Speed camera mega-thread ***Read first post before posting***

Tigger

Iwannahurl wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpZRxo3EWAc

yeah but everthing is backwards in australia

also 0;35 the car hit the back of the truck if hed simply steered to the right he'd have missed the crash

dr.fuzzenstein

Our man in Havana wrote: »

I wonder what the apologists will say next?

That people will brake for speedcameras and that causes accidents.
Fact.

cyclopath2001

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That people will brake for speedcameras and that causes accidents.Fact.

That makes a good argument for the vehicles being unmarked and positioned where people won't notice them.

monument

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I haven't actually. I've never seen one of these speeding 'tickets' and I'm still waiting for someone to post a scan of one showing that the "few km over the limit" perception is actually real and not a myth.

...And I'm still waiting.

I don't regard 9km/h or nearly 10% of one of the higher speed limits as "only a few km/h over the limit." I don't know anybody who counts 9 as a few of anything.

Tigger wrote: »

Oh my gog you could have killed us all you were nearly 6mph over the limit

Why bother having limits at all? :pac:

Eric Cartman

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That makes a good argument for the vehicles being unmarked and positioned where people won't notice them.

on the side of a motorway that would be dangerous and impossible

Shane732

monument wrote: »

...And I'm still waiting.

I don't regard 9km/h or nearly 10% of one of the higher speed limits as "only a few km/h over the limit." I don't know anybody who counts 9 as a few of anything.

5 miles an hour isn't just over the speed limit. You could have fooled me.

Eric Cartman

monument wrote: »

Why bother having limits at all? :pac:

speed limits are only there for the bad drivers around the world , there as a kind of worst case scenario

somebody in an m5 with more than 150,000 miles of experience would easily be able to handle 180-200 km.h on the m50

whereas someone in a boxy starlet with 2-3000 miles of experience is barely able to handle 100km.h

monument

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

People see speedcameras, jam on brakes, this leads to accidents. Unless you can statistically prove that this doesn't happen and those videos are elaborate fakes by the BBC.
Speedcameras cause accidents.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That people will brake for speedcameras and that causes accidents.
Fact.

Let me gets this straight: You're blaming speed vans for the actions of stupid drivers? Next thing you'll be asking is that there should be no police on the roads just in case somebody speeding sees them and slams on their breaks.

I'd be an apologists for speed cameras and law enforcement any day. However, I wouldn't want to be an apologist for idiot drivers.

Why would anybody be an apologist for idiot drivers?

Shane732 wrote: »

5 miles an hour isn't just over the speed limit. You could have fooled me.

No, 9km/h isn't a few. I don't know anybody who thinks 9 is a few. And if you want to make it sound less by using miles, it's closer to 6mph than it is to 5mph.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

speed limits are only there for the bad drivers around the world , there as a kind of worst case scenario

somebody in an m5 with more than 150,000 miles of experience would easily be able to handle 180-200 km.h on the m50

whereas someone in a boxy starlet with 2-3000 miles of experience is barely able to handle 100km.h

The problem with that is the ok and good drivers have to drive close to the bad drivers. Anyway, I don't think the M50 is even design to handle 200km/h.

dr.fuzzenstein

People see speed van, slam on brakes, accident.I'll just keep repeating it.
P.S. Clean licence me, 40 year old, NCB longer than most people's entire driving history, so no lunatic boyracer here.Human nature is as human nature does.

ART6

The problem with speed cameras (Oops -- safety cameras) is that they are a simplistic solution to a complex problem. If you happen to be Micheal Schumacher then driving a high performance car at 190 mph is no particular issue. If you are seventy-five year old Aunty Mary in her Punto then 35 mph is dodgy. What we try to do is arrive an average "safe" speed for a road given the wide variation of competence. That invariably means that it must drop to the lower level of ability since there are more of them on the road.

Speed (safety) cameras do not distinguish between abilities. As pure machines they simply measure one parameter and ignore all others. They are like traffic lights. If they are red you stop, even if the joining road is empty. If they are green you go.

Maybe what is needed is a graduated driving licence coupled to speed (Oops Safety) cameras. If you have just passed the driving test you are limited to 80 kph (level one). If you have embarked upon a higher test then you are limited to motorway limits (Level two). If you have an advanced driver certificate then you can exceed those limits, but at your own risk (level three). In the latter, if by your speed or driving competence you are deemed to have caused an accident, then as a qualified driver you are liable without limit - in the same way that an engineer is if he designed something that was dangerous.

It wouldn't be belong the wit of man to design number plates that showed the competence level and program the ANP systems to recognise them.

Jimdagym

Why would you need a number plate to reflect your ability when you could simply attach a file to the returned number plate search?
Also, that would only work if one persOn drove every car, or only people with the same quantified ability.

yoshytoshy

Is there any of these vans capable of recording speed while in motion ?
I seen a van today on the motorway (M50) in the middle lane and everyone was driving behind it.

jimmynokia

yoshytoshy wrote: »

Is there any of these vans capable of recording speed while in motion ?
I seen a van today on the motorway (M50) in the middle lane and everyone was driving behind it.

i was behind this a few weeks back
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/303947/162289.jpg

yoshytoshy

jimmynokia wrote: »

i was behind this a few weeks back
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/303947/162289.jpg

Cheers ,read back through the thread and I see you noticed the box on the left moving around.
It was so obvious when people spotted the van ,the breaks came on. Noticed a few audis flying up the right lane and breaking hard when they seen it.

-Chris-

mooman wrote: »

That's a fcuking disgrace IMHO.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That makes a good argument for the vehicles being unmarked and positioned where people won't notice them.

Then you'd have argument that they were shooting fish in a barrel and being sneaky.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

speed limits are only there for the bad drivers around the world , there as a kind of worst case scenario

somebody in an m5 with more than 150,000 miles of experience would easily be able to handle 180-200 km.h on the m50

whereas someone in a boxy starlet with 2-3000 miles of experience is barely able to handle 100km.h

Your problem comes when you try and mix these two drivers on the same road, the M5 driver will expect a level of predictability from the Starlet driver, while the Starlet will probably be too busy in information overload, stuck in the middle of cars doing 200KMPH, in an absolute panic, to do anything even remotely resembling predictable or reasonable.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

People see speed van, slam on brakes, accident.I'll just keep repeating it.

That's a training issue more than a speed camera issue though, and an indictment of the driving skills of those drivers who slam on their brakes.

cyclopath2001

-Chris- wrote: »

Then you'd have argument that they were shooting fish in a barrel and being sneaky.

Lemmings over a cliff would be more apt.

All you have to do to head off this kind of argument is to put up a sign, well ahead of the detection van's location, with the maximum speed limit in big black letters on a white background, surrounded by a big red circle. Maybe a second one after a few hundred metres in case the first was not noticed.

That way, nobody could claim it was 'sneaky'.

Iwannahurl

-Chris- wrote: »

That's a fcuking disgrace IMHO.

Why?

Guy:Incognito

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

That makes a good argument for the vehicles being unmarked and positioned where people won't notice them.

Makes a good arguement that a lot of idiots are given driving licences.

Iwannahurl

Tigger wrote: »

yeah but everthing is backwards upside down in australia

also 0;35 the car hit the back of the truck if hed simply steered to the right he'd have missed the crash

Whatever about the car in the road safety ad missing the truck, the comment above suggests you're missing the whole point of the scenario illustrated in the video.

Unless of course you're joking. In which case, FYP.

Guy:Incognito

-Chris- wrote: »

That's a fcuking disgrace IMHO.

Why? He was probably doing an indicated 115 + so knew full well he was speeding.

109 in a 100 is nearly 10% over and addign that to the overread on the speedo leaves plenty to allow for the "I only drifted over for a second" excuse.

It also doesnt do anything to prove the myth that people are done for "a few kmph over". You could stretch the few kmph thing to about 5 or 6 over at the most if your very loose with the definition of a few. I've still never seen anyone prove they were done for 2 or 3 kmph over like a lot have claimed.

-Chris-

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why?

I feel it's very important to allow some form of discretion in the application of any law. If you apply zero tolerance then the resentment and possible backlash are harmful to your ability to apply the rule in future.

If something is fair and reasonable, then every reasonable person will support it and peer pressure will have more of an effect than the deterrent of law.

Think of the blood alcohol limit, drink driving has arguably reduced more due to social pressure than legal enforcement. If you reduced the limit to zero and gave anyone with *any* level of alcohol in their blood a month's ban, people would start to rebel, would turn against law enforcement, and would move towards the "good on you, you got away with it. Sod them f*ckers" mentality.
Then the only people stopped from drink driving would be those who were caught, versus the current situation of people being stopped from drink driving by their friends (or even innocent bystanders).

The applies to the speed cameras IMHO. If they're parked in reasonable positions, and issue fines to speeders (with a reasonable level of discretion), they'll cause a reduction in speed generally with the resultant reduction in speed related deaths and injuries.
In this instance people would see the statistics and the drop in death rate, and would say "God, these speed cameras are great, they're keeping us safe. Maybe Gay Byrne was right all this time and we should be driving slower".
If, however, the letter of the law is applied in all circumstances (or a very small level of discretion), and the vans are positioned in places that are perceived to be "fish in a barrel" locations, then people will perceive them as unfair, will start to rebel against them, and you'll see more news reports of vans being set alight or otherwise damaged.

It's all my €0.02 of course, but I doubt I'm far wrong.

Guy:Incognito

-Chris- wrote: »

I feel it's very important to allow some form of discretion in the application of any law. If you apply zero tolerance then the resentment and possible backlash are harmful to your ability to apply the rule in future.
.

Zero tolerance would be doing people once they are 1kmph over.

They clearly do allow a certain percentage.

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

People see speedcameras, jam on brakes, this leads to accidents. Unless you can statistically prove that this doesn't happen and those videos are elaborate fakes by the BBC.
Speedcameras cause accidents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLlH6GgmfU

IMO what that BBC video shows is that some people not only drive way too fast, they are also idiots.

It is statistically proven that speed/safety cameras save lives. Even if some collisions do occur because some drivers "slam on the anchors" when they spot a speed/safety camera, I am not aware of any evidence (a) that this occurs with any significant frequency and (b) that any casualties resulting from such collisions amount to anything more than a small proportion of the deaths and injuries prevented by speed/safety cameras.




.

-Chris-

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why? He was probably doing an indicated 115 + so knew full well he was speeding.

Why? See above.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

109 in a 100 is nearly 10% over and addign that to the overread on the speedo leaves plenty to allow for the "I only drifted over for a second" excuse.

I'm doing a lot of miles at the moment - even if I'm trying to stick to the limit, on a long straight road with other cars going faster than me, I've found myself drifting up (I'm sure there's some sort of psychological phenomenon involved). It does happen.

I think the UK rule of 10% + 2 (or whatever it is) is fair and reasonable. It would also be harder for people to argue it's unreasonable if it can be pointed out that it's a rule used in several jurisdictions.
9% seems fairly arbitrary tbh.

It also depends on the circumstances too, 9% over on a motorway in the middle of nowhere is NOT the same as 9% over where there are cross winds, residential areas nearby, many HGVs or whatever.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It also doesnt do anything to prove the myth that people are done for "a few kmph over". You could stretch the few kmph thing to about 5 or 6 over at the most if your very loose with the definition of a few. I've still never seen anyone prove they were done for 2 or 3 kmph over like a lot have claimed.

I hope I never see a ticket that says 2 or 3KMPH over, I think it'll be the beginning of the end.

cyclopath2001

-Chris- wrote: »

I feel it's very important to allow some form of discretion in the application of any law. If you apply zero tolerance then the resentment and possible backlash are harmful to your ability to apply the rule in future.

There is tolerance.

If you break the speed limit (perhaps by mistake) and get caught doing it, you get an affordable fine and a couple of points.

You don't lose your license unless you keep doing it (and are caught) and you rack up too many points.

Our man in Havana

I saw a ticket for 32mph in a 30mph in Warwickshire in the UK. He took it to court and won. He got costs also.

-Chris-

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

There is tolerance.

If you break the speed limit (perhaps by mistake) and get caught doing it, you get an affordable fine and a couple of points.

You don't lose your license unless you keep doing it (and are caught) and you rack up too many points.

It seems what you're suggesting is that the law is "over the speed limit = lose your licence", and they're allowing discretion and not taking your licence until they've caught you 6 times.

That's not true at all.

yoshytoshy

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

There is tolerance.

If you break the speed limit (perhaps by mistake) and get caught doing it, you get an affordable fine and a couple of points.

You don't lose your license unless you keep doing it (and are caught) and you rack up too many points.

There are people who have been fined several times for going slightly over the speed limit and I know they don't speed. They just happen to be looking at the road while driving.

Most people don't keep looking at their speed dial ,they keep their eye on the road.

Iwannahurl

-Chris- wrote: »

I feel it's very important to allow some form of discretion in the application of any law. If you apply zero tolerance then the resentment and possible backlash are harmful to your ability to apply the rule in future.

If something is fair and reasonable, then every reasonable person will support it and peer pressure will have more of an effect than the deterrent of law.

Think of the blood alcohol limit, drink driving has arguably reduced more due to social pressure than legal enforcement. If you reduced the limit to zero and gave anyone with *any* level of alcohol in their blood a month's ban, people would start to rebel, would turn against law enforcement, and would move towards the "good on you, you got away with it. Sod them f*ckers" mentality.

Then the only people stopped from drink driving would be those who were caught, versus the current situation of people being stopped from drink driving by their friends (or even innocent bystanders).

The applies to the speed cameras IMHO. If they're parked in reasonable positions, and issue fines to speeders (with a reasonable level of discretion), they'll cause a reduction in speed generally with the resultant reduction in speed related deaths and injuries.
In this instance people would see the statistics and the drop in death rate, and would say "God, these speed cameras are great, they're keeping us safe. Maybe Gay Byrne was right all this time and we should be driving slower".
If, however, the letter of the law is applied in all circumstances (or a very small level of discretion), and the vans are positioned in places that are perceived to be "fish in a barrel" locations, then people will perceive them as unfair, will start to rebel against them, and you'll see more news reports of vans being set alight or otherwise damaged.

It's all my €0.02 of course, but I doubt I'm far wrong.

Who gets to decide what is "fair and reasonable"? I haven't followed this particular aspect of the speed camera discussion in detail, but AFAIK some degree of leeway is already built into the system. Personally I am not unduly concerned though. 9 kph above the speed limit is what it is.

Maybe the most reasonable response is to habitually stay (a similar amount?) under the limit. There is no compelling argument for wanting to exceed the limit routinely in order to avoid some supposed backlash.

There is no compelling argument for wanting a more relaxed regime in relation to blood alcohol levels for driving either. As with speed, there is a well-established dose-response relationship between BAC and accident risk. IMO where such a strong causal relationship is established beyond doubt, then rigorous enforcement is fully justified.

In any case, we already have at least one prominent example of an all-or-nothing approach to regulation and enforcement in this country: the workplace smoking ban. There are no half measures, and infringements are rare AFAIK.



EDIT: By the way, my own view would be that greater powers for AGS in relation to drink driving are more important than social attitudes. Enact the right laws, then enforce those laws and people's behaviour changes, followed soon after by their attitudes.

Guy:Incognito

yoshytoshy wrote: »

There are people who have been fined several times for going slightly over the speed limit and I know they don't speed. They just happen to be looking at the road while driving.

Most people don't keep looking at their speed dial ,they keep their eye on the road.

How slight is "slightly"?