Lawbreaking motorists (not Electrics)

[JohnD]

Surely the object is to modify behaviour, not to be fair to lawbreakers.

So if cameras are placed in the areas of greatest risk, for example outside schools or outside bars frequented by plumbers, a person recklessly racing past twelve schools, or twelve bars that are close together, would get twelve tickets, whereas a person racing past empty fields might not get even one.

 

[JohnW2]

Surely the object is to modify behaviour, not to be fair to lawbreakers.

Both, surely?

So if cameras are placed in the areas of greatest risk, for example outside schools or outside bars frequented by plumbers, a person recklessly racing past twelve schools, or twelve bars that are close together, would get twelve tickets, whereas a person racing past empty fields might not get even one.

You've moved the goalposts there.

Forget about racing past empty fields. It's the other one which is the issue. Given exactly the same behaviour (racing past 12 schools or bars), whether one gets one ticket or 12 tickets depends upon whether there is a camera outside each of the nearby schools/bars or whether there is just one camera somewhere in that stretch of road (or an average speed assessment over the full stretch of 12 schools/bars).

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

This is nothing to do with how many cameras there are but the view of the court and the law; much the same as if you murder more than one person.

 

[stillp]

Gatsos (well, at least I am!). In the sense we are talking about, average speed cameras (or, at least, a single pair of them) are much fairer, since they produce just a single figure for speed over the stretch of road being monitored, so that there can be no suggestion that more than one 'offence' has been committed - whereas there could be several Gatsos on the same stretch of road.

What if (as on the M!) there are a series of average speed cameras? If someone goes through each pair at excessive average speed they could still commit multiple offences. At least some can measure the instantaneous speed as well as the average - has anyone been charged for passing one at excessive speed as well as exceeding the permitted average?
(BTW, what is it about people who don't understand the concept of 'average', and slow down at each camera?)

 

[EFLImpudence]

(BTW, what is it about people who don't understand the concept of 'average', and slow down at each camera?)

Most people are thick.

 

[JohnW2]

This is nothing to do with how many cameras there are but the view of the court and the law; much the same as if you murder more than one person.

"Nothing to do with how many cameras" is not quite right. If someone has been 'caught' by only one camera, then the courts have no options - they can but deal with that one offence. If someone has been caught by multiple nearby cameras, then the courts/law have the ability to decide how to view it and deal with it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

What if (as on the M!) there are a series of average speed cameras? If someone goes through each pair at excessive average speed they could still commit multiple offences.

That's obvious why I wrote "at least, a single pair of them". As you indicate, if there are multiple nearby cameras (and it doesn't have to be separate 'pairs' - they can measure between each of them), then much the same questions/issues arise as with Gatsos.

Having said that, average speed measurement is usually done over quite long distances, which is very different from having Gatsos every few hundred yards. The argument for regarding a situation as being one of multiple offences is therefore stronger with average speed measurement.

At least some can measure the instantaneous speed as well as the average - has anyone been charged for passing one at excessive speed as well as exceeding the permitted average?

Even if some can measure instantaneous speed, prosecutions on that basis might be less easy. As far as I am aware, they do not have associated 'markings on the road', so that the only speed measurements available would probably be doppler ones - which are much easier to challenge in court.

One problem for 'them' is that average speed measurement is often undertaken on stretches of road (particularly those with temporary speed limits due to road works) which are liable to have periods of 'hold ups' or, at least, very slow travel. Under those circumstances an acceptable measured average speed can obviously belie periods of very high speed. It can be frustrating to be look looking at temporary 50mph limit signs whilst one is stationary or travelling at 5mph

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

average speed measurement is usually done over quite long distances

Have you ever been to Nottingham?

 

[JohnW2]

Have you ever been to Nottingham?

Not in recent times. How short a distance do they measure average speed over?

Kind Regards, John

 

[333rocky333]

There was one in london about 30 metres long, not sure if it still there or the reason for it, maybe got removed for the cycle lane.
I think it was the first ever in the UK

 

[bernardgreen]

The basic info is here

www.siemens.co.uk/traffic/pool/documents/brochure/58187-safezone-4pp.pdf

and there are other public domain documents with some more techncal details

It was planned to have then in this village until some one objected and created a petition against them and the Borough Council offered them to another village who grabbed at the chance. .

s far as I am aware, they do not have associated 'markings on the road',

There is a small L shaped marking on the road at each camera to precisely set the distance over which the average speed has been calculated.

The zones can have several entry / exit points and average speed can be calculated between any pair of entry and exit points.

In theory data from a camera in Manchester and data from a camera in London could be used to calculate the average speed of vehicles making that journey.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I keep telling you that I'm not talking about people who don't get caught. I'm talking about people who do exactly the same thing and get caught but who, due to technicalities (the number of cameras installed), could get dramatically different penalties.

OK - so where does the lack of fairness lie?

Is it unfair that the multiple-camera miscreant gets multiple offences when the single-camera guy does not?

Or is it unfair that the single-camera guy gets away with only being charged with one offence?

And, in all this, have you considered whether it is fair that other people should have to share the roads with people who through their refusal to abide by the rules inconvenience, or at worst take the lives of, others?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In theory data from a camera in Manchester and data from a camera in London could be used to calculate the average speed of vehicles making that journey.

It is not even necessary to see the entire course over which the target vehicle travels, so long as that specific vehicle can be identified as it passes the start and end points. The greater the distance (to the limit of the device), the more accurate the average speed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Both, surely?

Why?

What grounds do people who selfishly decide to ignore rules which are necessary for the safe functioning of society, and in doing so put other people's lives at risk, have for expecting "fairness" (as defined here, by you, which seems to be consistency)?

If someone has been caught by multiple nearby cameras, then the courts/law have the ability to decide how to view it and deal with it.

Or we could dramatically simplify it, and remove the discretion to treat multiple detections as one offence. Make it One Camera One Offence, and let that be the end of it. Those who think it "unfair" can be reminded that nobody would ever suffer any "unfair" treatment if they obey the law.