Social Media Platforms - People posting about mobile speed cameras

[winjim]

Your first point is a somewhat sweeping generalisation, is it not?

Regarding your second point, surely that depends on the method used to "ensure that someone adheres to their license"..?

It's a bit of a generalisation but I don't believe that bad drivers magically become good drivers at different points of their journey.

Possibly, but a recording device that is only triggered when licence conditions are actually breached is hardly a big brother method.

 

[wafter]

It's a bit of a generalisation but I don't believe that bad drivers magically become good drivers at different points of their journey.

Possibly, but a recording device that is only triggered when licence conditions are actually breached is hardly a big brother method.

Again, more assumptions:

1. That exceeding the speed limit (read not blindly following the rules) regardless of context automatically equates to being a "bad" driver.
2. That said "recording device" is only "triggered" when license conditions are breeched.

Expanding on the latter, said device would have to be constantly monitoring the vehicle's speed (presumably via GPS) and as such it would be possible / likely that this data could be monitored by a third party and subsequently misused / lost / sold / whatever as has been seen time and again with metadata gathered from private individuals under opaque-at-best conditions.

Are you comfortable with your movements being constantly tracked by some unidentified third party? Further, why stop at the car? Why not make everyone wear GPS tracking devices so their whereabouts can be known 24hrs a day? How about everyone being fitted with cameras that live-stream their every movement to data centres ? Surely only those who are doing something "wrong" / have something to hide should have a problem with this?

It seems our government are constantly grasping for excuses to ramp up the level of surveillance and control they subject the population to (terrorism, covid); while it remains highly question a) how effective these measures would actually be at addressing the circumstances they're sold on the basis of, and b) what repurcussions the data gathered can have for citizens further down the line.

British citizens are already subject to some of the most widespread and invasive surveillance of the western world; I'm certainly not keen to see this pushed any further.

Are you familiar with the Mark Snowden quote "turn-key tyranny"? An excellent case in point being what's happening in Afghanistan under the Taliban to those who were all too willing to put details of their now-forbidden activities into the public eye on social media.

If a driver is caught speeding will it reduce their likelihood of speeding in the future?

I guess that's up the the attitude of the driver in question. Personally when I see questionably-located speed cameras it elecits a reaction that's probably the opposite to what the Police are might have been hoping for..

 

[Alex321]

I’d say that the implication is one of a lack of appropriate enforcement and drivers subsequently feeling that they can get away with it so will exploit it until they are caught.

This 85th percentile thing is a wheeze. Isn’t it great how drivers get to be the ones to determine what speeds are suitable and not those outside of cars who also use the road and are much more vulnerable?

Well as I said, modern thinking is moving away from that.

But that is largely because modern thinking is more oriented towards reducing the severity of accidents than reducing the number of them.

The 85th percentile thinking is based on the fact that MOST drivers are able (and willing) to judge an appropriate speed for the road and conditions. It is "only" about 10-15% who don't. 10-15% is still an awfully high number IMO, but it means that by setting the limit to the 85th percentile speed, those who would be driving safely anyhow will be unaffected.

And if limits are set much below that, it results both in more people breaking those limits and in more accidents (but less severe on average).

People can prattle on about how it shouldn't cause those things, and if all drivers were perfect, it wouldn't. But in the real world, it does.

 

[winjim]

1. That exceeding the speed limit (read not blindly following the rules) regardless of context automatically equates to being a "bad" driver.
2. That said "recording device" is only "triggered" when license conditions are breeched.

Expanding on the latter, said device would have to be constantly monitoring the vehicle's speed (presumably via GPS) and as such it would be possible / likely that this data could be monitored by a third party and subsequently misused / lost / sold / whatever as has been seen time and again with metadata gathered from private individuals under opaque-at-best conditions.

The device is a mobile speed trap. And yeah, beaking the speed limit does make you a bad driver. Maybe there are a very very few exceptions but how many people who speed really fall into that category.

Honestly if you can't trust people to drive in a straight line on a clear road in perfect conditions within the speed limit then I'm perfectly happy for them to never be allowed to even get near a junction or anything more complicated.

 

[Alex321]

And yet we must not allow a high number of cyclists jumping red or riding pavements to lead to junction redesigns, even at locations with high casualty rates: cyclists are always wrong because choosing to cycle is irrational and motorists always right because driving is essential(!)

Any hints as to where you get that ludicrous conclusion from?

 

[wafter]

Meh, I've had my fill of pointless internet arguments for today. Have fun folks

 

[Alex321]

If a driver is caught speeding will it reduce their likelihood of speeding in the future?

As with all things human, that will vary according to the individual.

I know that in my case, when I was caught (a good few years ago) and offered a speed awareness course, my driving did change significantly, and I now hardly ever exceed limits by any sign ificant amount.

But I also know there are plenty of people out there who will take no notice until they have 9 points on their licence.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

would you allocate speed cameras to areas where they'll catch more drivers who on balance are causing a lower risk to themselves / other road users, or areas where they might clock fewer drivers, but prevent more serious accidents by doing so?

Drivers obtain a licence that imposes numerous conditions, one of them is adhering to posted speed limits. Drivers should be concerned about that on every journey, regardless of road type or location but the cuts in road policing and the nonsense requirements about camera enforcement conspicuity mean that drivers know they are highly unlikely to be caught. Enforcement should be such that drivers are unsure where or when a speed enforcement operation is active.

The choice you are offering me is a false dichotomy.

So you're happy to hand away your privacy and self-determinism so that big brother can ensure we're all doing what we're told at every second of the day..?

If we can accept that e-bike assistance is restricted to 15.6mph, or that electric scooters can be controlled by geofencing so that they are non-functional in pedestrian precincts or on footways, then I see no reason not to employ similar technology to control those who kill 5 people every day.

I‘m not sure what your self-determinism refers to, is it the choice to ignore the speed limit?

Telematics would remain inaccessible until a collision occurred, at which point it is available to police and insurers.

what about cases where accidents could be otherwise have been avoided by the addition of more speed

Citation needed.

And let me add that enforcement is not only about collisions but quality of life. Using roads as a pedestrian or living on one where drivers habitually speed is stressful, both from the constant fear of personal harm and the anti-social noise element. I say that as a reasonably fit and able-bodied person; for those with mobility or sight impairments it can severely limit their activities.

 

[Alex321]

Drivers obtain a licence that imposes numerous conditions, one of them is adhering to posted speed limits.

You have said this a few times now. Do you have a link to these conditions? I'm sure they must be posted online, but I've never seen them.

There are, of course, traffic laws, which all road users are expected to obey, just as we are expected to obey all other laws.

And one of the penalties for egregious enough breaching of those laws is removal of your licence (usually temporarily). But that is not the same as conditions imposed on the licence.

 

[Rooster1]

The offending post was removed within an hour of it being posted (about 30 minutes after I flagged it).
I would just say, no-one likes to be given a fine for speeding, so don't speed. And don't try and warn people on faceache that there is a camera.
This is very different but In France, if you see a camera, and try and tell other drivers, you can get into trouble (I know someone that was warned of this at least)

 

[DRM]

It’s not a secret, if you use the navigation part of google maps it says when you are approaching a mobile speed camera van, so you know before you get to the thing it’s there

 

[Jody]

It’s not a secret, if you use the navigation part of google maps it says when you are approaching a mobile speed camera van, so you know before you get to the thing it’s there

I thought it was only static cameras

 

[Jody]

The offending post was removed within an hour of it being posted (about 30 minutes after I flagged it).

How did you manage to flag it?

 

[mjr]

Again, more assumptions:

1. That exceeding the speed limit (read not blindly following the rules) regardless of context automatically equates to being a "bad" driver.
2. That said "recording device" is only "triggered" when license conditions are breeched.

Well, we can assume 2 if needed to reach agreement because the recording device is currently only theoretical so far.

And 1 seems a pretty safe assumption because a good driver would be willing and able to keep their vehicle to the posted speed. You can insult that as "blindly following the rules" if you like, but it's a very strange person who would follow the far more onerous rules (including some hoop-jumping that even I consider pointless) to get a driving licence and then be unwilling to follow the speed rule.

 

[DRM]

I thought it was only static cameras

No it does mobile too, picked one up on a bridge over the A1(M) this afternoon, they catch the A1 & A19 traffic this way in North Yorkshire, speeders don’t see them till it’s too late, the only downside is the emergency braking from 90 mph to 60 mph, nearly causing a pile up, then accelerating away again like it’s a Formula One race