Oxons speed cameras back on.

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:56:24 +0100, bugbear wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Simon wrote:

Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...-camera-switch



Usual ****e from Simple.

There were actually two more accidents, in the six months since the cameras were switched off, at
the site of the fixed cameras: 62 rather than 60. So yep - turning off the cameras had a great
effect.

So your explanation for the deaths is... ?

BugBear


Deaths - what deaths - I cannot see the word in the above posts.
--
2009 per billion passenger kilometres:

Cyclists Killed or seriously injured : 567
Pedestrians Killed or seriously injured : 415

Which is the safer form of transport?

On 01/04/2011 13:44, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 1, 1:06 pm, Derek wrote:
On Apr 1, 8:10 am, Simon wrote:

Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...xfordshire-roa...

--
Simon Mason

I bet you love the thought of more motorists being fined and possibly
losing their licences and livelihoods for a bit of perfectly harmless
speeding don't you Simon, just to spite them. I'm hoping it's just an
April fool's joke.

"Harmless" like hydrogen is perhaps?

Oxymoron alert!

Harmless speeding.

Just like.

Harmless pavement riding, harmelss red light jumping. etc.

Judith wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:56:24 +0100, wrote:

Judith wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:10:23 -0700 (PDT), Simon wrote:

Quelle surprise, with no deterrent, speeding increases and accidents
increase, so the big stick has to come out again to get them to
behave.

http://road.cc/content/news/33815-50...-camera-switch



Usual ****e from Simple.

There were actually two more accidents, in the six months since the cameras were switched off, at
the site of the fixed cameras: 62 rather than 60. So yep - turning off the cameras had a great
effect.

So your explanation for the deaths is... ?

BugBear


Deaths - what deaths - I cannot see the word in the above posts.

Your lack of observation and analysis skills is duly noted.

BugBear

On 01/04/2011 16:40, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

If turning on speed cameras will catch more drivers breaking the law and
raises revenue for society, surely this can only be a good thing.

If turning them off increases the regularity and extent which drivers
break the law this can only be a bad thing.

The arguments against speed cameras seem to be that there is no proof
that they reduce accidents or make the roads safer. While this may be
so, the truth is that they do reduce traffic speed, and they do raise
revenue, and they raise it from people breaking the law. So unless the
cost of running them exceeds the revenue raised by them, I cannot see
how anyone would oppose them, apart from wanting to drive faster and not
get caught breaking the law.

Those who oppose speed cameras might be better to lobby for the raising
of, or the removal of, speed limits altogether rather than complaining
that they do not like getting caught breaking the law.

I think that the argument against them is to do with the "automaton"
effect that they may induce in drivers. They may reinforce the attitude
that, regardless of how dangerously someone is driving, the fact that
they are within the speed limit means that they "must" be safe. So
rather than concentrating on the things that matter outside of their
cars, drivers are preoccupied with their speedometers.

We can see from the graph of road fatalities over the years (that
appeared here recently) that the strong downward trend levelled off
during the golden age of speed cameras, and this may well be due to the
effect that they had on drivers' perceptions of what constituted safe
driving.

--
Matt B

On Apr 1, 4:40*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:

Those who oppose speed cameras might be better to lobby for the raising
of, or the removal of, speed limits altogether rather than complaining
that they do not like getting caught breaking the law.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.
One must also realise that they are used in many other countries as
well as ours. In the UK we are pampered beyond belief, the location of
cameras are widely advertised in various news media, they are
signposted well and painted bright yellow and still drivers moan about
getting caught by "sneaky and unfair" cameras. In Norway they are
painted a dull grey colour and in many other countries a cop will be
lying in wait with a speed gun behind a wall. Personally, I don't give
a toss about them in the same way as I don't care about double yellow
lines or no entry signs. Don't break the law - don't get fined.

--
Simon Mason

On 01/04/2011 16:52, Matt B wrote:

I think that the argument against them is to do with the "automaton"
effect that they may induce in drivers. They may reinforce the attitude
that, regardless of how dangerously someone is driving, the fact that
they are within the speed limit means that they "must" be safe. So
rather than concentrating on the things that matter outside of their
cars, drivers are preoccupied with their speedometers.

This is nonsense. There is no implication whatsoever that driving within
the speed limit is safe, because driving above the limit is illegal.
Drivers should obey the law by default. Forcing drivers to behave as the
are expected to, cannot imply anything.

We can see from the graph of road fatalities over the years (that
appeared here recently) that the strong downward trend levelled off
during the golden age of speed cameras, and this may well be due to the
effect that they had on drivers' perceptions of what constituted safe
driving.

If there is any truth in that, it suggest that drivers are, on the
whole, too stupid to be allowed to drive and that speed limits should be
further reduced to take into account the fact that that drivers are
unable to assess safe speeds, drive safely and within the law all at once.

On 01/04/2011 17:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Apr 1, 4:40 pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:

Those who oppose speed cameras might be better to lobby for the raising
of, or the removal of, speed limits altogether rather than complaining
that they do not like getting caught breaking the law.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.
One must also realise that they are used in many other countries as
well as ours. In the UK we are pampered beyond belief, the location of
cameras are widely advertised in various news media, they are
signposted well and painted bright yellow and still drivers moan about
getting caught by "sneaky and unfair" cameras. In Norway they are
painted a dull grey colour and in many other countries a cop will be
lying in wait with a speed gun behind a wall. Personally, I don't give
a toss about them in the same way as I don't care about double yellow
lines or no entry signs. Don't break the law - don't get fined.

I don’t see why we cannot have covert cameras. This whole thing about
making them bright yellow and visible only serves to act as a deterrent
and stops the police catching the little buggers. That itself reduces
potential revenues.

It would be better if there were more of them and they were hidden and
that fines were considerably higher, although if the fines became too
high, the speed limits may need to be further reduced to ensure a
continuous and steady income flow.

On 01/04/2011 17:19, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 01/04/2011 16:52, Matt B wrote:

I think that the argument against them is to do with the "automaton"
effect that they may induce in drivers. They may reinforce the attitude
that, regardless of how dangerously someone is driving, the fact that
they are within the speed limit means that they "must" be safe. So
rather than concentrating on the things that matter outside of their
cars, drivers are preoccupied with their speedometers.

This is nonsense. There is no implication whatsoever that driving within
the speed limit is safe, because driving above the limit is illegal.
Drivers should obey the law by default. Forcing drivers to behave as the
are expected to, cannot imply anything.

Perhaps it's assumed by some that the cameras exist to make the roads
safer, rather than to simply enforce a law or generate revenue.

We can see from the graph of road fatalities over the years (that
appeared here recently) that the strong downward trend levelled off
during the golden age of speed cameras, and this may well be due to the
effect that they had on drivers' perceptions of what constituted safe
driving.

If there is any truth in that,

Did you see the graph?

it suggest that drivers are, on the
whole, too stupid to be allowed to drive and that speed limits should be
further reduced to take into account the fact that that drivers are
unable to assess safe speeds, drive safely and within the law all at once.

No. The evidence suggests that drivers choose their speeds based on the
risk they perceive, irrespective of the speed limits (if unenforced).
Where speed limits are enforced they tend to drive close to the limit
irrespective of other factors.

The trick is to match the perception of risk with the road type and thus
safe speeds for given road types will be self enforcing (even with no
speed limits).

--
Matt B

On Apr 1, 5:19*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 01/04/2011 16:52, Matt B wrote:



I think that the argument against them is to do with the "automaton"
effect that they may induce in drivers. They may reinforce the attitude
that, regardless of how dangerously someone is driving, the fact that
they are within the speed limit means that they "must" be safe. So
rather than concentrating on the things that matter outside of their
cars, drivers are preoccupied with their speedometers.

This is nonsense. There is no implication whatsoever that driving within
the speed limit is safe, because driving above the limit is illegal.
Drivers should obey the law by default. Forcing drivers to behave as the
are expected to, cannot imply anything.

That having to "stare constantly at the speedometer" excuse is
rubbish. Any experienced driver can just occasionally glance at the
speedo without compromising their outward vision and use clues such as
engine note and gear selection to keep their speed at the limit or
below if conditions dictate. Otherwise, logically nobody would be
allowed to drive on the road, as it would be impossible to both pay
attention to the road *and* stay within the speed limit. And how on
earth would anyone be able to pass their driving test if they could
not demonstrate that basic ability?

--
Simon Mason

On Apr 1, 5:29*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 01/04/2011 17:05, Simon Mason wrote:





On Apr 1, 4:40 pm, Simon Weaseltemper
*wrote:

Those who oppose speed cameras might be better to lobby for the raising
of, or the removal of, speed limits altogether rather than complaining
that they do not like getting caught breaking the law.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed.
One must also realise that they are used in many other countries as
well as ours. In the UK we are pampered beyond belief, the location of
cameras are widely advertised in various news media, they are
signposted well and painted bright yellow and still drivers moan about
getting caught by "sneaky and unfair" cameras. In Norway they are
painted a dull grey colour and in many other countries a cop will be
lying in wait with a speed gun behind a wall. Personally, I don't give
a toss about them in the same way as I don't care about double yellow
lines or no entry signs. Don't break the law - don't get fined.

I don’t see why we cannot have covert cameras. This whole thing about
making them bright yellow and visible only serves to act as a deterrent
and stops the police catching the little buggers. That itself reduces
potential revenues.

Indeed.
I can remember that recent case near Grimsby where a driver was
flashing oncoming drivers warning them of a "speed trap". He argued
that he was doing a "public duty" in making the roads safer by slowing
drivers down.

No.

What he was in fact doing was making the road less safe, as the
speeding motorists would have been given points on their licence and
if they kept speeding and getting caught, then eventually they would
have been banned and thus have made the road safer by getting rid of
them altogether.

--
Simon Mason