At this rate I'll be banned by the end of November

[Observer]

Re: Re neat gadget to avoid nasty speed tickets.

Yes. I'm sorry Rabbie. I seem to have (mentally) attributed RobbieW's postings to you as well as your own. (Reminder to self: don't assume!) I agree that abusing the police force is not helpful. However, it is, in my view, ALWAYS necessary that law enforcement is undertaken with discretion and regard to the circumstances of the particular case. Speeding is an absolute offence by definition. The enforcement of the law, in this case, need not and should not be absolute. Before the introduction of speed cameras, the law was applied with discretion. Now, largely, it is not. That fact endangers the fundamental requirement in a free society of 'policing by consent'.

With regard to your statement Speed limits are laid down by the legislature, you may not be aware that many, if not most, of the inappropriate speed limits which have appeared around the country have been determined by local authorities without regard for well recognised road safety principles. Road safety, including the setting of appropriate speed limits, is too important to be left to amateurs.

Fianlly, yes my questions are hypothetical. That does not diminish their validity as an illustration of the shallowness of thought which underpins the present obsession with speed enforcement.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

Re: Re neat gadget to avoid nasty speed tickets.

Well said Jimi. The real point to me is that 100% policing by technology is both frightening and utterly futile. It serves only to alienate the normally law-abiding from authority, and nobody reading these threads can argue with that. We're even having a pop at each other!

Can the Cameras

Tom

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Re: Re neat gadget to avoid nasty speed tickets.

Could some one also tell me why all road works have gone down to 40mph, when did that law pass? On an empty motorway for miles and miles of road cones protecting a wheelbarrow as it always seems (anyone ever seen some one working in roadworks?) I am supposed to keep below 40. Unless I pretty much watch the clock permanently I will creep over, very difficult on very wide roads not to.

So, watching the speedo and not the road, yes, the cameras have really created a safe situation.

Does anyone know how many lives have been actually saved by these devices, anyone, anyone?


<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk/TC_IrishCruise_2003_00.html>Irish Cruise</A>

 

[oldharry]

Re: Re neat gadget to avoid nasty speed tickets.

Officer, having just stopped a car for speeding: " Good evening Madam. Do you know why I have stopped you?"

Driver "Yes Officer - I'm the only one you could catch up with"

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldharry]

Re: Re neat gadget to avoid nasty speed tickets.

It is claimed that when speed cameras are installed at accident blackspots there is usually a fall in the number of fatal accidents at that point over the ensuing months. A clear case of 'bikini-ism' (Bikini-ism = reveals a great deal but hides the essential). If there have been say 5 fatalaties per year averaged out over the last 5 years at a particular point, then statistically there should be 2.5 fatalities in the ensuing 6 months. The chances are that most of those 5 fatalities will have occurred in only one or two accidents, so that the chances of 2- 3 fatalties occurring within a 6 month review period are low, and even over the subsequent 5 year period there will be a significant random variation anyway.

Yet this is the basis for the argument for installing these things.

The real and rather frightening statistic is that over 5,500 people have died as a direct result of accidents primarily caused by drivers whose attention was distracted by the presence or operation of a speed camera, and were for example watching to see if the camera flashed them, or watching the speedo rather than the road.

These things are causing more accidents than they prevent.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: Re neat gadget to avoid nasty speed tickets.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

Does anyone know how many lives have been actually saved by these devices, anyone, anyone?

<hr></blockquote>

If you think about it, that question is not capable of being answered conclusively although many so-called "Safety Partnerships" make extravagant claims based on spurious statistics. How can it ever be possible to prove why an accident DID NOT happen?

The fundamental flaw in the speed camera case is that it is based on the premise that "speeding" (meaning speed in excess of the posted limit) is a significant contributory CAUSAL factor in a significant number of road accidents. This premise is not supported by available statistics or by common sense analysis, although the speed enforcement lobby try to tell us otherwise. Research available indicates that "excessive speed" was a contributory factor in about 7.5% of accidents. The speed enforcement lobby added categories such as "following too close" and "misjudged speed and distance" to arrive at a figure of 45%ish for "speed related accidents".

See <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.safespeed.org.uk>http://www.safespeed.org.uk</A> for full analysis.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Re neat gadget to avoid nasty speed tickets.

during a public inquiry for a stopping up order i used the road research laboratory's picady data to demonstrate how raising the speed limit increased the probability of accidents occuring (for vehicles attempting to turn onto that road). this data is recognised (certainly by HM Inspectorate) as being valid and the increase in probability was quite a bit bigger than your figures suggest. the RRL data has been around for years ....


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Chris_Robb]

Re: I was thinking of letting....

Hi Jeremy - who else is in Sothsea Marina?

Chris


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

An interesting article

By Tony Parsons in his column in the Mirror

<font color=blue>Greater Manchester Chief Constable Michael Todd has been the only senior policeman to appreciate the damage that this relentless hounding of motorists is doing to the image and reputation of our police forces.

"It should not be random enforcement," he has told his officers. "Our objective must be safer roads and better driving behaviour, not numbers of prosecutions."

Michael Todd is a cop with imagination and vision.

Last year he switched 200 traffic officers in Manchester to fighting street crime, which immediately fell. When he was at Scotland Yard, Todd moved 300 traffic officers to the street, resulting in the arrest of almost 1,000 muggers.

Todd is not soft on dangerous driving. Nobody would want him to be. Certainly not the majority of those two million drivers who get done for "speeding" every year.
</font color=blue>

For the rest of the article <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.mirror.co.uk/columnists/tonyparsons/tonyparsons/content_objectid=13175160_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-WHY-TRAFFIC-COPS-PLAY-SILLY-BURGLARS--name_page.html>Here</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk/TC_IrishCruise_2003_00.html>Irish Cruise</A>

 

[pugwash]

Excuses

True story from Surrey Traffic Police's log of funny incidents: "Madam, why were you driving so fast?"
"My car was running out of petrol and I was driving fast to get to a petrol station."

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ruthhobson]

Re: An interesting article

I must admit to having a bit of a giggle while you lot have been arguing over this. How would some of you react if we were talking about seamanship rather than road sense?

Would some of you be more likely to abide by a low speed limit while on your boat than when in your car? Do some of you call for stricter enforcement from harbour masters etc - but call the police nazis?

Are some of us guilty of double standards ? I know HWMBO would speed in his car when he thinks its appropriate/safe to do so, but would he disregard a speed limit while afloat? I don't think so. So why is safety and thoughtfulness to others paramount while afloat - and the opposite true of some people when they are on the roads?

Just a thought.

Ruth



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Re: An interesting article

Ah but taking your sentiment, yes people on here have regularly cried about speeding boats, me included, but inappropriate speed. Mostly aimed around anchorages, moorings narrow channels etc. Go into the open sea an open your throttles to 105% if you like, I don't care. But don't make me hit my headling while you scream past at 30kts when I am moored.

Exactly the same as speeding past built up areas, shopping centres, schools etc.

I have not seen one message yet advocating this behaviour. People are fed up with cameras being positioned on dead straight roads in the middle of nowhere with no houses etc. These are not for the safety of the public, they are to generate revenue.

Please do not label me as a hypocite, if I speed down a road where kids are playing I deserve to visit HMP, if I speed though a busy anchorage (highly unlikely) I deserve to be taken to court. I do niether, and I belive most contributing to this thread don't either.

apples and oranges, this is about revinue collection from our Tone.

<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk/TC_IrishCruise_2003_00.html>Irish Cruise</A>

 

[ruthhobson]

Re: An interesting article

I appreciate the point. I suppose that the point is that in the maritime world there are a large number of good citizens who support the laws and its enforcers and would rather things stay that way. While on the roads increasing numbers ignore the law and flaunt them more and more frequently - then wonder why the nature of the policing/enforcement has been changed.

Leading neatly to the debate society gets the police it deserves.

Ruth

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BarryH]

Re: An interesting article

"People are fed up with cameras being positioned on dead straight roads in the middle of nowhere with no houses etc"

I can agree to a point, but what about the ickle fluffy wuffy bunny wabits that you hit! Don't they deserve spme protection from yo mad men motorists.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

Re: Re neat gadget to avoid nasty speed tickets.

Jimi

Just caught the local news. A man in Brighton who allowed his dog to foul was visited by 5 officers. Sadly, none of them had cameras. He was fined £30.

A fast-track spotty inspector was interviewed and told us it was important to realise there were no 999 calls outstanding at the time.

Tom

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by tome on 30/10/2003 23:13 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Bejasus]

Re: An interesting article

and this from the killer of Bambi../forums/images/icons/crazy.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BarryH]

Re: An interesting article

Bugger, thought you were away!

<hr width=100% size=1>