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

[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 ;)