Mobile Camera Units, Parking In The Sunset?

[zimbob]

Also why if safety is the issue, why would you hide the very thing that identifies the risky area?

This is a particularly valid point I think....

Last time I was caught speeding, I mentioned to the officers involved that I hadn't seen them - their reply was 'You wouldn't, we were 500 yards up a farm track hiding behind the gorse bushes' To add insult to injury, after they pulled me, they happily let a car overtake them at a good rate of knots, and didn't go after him, they seemed happy enough to have had a few miles of pursuit with me, didn't bother with him :evil:

Fair enough, I was breaking the limit by a good bit, and I got caught, can't moan about that, but surely if the intention was to try and educate drivers into slowing down, they'd go for a visible approach, i.e. marked cars, in obvious locations :roll:

 

[MikeD]

Cameras would be a much more effective deterrent if they were all concealed and no-one knew where they were.

 

[sylus]

But that would prove the lie they are there for safety and not as cash cows.

In towns and single lane roads there are very easy ways to reduce speed that does not require speed cameras... speed humps, file lanes, narrowed lanes etc so again why is there not so much of this happening?

simply because speed cameras are a direct link to our pockets and have bugger all to do with safety under thier current guidelines

Russell the damage is the damage wether it is to a person or a object. speed decides the damage and not the incident it is that simple.

 

[93hero]

Sylus, if you place the same value on objects as on human life, I truly feel sorry for you.

 

[sylus]

You confuse emotions with the facts of the situation.

No need to feel sorry for me chap but on discussions where you become emotional it might be wise to avoid them if you are unhappy that people may have different views other than yours.

 

[Neil]

There's more than one aspect to speed enforcement that is often missed.

I think people like to think it's all about warning drivers, being highly visible, and getting them to slow down at accident hotspots, or all about revenue.

If you've ever discussed speed enforcement with trafpol (no, not just when they've stopped you for being a naughty boy - I mean in a non-professional scenario) you'd probably find there's more than one aspect to it.

There's the accident hotspot thing - attempting to get drivers to slow down at locations where there's been accidents have repeatedly happened (not sure whether it matters as to whether speed has been deemed a factor).

There's also the other aspect - that there once was a time when there was more trafpol just driving around - before the age of automated detection for most things like this - and clearly, some of it would be in unmarked cars.

In those previous days, there would always be a scenario where "just around the corner..." - now that may be a lot less likely, but all the same.

So speed enforcement is always likely to have that attempted "omni-presence" of the police to maybe catch people speeding where they weren't particularly expecting. That's what's there to attempt to address the situation where drivers only comply with the limits where cameras are present.

That's not me taking sides, just pointing out the oft made flaw in peoples' logic when arguing about this. Supposed "compliance" in certain aspects to how speed traps are arranged, can be as much about what happens with some of the revenue with fines, and funding the manning of the activity as anything else. Sure, there's some degree of "standards" in terms of how they do the detection - but there's can be some degree of variance on that, and it's as much to do with ensuring the validity of the measuring, as to whether it's "fair" for the motorist.

 

[sylus]

The problem with the accident blackspot suggestion is that the police were allowed to carry out camera both fixed and mobile upto I believe two miles away from the actual blackspot therefore leaving the intention of safety open to wildly exagerated abuse for the soul purpose of financial extraction with little or no consideration for actual safety improvements

Speed cameras like all rules only apply to those who play by the rules..this may seem contradictory but..the same people who may get caught of those only the rule players will pay up.

Since the introduction of speed cameras the coffers to police forces has gone up at various stages but traffic police has seen massive reductions.

A speed camera will not catch a uninsured driver, an unlicensed driver, a driver using a mobile whilst driving, a drunk driver, a stolen car etc of which all of these are a greater contributor to accidents than speeding or the lie of speeding

As I mentioned before..most people are NOT against speed cameras. Most people ARE AGAINST them being sited for revenue rather than safety

 

[Neil]

The problem with the accident blackspot suggestion is that the police were allowed to carry out camera both fixed and mobile upto I believe two miles away from the actual blackspot therefore leaving the intention of safety open to wildly exagerated abuse for the soul purpose of financial extraction with little or no consideration for actual safety improvements

Speed cameras like all rules only apply to those who play by the rules..this may seem contradictory but..the same people who may get caught of those only the rule players will pay up.

Since the introduction of speed cameras the coffers to police forces has gone up at various stages but traffic police has seen massive reductions.

A speed camera will not catch a uninsured driver, an unlicensed driver, a driver using a mobile whilst driving, a drunk driver, a stolen car etc of which all of these are a greater contributor to accidents than speeding or the lie of speeding

As I mentioned before..most people are NOT against speed cameras. Most people ARE AGAINST them being sited for revenue rather than safety

Truth be told, I'm ambivalent to it (speed enforcement), largely.

GATSOs are mostly very visible, and those caught should have easily spotted them. As to mobile or other "sneaky" traps - well as I mentioned earlier - think of them as an observation or "where would you hide?" test.

As to the revenue thing - I doubt anybody gets revenue taken away from them if they don't drive over the limit - so it's all choices.

Regarding the other causes of bad driving - I don't disagree, mostly - there's a lot that really does require real policing, at present - but I guess policing, now, is all about how it's good to be able to prove effectiveness on paper - all comes down to how the police are run and measured, to a large degree.

All the same, speed enforcement is no real deterrent, if all it ever is is bright yellow GATSOs or highly visible speed traps - after all, CCTV doesn't just prevent crime everywhere.

If I had one objection to current either automated or through-the-post speed enforcement, it'd more be about what's tantamount to the reversal of "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Because in practice, the opposite tends to apply - you're likely to be guilty unless you can prove / declare you're innocent, all the evidence tends to prove is that a car with a number plate matching your registration details got snapped (not sure how many cameras or other traps actually identify the driver).

 

[t-stoff]

Speed cameras are good for statistics & revenues but they don't teach drivers education, rules and most importantly how to drive. They don't give them conscientious driving, only fear of getting a ticket.

Its much easier for the nanny state to give to the police the tools for imposing rather than studying the causes on why accidents happen.
Speeding if often seen as the only (with drunk driving) cause for accidents. I disagree, its probably one of many. I've seen drivers crossing three lanes without looking to the mirror forcing everyone to brake hard and crash, while they continued their way without speeding.
Its the way they look into numbers and sell them to the press, 20 % of the accidents are alcohol related, so the others 80% are the problem! ;PPP


Over regulation is in most of the cases abusive and completely outdated in terms of what a car can or cant do nowadays. We can observe a huge evolution in car technology from night to day and still there's nothing happening in the same way on the roads, rules and planning.

We have the same speed limits, yet the car industry has evolved so much. We still have the same lowlight unpainted tarmac, while Volvo develops and sells cars with airbags for pedestrians and automated stop in case of imminent collision.

We still protect the pedestrians, enforcing speed bumps and speed limits, but don't regulate the use of ipods.

Sometimes I feel that they stopped in time for convenience. Its easier.

im posting about the country I live on, but from the posts I've read, I can assume we / you deal with the same problems as here.

 

[93hero]

You confuse emotions with the facts of the situation.

No need to feel sorry for me chap but on discussions where you become emotional it might be wise to avoid them if you are unhappy that people may have different views other than yours.

I'm not unhappy, rarely get emotional and I'm certainly not confused so don't patronise me, you're not as good at it as highlandsflyer and less witty.

Facts of the situation... if you hit someone at high speed, you are more likely to kill them than if you were going slower.

Like I said, the 'damage' you so blithly dismiss, is a human life.