Sodding drivers

[juliet]

Just read an editorial in Shooting Times (it mentioned the League, so got passed round the office for info). Obviously, it caused me to froth at the mouth over several different issues, but the one that really got me was speed cameras. They criticised a particular police chief constable on the grounds that his force had installed too many speed cameras.

Now, this has got at me for a *long* time. Why, exactly, are speed cameras a bad thing? Why is it that a significant number of drivers - who would presumably describe themselves as 'law-abiding' & other such - get so irate when they get caught by a speed camera? In particular, what is wrong with *concealed* speed cameras? If you speed, then you are breaking the law. And if you get caught, then that's your tough shit. If you don't want to be done for speeding, *don't bloody well speed*. Concealed cameras clearly aren't the same as entrapment - no one is enticing you to speed. They are merely not telling you that here, right here, is a particularly risky place to speed. Which is fine, because, hey, *you shouldn't be speeding anyway*.

Yes, I am an occasional driver. No, I do not speed. Not even on motorways, these days. I used to be prepared to do between 70 & 80 on motorways; I've since decided that this is inconsistent with my general stance on speeding. I'm aware that there are arguments for upping the speed limits on motorways, & would certainly think that in good conditions, 80mph is safe. (But, when I did still go over 70mph, I would not have complained, other than at myself, had I been ticketed). I don't think there's *any* decent argument for going over the speed limit on non-motorway roads.

This also reminded me of a conversation I heard yesterday in the shop next door, which also incensed me greatly. Two people complaining about the congestion charge (grr to them to *start* with), and then moving on to complaining about parking, and parking tickets. The woman said, in horrified tones, that a friend of hers had (illegitimately) parked her motorbike in a residents-only bay, and the parking-ticket person (have forgotten correct word, sorry) had *lifted up the motorbike cover* to get the plate number to give her a ticket (nb they are not supposed to do this). The friend was, of course, appealing ("of *course*!" agreed the bloke in equally aggrieved tones). No mention, of course, of the fact that the friend in question shouldn't have bloody been there in the first place. Or that deliberately covering your license plate to avoid getting a ticket is clearly *wrong*, although sadly not illegal.

GRRRRRRR.

I need a 'ranty' icon. Or a pissed-off one. All my icons are cheerful, or of rats.

Comments

[daneel-olivaw.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of what you say. I entirely agree that the complaining that one got a fine whilst simultaneously admitting that one was over the limit is entirely ridiculous. There are, however, a couple of issues WRT speed cameras and traps that are legitimate IMO. The first is that cameras were originally introduced to the public as a patch treatment to reduce deaths at accident black-spots ---- this is not the way in which they are used a lot of the time these days, but quite blatently as a revenue-generating device. Hidden cameras are a thorny issue, because visible cameras cause people to slow down (the effect you actually want) whereas hidden cameras just generate fines with typically no effect on average road speeds¹. More general issues are that there is no transparent procedure for review of speed limits (to move them up or down if they are inappropriate) and that there are gross inconsistencies in enforcement, leaving huge grey areas regarding what is acceptable motoring behaviour.

¹ The difficulty here is that there is a dislocation between the offence and the punishment. One speeds through an active hidden camera, and it flashes. Fine. A few weeks later a fine turns up in the post. The effect is irritation about having been fined, but (due to the time lag) a lack of any real association between the original offence and the eventual punishment (especially as the initial letter [I am lead to understand from my father's experience --- I've never had one of these myself] contains very little information regarding the time, location or level of violation of the offence --- you only get to find these out if you appeal, risking a much heftier fine). Therefore (IMO) hidden cameras are very unlikely to have any effect on average speeds. This is different with visible cameras, since one registers at the time that cameras are there and one might get caught if one doesn't slow down, and thereby building an association between the offence and the punishment.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

I agree the implementation is a bit 'wait til your father gets home'. As noted above, visible cameras make people drive erratically, braking when they see a camera and speeding up afterwards, which can cause accidents if there's other cars on the road. If invisible ones leave people with no sense of what they've done wrong, only that they're being punished, what's the solution? None at all? Partly visible ones? Heavier fines/other punishments?

Someone was saying that somewhere in Scandinavia, they don't have the 'points on the licence' thing for drink-driving; you get caught once, and your licence is taken away. Maybe have something similar for speeding? A 'three strikes and you're out' system? Would certainly cut down congestion.

[dwagon.livejournal.com]

or the system they have in new york for drink drivers - they impound your car and instantly remove your license too, if i'm remembering correctly. Instant bad effect if you're caught, which i think is more likely to act as a deterrant they getting some 'points' on your license that don't affect you until you go over the limits allowed

[daneel-olivaw.livejournal.com]

Done well, visible cameras can cause people to slow down at the points where it is sensible to do so. The road between Baldock and Royston (which I used to regularly use coming from work to Cambridge) has three cameras on an otherwise quiet stretch of dual-carrieageway --- located before a hidden dip, by a side-road and immediately before the exit from a pub car-park. The effect was that everyone slowed down for the hazards, and accelerated back up to a perfectly-safe (but illegal) speed after clearing them.

What's the solution? Education, and clear and consistent enforcement are more likely to promote safety than fines issued quasi-randomly and weeks after the event. And at the end of the day, it is safety that is the important thing, not whether someone was doing 65 or 85 on a quiet stretch of motorway.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I'd suggest that if you have to do something dangerous to avoid being caught by a speed camera then you weren't driving with due care and attention in the first place. (By assumption the people who do this are avoiding being done for speeding, so there's no double punishment here.)

[rillaith.livejournal.com]

Compulsory re-tests every 5 (maybe 10) years until 65, then every 2 until 72 and annually after that. Not just "Hey doc, sign my medical cert?"

The main argument about this is that the administrative overload would be unmanageable - I say only for the first time. Plus getting the 90% of people who passed their test and learned BAD habits off the roads will be yays for the environment, congestion, the drivers who pass, etc.

We have to renew our passports - why not our driving licenses? There are still people driving today who NEVER had to do a test. (My dad was one of the earliest people tested, for example.)

[rillaith.livejournal.com]

err I meant 75 versus 72 ;)

[juliet]

I agree about inconsistencies in enforcement being a Bad Thing.

With disconnection between behaviour & penalty: it would make sense to give more details on the offence committed, & even to process 'em faster. But what I'd *really* like to see is more cameras, and more of them actually functioning. Then, *whenever* you speeded, you'd stand a fair chance of getting caught and punished. It strikes me that that would have a better chance of deterring people. Especially since currently there is a level of awareness that not all cameras have film in - so you've got two chances every time you speed (firstly that there's no camera around, secondly that even if there is one it hasn't got film in).

See vigornian further down about the revenue-generated nature (or otherwise) of speed cameras. I suspect this is one of those 'public image' issues. See also: immigration levels. Not, to be honest, that I have any problem with generating money off people who speed, as long as there is *also* an effect of reducing speed. Plus the cash should go into public transport and/or hospitals (but I'll settle with it going into general taxation pot, because I'm not a huge fan of hypothecated taxation, as a rule).

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

contains very little information regarding the time, location or level of violation of the offence

The only one I've had (from a mobile video camera on a bridge above the M74 in Dumfries) was very specific about place, time and speed. That, of course, may well be because it was issued under Scots law, so we could both be right.

This is different with visible cameras

Yes - they've certainly had a very noticeable effect in the 40/50mph limits on motorway roadworks.

[thekumquat.livejournal.com]

The two I've seen gave date, time, speed limit, your speed, name of road and a location on the road. All the information needed for me and Conflux to figure out which of us was driving at the time... (one for me, 35 in a 30 limit - must have been just before the national speed limit sign kicked in on the Banbury Road, having gone through a village, and one for him - 57 in a 50mph bit of the M11 after roadworks had been completed. Both £30, and 3 points on his licence, which works out as £100 on the car insurance for each of 3 years)

Making cameras more visible seems to have helped on the North Circular, as now everybody slows down for them (on the occasions you can actually get to 55mph) - before, people who knew where they were would break hard, leading to a domino effect through traffic and causing a traffic jam. In turn encouraging people to speed as soon as they got out of it...