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

[acrybb]

Maybe so. There are mobile cameras and police speed check areas. You can't keep digging holes to pop in a speed camera. So potentially you will learn where they put it

However I still do not think that it's as good as overtly policing the roads properly. There is no point In checking a hundred yards of a 20 mile road is there? Look at th A82 on a road map northbound I think there is 1 camera between Glasgow and fort William. Southbound I think there is also 1 Yet there are quite a few deaths per year on that road.

 

[Linford]

That's easy to rectify. Stop painting them orange and start moving them around.

Also, how about putting them in cars and have someone monitor them in real time as well ?

 

[acrybb]

Sorry I don't understand? Put them in police cars? That already happens.

 

[Linford]

Sorry I don't understand? Put them in police cars? That already happens.

I thought static sites with Gatso's were a daft idea as well.

I put this example up a little while ago

I did an advanced riding course a few years ago (m/cycle), and part of it consisted of the following which we can draw parallels from.

1) Riding around a blind bend for the first time, a rider does it at 25mph.
2) The following day, he gets a bit more confident as he knows how tight it is, he takes it at 35mph
3) Now he knows he can negotiate it and has good familiarity at higher speeds, he takes it at 45mph

The question put to me was '''Which is the correct speed to take the bend at and why ?

Now if the rider/driver isn't aware of the Gatso 'hazard' due to lack of local knowledge, they will more likely traverse the road at a lower speed if they think there might be a car/van at 'some' mobile point, but if they know exactly where it is because it is nailed down, they will adjust their speed upwards around that static site as they are familiar with the arrangement.

Because the road is already policed, the force would be accused of overkill if they used a mobile vehicle and a gatso on the same road.

 

[ufkacbln]

Yeah like i say gatsos are a great deterrent for about a hundred yards or what ever they are. They are also useless once everyone knows where they are. Having more visible police on the roads are a deterrent everywhere all of the time. There is no point in preventing speeding for a small portion of a road. You can still drive dangerously at 30mph as you lot will know.

Which is actually looking at this in a very limited way.

The problem is that they are signed and notified, and fixed.

What we need to do is invest in more mobile units and take away the absurd requirement to notify their presence.

 

[ufkacbln]

Maybe so im fairly sure that i can maintain a 30mph speed limit. However when faced with the possibility of 3 points and £60 i will make sure i dont break the speed limit. I have cruise control and therefore use it through specs controlled areas. There are lots of cars with no cruise control and lots of cars with no cruise control and poor drivers. Therefore eyes are not on the road.

The problem with a Gatso is that what happens is that people stray over the limit then realise that a gatso has appeared slam on the brakes the person behind also not paying attention hits him. There is where the problem lies. again its bad driving but bad driving is a part of modern driving. It shouldnt be but it is.



Manchester police may well have done this. Very good. I think the point im making is that the police need to be more visible rather than driving around in unmarked cars this is what people end up looking for the unmarked cars therefore concentration is not on the road. If the cars were all marked the police might not catch anyone breaking the law.

That would be because they arent doing so. Why? Because they know the police are there.

Nope - Manchester used marked cars with CCTV capability to monitor traffic, they were in full livery and not unmarked or hidden. Yet the ABD amongst others claimed this was dangerous as drivers were "forced" to look for the Police Vehicles instead of concentrating on the road.

This is why the "more Police" is such a ridiculous red herring!

1. The answer is more Police
2. Using marked cars is dangerous as they distract motorists from the road and cause accidents
3. Using unmarked cars is also dangerous as motorists "end up looking for the unmarked cars therefore concentration is not on the road"
4. Police running road high publicity safety campaigns are a distraction as again motorists are distracted from the road looking forthem


So the answer is more Police, yet their being anywhere near a road or actually enforcing the law is a danger?

Anyone care to explain how thy can function given these limitations?

 

[ufkacbln]

The other myth about "more Police" is the "patrolling" one.

Firstly they are no more effective than a GATSO or other system as they too can cover only a hundred metes of road at an time. THey also (allegedly) impose the same dangers with panic braking and distracting motorists used to dismiss any other enforcement of the law.

Then let's take a speeding motorist...

The Police pull them over, and "have a word" that leaves the road "un-patrolled" for the next few minutes.

The whole "more Police" is more about lowering the chances of getting caught, hence the bleating, wailing and tantrums when the Police presence is increased

 

[acrybb]

No because we don't care.

More police presence will prevent a bigger range of road traffic offences.

A safety cameras sole function is to deter people from speeding in a zone deemed to need it. They cannot prevent dangerous driving drink drug driving inconsiderate driving motoring offences towards cyclists people doing donuts on the road etc etc etc.

Safety cameras are good to stop rookie speeding outside schools etc but not much else.

I think I'm done on the debate as you wi say green toy yellow every time until I 100% agree with you.
I believe I have made a clear argument supporting a gatso in it proper best use and argued properly its downfalls and suggested a better way to keep everyone safer

A far more visible police presence will mean people will grow to accept they are there and no longer need to look for them. Therefore people will have to drive properly and safely. As opposed to driving looking out for something they know is there.

 

[acrybb]

I'm guessing your either a gatso lover or against road safety ? Which is it lol

 

[ufkacbln]

I'm guessing your either a gatso lover or against road safety ? Which is it lol

Neither.... I simply feel that there are a lot of muppets out there who are being effectively and regularly identified by a system that works well. High profile Policing and the use of automatic systems such as ANPR, ASSET and others (GATSO is outdated but still identifies the stupid, incapable and ignorant) are effective - that is why they are unpopular.

The problem is that as soon as any enforcement occurs, whether it be speeding, parking, mobile phones, drink driving etc the bleating and wailing starts

I asked a simple question?

Given the claims that Police endanger road users by simply being there, and pose an (allegedly) unacceptable risk how they are supposed to function?

It is such a massive irony that this was always the speedophile "Gold Standard" - until it actually happened!

 

[Norm]

I asked a simple question?

Given the claims that Police endanger road users by simply being there, and pose an (allegedly) unacceptable risk how they are supposed to function?

If you are actually waiting for someone to justify the position of the ABD, can I suggest you get yourself comfortable with a good book, as you may be there some time.

 

[ufkacbln]

No because we don't care.

More police presence will prevent a bigger range of road traffic offences.

No t won't - tey cause accidents (see above)

A safety cameras sole function is to deter people from speeding in a zone deemed to need it. They cannot prevent dangerous driving drink drug driving inconsiderate driving motoring offences towards cyclists people doing donuts on the road etc etc etc.

\

Entirely wrong, look up ASSET for instance.

Besides even if the Police are allowed on the roads (see above) then they are not the omnipotent and magic entity that we would be led to believe, They too cannot prevent or deal with anything outside their immediate presence. Their function is also to deter. BOth can only deal with offences in the immediate vicinity.

Using both systems is effective.

Safety cameras are good to stop rookie speeding outside schools etc but not much else.

Have you ever seen a demographic of speeding motorists - a world away from your claims.

I think I'm done on the debate as you wi say green toy yellow every time until I 100% agree with you.
I believe I have made a clear argument supporting a gatso in it proper best use and argued properly its downfalls and suggested a better way to keep everyone safer

A far more visible police presence will mean people will grow to accept they are there and no longer need to look for them. Therefore people will have to drive properly and safely. As opposed to driving looking out for something they know is there.

Yet as above we have claims form the AA, RAC, ABD, S@fespeed, and others that this Police presence should not be allowed as it is dangerous.

The "Green / Yellow is probably an accurate assessment of our opinions.. I am for the use f any device that improves the safety of the roads, you want to limit this.[/quote][/quote]

 

[DRHysted]

My only accident in 20 years of driving, where I have covered over 350,000 miles (of which about 100,000 was as a responce driver), was done 10mph under the speed limit. I will admit that if I was doing 15mph less than that it would not have occurred (which would back up the governments statistics), but then I would only have been travelling at 5mph, and my average cycling speed is 18mph.

Safety cameras have to be marked because of politics, they're locations are set due to politics, and politics create a slight red mist in me. In an ideal world where politictions kept their noses out, and things were done with uncommon sense (I would call it common sense but it appears to be rare nowadays) then we would not have the problems we get. Yes you would still get the idiots, but then you get them everywhere, as I found out last night when returning from walking the dogs at 23:30 and I came across three cyclist out for a night ride using both lanes of a single carrigeway after a blind bend (good job I always slow down because of deer).

 

[DRHysted]

Besides even if the Police are allowed on the roads (see above) then they are not the omnipotent and magic entity that we would be led to believe, They too cannot prevent or deal with anything outside their immediate presence.

They always manage it when there is a camera crew in the car with them

 

[ufkacbln]

The other aspect that we miss is failing to use the information given by the fixed and other systems, also by the Police.

There is unequivocal evidence that persistent speeding is diagnostic of a high risk taking mentality and is linked with other poor driving such as failing to give way, close and inappropriate overtaking, poor discipline and tailgating.

Where we are failing is to recognise this and act appropriately.

Arriva buses looked at staff who were involved in speeding or accidents and undertook psychometric testing on these drivers. They then used these results to educate and train. The result was a 50% decrease in accidents. MAny other fleet operators now use this with similar results.

Use the information supplied by the fixed units (and Police units) to identify these risk takers, and then test, educate and retrain. THat would be an excellent opportunity to address the poor drivers

Of course it would be unpopular as once again it would show the efficiency of teh present enforcement systems, but also infringes the percieved right of drivers to act like muppets without any censure