Why are people against CCTV and speed cameras on the roads?

[Boris Bajic]

My sentiments are strongly with abtman's post above, up to a point.

I'm not sure speeders are quite that cocky, but there does seem to be a part of the human mindset that sees a limit as a challenge.

On the insurance-claim incident point, I am sceptical. I have no data to back up my scepticism, but I am claim-free for twenty years. Most drivers my age whom I know are fairly frequent breakers of the speed limit and none that I can think of has had an accident-related claim for five or more years. For most it is more than ten years.

 

[ufkacbln]

I love the bleating.....

Lets take the claim that Police Officers are more effective than speed cameras in identifying and apprehending motoring offences.

They did this in Manchester, with traffic control cars apprehending traffic offences.

The bleating commenced immediately!

The ABD claimed that they were dangerous by making drivers look for the police enforcing traffic rules, the AA claimed that by issuing tickets for poor driving the Police were "failing to engage with the motorist", and of course then came the claim that Police were only enforcing traffic law to raise money.

Bizarre,but very ironic that all the speedophiles want Police on the streets except when they get what they claim to want and the Police start enforcing the law... which then again becomes acceptable!

 

[benb]

That a certain camera on the M60 near Stockport, is rubbish, really rubbish, really really rubbish.....

So you see my fellow foaming mouthed speed-is-worse-than-paedophilia cyclists..... the truth is more boring than the one you are all trying to invent. Sorry! pip pip!

So lobby to get it changed.
I just can't see why you are complaining about it when (presumably) there was clear signing informing you of the speed limit.

 

[ufkacbln]

That a certain camera on the M60 near Stockport, is rubbish, really rubbish, really really rubbish.....

So you see my fellow foaming mouthed speed-is-worse-than-paedophilia cyclists..... the truth is more boring than the one you are all trying to invent. Sorry! pip pip!

The truth is very boring -you are right!

Speeding is unequivocally linked with poor driving, risk taking behaviour and increased accident rates.

For instance drivers with speeding convictions are twice as likely to have an injury accident in the following twelve months than a driver without.


Speeding is simply a diagnostic of a whole range of factors that can (and do) identify the dangerous drivers whose behavior needs to be addressed.

 

[400bhp]

That a certain camera on the M60 near Stockport, is rubbish, really rubbish, really really rubbish.....

I know which one you meam - utterly pointless, a camera for the fcking useless who can't turn a corner.

 

[mickle]

Re: the corner in question, Instead of a camera they could remove the Armco and replace it with a deep drop into a body of water, possibly filled with sharks...

 

[Boris Bajic]

I worry about increasing rates of obesity in sharks.

I believe the proposed change in speed-abating measures would serve largely to worsen an already grave situation.

Many sharks are already slightly on the tubby side and this would only add to the problem.

 

[mickle]

And this or wouldn't modify behaviours?

What you said, yeah.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Do you have any evidence for this?

Yes, look on tubbysharks.com or mysharkbmifear.com

Or... ask yourself why the White Shark is now known as the Great White Shark.

If either of the above websites doesn't exist then sadly... no, I have no proof.

But it seems like common sense to me.

So I think it must be true. And be honest, when is the last time you saw a thin-looking shark?

 

[Boris Bajic]

Great White not Fat Bastard White.

Well pardon me very much for not being a world-famous Marine Sharkologist...

They look fat, anyway.

 

[benb]

Bore off.

You mean I should drill a hole in something?
I don't see how that's relevant.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Hey hum - it's all in 1984 (it was written by Geoffrey Chaucer by the way) - the only flaw in your otherwise impeccable post

Sorry, I think you'll find that Geoffrey Chaucer was written by Richard Bacon ....

 

[Fab Foodie]

You cant judge a fish by human standards.

What kind of cod philosphy is that?

 

[dellzeqq]

You couldn't be more wrong. I mean "anyone else" quite literally. Drivers don't give a flying f**k about other drivers. It's the nature of the beast. Everyone else is in the way. You shouldn't mistake the faux solidarity of empathetic whinging for any kind of collective enterprise.

 

[Linford]

As far as I can tell, the safe speed judgement argument goes roughly like this (points are, I believe, awarded for the driver's level of ability):

1. I'm a good driver and can judge what speed is safe even if it's higher than the limit (3 points)
2. I'm a very good driver and am able to exceed the speed limit safely by a sizeable margin because of that (6 points)
3. I'm so good, I can go 50% faster than the speed limit in perfect safety (9 points)
4. I'm an absolutely brilliant driver who can do 80 in a built-up area and 140 on the motorway (12 points). This means that banning me for 12 months has actually increased the relative danger on the roads because they've taken such a brilliantly safe driver off it

I read somewhere that about half of all drivers done for speeding have had an insurance claim accident in the preceding 6 months

1. This happens all the time (people exceeding the limits) - it doens't automatically make them dangerous it reverts to the judgment call stated in the highway code (it is a lazy argument to say otherwise IMO)
2. Ditto again - the fact that people do this and whilst risking getting caught do not put themselves in significant danger (it is all about risk assesment, and using the experience they have gained to make that call)
3. Once again we go back to risk assessment and application of experience gained (stop within the distance you see to be safe) If a driver is deemed competent enough to make that judgment call at 60 on a 50 limit, then what is the difference between them doing the same at 50 on a 40 limit ? This is what they are trained to do isn't it. Driving is all about making series of judgment calls throughout the journey isn't it. That is what keeps the vehicles apart at the end of the day.
4. I certainly wouldn't agree with the first part as I do feel that the lower limits are put there for a very good reason, but provided there are no others around, I've seen this done many times, and no kittens were harmed in the process.

Now a candid answer to your final point as it doesn't define who was at fault in the claims though (and I do expect the gales of derision for it) - To quote your example (and this is not a boast, but an account , I got 3 points last november for speeding - Honest cop guv !!

I didn't take my eye off the ball in relation to where I was going or what was in front but I was winding it on going up a big hill, and didn't see him drop in behind me in my mirrors from a slip road on a dual) It took him a while to catch me as I had a lot more perfomance than his plod beemer (I got stuck in traffic at the end of a dual, matched the traffic speed then and sat in it - at which time he came roaring up behind me with the lights and sirens on which must have made his day) Anyway, if it had been a static camera, I'd have never got the ticket as I know where they all are sited in the area so I do feel they are much more effective than a static cam.
What does keep my speed down more so on the NSL's is the very many unmarked cars on the roads now. I was substantially exceeding the limit, but only picked up the 3 points and £60 fine as whatever I was doing, he (as an expert witness in traffic matters) obviously didn't regard any of my actions to be that which was either reckless or dangerous (I didn't cause any risk to others, wasn't racing or running, and he had it on cam so would have been easy to substantiate either way)

I would looking back maintain that I didn't take any substantial risks, but I did break the law to which I bent over and took what was handed out - I have no issue with that.

The risk of increasing my insurance premiums or the risk of a ban if I get stopped again has slowed me down so I do appreciate the value it has (and always have done TBH), and I do appreciate the value of the limits but won't whinge about getting caught as breaking them was elective decision I consciously made.

I also had an insurance claim last summer prior to this when I was strapping my 18 month old grandaughter into her car seat on the side of the road, which caused a bit of an obstruction on my side and forced them to queue up to get past. I had the door open and was leaning in , and the majority of cars stopped and waited for a gap - apart from one woman who squeezed the gap, clipped my open door with her mirror which then pulled open and folded forward (full liability on her part)