Why are people against CCTV and speed cameras on the roads?

[Inertia]

The thing is though, if a patrol stops a speeding driver, they can check for driving unsder the influence - sight test if they suspect that the drivers vision isn't up to it, condition of the tyres, unsafe load etc etc

They will do all this when they stop someone.

I agree, but I don't advocate taking police off the roads, this will still happen.

 

[green1]

I imagine there are a lot more of them on the roads now instead of parked on mini hills on the side of motorways watching traffic slow down and speed up as they are passed. A monkey in a car could do that job.

I don't think anyone said we don't want traffic cops out there, I do, I want them out looking for dangerous driving, uninsured drivers etc.

Where are they then? Last time I saw traffic police out patrolling was just before christmas.

Around here as the amount of Cameras has gone up the amount of traffic police has gone down

 

[Inertia]

Where are they then? Last time I saw traffic police out patrolling was just before christmas.

Around here as the amount of Cameras has gone up the amount of traffic police has gone down

I still see quite a few but to answer your question I don't know where they are in your area but I agree we need more.

 

[vernon]

Fair? I think not.

Of course it's fair.

You broke the speed limit. The penalties are well publicised.

Suck it up.

 

[vernon]

Weird, Ive never seen the like, I can sympathize on that one if you aren't aware of it and get caught out.

A visit to Specsavers might assist with the spotting of the speed limit signs.......

 

[green1]

Giving the wombles (motorway patrols) the power of arrest would be a cheaper solution.

Motorways are our safest roads. Also not much use in areas like mine where there aren't any motorways.

 

[Inertia]

Giving the wombles (motorway patrols) the power of arrest would be a cheaper solution.

I'm showing my ignorance here but I didn't realise they didn't have power of arrest.

I heard from someone once that the traffic cops are looked down upon by regular police, maybe that explains it

 

[theclaud]

All people all of the time in all conditions?

No, but we want to slow people down across the board. I acknowledge that not all speeding offences represent equally dangerous or antisocial behaviour, but (with a very few and specific exceptions) all driving becomes less dangerous and antisocial if slowed down. And the reason there are places where drivers who notionally agree that speeding is generally wrong still feel it is OK to speed, is that the normalisation of speeding in those places is what maintains the conditions that make it seem OK to speed. It's circular reasoning, in other words.

 

[theclaud]

Although to be serious (just for a mo), its the very definition of speeding that im arguing. Non discretionary innit. I'm not arguing for a minimum speed limit of 100mph, simply that speed cameras in themselves have no perception of 'danger'.

You're overcomplicating it. We can use a sledgehammer, because it doesn't matter if we pulverise the nut. If we slow everyone down, it won't matter a jot that some people are slowed down "unnecessarily" or more than is "necessary". The speed that drivers would rather be travelling at is of virtually no interest. Their mistake is to imagine that anyone else gives a shoot.

 

[theclaud]

Why? Does the world move too fast for you TC? Is it all getting a bit scary? "Stop the ride I want to get off"!!!

Not at all, Smeggers. A lot of the time I move faster than cars, and I like it. I think a default urban speed limit of 15mph for motor vehicles, and a notional one of 25mph for pedal cycles, is about right.

 

[Linford]

You're overcomplicating it. We can use a sledgehammer, because it doesn't matter if we pulverise the nut. If we slow everyone down, it won't matter a jot that some people are slowed down "unnecessarily" or more than is "necessary". The speed that drivers would rather be travelling at is of virtually no interest. Their mistake is to imagine that anyone else gives a shoot.

They don't drive fast all of the time though (exceeding the limit/at a speed which they can't stop within the distance to they see to be safe) - I doubt Smeggers does, and I don't. IIRC, Speeding (breaking the limits) only accounts for 8% of accidents. Nobody is saying that this is insignifficant, but an awful lot of resources have been thrown at automating a system which doesn't realistically do the job of policing the roads effectively at all - it is a one trick pony.

 

[Inertia]

Although to be serious (just for a mo), its the very definition of speeding that im arguing. Non discretionary innit. I'm not arguing for a minimum speed limit of 100mph, simply that speed cameras in themselves have no perception of 'danger'.

The camera isn't the final word, you could always appeal to a judge who has discretion and I'm sure will have a better perception of danger

 

[theclaud]

Speed limits for cyclists???!!!

Traitor!!

I did say "notional". And I need some help if I'm going to catch Origamist...

 

[theclaud]

... bearing in mind the "anyone else's" (non drivers) are in a massive minority.

You couldn't be more wrong. I mean "anyone else" quite literally. Drivers don't give a flying f**k about other drivers. It's the nature of the beast. Everyone else is in the way. You shouldn't mistake the faux solidarity of empathetic whinging for any kind of collective enterprise.

 

[benb]

Does it not worry you that this type of 'policing' will never pick up on the drunk and drug using on the roads ?

I feel that it is lazy enforcement, and is only really effective against those who are by and large law abiding users. There are examples I've seen of poor driving which are far more dangerous than what Smeggers has just fessed up to.

I'm in favour of speed cameras and increased traffic patrols.
I don't see how the fact that I am in favour of speed cameras means I approve of the reduction in traffic police - I don't.