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

[mr-tom.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/imomus/19380.html

Mind - I'm in favour of following the German autobahn thinger, and having no speed limit on motorways.

But anyone that's speeding in a built-up area really should go to the wall.

[azureskies.livejournal.com]

As far as I know, covering your license plate to avoid getting a ticket is illegal. There was a picture in the paper a couple of weeks ago, where Jay Kay had done it so that he could park on double yellow lines. Obscuring your number plate, whether parked or driving, is against the law. Traffic wardens aren't allowed to touch your car to look at the number plate - but they are allowed to call for a truck to tow your car away, AFAIK...

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

With you entirely. I have no truck with the argument that 'the police only install speed cameras as a source of revenue'. If you're over the speed limit, you're breaking the law, and have no right to complain when you are justly punished for it. If the punishment, rather than being a fine, was being locked up or made to do community service, or having your car taken away and crushed, their argument would fall down entirely; speed cameras would still exist, and people speeding would still be caught by them. At least this way they contribute something.

The argument 'why aren't the police out catching real criminals, instead of harrassing motorists?' is also fatuous, as speed cameras automate the process and so reduce the need for traffic police. And hey, it's still a crime.

Does anyone know, btw, if a speeding ticket or other motoring offence counts as a conviction in terms of Criminal Records Bureau disclosures? I can't find anything that says it doesn't, but I have a feeling that it doesn't all the same.

[azureskies.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I agree with you on speed cameras. I think in some places, they should be visible, because in blackspots they should act as a deterrent (whatever you do, people will speed, but getting them to slow down where there's more chance of an accident is obviously a good thing).

However, I've never understood why they can't be hidden in certain places. After all, you're right, speeding is illegal, so you shouldn't complain if you're unwittingly caught doing it.

On the other hand, I also agree that the speed limit should be raised. Although I'm not sure if the system they have in Germany would work here (their roads are a lot better than ours, plus it might encourage the German habit of cars in the outside lane unrelentingly driving right up behind you, faster than you, until you pull over).

"55 miles an hour? That's ridiculous! Sure, it'll save a few lives, but millions will be late!"

[dwagon.livejournal.com]

yeah, i've never got the whole speed camera's thing myself, though i suppose there might be a vague point that police time spent on cameras could be better spent catching 'real' criminals - however, considering how automated the systems are, and how damage speeding drivers cause, i don't really think that holds much water tbh.

And i really think that some traffic wardens don't go far enough in ticketing/towing away muppets who drive or park in things like bus lanes, bus stops and what not - they inconvience so many people, just so they can park nearer the shops, or get home 20 seconds faster

*ggrrr* Nearly as annoying as people who leave unattended bags on the tube, now i think of it :)

[martinv.livejournal.com]

plus it might encourage the German habit of cars in the outside lane unrelentingly driving right up behind you, faster than you, until you pull over

Since when was that a German habit?

Perfectly sensible too, I say. Trundling along in the outside lane? Well, you get what you deserve...

[simonb.livejournal.com]

Oh, and I agree with you on speed cameras. I think in some places, they should be visible, because in blackspots they should act as a deterrent

AFAIR the government change the rules about 6 months to a year ago so that money from speed cameras could go locally rather than to the central government, but only if the camera concerned was made really obivious to motorists. Thus the speed cameras in Cambridge had reflective bits added to them and where they'd been placed so that they'd be hidden by trees or similar, whatever was hidding them was removed or cut back to show the camera.

[martinv.livejournal.com]

And if we really must have speed cameras, rather than sensible drivers, then they should most definitely be invisible and everywhere. It's the only way there's any point to them whatsoever. I won't trot out the obvious argument about visible cameras causing more accidents than they prevent... oh no wait, I just did. Bloody speed cameras.

[j4.livejournal.com]

Why, exactly, are speed cameras a bad thing?

There is an argument (I don't have enough data to know if it's a valid one) that in some places all the speed cameras are doing is causing people to brake suddenly to slow down so they don't get caught, and then accelerate away madly afterwards -- often speeding more either side of the speed camera zone to make up for having been "slowed down" through the camera-covered bit.

There's also the issue of the amount of admin involved with dealing with a million billion cases of people getting nabbed for being a few mph over the speed limit, and whether that's a wise use of the taxpayer's money and the powers-that-be's resources in general. No, I'm not going for the "they should be out catching PAEDOPHILES!" argument here, but I do think it may be worth considering (again, I personally don't have enough data to make a judgement call on this) whether installing more speed cameras is the most worthwhile use of the presumably-not-actually-infinite resources available. (I suspect the answer is "sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't".)

Though obviously, yes, it would be better if nobody ever speeded, ever. In fact, it would be better if nobody ever committed any crimes, ever, at all, then the police could just wander around being stolid and sensible and the-policeman-is-your-friend-ish so that old ladies could ask them for the time, or directions, or whatever. :)

[editor.livejournal.com]

Well, the idea of speed limits is to protect the public. Some 30mph roads have lots of obscured junctions, kids running out into the road etc. I think speeding on such a road is reckless and dangerous to others and I'm happy to see people automatically fined for doing it.

On the other hand, there are plenty of 30mph stretches of road which are non-residential and often deserted. Speeding on these roads can be dangerous - say in the rain, or in heavy traffic - but it's often perfectly obvious to any reasonable person that driving at 40mph rather than 30mph isn't going to pose any additional danger to the public. I would hope a policeman seeing someone speeding on such a road would make a value judgment as to whether or not the public needed protecting from this behaviour, rather than mindlessly applying the strict letter of the law in all cases.

You can see where I'm going with this.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

That's like saying it's only against the law to shoot a gun somewhere where there's lots of people around.

[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.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I agree. However, I think that fine revenue should always go into central coffers. I'm told that in the States, they go into the coffers of the local police district, who also control the roads. They thus have a motivation to, for example, make lights go rapidly from green to red barely passing through yellow, so they can do people for running the red light and collect the fine revenue.

The purpose of speed cameras etc is to discourage dangerous driving, not to raise money, and the use of fine revenue should reflect that - it should be treated like income tax revenue.

[editor.livejournal.com]

Um. No it's not.

I'm not saying it's not against the law to exceed the speed limit. I'm just saying that that law exists to support a principle, and I hope and expect that a reasonable policeman would turn a blind eye to behaviour that was technically illegal but clearly not straining the underlying principle.

And there are so many ways in which firing a gun is nothing like driving a car that I simply don't know where to start.

[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

[dizze.livejournal.com]

If the purpose of speed cameras was to discorage dangerous driving not raise money then you would just be issued with points on your licence and not a fine as well.

[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.)

[djm4]

Doesn't follow. For many people, there's a deterrent value in the fine that's greater than the loss of points from one's licence.

[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 ;)

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

And in any case, there are costs incurred in setting up speed cameras and processing the information, so there should be fines, to offset the expenditure.

[vigornian.livejournal.com]

There are those (drivers, mostly) who say that speed cameras are bad because they do not solve the problem they purport to solve. They do not act as an adequate deterrent, and they focus their ire on hidden cameras.

I think they have a good point here on hidden cameras: clearly, drivers do break the law by speeding, and it's not good enough for camera enthusiasts to say "they shouldn't be breaking it in the first place, it's the law" because we're here talking about deterring those already inclined to break the law: the existence of a law clearly hasn't been sufficient deterrent so far. Advertising a camera seems a good idea. It also can save costs since sometimes there are signs without cameras, the sneaky devils...

There are those who say, coupled with the Inadequate Deterrent argument, that it's another way to "tax" the motorist and to fill the coffers of government. I wish I could post an article from this month's Prospect (hidden to non-subscribers) in their excellent Numbers Game colummn, which explodes bad stats. This month the writer observes that of the £75m raised by speed camera fines, £70m is absorbed in costs: it's not a money-spinner for government. And the remainder does not go to local authorities but is just absorbed into general Treasury funds. The point is also made that compliance with speed limits is very very cost effective to society in that it assists in preventing deaths (£5m actuarial value) and injuries (£700k actuarial value).

On the tax front, I wouldn't mind see the profits applied to fund roads, but perhaps more fairly it should go to transport. Or, while we're at it, perhaps it should instead go to fund Accident & Emergency units at hospitals since that the principal harm caused by the illegal activity.

There are some who also say that there is no problem: i.e. that speeding should not be against the law in certain areas, most notably dual carriageways and the like. But the solution is to change the law, not adopt guerilla tactics to subvert it. As Darien says, the solution might be to get police officers to apply discretion, but that can be expensive. Discretion may be better exercised by more astute classification of limits.

[juliet]

OK - my misunderstanding, then. I've seen people recommending it to motorbike folk (though not to car drivers) as a means of avoiding fines.

Ha, wish the rotten cow's bike *had* been towed. Would have served her right.