ADUK Archive

jont wrote:

petes wrote:

MGF wrote:Both. Hidden for general deterrent. Visible to reduce speeds at specific hazards.

That would be my thoughts on the issue. To me, making all speed cameras clearly visible is as good as telling drivers they can drive at whatever speed they like elsewhere. There needs to be an element of uncertainty as to where enforcement might be taking place.

Why should enforcement only be about speed? I'd rather see covert enforcement of /all/ driving rules. To mis-quote you from above, making all road safety enforcement about speed sends the message that so long as you're not speeding, you can break whatever other traffic laws you want (mobile phone use, insurance, license, VED, MOT, disfunctional lighting etc etc).

Perhaps it shouldn't. I guess the issue is that criminality in terms of speed is quantitative, measurable and black and white. As such, it lends itself well to automated detection systems. I'm not sure how you'd use similar systems to prosecute people for more subjective motoring offenses, although tailgating could probably be monitored quite easily.

As suggested, I've started a new thread on the speed debate.

petes wrote: Perhaps it shouldn't. I guess the issue is that criminality in terms of speed is quantitative, measurable and black and white. As such, it lends itself well to automated detection systems. I'm not sure how you'd use similar systems to prosecute people for more subjective motoring offenses, although tailgating could probably be monitored quite easily.

Interesting that you included the term 'criminality'. Part of teh reason for wide-spread use of ANPR is that it allows far wider policing than simply traffic offences.

[Project Laser, Phase 2] During the second phase of the project around 28 million number plates were spotted in total, with 1.1 million (3.9%) of these matching an entry in one of the databases. 180,543 vehicles were stopped (101,775 directly because of the ANPR system), leading to 13,499 arrests (7.5% of the total) and the issue of 50,910 fines (28.2%). 1,152 stolen vehicles (worth £7.5 million in total), £380,000 worth of drugs and £640,000 worth of stolen goods were also recovered.

Horse wrote:

petes wrote: Perhaps it shouldn't. I guess the issue is that criminality in terms of speed is quantitative, measurable and black and white. As such, it lends itself well to automated detection systems. I'm not sure how you'd use similar systems to prosecute people for more subjective motoring offenses, although tailgating could probably be monitored quite easily.

Interesting that you included the term 'criminality'. Part of teh reason for wide-spread use of ANPR is that it allows far wider policing than simply traffic offences.

I would have thought the use of the word "criminality" makes perfect sense. We're debating the implementation of cameras which are there to prevent people committing a criminal offence. Whether the motive behind that is to raise money or to improve safety might be an arguable point, but there's no doubt that people who get caught by such systems have technically committed a crime.

Carbon Based wrote:On the motorway it is what cruise control was invented for.

+1 - that's why I have recently retrofitted cruise control to my 911.

Unfortunately, it is not a radar-guided type like in my old S-Class so I cannot watch TV / read reports / do some work / etc. while the car watches the road ahead.

I think one answer to this question, is to look at one outcome of adding 1mph to the current 10% +2mph 'limit tolerance', to the speed being travelled. One such outcome, is an £85 'speed kills' speed awareness course, regardless of there being no affected persons other than the robotically supported state. Therein lie the stats which MPs use to support reducing speed limits. x number of cars were flashed for doing 36mph at 10pm on a wide, empty and well lit road and nobody was killed or seriously injured, so the camera must be increasing safety.....for they art called 'safety cameras' after all.

As an aside, the local speed camera, aka 'the big grey lump of dangerous grey metal in the middle of the road on Hove seafront', has recently been flattened again, though not by Nick Cave this time. The apparent result, is a better flow of traffic either side of it and no sudden and unnecessary decrease-increase of speed around it. The mile-long straight road lends itself to 40mph, as do most Sussex drivers regardless of the limit. 40ish mph is the speed most drivers are now continually traveling at instead of 40ish mph - 26ish mph - 40ish mph. I'd argue that this brave new World is safer but speed awareness enthusiasts argue that it was put there for a reason, while never mentioning the words 'cash' or 'cow' in the same sentence. So now that it's not there, should we expect a sudden increase in local KSI's in order to justify it's replacement or is it a given that because someone was once honked at by a motorist some time in the late 20th century, that not replacing it would be very bad?

The thing is, that it takes a cyclist traveling at 30mph with caliper brakes and skinny tyres longer to stop on a damp road, than a car but as the limit is 30mph, that's what those who can, will do. The outcomes of this are not considered because it necessarily falls into the 'safe speed' cesspit of nonthought. QED

http://www.dashboard.sussexsrp.org.uk/cameras/map/

Kimosabe wrote: the local speed camera on Hove seafront', has recently been flattened again

I'm confused [again]; you're telling us that the camera has successfully stopped at least two dangerous drivers, but you think that's a bad thing?

Surely there's a positive advantage in the e-services knowing exactly where to attend?

Horse wrote:

Kimosabe wrote: the local speed camera on Hove seafront', has recently been flattened again

I'm confused [again]; you're telling us that the camera has successfully stopped at least two dangerous drivers, but you think that's a bad thing?

Surely there's a positive advantage in the e-services knowing exactly where to attend?

Is this the same thing as planting more trees and pylons around ski slopes to remove those skiiers who can only ski where they're looking? Ya cannae blame a human for multi-tasking when given lots of things to do simultaneously, such as drive, check text messages, pick nose (or is it just me?), look at sat nav....

No, it's not just you - I check the sat nav and drive at the same time