Roadside cameras to catch drivers using their mobile phones

One way to slow people down would be to confiscate their vehicles for speeding, whatever vehicle it is, and crush or destroy it. I have always thought that would be fair enough. After all a wealthy person drives round in an expensive vehicle, and a poor person in something less expensive (on average), and those who drive for a living are not going to keep their jobs long if the boss'es vehicles keep getting destroyed, so it would work alround!

Only a thought. Fredrik

quote:

Only a thought. Fredrik

I'm glad it's only a thought, Frederik.

quote:

Just copy and paste em onto a letter, find out the address of the local police headquarters, send the bloody thing in and ask for stats etc as to why camera's are there.

I might have to alter one part of it as it may be slightly self incriminating. Whilst I doubt they'd prosecute on the basis of such a confession, I don't want to draw too much attention...

quote:

You imply that you don't 'actually' know why?!? Assumptions don't help arguments, or sway opinions.

They assume that cameras save lives even though evidence suggests they don't.

quote:

Don't diss until you have actually been fobbed off - you lower yourself to other's levels, Steve.

As I said above, when I've finished my little battle with the Head of Environmental Health of my local council I shall move onto to Staffs Camera Pratnership.

quote:

Oh, and b4 you fire back, a similar debate over on PFM caused me to make a phone call, if you remember, and come back with facts. I made said call as I was intrigued re the claims made...

A few facts on Staffordshire:

Fatalities since 1999:

1999 - 55

2000 - 69

2001 - 85

2002 - 62

2003 - 78

2004 - 77

The Staffs Scamera pratnership were refered to the Advertising Standards Authority last year after an ad posted on the back of buses stated that they were saving lives every year.

Staffordshire has 267 cameras, 7.2% of all the UK's cameras despite only having 1.4% of the population. Most of the cameras were installed in 2000.

Fredrik,

Your suggestion would still cost money, and that money would have to come from somewhere!

quote:

They assume that cameras save lives even though evidence suggests they don't.

Again, soz for being repetitive, but you need to show that on the roads where camera's are, fatalities and AIC's have gone up, not just in general, steve.

The stats you publish do prove one thing tho - in the immortal words of Rolf 'D u know what it is, yet?'

i would be intrigued to see the stats for 'before and after' in relation to the specific roads you mention in relation to the imposition of camera's. The camera partnership should make that public, in accordance with their guidelines!

andy c!

Dear Friends,

Would somebody propose me as Transport Minister (a Blair Peerage would by-pass the un-necessary inconvienience of a democratic process), and someone else second the motion.

Then we could sort this out forever. There must be countries which allow speeding, and we could deport the buggers there, maybe with a bit of a sleazy aid programme to grease the passage of the agreement with an equally dodgy government of the selected country... Real Politic. I am surprised Blair has not already done it. Does he read this Forum? Watch this space!



All the best from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Do away with monetary punishments?
What would you replace it with that would work?
Hwo would you fund it? How would you convince folk to pay up for whatever enforcement/education etc???

Oh, and you are right to measure this in lives. That is a very purist notion, and you know what i could follow that up with?!?

The camera partnerships could be funded through local taxation.
NO I hear you all shout, but tell me, who pays for murderers and paedophiles to be kept at her majesty's pleasure?
Anyone caught speeding should be made to resit their driving test, which should take a few off the road.
At the end of the day people are not going to stop speeding, the ones caught are going to pay up, maybe not, but does it solve the problem? no.
Speed cameras are meant to be so important in that they allegedly save lives, as I keep saying, let's see a total crusade in saving lives, let's see cancer sticks made illegal, then I might believe the hogwash about the safety benefits of speed cameras.
Anyone got the daily mail today? page 5?
SPEED GUNS DO LIE.
Have a read, interesting.

quote:

SPEED GUNS DO LIE.

NOT IN ALL CASES.

Oh, and not all speed devices are just revenue earners - some of them have indirectly reduced crashes. Oh, and while your at it, why should I pay the fine, indirectly or otherwise, just 'cos someone else cannot control their speed?

I begrudge paying for health care for folk suffering after smoking, but I'll rely on edcuation plus non-smoking law to start sorting that out.

Andy

I think you are wasting your time and you are entrenched in a defensive position over a subject which requires no debate.

If you are daft enough to speed you stand a good chance of being caught. We all know the rules, so end of discussion.

Finally, you have to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to suggest the speed guns are inherently faulty.

If you are caught ....... tough.

Regards

Mick

quote:

I think you are wasting your time and you are entrenched in a defensive position over a subject which requires no debate.

Mick,

I see your point, but I don't totally agree. Half the issue is with being open and honest re use of such measures. The easiest way is to explain what is being done, and why.

Then, if folk don't understand, that's one thing. If they also then don'taccept it, that's entirely another.

One thing I'd don't have is the luxury of being generalistic. I also don't wear carte blanche comments without stats to back it up. Neither do I totally believe some of what certain elements of the press report.

Please note these comments are my personal views.

Oh, and to be controversial, if by having to report someone for speeding has in some way achieved preventing a person being injured or worse, what price do you put on that?

regards

andy c!

Mick,

There is still that direct relationship between the actual limit being set and the means of enforcing it.

For me, that is the issue.

Speed limits have come down and lowered limits extended over greater distances than necessary to rake in cash.

I'd have no issue with cameras if these three entities were made completely independent of each other:

1) Those who set the speed limits ( Highways Agency).

2) Those who decide where the cameras are installed (Partnership).

3) Those who receive the revenue from the cameras (Treasury).

Camera partnerships (2) should receive payouts from the government according to a reduction in the total number of deaths per year in any given local authority. Thus Staffs pratnership would currently receive the square root of fuck all.

At the moment the above three are controlled by one body serving as judge, jury and executioner. An incentive to place revenue as #1 priority is invitable (with a few vague guidelines to keep mass revolt at bay.) To maximise revenue, inappropriate limits need to be set and cameras placed in safe locations where drivers are most likely to ignore the limits imposed.

Mick,

If we sit back and take the attitude that I'm ok, I'm smart enough to stick to all the limits etc then the limits will continue to come down to the point that we'll be required to go everywhere in reverse gear. I'm also smart enough to keep my eye out fort speeed limit signs in that my licence is still clean. However, I can't do the driving all of the time for my nearest and dearest who frequently get caught out by the yo-yo of speed limits - especially after the lights turn green. (I bet even you have wondered what the speed limit was just after the traffic lights had changed on the odd occasion...)

Think not just of yourself Mick, be a little less selfish and think of others. Being glib about speed limit imposition and enforcement does not count as consideration for your fellow human beings when it is clear that there is little or no safety benefit.

quote:

Oh, and to be controversial, if by having to report someone for speeding has in some way achieved preventing a person being injured or worse, what price do you put on that?

If having to report someone for dangerous driving that may involve excess speed...

Agreed.

Having to report someone for speeding 4 times past the same spot in 1 day following the introduction of a new lowered limit of which they are unaware so they lose their licence, mobility, job and possibly marriage. What price do you put on that?

Steven

It is selfish to speed........period.

If you speed, accept the punishment and shut up.

Any means of detection is fair game.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Having to report someone for speeding 4 times past the same spot in 1 day following the introduction of a new lowered limit of which they are unaware so they lose their licence, mobility, job and possibly marriage. What price do you put on that?

Steve,

to be pedantic if you are unaware of the speed limit on a given road the highway code is clear about what you should do, is it not? Stick to the lower limit until u can confirm otherwise.

This argument is not the same as what speed limit should be set for a particular road etc. On this issue this is where i feel your questions should be baseed when you ask whoever... not that you cannot understand what the limit is on a certain road IMV.

Off to the pub now.

A pleasant evening to you all.

regards

andy c!

Ps - getting there and back in a taxi!

What will you do or say if the taxi driver starts speeding?

Please slow down. I am nervous passenger! Fredrik

quote:

Any means of detection is fair game.

Again, the means of detection isn't the issue I raised. It's the relationship between the method of detection and the limit being set that I am concerned about. Those in charge of enforcement have a financial interest in lowering the limit to maximise the revenue.

Surely, limit setting, enforcement and revenue collection should be undertaken respectively by three bodies independent of each other. Do you not agree?

quote:

Stick to the lower limit until u can confirm otherwise.

I was refering to speed limits that have been recently lowered. This is particularly a problem when the limit drops from 40 to 30 and all that is done to inform drivers of the change is that the 40 and repeater signs just mysteriously disappear. I know of a copper who landed 60 quid and 3 points in this way. If coppers fall into such a trap then God help the rest of us!

It's like playing that game in puzzle magazines where you spot the difference between two pictures.

quote:

What will you do or say if the taxi driver starts speeding?

TRUE STORY:

"Don't worry, there's no film in that camera at the top of the hill. I should know, I'm a copper"

"I'll slow down anyway, not that I don't trust you..." was my reply.

Mind you, that was in the days before camera partnerships and when the cameras were actually managed by the police.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

quote:

SPEED GUNS DO LIE.

NOT IN ALL CASES.

Oh, and not all speed devices are just revenue earners - some of them have indirectly reduced crashes. Oh, and while your at it, why should I pay the fine, indirectly or otherwise, just 'cos someone else cannot control their speed?

I begrudge paying for health care for folk suffering after smoking, but I'll rely on edcuation plus non-smoking law to start sorting that out.

You know? I do not know what it is, but when in conversation with a bobby there appears only one person who is right, and god help you when you are pulled over and you see that there are two of the buggers......
Anyway.....

" NOT IN ALL CASES."

But would you concede in some?
So the cameras are " inhererently " capable of failure to record the facts? true?

" Oh, and not all speed devices are just revenue earners - some of them have indirectly reduced crashes. "

If a speed device, as in a speed camera, whether hand held by an officer or a gatso is not a revenue earner, it would not be there in the first place?
But I concede that the slow down advisory signs are not directly revenue earners.
Some of them have reduced crashes?
All we are looking at here is figures from one year to another?
If for example the speed limit on a road had been 70 miles per hour, and during that year there were say 50 accidents on that road in total, then the following year the speed was reduced to 40 miles per hour would the lower imposition of speed guarantee a return of a lower accident level? I do not fully agree, because there are more factors in the equation than speed, you arrive at 3 when you add 1 and 2 together.

" Oh, and while your at it, why should I pay the fine, indirectly or otherwise, just 'cos someone else cannot control their speed?"


I again would concede that one, why should you?
Why should I?
It could be said why should I pay taxes to keep a paedophile alive in jail because he or she cannot control their urges? to me it is no different.


" I begrudge paying for health care for folk suffering after smoking, but I'll rely on edcuation plus non-smoking law to start sorting that out"

And me too, I begrudge paying for health care for folk who contract something nasty but it could also be argued that they pay a lot of tax on the product, interestingly on this one I read a while back the figures, I do not know what they are now, but the bottom line was that the treasury gets more revenue in with regard smoking than is actually paid out in treating people with smoking related illness, so on this one the government are, or when I read it were in profit, by the way I do not smoke.
Back to the point, if a persons job and living is taken away because a bobbys hand moves less than the width of a human hair when he/she is tracking a vehicle is that fair? if it is only one person who loses their licence and living through this mistake is it fair? but the thing is the hand held ones are not the only criminals here the gatso's are too, if the gatso sees two cars in line mistakes for an hgv and flashes for the lower speed of the hgv?
It is not only one motorist we are talking about andy, it is a shed load, and that cannot be right.
Just to add before I wash my hands of this one because it does get a bit repetetive, how do I see the issue solved if cameras are not used to enforce the limits?
Here we go... because obviously now we are more controlled in this country than ever before, that may be to some people's liking, it is not to mine and I do not even have a criminal record, hold on hands up! that packet of kit kats I swiped when I was about 12....
ID cards will more than likely come into circulation, whether a person accepts the invitation to carry one is up to them, and this is another thing, mr terrorist could be walking onto a tube train when he is spotted by a bobby, who does not know he is a terrorist, and little known to the bobby he has a load of semtex strapped around his waist.
" May I see your ID card sir? " politely asks the officer.
" I do not have it on me at the moment officer " the guy replies.
" Thats quite alright sir, take it to your nearest police station within 7 days, thankyou for your time sir "
That is just one flaw in the ID card idea.
Back to speeding, eventually all new cars will be built with systems in that are tracked by a satelite, your car will have a type of sat nav system in that will know the speed limits of every road in britain and ireland, your car will not be able to exceed these limits, the technology will also allow for updates of the speed limits to allow for roadworks, temporary or otherwise, when that time comes I will buy a pedal bike

quote:

But would you concede in some?

Van,

it seems we agree on some things, then.

I agree that what should happen is some honesty and transparency re stats re what results have happened pre and post installation of camera's, whether mobile or static, in reducing AIC's. Also what needs to happen is someone to own up and accept that, if the stats show no reduction after installation of said camera, then other options should be considered. Realistically tho an assessment of location causation factors should be taken into account before said device is installed?!?

I also agree that this topic is getting repetitive, when in reality I am faced with far more serious matters at work to deal with every day.

Correct operation of an LTI 2020 is all that is needed. I have used one, and operated it correctly, too. If the official not operating the device correctly keeps this quiet, that is not acceptable IMV.

A more interesting topic for me at the moment is lack of parental responsibility for teenagers causing anti-social behaviour!

andy c!

PS - your talking to the cops comment - try turning that round a bit sometimes - folk do try to get out of stuff when they have been caught bang to rights too, you know.

You are all responsible for the current deplorable state of affairs in the country with the continuing intrusiveness of the state into our private lives by voting for "control freak" politicians.

Take a listen to the BBC Radio 4 program - A Point of View from today - use the listen again web site and then let a cold shiver of reality hit you as you realise that we all are being manipulated into drones with no freedom of will or action

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

quote:

But would you concede in some?

Van,

it seems we agree on some things, then.

I agree that what should happen is some honesty and transparency re stats re what results have happened pre and post installation of camera's, whether mobile or static, in reducing AIC's. Also what needs to happen is someone to own up and accept that, if the stats show no reduction after installation of said camera, then other options should be considered. Realistically tho an assessment of location causation factors should be taken into account before said device is installed?!?

I also agree that this topic is getting repetitive, when in reality I am faced with far more serious matters at work to deal with every day.

Correct operation of an LTI 2020 is all that is needed. I have used one, and operated it correctly, too. If the official not operating the device correctly keeps this quiet, that is not acceptable IMV.

A more interesting topic for me at the moment is lack of parental responsibility for teenagers causing anti-social behaviour!

andy c!

PS - your talking to the cops comment - try turning that round a bit sometimes - folk do try to get out of stuff when they have been caught bang to rights too, you know.

" I also agree that this topic is getting repetitive, when in reality I am faced with far more serious matters at work to deal with every day."

I sincerely agree there, same can be said in my situation.


" PS - your talking to the cops comment - try turning that round a bit sometimes - folk do try to get out of stuff when they have been caught bang to rights too, you know."


I am sure they do, I have no qualms whatsoever, if I do something and i'm in the wrong I accept the payback, it is hard to swallow I know, but maybe a learning process which even at the age I am I am still going through, anyone say they're not!
Anti social behaviour? we have that around here too, at the local shop they have taken to playing classical music to try and solve the problem, the only thing it is doing is causing queue's at hmv's classical department

Eee it's nearly a group hug moment, is that, Van!

Andy,

I've rarely had issues with the police. I think there should be more of them and fewer robots managed by wankers who say,

"If you keep that limit at 50 the camera won't even make enough to pay for its upkeep. Drop the limit to 30 and we will rake it in."

quote:

A more interesting topic for me at the moment is lack of parental responsibility for teenagers causing anti-social behaviour!

Agreed. Junior chavs seem to wander the streets in droves and wait on street corners or outside shops on council estates, waiting for the candyman to arrive in his BMW 3 Series with blacked-out windows and different number plates each time.

The drug-related antisocial behaviour amongst teenagers is rarely challenged by the police who seem only interested in getting the guy at the top of the chain. The problem with this strategy is that one supplier is soon replaced by another...

The cops should surely start at the bottom with the users and work their way up in order that the market for addictive and illegal substances is removed. Get rid of the demand and the supply will surely wither away.

I agree with curfews for under 18s who should be permitted to travel to and from friends' houses but not assemble or loiter in groups of more than three after dark.

quote:

You are all responsible for the current deplorable state of affairs in the country with the continuing intrusiveness of the state into our private lives by voting for "control freak" politicians.

I didn't vote for them and neither did the majority of people living in England.

Steve - did you listen to the program - you might find it interesting and supporting some of your views.

quote:

Agreed. Junior chavs seem to wander the streets in droves and wait on street corners or outside shops on council estates, waiting for the candyman to arrive in his BMW 3 Series with blacked-out windows and different number plates each time.

The drug-related antisocial behaviour amongst teenagers is rarely challenged by the police who seem only interested in getting the guy at the top of the chain. The problem with this strategy is that one supplier is soon replaced by another...

The cops should surely start at the bottom with the users and work their way up in order that the market for addictive and illegal substances is removed. Get rid of the demand and the supply will surely wither away.

I agree with curfews for under 18s who should be permitted to travel to and from friends' houses but not assemble or loiter in groups of more than three after dark.

Interesting view. I again need to say that in my part of the world both ends of the drug chain are tackled, although the success level is difficult to measure. let us also remember it's not just the police that assist re drug use, health and social services also do good work re cell intervention etc. Also interesting is the requirement for compulsory drug testing on arrest for certain aquisitve crimes - controversial but already having a profound effect.

Am away now until the end of the week. Y'all play nicely till i get back, won't u?