Why speed cameras suck

[sobrique]

I dislike speed cameras.
Leaving aside the obvious 'that I got tagged by one', the reasons are these:

* They perpetuate the myth that there's some mystical threshold, at which going faster you suddenly become 'dangerous'. Speed appropriate to conditions. Repeat after me. Speed appropriate to conditions.

* Watching your speedometer because there's a camera coming up means you're not paying attention to the road.

* A few miles an hour over the limit is less dangerous than stamping on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket.

* Automatic tickets transfer the burden of proof onto the hapless motorist. It's an automatic process that on numerous occasions seems to lack basic sanity checking. Guilting until proven innocent is not one of the tenets of our legal system.

* In March, I was assaulted, had a leg broken, and a ligament torn. I'm still not walking especially well. Made a statement, but they 'exhausted their avenues of enquiry'. Is it hard to see how I'm bitter that now some one is making my life complicated by issuing a ticket for doing 48 miles an hour, along a road that until a couple of months ago had a 60 mile an hour limit?

I appreciate that the skills required to investigate an assault case are not the same as the skills require to stick a notice of intended prosecution in an envelope, but somehow it offends me that more effort seems to have gone in to extorting £60 from me than in doing anything at all about the fact that I've had to put up with 6 weeks in a cast, and am still not entirely mobile.

Comments

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

A better solution still would be to have everyone drive well, drive well maintained cars, drive courtesly, drive within their abilities and never be tired, drunk or distracted when driving. Then we'd have no accidents at all and no need for speed limits.

But we don't live in an ideal world; we live in this one. In this one, people speed every time they get in a car and speed cameras cause them to make dangerous braking manouvers.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

In this world, people who speed should also live with the consequences of their actions. So I find the argument extremely uncompelling. If these people are really so incompetant that they willfully break laws and then put themselves in danger when they are faced with the consequences of their action, then they're candidates for Darwin Awards. And, the camera is certainly not the big problem, but rather their extreme lack of responsibility and common sense.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

Hear hear and well said to everything you've said Wolflady.

We're a two-person household and neither of us speed.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

When you say 'neither of us speed' do you mean that you don't habitually travel faster than the posted limit, or do you mean that you are continually watching that little needle in your dashboard? Can you say that you've never drifted over the speed limit, even say, when starting down a hill on a 'fast' road?

I'd take the view that one should be paying attention to the road ahead, especially when there's 'hazards' (as there has to be, in order to allow the erection of speed cameras) than looking down to watch dials.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

Strangely enough, after driving for over 20 years both here and on the European mainland, I find it quite easy to gauge my speed and keep it within the legal limit, yes, even coming down a hill. I've been known to slide a mile or two over the limit briefly, but not deliberately. There's a big difference between a speed 'creep' of 1 or 2 mph and doing 40 in a 30 zone or 100 mph on the motorway. It just takes a bit more thought. Which is why I probably don't chatter much or notice the scenery when I'm driving. And speed cameras rarely snap you when you're only a couple of mph over - generally you ned to be doing 5 over to get zapped. They DO allow for honest mistakes you know.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

By the letter of the law, 31mph in a 30 zone is an offence. Cameras may have fudge factors built into them, but surely that's just letting lawbreakers get away with it?

Should 'yes, I was over the limit, but I didn't do it deliberately' be a legitimate defense?

There's a notable difference between 'a bit over the limit' especially when the road is otherwise empty, and 60 mph through a residential area, past a school at kicking out time. But a speed camera draws no such distinction, if you're past the threshold, then clicky click.

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

True. Valid points.

However until we are all prepared to pay triple the current council tax so that there are enough traffic cops available to monitor the roads, speed cameras are the only option.

I live in a village, which is a 30 mph or 40 mph limit throughout. Clearly signposted. At each end of the village the road becomes national speed limit - single carriageway, ergo, 60 mph. How many muppets do you think overtake us each morning on the way to work doing 60 in the 30 zone stretch, because its 7.15 a.m. and the road is quiet, and 'well its only a few hundred yards til the speed limit changes anyway'? Revenge is coming -the local police will be arming residents on that stretch of road with mobile digital speed cameras very soon.

Personally, I'd shoot the fuckers.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think the easy solution would be 'self drive cars'. Set an autopilot, it takes you to work, and you can sit back and read a book, whilst having a pint. (no drunk in charge, because you're not in charge ;p). I rather like travelling by train, simply because you can just relax whilst doing so. Unfortunately, travelling by train is somewhat more pain than car with my route to work.

[(Anonymous)]

Well said. My brother was killed because the person driving the car was driving above the speed limit and crashed. Simple rule, don't drive over the speed limit. Just because everyone else does doesn't mean you should.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Because they were exceeding the speed limit, or because they were driving dangerously?

The fact that at 30 MPH you're 'safe' and 31 you're suddenly a dangerous death monster is just wrong.

[malal.livejournal.com]

But it's a suprisingly fine line. 30mph, if you hit someone there is a 1 in 5 chance they'll die. By 40mph, that becomes a 1 in 5 chance that they'll live....

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

People who drive dangerously should live with the consequences of their actions. It's the concentration on speed to the exclusion of other factors I object to.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

Yes, they should. And so should people who break the law because they can't be bothered to follow it. Most of the people who get into crashes at high speeds thought they were driving safely, until they lost control. Then, oops.

But you're right, speed isn't the only factor. But the scope of this discussion is blaming a camera for causing accidents, when if people were following the law, the camera would be immaterial.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

Let me be quite clear about this; if I am caught speeding I will shrug my shoulders say "it's a fair cop, guv" and pay the fine. It won't make a blind bit of difference to the fact the law is unjust, unreasonable and stupid. As Ed has already pointed out speed is the primary cause in only 1 in 13 accidents, and the specific wording is 'excessive speed' not breaking the speed limit. I know of plenty of places driving at the speed limit would be dangerous. There's also the fact that the areas of the country with the most speed cameras have seen road deaths go up not down.

Saying 'if people were following the law, the camera would be immaterial' is irrelevant because the majority of people aren't following the law. Fact is, Speed Cameras are causing people to drive dangerously - I see them do it every day.

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

I think we're going around in circles here. If I'm driving the speed limit - which, as an experienced driver, I always have a good idea of the speed I'm driving - I don't freak out when I see a speed camera. If I'm speeding, I do. Your conclusion is to remove the camera, and mine is to not speed.

My whole point from step one is that the logic of "People act dangerously when they don't want to get caught breaking the law" is a weak reason for not enforcing laws. Before I see this apply to speeding laws, I would apply that logic to, say, drug use. People would behave _much_ less dangerously with drug use if the laws against it weren't enforced. It also applies to a lot of other laws. For example, lots of people behave more dangerously when they want to murder people, for fear of getting caught. If the laws against murder weren't enforced, the likelihood of, say, drive by shootings would probably plummet. Nevertheless, I'm still more in favor of not breaking the law against murder than dropping the enforcement of it.