Driving, fixed penalty - pay or not?

[Calaen]

All you need to do is to show that 'safety cameras' are infact improving safety, which is apparently the reason for them.

If I dont crash going to work no one takes notice so how can you calculate it? if I crash it gets registered whether or not there was a camera along the way is totally irrelevant. More crashes on the roads is the price we pay for more people driving its hardly difficult to understand.

I would explain it easier but I dont do OMFGWtFBBQETC!!!!!! speak sorry ECA.

 

[Calaen]

Oh and seeing as the "OMGYOUKILLBABIESANDSTUFF" people ignored my real post in this thread, here it is again perhaps some replies this time instead of avoiding it and just going for the easy arguments.

Speaking of which you still have not answer Mystic G's post? hows about you practice what you preach!!!!!!

 

[nath]

Except we shouldn't need a reason NOT to have speed cameras, it should work the other way round. The way you prove they're reducing accidents is by statistics - a certain number of speed related accidents in the years leading up to a camera being installed - followed by a noticeable decrease in the years following them being installed.

I think it's been demonstrated that in the vast majority of locations where speed cameras have been placed, this is not the case. This should be the ONLY thing that's needed to take *those* speed cameras down, not all, THOSE ones.

We shouldn't have to justify not having speed cameras on the road, they should have to justify them to us. In most cases, the only justification is revenue.

 

[Calaen]

Except we shouldn't need a reason NOT to have speed cameras, it should work the other way round. The way you prove they're reducing accidents is by statistics - a certain number of speed related accidents in the years leading up to a camera being installed - followed by a noticeable decrease in the years following them being installed.

I think it's been demonstrated that in the vast majority of locations where speed cameras have been placed, this is not the case. This should be the ONLY thing that's needed to take *those* speed cameras down, not all, THOSE ones.

We shouldn't have to justify not having speed cameras on the road, they should have to justify them to us. In most cases, the only justification is revenue.

But surely using Toms mere 5% of accidents caused by speeding statistic they are actually working Or is this where you use the statistic to prove your point but then say you cannot use it for another?

 

[Trem]

Except we shouldn't need a reason NOT to have speed cameras, it should work the other way round. The way you prove they're reducing accidents is by statistics - a certain number of speed related accidents in the years leading up to a camera being installed - followed by a noticeable decrease in the years following them being installed.

I think it's been demonstrated that in the vast majority of locations where speed cameras have been placed, this is not the case. This should be the ONLY thing that's needed to take *those* speed cameras down, not all, THOSE ones.

We shouldn't have to justify not having speed cameras on the road, they should have to justify them to us. In most cases, the only justification is revenue.

Thats what I had in my head, perhaps not as fancy as fancy Nath put it but exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

[Calaen]

Thats what I had in my head, perhaps not as fancy as fancy Nath put it but exactly the point I was trying to make.

See my above post surely this answers your question? now answer mine Tremmy baby!

 

[nath]

But surely using Toms mere 5% of accidents caused by speeding statistic they are actually working Or is this where you use the statistic to prove your point but then say you cannot use it for another?

You're missing the point. It's possible to demonstrate that there are SPECIFIC cameras that are doing nothing other than generating revenue. It's also possible to demonstrate that there are cameras that ARE reducing accidents. Remove the ones that are CLEARLY placed there to generate dosh, and keep the ones where the government can show a clear reduction in speed related accidents.

After all, as I said before, we shouldn't have to justify removing cameras to them, they should justify keeping them to us. This isn't a fascist state last time I checked - the government works for us.

I think the thing you're arguing is whether or not we should COMPLETELY remove speed cameras. I don't know if some people are arguing that or not - I'm not. I'm saying only keep the ones where they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they've contributed to reducing speed related accidents. The onus is on them.

 

[Tom]

But surely using Toms mere 5% of accidents caused by speeding statistic they are actually working Or is this where you use the statistic to prove your point but then say you cannot use it for another?

You're missing the point. It's possible to demonstrate that there are SPECIFIC cameras that are doing nothing other than generating revenue. It's also possible to demonstrate that there are cameras that ARE reducing accidents. Remove the ones that are CLEARLY placed there to generate dosh, and keep the ones where the government can show a clear reduction in speed related accidents.

Statistics:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html

 

[Calaen]

I think the thing you're arguing is whether or not we should COMPLETELY remove speed cameras. I don't know if some people are arguing that or not - I'm not. I'm saying only keep the ones where they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they've contributed to reducing speed related accidents. The onus is on them.

Yes there are people here, ECA, Tom, that want rid of all cameras.

I understand your point and I agree with you.

 

[Trem]

Would love a speed camera on my road in all honesty, a speed camera and a geordie in a dress....


*fap*

 

[Trem]

See my above post surely this answers your question? now answer mine Tremmy baby!

What was the question?

Thought Nath covered it all actually.

 

[nath]

Yes there are people here, ECA, Tom, that want rid of all cameras.

Is that correct Tom/ECA? Do you want rid of ALL speed cameras or just the vast majority where it's clear that they're doing nothing but generating revenue.

I'm with you on the fact that an ideal situation would be just coppers and not cameras but we have to be realistic. If only cameras proven to be preventing accidents were kept, they'd really be not much of a bother anyway.

 

[Calaen]

Statistics:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html

Nice website that.

However you know I gotta have a however

Surely if people stopped getting caught speeding then the government would not make any money from it and would then stop spending cash on cameras in the first place.

For every person that knows there shit like you Tom and drives accordingly there is 10 morons that dont care at all.

While I do disagree with some of your thoughts I do understand your point of view and reasoning and in an ideal world they would be great. But as Bullitt covered in an ideal world everyone would be drive with care and attention and there would be no need for any sort of cameras.


Tom I apologise for all of the crap I have posted with regards to insults and petty name calling. I can be very immature but hey thats how I am, I have thought about this post and hope it gets my thoughts and views across better than me shouting cock and fuck every sentence

P.S. I cannot promise I wont abuse you in the future, but I will make an effort to keep it to a minimum.

 

[nath]

My work here is done.

For every person that knows there shit like you Tom and drives accordingly there is 10 morons that dont care at all.

Prove that those 10 morons are currently being prevented from their moronic activities by the speed cameras and I'll agree that they're worth keeping.

 

[Tom]

Is that correct Tom/ECA? Do you want rid of ALL speed cameras or just the vast majority where it's clear that they're doing nothing but generating revenue.

I'm with you on the fact that an ideal situation would be just coppers and not cameras but we have to be realistic. If only cameras proven to be preventing accidents were kept, they'd really be not much of a bother anyway.

I want rid of them all. Every last one. I want policemen back on the roads. I want this thought foremost in people's minds when they're driving - "observation is key to being a safe driver". Speed cameras go the wrong way to enforcing that state of mind.

 

[Calaen]

My work here is done.



Prove that those 10 morons are currently being prevented from their moronic activities by the speed cameras and I'll agree that they're worth keeping.

They dont, now lets go the other way if we had one on every street at every corner then you couldnt speed else you would be banned repetitive banning = jail then death = win.

 

[nath]

I want rid of them all. Every last one. I want policemen back on the roads. I want this thought foremost in people's minds when they're driving - "observation is key to being a safe driver". Speed cameras go the wrong way to enforcing that state of mind.

I'd love that too but I just don't see it happening. Not for some time anyway. I think the first thing to go for is getting rid of the cameras that clearly help no one but the govt. After that, try to get coppers out there patrolling the hot spots - keeping an eye out for dodgy drivers and get rid of the remaining cameras.

 

[Tom]

Surely if people stopped getting caught speeding then the government would not make any money from it and would then stop spending cash on cameras in the first place.

At which point, they'd reduce the speed limits again.

For every person that knows there shit like you Tom and drives accordingly there is 10 morons that dont care at all.

I'd dispute that ratio tbh, but the correct way to educate people is not to take money from their wallets for driving reasonably safely, but rather to sit them down and explain things. A fine just creates resentment, and sends home the message that so long as you're not speeding, you're driving safely. A minor/major bollocking from a TrafPol pointing out the errors of their ways is much better, and has the added benefit that the policeman can also be checking their tyres, licence, whats in the boot, why they have that knife/big screwdriver/gloves.....

While I do disagree with some of your thoughts I do understand your point of view and reasoning and in an ideal world they would be great. But as Bullitt covered in an ideal world everyone would be drive with care and attention and there would be no need for any sort of cameras.

There isn't a need for cameras anyway - you're arguing from the wrong standpoint IMO.

Tom I apologise for all of the crap I have posted with regards to insults and petty name calling. I can be very immature but hey thats how I am, I have thought about this post and hope it gets my thoughts and views across better than me shouting cock and fuck every sentence

P.S. I cannot promise I wont abuse you in the future, but I will make an effort to keep it to a minimum.

Good, just so long as you let me have Leggy on Sundays.

 

[Tom]

They dont, now lets go the other way if we had one on every street at every corner then you couldnt speed else you would be banned repetitive banning = jail then death = win.

Or you could simply drive around with no tax/mot/insurance/licence, as the estimated 10% of people on the roads currently do......

 

[Calaen]

So the answer is ban driving completely that way anyone in a car is a criminal

 

[dysfunction]

But surely using Toms mere 5% of accidents caused by speeding statistic they are actually working Or is this where you use the statistic to prove your point but then say you cannot use it for another?

You can't assume that.

For all you know that 5% of accidents occurred where there is a Camera.

What you really need is a road where accidents occurred often. You place a camera there. Accidents stop. Great keep the camera.

I seriously doubt you will find this with most cameras. I think most have them have been put up in areas where there have been no accidents but its a spot that people are most likely going to be driving over the speed limit.

I have seen a few signs around like "Accident black spot 10 deaths this year. Drive carefully". Is there a Camera there? No!

 

[Tom]

Also, while we're removing cameras and putting policemen back on the roads, I'd also like to see the following changes made:

1) Increased points for safe drivers

Drive without incident for 5 years, get a 15-point leeway instead of 12.

2) Mandatory advanced training after any endorsable motoring offence

Failure to comply = lose licence

3) 3rd party insurance paid for by the state, from taxes

Fully comprehensive insurance is then optional.

 

[Calaen]

Where do you think they should pull the cash from for the extra officers and insurance lol. Please dont say from the taxes, I reckon speed cameras could pay for it tbh.

 

[Tom]

The extra cash for extra officers would come from the removal of red tape which is strangling most police forces. If you've ever seen the size of the form for stop and search, you'll know what I mean. Traffic officers are some of the most effective tools the police have against crime, but people would rather see bobbies on the beat.

Since the state raises around £50 billions in tax every year from the motorist, I think there would be plenty spare for a basic level of insurance for all motorists. Plus, the resulting time freed up by police not having to chase down drivers without insurance would also improve their crime detection stats.

 

[Rubber Bullets]

There is a stretch of dual carriageway near me where a long straight goes over a crest into a right hand bend. It is a classic place for drivers to loose control and not surprisingly there is a speed camera there.

Now where do you think would be the safest place to site that camera? I'm not a planner, but I'd have thought that 300m before the crest, and in plain sight of drivers all along the straight would do it.

Where is the camera? You're way ahead of me, it is over the crest and half way round the bend. No doubt it makes more money in that position, cos it certainly doesn't stop people going off the road.

Cameras need to be within 1/4 of a mile of a site with a bad accident record (I can't remember the exact figure, this is close enough).

I read recently of a camera near one such site, or at least that was in the prescribed radius, that was actually on a different road to the one with the accidents. It was placed just inside a 30 limit on a downhill, a site with no accidents that anyone could remember.

As has been stated already a speed limit is simply a legal thing, that has nothing to do with safety. It is a completely arbitrary number. The actual maximum safe speed for any bit of road for any driver is so varied as to be unworkable.

Two cars can be driving down the same stretch of 30 limit road. The first is driven at 40mph by a driver who is concentrating, visually aware of his surroundings, experienced enough to know where the dangers may come from and how to spot them before they become dangerous.

The second car is being driven at 30mph by a driver who is

Reading a map
Putting on her Makeup
On a mobile phone
Waving to a friend
Giving their child in the back a drink
A bit drunk/stoned
looking at the hot chick in a miniskirt
etc etc Take your pick.

Which one will the speed camera get? Which one would a trained and experienced traffic officer get? Which one is the danger to the public, or more specifically me or my family?

I am all in favour of speed cameras outside schools, where they can protect the most vulnerable pedestrians in our society, and where traffic police can't be every day before and after school.

We have all heard horror stories about over officious and petty police, but as with so much in life we hear about the bad, not the good. There are a lot of good traffic cops out there and it is they that are keeping our roads safer, not majority of speed cameras.

RB

 

[Maljonic]

No, you should go here www.pepipoo.com, follow the instructions in the NIP wizard, read the forums, and tell the scamera partnership to go fuck itself.

The entire NoiP and S172 process is currently awaiting judgement by the European court of Human Rights, where its expected to be declared illegal.

What's that time expired stuff all about? Does that still apply, the bit I read was from 2003, because it was like three months before they sent me anything?

 

[Tom]

Just ask on the forums Mal, they'll sort you out.

 

[Embattle]

This post has strayed far away from the OP so back to the basic view - People only tend cry when they get caught no matter what law they break, basically pay the fine as most of these so called loopholes don't work.

 

[DaGaffer]

This post has strayed far away from the OP so back to the basic view - People only tend cry when they get caught no matter what law they break, basically pay the fine as most of these so called loopholes don't work.

I've never been caught by a speed camera, only by real cops, and I've taken my punishment on the chin every time, and I still think speed cameras are generally used incorrectly, so that kind of pisses on your chips doesn't it? There are plenty of bad laws and bad government ideas that I bitch about even though as a generally law-abiding Citizen (or should that be Subject?) I'll probably never fall foul of them; its ones duty to complain about bad laws or they'll never get changed. That's what's wrong with Britain in particular, total apathy. Say what you like about the French, at least they give a shit, and show it when they do.

Fuck. The bottom of the keyboard in this internet cafe has just given me an electric shock!

 

[Maljonic]

I probably will just pay the fine I guess, there probably wont be any choice really. Still, it's not like I drive around like a maniac. It was 41 mph, which is too fast for the speed limit, but will have been the same speed everyone else was going at the time. I drove down the same road again the other week and it's pretty difficult to only drive at 30 and not interupt the flow of traffic. It's a pretty wide road that is 40 in some places and NSL further down. They probably catch hundreds of people on it every day.