Sponsored Links
Contentious topic this.
Just thought i would add my slant on it, not intending to fan the flames at all.
Speed camera's in general a fantastic idea, badly implemented and poorly regulated.
To give them their proper name "safety camera's" are invariably installed in places where there is no safety implication and maximum revenues available. Take for example the current situation on the M42, it is possible with the variable speed limit to lose your license within 2 miles, and i have been surprised on occasion to see a 40mph limit imposed when road conditions suggest that a national speed limit would present no more danger or risk of congestion...........now why is this???
Where would you consider a safe place to put a safety camera?? How about around schools other areas where the populace congregates and there is considerable risk to life through lack of concentration and how many do you actually see in such positions?? Very few generally because most road users are aware of the increased risk and will drive accordingly, hence there is little chance of creating revenue.
The general public have lost faith in the system and now see these devices as revenue generators, people will brake to pass them and then accelerate to the speed they were travelling at prior to the camera, this in itself increases the possibility of incidents around the devices.
My conclusion is that safety camera's could have been a good thing, if they had not been used in the manner in which they are, a recent study concluded that these installations have had little or no effect on accident rates, and as such have saved no lives, they have however generated millions in fines. The government is very willing to throw out the "speed kills" message and that 70 ish % of accidents are contributable to excessive speed, i fail to see how they are capable of measuring this these days, with ABS and TCS reducing skid mark lengths, which was the investigators most reliable tool for speed assessment. To take the exact opposite approach to that of the "speed kills" slogans the only way to avoid speed is to never make a journey, so no one ever moves and no one ever gets killed, of course speed kills. Consider this though, can anyone honestly say to me that 2 cars travelling in opposite directions at 60mph in a head on collision are going to be in a far better state than if one of them was travelling at 75mph????? I don't think so.
Just thought i would add my slant on it, not intending to fan the flames at all.
Speed camera's in general a fantastic idea, badly implemented and poorly regulated.
To give them their proper name "safety camera's" are invariably installed in places where there is no safety implication and maximum revenues available. Take for example the current situation on the M42, it is possible with the variable speed limit to lose your license within 2 miles, and i have been surprised on occasion to see a 40mph limit imposed when road conditions suggest that a national speed limit would present no more danger or risk of congestion...........now why is this???
Where would you consider a safe place to put a safety camera?? How about around schools other areas where the populace congregates and there is considerable risk to life through lack of concentration and how many do you actually see in such positions?? Very few generally because most road users are aware of the increased risk and will drive accordingly, hence there is little chance of creating revenue.
The general public have lost faith in the system and now see these devices as revenue generators, people will brake to pass them and then accelerate to the speed they were travelling at prior to the camera, this in itself increases the possibility of incidents around the devices.
My conclusion is that safety camera's could have been a good thing, if they had not been used in the manner in which they are, a recent study concluded that these installations have had little or no effect on accident rates, and as such have saved no lives, they have however generated millions in fines. The government is very willing to throw out the "speed kills" message and that 70 ish % of accidents are contributable to excessive speed, i fail to see how they are capable of measuring this these days, with ABS and TCS reducing skid mark lengths, which was the investigators most reliable tool for speed assessment. To take the exact opposite approach to that of the "speed kills" slogans the only way to avoid speed is to never make a journey, so no one ever moves and no one ever gets killed, of course speed kills. Consider this though, can anyone honestly say to me that 2 cars travelling in opposite directions at 60mph in a head on collision are going to be in a far better state than if one of them was travelling at 75mph????? I don't think so.
well we all knwo the police dont like to be seen as being deceiving by hiding behind things....not at all.
but lancs police have found a new gimick in darwen lancs, that allows then to film you at night beleive it or not. by parking descretly behind some bush's on unlit side track rd they are able to point the cam radar through bush's onto the lit rd wher coincidentally ther is a your speed board on opposit side of rd for on comming traffic.
is that for safety or is it to get more money
but lancs police have found a new gimick in darwen lancs, that allows then to film you at night beleive it or not. by parking descretly behind some bush's on unlit side track rd they are able to point the cam radar through bush's onto the lit rd wher coincidentally ther is a your speed board on opposit side of rd for on comming traffic.
is that for safety or is it to get more money
You missed the mark somewhat...LeeJC said:
In my world the speed camera is an implementation. How else would you 'implement' a device that both detects the act of speeding and photographically records the vehicle doing it?
This reads, sounds, looks and smells like complete b*llocks. Do you have any references that support your view?
Who has that ever happened to?!
Have you asked that question of the Highways department that decided on those limits, or you hoping that someone in your local authority will read your post?
Where speeding presents a significant enough hazard.
And little chance of creating a hazard, according to your definition of how drivers drive.
How have you measured that increase in likelihood?
I do think so, because the impact of two such cars colliding at 75mph would be more than 50% greater that of the same two cars colliding at 60mph. I would expect that to tend to put those cars in a worse state.
Is that honest enough for you?
Sponsored Links
Speeding fine has to be issued within 14 days, unless exceptional circumstances, always ask for calibration certificate for camera, many fines thrown out when callibration is challenged.
Softus said:LeeJC said:I certainly hope so.
In my world the speed camera is an implementation. How else would you 'implement' a device that both detects the act of speeding and photographically records the vehicle doing it?
Sorry but you are for a change being a pedant, that's like saying a transistor is a switch let's use it to apply three phase to this milling machine. You can implement a device in many ways, my point was that they were being used in a manner which wasn't the best or most appropriate use of the device.
References what would you like??? Durham police chief saying that he is refusing speed camera's because they don't save lives, lancashire constabulary with increased accident rates, or on the other hand how about the £120 million they raised in revenue in 2005? Are those glasses of your's seriously rose tinted??
Did i say it had happened to someone?? Did i even infer it had happened to someone?? Notice the possible...................in english that means you could, or at least from my understanding of the language it does.
Have you asked that question of the Highways department that decided on those limits, or you hoping that someone in your local authority will read your post?
Local authority and all other government agencies will take no notice of joe public or the camera's would have been used properly in the first place,
So define hazard, hazard at the moment as defined by the government is any place where 4 deaths/serious injuries have occured on that particular stretch of road, but surprisingly these don't have to be driving related there is a speed camera on the M4 which meets the 4 deaths criteria, but 2 of those were people jumping off bridges.
You've taken that and generalised it, in most cases as i said people will drive with due care and attention around areas of high risk, but not in all cases, but the point still stands i have seen very very few safety camera's around schools or town centres and yet the number of children killed in Q1 2007 rose by 64.
With mark 1 eyeball, observation of drivers behaviour.
Force as i recall equals mass times acceleration. Your answer is simplified greatly in assuming that all objects have equal mass. So in a perfect world yes the force of 2 identical vehicles equally loaded and colliding at 75mph will increase the force by 56.2% but colliding with a 1963 mini and colliding with a fully laden MAN artic, i am gonna take the mini at 75, leave it up to you to take the artic at 60.
Totally honest and conformist, pretty much as expected..............at least in this arena you never disappoint.
You might want to have a read of this http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/264769/264814
6000+ speed, sorry safety camera's and yet more children/pedestrians and bikers are dying. Maybe it's just me but i think car manufacturers making safer cars are doing more to reduce road fatalities than these camera's.
I can't make sense of your two statements. You didn't intend to fan the flames, but you hope that you did?
No you're not.Sorry...In my world the speed camera is an implementation. How else would you 'implement' a device that both detects the act of speeding and photographically records the vehicle doing it?
And you are being sarcastic.
A transistor is a device that amplifies, and can be used to implement a switch.
I would say that your example of a non-viable application of a transistor is a non-illustration of why you think a speed camera isn't an implementation of a camera.
I see your point, and I raise you one "you're wrong".
Factual ones.
If merely two out of all the police forces believe that speed cameras provide no safety benefit, then I would say that they're clearly the exception that proves the rule. To ignore all the forces who don't share the views of Durham and Lancs is facile.
What about it?
No, which is why I asked you. So is the answer "nobody"?
I don't know - did you?
Mine too - so read the words I wrote and respond to those, not the ones you want me to have written.
So you haven't asked the question of the authority who would be obliged to tell you, and instead you're posing the question on a forum whose membership is unlikely to be able to provide a factual answer.Local authority and all other government agencies will take no notice of joe public or the camera's would have been used properly in the first placeHave you asked that question of the Highways department that decided on those limits, or you hoping that someone in your local authority will read your post?
I don't need to - it's in the dictionary.
Er, ok. Good.
No, I've kept it within the original context.
Were they killed outside schools and in town centres?
Do you have a calibration certificate for that device?
Please carry on - what is the difference in impact between the two scenarios that you defined?
I made no such assumption - I was comparing the two cars in scenario that you defined.
You said cars, not artics.
To be frank I don't care whether or not you're disappointed - that has nothing to do with anything.
B
breezer
oh, heard on LBC today, new speed camer coming out.
it has a camera looking at the camera (so any one trying to demolish it gets their picture taken)
cost £50K each
can of spray paint £3, go figure
it has a camera looking at the camera (so any one trying to demolish it gets their picture taken)
cost £50K each
can of spray paint £3, go figure
Mate a transistor is a device that 'can' be used to amplify, it 'can' also be used to switch, never mind implement a switch..............if it was purely an amplifier AMD and INTEL along with a few hundred other semiconductor manufacturers would have been out of business a long time ago. You know those 2 points at either end of the linear current conducting characteristic of a transistor where it can be used as an amplifier, they are known as off and on.
Can't be bothered arguing over implementation, you believe they do a sterling job, I and a large number of the populace disagree.
The relevance of the last statement which you appeared to agree with is that these apparent "safety camera's" are doing nothing to save life. They are revenue creators. And as for the children comment, i can't remember the last time i saw a group of kids playing hop scotch on the M42/M4 or cyclists or pedestrians for that matter, something to do with the highway code and prohibition i think.
The eyeball('s) are calibrated annually, and yep i have a certificate for it. Thanks for asking.
Can't be bothered arguing over implementation, you believe they do a sterling job, I and a large number of the populace disagree.
The relevance of the last statement which you appeared to agree with is that these apparent "safety camera's" are doing nothing to save life. They are revenue creators. And as for the children comment, i can't remember the last time i saw a group of kids playing hop scotch on the M42/M4 or cyclists or pedestrians for that matter, something to do with the highway code and prohibition i think.
The eyeball('s) are calibrated annually, and yep i have a certificate for it. Thanks for asking.
Oh please don't take it as a term of endearment. It's a word I use in reference to anyone.
I saw a camera van parked up on one of those 'Police patrol vehicles only' raised areas catching speeders on the M18 the other day
B
breezer
they do that quite a lot in london, only they park any where they like
breezer said:
If they are breaking the law at the time they capture you breaking the law then it's not enforceable. Same goes for police handhelds, from the mouth of a traffic officer, one of the very few left. (not me incidentally, my next door neighbour)
GET A ROAD ANGEL
Sponsored Links
