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

[benb]

Do you drive a car?

If so, please provide make, model and annual mileage.

Thank you.

OK, but I don't know why you care.
Skoda Fabia estate. I reckon between my wife and I we do about 7-8,000 miles a year.

 

[theclaud]

Oh, sorry about that, and it's not an argument, just an opinion.

Speed cameras are put about as some sort of panacea (usually, as seen above, alongside the BS that speeding drivers cause 1/3 of all fatalities). IMO, they are one weapon in the arsenal against crap driving and not a very significant one at that.

It's not only about preventing fatalities, though, is it? It's about making our roads more congenial. See Smeggers' circular arguments above.

 

[Linford]

I don't understand this argument. Just because it doesn't detect all motoring offences, doesn't mean there's something wrong with it. CCTV in a supermarket doesn't prevent someone being mugged nearby.

I agree that both are a problem, but short of GPS speed limiters, only traffic police can detect the van. I have consistently said I also want to see more traffic police as well as cameras.

I dislike this detection method because in my opinion, it makes an example of the lesser offender whilst ignoring the greater danger created by large vehicles carrying more mass and doing silly speeds for their class. commercials are speed limited for a reason but people get their arses out when they get held up by HGVs cos they always push on way above their 40 mph limit on NSL's - few actually observe this as they know that there are no real detection methods in placeto target them than either a bloke with a speed gun or a patrol car. speed cams cost a lot to run, but only do half a job. They just aren't effective enough (the gov were sold a pup)

 

[benb]

Neither do I - but I would also like our law makers to be reasonable and consistent too, is that so much to ask?

They are consistent - if you are caught breaking the speed limit you get points and a fine. I can't think of anything more consistent than that.

 

[400bhp]

On my speed awareness course, one the instructors kept telling us how he drove a 'high performance car', he was a horrible little man and incredibly patronising.

Anyway, it later transpired that his "high performance car" was a Fabia VRS.... the BMW M5 driving chap sat next to me nearly wet himself.

 

[benb]

I dislike this detection method because in my opinion, it makes an example of the lesser offender whilst ignoring the greater danger created by large vehicles carrying more mass and doing silly speeds for their class. commercials are speed limited for a reason but people get their arses out when they get held up by HGVs cos they always push on way above their 40 mph limit on NSL's - few actually observe this as they know that there are no real detection methods in placeto target them than either a bloke with a speed gun or a patrol car. speed cams cost a lot to run, but only do half a job. They just aren't effective enough (the gov were sold a pup)

False dichotomy. Detecting both crimes is entirely possible - one with speed cameras, and one with traffic police. Just because we don't have enough traffic police shouldn't be used as a criticism of speed cameras.

 

[Linford]

OK. I would agree that cameras are only one part of road safety, but I firmly believe that speeding should be firmly clamped down on - we need to remove the attitude that speeding is OK. It's not.

Speeding may not be the direct cause of most collisions (I wish people would stop calling them accidents) but as I have already said, all other things being equal, speeding will make any collision more likely and more serious.

Speeding is a serious problem, and should be stamped out - along with other dangerous driving.

This is worth a read - I haven't read it all, but:


Because some drivers cannot be trusted to safely exceed the posted limit, then I'm afraid we must insist that no drivers may exceed it. That means that drivers that can safely exceed the limit are inconvenienced, but that's just tough.

Do you appreciate what the term 'speed related' means though as I feel it is being quoted out of context. Speed related means 'inappropriate speed' and that is in reference to a speed which the driver cannot stop within the distance they see to be safe. That is not neccessarily over the postedd limit. Young drivers get it wrong because they don't have the experience to judge this mantra. Overall, it works out at 8% of the age range of all the drivers as I mentioned earlier IIRC

 

[Linford]

False dichotomy. Detecting both crimes is entirely possible - one with speed cameras, and one with traffic police. Just because we don't have enough traffic police shouldn't be used as a criticism of speed cameras.

If they weren't throwingthe money at these expensive and ineffectual speed cams, they would have more money to spend o real police - they caught me didn't they (Average speed cams don't work on m/bikes either BTW)

 

[benb]

Do you appreciate what the term 'speed related' means though as I feel it is being quoted out of context. Speed related means 'inappropriate speed' and that is in reference to a speed which the driver cannot stop within the distance they see to be safe. That is not neccessarily over the postedd limit. Young drivers get it wrong because they don't have the experience to judge this mantra. Overall, it works out at 8% of the age range of all the drivers as I mentioned earlier IIRC

Well you're choosing to only see speeding as a problem where it is the prime cause of a collision. How many times do I have to repeat that in any situation, higher speeds will make a collision more likely and more serious - regardless of what the primary cause is.

Even if someone can stop in the distance they can see to be safe, another factor could cause a collision, and any excess speed will make that more serious.

I don't care that some drivers can speed safely. The fact is that many can't, so we must insist that all drivers observe the speed limit.

 

[Norm]

This is worth a read - I haven't read it all, but:
Almost 50% of the accidents were judged to be speed related but among drivers aged under 25 years speed was a factor in between 65% and 75% of their accidents (see Figure 3.2). Men were found to be involved in a far greater number of ‘to blame’ speed-related accidents than women (57% and 31%, respectively). Men were more likely to commit deliberate risk actions than women and are more likely to exceed the speed limit or deliberately drive too fast for the conditions. By contrast, women were more likely to have been ignorant of the correct speed limit or to be travelling too fast for the conditions rather than deliberately speeding (Clarke et al., 2007).

This is the sort of thing that I meant above. Speed-related does not mean that the vehicles were travelling in excess of the posted limits. They are very keen to break this stuff down into boys and girls, kids and wrinklies but there's no mention of whether they were speeding.

For instance, the horrific collision on the M5 last November, or the lorry driving into the back of a bus a few weeks ago. It's possible that both were recorded as having speed as a factor but that doesn't mean that the vehicles were breaking the limits.

False dichotomy. Detecting both crimes is entirely possible - one with speed cameras, and one with traffic police. Just because we don't have enough traffic police shouldn't be used as a criticism of speed cameras.

But there were many reports, when cameras first appeared, that traffic units were closed and the policing was to be left to cameras. I believe there are not many forces which still have traffic sections and, even though I commuted 40+ miles of M4 and M25 until recently, I can't remember the last time that I saw a marked traffic car.

For that, I resent speed cameras.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

It's not only about preventing fatalities, though, is it? It's about making our roads more congenial. ...

My thoughts exactly.

Why is the act of going somewhere being turned into a battleground my so many people?

 

[srw]

Speed cameras are put about as some sort of panacea

By whom? Cite your sources, please, or don't engage in straw-man arguments.

 

[benb]

But being as they are [supposedly] put there for "road safety" reasons, whether that speed is done by a 10 ton truck in the snow in the fog in the dark in the traffic, or by an incredibly skillful good looking Skoda driving god* in the middle of a mild spring day with zero traffic..... is irrelevent is it?

* Thats me in case you were wondering.

They are there to catch people who break the speed limit, that's all.

Of course they don't catch people driving too fast (but under the limit) in fog - they are not designed to.

 

[benb]

If they weren't throwingthe money at these expensive and ineffectual speed cams, they would have more money to spend o real police - they caught me didn't they (Average speed cams don't work on m/bikes either BTW)

I just don't think that's true, as funding for speed cameras is separate from funding for police forces (as far as I know - I may be wrong).

 

[Linford]

Well you're choosing to only see speeding as a problem where it is the prime cause of a collision. How many times do I have to repeat that in any situation, higher speeds will make a collision more likely and more serious - regardless of what the primary cause is.

Even if someone can stop in the distance they can see to be safe, another factor could cause a collision, and any excess speed will make that more serious.

I don't care that some drivers can speed safely. The fact is that many can't, so we must insist that all drivers observe the speed limit.

We can't insist on anything though, we can ask that drivers observe the conditions of their license and if they contravene those, then the license is either penalised or withdrawn. They are innocent until they break the laws (and get caught ) innit