Social Media Platforms - People posting about mobile speed cameras

[glasgowcyclist]

Since IME the placement of mobile speed cameras seems to be motivated exclusively by the number of NIPs they can yield rather than a desire to improve road safety; I have no problem with their locations being called out.

Surely if a greater number of NIPs is possible at a particular site then enforcement at that location is indeed a road safety measure, no?

 

[wafter]

Surely if a greater number of NIPs is possible at a particular site then enforcement at that location is indeed a road safety measure, no?

No, because speed in isolation does not correlate directly with road safety.

Whose actions do you think are more likely to endanger the lives of others - someone doing 150% of the speed limit on a dry, clear motorway or someone doing 150% of the speed limit through a residential area with narrow streets, many pedestrians and minimal visibility? Further, which situation should the police concentrate their resources on to maximise their effect on road safety?

It's about context; the police seemingly choosing low-risk, high-yield locations as opposted to those where the outcome of driving with excess speed is likely to carry the highest risk to road users.

 

[Alex321]

Surely if a greater number of NIPs is possible at a particular site then enforcement at that location is indeed a road safety measure, no?

Usually not.

If large numbers are speeding by enough to exceed the usual 10%+2 that the cameras are set to, then it implies the speed limit is too low.

There has been a general consensus over many years that speed limits should be set at around the 85th percentile speed - i.e the speed at or below which 85% of drivers would drive if there were no posted limit. If too many drivers are breaching the posted limit by a significant amount, then it has probably been set significantly lower than that 85th percentile point.

I should point out that modern thinking is tending away from that consensus, particularly for residential areas.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

No, because speed in isolation does not correlate directly with road safety.

Whose actions do you think are more likely to endanger the lives of others - someone doing 150% of the speed limit on a dry, clear motorway or someone doing 150% of the speed limit through a residential area with narrow streets, many pedestrians and minimal visibility? Further, which situation should the police concentrate their resources on to maximise their effect on road safety?

It's about context; the police seemingly choosing low-risk, high-yield locations as opposted to those where the outcome of driving with excess speed is likely to carry the highest risk to road users.

Speed correlates with the level of personal harm or damage to property when the inevitable happens..

It’s not difficult to adhere to a posted speed limit. Those who ignore the limit do so entirely by choice and should expect punishment. The sooner we have mandated telematics and speed limiters in motor vehicles, the better.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

If large numbers are speeding by enough to exceed the usual 10%+2 that the cameras are set to, then it implies the speed limit is too low.

There has been a general consensus over many years that speed limits should be set at around the 85th percentile speed - i.e the speed at or below which 85% of drivers would drive if there were no posted limit. If too many drivers are breaching the posted limit by a significant amount, then it has probably been set significantly lower than that 85th percentile point.

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?

 

[Jody]

Just reply saying that it's moved and is now at some nearby location where cyclists have trouble with speeding motorists (something like a junction where cyclists often want to cross - but don't mention the cyclists, or make it too obvious like where a rail trail crosses the road).

This seems like a win-win to me: some fools might get caught where the camera really is, and it might reduce the trouble for cyclists at the other location.

Optimistic to think that would work on socials without someone calling you out.

 

[wafter]

Speed correlates with the level of personal harm or damage to property when the inevitable happens..

Indeed - and while speed is as you say an exacabatory factor in accidents, it's only a relatively small factor in their cause behind other more significant types of driver error such as inattentiveness or failure to correctly assess situations.

You're conveniently failing to address the point made in my previous post in continuing to push an idealistic and overly-simplistic binary argument. If road safety is genuinely your goal, again 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?

Is it more important to you to penalise low-risk drivers simply for daring to break the rules, or actually punish those who are causing the most significant risk?

Also, do you not think it's a somewhat naive argument to insist on rigidly enforcing adherance to often arbitrary blanket numbers that can fail to reflect the inherent hazards present on a road. For example, do you consider a 40-limit on a wide open, well-sighted rural road to be as deserving of enforcement as one through a populated urban area for far more hazards?

Surely it's not difficult to see my point? I'm not against speed limits or their enforcement, however surely it makes sense to prioritise associated resources in areas where they'll have the greatest positive effect on road safety, not for penalising as many people as possible for breaking arbirtrary limits in order to yield the most revenue?

It’s not difficult to adhere to a posted speed limit. Those who ignore the limit do so entirely by choice and should expect punishment. The sooner we have mandated telematics and speed limiters in motor vehicles, the better.

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..? A highly dangerous mindset indeed IMO.

Finally re. speed limiters - what about cases where accidents could be otherwise have been avoided by the addition of more speed - presumably anyone involved in these because their vehicle limited their speed would be considered a necessary sacrifice to your goal of adherance to arbitrary numbers at all costs..?

 

[cougie uk]

LoL. Yes "speeding would have avoided the accident"....

For every time that's a thing there's probably about 500 times that speed made the accident worse.

And speed limiters are coming whether you like it or not. But you could beat the system by choosing not to drive. That'll teach big brother.

 

[winjim]

Meh, if you'll speed on a straight road then you'll speed at a junction. Bad drivers change location, that's kind of the point of a motor vehicle.

Ensuring that somebody adheres to the conditions of a licence is not big brother.

 

[wafter]

And speed limiters are coming whether you like it or not. But you could beat the system by choosing not to drive. That'll teach big brother.

That's the plan; or at least not drive a new vehicle.. with the drive towards EVs and their associated cost I suspect this will be the deciding factor for me before any moral concerns.

Meh, if you'll speed on a straight road then you'll speed at a junction. Bad drivers change location, that's kind of the point of a motor vehicle.

Ensuring that somebody adheres to the conditions of a licence is not big brother.

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"..?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

The police put this information up before the vans are even there, giving about 2 weeks notice. Both on socials and the local papers

It's hardly a secret

They do, and as you say it isn't a secret. Which raises a question of why is it an offence for a member of the public to warn drivers of a speed trap ahead?

Shouldn't the Police be prosecuting themselves for advertising it?

 

[Ming the Merciless]

If road safety is genuinely your goal, again 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?

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

 

[Jody]

They do, and as you say it isn't a secret. Which raises a question of why is it an offence for a member of the public to warn drivers of a speed trap ahead?

Shouldn't the Police be prosecuting themselves for advertising it?

Yes, it's an odd one for sure.

Whilst I suppose their defence is they only put a date and the road rather than the specific location.

Seems you can get in trouble for using socials in that way

https://www.google.com/search?q=war...QgTRgB4gMEIEEYAOIDBCBGGACIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz

 

[mjr]

Optimistic to think that would work on socials without someone calling you out.

Catching some out is better than none.

 

[mjr]

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?

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(!)