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:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

It is still a simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

I'm not arguing for anything. Cameras are devices to take pictures.
These particular cameras only do so if they detect speeding vehicles.
What more need be said? What questions do you think need be asked?

Did you not read the next para?

Apparently so, given that I responded to it. I didn't see any questions,
only statements. So, again, what questions are you talking about?

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.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683638.html
(50478 (Class 104) at Southport, 29 Sep 1979)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:44:46 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
wrote:

I suspect the Taxpayer’s Alliance primary objection to speed cameras
is more down to the revenue raising aspects rather than perceptions on
safety.

Which is interesting, as one would think therefore that speed cameras
would be profitable[1]. It seems, however, that the ones in
Oxfordshire are not. Perhaps they are too successful?

[1] It certainly seems to sit right to me in one way that the
financial cost of punishing people for committing crimes should fall
on those committing the crimes, though it isn't necessarily practical.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

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.

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.

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)

--
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/

On 27 July, 12:18, "Recliner" wrote:
"Graeme" wrote in message







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

Neil Williams wrote:

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only
seem to cause panic braking. *If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so
they'll all be turned off...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all,
given how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising
money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of
speed cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. *While some may
appear to be effective one has to take into account other changes
that were made at the same time, a factor that is ignored by the
so-called safety-camera activists.

A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that
anyone who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.

Near where I live, there was a fatal accident a couple of years ago, on
a straight road, approaching a set of traffic lights, in broad daylight,
with clear visibility. An elderly lady motorist in a very ordinary car
managed to run over and kill two other elderly lady pedestrians on the
pavement. Her car was so badly damaged that the roof had to be cut off
and she was helicoptered to hospital.

Why would such an unlikely accident happen (assuming it wasn't some an
ancient vendetta between the ladies in question)? *One possible
explanation may be the speed camera she had just driven past, which may
well have distracted her, especially if she had just been flashed.

But I bet this never got recorded as an accident possibly caused by a
speed camera. Certainly, I can't remember there ever having been a fatal
accident on that stretch of road before the camera was installed.

During trials with the cameras we installed the so-called distraction
factor was tested. No matter what speed and how the mirrors were
adjusted, the "flash" was barely discernible. Remember our aim was to
reduce accidents. There were no revenue considerations. Later cameras
have done away with the flash. I've attended many similar accidents to
that described, straight roads, no readily available cause, but apart
from one genuine mechanical fault, in every other case the cause was
obvious. Poor driving. Just today going along the M4 a professional
driver in her artic managed to drive across the hard shoulder and onto
the French Drain sending stones across all three lanes. Fortunately no
cars broken down on the hard shoulder. It will take just one accident
on the A40 near Barnard Gate, where excess speed has introduced enough
energy to turn a damage only or a minor injury RTA into a fatal, and
the £600,000 saving will become a loss of £200,000 (minimum) to the
local public purse. The average motorist has little understanding of
why speed limits are introduced. Historical data relating to accidents
and their causes are employed and then "Marksman" is employed to
measure actual speeds to supply data as to how many vehicles are being
driven at speeds considered excessive for the conditions. Observation
skills when driving rarely match the speeds being attained and overall
ability relies on that observation. Speed limits are set to take
account of those less capable drivers. I've had it up to here with
members of the ABD and the taxpayers alliance complaining that police
hide behind bushes and "leap out" with their speed guns. We never
needed to. Park up in a big red and white Rover or Granada , stand
beside it in full view wearing relective equipment and employing
either Truvelo or Gatso and within minutes there would be a queue of
offenders being processed by several officers. That is why it takes
several officers at one speed check, the drivers would be waiting
forever to be processed. If they failed to see us stood in the open
like that, what about the paperboy on his bike just after sunrise, or
the child going to school against a low winter sun. People fail to
drive within their abilities and also fail to take account of
conditions. Cameras cannot stop that, but they can, and do limit the
consequences of accidents by lowering speeds at particular locations.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:27:28 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:21:29 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:12:29 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:53:13 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

The joys of Milton Keynes...long may the national speed limit prevail.
While 60/70mph is a bit fast for a good part of the grid, it is nice
to be able to drive at your chosen safe speed without having to pay
religious attention to the speedometer in preference to the road. And
you find, generally speaking, that people do not act dangerously
(though the prevailing high speeds are perhaps unsettling to those
unfamiliar with the area) and that because there are few or no
unnecessary lower limits people tend to respect them.


The single biggest contribution Milton Keynes could make to reducing
its CO2 emissions would be to impose blanket speed limits within MK of
50 mph on dual carriageways and 40 mph on single carriageway roads,
with lower local limits as they are now. The idea of allowing people
to drive at 60 or 70 mph through the city

Town!


OK, the town that thinks it's a city. ;-)

Bletchley-sur-Ouzel ?

" gurgled
happily, sounding much like they were saying:

During trials with the cameras we installed the so-called distraction
factor was tested. No matter what speed and how the mirrors were
adjusted, the "flash" was barely discernible.

So the deterrent effect of a live camera is solely that of a letter in
the post a week later? No deterrent there and then at all?

I've attended many similar accidents to
that described, straight roads, no readily available cause, but apart
from one genuine mechanical fault, in every other case the cause was
obvious. Poor driving.

So nothing that a speed camera is going to do anything whatsoever about?

Just today going along the M4 a professional
driver in her artic managed to drive across the hard shoulder and onto
the French Drain sending stones across all three lanes.

Considering HGVs are physically restricted to below the legal speed
limit, and that that limit is below that of cars - and thereby speed
cameras - again, it's nothing that speed cameras can or will do anything
about.

It will take just one accident on the A40 near Barnard Gate, where
excess speed has introduced enough energy to turn a damage only or a
minor injury RTA into a fatal

So should the speed limit be inversely related to the mass of the
vehicle, since that is a key factor in the amount of energy involved in a
collision?

and then "Marksman" is employed to measure actual
speeds to supply data as to how many vehicles are being driven at speeds
considered excessive for the conditions.

Not for the limit, then?

Speed limits are set to take account of those less capable drivers.

Remind me when the default NSL and the default 30 limit were set?

Park up in a big red and white Rover or Granada

THAT long ago, eh?

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:44:57 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:27:28 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:21:29 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:12:29 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
The single biggest contribution Milton Keynes could make to reducing
its CO2 emissions would be to impose blanket speed limits within MK of
50 mph on dual carriageways and 40 mph on single carriageway roads,
with lower local limits as they are now. The idea of allowing people
to drive at 60 or 70 mph through the city

Town!


OK, the town that thinks it's a city. ;-)

Bletchley-sur-Ouzel ?


I can think of worse names. ;-)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:36:45 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:44:46 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
wrote:

I suspect the Taxpayer’s Alliance primary objection to speed cameras
is more down to the revenue raising aspects rather than perceptions on
safety.

Which is interesting, as one would think therefore that speed cameras
would be profitable[1]. It seems, however, that the ones in
Oxfordshire are not. Perhaps they are too successful?


When central government paid for the cameras, and local authorities
got the cameras free and kept the proceeds from the fines levied,
speed cameras were very "profitable" for those local authorities.

Now that central government funding has been slashed and all the fines
go to the Treasury rather than being kept by the local authorities,
the camera are no longer "profitable" for those local authorities. So
their "missionary zeal" (which was probably motivated by greed) has
begun to evaporate rather quickly.

On 27/07/2010 12:35, Recliner wrote:
"Chris (ukonline really) wrote in
message
Graeme wrote:

In
Chris (ukonline really)
wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only
seem to cause panic braking. If Oxfordshire are cutting funding
so they'll all be turned off...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all,
given how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising
money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

I'm not sure that helps answer the point. Turning the cameras off
because the Treasury won't pay will result in the Treasury not getting
the money in. The only real question is whether the income is more or
less than the funding, whoever actually pays it. If indeed it is a
cost-effective measure, then it can only be because the cameras raise
less money than they cost to install and operate, which blows the
money-raising argument out of the water. If, OTOH, they raise more
money than they cost, then the treasury should continue funding them,
because its money will come back with interest.

I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.



It must cost a bit replacing the ones that have been torched along the
A40

G

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)