Beware new tall speed cameras...

[gentlegreen]

I saw the camera, I always see the things. What caught me out was the very low trigger speed and the always on and live capability.

You mean that you see a 30mph limit and assume that actually means 35 mph ?

 

[pembrokestephen]

Sure, we can agree to disagree

My terms were simply: Oh look, big fuck off speed camera!

as opposed to the stats surrounding them and RTA's etc

*nods*

But I like stats, and I don't like RTAs!

Like you, though, I don't much care for the big fuckoff speed camera

 

[detective-boy]

How can you afford to be selectively observant??

Because if you weren't you spend all your fucking time worrying about inanimate objects. A competent driver constantly scans the road ahead and to the sides (and, via their mirrors, the road behind) looking for potential hazards, grades those hazards and the deals with the high threat ones whilst instantly discarding those who pose a negligible threat. An inanimate object may fall over ... but it probably won't. So a camera shouldn't take more than a millisecond of consideration as it is an inanimate object, leaving more time to "think of the children" (you do realise you sound like a cliche don't you?).

But because of the constant pissing about with speed camera settngs and technology drivers now spend far longer worrying about their speed and double-checking it at the expense of other things. That arguably makes them less safe.

 

[detective-boy]

You mean that you see a 30mph limit and assume that actually means 35 mph ?

I can't speak for him, but no, I don't. I think 30mph arbitrarily set limit, which may, or may not be a safe speed for this road at this time. I then adapt my driving accordingly and expect a certain degree of discretion in the enforcement of any exceeding of the arbitrary limit (i.e. getting prosecuted if there was any sort of danger / inconvenience caused, getting a warning if not).

You may think you live in a black/white world. I don't. And I don't think that that is a sensible way for speed limits should be enforced.

 

[gentlegreen]

I actually agree. I occaisionally drive a car and some of them seem badly placed.

Speed cameras are a very blunt instrument, but one hopes that most of those who are caught deserve to be and are the same people who generally drive dangerously.

Personally, I mostly rely on checking my mirror and ensuring that there are shed loads of petrol-heads backing up behind me

There's an advisory 30mph warning near me that is frequently triggered by motorists coming up behind me when I'm cycling.

 

[mattie]

I was caught by a forward-facing camera on the other side of the road. I assumed it was for traffic heading in the opposite direction to me. I certainly noticed it, but didn't realise that I was in the sights.

 

[George & Bill]

I find it interesting that you've managed to quote a big chunk of a post of mine, containing all kinds of (I think ) irrefutable arguments, but you've not actually addressed them at all. Instead, you've just gone for the old "cheap shot".

on the contrary; my 'cheap shot' in fact goes to the heart of the matter, the key point which is that you can argue until blue in the face that speed cameras are ineffective and that there should be more intelligent traffic policing, but this all looks highly disingenuous when appearing to be motivated simply by a resentment of having to drive within the speed limit.

 

[pembrokestephen]

on the contrary; my 'cheap shot' in fact goes to the heart of the matter, the key point which is that you can argue until blue in the face that speed cameras are ineffective and that there should be more intelligent traffic policing, but this all looks highly disingenuous when appearing to be motivated simply by a resentment of having to drive within the speed limit.

And since when did you start presuming to know what I might be thinking?

I've thought speed cameras were somewhat dodgy for YEARS before I ever found myself being caught by one. It has only been since I did rather a lot of research as a result of being caught by one, and having some fairly grave doubts about the procedural side of what they were doing, not to mention the accuracy of measurement, that I have become very suspicious of the whole business.

My primary motivation is for the roads to be safer. Safer for me to drive on, and safer for the people I know and care about (OK, and the rest of them too) to be on and around. I don't believe that speed cameras, either on the basis of the statistics, or on the anecdotal evidence, do much, if anything to achieve making the roads safer, and that is therefore a problem to me. When I drive, I take all kinds of steps to make sure that I drive safely, and do not put myself, my passengers, or other road users at risk: it offends me that all my effort to do so might be being undermined by government policies which mean that those efforts potentially count for nothing.

I asked you a question in my last response to your post: I asked you if you were claiming never to have broken a speed limit or considered yourself a "reponsible motorist". I note that you didn't answer it. In fact, I note that you haven't actually addressed ANY of the points I made in the posts to which you've responded. That makes me think you're either unable to, or you're just a troll.

I'll assume the latter, and stop feeding you, I think.

 

[George & Bill]

I don't believe that speed cameras, either on the basis of the statistics, or on the anecdotal evidence, do much, if anything to achieve making the roads safer

so in spite of the fact that you do not discount the possibility of their doing some good, and in spite of the fact that they raise revenue that could be put into other road policing, you still condemn speed cameras.

I have certainly never driven irresponsibly or broken the speed limit; I do not own a car or posses a driving licence.

As a cyclists and a pedestrian, I have many times been put at risk from people driving dangerously; sometimes without speeding, but also many times because they were speeding.

I accept certain concerns about dangerous possitioning of speed cameras, and I think in general it would be safest if they were hidden; then motorists would simply have to stick to the limit at all times, rather than trying to spot the cameras and speed inbetween them.

 

[detective-boy]

I have certainly never driven irresponsibly or broken the speed limit; I do not own a car or posses a driving licence.

OK. As a cyclist have you never broken any of the laws relevant to them?

 

[gentlegreen]

OK. As a cyclist have you never broken any of the laws relevant to them?

What - broken the speed limit ?

 

[pembrokestephen]

so in spite of the fact that you do not discount the possibility of their doing some good, and in spite of the fact that they raise revenue that could be put into other road policing, you still condemn speed cameras.

I think I've made it abundantly clear that I do "discount the possibility of their doing some good". Overall, that is. I am sure that they do stop a number of people from driving faster than the speed limit, but that is not automatically making the roads safer, and it is, I believe, achieved at the cost of significant degradations of road safety in other ways. Not least of which is the virtual disappearance of traffic police from our roads.

As far as the revenue that speed cameras raise that "could be put into other road policing" goes: well, I've seen no evidence of it. What has actually happened is that we have moved into a situation where there is a headlong dash for quick, cheap convictions for speeding, at the cost of pretty much any other sort of road traffic law enforcement. I can do a 250 mile journey from here in South Wales to London and see no traffic police whatsoever. I may well see 2 or 3 camera vans along the way, but not a single copper. In other words, I could drive like a complete piece of shit, swerve across people, brake sharply, cut them up, spin my wheels at every junction and never get caught, just so long as I never exceeded the speed limit.

As far as I am concerned, that is wrong.

I have certainly never driven irresponsibly or broken the speed limit; I do not own a car or posses a driving licence.

As a cyclists and a pedestrian, I have many times been put at risk from people driving dangerously; sometimes without speeding, but also many times because they were speeding.

Well, with all due respect, I think I'd be inclined to argue that, as a non-driver, you are hardly in a very good position to lecture anyone on the finer points of road traffic law enforcement. While I won't deny that speeding CAN be an issue, focusing entirely on it as a problem leaves us in great danger of not addressing the other issues. As a pedestrian and cyclist (which, incidentally, I am, too), your experiences would no doubt be less frustrating if better provision was made for you to use the roads in conjunction with cars, speeding or otherwise. Whether you're shoved into the gutter by a car doing 25 mph or 35mph doesn't, in the grand scheme of things, help much: what helps is a) drivers trained to be courteous and that courtesy enforced, and b) road systems that allow cyclists, pedestrians AND cars to use them with mutual convenience.

I accept certain concerns about dangerous possitioning of speed cameras, and I think in general it would be safest if they were hidden; then motorists would simply have to stick to the limit at all times, rather than trying to spot the cameras and speed inbetween them.

Which comments betray your apparently total ignorance of the issues and problems associated with driving.

I think we need a more discretionary approach to speeding enforcement, just as we have to all other road traffic laws (and as we used to have to speeding). Siting cameras in places where it is known that people may transiently exceed the speed limit is about catching people out, not stopping them driving dangerously. As you would know if you drove, it is impossible to maintain your vehicle at a set speed, plus or minus a few mph, without extreme concentration - concentration which might be better spent watching out for children running out in front of you, or other road users - yet all too often, people are being caught and being given fines and points for just those transient excursions over the limit. This sort of thing brings the law - and the police - into disrepute, and the disadvantages of that - along with evrything else - hugely outweigh the advantages of having every driver slavishly adhering to the limit.

Take some driving lessons; learn what kind of skills being able to drive, and drive well, requires. And then come back and lecture me on how I should have been driving for the last 21 years, hm?

 

[George & Bill]

OK. As a cyclist have you never broken any of the laws relevant to them?

it is possible that I have, although I would not restent a system that sought to prevent me.

 

[George & Bill]

So, PS, your argument amounts to:

1. Speed cameras have become more common and traffic police have become less common; progress in increasing road safety has stalled (or been reversed, or whatever). Therefore speed cameras are detrimental to road safety.

See also: ‘False conflation’

2. I don’t drive so I’m not qualified to take part in any argument surrounding the issue anyway

See also: ‘Ad hominem’

 

[pembrokestephen]

So, PS, your argument amounts to:

1. Speed cameras have become more common and traffic police have become less common; progress in increasing road safety has stalled (or been reversed, or whatever). Therefore speed cameras are detrimental to road safety.

See also: ‘False conflation’

2. I don’t drive so I’m not qualified to take part in any argument surrounding the issue anyway

See also: ‘Ad hominem’

Having presumed to lecture me on driving despite, by your own admission, never ever driven, you now presume to lecture me on logical fallacies, which would be OK if I'd actually committed the fallacies you claim I have, but rather pointless when I haven't.

Sometimes I think that the debating strategy of claiming one's opponent has committed one of the ever-increasing list of logical fallacies should itself be a logical fallacy.

Anyway, to business.

Your first point - yes, you could probably accuse me of post hoc ergo propter hoc in that I haven't proved a causative link between the appearance of speed cameras and the sudden change in the KSI trends. But then I wasn't attempting to prove such a link - merely pointing out the connection. Proving a connection would be beyond the means of any one individual, and the only organisations with the resource to do it are the very organisations that would have no desire whatsoever to have their safe assumptions challenged.

As to your second point - well, if suggesting that your total lack of experience as a driver disqualifies you from offering commentary on my driving constitutes ad hominem, then so be it. I doubt very much that many people here are likely to agree.

I think I'm wasting my time responding to your posts, and I have better things to do with it. I shan't bother to do so any more.

 

[TopCat]

I was tempted to hurl abuse at slowjowe for being, well lets not go there eh?

 

[pembrokestephen]

I was tempted to hurl abuse at slowjowe for being, well lets not go there eh?

Well, yeah. Show him what ad hominem is really like? Nah, we're better than that, innit?

 

[detective-boy]

it is possible that I have, although I would not restent a system that sought to prevent me.

You're not a very typical cyclsit then ... check out the comments on other threads about cycle number plates and jumping red lights!

And I suspect you would resent it if it turned into a simple device for raising revenue at the expense of the exercise of sensible discretion.

 

[George & Bill]

Having presumed to lecture me on driving despite, by your own admission, never ever driven, you now presume to lecture me on logical fallacies, which would be OK if I'd actually committed the fallacies you claim I have, but rather pointless when I haven't.

Sometimes I think that the debating strategy of claiming one's opponent has committed one of the ever-increasing list of logical fallacies should itself be a logical fallacy.

Anyway, to business.

Your first point - yes, you could probably accuse me of post hoc ergo propter hoc in that I haven't proved a causative link between the appearance of speed cameras and the sudden change in the KSI trends. But then I wasn't attempting to prove such a link - merely pointing out the connection. Proving a connection would be beyond the means of any one individual, and the only organisations with the resource to do it are the very organisations that would have no desire whatsoever to have their safe assumptions challenged.

As to your second point - well, if suggesting that your total lack of experience as a driver disqualifies you from offering commentary on my driving constitutes ad hominem, then so be it. I doubt very much that many people here are likely to agree.

I think I'm wasting my time responding to your posts, and I have better things to do with it. I shan't bother to do so any more.

yes, it is true that the simultaneity of two events does not even necessarily suggest, let alone demonstrate or prove, a relationship of mutual motivation, and it is true that the only argument you have offered in relation to your first point is simultaneity.

yes, it is true that it would be absurd to suggest that personal experience of a thing is a necessary qualification to be able to comment on that thing.

 

[George & Bill]

I was tempted to hurl abuse at slowjowe for being [...]

less of a complete imbecile than you?

 

[TopCat]

less of a complete imbecile than you?

 

[pembrokestephen]

less of a complete imbecile than you?

That's right, slowjoe. Well done.

*pats moron on head, rolls eyes*

 

[Pingu]

so what exactly do these new cameras look like then

just in case I am hurtling down the road at 90 mph in a new BMW X5 with bull bars on and spiked wheels outside a special school for kids with terminal kitten allergies

wouldnt want to get nicked by one.



I love these threads..

everyone is "holier than thou" and an upright concerned citizen..

fucking pussies. Just admit it. You break the law too. you just choose to break a different law. get over it, some people smoke weed.. some drive too fast every now and then.. some jump red lights on their ralleigh choppers...


people in glass houses.. stones etc...

 

[George & Bill]

on second thoughts.....

oh just fuck off and die

 

[pembrokestephen]

fucking pussies. Just admit it. You break the law too. you just choose to break a different law. get over it, some people smoke weed.. some drive too fast every now and then.. some jump red lights on their ralleigh choppers...

I have often thought of this quote when people start coming over all pious...

"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace."

 

[gentlegreen]

It just struck me yesterday about a dilemna faced by those deciding where to place cameras.

There's a built-up area near me where a lot of the time the safe speed is 10 or 20 mph, but - presumably for legal reasons they are obliged to put the camera on the hill leading to it. I don't drive the road enough to know if people speed up after the camera but I wouldn't be surprised.

One day the speed camera / sensor network will be able to catch people actually driving recklessly.

 

[TopCat]

on second thoughts.....

oh just fuck off and die

Keep digging...

 

[big footed fred]

I love these threads..

everyone is "holier than thou" and an upright concerned citizen..

fucking pussies. Just admit it. You break the law too. you just choose to break a different law. get over it, some people smoke weed.. some drive too fast every now and then.. some jump red lights on their ralleigh choppers...


people in glass houses.. stones etc...

I'm a nun and just about to be canonized so you can fuck off as well

 

[Spymaster]

on second thoughts.....

oh just fuck off and die

See also: PWNED

 

[detective-boy]

yes, it is true that it would be absurd to suggest that personal experience of a thing is a necessary qualification to be able to comment on that thing.

But a lack opf experience of a thing may be a good reason to take more account of the views of others who have experienced it.

I've never flown a plane and if I saw one coming into Heathrow a bit dodgily I may feel able to comment on that. But if an experienced pilot explained what may have been going on (cross winds or whatever) to make it look dodgy, I would be wise to listen very carefully before stating cateforically "No, the pilot was clearly wrong - should have kept it in a nice straight line".