Adrian wrote:

Considering HGVs are physically restricted to below the legal speed
limit

Some might be. Clearly not all are. I have been overtaken on the M6 by
an HGV while doing 70mph (as measured by GPS, not speedo).
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683854.html
(159 017 at Woking, 17 Jan 1998)

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:

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.

That is what they are marketed as.


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.

[snip]

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.

Why should it be mine? I don't believe the cameras have more than a
peripheral effect on road safety.


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.


It is a lot different in that the chance of getting caught is weighted in
favour(?) of one group of potential offenders.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

Chris Tolley (ukonline really) writes:

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.

But as has already been pointed out, the speed limit can depend of the
class of vehicle. Speed cameras only enforce the speed limit for those
vehicles subject to the highest limit at that location. So if a vehicle
is travelling faster than the limit which applies to it but slower than
the limit which applies to the least restricted class of vehicle, the
camera will not detect that is exceeding its maximum permitted
speed.

Chris Tolley (ukonline really) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

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.

I think you might find you're agreeing with him, y'know.

Graham Murray wrote:

Chris Tolley (ukonline really) writes:

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.

But as has already been pointed out, the speed limit can depend of the
class of vehicle. Speed cameras only enforce the speed limit for those
vehicles subject to the highest limit at that location. So if a vehicle
is travelling faster than the limit which applies to it but slower than
the limit which applies to the least restricted class of vehicle, the
camera will not detect that is exceeding its maximum permitted
speed.

And? (given that this point has already been dealt with lower down the
same message that you replied to)


--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632929.html
(D213 at Tyseley, 4 Oct 1987)

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:
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.

That is what they are marketed as.

That'll be the assertion of others I was talking about.

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.

[snip]

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.

Why should it be mine? I don't believe the cameras have more than a
peripheral effect on road safety.

Ah. I had been interpreting your repeated remarks about safety as if you
believed that was what hey were there for.

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.

It is a lot different in that the chance of getting caught is weighted in
favour(?) of one group of potential offenders.

One could argue the other way too, in that big vehicles have
tachographs, while small ones don't. I was once aboard a coach on the
A12 that was flagged down by a police officer who then boarded it,
looked at the recording, and issued a ticket accordingly.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857128.html
(08 724 at Stratford Depot, 4 Jul 1981)

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:
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.

That is what they are marketed as.

That'll be the assertion of others I was talking about.

So you agree with me?


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.

[snip]

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.

Why should it be mine? I don't believe the cameras have more than a
peripheral effect on road safety.

Ah. I had been interpreting your repeated remarks about safety as if you
believed that was what hey were there for.

You obviously haven't read my comments that closely.


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.

It is a lot different in that the chance of getting caught is weighted in
favour(?) of one group of potential offenders.

One could argue the other way too, in that big vehicles have
tachographs, while small ones don't. I was once aboard a coach on the
A12 that was flagged down by a police officer who then boarded it,
looked at the recording, and issued a ticket accordingly.


Techographs can be tampered with and if you are totally reliant on cameras to
enforce speed limits there won't be any police officers around to flag down
errant HGVs/PSVs. Which is exactly what has been happening. And white van
man gets away with it both ways.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

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:
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.

That is what they are marketed as.

That'll be the assertion of others I was talking about.

So you agree with me?

I'm taking your word on the marketing. I'm not assenting to the
proposition that cameras monitor safety. Pick the bones out of that as
you wish.

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.

[snip]

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.

Why should it be mine? I don't believe the cameras have more than a
peripheral effect on road safety.

Ah. I had been interpreting your repeated remarks about safety as if you
believed that was what hey were there for.

You obviously haven't read my comments that closely.

I've read what I've read most closely. But I haven't read all of your
comments to everyone else.

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.

It is a lot different in that the chance of getting caught is weighted in
favour(?) of one group of potential offenders.

One could argue the other way too, in that big vehicles have
tachographs, while small ones don't. I was once aboard a coach on the
A12 that was flagged down by a police officer who then boarded it,
looked at the recording, and issued a ticket accordingly.

Techographs can be tampered with and if you are totally reliant on cameras to
enforce speed limits there won't be any police officers around to flag down
errant HGVs/PSVs. Which is exactly what has been happening. And white van
man gets away with it both ways.

Any particular reason for making the same point after it has already
been acknowledged? It sounds like you are trying to convince me that
just because a system can't do everything, it shouldn't do anything.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683850.html
(159 004 at Reading, 7 Jun 1995)

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:
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.

That is what they are marketed as.

That'll be the assertion of others I was talking about.

So you agree with me?

I'm taking your word on the marketing. I'm not assenting to the proposition
that cameras monitor safety. Pick the bones out of that as you wish.

In other words you agree with me.


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.

[snip]

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.

Why should it be mine? I don't believe the cameras have more than a
peripheral effect on road safety.

Ah. I had been interpreting your repeated remarks about safety as if
you believed that was what hey were there for.

You obviously haven't read my comments that closely.

I've read what I've read most closely. But I haven't read all of your
comments to everyone else.

I thought I'd always made it clear that I don't buy into the 'speed cameras
are there just for safety' arguement.


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.

It is a lot different in that the chance of getting caught is
weighted in favour(?) of one group of potential offenders.

One could argue the other way too, in that big vehicles have
tachographs, while small ones don't. I was once aboard a coach on the
A12 that was flagged down by a police officer who then boarded it,
looked at the recording, and issued a ticket accordingly.

Techographs can be tampered with and if you are totally reliant on
cameras to enforce speed limits there won't be any police officers around
to flag down errant HGVs/PSVs. Which is exactly what has been happening.
And white van man gets away with it both ways.

Any particular reason for making the same point after it has already been
acknowledged?

You were the one that introduced tachographs into the discussion. I was
merely answering that point.

It sounds like you are trying to convince me that just because a system
can't do everything, it shouldn't do anything.


I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion. Despite your earlier
protestations you don't seem to be understanding the point I have been
making.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:
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.

It is a lot different in that the chance of getting caught is
weighted in favour(?) of one group of potential offenders.

One could argue the other way too, in that big vehicles have
tachographs, while small ones don't. I was once aboard a coach on the
A12 that was flagged down by a police officer who then boarded it,
looked at the recording, and issued a ticket accordingly.

Techographs can be tampered with and if you are totally reliant on
cameras to enforce speed limits there won't be any police officers around
to flag down errant HGVs/PSVs. Which is exactly what has been happening.
And white van man gets away with it both ways.

Any particular reason for making the same point after it has already been
acknowledged?

You were the one that introduced tachographs into the discussion. I was
merely answering that point.

Indeed. It took you five words. I was talking about the sixth and
subsequent.

It sounds like you are trying to convince me that just because a system
can't do everything, it shouldn't do anything.

I fail to see how you arrive at that conclusion.

I can't see any other reason that you would repeat the point about HGVs
PSVs and Mr W Van. That's why I asked why you repeated yourself when the
points had already been acknowledged.

Despite your earlier protestations you don't seem to be understanding
the point I have been making.

All you seem to have said is that speed cameras don't make roads safer
and they don't catch everyone who is speeding. I have acknowledged the
first point by saying they aren't capable of it and the second by saying
that's life. If you have indicated that you believe that despite these
shortcomings speed cameras do have a role in defending speed limits,
then yes, I have not understood.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633045.html
(47 529 at Peterborough, 1979)