New Speed Cameras

[EduTech]

Just read this article, not sure if it has been posted yet (merge if it has)

 

New speed cameras trap motorists from space on trial in UK | Mail Online

 

I think the technology behind this is pretty cool to be honest!

 

James.

[Andrew_C]

There are places where these would be more appropriate.

[GrumbleDook]

I love the bit about how there have been £1bn of fines since labour came into power ... personally I think it sounds better if you say that there have been x million drivers fined for speeding. The politics side is not relevant ... the fact that people are speeding is.

[robmal]

The system isn't so new apparently......

 

Media awakens to Spike camera testing

 

Rob

[srochford]

I don't know why the Daily Mail is so opposed to law enforcement! They quote a Conservative MP "'You always have to ask if it is really necessary to watch over people". If this really is the case, why are we putting more police out on the streets if not to watch over people and make sure that they don't break the law (or catch them if they do break the law!)

[Andrew_C]

Why read the "Daily Fascist" at all?

[webman]

Sensationalist headline and as usual, terrible reporting from the Daily Fail. But yes, very interesting use of technology. It sounds much more capable of spotting the speeders who slow down to the actual limit when they see the huge yellow boxes and then speed up again once out of sight.

 

Of course, the "average speed" method is already in use on some roads but the infrastructure, from my understanding , needs a lot more behind it. With GPS and wireless data, this new method looks a lot more efficient and cost-effective.

 

Speaking of interesting use of mobile technology, I'm impressed by the new wireless smart meter system as planned by British Gas - outlined in the PDFs at the bottom of the news article Centrica plc - Media - News - British Gas plans two million smart meters in British homes by 2012 (29 March 2010).

[Martin]

I don't know why the Daily Mail is so opposed to law enforcement!

 

...so i take it that you wouldn't object if they (legally) reduced all (private vehicle) speed limits to 5mph (after all, if it saves just one 'ickle life!)???

 

You have had your obligatory Sunday morning archery practice haven't you

 

mb

[IanT]

another money making scam!

[localzuk]

another money making scam!

 

How's it a scam to enforce speed limits?

 

The answer to poor speed limits is to approach those who set them, not to break the law...

[webman]

...so i take it that you wouldn't object if they (legally) reduced all (private vehicle) speed limits to 5mph (after all, if it saves just one 'ickle life!)???

 

The Green Party want to reduce the national speed limit to 55mph on motorways and trunk roads, and to 40mph on rural roads.

[powdarrmonkey]

...so i take it that you wouldn't object if they (legally) reduced all (private vehicle) speed limits to 5mph (after all, if it saves just one 'ickle life!)???

 

Nobody mentioned reducing any limits, just enforcing the limits that are already decided (however democratically you think this happens).

[IanT]

How's it a scam to enforce speed limits?

 

The answer to poor speed limits is to approach those who set them, not to break the law...

 

All speed cameras are there to JUST make money imo, don't like my opinion, don't comment, simple.

[duncane]

All speed cameras are there to JUST make money imo, don't like my opinion, don't comment, simple.

Erm, "No". The purpose of a discussion forum is to comment or discuss - if you don't want to be involved in a discussion surely you shouldn't comment? Simples?

[IanT]

errrrrr "yeah" and that was my opinion, simple's

[localzuk]

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...

[IanT]

I am entitled to my opinion.

 

Many Thanks.

[srochford]

@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.

[Martin]

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...

 

http://www.abd.org.uk/images/hypoth_six.gif

 

and compare this to the England national average...

 

http://www.abd.org.uk/images/hypoth_england.gif

 

...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

[IanT]

@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.

[localzuk]

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...

 

http://www.abd.org.uk/images/hypoth_six.gif

 

and compare this to the England national average...

 

http://www.abd.org.uk/images/hypoth_england.gif

 

...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!

[localzuk]

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?

[Martin]

@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

[IanT]

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.

[LeMarchand]

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...