Safe Speed Forums

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Yeah, the idea is that you shouldn't be travelling at that speed in the first place.

After nine points, they'll slow down.

That is just what I thought the thinking was behind them, then of course thinking for themselves is the last thing this government wants people to do.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Nope. People who really need to drive, who have 9 points, will find a way around it (and doing so might actually be worth the risk); you don't have to be a criminal mastermind to figure out how to do it!

Right now we are at a 'tipping point', where circumventing detection by a speed camera is at great risk at no longer being seen as 'anti-social' - after that the door opens to many more offences being committed with impunity; this is already happening to some extent. Do we really want to risk sliding down that slippery road?


Let's not forget, the majority of motorway users want to see travelling speeds increased - should we really risk alienating the public in this way? Support for speed cameras is waning fast, and schemes like this will accelerate that.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The increase in paranoia is appalling as it will:

increase sudden unexpected braking,
increase the rift between Police and public,
increase in-attention to the road as drivers and riders increase their eyes on all the roadside furnishings instead of on the road,
increase the rift between the Police and the public,
increase bad driving behaviours and
increase in inattention and frustration accidents

and so the bad effects of cameras continue - tragically.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

If we put aside our differences of opinion for a minute....

You have rather strong views on exceeding arbitrary speed limits, so lets assume you are right and anyone exceeding these limits must be stopped.

This system and others that use cameras rely on the likes of you, I and the rest of us on here registering our cars/bikes/whatever. Once registered they are put on a data base and when a law, however minor, is broken a fine appears in the post.

Do you think that treating otherwise law abiding people like this is the way forward? I know you don't like exceeding the speed limit, but the vast majority of people on the roads at anyone time are just like you and I going about our business.

Are criminals and people that are already driving illegally suddenly going to register their vehicles like the rest of us?

How are you going to feel when you or your mrs gets a bill for £60 in the post for a minor infringement while the uninsured/taxed/MOT'd/unlicensed/unregistered continue to drive with impunity?

Is this REALLY what you want?

They've only got until next May to put more fixed cameras up anyway.

I think this is the problem. The former doesn't have to occur without the latter. Indeed with the increased use of ANPR systems the latter will not automatically be allowed to carry on with impunity.

Increased use of speed cameras and increased targetting of uninsured/taxed/MOT'd/unlicensed/unregistered are not mutually incompatible. In fact I'd go one further and add increased anti-social driving into the mix. None of these need be targetted to the detriment of another.

But you still need people on the front line for it to have any effect - trafpol. Doesn't that make cameras redundant anyway? How many different sets of enforcers do we need?

Detection by ANPR can still be evaded with the application of a little bit of determination.
Real trafpol pull the driver and stop the offence (any offence), so circumventing even the best measures an offending driver has taken to circumvent detection.

Reliance on automated systems allow any dangerous road users to drive and continue driving dangerously with total impunity because these cameras cannot detect (let alone stop) dangerous driving; they can only detect a few specific infringements.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I think cameras and trafpol can be compatible. As has been said, one is targetting the "Normal" motorist who is breaking the law in relatively minor ways (exceeding the speed limit) the other is targetting the hardcore element of motorists.

There doesn't appear to me to be any conflict.



Of course there will always be ways to avoid whatever new technology appears. That's the way any criminal/police system works! The trick is to make it as difficult as possible. Hopefully with the use of ANPR and it's derivatives the 2 000 000 uninsured/untaxed vehicles on the roads can be reduced significantly. I'm not under any illusions that it will be completely wiped out though.



Well, this is my point. We wouldn't be relying entirely on automated systems because the camera network would be complemented by trafpol. Or vice versa.

This is if you accept that we actually need such (tax/insurance) schemes . There are compelling arguments for putting them both onto the cost of fuel; doing so eliminates the necessity of having to track down untaxed/uninsured vehicles. These administrative schemes exists merely for the sake of it; no needless boundary/restriction - no crime or temptation for it (and no administrative/enforcement overhead).
Detecting untaxed/uninsured issues should be a red herring and are a distraction from the issue of preventing unsafe driving.


Unfortunately there has been effectively some sort of conflict. One has been replacing the other, or at least the active numbers of one has gone down while reliance on the other has increased.

We could have had it the good way around, or even both, but the continued misrepresentation of camera effectiveness by the partnerships (can I assume you accept this?) has allowed them to gain and retain their dominating – and cost recovering - position. Had the truth been known and understood from the start, speed cameras (and limits) would have been used reasonably, or even not at all (IMO: cost recovering trafpol is the way to go) and we wouldn't be here having this debate.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I don't think realistically they will revert to hidden fixed cameras, as there were very good reasons eight or so years ago for deciding to make all the cameras conspicuous.

Under the current regulations, the authorities could convict as many drivers as they liked by using totally non-obvious Talivans - in many locations it would be like shooting fish in a barrel. However, they recognise that there is a point above which the number of speeding convictions becomes viewed as excessive and disproportionate by the public. I think that was reached a few years ago, which is why the hypothecation scheme was scrapped and the amount of mobile enforcement scaled back somewhat.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

That's quite difficult to do according to various Mythbusters experiments; bullet deceleration through water, bullet breakup on contact with the surface, targeting errors from refraction through water surface, all serve to hinder the bullet getting to the fish
Although nearby fish would likely die from the shockwave...(no they didn't test that)

I do agree with your overall point. I'm sure I recently read a government/SCP document confirming what you said.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Well, yes I agree the system needs an overhaul and the arguments are certainly compelling from a laypersons perspective (i.e. me!). I suspect there are more complex issues behind it but those shouldn't detract from having an honest and open debate about it.



I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the misrepresentations you mention. I have tried to get my head around the whole RTTM etc. arguments, but I'm afraid I have no head for stats. Suffice to say I treat most claims with a large amount of scepticism.

If SS claims turn out to be correct, then I can see an argument for a reappraisal of the way cameras are used.

Yet again we return to my original point that cameras can form part of the whole road safety solution. Something that Paul and I disagreed on from when I first encountered SS...

Haven't read all of the back and fourth between certain members. I am shocked and surprised that these will be put on motorways of all places. If someone chooses to break the law by exceeding the speed limit then they could go to work one morning and come back,then a fortnight later, have no driving license! Assuming there are two of these cameras on the way and they are breaking the speed limit on each occasion. I am not condoning speeding but that is an interesting prospect. I would expect it to happen to quite a few people, causing the system to overload.

_________________
Currently undergoing training with the I.A.M.

You are quite right, there are more complex issues and implementing such a simple system will likely result with those who present least risk subsidising those who present the most (which is of course unfair), but everyone will win (or at least no one will lose out).


That's fair enough. Have you read this Safe Speed (RTTM) webpage? If it still doesn’t sit with you than I can try to explain what it is trying to say.



Onwards!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Think of the RTTM this way.
When you try something new and you look at how well or bad it worked, there is a danger that if you only look at it very closely you forget to step back and look at the bigger picture. having looked too closely (only) you then give credit to 'something' that isn't really credit-worthy. (the 'illusion benefit' part of the 'equation'.
The stats are looked at often by only 2 or 3 years either one side or the other of a camera and usually after installation. Or they only pick years from the stats that show things worse or better to help prove their case. So take the whole 10 yr before and after and you start to see the whole picture. Look at the last 20 - 60 yrs and up to the current times and the bigger picture becomes even clearer.
If it also helps Dr Linda Mountain has agreed that they did NOT take RTTM into consideration in their figures therefor what Paul said IS right.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Folks,

I have a sure way to beat these cameras, although of course I would never exceed the speed limit on public roads in any circumstances.

So, before taking a trip out on your new racing motorcycle, take some time to walk the route. Carefully walk both sides of the road, paying special attention to street furniture, anything painted grey or having wires near it. Also examine the road surface for wires, and look into the hedge rows for hidden surveillance devices. Also, look for laybys or any spot where a detector van might arrive unexpectedly. Take photographs where appropriate, and study these at home before taking the bike out.

Having, studied the photographs at home, walk the route again, this time the other way, and look out for any subtle changes to the roadside scene since the last walk. Note any changes in the street furniture, and take more photos. Study these photos at home and carefully compare them to the first set of photos. Can you see any signs of activity or changes in any of the street furniture? Spend some time on this, preferably with a good magnifying glass and light source. Load the images into your PC and use the zoom function for further forensic reliability. Compare the images with your database of known surveillance technology.

Once satisfied, don your leathers and turn the key in your R1.

Enjoy the freedom of the road

PS - Of course, critics might say that having to walk 40 miles and do all this surveillance work in order to enjoy a 10 mile ride on the same road is onerous. But my reply would be - what price peace of mind?

C.

_________________
More rules and regulations please! (Not)

There are very good reasons to deploy covert and overt systems in combination. It is by far the most efficient and effective method of speed management with speed enforcement.

The hypothecation scheme was stopped because there is a limit to how long such schemes are allowed to exist; it was nothing to do with concerns over being disproportionate.

In many areas the scale of mobile enforcement has increased; the scale has nothing to do with the number of tickets issued although the keen amateur would be forgiven for assuming so,

If you knew this was a possibility would it modify your behaviour?