[olduser]

I take it the new cameras were not popular!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gwzwjke2go

Reading this, triggered off the question, when we drive do we want to get to journeys end with the minimum of risk or do we drive because we like the risk?

In other words, logically we could have sufficient cameras and/or sensors on the road such that a central computer could guide all vehicles.
The ultimate train set!

We would select a destination, and the computer would take over, similar to todays driverless cars but the computing would be static rather than riding around in the vehicle.
A central computing system can more easily manage traffic, rerouting to avoid congestion etc.
Police would only have to tell the system a section of road was closed, the system could sort traffic out from there on.

Ignoring the technical issues, and cost, would we be comfortable with such a system or would we miss the danger?

[Drivingforfun]

I think it's the control we have over the danger that we like, not the danger itself

If a computer was able to cut in half the chance of death / injury, but remove the chance of that completely out of our control, I think lots of us would decline

It's like we want to be in charge of our own fate, even if that means a worse fate

When I studied philosophy the well known "selfless dictator" principle came up ... but we learnt about how if a dictator was able to come along and make society better, we'd rather have democracy even if it meant voting for a worse society

In other words we prefer the ability to create a less desirable fate for ourselves, over having a better one imposed on us by some external entity

I suppose we're all like children really, we want to find out for ourselves why we shouldn't have chocolate for dinner or stay up till midnight, we don't want to just be told not to do it 😆

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

I think it's the control we have over the danger that we like, not the danger itself.

The problem is that some drivers are happy to put the lives of others at risk, not just their own.

[Rolebama]

These cameras are just another form of control coupled with revenue earners. If they were serious about safety, they would be using the revenue to increase a Police presence. Cameras do not catch the elements we really want gotten rid of; drink drivers, tail-gaters and mobile phone users seeming to be the most disliked characters on the road. Cameras do not catch them.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Drivingforfun

I think it's the control we have over the danger that we like, not the danger itself

If a computer was able to cut in half the chance of death / injury, but remove the chance of that completely out of our control, I think lots of us would decline

It's like we want to be in charge of our own fate, even if that means a worse fate

When I studied philosophy the well known "selfless dictator" principle came up ... but we learnt about how if a dictator was able to come along and make society better, we'd rather have democracy even if it meant voting for a worse society

In other words we prefer the ability to create a less desirable fate for ourselves, over having a better one imposed on us by some external entity

I suppose we're all like children really, we want to find out for ourselves why we shouldn't have chocolate for dinner or stay up till midnight, we don't want to just be told not to do it 😆

On the one hand I suppose that is why humans are the most dominant animal on earth, we break the rules.
Or another way of saying almost the same thing is, I am want to do this, and to hell with anyone else.
But we are tribal creatures, and we need to cooperate to be in the tribe.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

The problem is that some drivers are happy to put the lives of others at risk, not just their own.

The frightening thing about that is, most of the time they don't know they are risking someone else's life or well-being.
This may be due being too lazy to think it through or just too dumb, so that's why rules and laws are created.

[olduser]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

These cameras are just another form of control coupled with revenue earners. If they were serious about safety, they would be using the revenue to increase a Police presence. Cameras do not catch the elements we really want gotten rid of; drink drivers, tail-gaters and mobile phone users seeming to be the most disliked characters on the road. Cameras do not catch them.

Yes I agree, a NIP in the post is almost a status symbol, whereas the chat with the cop on the roadside is effective, even if it is no more than a warning.

[NMNeil]

Originally Posted by Rolebama

These cameras are just another form of control coupled with revenue earners. If they were serious about safety, they would be using the revenue to increase a Police presence.

If safety was a real concern they would have activated the speed limiters that have been installed in cars for years now.
As for revenue earners, the drivers are voluntarily giving away that money by ignoring the laws, it's not being taken from them for no reason.

[Rolebama]

NMNeill: I agree with you entirely. The problem comes if they begin to lose that income then they tax something else, or increase a current tax, that may affect me.

[Beelzebub]

I've just looked at the linked BBC story again. It now says:

"Update 15 January 2025: A previous version of this story incorrectly said the cameras used artificial intelligence to look for offences."

The camera appears to be a straightforward speed and red-light unit. Presumably the idiot(s) who cut it down had heard some conspiracy theory to the contrary.

[NMNeil]

I don't know if you heard that after the 'success' of the UK congestion pricing they introduced it in New York.
And like London they had a clear demarcation on where the pricing would begin, in the case of NY it was anything south of 60th St. in Manhattan , and just like London it's working, but creating chaos.
Drivers are filling up every available parking spot north of 60th street, increasing pollution (One driver said he drove around for 2 hours trying to find a parking spot), physical fighting over parking spots and of course tampering with license plates and blocking cameras.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/manhattan...tolls/6099745/
https://abc7ny.com/post/nyc-congesti...oods/15799804/

[olduser]

I suppose it will feel more irksome in 'the land of the free'.

[Rolebama]

A bit off-topic, but I have a couple of friends who have changed their commutes to avoid the ULEZ cameras, they avoid the main roads and use relatively deserted back-doubles for their new routes.
FWIW: There is a ULEZ camera just up the road from me now on its third or fourth replacement, yet I notice a drop-off in media coverage of their being destroyed.

[NMNeil]

@Rolebama An update.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/co...d-over-9042636

[olduser]

I do wonder if speed cameras do any real good.
It can be argued they generate revenue but the fact they do, suggests they don't do any good.

A speed limit, in reality tends to be interpreted as a minimum with drivers getting frustrated if they are not at the limit, without any consideration for conditions around them, and what effect these have on a safe speed.
In fact I would argue, that the effect is to make drivers feel driving at a safe speed for the conditions is not their responsibility.

The, 'failing to make progress' fault in the driving test will force many drivers to go faster than they feel is safe, suggesting to them, 'never mind if it feels unsafe do it'!
Much better if this aspect was defined as what is is, lack of experience.

But that then throws into doubt, moving from a provision licence to a full licence is a good idea, perhaps we should have another stage after a driving test where the driver is allowed to drive but with some restrictions for some appropriate time period.

I have seen it argued that speed limits should become maximum speed recommendations.

The driver would still be subject to, 'driving without due care and attention' or 'reckless driving' (if that is the correct terminology?).
In the event of a crash, the driver/s would have to prove they were driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions, which in recommended areas would be the recommended speed or less.

Seeing as all cars theses days have airbags, the speed information will be stored in the airbag controller - unless there has been a recent change, I read air bag controllers record speed, so the manufacturers has information to use in their defence if someone tries to claim damages due poor or none performance of an airbag -.

The intention is to makes it clearer to drivers, it is their responsibility to adjust their speed to fit the conditions at that time.
I suspect it would not be a popular change, as it do's suggest they are going to have to pay full attention to driving all the time!

[Nick]

I sit firmly on the fence on this one, as someone who is in the process of booking a speed awareness course but also able to see the good in speed cameras on one of our local roads that has seen a significant number of fatalities over the years, including some close friends whilst at school.

This recent article on the RAC's news site has some interesting perspectives on our approach to speeding as motorists in the UK.

[TC1474]

Tell you a little story about speed cameras.

When they were still quite new, the council had to see Police approval before they could be installed, and likewise we had to get council approval if we wanted a camera put in a particular location.

We wanted a camera put outside a particular school, so me and my Sgt went to the council meeting to put our case as we had had a spate of quite serious crashes outside involving youngsters caused by inappropriate speed.

So we put our case forward and the chairman then said, "I/we will agree to your request if you will agree to a camera being put outside my house?"

Now where this councillor lived did not have a speed issue, never had done, never could just because of the nature of the road, and although a 30 limit applied you can very rarely get above 20.

So we put the case forward that there was no justification for a camera at which point this chairman made the point that if we were not prepared to approve a camera where he wanted it, he would not approve the camera we wanted..

So, Barry (My Sgt) reasoned that if we were going to get what we wanted he would have to agree to the demands of this idiot and on the basis that it was the council paying for it, what the hell type attitude.

At the time each camera cost about £20,000 to buy and install.

So Barry agreed to this dictator's demands who in turn agreed to our requests.

But the best bit was yet to come. As we walked out of the meeting, Barry said to me, "He might feel he has got what he wants, but he obviously doesn't realise that I am responsible for what camera's get film put in them" (This was pre digital)

So both camera's went in, and in the 30 years since the camera was installed outside this councillors house, it has never had any film in it of been active, but the camera we wanted has saved numerous lives.

I think its called irony, but my understanding is that since deregulation things have got worse as councils can now see ways of making extra money because they do not have to consult anyone hence why you see quite a few camera on GLF roads.

[Beelzebub]

Originally Posted by TC1474

I think its called irony, but my understanding is that since deregulation things have got worse as councils can now see ways of making extra money because they do not have to consult anyone hence why you see quite a few camera on GLF roads.

Any such councils would be sadly misguided. Fines and fixed penalties go to central government, and course fees go to the police and course providers. Councils get nothing.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by Beelzebub

Any such councils would be sadly misguided. Fines and fixed penalties go to central government, and course fees go to the police and course providers. Councils get nothing.

Back in the day when the camera's were first introduced, fines were shared between the Police, Government and the local councils.

Then it changed where camera's that were clearly visible and had the yellow backing meant that fines went to Government and non marked camera fines went to local council.

Then in May 2022, councils outside of London were granted the power to issue fines for moving traffic offenses, including speeding (which involves the all grey coloured cameras., and Councils can keep any surplus funds from these fines after they have paid for the maintenance, upkeep and staff to operate and download the data.

The money from speeding fines involving yellow backed and clearly marked cameras goes to the Consolidated Fund, which is the Government's current account. This means it goes towards general government expenditure.

[Rolebama]

Local to me all that they achieve is increasing rear-enders, because people slow for the cameras, then go back to what they were doing before the camera. It is also quite common for people to flash and toot those who slow, but don't accelerate after the cameras. I have seen this on Rickmansworth Road, Cowley Road, Long Lane, Harvil Road etc.

[NMNeil]

I was once told that because of the high cost of the GATSCO cameras not many of the early installs actually had a camera. They still flashed at the appropriate time but there was no camera inside the yellow boxes.
No idea if it was true.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by NMNeil

I was once told that because of the high cost of the GATSCO cameras not many of the early installs actually had a camera. They still flashed at the appropriate time but there was no camera inside the yellow boxes.
No idea if it was true.

It is true that not all cameras were operational, not because they did not have the camera itself fitted, but simply because no film was installed.

In my area (not sure if this is still the case) my area had the highest percentage of speed cameras in the country (about 200) but only 4 were active at any one time and this would vary from day to day and only us operational crews knew which cameras they were.

The reason being that each camera (and it still applies now) had to be manually loaded and dowloaded with the film, and this takes time and there is only one person (a civilian) responsible for this job.

The public certainly did not know which ones were live or inactive, but their very presence acted as the deterrent in most cases.

Of course now it is a combination of manual analogue and digital cameras that are in operation, so the digital are live all the time which means that there are more active than in the past.

[olduser]

Early cameras used film, and took two pictures for each car, the speed was calculated by measuring the distance the car travelled between pictures relative to the lines on the road.
If the camera was not loaded with film, the flash would only go off once.

Modern speed cameras of course don't use film, and the pictures are transmitted to base electronically.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

Early cameras used film, and took two pictures for each car, the speed was calculated by measuring the distance the car travelled between pictures relative to the lines on the road.
If the camera was not loaded with film, the flash would only go off once.

Modern speed cameras of course don't use film, and the pictures are transmitted to base electronically.

They still work exactly the same way (older as well as modern digital cameras) they measure speed over distance and calculate the speed of the vehicle, and because it is time over distance, it is giving an average speed so often the speed recorded is lower than the speed the vehicle was actually doing at the time.

This is why we have the calibration marks so that if someone pleads not guilty then the experts can prove the actual speed from the position of the vehicle in the 2 pictures (hence the 2 are taken) but contrary to popular myth, calibration marks are not mandatory, although every force I know will not operate a camera until calibration lines are in place.

If the camera is live, you still get 2 flashes. 1 flash still means that the camera is not live, however, some digital camera's such as Truvello which measure approaching speed use no flash what so ever (for obvious reasons) an d the average speed camera's on most motorways do not use flash and the first you will know is when you get the NIP through the post.

[Rolebama]

I was told that one on the A40 at Hanger Lane was removed for a number of reasons. I was also told that the second camera flash was 0.7 seconds after the first, so if you went fast enough, you could be clear of the range of the camera. This became a game for the local boy racers in Oxon to the point they caused so many crashes, one had to be removed. Sources for both these were TrafPol.

[olduser]

Yes, I think I saw them showing this on BBC Top Gear in Clarkson's era.