Oxons speed cameras back on.

On 01/04/2011 17:32, Simon Mason wrote:
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?

I'm sure. But you must have noticed that the first reaction of many
drivers when they see a camera is to slam the brakes on - just in case.
We can't all maintain 100% concentration 100% of the time. Also, in
some places, speed limits change so often and so irrationally, or are so
poorly sign-posted, that it is conceivable that some people may not
actually be aware of what the speed limit actually is at the moment they
see a camera.

--
Matt B

On 01/04/2011 17:39, Simon Mason wrote:

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.

How can banning drivers make the roads safer - I thought that banned and
uninsured drivers were more likely to be involved in crashes than
"legal" drivers?

--
Matt B

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:51:13 +0100
Matt B wrote:

How can banning drivers make the roads safer - I thought that banned
and uninsured drivers were more likely to be involved in crashes than
"legal" drivers?

Don't you think they're probably the same drivers who were bad risks
before they were banned, and that they're maybe less likely to drive
once they have been banned?

On 01/04/2011 18:38, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:51:13 +0100
Matt wrote:

How can banning drivers make the roads safer - I thought that banned
and uninsured drivers were more likely to be involved in crashes than
"legal" drivers?

Don't you think they're probably the same drivers who were bad risks
before they were banned, and that they're maybe less likely to drive
once they have been banned?

IIRC, Swedish research found that the more severely a driver was
punished, the more likely he was to re-offend.

--
Matt B

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:47:01 +0100
Matt B wrote:

But you must have noticed that the first reaction of many
drivers when they see a camera is to slam the brakes on - just in
case.

I don't think that it's "just in case" - I think many drivers know
they frequently break speed limits enough to worry about cameras.

We can't all maintain 100% concentration 100% of the time.
Also, in some places, speed limits change so often and so
irrationally, or are so poorly sign-posted, that it is conceivable
that some people may not actually be aware of what the speed limit
actually is at the moment they see a camera.

In most cases that's because they're not paying enough attention to
ensure reasonably safe driving, so they deserve a ticket.

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 09:05:09 -0700 (PDT), 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.

You missed off:

Be a cyclist - totally disregard other road users:
--
Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
A total disreagrd for the well-being of vulnerable road users.

On 01/04/11 19:55, Simon Mason wrote:


I think that society has decided, via the points system, that
persistent law breaking by drivers will result in their licence being
revoked, thus making the roads safer by their not being allowed to
drive on them. Of course, if they choose to then drive with no
licence, then society has also decided that more punitive measures can
be meted out including imprisonment.


Problem is you have to catch them first.

On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:46:51 +0100
Matt B wrote:

IIRC, Swedish research found that the more severely a driver was
punished, the more likely he was to re-offend.

To the point that he gets tagged or jailed, which makes it a bit
difficult to re-offend for a while.

On 01/04/2011 18:47, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:47:01 +0100
Matt wrote:

But you must have noticed that the first reaction of many
drivers when they see a camera is to slam the brakes on - just in
case.

I don't think that it's "just in case" - I think many drivers know
they frequently break speed limits enough to worry about cameras.

We can't all maintain 100% concentration 100% of the time.
Also, in some places, speed limits change so often and so
irrationally, or are so poorly sign-posted, that it is conceivable
that some people may not actually be aware of what the speed limit
actually is at the moment they see a camera.

In most cases that's because they're not paying enough attention to
ensure reasonably safe driving, so they deserve a ticket.

And that could be largely because they have had the requirement or
incentive to pay enough attention removed by the proscriptions and
prescriptions of the road traffic rules and regulations.

If the rules give you priority you tend to assume that you will get it
(despite knowing you should never assume any such thing) and thus the
imperative need to concentrate is no longer there.

--
Matt B

On 01/04/2011 19:15, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 18:46:51 +0100
Matt wrote:

IIRC, Swedish research found that the more severely a driver was
punished, the more likely he was to re-offend.

To the point that he gets tagged or jailed, which makes it a bit
difficult to re-offend for a while.

But as soon as he's free to, he'll start all over again. It's a vicious
circle and there's no gain, so no point.

Incentives are the way whilst we rely on the current flawed road system
model.

--
Matt B