OT: Speed cameras - more meat for the old sausage machine

[Hywel Jenkins]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I also know that
> many here consider speed cameras to be a valid weapon against dangerous
> motorists.

Eh? They don't work. In the last five years revenue raised from
speeding fines has increased by 200%. Road accidents where speed was an
factor have increased by 300%.

I didn't make those statistics up, either, but I can't remember where
they came from.

--
Hywel

Kill the Crazy Frog
http://www.petitiononline.com/crzyfrg/

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"Matt B" <[email protected]>typed


> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Another Matt B troll.

> Another Tony Raven libel?

> > I wish you guys would stop responding to his repetitive trolling because
> > it defeats my killfile unless I kill file you too.

> Is he the alpha male of this group, or just chief censor?

We don't do alpha males; this is not uk.transport!

Several women are well-respected. I get bored with feeding trolls though.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Matt B]

"Chris Gerhard" <Chris.Gerhard@remove_this.sun.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>> "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Exceeding the speed limit and following too
>>> close to the vehicle in front are two separate things.
>>
>> Yes, that's the point. If you had a limited budget, and could only
>> target one, which would it be?
>
> Both. Since a "too close" camera would have to measure the speed to work
> out if the vehicles were to close it could also be used for issuing
> speeding tickets.

Who said it had to be a camera? Can you not answer a straight question?

> An excellent idea if you can build one and get the legislation right for
> making it illegal as opposed to just stupid.

I think you'll find careless and dangerous driving are already offences.

> However that can't be done

What, making it illegal or producing a camera to detect it? If it's the
former, it already is. If it's the latter then I'm sure it could be done,
but whether it could or couldn't is not relevant to the point.

> so we are left with what can be done.

Don't try and evade the issue.

> So lets do what can be done, which is speed cameras.

Are you a "Safety Camera Partnership" bod?

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hywel Jenkins wrote:
>> Eh? They don't work. In the last five years revenue raised from
>> speeding fines has increased by 200%. Road accidents where speed was an
>> factor have increased by 300%.
>
> In scientific research we have something called a "control". The control
> represents the circumstances where nothing was changed in order to make an
> effective comparison of what effect you are having.

Are you aware of any use of this methodology by any of the "Safety Camera
Partnerships" in support of their claims that cameras actually work?

--
Matt B

 

[Steven]

On 23 Jun 2005 09:33:14 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Steven wrote:
>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> I think it's a very fair point.
>>
>> Although I approve of speed cameras, I think 'too close' cameras would be
>> a damn fine idea.
>
>It's a false dichotomy. Exceeding the speed limit and following too
>close to the vehicle in front are two separate things. Although the
>minimum safe distance varies with speed it's a fallacy to suggest
>there's necessarily a choice between one and the other.

Of course.

However, if you want to decide where and how to spend money from an enforcement
budget, then I would say that you should have:

Speed cameras rather than 'too close' cameras where there are many traffic
hazards, schools, etc.

'Too close' cameras rather than speed cameras on motorways.

This is a valid question because they are now starting to roll out speed cameras
on motorways, and I have a feeling that they would do much more for road safety
if they could enforce sensible distancing.

Of course, there's no reason why a motorway camera couldn't do both :-D

 

[Steven]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:58:31 +0100, "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Another Matt B troll.
>
>Another Tony Raven libel?
>
>> I wish you guys would stop responding to his repetitive trolling because
>> it defeats my killfile unless I kill file you too.
>
>Is he the alpha male of this group, or just chief censor?

Alpha male wannabe?

It's ironic that he's complaining about this particular sub thread being a
troll, because I think it raises a very interesting point about which areas of
road safety we should be concentrating on.

 

[Steven]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:59:58 +0100, Hywel Jenkins <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> I also know that
>> many here consider speed cameras to be a valid weapon against dangerous
>> motorists.
>
>Eh? They don't work. In the last five years revenue raised from
>speeding fines has increased by 200%. Road accidents where speed was an
>factor have increased by 300%.

Clearly showing that we need one *hell* of a lot mre speed cameras!

 

[Matt B]

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matt B" <[email protected]>typed
>> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > I wish you guys would stop responding to his repetitive trolling
>> > because
>> > it defeats my killfile unless I kill file you too.
>
>> Is he the alpha male of this group, or just chief censor?
>
> We don't do alpha males; this is not uk.transport!

Do you condone his attempts to coerce others?

> Several women are well-respected. I get bored with feeding trolls though.

Participation in any thread is optional. If you have nothing to add to the
discussion, you are, of course, free to ignore it.

--
Matt B

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:59:58 +0100, Hywel Jenkins <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >> I also know that
> >> many here consider speed cameras to be a valid weapon against dangerous
> >> motorists.
> >
> >Eh? They don't work. In the last five years revenue raised from
> >speeding fines has increased by 200%. Road accidents where speed was an
> >factor have increased by 300%.
>
> Clearly showing that we need one *hell* of a lot mre speed cameras!

Speed cameras aren't the way to go to cut down on speeding. We'll still
have muppets that slow to 40 in 50 zones "just in case". We need
vehicles to record their telemetry, reporting via roadsize transceivers
or GPRS if an fracture of the speed limit has occured.

--
Hywel

Kill the Crazy Frog
http://www.petitiononline.com/crzyfrg/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:25:54 +0100, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:

> If the trade-off was speed limits _or_ safe drivers,

But since it isn't, anything further said with that as a premise is
irrelevant.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Nobody Here]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Matt B" <[email protected]>typed
>>> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >
>>> > I wish you guys would stop responding to his repetitive trolling
>>> > because
>>> > it defeats my killfile unless I kill file you too.
>>
>>> Is he the alpha male of this group, or just chief censor?
>>
>> We don't do alpha males; this is not uk.transport!
>
> Do you condone his attempts to coerce others?

He's not coercing me, mate, I think you're a total **** irrespective of
what Tony says. Of course, I agree with him, too, though. Mostly I
do manage to ignore you, but sometimes it's fun to poke a troll.

>> Several women are well-respected. I get bored with feeding trolls though.
>
> Participation in any thread is optional. If you have nothing to add to the
> discussion, you are, of course, free to ignore it.

Oh? Why doesn't that apply to you then? AFAICT you've had nothing to
add to anything since you stumbled over here from your previous bridge
in uk.wannabe.tosspot.if.only.i.knew.how.to.masturbate.


--
Nobby

 

[Nobody Here]

Steven <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:58:31 +0100, "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Another Matt B troll.
>>
>>Another Tony Raven libel?
>>
>>> I wish you guys would stop responding to his repetitive trolling because
>>> it defeats my killfile unless I kill file you too.
>>
>>Is he the alpha male of this group, or just chief censor?
>
> Alpha male wannabe?

LOL. Does it worry you that someone else might be after your alpha male
slot? Raises your hackles, does it? Wwwrrroooaaarrrrr. Stick them fangs
out boyos. Slap'em on the wristies if they get all jumpied up. Slap'em
round the face with your massive huge throbbing egos.

--
Nobby

 

[Nobody Here]

Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Hywel Jenkins wrote:
>>> Eh? They don't work. In the last five years revenue raised from
>>> speeding fines has increased by 200%. Road accidents where speed was an
>>> factor have increased by 300%.
>>
>> In scientific research we have something called a "control". The control
>> represents the circumstances where nothing was changed in order to make an
>> effective comparison of what effect you are having.
>
> Are you aware of any use of this methodology by any of the "Safety Camera
> Partnerships" in support of their claims that cameras actually work?

Yep.

Are you aware that you're a twerp?

--
Nobby

 

[Steve]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:05:25 +0000, Steven wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:52:23 +0100, "Matt B" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"Steven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:35:12 +0100, "Matt B"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Tranchant" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think that slowing down is unsafe? I would respectfully
>>>>>> suggest that you probably travel too close to the vehicle in front
>>>>>> if you do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Harsh braking is unsafe because people *tend* to travel too close. I
>>>>> did not say "puts *me* in danger".
>>>>
>>>>If you could only eliminate _one_ of the two, would you choose "harsh
>>>>braking" or "travelling too close"? I would concentrate on the latter.
>>>
>>> So would I.
>>>
>>> The later is probably responsible for 99+% of the former.
>>
>>What if the choice was "speeding" (i.e. breaking the speed limit), or
>>"travelling too close"?
>
> Still the later.
>
> I'd be *very* happy if they could replace some speeding cameras with 'too
> close' cameras. They would be especially welcome on motorways where I
> would imagine a large proportion of the accidents 'caused by speeding'
> would more accurately be described as having been caused by travelling too
> close to the vehicle in front.

They did this in the Netherlands. What do you do when dome tw*t pulls out
into the outside lane between you and the car you were following... you're
going to be the one prosecuted.

 

[Steve]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:33:14 -0700, dkahn400 wrote:

> Steven wrote:
>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> I think it's a very fair point.
>>
>> Although I approve of speed cameras, I think 'too close' cameras would
>> be a damn fine idea.
>
> It's a false dichotomy. Exceeding the speed limit and following too close
> to the vehicle in front are two separate things. Although the minimum safe
> distance varies with speed it's a fallacy to suggest there's necessarily a
> choice between one and the other.

.... and the car, road conditions, alertness of the driver...

 

[Jon Senior]

Matt B wrote:
> Are you aware of any use of this methodology by any of the "Safety Camera
> Partnerships" in support of their claims that cameras actually work?

No. But I'm not making that claim! Speed cameras provide a way of
enforcing the law. They catch _criminals_. The fact that those criminals
don't like it has no bearing on their relevance. The number of fines
issued for speeding is ample evidence that the cameras are able to
detect and "prosecute" a certain type of criminal. Suggesting that they
should be removed because they have resulted in an immediate cessation
of accidents shows a naivete beyond the call of duty.

Which part of "exceeding the speed limit is a crime", do you not understand?

Jon

 

[Dan Gregory]

Jon Senior wrote:
> Speed cameras provide a way of
> enforcing the law. They catch _criminals_. The fact that those criminals
> don't like it has no bearing on their relevance. The number of fines
> issued for speeding is ample evidence that the cameras are able to
> detect and "prosecute" a certain type of criminal. Suggesting that they
> should be removed because they have resulted in an immediate cessation
> of accidents shows a naivete beyond the call of duty.

Brilliant idea in our local paper last week. Instead of having speed
cameras that cause the speeders to brake and then speed up again, why
not cameras along the road than can judge the average speed. A bit like
thwe French Autoroutes where the toll booths add a fine if you have come
through the sector too fast.
All the best
Dan Gregory

 

[Steven]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:01:07 +1200, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I'd be *very* happy if they could replace some speeding cameras with 'too
>> close' cameras. They would be especially welcome on motorways where I
>> would imagine a large proportion of the accidents 'caused by speeding'
>> would more accurately be described as having been caused by travelling too
>> close to the vehicle in front.
>
>They did this in the Netherlands. What do you do when dome tw*t pulls out
>into the outside lane between you and the car you were following... you're
>going to be the one prosecuted.

So, what did they do about that problem in the Netherlands?

I'm sure there are ways round it.

I can think of a couple of technical solutions although I can't guarantee they
would be workable without a bit of research and discussion.

 

[Steven]

On 23 Jun 2005 22:32:36 GMT, Nobody Here <[email protected]> wrote:

>Steven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:58:31 +0100, "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Another Matt B troll.
>>>
>>>Another Tony Raven libel?
>>>
>>>> I wish you guys would stop responding to his repetitive trolling because
>>>> it defeats my killfile unless I kill file you too.
>>>
>>>Is he the alpha male of this group, or just chief censor?
>>
>> Alpha male wannabe?
>
>LOL. Does it worry you that someone else might be after your alpha male
>slot?

I've never desired an alpha male slot.

People who organise their lives on that basis are much the same as celeb
watchers and wannabes.

 

[Matt B]

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>> Are you aware of any use of this methodology by any of the "Safety Camera
>> Partnerships" in support of their claims that cameras actually work?
>
> No. But I'm not making that claim!



> Speed cameras provide a way of enforcing the law. They catch _criminals_.

I think it is the deceitful "claims" that are made with regards to reducing
the KSI figures that is the problem. I'm not sure if any serious individual
concerned with road safety doesn't believe that limits have to be obeyed,
but it is the overtated claims about their importance that gets peoples
goat.

> The fact that those criminals don't like it has no bearing on their
> relevance.

No, I'd never support any such notions either.

> The number of fines issued for speeding is ample evidence that the cameras
> are able to detect and "prosecute" a certain type of criminal.

Yes, but under the banner of reducing KSI figures. Remove the banner and
the controversy disappears.

> Suggesting that they should be removed because they have resulted in an
> immediate cessation of accidents shows a naivete beyond the call of duty.

What if they were shown to increase accidents?

> Which part of "exceeding the speed limit is a crime", do you not
> understand?

Did I give the impression that I didn't understand some part of that? That
isn't the contoversial point, the problem is in their raison d'être. They
are not installed to catch criminals, they are installed, purportedly, to
reduce KSI figures. Have you ever looked at any of the "partnership"
websites? Object lessons in junk science?

--
Matt B