Police with speed guns hiding behind bushes

stockhausen · 18 Apr 2009 at 17:08

Dolph said:
<SNIP>

I really can't take seriously any analysis produced by an organisation that appears to exist for the sole purpose of getting rid of Speed Cameras (safespeed.org.uk) or one that uses the tag line - "PistonHeads - Speed Matters". Now if you can find me anything by someone such as RoSPA that says that reducing speed isn't important in reducing the consequences of RTAs, I will happily have a look at it.

Incidentally, Norwich Union Risk Services claims that speed is a factor in "26% of all fatal accidents" and Bobulous claims that speed played a part in "28% of all fatal accidents".

I think that the following comment is pretty well spot-on

Many motorists are, of course, opposed to speed cameras. Typically this is because they like to drive their cars above the speed limit and don't like to be fined for doing so, though that's not normally the argument employed. Instead, these people -- 90% of whom believe that they are `above average' drivers, which is, at least, unlikely -- claim something like, ``Other drivers shouldn't speed, because that is dangerous; but I am a much safer, better driver, and therefore the law should not apply to me.''

http://www.ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20031211-they_like_driving_in_their_cars.html

As to your other comments that "Better driver training, better management of bad driving practices (including inappropriate speed, lack of attention, tailgating, etc., etc.)" and "policemen who are able to make a judgement about whether the driving was dangerous/excessive etc. and could take action accordingly" really are nothing more than platitudes - how do you suggest that these things should actually come to pass in the real world?

Are you advocating a very much tougher driving test, a huge increase in the number of traffic police officers, stop and search for unlicensed drivers?

Should we give Police powers to "use their own judgement" as to what is and is not safe and to punish those who they deem to have broken some unwritten law that the Police have made up on the spot without the need for any evidence?

Limiting speed may not be the perfect answer to reducing the consequence of motoring accidents but until someone can come up with realistic, better solutions, I am absolutely delighted to note that the law-makers do not share the utopian dreams of those who "like to drive their cars above the speed limit" and feel that they are uniquely qualified to do so.

Dolph · 18 Apr 2009 at 17:44

stockhausen said:
I really can't take seriously any analysis produced by an organisation that appears to exist for the sole purpose of getting rid of Speed Cameras (safespeed.org.uk) or one that uses the tag line - "PistonHeads - Speed Matters". Now if you can find me anything by someone such as RoSPA that says that reducing speed isn't important in reducing the consequences of RTAs, I will happily have a look at it.

As you wish... (although claiming you won't accept figures from one pressure group then asking for them from another is rather strange)

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/driving/speed_policy.htm

Inappropriate speed contributes to around 8% of all injury collisions, 16% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 28% of collisions which result in a death.1 This includes both ‘excessive speed’, when the speed limit is exceeded but also driving or riding within the speed limit when this is too fast for the conditions at the time (for example, in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity).

Drivers and riders who are travelling at inappropriate speeds are more likely to crash and their higher speed means that the crash will cause more severe injuries, to themselves or to other road users. Inappropriate speed also magnifies other driver errors, such as driving too close or driving when fatigued or distracted, multiplying the chances of these types of driving causing an accident.

In 2007, 342 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 417 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.1

I think that's clear enough. An analysis of those figures gives 12% of people killed were due to people exceeding the speed limit. (45% of 28%), which is inline with the figures quoted by other sites, as are the figures for overall accident rates (around 8% due to inappropriate speed).

The figures are pretty clear at the start, but then they go on to ignore the figures they cite and go on about the dangers of speeding..., citing much older (circa 1994) and discredited (see analysis on safespeed, scroll to one mile per hour lie, or by the ABD) research. They have also forgotten about regression to the mean their speed camera articles by using older research.

The bottom line is that the basic figures are exactly what I quoted, and we're then into interpretation, which depends greatly on what the pressure group doing the research (and who is funding it) wants to show.

Incidentally, Norwich Union Risk Services claims that speed is a factor in "26% of all fatal accidents" and Bobulous claims that speed played a part in "28% of all fatal accidents".

Inappropriate speed != exceeding the speed limit.

As to your other comments that "Better driver training, better management of bad driving practices (including inappropriate speed, lack of attention, tailgating, etc., etc.)" and "policemen who are able to make a judgement about whether the driving was dangerous/excessive etc. and could take action accordingly" really are nothing more than platitudes - how do you suggest that these things should actually come to pass in the real world?

Video evidence and impartial assessment should be fine.

Are you advocating a very much tougher driving test, a huge increase in the number of traffic police officers, stop and search for unlicensed drivers?

Sounds fine to me.

Should we give Police powers to "use their own judgement" as to what is and is not safe and to punish those who they deem to have broken some unwritten law that the Police have made up on the spot without the need for any evidence?

No, as with any alleged crime, there should be guidelines and a court case.

Limiting speed may not be the perfect answer to reducing the consequence of motoring accidents but until someone can come up with realistic, better solutions, I am absolutely delighted to note that the law-makers do not share the utopian dreams of those who "like to drive their cars above the speed limit" and feel that they are uniquely qualified to do so.

I'm not, because it's not making the roads any safer, and is punishing people unnecessarily while failing to address the real problems.

Edit: Added some links, more to add

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article766659.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6571257.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053865/Speed-cameras-saved-HALF-lives-ministers-claim.html
http://www.safetycamerareport.co.uk/05_rtm.htm

Von Smallhausen · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:29

It is quite easy to lose your licence on a drive to Scotland.

Speeding has always been stepped on hard up there with cameras and speed guns and if I dare say, they take it to the extreme.

Totality · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:33

I wouldnt have a problem with police hiding cameras if they actually caught people who were properly speeding. I know numerous people who have 3 points for doing 34 in a 30 which I personally find daft! Everyone does that sort of thing now and again unintentionally and I'd hardly say the punishment fits the crime.

Von Smallhausen · 18 Apr 2009 at 19:35

Totality said:
I wouldnt have a problem with police hiding cameras if they actually caught people who were properly speeding. I know numerous people who have 3 points for doing 34 in a 30 which I personally find daft! Everyone does that sort of thing now and again unintentionally and I'd hardly say the punishment fits the crime.

I know of someone who was caught and ticketed for 32 in a 30 in the Cleveland / Middlebrough area as I recall.

Bad PR and not something I agree with.

Northwind · 18 Apr 2009 at 20:07

Von Smallhausen said:
Speeding has always been stepped on hard up there with cameras and speed guns and if I dare say, they take it to the extreme.

As far as I know, all scottish camera sites are hi-viz'd, so very easy to avoid- that's why I like 'em

But yeah, the more spread out areas do have more traffic cops and mobile radar sites. Lots of ground to cover.

stockhausen · 18 Apr 2009 at 22:52

Totality said:
... I know numerous people who have 3 points for doing 34 in a 30 which I personally find daft! Everyone does that sort of thing now and again unintentionally and I'd hardly say the punishment fits the crime.

Von Smallhausen said:
I know of someone who was caught and ticketed for 32 in a 30 in the Cleveland / Middlebrough area as I recall.

Scotland certainly isn't, but I guess that the Cleveland / Middlebrough area is not covered by the Association of Chief Police Officers?

The guidance to police officers is that it is anticipated that, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, the issue of fixed penalty notices and summonses is likely to be the minimum appropriate enforcement action as soon as the following speeds have been reached:

20 mph - 25 mph
30 mph - 35 mph
40 mph - 46 mph
50 mph - 57 mph
60 mph - 68 mph
70 mph - 79 mph
www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/speed_enforcement_guidelines_web_v7_foi.doc

I believe that this is based on Limit + 10% + 2mph

Totality · 18 Apr 2009 at 23:14

I have 3 points on my licence and that was for doing 81 in a 70. Didn't think they would bother as it was a motorway but there we go. Never even saw the speed camera van that took the photo! They wouldnt provide one unless I went to court so still to this day have no idea where they were hiding.

Meridian · 19 Apr 2009 at 08:16

stockhausen said:
Scotland certainly isn't, but I guess that the Cleveland / Middlebrough area is not covered by the Association of Chief Police Officers?

I believe that this is based on Limit + 10% + 2mph

It was also abandoned years ago. ACPO have said that it entirely up to local forces.

M

stockhausen · 19 Apr 2009 at 10:36

Meridian said:
[The ACPO speed enforcement guidelines for prosecution were] also abandoned years ago. ACPO have said that it is entirely up to local forces.

Ah OK, I didn't know that although I notice that the guidelines appear last to have been reviewed more than six years ago and they are after all only guidelines.

I was certainly under the impression that cameras are still set to Speed limit + 10% (permitted Construction & Use tolerance) + 2mph - is that not correct?

Dolph · 19 Apr 2009 at 10:48

stockhausen said:
Ah OK, I didn't know that although I notice that the guidelines appear last to have been reviewed more than six years ago and they are after all only guidelines.

I was certainly under the impression that cameras are still set to Speed limit + 10% (permitted Construction & Use tolerance) + 2mph - is that not correct?

It's down to the camera partnerships to set the limit, and many (especially in 30mph zones) are now setting (and prosecuting) around 33mph.

It is worth remembering that the 10% construction and use tolerance does not allow the speedo to under-read, at all. They can over-read but not the other way.

m4cc45 · 19 Apr 2009 at 11:11

Dolph said:
It's down to the camera partnerships to set the limit, and many (especially in 30mph zones) are now setting (and prosecuting) around 33mph.

It is worth remembering that the 10% construction and use tolerance does not allow the speedo to under-read, at all. They can over-read but not the other way.

Unless, of course, the speedo is broken..

Back on topic - I personally don't agree with that kind of action. It's been statistically proven that cameras do not cut down accidents. In fact there was a rise in deaths in camera heavy areas. The average speed cameras are even worse as it means, if you don't have cruise control, that you are constantly looking at the speedo rather than the road conditions ahead.

Police hiding in a bush don't cut down the speed there. To do that it would have to be common knowledge which it isn't and if it dit become they would simply move. If they really wanted to cut down speed in that area they would introduce speed humps or traffic calming measures not stick some guy behind a tree.

M./

napalm666 · 19 Apr 2009 at 12:35

i used to do the usual speed slap the anchors on etc at cameras
what did i use to gain 5mins average
i stick to the limits and have for a long time and catch up with the muppets who brake way too hard at the next camera

in another way i find that its a pain sticking to a limit trying to change lane etc but i suffer it now

and i agree if i see a cop jump out from behind a tree i would look at speedo not the road even tho i know im in the limit

Police with speed guns hiding behind bushes

More options

stockhausen

stockhausen

Capodecina

Dolph

Dolph

Von Smallhausen

Von Smallhausen

Totality

Totality

Von Smallhausen

Von Smallhausen

Northwind

Northwind

stockhausen

stockhausen

Capodecina

Totality

Totality

Meridian

Meridian

stockhausen

stockhausen

Capodecina

Dolph

Dolph

m4cc45

m4cc45

napalm666

napalm666