine links between those caught using mobiles whilst driving and those who have more than 6 points within a 5 year period for speeding or those who have been tested positive for driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

    The idea (as I understood it) was to see if there is true correlation rather than just supposition that you sometimes hear touted by some media groups, and to make it UK based rather than US / European based (different styles and approaches to driving).

  16. #30
    mossj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    1,466
    Thank Post
    157
    Thanked 189 Times in 174 Posts
    Rep Power
    51
    Only reason to have issue with nationwide speed cameras is if you are planning on breaking the law.

    As for not educating you, I think taking your license off you if you do it a few times is education enough, which also saves yourself from darwins law (and taking others around you with you).

    P.S this comes from someone who has 6 points thanks to the things...

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Can you see these cameras?
    By Dos_Box in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 3rd July 2008, 03:31 PM
  2. IP cameras
    By ChrisH in forum Hardware
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12th June 2008, 11:23 AM
  3. Backbone speed for new build network/VoIP/IP Cameras
    By TheFopp in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17th April 2008, 08:06 AM
  4. IP Cameras
    By tscnmuk in forum Hardware
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 9th November 2007, 08:48 AM
  5. IP Cameras
    By FN-GM in forum Hardware
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 30th August 2007, 10:10 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •