On 28 July, 10:30, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:
Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

[snip]
The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted
the perception of what is safe. *As far as the cameras are concerned
an idiot driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving
all over the road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady
60mph on a road designed for 70+ but somebody has decided to
designated as a 50 limit for no logical reason is defined as driving
dangerously.

Cameras do not pass judgments about what is safe. They are not
intelligent entities.

I never said they were.

You may like to read the first clause of your second sentence, which
looks like a well-constructed set of words that is arguing for the
cameras passing a judgment; if one substituted the word "Johnson" for
the word "camera" it would certainly read as a comment about Johnson's
judgment.

Speed cameras, like many other automated processes, make decisions based on a
previously defined sets of circumstances. *In this case IF vx THEN take
picture. *Making such decisions does not infer that the machinery involved is
intelligent. *As the cameras are, alledgedly, to enforce safe behaviour then
the decision process programmed into them can be presumed to be intended to
choose between safe/not safe. *Therefore, as far as the camera's programmed
instructions are concerned, IF vx THEN the vehicle is being driven safely.

No, the cameras are there to enforce the speed limit. That is all they
do. Someone could be driving their car sideways, but within the limit.
It's your assumption or the assertion of others that cameras monitor
safety. And it's a flawed way of looking at it.

The point I was labouriously trying to make is that reliance on detection and
punishment of a single factor by automated means because it is an easy and
cheap, or even profitable, way of policing the roads is not the best option
available. *Especially when the factor being detected is responsible for a
very small percentage of accidents overall.

I have sufficient years of driving experience to say that most drivers
do something unsafe or illegal at some stage of their driving careers.
The only way such things are going to be stamped out is for everyone to
be followed by a traffic cop. But since that isn't going to happen, then
the police are perfectly entitled to use technology to enforce clearly
defined rules. If there is a 50 limit, then someone driving at 55 has
violated it. That's clear. The question is, does it matter? If so, then
it's right to punish the offender. That's what speed cameras do, and
they do it dispassionately, and impartially (though as you indicate
below, incompletely). Similarly, cameras can catch people who go through
traffic lights on the red phase. Similarly, some cameras can be used to
look for number plates of stolen or other cars that should not be on the
road. Each different type of camera is looking for a different type of
offence. Any link to safety is a side-effect. It's the going through a
red light that is the offence, irrespective of whether there is any
transverse traffic through the junction at the time.

You may be perfectly right in saying that those who perceive the cameras
as enforcing safety are being lulled into a false sense of security, but
that's a problem of their perception (and yours, it seems) but not
everyone sees things in the same way.

Further the system is manifestly weighted against the private motorist as
against other road users. *A speed camera on a 70mph dual carriageway will
detect a motorist exceding the speed limit by 8mph but will not detect a
white van exceding the speed limit by 15mph or an HGV exceding the speed
limit by 20mph. (assuming the camera is set for the 10% allowed error of the
speedometers)

That's undeniable. It's not that much different from the general law
enforcement case, though, is it. Some people are caught. Others go
unpunished.

--http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632947.html
(43 044 at London Kings Cross, Aug 1985)

Cameras on the M4 trial can discriminate between classes of vehicles
and are combined speed detection/ANPR devices.