'Hypocrisy' of speeding middle-class motorists

[Alex C.]

1) It's still just a dumb static camera

Of course it is, it's a blunt instrument, the same way we tackle TV License cheats (sending out thousands of speculative letters) and cars with no insurance (via static ANPR cameras).

2) Most cameras need a flash, that would alert the motorist that they have been caught

That's a good point - do most people slow down when they are flashed (presumably thinking they can beat the speed of light)? It's also something that may be solvable by technology.

3) Hiding them (as many are already) does not prevent drivers from speeding through them.

Nope, I never postulated that, the 'anti-speed-camera' people claim that if people know the cameras there then they'll cause accidents by hitting the brakes, so you can't show them. People would reduce their speed once they'd been caught once or twice.

4) This perpetuates the theory that they are only revenue generators.

Is there anything wrong with charging people to break the law? There's a very simple solution, don't break it - in addition, to meet everyone's concerns on this topic, money raised would be ringfenced into a fund to support more traffic officers catching all the things that speed cameras can't

5) If safety was the only priority, they'd want drivers to slow down at that point to avoid causing accidents. Since this would see drivers sail on through unaware, that is not going to prevent accidents.

You're thinking short term - long term, if people knew they could be caught speeding any time, any where, they would have to stick to the speed limit

6) That does not mean accidents WILL happen. If cameras are covert, to a driver its as though no camera is there at all. As we have seen in Swindon where they have been switched off, accidents have not increased over 12 months. So all a covert camera serves to do is generate cash, nothing else.

See above.

I would prefer to see more of the flashing LCD signs that show the limit and your speed, I always take much more notice of those and they're a lot cheaper. Graduated warnings would be good on the approach to a danger zone; something like Danger Zone 400yds....Danger Zone 200yds.....Danger Zone 100yds, possibly display the speed you should be doing at each sign and flash SLOW at each one if too fast.

 

There needs to be a more holistic approach to preventing accidents, speed cameras are not the be all end all solution to the problem, there are plenty of other things to examine; removal of road obstructions and anything obstructing the view, road layout, signage, lighting, rumble strips, speed inhibitors, changes to driving tuition etc etc.

No, but they are an easy solution. The point of the thread is that people believe that they can choose to break speeding laws, by dressing it up with things like 'revenue generators', 'cash cows', 'causes accidents' and 'don't help with dangerous driving'

 

Yet I'd imagine a solution which makes them revenue neutral in terms of road policing, funds lots more police to find these dangerous drivers, and stops the accidents which are claimed to happen because of speed cameras would be dismissed by most anti speed camera types.

 

That is because these people want to break the law

 

The law may be wrong, but that's another topic completely.

[spindrift]

Fatalities in Swindon have risen 100% since the cameras were turned off.

 

There's a survey published today:

 

39% of respondents said "it is too dangerous to ride a bicycle on the road".

 

Which in reality translates as 39% believe that "motorists drive too recklessly for cycling to be a practical option".

 

It is an outrageous scandal that such a massive scale of criminality and violation of the right to travel is condoned by the government and law "enforcement" authorities.

 

 

 

Hammond, our new transport Secretery, has promised an end to "The war on motorists" which means the reduction in road safety has a political agenda.

 

 

 

Since it's cyclists and pedestrians most at risk from drivers it would be fairer to say it's the start of a war against them.

[spindrift]

If any of that was true i'd be happy.

 

Road safety advice from the poster who admits using his vehicle as a weapon?

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=665928&postcount=411

 

cyclist beware when i'm mobile again. i think safety helmets & body protection will be needed, i'm even thinking of hiring a bed at the Hallamshire to ensure they get somewhere soft to land.

[L00b]

You're thinking short term - long term, if people knew they could be caught speeding any time, any where, they would have to stick to the speed limit

Which is exactly how it works in Germany and how, more recently, it's worked in France (and I was among the first, years ago when the 'measures' were announced, to believe it was once again mere political testiculations and to disbelieve anything could ever curb the national pastime of speeding, ingrained in generations).

 

In France, points are deducted for infractions: you start with 12 (EDIT: only 6 when you first qualify, for the first 2 years) and end up with nil as you get done for this-that-the other. So many people ended with nil points so quickly, relentlessly, everywhere, with no more indulgences to be had, lost jobs, etc...the populace soon got the message, apparently.

[daftlad]

Fatalities in Swindon have risen 100% since the cameras were turned off.

 

There's a survey published today:

 

39% of respondents said "it is too dangerous to ride a bicycle on the road".

 

Which in reality translates as 39% believe that "motorists drive too recklessly for cycling to be a practical option".

 

It is an outrageous scandal that such a massive scale of criminality and violation of the right to travel is condoned by the government and law "enforcement" authorities.

 

 

 

Hammond, our new transport Secretery, has promised an end to "The war on motorists" which means the reduction in road safety has a political agenda.

 

 

 

Since it's cyclists and pedestrians most at risk from drivers it would be fairer to say it's the start of a war against them.

 

 

 

can you show the source of this please rather than just post it

[Magilla]

Fatalities in Swindon have risen 100% since the cameras were turned off.

 

Anecdotal, since we have no idea if the accidents wouldn't have happened should the camera's have still been operating.

[spindrift]

can you show the source of this please rather than just post it

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/aug/10/cycling-boom-survey

[spindrift]

Anecdotal, since we have no idea if the accidents wouldn't have happened should the camera's have still been operating.

 

I know.

 

That's the point.

 

For the second time I'm pointing out you cannot draw any conclusions from the Swindon experiment.

[Magilla]

I know.

 

That's the point.

 

For the second time I'm pointing out you cannot draw any conclusions from the Swindon experiment.

 

Oh right, sry, I've obviously got the wrong end of the stick.

[mj.scuba]

Of course it is, it's a blunt instrument, the same way we tackle TV License cheats (sending out thousands of speculative letters) and cars with no insurance (via static ANPR cameras).

Yup, unlike coppers that can actually see and record bad driving, rather than just people who are speeding.

 

Nope, I never postulated that, the 'anti-speed-camera' people claim that if people know the cameras there then they'll cause accidents by hitting the brakes, so you can't show them. People would reduce their speed once they'd been caught once or twice.

You asked for the flaws, just providing a fact. Speed cameras cannot slow people down. Unlike a road hump or a chicane, they are not something that could physically slow down a vehicle. If cameras could slow drivers down, nobody would be caught.

 

The idea of speed cameras is to promote safety by reducing speed, yes? If drivers go through speed traps at the speed they were at anyway, they have failed in their main purpose to slow that driver to a "safe" speed, have they not? In other words it has failed in the very purpose for its existance, so if it can't do the job it was invented for, what's the point in it being there at all?

 

You're thinking short term - long term, if people knew they could be caught speeding any time, any where, they would have to stick to the speed limit

 

Drivers already know they can be caught speeding anytime, anywhere, it does not stop them from speeding does it?

 

No, but they are an easy solution. The point of the thread is that people believe that they can choose to break speeding laws, by dressing it up with things like 'revenue generators', 'cash cows', 'causes accidents' and 'don't help with dangerous driving'

 

Fact is you can choose to break the law.

It's the authorities that have always dressed it up under the guise of "safety".

 

Yet I'd imagine a solution which makes them revenue neutral in terms of road policing, funds lots more police to find these dangerous drivers, and stops the accidents which are claimed to happen because of speed cameras would be dismissed by most anti speed camera types.

 

Indeed they would. No taxes from anything are ever ringfenced afaik. More traffic cops would be good, it is not compulsory or necessary for them to be only funded by speed camera fines.