The selfish pursuit of speed Joanna Blythman on speeding drivers I NEVER fail to be amazed by the audacity and inventiveness demonstrated by opponents of speed cameras, all their tortuous, self-righteous rationalisations for defending the indefensible.
First of all, there's the Big Brother/Nanny State mob. Posturing as libertarians, they frankly couldn't give a toss if some poor innocent is detained in custody for 42 days, but try to make them observe the speed limit and they're howling that their civil right to put everyone else's life at risk has been infringed.
Next up there's the conspiracy theorists. Speed cameras are all part of the "war on motorists", more evidence of that vindictive government plot to milk the motoring public like a cash cow, along with parking fines, pricey fuel, speed bumps, road charging and hikes in tax for vehicles with foul emissions. They're ready to man the barricades, standing shoulder to shoulder with that hyper-progressive lobby, the road hauliers, and miscellaneous drivers of white vans that have only one brake light working.
Then you've got the "speed cameras work" deniers, more vociferous these days even than the nutty professors who try to reassure us that the polar ice cap isn't melting. A whole raft of international studies show that cameras are remarkably effective in reducing speed and personal injury collisions.
A three-year study carried out for the Department of Transport found that they reduced fatalities by 40%. Some road lobby statisticians challenged the methodology and the department commissioned a further independent four-year study. It concluded that the figure was actually 42%, or around 100 lives saved every year.
But that's water off the back of organisations like speedcameras.org, which rely on red herrings to distract from the facts: "The government's response to 5000 unnecessary deaths a year in hospital is to tell staff to wash their hands. Meanwhile poorly located speed cameras fail to prevent accidents and according to police data the speed limit is the cause of only 4% of accidents. Why not refocus resources on the other 96% of causes?"
Ten out of 10 to the budding philosopher who came up with this guff, but a few courses on mental reasoning and multi-variant analysis wouldn't go amiss.
Claire Armstrong, who fronts an organisation with the counter-intuitive title Safe Speed, relies on puny psychological arguments. Cameras distract you, they stop you concentrating on the road, you're so agitated and
indignant about being under surveillance that you are more likely to crash that sort of thing. Clearly she needs to speak to a bloke down the market (sorry, on the internet) called Dan Strauss who sells PhotoBlocker, a spray that can "make your number plate invisible to practically any speed camera in the UK". That should take the burden of camera angst right off her shoulders. On second thoughts, perhaps not. Dan posts the following disingenuous disclaimer: "PhotoBlocker is perfectly legal to purchase, however may not be legal to use. While applications of PhotoBlocker are undetectable, we do NOT advise using it to defraud the UK driving system." Undermine the law? Who? Me?
Claire might be better advised to shop around for a speed camera detector for the car so she can play a cunning game of cat and mouse with the law. Detectors come in all shapes and sizes, from £125 to £500 for an all-singing, all-dancing one with a fancy LCD colour display that spots radar traps and shows you a map of speed cameras that is updated daily to outfox your local constabulary. Detectors like these, according to those who tout them, are 100% legal and extremely accurate. There is a plethora of websites where everyone appears to be in agreement that "you are a mug if you pay speeding tickets". Nothing like "you shouldn't be speeding in the first place and should feel ashamed to get one", just "you're a mug if you pay one". That's responsible citizenship for you.
At beatthespeedtrap.com there's a chap called Adam Blair who explains that he went into the speed trap detection business after receiving his second speeding fine in a year. "I vowed to bring to the UK the best value product on the market to allow my fellow motorists to redress the balance of power against the speed revenue collectors", says battling Adam, whose site is fringed with ringing endorsements from those of a similar persuasion.
Look, I drive a car, but membership of some chummy band of brothers who define themselves as "motorists" is one privilege in life I can live without. I mean, do I want to have anything in common with devil-may-care Alan P, in Southend-on-Sea, whose glowing testimonial reads: "I was just saved another speeding fine today. These traps are popping up all over the place. Your device is going to save me a fortune (and my licence, probably!)"?
Why not just line up some pedestrians against a wall and give him a gun to shoot them?
The hubris of militant motorists, and their obdurate refusal to accept that speed limits are there for a very good reason, is ugly and dishonest.
It's really simple. Speeding is a profoundly reckless and deeply irresponsible crime. People who tell you otherwise are hypocrites.
|
|
Posted by: Bill, The highway to hell on 8:41pm Sat 19 Jul 08
"Speeding is a profoundly reckless and deeply irresponsible crime."
Agreed and when you start catching the people who're actually doing it, perhaps then we'll make inroads into the 3000+ deaths on the road each year, but all the time you and your short sighted kind, pat yourselves on the back for prosecuting millions of drivers at less than 10mph over the limit while totally failing to catch anyone who's speeding deliberatly, it's going to continue just as it is.
Can I point out a flaw in your arguement here?
There aren't any of these dangerous drivers reading articles like this, because from their point of view, all the time a static camera isn't capable of actually apprehending them they're quite happy to continue using false plates, illegal addresses or any other of the plethora of speed camera avoidence techniques that have been dreamt up since some idiot thought a polaroid on a pole would solve anything.
It really is that simple, but all the time psuedo intelectuals argue the laws of physics and statistics to support a cleary weak and flawed concept as speed cameras, while ignoring what everyone else can see with their own eyes, little is going to change.
Stand by a speed camera for an hour, watch the drivers who know how to surf cameras avoid prosecution entirely, while the poor soul who's been driving consistantly below forty but misses a change to a thirty gets fined sixty quid for 36mph.
It's nothing to do with rights, or freedoms, or nanny states, it's simply that speed cameras aren't catching the right people, so drop the self righteous commentary and wise up.
"Speeding is a profoundly reckless and deeply irresponsible crime."
Agreed and when you start catching the people who're actually doing it, perhaps then we'll make inroads into the 3000+ deaths on the road each year, but all the time you and your short sighted kind, pat yourselves on the back for prosecuting millions of drivers at less than 10mph over the limit while totally failing to catch anyone who's speeding deliberatly, it's going to continue just as it is.
Can I point out a flaw in your arguement here?
There aren't any of these dangerous drivers reading articles like this, because from their point of view, all the time a static camera isn't capable of actually apprehending them they're quite happy to continue using false plates, illegal addresses or any other of the plethora of speed camera avoidence techniques that have been dreamt up since some idiot thought a polaroid on a pole would solve anything.
It really is that simple, but all the time psuedo intelectuals argue the laws of physics and statistics to support a cleary weak and flawed concept as speed cameras, while ignoring what everyone else can see with their own eyes, little is going to change.
Stand by a speed camera for an hour, watch the drivers who know how to surf cameras avoid prosecution entirely, while the poor soul who's been driving consistantly below forty but misses a change to a thirty gets fined sixty quid for 36mph.
It's nothing to do with rights, or freedoms, or nanny states, it's simply that speed cameras aren't catching the right people, so drop the self righteous commentary and wise up.
Posted by: Eric Bridgstock, St Albans on 9:10pm Sat 19 Jul 08
Speed cameras do not work.
They are always installed where there has been an unusually high collision rate. The consequent reduction in collisions and casualties is due primarily to statistics (as the rate returns to its normal level, known as regression to the mean) and the effects of road engineering and signage. The camera is often given the credit when it has probably not contributed to the improvement.
Since last November, I have researched this subject and have not found a scrap of evidence that a camera has ever saved a single life. Nor have I found anyone who can explain how it could, given that speed (in excess of the limit) is responsible for fewer than 5% of collisions (according to Government figures). I have hundreds of items of correspondence with camera partnerships (unaccountable QUANGOs who prefer names like "casualty-reduction partnerships") claiming benefits of cameras. But they would say that - it's their livelihood. They are masters of spin and deceit and have provided no evidence of camera benefits. In many cases, the fatalities across their patch are rising year on year.
The speed camera strategy is based on the flawed concept that driving within the speed limit is safe and driving above the limit is not. Neither of these is universally true. A properly set speed limit is a coarse guide to the type of hazard you might expect along a stretch of road. To claim that it is an arbiter of what is safe or not is ludicrous. We drive most safely when we respond to hazards on the road - layout, other road users and the conditions (surface, weather, etc.). We adjust our speed and all other aspects of our driving according to those hazards. Cameras introduce an artificial hazard and make our roads less safe; the BBC recently showed footage from the Norfolk Camera Partnership in which cars crashed as a result of braking very hard when they saw a camera.
Many other approaches, such as police patrols, have tangible safety benefits but cost money. Cameras have no safety benefit but raise revenue (for the Government). I conclude from this that a massive fraud has been perpetrated under a safety shroud and I can provide the names of many of the offenders.
The time has come to end this failed experiment that has cost lives. Speed cameras must go and soon.
Speed cameras do not work.
They are always installed where there has been an unusually high collision rate. The consequent reduction in collisions and casualties is due primarily to statistics (as the rate returns to its normal level, known as regression to the mean) and the effects of road engineering and signage. The camera is often given the credit when it has probably not contributed to the improvement.
Since last November, I have researched this subject and have not found a scrap of evidence that a camera has ever saved a single life. Nor have I found anyone who can explain how it could, given that speed (in excess of the limit) is responsible for fewer than 5% of collisions (according to Government figures). I have hundreds of items of correspondence with camera partnerships (unaccountable QUANGOs who prefer names like "casualty-reduction partnerships") claiming benefits of cameras. But they would say that - it's their livelihood. They are masters of spin and deceit and have provided no evidence of camera benefits. In many cases, the fatalities across their patch are rising year on year.
The speed camera strategy is based on the flawed concept that driving within the speed limit is safe and driving above the limit is not. Neither of these is universally true. A properly set speed limit is a coarse guide to the type of hazard you might expect along a stretch of road. To claim that it is an arbiter of what is safe or not is ludicrous. We drive most safely when we respond to hazards on the road - layout, other road users and the conditions (surface, weather, etc.). We adjust our speed and all other aspects of our driving according to those hazards. Cameras introduce an artificial hazard and make our roads less safe; the BBC recently showed footage from the Norfolk Camera Partnership in which cars crashed as a result of braking very hard when they saw a camera.
Many other approaches, such as police patrols, have tangible safety benefits but cost money. Cameras have no safety benefit but raise revenue (for the Government). I conclude from this that a massive fraud has been perpetrated under a safety shroud and I can provide the names of many of the offenders.
The time has come to end this failed experiment that has cost lives. Speed cameras must go and soon.
Posted by: Niall McKillop, West Highlands on 12:45am Sun 20 Jul 08
It's really simple. Lack of objectivity is a profoundly reckless and deeply irresponsible crime. People who tell you otherwise are hypocrites.
It's really simple. Lack of objectivity is a profoundly reckless and deeply irresponsible crime. People who tell you otherwise are hypocrites.
Posted by: Joey, IN THE KITCHEN on 1:17am Sun 20 Jul 08
The problem with speed cameras really shouldn't be all that difficult for intelegent people to understand and I'm often amused by those who witter on about speed this and accidents statics the other.
Look, take a ten mile piece of road. At either end is a village, in the middle is a thirty mile an hour limit covering approx a half a mile with a speed camera in the middle because it's an accident hot spot.
At four o'clock a woman leaves one village in her little thousand cc car and drives all the way to the other end at around forty miles an hour. Twenty minutes later a young jack the lad in a sporty car leaves the same village at around eighty miles an hour and often faster where conditions and overtaking allows.
Around the same time they both reach the speed camera, the jack the lad knows all about speed limits, simply because he's likely to be caught and ducks below thirty for a hundred yards, the woman in the other much slower car who's been travelling at a much slower and safer pace fails to notice the speed camera and gets flashed.
Shortly after the speed camera, the jack the lad accelerates and overtakes the woman and arrives at the other village 15 minutes ahead of her.
Which one deserves the penalty ...but which one got it?
Laws of physics ...my foot!
The problem with speed cameras really shouldn't be all that difficult for intelegent people to understand and I'm often amused by those who witter on about speed this and accidents statics the other.
Look, take a ten mile piece of road. At either end is a village, in the middle is a thirty mile an hour limit covering approx a half a mile with a speed camera in the middle because it's an accident hot spot.
At four o'clock a woman leaves one village in her little thousand cc car and drives all the way to the other end at around forty miles an hour. Twenty minutes later a young jack the lad in a sporty car leaves the same village at around eighty miles an hour and often faster where conditions and overtaking allows.
Around the same time they both reach the speed camera, the jack the lad knows all about speed limits, simply because he's likely to be caught and ducks below thirty for a hundred yards, the woman in the other much slower car who's been travelling at a much slower and safer pace fails to notice the speed camera and gets flashed.
Shortly after the speed camera, the jack the lad accelerates and overtakes the woman and arrives at the other village 15 minutes ahead of her.
Which one deserves the penalty ...but which one got it?
Laws of physics ...my foot!
Posted by: iain morrison, nairn on 2:04am Sun 20 Jul 08
"It's really simple. Speeding is a profoundly reckless and deeply irresponsible crime. People who tell you otherwise are hypocrites."
Then please explain why our accident rate is worse than France and Germany where limits are higher and driving is better!
"It's really simple. Speeding is a profoundly reckless and deeply irresponsible crime. People who tell you otherwise are hypocrites."
Then please explain why our accident rate is worse than France and Germany where limits are higher and driving is better!
Posted by: Nurse Gladys Emmanuel on 3:35am Sun 20 Jul 08
This is a classic example of technology overtaking common sense and people who like to think of themselves as clever jumping on a bandwagon to save mankind from itself while getting it totally wrong.
Speed cameras have an unavoidable flaw, they don't catch and question a speeding driver and a whole raft of avoidance techniques have sprung up from the criminally inclinded, leading to an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 unpaid speeding convictions every year, 200,000 a year in london alone costing an absolute fortune in officers trying to track down these offenders, who mysteriously they never find.
Even senior politicians are beginning to understand that the three million uninsured vehicles on the roads every single day is likely to be because speed cameras make it easier to drive illegally (infact the whole concept of speed cameras depends on the driver being legal to start with) as is indicated by the sharp increase in hit and run 'accidents' on the roads as illegal drivers make a run for it after an accident.
Add to that faulty convictions due to operator errors and inproperly setup equipment, mobile speed cameras are notorious for their inaccuracy which just this year stands at around about a 100,000 unsafe convictions.
So lets stop, have a think and use a little common sense and stop the intelectual gobble-de-gook and speed camera propaganda that isn't fooling anyone anymore.
If you want to avoid spending millions a year on a wasteful group of quangos, trying to track down drivers who don't pay up, use your brains and put real police officers back on the streets to catch them speeding in the first place.
It may not be a fancy formula ...but it is much more cost effective and not in the least controversial and it makes a whole lot more sense.
This is a classic example of technology overtaking common sense and people who like to think of themselves as clever jumping on a bandwagon to save mankind from itself while getting it totally wrong.
Speed cameras have an unavoidable flaw, they don't catch and question a speeding driver and a whole raft of avoidance techniques have sprung up from the criminally inclinded, leading to an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 unpaid speeding convictions every year, 200,000 a year in london alone costing an absolute fortune in officers trying to track down these offenders, who mysteriously they never find.
Even senior politicians are beginning to understand that the three million uninsured vehicles on the roads every single day is likely to be because speed cameras make it easier to drive illegally (infact the whole concept of speed cameras depends on the driver being legal to start with) as is indicated by the sharp increase in hit and run 'accidents' on the roads as illegal drivers make a run for it after an accident.
Add to that faulty convictions due to operator errors and inproperly setup equipment, mobile speed cameras are notorious for their inaccuracy which just this year stands at around about a 100,000 unsafe convictions.
So lets stop, have a think and use a little common sense and stop the intelectual gobble-de-gook and speed camera propaganda that isn't fooling anyone anymore.
If you want to avoid spending millions a year on a wasteful group of quangos, trying to track down drivers who don't pay up, use your brains and put real police officers back on the streets to catch them speeding in the first place.
It may not be a fancy formula ...but it is much more cost effective and not in the least controversial and it makes a whole lot more sense.
Posted by: Nurse Gladys Emmanuel on 4:02am Sun 20 Jul 08
Infact, when you think about it, the authorities are already only one step away from being right back where they started from.
Having realised visible fixed cameras didn't work, they've changed the law to allow random hidden cameras with a couple of operators in a van.
Once they realise that they're still not catching all the fake plate, uninsured, no MOT, drunk, drugged, banned and incorrect address brigade, yet it's still costing a lot of money in wages for both the operators and police officers trying to track down camera evaders, they'll end up putting a couple of police officers in a car and begin stopping anyone speeding or driving dangerously for questioning.
Which is a full circle and they're right back to square one ...
What a total farce and what a total waste of money.
How any journalist can put his name to support speed cameras is beyond me and brings his or her intelegence and credibility into question.
Infact, when you think about it, the authorities are already only one step away from being right back where they started from.
Having realised visible fixed cameras didn't work, they've changed the law to allow random hidden cameras with a couple of operators in a van.
Once they realise that they're still not catching all the fake plate, uninsured, no MOT, drunk, drugged, banned and incorrect address brigade, yet it's still costing a lot of money in wages for both the operators and police officers trying to track down camera evaders, they'll end up putting a couple of police officers in a car and begin stopping anyone speeding or driving dangerously for questioning.
Which is a full circle and they're right back to square one ...
What a total farce and what a total waste of money.
How any journalist can put his name to support speed cameras is beyond me and brings his or her intelegence and credibility into question.
Posted by: joe90, Wishaw on 11:45am Sun 20 Jul 08
The most common form of violent death in the UK is cuased by motorists, and that included the most common form of violent death and severe mutilation for children - yet, despite the fact motorists know they are breaking the law and are deliberately putting other people's lives in danger, they don't want the law or the police to do anything about it.
Violent agressive criminals with driving licences who use their cars as murder weapons don't want to be held accountable for their actions. Indeed, they want the police and the law to leave them alone so they can continute their campaign of psychotic anti-social behaviour.
I'm sure most other criminals feel the same way as psycho-drivers do - I'm sure, for instance, ordinary paedophiles would like to be treated the same way as motorist-paedophiles who kill children using their car, are treated. With complete indiffirence.
The most common form of violent death in the UK is cuased by motorists, and that included the most common form of violent death and severe mutilation for children - yet, despite the fact motorists know they are breaking the law and are deliberately putting other people's lives in danger, they don't want the law or the police to do anything about it.
Violent agressive criminals with driving licences who use their cars as murder weapons don't want to be held accountable for their actions. Indeed, they want the police and the law to leave them alone so they can continute their campaign of psychotic anti-social behaviour.
I'm sure most other criminals feel the same way as psycho-drivers do - I'm sure, for instance, ordinary paedophiles would like to be treated the same way as motorist-paedophiles who kill children using their car, are treated. With complete indiffirence.
Posted by: fiona, eaglesham on 1:44pm Sun 20 Jul 08
Just come back from a lovely holiday in Elgin, unfortunately the holiday was marred by some of the worst driving I have witnessed in my life. I was driving along the A96 about to turn right when an idiot, decided to over take me , I was in in a right hand turn lane and there was nothing coming towards me, thankfully I always check my side mirror before turning, he came from about 6 cars behind me and couldnt tell I was turning right, he flew past me at about 90mph +, my car shook with him passing and he barely missed me, the speed limit was 60 and he risked his neck on the approach to a roundabout to get in front of at least another 12 cars. If I hadnt caught a glimpse I would have been another statistic on the NE roads. There is nothing wrong with the roads in the NE, there good quality , ok the A9, doesnt allow you to go at breakneck speed , and its overtaking lanes and partial dual carriageway could be improved, but the standard of driving witnessed by myself and my family up there was awful. As a society we need to change the way we view travel, does it matter that you can only go at 50 instead of 70, the obssession by some motoring shows about speed and power are out of date. We need to educate people that driving fast is not big and not clever, and whilst you might not value your own life , others value theirs.
Just come back from a lovely holiday in Elgin, unfortunately the holiday was marred by some of the worst driving I have witnessed in my life. I was driving along the A96 about to turn right when an idiot, decided to over take me , I was in in a right hand turn lane and there was nothing coming towards me, thankfully I always check my side mirror before turning, he came from about 6 cars behind me and couldnt tell I was turning right, he flew past me at about 90mph +, my car shook with him passing and he barely missed me, the speed limit was 60 and he risked his neck on the approach to a roundabout to get in front of at least another 12 cars. If I hadnt caught a glimpse I would have been another statistic on the NE roads. There is nothing wrong with the roads in the NE, there good quality , ok the A9, doesnt allow you to go at breakneck speed , and its overtaking lanes and partial dual carriageway could be improved, but the standard of driving witnessed by myself and my family up there was awful. As a society we need to change the way we view travel, does it matter that you can only go at 50 instead of 70, the obssession by some motoring shows about speed and power are out of date. We need to educate people that driving fast is not big and not clever, and whilst you might not value your own life , others value theirs.
Posted by: Buckpool Loon, Cheshire on 2:12pm Sun 20 Jul 08
I've no particular wish to comment on the pro's and con's of speed cameras. People will always speed and accidents will happen.
But please don't bring it into my lounge by making cheap television programmes of it - nor of car chases, nor of sad little investigators hounding even sadder benefit cheats.
It's propaganda; seen as such and totally boring.
I've no particular wish to comment on the pro's and con's of speed cameras. People will always speed and accidents will happen.
But please don't bring it into my lounge by making cheap television programmes of it - nor of car chases, nor of sad little investigators hounding even sadder benefit cheats.
It's propaganda; seen as such and totally boring.
Posted by: joe90, Wishaw on 2:18pm Sun 20 Jul 08
I'm glad you and your family are ok fiona.
Never take anything for granted when driving fiona.
I used to drive all over the Highlands hillwalking, mountaineering etc, and compared to the dangers faced on the roads, the risks involved in mountaineering are nothing - in fact, my chances of surving the day considerably increased as soon as I got off the road and onto the hill.
Maybe you haven't read about the latest carnage and mass-murder on the A9 -
'Two die in four-vehicle accident'
BBC Scotland
19 July 2008
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/scotland/high
lands_and_islands/75
15315.stm
Notice how the BBC claims this violent incident as an 'accident' without providing any proof whatsoever that it was.
How many drivers have ever been charged, never mind convicted, of murder or attempted murder given the thousands of victims every year whose lives they have taken, or have destroyed by inflicting severe injuries to?
Roughly about 0.
If drivers knew the law and the police were going to treat them in exactly the same way as they treat other violent criminals then roads would be infinitely safer.
all the best!
I'm glad you and your family are ok fiona.
Never take anything for granted when driving fiona.
I used to drive all over the Highlands hillwalking, mountaineering etc, and compared to the dangers faced on the roads, the risks involved in mountaineering are nothing - in fact, my chances of surving the day considerably increased as soon as I got off the road and onto the hill.
Maybe you haven't read about the latest carnage and mass-murder on the A9 -
'Two die in four-vehicle accident'
BBC Scotland
19 July 2008
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/scotland/high
lands_and_islands/75
15315.stm
Notice how the BBC claims this violent incident as an 'accident' without providing any proof whatsoever that it was.
How many drivers have ever been charged, never mind convicted, of murder or attempted murder given the thousands of victims every year whose lives they have taken, or have destroyed by inflicting severe injuries to?
Roughly about 0.
If drivers knew the law and the police were going to treat them in exactly the same way as they treat other violent criminals then roads would be infinitely safer.
all the best!
Posted by: J Mathews, Scotland on 2:31pm Sun 20 Jul 08
Joanna,
It is always dangerous when someone makes statements about something when in reality they have little knowledge.
This is what you have done in this article, although you are entitled to your poorly educated opinion.
There are exceptional instances and specific circumstances where speed cameras have worked, but only rarely.
Much of the 'scientific' evidence you seem to believe is pseudo science, in that it is statistically irrelevant. It ignores a very specific statistical anomoly, called [bold]regression to the mean[/bold] .
I'll make this simple; let us assume a short road has around ten car crashes per year, then suddenly one year this increases to fifteen. People rightly say "something must be done", so a speed camera is put in place. The next yeat the number of crashes goes down to the typical yearly average (mean) of ten. The speed camera proponents then say "look, this speed camera has reduced crashes by one third in just a year". The fact is, a garden gnome instead of a speed camera at the side of the road would have produced the same result. It is a well known effect, called [bold]regression to the mean[/bold] , and good scientific studies are designed to avoid it. Sadly, good scientific studies have NOT been done with speed cameras. When people mock the studies done so far, they are actually quite correct in doing so.
Another compounding factor is the mis-appropriation of the terms 'accident' and 'deaths'. On a given road, number of fatalities is determined not just by speed, but by the location of a hospital, how quickly ambulances attend, the health of the crash victim ..and so on. The list is almost endless. So, fatalities per se, do not indicate the success or failure of speed cameras.
Another compounding factor is the use of the term 'speeding'. Many people have car crashes whilst not speed ing, but the question is were they using excessive speed for the road conditions.
The reality is that most road traffic accidents are caused by inattentiveness either of a driver or a pedestrian. In fact less than ten per cent of accidents are due to speeding (above the speed limit).
So, overall, when you add in the fact that the biggest problems on Scottish roads are drink or drug driving (neither of which are detected by speed cameras), it is blindingly obvious, that speed cameras actually have achieved very little.
No, speed cameras are a cheap yet very ineffective way for politicians to not address the real road safety problems of Scottish roads, whilst persuading the feeble - minded (Joanna??) that they are making Scottish roads safer.
I think the Journalists of this country use the term 'policing on the cheap'.
Joanna,
It is always dangerous when someone makes statements about something when in reality they have little knowledge.
This is what you have done in this article, although you are entitled to your poorly educated opinion.
There are exceptional instances and specific circumstances where speed cameras have worked, but only rarely.
Much of the 'scientific' evidence you seem to believe is pseudo science, in that it is statistically irrelevant. It ignores a very specific statistical anomoly, called
regression to the mean .
I'll make this simple; let us assume a short road has around ten car crashes per year, then suddenly one year this increases to fifteen. People rightly say "something must be done", so a speed camera is put in place. The next yeat the number of crashes goes down to the typical yearly average (mean) of ten. The speed camera proponents then say "look, this speed camera has reduced crashes by one third in just a year". The fact is, a garden gnome instead of a speed camera at the side of the road would have produced the same result. It is a well known effect, called
regression to the mean , and good scientific studies are designed to avoid it. Sadly, good scientific studies have NOT been done with speed cameras. When people mock the studies done so far, they are actually quite correct in doing so.
Another compounding factor is the mis-appropriation of the terms 'accident' and 'deaths'. On a given road, number of fatalities is determined not just by speed, but by the location of a hospital, how quickly ambulances attend, the health of the crash victim ..and so on. The list is almost endless. So, fatalities per se, do not indicate the success or failure of speed cameras.
Another compounding factor is the use of the term 'speeding'. Many people have car crashes whilst not speed ing, but the question is were they using excessive speed for the road conditions.
The reality is that most road traffic accidents are caused by inattentiveness either of a driver or a pedestrian. In fact less than ten per cent of accidents are due to speeding (above the speed limit).
So, overall, when you add in the fact that the biggest problems on Scottish roads are drink or drug driving (neither of which are detected by speed cameras), it is blindingly obvious, that speed cameras actually have achieved very little.
No, speed cameras are a cheap yet very ineffective way for politicians to not address the real road safety problems of Scottish roads, whilst persuading the feeble - minded (Joanna??) that they are making Scottish roads safer.
I think the Journalists of this country use the term 'policing on the cheap'.
Posted by: andrew, over the hedge on 2:33pm Sun 20 Jul 08
In answer to Fiona's upsetting experience, it wasn't the speed of the other driver that would have caused your accident, it was the fact that he was on the wrong side of the road, effecting a totally unsafe manouvre..90m.p.h, or 60m.p.h your driver's side on your vehicle would have been mangled had it not been for your commendable use of vision prior to effecting your right-turn.
As a former U.K driving instructor, and police 'road-craft' qualified ambulance driver, I do not consider speed cameras to be the answer exclusively, although as with most things in moderation they have their uses. The previous posting citing improved road signage/road engineering improvements will do much more good than a raft of dubious cameras.
However, as motorists we should not forget that the rationale for excessive speed, and lack of concentration whilst driving (or quite feasibly a combination of both) is stressful pressure in the main..i.e time to balance work, child care, etc...and then enter onto a road system which in the main has remained unaltered in its design for some 50 yrs whilst the number of vehicles using said system has multiplied many times over. In effect too many cars, too little tarmac, too many 'hold-ups' impacting upon our too busy, stressful lives.
The governments have given us all as motorists this state of affairs, and instead of assisting in making motoring a pleasure they promote it being a chore, and an increased threat to our collective well-being. Better public transport systems (the rail link from central Scotland to Inverness for example remains single-track as it runs beside large parts of the A9) would encourage less road use, and thus reduce the regretably real yet unpleasant 'need' for speed and loss of concentration.
We as a public are left to argue at eachother, but in my modest opinion, the powers to be have made us car dependent and have in effect got away with it by blaming us 'speeding' motorists.
In answer to Fiona's upsetting experience, it wasn't the speed of the other driver that would have caused your accident, it was the fact that he was on the wrong side of the road, effecting a totally unsafe manouvre..90m.p.h, or 60m.p.h your driver's side on your vehicle would have been mangled had it not been for your commendable use of vision prior to effecting your right-turn.
As a former U.K driving instructor, and police 'road-craft' qualified ambulance driver, I do not consider speed cameras to be the answer exclusively, although as with most things in moderation they have their uses. The previous posting citing improved road signage/road engineering improvements will do much more good than a raft of dubious cameras.
However, as motorists we should not forget that the rationale for excessive speed, and lack of concentration whilst driving (or quite feasibly a combination of both) is stressful pressure in the main..i.e time to balance work, child care, etc...and then enter onto a road system which in the main has remained unaltered in its design for some 50 yrs whilst the number of vehicles using said system has multiplied many times over. In effect too many cars, too little tarmac, too many 'hold-ups' impacting upon our too busy, stressful lives.
The governments have given us all as motorists this state of affairs, and instead of assisting in making motoring a pleasure they promote it being a chore, and an increased threat to our collective well-being. Better public transport systems (the rail link from central Scotland to Inverness for example remains single-track as it runs beside large parts of the A9) would encourage less road use, and thus reduce the regretably real yet unpleasant 'need' for speed and loss of concentration.
We as a public are left to argue at eachother, but in my modest opinion, the powers to be have made us car dependent and have in effect got away with it by blaming us 'speeding' motorists.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 2:56pm Sun 20 Jul 08
The answer is pretty simple really, just dump all the cameras and parasitic partnerships and put the enormously wasteful expenditure back into front line policing who can actually catch and if necessary take a dangerous drivers keys away.
The country can no longer defend the indefensible or continue to foster this hope that there is going to be a change in the attitudes or habits of persistant bad drivers because of some illusion of social unacceptability that speed camera propaganda was suposed to achieve, when in reality whats happened is that speed cameras have dropped in a whole new set of loopholes to be exploited by those who know how and don't give a **** about other drivers safety.
Speed camera partnerships are the 'emporers new clothes' of modern government policy, it was supposed to be so fine and wonderful, but it has left the authroties naked and the roads considerably more dangerous than before as fiona correctly points out.
Put the police back on the road and allow them to do their jobs, which they used to do very well indeed, stop the nonsense propaganda which nobody believes and accept the failure of speed camera policy so that we can move on and cut these unnecessary deaths.
The answer is pretty simple really, just dump all the cameras and parasitic partnerships and put the enormously wasteful expenditure back into front line policing who can actually catch and if necessary take a dangerous drivers keys away.
The country can no longer defend the indefensible or continue to foster this hope that there is going to be a change in the attitudes or habits of persistant bad drivers because of some illusion of social unacceptability that speed camera propaganda was suposed to achieve, when in reality whats happened is that speed cameras have dropped in a whole new set of loopholes to be exploited by those who know how and don't give a **** about other drivers safety.
Speed camera partnerships are the 'emporers new clothes' of modern government policy, it was supposed to be so fine and wonderful, but it has left the authroties naked and the roads considerably more dangerous than before as fiona correctly points out.
Put the police back on the road and allow them to do their jobs, which they used to do very well indeed, stop the nonsense propaganda which nobody believes and accept the failure of speed camera policy so that we can move on and cut these unnecessary deaths.
Posted by: Bill on 3:11pm Sun 20 Jul 08
As soon as I saw Joanna's excellent article I knew we'd see a lot of these creepy anti-safety camera speedophiles putting out the word to their fellow anti-social bastards exhorting one another to spew out their pathetic justifications to get away with whatever they want to do on our roads all in the face of reasoning as you have pointed out. Was it george monbiot who dubbed 'safe speed' as ''the boy racers’ club masquerading as a road safety campaign''. Now they seem to have girl racer fronting for them.
As soon as I saw Joanna's excellent article I knew we'd see a lot of these creepy anti-safety camera speedophiles putting out the word to their fellow anti-social bastards exhorting one another to spew out their pathetic justifications to get away with whatever they want to do on our roads all in the face of reasoning as you have pointed out. Was it george monbiot who dubbed 'safe speed' as ''the boy racers’ club masquerading as a road safety campaign''. Now they seem to have girl racer fronting for them.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 3:18pm Sun 20 Jul 08
How does demanding a return to proven front line heavy duty policing and dumping a wasteful quango make me a speedophile?
You're argument is non secuiter.
Speeding and dangerous driving are real problems on our roads right now and silly little arguements over the method of enforcement is benefitting nobody.
If I were saying abolish all the speed limits you'd have a point, but as I'm demanding a return to a much tougher line on dangerous drivers than speed cameras can ever hope to achieve your comments are simply not worth bothering with because they don't hold water.
How does demanding a return to proven front line heavy duty policing and dumping a wasteful quango make me a speedophile?
You're argument is non secuiter.
Speeding and dangerous driving are real problems on our roads right now and silly little arguements over the method of enforcement is benefitting nobody.
If I were saying abolish all the speed limits you'd have a point, but as I'm demanding a return to a much tougher line on dangerous drivers than speed cameras can ever hope to achieve your comments are simply not worth bothering with because they don't hold water.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 3:23pm Sun 20 Jul 08
To be quite honest, considering some of the comments of the so called 'safe speed' campaign, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that organisation was indeed setup by the government itself to present a ridiculous counter arguement to speed enforcement and allow the travesty of speed 'cameras' to go ahead.
Real police is the 'only' solution and in the fullness of time I believe there will be no alternative other than a return to the tried and trusted.
To be quite honest, considering some of the comments of the so called 'safe speed' campaign, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that organisation was indeed setup by the government itself to present a ridiculous counter arguement to speed enforcement and allow the travesty of speed 'cameras' to go ahead.
Real police is the 'only' solution and in the fullness of time I believe there will be no alternative other than a return to the tried and trusted.
Posted by: wee folding bike on 3:28pm Sun 20 Jul 08
J,
Your set up for regression to the mean is a straw man.
Distance to a hospital is a red herring. It would not change with the addition of a speed camera.
Yes people have crashes when their speed is inappropriate. This is not an argument for driving faster.
I'm not sure how you can demonstrate that speed is not a factor in causing the collision but it increases the effect of the collision.
Drink or drugs have a bad effect on driving. This is also not an argument against speed cameras, it's an argument against drink or drugs and driving.
Demonstrate the blindingly obvious, stating it is not good enough.
J,
Your set up for regression to the mean is a straw man.
Distance to a hospital is a red herring. It would not change with the addition of a speed camera.
Yes people have crashes when their speed is inappropriate. This is not an argument for driving faster.
I'm not sure how you can demonstrate that speed is not a factor in causing the collision but it increases the effect of the collision.
Drink or drugs have a bad effect on driving. This is also not an argument against speed cameras, it's an argument against drink or drugs and driving.
Demonstrate the blindingly obvious, stating it is not good enough.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 3:37pm Sun 20 Jul 08
For the same price as one single fixed speed camera you could equip three existing modern police cars with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) hardware and instead of covering just one hundred yards of a road, you could cover an entire town with random spot checks.
Even from a financial perspective continuation of a policy involving twenty year old fixed speed cameras is totally redundant.
Technology has moved on and our real police should be exploiting it, councils are beginning to recognise this now that their extra revenue has been diverted back to the treasury and aren't quite so keen to jump on the speed camera bandwagon now that it's costing them money instead of generating it.
We are hearing the death nell of the 'speed camera' and not before time, because speed cameras have about as much relation to modern road safety as the witch doctor has to modern medicine.
Stop the lies and propaganda, equip our police properly and put them back on the road where they can protect us, not just from minor speeding, but drunks, drug using driver, no insurance, no mot, faulty vehicles etc etc.
The speed camera argument is over.
For the same price as one single fixed speed camera you could equip three existing modern police cars with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) hardware and instead of covering just one hundred yards of a road, you could cover an entire town with random spot checks.
Even from a financial perspective continuation of a policy involving twenty year old fixed speed cameras is totally redundant.
Technology has moved on and our real police should be exploiting it, councils are beginning to recognise this now that their extra revenue has been diverted back to the treasury and aren't quite so keen to jump on the speed camera bandwagon now that it's costing them money instead of generating it.
We are hearing the death nell of the 'speed camera' and not before time, because speed cameras have about as much relation to modern road safety as the witch doctor has to modern medicine.
Stop the lies and propaganda, equip our police properly and put them back on the road where they can protect us, not just from minor speeding, but drunks, drug using driver, no insurance, no mot, faulty vehicles etc etc.
The speed camera argument is over.
Posted by: Aye. Right., Embro on 3:40pm Sun 20 Jul 08
"I NEVER fail to be amazed by the audacity and inventiveness demonstrated by opponents of speed cameras, all their tortuous, self-righteous rationalisations for defending the indefensible."
Prophetic words, ... as most of the comments on this page prove!
My favourite is the genius who stands logic on its head by proclaiming that because "the BBC recently showed footage from the Norfolk Camera Partnership in which cars crashed as a result of braking very hard when they saw a camera" the fault was of the camera, not of the driver who was breaking the law in the first place!
Aye. Right.
In fact, the underlying problem is that society is held to ransom by the automobile industry, including, obviously the oil sector, which dictates policy in many aspects to governments. And not just as regards transport, this also extends to foreign policy (e.g. war in Iraq).
So, from an objective, rational point of view, could someone explain why, in a country with a 90 m.p.h. speed limit, there is any need for marketing cars which can reach 150 m.p.h? Or indeed, for cars with an engine capacity above 1000 cc?
Free market economics don't kill, they mass murder!
"I NEVER fail to be amazed by the audacity and inventiveness demonstrated by opponents of speed cameras, all their tortuous, self-righteous rationalisations for defending the indefensible."
Prophetic words, ... as most of the comments on this page prove!
My favourite is the genius who stands logic on its head by proclaiming that because "the BBC recently showed footage from the Norfolk Camera Partnership in which cars crashed as a result of braking very hard when they saw a camera" the fault was of the camera, not of the driver who was breaking the law in the first place!
Aye. Right.
In fact, the underlying problem is that society is held to ransom by the automobile industry, including, obviously the oil sector, which dictates policy in many aspects to governments. And not just as regards transport, this also extends to foreign policy (e.g. war in Iraq).
So, from an objective, rational point of view, could someone explain why, in a country with a 90 m.p.h. speed limit, there is any need for marketing cars which can reach 150 m.p.h? Or indeed, for cars with an engine capacity above 1000 cc?
Free market economics don't kill, they mass murder!
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 3:42pm Sun 20 Jul 08
Even the governemts DfT website describes speed cameras as a traffic calming device with limited application due to the expense and practicality of location and should be perceived as a panacea to road safety.
So if the government themselves acknowledge that speed cameras aren't the be all and end all, why are we having this debate and why have we lost so many qualified traffic officers?
Even the governemts DfT website describes speed cameras as a traffic calming device with limited application due to the expense and practicality of location and should be perceived as a panacea to road safety.
So if the government themselves acknowledge that speed cameras aren't the be all and end all, why are we having this debate and why have we lost so many qualified traffic officers?
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 3:47pm Sun 20 Jul 08
I think you'll find that the maximum speed limit anywhere in the UK is 70mph aye right.
I'd also agree on your point about cars being capable of in excess of 100mph, I can't see the point either, although I do see the point in vehicles having sufficient power to tow things such as caravans at the legal speed limit which a 1000cc engine might not be able to do, if a byproduct of that power is additional speed that is a debate for another forum, because having been stuck behind enough caravans I'm certainly not going to defend their corner as a matter of principle.
I think you'll find that the maximum speed limit anywhere in the UK is 70mph aye right.
I'd also agree on your point about cars being capable of in excess of 100mph, I can't see the point either, although I do see the point in vehicles having sufficient power to tow things such as caravans at the legal speed limit which a 1000cc engine might not be able to do, if a byproduct of that power is additional speed that is a debate for another forum, because having been stuck behind enough caravans I'm certainly not going to defend their corner as a matter of principle.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 3:51pm Sun 20 Jul 08
Although I will add to the previous comment, in that you're not likely to be able to pull a trailer full of fifteen sheep safely out of a farm yard and at a safe and acceptable speed on the road with a 1000cc nissan micra if you're a farmer.
Although I will add to the previous comment, in that you're not likely to be able to pull a trailer full of fifteen sheep safely out of a farm yard and at a safe and acceptable speed on the road with a 1000cc nissan micra if you're a farmer.
Posted by: Aye. Right., Embro on 4:09pm Sun 20 Jul 08
OK Bill. Forgive the typo.
And I take your point about the "special cases" such as caravans or industrial uses.
However, I do hold it to be true that 90% of vehicles have capacities superfluous to needs and that this corresponds more to the exigencies of competition between manufacturers than to actual requirements (as opposed to whims) of consumers.
If they want to drive at 120 m.p.h. they should buy a Gameboy, not a car.
OK Bill. Forgive the typo.
And I take your point about the "special cases" such as caravans or industrial uses.
However, I do hold it to be true that 90% of vehicles have capacities superfluous to needs and that this corresponds more to the exigencies of competition between manufacturers than to actual requirements (as opposed to whims) of consumers.
If they want to drive at 120 m.p.h. they should buy a Gameboy, not a car.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 4:18pm Sun 20 Jul 08
I'd agree with you there Aye, right and don't worry about a typo as I've made one myself in one of my early posts, where it should have read...
"Even the governemts DfT website describes speed cameras as a traffic calming device with limited application due to the expense and practicality of location and should **not** be perceived as a panacea to road safety."
Although most people obviously don't need a vehicle that travels faster than the existing speed limit when used normally, they do exist and will exist for many years to come.
The question is how do we deal with it? do we hope we're going to be able to change the ingrained driving habits of generations with a bit of speed camera propaganda and words, or do we simply stop wasting money and put the real police back on the road and let them do their jobs.
I know which way my vote would go, the speed camera arguement is over and we should all recognise that, because it's not about the actual offence, it's about the method of enforcement which is out of date and needs a policy review at top level to allow us to upgrade to the newer technologies that will act as a deterant as other countrys have and not be stuck with obsolete kit which doesn't really do anything anymore.
I'd agree with you there Aye, right and don't worry about a typo as I've made one myself in one of my early posts, where it should have read...
"Even the governemts DfT website describes speed cameras as a traffic calming device with limited application due to the expense and practicality of location and should **not** be perceived as a panacea to road safety."
Although most people obviously don't need a vehicle that travels faster than the existing speed limit when used normally, they do exist and will exist for many years to come.
The question is how do we deal with it? do we hope we're going to be able to change the ingrained driving habits of generations with a bit of speed camera propaganda and words, or do we simply stop wasting money and put the real police back on the road and let them do their jobs.
I know which way my vote would go, the speed camera arguement is over and we should all recognise that, because it's not about the actual offence, it's about the method of enforcement which is out of date and needs a policy review at top level to allow us to upgrade to the newer technologies that will act as a deterant as other countrys have and not be stuck with obsolete kit which doesn't really do anything anymore.
Posted by: Angus, Suffolk on 4:49pm Sun 20 Jul 08
I drive around 20,000 miles a year, mainly on the motorway network in England and I do believe speed cameras have a role as do variable speed limits and road widening. The traffic flows on parts of the M25 and now parts of the M42 have been much improved thanks to variable speed limits backed up by enforcement cameras. Widening to four lanes on sections of the M25 has also helped a lot. I don't resent speed cameras where they save lives but they need to be part of an overall solution which needs to involve more police patrols to target bad driving - careless and dangerous driving is a far bigger killer than speed, although speed can sometimes be a factor. The whole speed camera issue has got in the way of a more serious debate that needs to take place on road safety. At the moment it is legal for a 17 year-old who has just passed his or her test to take a high performance car onto the roads. The test needs to be made harder and restrictions placed on cc size until the driver is at least 21 - the accident rate among 17 to 21 year-old young males is appalling. The police and camera partnerships and government need to get drivers on the same side rather than the 'them and us' situation which exists at the moment -and the bad drivers need to be marginalised as a danger to us all. At the moment,bad and dangerous drivers are hiding behind decent motorists who feel they are being picked on by a system designed to raise cash rather than encourage genuine road saftey.
I drive around 20,000 miles a year, mainly on the motorway network in England and I do believe speed cameras have a role as do variable speed limits and road widening. The traffic flows on parts of the M25 and now parts of the M42 have been much improved thanks to variable speed limits backed up by enforcement cameras. Widening to four lanes on sections of the M25 has also helped a lot. I don't resent speed cameras where they save lives but they need to be part of an overall solution which needs to involve more police patrols to target bad driving - careless and dangerous driving is a far bigger killer than speed, although speed can sometimes be a factor. The whole speed camera issue has got in the way of a more serious debate that needs to take place on road safety. At the moment it is legal for a 17 year-old who has just passed his or her test to take a high performance car onto the roads. The test needs to be made harder and restrictions placed on cc size until the driver is at least 21 - the accident rate among 17 to 21 year-old young males is appalling. The police and camera partnerships and government need to get drivers on the same side rather than the 'them and us' situation which exists at the moment -and the bad drivers need to be marginalised as a danger to us all. At the moment,bad and dangerous drivers are hiding behind decent motorists who feel they are being picked on by a system designed to raise cash rather than encourage genuine road saftey.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 5:06pm Sun 20 Jul 08
I have to disagree with you Angus on the issue of speed cameras, when I personally can't see the point in an wasteful unelected quango called a speed camera partnership which generates over a hundred million in fines each year which then has to be supported by diverting real police officers away from more important business to search the country fruitlessly for drivers who don't pay their fines, an estimated 3 to 400,000 thousand a year.
Why not just cut out the very expensive middleman and arm the real police with modern equipment like ANPR and use those best qualified to deal with dangerous drivers, the police themselves to catch and detain dangerous drivers on the spot and ascertain their identity and avoid the wasteful back office proceedures of a policy that is so full of loopholes they've invented a whole new generation of criminals, such as oranised rings of people who're prepared to accept speeding fines for a fee.
As Nurse Gladys Emmanual quite rightly says, they've virtually done a complete U-Turn on policing the roads as it is, just bite the bullet and put the most effective part back in, it is the lack of stopping a driver thats allowed this escallation in serious road crime.
I have to disagree with you Angus on the issue of speed cameras, when I personally can't see the point in an wasteful unelected quango called a speed camera partnership which generates over a hundred million in fines each year which then has to be supported by diverting real police officers away from more important business to search the country fruitlessly for drivers who don't pay their fines, an estimated 3 to 400,000 thousand a year.
Why not just cut out the very expensive middleman and arm the real police with modern equipment like ANPR and use those best qualified to deal with dangerous drivers, the police themselves to catch and detain dangerous drivers on the spot and ascertain their identity and avoid the wasteful back office proceedures of a policy that is so full of loopholes they've invented a whole new generation of criminals, such as oranised rings of people who're prepared to accept speeding fines for a fee.
As Nurse Gladys Emmanual quite rightly says, they've virtually done a complete U-Turn on policing the roads as it is, just bite the bullet and put the most effective part back in, it is the lack of stopping a driver thats allowed this escallation in serious road crime.
Posted by: FFS on 5:06pm Sun 20 Jul 08
angus speaks a lot of sense. i fail to see how fixed-position cameras can really be taken seriously as anything other than a revenue-raising device for the unwary/feeble-minded who aren't paying attention to the speed limit.
i don't have figures to hand and i can't be bothered looking, but it's my understanding that the average-speed cameras on the A77 have worked wonders in terms of accident reduction, and i can see why: they're a workable way of enforcing a set speed over a set distance. a fixed camera is never going to do this.
i do also think there's a case for raising the limits on certain sections of road -- 70 now smacks of unthinking legacy. but that, of course, would require drivers to actually pay more attention -- and so few of them are willing to do that these days. it horrifies me how blasé so many people seem to be at the wheel of what is potentially a terrifyingly destructive machine.
angus speaks a lot of sense. i fail to see how fixed-position cameras can really be taken seriously as anything other than a revenue-raising device for the unwary/feeble-minded who aren't paying attention to the speed limit.
i don't have figures to hand and i can't be bothered looking, but it's my understanding that the average-speed cameras on the A77 have worked wonders in terms of accident reduction, and i can see why: they're a workable way of enforcing a set speed over a set distance. a fixed camera is never going to do this.
i do also think there's a case for raising the limits on certain sections of road -- 70 now smacks of unthinking legacy. but that, of course, would require drivers to actually pay more attention -- and so few of them are willing to do that these days. it horrifies me how blasé so many people seem to be at the wheel of what is potentially a terrifyingly destructive machine.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 5:16pm Sun 20 Jul 08
I'd have to disagree with FFS on the issue of raising speed limits on certain roads as I think there are too many different speed limits as there is and I'd like to see a simple set of three, 70 on the motorway, 60 in non built up areas where conditions allow and 30 everywhere else.
It is simply too easy to be in a 40 limit and miss a 30 sign resulting in three points for 36 mph and does as Angus suggests artificially inflate a set of statistics about speed camera effectivness when the locals all know where the fixed camera is.
Police used to be very good at all this, unfortunatly their automated replacment simply isn't and needs to be scrapped and replaced with the tried and trusted traffic police, albeit armed with modern equipment that would make their efficiency ten fold what it used to be.
I'd have to disagree with FFS on the issue of raising speed limits on certain roads as I think there are too many different speed limits as there is and I'd like to see a simple set of three, 70 on the motorway, 60 in non built up areas where conditions allow and 30 everywhere else.
It is simply too easy to be in a 40 limit and miss a 30 sign resulting in three points for 36 mph and does as Angus suggests artificially inflate a set of statistics about speed camera effectivness when the locals all know where the fixed camera is.
Police used to be very good at all this, unfortunatly their automated replacment simply isn't and needs to be scrapped and replaced with the tried and trusted traffic police, albeit armed with modern equipment that would make their efficiency ten fold what it used to be.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 5:21pm Sun 20 Jul 08
I meant to say in the previous post that incresing the top speed limit, for example to 90 would increase the differential between vehicle who have a maximum speed which is much lower, for example lorries and caravans, which would exacerpate the problems of collisions even more than now in the long run.
Dump the cameras, arm real police properly with modern technology detaining drivers where necessary to promote a return to an actual deterrant and simplify speed limits.
To me it's a no brainer in comparision to the nightmare of legislation that it is now.
I meant to say in the previous post that incresing the top speed limit, for example to 90 would increase the differential between vehicle who have a maximum speed which is much lower, for example lorries and caravans, which would exacerpate the problems of collisions even more than now in the long run.
Dump the cameras, arm real police properly with modern technology detaining drivers where necessary to promote a return to an actual deterrant and simplify speed limits.
To me it's a no brainer in comparision to the nightmare of legislation that it is now.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 5:31pm Sun 20 Jul 08
Who knows, as a beneficial side effect of having traffic police cars back on the streets again, perhaps it would deter some of the other street crime, which is nothing to do with speeding if the 'feral youth' began to see the presence of police cars as a visible deterant once again.
Who knows, as a beneficial side effect of having traffic police cars back on the streets again, perhaps it would deter some of the other street crime, which is nothing to do with speeding if the 'feral youth' began to see the presence of police cars as a visible deterant once again.
Posted by: FFS on 5:43pm Sun 20 Jul 08
i don't think you and i are going to agree on the minutiae, bill, but i would categorically support your premise that having properly equipped traffic cops out there policing the roads would be the most efficient solution to many of the problems that currently exist -- and i've spoken to several cops who agree.
sadly, i just can't see it happening.
i don't think you and i are going to agree on the minutiae, bill, but i would categorically support your premise that having properly equipped traffic cops out there policing the roads would be the most efficient solution to many of the problems that currently exist -- and i've spoken to several cops who agree.
sadly, i just can't see it happening.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 6:04pm Sun 20 Jul 08
We'll agree to disagree on the minor issues then FFS as we agree on the major ones.
I am more optimistic than you on it happening though, since the government changed the legislation to sweep up all the fines into the treasury, councils are left stranded having to pay a lot of money into their partnerships which threatens their council tax thresholds and aren't seeing the kind of return they'd expect, since the last council elections across the uk our current government don't have the support they used to have at local level and a fundamental shift is begining to happen.
We'll agree to disagree on the minor issues then FFS as we agree on the major ones.
I am more optimistic than you on it happening though, since the government changed the legislation to sweep up all the fines into the treasury, councils are left stranded having to pay a lot of money into their partnerships which threatens their council tax thresholds and aren't seeing the kind of return they'd expect, since the last council elections across the uk our current government don't have the support they used to have at local level and a fundamental shift is begining to happen.
Posted by: Angus, Suffolk on 6:08pm Sun 20 Jul 08
There are a number of young men in Suffolk who have cause to thank their lives to the speed cameras fitted on a stretch of the A14 called the Haugley Bends - RTAs have been cut by half since installation in the late 90s. It is not speed cameras that are the problem but how they are used and in what context. Here in Suffolk, the police have a light touch on the roads while in both north and south Wales, they are very harsh on motorists (I picked up my only camera fine to date on the M4 near Llanelli from a mobile van I couldn't even see - what was the point of that except to fleece the motorist? I have never been back to Wales since). I do agree that cameras are indiscriminate but they can work as part of a package of road safety measures, the centre of which should be police in patrol cars. The Yorkshire Ripper was caught by a traffic cop on routine patrol - no speed camera could do that.
There are a number of young men in Suffolk who have cause to thank their lives to the speed cameras fitted on a stretch of the A14 called the Haugley Bends - RTAs have been cut by half since installation in the late 90s. It is not speed cameras that are the problem but how they are used and in what context. Here in Suffolk, the police have a light touch on the roads while in both north and south Wales, they are very harsh on motorists (I picked up my only camera fine to date on the M4 near Llanelli from a mobile van I couldn't even see - what was the point of that except to fleece the motorist? I have never been back to Wales since). I do agree that cameras are indiscriminate but they can work as part of a package of road safety measures, the centre of which should be police in patrol cars. The Yorkshire Ripper was caught by a traffic cop on routine patrol - no speed camera could do that.
Posted by: joe90, Wishaw on 6:17pm Sun 20 Jul 08
More violence, mayhem and road carnage or as corporate news journalism calls it, 'road accidents' -
'Two die in separate road crashes'
BBC Scotland
20 July 2008
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/scotland/glas
gow_and_west/7516036
.stm
All this murder, mayhem and injury is classed under 'accidents' where people mysteriously 'lose control of their vehicle' or maybe its sunspot activity that causes raod accidents, or maybe even aliens using invisble beams to try and conquer earth.
The thing is, when the same 'accidents' repeatedly and persistently occur then they aren't accidents or mistakes, but are structural and have definite characteristics which can be studied and lessons learned from them in order to prevent them happening again and keep people safe.
Sufficed it to say, that is what happens with other violent criminal behaviour (such as the currently fashionable 'moral panic' in the corporate news media of knife crime) - but the law and the police don't seem too interested in discouraging the violent criminal lunatic behaviour of most drivers which is known to be the source, and cause, of the most violent deaths and severe injury in the UK.
More violence, mayhem and road carnage or as corporate news journalism calls it, 'road accidents' -
'Two die in separate road crashes'
BBC Scotland
20 July 2008
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/scotland/glas
gow_and_west/7516036
.stm
All this murder, mayhem and injury is classed under 'accidents' where people mysteriously 'lose control of their vehicle' or maybe its sunspot activity that causes raod accidents, or maybe even aliens using invisble beams to try and conquer earth.
The thing is, when the same 'accidents' repeatedly and persistently occur then they aren't accidents or mistakes, but are structural and have definite characteristics which can be studied and lessons learned from them in order to prevent them happening again and keep people safe.
Sufficed it to say, that is what happens with other violent criminal behaviour (such as the currently fashionable 'moral panic' in the corporate news media of knife crime) - but the law and the police don't seem too interested in discouraging the violent criminal lunatic behaviour of most drivers which is known to be the source, and cause, of the most violent deaths and severe injury in the UK.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 6:30pm Sun 20 Jul 08
So you have the same question as everybody else then joe90, surely there is a superior way of tackling the 'the violent criminal lunatic behaviour of *most* drivers' as you put it, which is hardly a balanced view of reality nor can you verify that statement through imperical data as it is a supposition, but assuming it to be true, surely it's very naive to tackle such an horendous problem by mounting a ludicrous camera on a pole.
Do you therefore agree that a return to tried and trusted policing is required or should we continue down this avenue of failure, because cameras have indeed been on our streets since 1992 and if you're still anxious about it today, surely they can't be working very well.
So you have the same question as everybody else then joe90, surely there is a superior way of tackling the 'the violent criminal lunatic behaviour of *most* drivers' as you put it, which is hardly a balanced view of reality nor can you verify that statement through imperical data as it is a supposition, but assuming it to be true, surely it's very naive to tackle such an horendous problem by mounting a ludicrous camera on a pole.
Do you therefore agree that a return to tried and trusted policing is required or should we continue down this avenue of failure, because cameras have indeed been on our streets since 1992 and if you're still anxious about it today, surely they can't be working very well.
Posted by: Derek Walker, Buckinghamshire on 7:53pm Sun 20 Jul 08
Some of your correspondents deny that speed kills and they are correct. The damage is caused by the effects of incomplete decelleration and consequent impacts with other vehicles or fragile human bodies. As a physics equation it is a simple argument -
the slower the impact, the less the damage. It can be easily shown that mean speeds at camera sites are reduced by the presence of the cameras and therefore severity of impacts reduced. Pavlov trained dogs in a scientific experiment and was successful; drivers are not so easy to train but that is no reason to revert to the older methods of speeding detection, especially as short sighted Chief Officers have reduced the strength of trained Traffic Patrol Officers.
My views are as a result of leading the Police Team that proved the camera technology and perhaps a little more objective that the uniformed rantings of the anti-camera lobby.
Some of your correspondents deny that speed kills and they are correct. The damage is caused by the effects of incomplete decelleration and consequent impacts with other vehicles or fragile human bodies. As a physics equation it is a simple argument -
the slower the impact, the less the damage. It can be easily shown that mean speeds at camera sites are reduced by the presence of the cameras and therefore severity of impacts reduced. Pavlov trained dogs in a scientific experiment and was successful; drivers are not so easy to train but that is no reason to revert to the older methods of speeding detection, especially as short sighted Chief Officers have reduced the strength of trained Traffic Patrol Officers.
My views are as a result of leading the Police Team that proved the camera technology and perhaps a little more objective that the uniformed rantings of the anti-camera lobby.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 8:22pm Sun 20 Jul 08
Then Mr Walker, you'd also be aware of the CPO who criticised the Government for failing to provide both targets and funding for casualty reduction to CPO's prefering to fund and support targets for reduction of thefts of 'kitt katts' from corner shops and what subsequently happened to him.
Perhaps the rantings aren't coming from the uninformed camera lobby after all.
The laws of physics arguements are irrelevant if you're cameras aren't cathcing the offenders and along with the erection of a camera often comes significant road works to improve an accident hot spot which the governments own figures available for anyone to see have a 35% reduction on accidents at that site redering the point over speed cameras moot.
There's been less than 10% improvement in the reduction of serious and fatal accidents on the roads since cameras were introduced hardly a glowing report when the car manufacturers are quite happy to tell you that most of that 10% would be made of improvments to vehicle design and safety initiatives.
But the policy goes on and many of us wonder why that would be.
Then Mr Walker, you'd also be aware of the CPO who criticised the Government for failing to provide both targets and funding for casualty reduction to CPO's prefering to fund and support targets for reduction of thefts of 'kitt katts' from corner shops and what subsequently happened to him.
Perhaps the rantings aren't coming from the uninformed camera lobby after all.
The laws of physics arguements are irrelevant if you're cameras aren't cathcing the offenders and along with the erection of a camera often comes significant road works to improve an accident hot spot which the governments own figures available for anyone to see have a 35% reduction on accidents at that site redering the point over speed cameras moot.
There's been less than 10% improvement in the reduction of serious and fatal accidents on the roads since cameras were introduced hardly a glowing report when the car manufacturers are quite happy to tell you that most of that 10% would be made of improvments to vehicle design and safety initiatives.
But the policy goes on and many of us wonder why that would be.
Posted by: FFS on 9:18pm Sun 20 Jul 08
i wasn't going to post again here but i can't let mr walker's bizarre comments go unchallenged:
[quote]It can be easily shown that mean speeds at camera sites are reduced by the presence of the cameras and therefore severity of impacts reduced[/quote]
er, yes, *at the camera sites*! what about, umm, all the rest of the roads? it's like the old joke: what goes 90-70-90? a car on a dual carriageway passing a speed camera.
static cameras -- as you seem to be tacitly admitting -- will slow down drivers only at a specific point on the road. and if you think slowing down drivers at a specific point on the road is more important than addressing all the myriad other causes of accidents -- not least of which could be excessive speed at, er, all the points that don't have cameras -- i'm frankly gobsmacked.
[quote]Pavlov trained dogs in a scientific experiment and was successful; drivers are not so easy to train but that is no reason to revert to the older methods of speeding detection[/quote]
what on earth have pavlov's experiments concerning classical conditioning (not quite the same as "training dogs in an experiment", but we'll let that pass) got to do with improving road safety?
[quote]especially as short sighted Chief Officers have reduced the strength of trained Traffic Patrol Officers[/quote]
umm, yes, isn't that the point we're making? bring *back* traffic cops! i'm quite sure the budget isn't there right now. but once upon a time there wasn't a budget for cameras, either.
[quote]My views are as a result of leading the Police Team that proved the camera technology and perhaps a little more objective that the uniformed rantings of the anti-camera lobby[/quote]
hang on. you led the team that "proved" the technology and you're saying that you're more objective? heheheh. that's exquisite.
(your typo is glorious, too: there are "uniformed rantings" indeed, as bill points out!)
i'm not some speed-crazed freaker; i'm a member of the IAM who has a keen interest in road safety and would like to see an overhaul of driver training and the psychology of car use from the L-test up. speed cameras -- like angus says -- can be part of that ... if they're employed sensibly. average-speed cameras are, i believe, a huge advance, but you seldom see them -- presumably because of the cost implications. little yellow boxes on sticks might help the statistics (and the income!) but they're fundamentally not even a sticking-plaster solution.
i wasn't going to post again here but i can't let mr walker's bizarre comments go unchallenged:
It can be easily shown that mean speeds at camera sites are reduced by the presence of the cameras and therefore severity of impacts reduced
er, yes, *at the camera sites*! what about, umm, all the rest of the roads? it's like the old joke: what goes 90-70-90? a car on a dual carriageway passing a speed camera.
static cameras -- as you seem to be tacitly admitting -- will slow down drivers only at a specific point on the road. and if you think slowing down drivers at a specific point on the road is more important than addressing all the myriad other causes of accidents -- not least of which could be excessive speed at, er, all the points that don't have cameras -- i'm frankly gobsmacked.
Pavlov trained dogs in a scientific experiment and was successful; drivers are not so easy to train but that is no reason to revert to the older methods of speeding detection
what on earth have pavlov's experiments concerning classical conditioning (not quite the same as "training dogs in an experiment", but we'll let that pass) got to do with improving road safety?
especially as short sighted Chief Officers have reduced the strength of trained Traffic Patrol Officers
umm, yes, isn't that the point we're making? bring *back* traffic cops! i'm quite sure the budget isn't there right now. but once upon a time there wasn't a budget for cameras, either.
My views are as a result of leading the Police Team that proved the camera technology and perhaps a little more objective that the uniformed rantings of the anti-camera lobby
hang on. you led the team that "proved" the technology and you're saying that you're more objective? heheheh. that's exquisite.
(your typo is glorious, too: there are "uniformed rantings" indeed, as bill points out!)
i'm not some speed-crazed freaker; i'm a member of the IAM who has a keen interest in road safety and would like to see an overhaul of driver training and the psychology of car use from the L-test up. speed cameras -- like angus says -- can be part of that ... if they're employed sensibly. average-speed cameras are, i believe, a huge advance, but you seldom see them -- presumably because of the cost implications. little yellow boxes on sticks might help the statistics (and the income!) but they're fundamentally not even a sticking-plaster solution.
Posted by: Bill, Highway to Hell on 9:38pm Sun 20 Jul 08
It's too early to tell the implications of average speed cameras, although there is a recent article from Ireland where their's have so far only managed to capture one solitary speeding conviction (which lets face it, makes it a very very expensive solution)and would perhaps signify that the fixed camera isn't particularly accurate.
I also find the intended use of average speed cameras in cities to be laughable, take london, if you actually had the chance to break the speed limit in London it'd be a fine thing.
I also support any initiative for a toughening of the driving test and overall improvment to driver training with perhaps a manadatory 'advanced' course once the test had been passed to remove the 'P' plate.
I also believe that it is a huge waste of resources sending minor offenders on Speed awareness courses and not making these courses manadatory for drivers convicted of really serious offences who are fined, or banned and in reality they're straight back on the road none the wiser.
I don't think there is any place at all for the current policy of speed cameras, although if pushed I'd agree they'd make good unmanned 'listening posts' to gather intelegence to convict serious offenders who would appear time and time again on the authorities database.
But the current use of speed cameras is ridiculous and should be changed before it's abused any further and drags the police force down to a level where nobody takes them seriously. The government may have gradious targets on crime reduction, but criminalising and prosecuting my (hypothetical) granny who's never been involved with the police in her life shouldn't be one of those targets.
Even senior police cheifs are documented as having admitted their forces abuse speeding convictions to bulk up their targets, so it's not just the speculation by some militant group who're saying it.
The policy needs to change, it's the wrong focus and it's missng the point entirely.
It's too early to tell the implications of average speed cameras, although there is a recent article from Ireland where their's have so far only managed to capture one solitary speeding conviction (which lets face it, makes it a very very expensive solution)and would perhaps signify that the fixed camera isn't particularly accurate.
I also find the intended use of average speed cameras in cities to be laughable, take london, if you actually had the chance to break the speed limit in London it'd be a fine thing.
I also support any initiative for a toughening of the driving test and overall improvment to driver training with perhaps a manadatory 'advanced' course once the test had been passed to remove the 'P' plate.
I also believe that it is a huge waste of resources sending minor offenders on Speed awareness courses and not making these courses manadatory for drivers convicted of really serious offences who are fined, or banned and in reality they're straight back on the road none the wiser.
I don't think there is any place at all for the current policy of speed cameras, although if pushed I'd agree they'd make good unmanned 'listening posts' to gather intelegence to convict serious offenders who would appear time and time again on the authorities database.
But the current use of speed cameras is ridiculous and should be changed before it's abused any further and drags the police force down to a level where nobody takes them seriously. The government may have gradious targets on crime reduction, but criminalising and prosecuting my (hypothetical) granny who's never been involved with the police in her life shouldn't be one of those targets.
Even senior police cheifs are documented as having admitted their forces abuse speeding convictions to bulk up their targets, so it's not just the speculation by some militant group who're saying it.
The policy needs to change, it's the wrong focus and it's missng the point entirely.
Posted by: JW, Glasgow on 10:26pm Sun 20 Jul 08
"Red herrings"? The majority of them are in Joanna's arguments. But despite failing so abysmally at logic, perhaps an argument for economics will get through.
Speed cameras create an incentive for "partnerships" to catch speeding drivers. They are rewarded every time a driver passes at camera at speed. This is in direct opposition to the stated goal: reducing the numbers of drivers who speed.
Why not pay them the same, or greater, sums for every drop in fatalities on their roads? Leave the implementation details up to the partnerships.
If cameras really work, I imagine they'd be keen to use even more of them to really reduce this apparently lethal speeding. If (as I suspect), they don't work nearly as well as police on patrol or more creative road-planning, the change will give partnerships a direct incentive to use better alternatives.
We'll end up with safer roads, fairer on drivers of all stripes, and discover what *actually* makes roads safer in the process.
"Red herrings"? The majority of them are in Joanna's arguments. But despite failing so abysmally at logic, perhaps an argument for economics will get through.
Speed cameras create an incentive for "partnerships" to catch speeding drivers. They are rewarded every time a driver passes at camera at speed. This is in direct opposition to the stated goal: reducing the numbers of drivers who speed.
Why not pay them the same, or greater, sums for every drop in fatalities on their roads? Leave the implementation details up to the partnerships.
If cameras really work, I imagine they'd be keen to use even more of them to really reduce this apparently lethal speeding. If (as I suspect), they don't work nearly as well as police on patrol or more creative road-planning, the change will give partnerships a direct incentive to use better alternatives.
We'll end up with safer roads, fairer on drivers of all stripes, and discover what *actually* makes roads safer in the process.
Posted by: wee folding bike on 6:18am Mon 21 Jul 08
J,
Are you suggesting I fail at logic by suggesting that the distance to a hospital will not change with the presence of a camera? Explain.
You do not contest the rest of it.
Your incentive argument works for any crime which attracts a financial penalty. Which other ones do you want changed? Would you prefer a different penalty for speeding?
How would you implement the fatality reduction measurement? Why have you abandoned your regression argument which was so good before that you put it in bold?
You now merely [italic]suspect[/italic] that they don't work based on there not being as many as you would expect there to be if they did work. If you only suspect it does that mean you come armed with little knowledge too?
You have not explained your methodology for saying only 10% of collisions are due to speed. Even if you could support it that is not an argument against cameras, it's an argument for lower speed limits because you admit that inappropriate rather than illegal speed is a factor ohhhh, unless you intend to claim that someone doing 50 on a motorway is more dangerous than someone doing 80.
J,
Are you suggesting I fail at logic by suggesting that the distance to a hospital will not change with the presence of a camera? Explain.
You do not contest the rest of it.
Your incentive argument works for any crime which attracts a financial penalty. Which other ones do you want changed? Would you prefer a different penalty for speeding?
How would you implement the fatality reduction measurement? Why have you abandoned your regression argument which was so good before that you put it in bold?
You now merely
suspect that they don't work based on there not being as many as you would expect there to be if they did work. If you only suspect it does that mean you come armed with little knowledge too?
You have not explained your methodology for saying only 10% of collisions are due to speed. Even if you could support it that is not an argument against cameras, it's an argument for lower speed limits because you admit that inappropriate rather than illegal speed is a factor ohhhh, unless you intend to claim that someone doing 50 on a motorway is more dangerous than someone doing 80.
Posted by: Conslance, london on 2:26pm Mon 21 Jul 08
Another [bold]excellent[/bold] and [bold]well thought[/bold] out article from Blythman. Joanna don't pay any attention to the Richard Hammond and Jeremy Clarkson wannabes on here...they are more than likely sitting at home with nothing better to do, since their precious 'motor' is either written off or they have been banned from driving.
[bold]Keep up the great work Jo![/bold]
Another
excellent and
well thought out article from Blythman. Joanna don't pay any attention to the Richard Hammond and Jeremy Clarkson wannabes on here...they are more than likely sitting at home with nothing better to do, since their precious 'motor' is either written off or they have been banned from driving.
Keep up the great work Jo! Posted by: Sylvia on 4:52pm Mon 21 Jul 08
Yes, another piece of uninformed news paper blurb.
But it's ok, when your children are mown down in a hit and run by a drunk driver who has no insurance because like the other three million of them who're on the road right now, he's not being caught because a speed camera is no replacement for a real traffic coop, even though they're a lot cheaper, at least you'll be able to say ...I supported the policy that allowed this to happen and I'm proud of myself.
Now if only everybody was brainwashed as easily as you've been, no one would be breaking the law anywhere, but as they're not, make sure you follow the green cross code.
Eventually it may dawn on you, but I doubt it and in all honesty I'm disappointed to be a member of the same species as you.
Yes, another piece of uninformed news paper blurb.
But it's ok, when your children are mown down in a hit and run by a drunk driver who has no insurance because like the other three million of them who're on the road right now, he's not being caught because a speed camera is no replacement for a real traffic coop, even though they're a lot cheaper, at least you'll be able to say ...I supported the policy that allowed this to happen and I'm proud of myself.
Now if only everybody was brainwashed as easily as you've been, no one would be breaking the law anywhere, but as they're not, make sure you follow the green cross code.
Eventually it may dawn on you, but I doubt it and in all honesty I'm disappointed to be a member of the same species as you.
Posted by: FFS on 6:14pm Mon 21 Jul 08
[quote]Another excellent and well thought out article from Blythman. Joanna don't pay any attention to the Richard Hammond and Jeremy Clarkson wannabes on here...they are more than likely sitting at home with nothing better to do, since their precious 'motor' is either written off or they have been banned from driving.
Keep up the great work Jo![/quote]
yes, shrill ad hominem attacks [b]with[/b] random words in [b]bold[/b] are a welcome addition to [b]the[/b] debate.
Another excellent and well thought out article from Blythman. Joanna don't pay any attention to the Richard Hammond and Jeremy Clarkson wannabes on here...they are more than likely sitting at home with nothing better to do, since their precious 'motor' is either written off or they have been banned from driving.
Keep up the great work Jo!
yes, shrill ad hominem attacks with random words in bold are a welcome addition to the debate.
Posted by: Mark on 11:04pm Mon 21 Jul 08
In exactly the same way that people are feeling let down by CCTV since knife crime hit the headlines and are demanding a return to an actual police presence in our communitys. People also feel let down by Speed Cameras and are demanding a return to proper policing of our roads. It really is difficult to understand how a few people can't understand that, becuase it's hardly rocket science.
In exactly the same way that people are feeling let down by CCTV since knife crime hit the headlines and are demanding a return to an actual police presence in our communitys. People also feel let down by Speed Cameras and are demanding a return to proper policing of our roads. It really is difficult to understand how a few people can't understand that, becuase it's hardly rocket science.
Posted by: JW, Glasgow on 4:37am Tue 22 Jul 08
er, wee folding bike I fear you're conflating my post with someone else's: my earlier post was the only one in the thread.
Regardless, it's not true that the incentive argument holds for any crime with a financial penalty: speed traps are unique in that the money raised goes partly to the police and the councils who put them up. This makes it directly in their interest to catch people speeding (ie by hiding the cameras where they nil deterrent value) and no incentive to encourage safer driving.
As for a metric to guage a reduction in fatalities, why, how about counting the numbers of people who die on the roads? Sure, this might mean paying out for reductions not directly related to council intervention, but I don't imagine many complaints over falling death tolls.
er, wee folding bike I fear you're conflating my post with someone else's: my earlier post was the only one in the thread.
Regardless, it's not true that the incentive argument holds for any crime with a financial penalty: speed traps are unique in that the money raised goes partly to the police and the councils who put them up. This makes it directly in their interest to catch people speeding (ie by hiding the cameras where they nil deterrent value) and no incentive to encourage safer driving.
As for a metric to guage a reduction in fatalities, why, how about counting the numbers of people who die on the roads? Sure, this might mean paying out for reductions not directly related to council intervention, but I don't imagine many complaints over falling death tolls.
Posted by: JW on 4:54am Tue 22 Jul 08
Oh, and as for the logic, the article is a mismash of fallacies barely connected with unsubstantiated invective:
Par 1: Argument from incredulity
Par 2: Ad hominem
Par 3: Ad hominem
Par 4: Ad
Comment | Read Comments (52)
