On 28 July, 10:30, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:
Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

[snip]
The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted
the perception of what is safe. *As far as the cameras are concerned
an idiot driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving
all over the road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady
60mph on a road designed for 70+ but somebody has decided to
designated as a 50 limit for no logical reason is defined as driving
dangerously.

Cameras do not pass judgments about what is safe. They are not
intelligent entities.

I never said they were.

You may like to read the first clause of your second sentence, which
looks like a well-constructed set of words that is arguing for the
cameras passing a judgment; if one substituted the word "Johnson" for
the word "camera" it would certainly read as a comment about Johnson's
judgment.

Speed cameras, like many other automated processes, make decisions based on a
previously defined sets of circumstances. *In this case IF vx THEN take
picture. *Making such decisions does not infer that the machinery involved is
intelligent. *As the cameras are, alledgedly, to enforce safe behaviour then
the decision process programmed into them can be presumed to be intended to
choose between safe/not safe. *Therefore, as far as the camera's programmed
instructions are concerned, IF vx THEN the vehicle is being driven safely.

No, the cameras are there to enforce the speed limit. That is all they
do. Someone could be driving their car sideways, but within the limit.
It's your assumption or the assertion of others that cameras monitor
safety. And it's a flawed way of looking at it.

The point I was labouriously trying to make is that reliance on detection and
punishment of a single factor by automated means because it is an easy and
cheap, or even profitable, way of policing the roads is not the best option
available. *Especially when the factor being detected is responsible for a
very small percentage of accidents overall.

I have sufficient years of driving experience to say that most drivers
do something unsafe or illegal at some stage of their driving careers.
The only way such things are going to be stamped out is for everyone to
be followed by a traffic cop. But since that isn't going to happen, then
the police are perfectly entitled to use technology to enforce clearly
defined rules. If there is a 50 limit, then someone driving at 55 has
violated it. That's clear. The question is, does it matter? If so, then
it's right to punish the offender. That's what speed cameras do, and
they do it dispassionately, and impartially (though as you indicate
below, incompletely). Similarly, cameras can catch people who go through
traffic lights on the red phase. Similarly, some cameras can be used to
look for number plates of stolen or other cars that should not be on the
road. Each different type of camera is looking for a different type of
offence. Any link to safety is a side-effect. It's the going through a
red light that is the offence, irrespective of whether there is any
transverse traffic through the junction at the time.

You may be perfectly right in saying that those who perceive the cameras
as enforcing safety are being lulled into a false sense of security, but
that's a problem of their perception (and yours, it seems) but not
everyone sees things in the same way.

Further the system is manifestly weighted against the private motorist as
against other road users. *A speed camera on a 70mph dual carriageway will
detect a motorist exceding the speed limit by 8mph but will not detect a
white van exceding the speed limit by 15mph or an HGV exceding the speed
limit by 20mph. (assuming the camera is set for the 10% allowed error of the
speedometers)

That's undeniable. It's not that much different from the general law
enforcement case, though, is it. Some people are caught. Others go
unpunished.

--http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632947.html
(43 044 at London Kings Cross, Aug 1985)

Cameras on the M4 trial can discriminate between classes of vehicles
and are combined speed detection/ANPR devices.

On 28 July, 21:53, Adrian wrote:
Sam Wilson gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

But as has already been pointed out, the speed limit can depend of the
class of vehicle. Speed cameras only enforce the speed limit for those
vehicles subject to the highest limit at that location. So if a vehicle
is travelling faster than the limit which applies to it but slower than
the limit which applies to the least restricted class of vehicle, the
camera will not detect that is exceeding its maximum permitted speed.
I was talking to a truck driver a couple of months ago (he was driving
the truck taking my ailing car home on the back of it) and he was of the
opinion that at least some speed cameras can detect the size of a
vehicle and react to its speed accordingly. *I'm still not sure whether
to believe it, but he slowed down to 40-ish for the cameras his satnav
told him about (A68 - not many).

The theory is commonplace, but I doubt the practice - not least because
it's entirely possible for two nominally visually identical vehicles (and
certainly very similar in overall outline or cross-section) to have
different speed limits.

Basically, I just don't think the cameras are intelligent enough.

Talivans, otoh...

SPECS3 combined with ANPR, Bristol and South Wales trials went very
well.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:23:18 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On 28 July, 10:30, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:
Graeme wrote:
In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Chris *Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

[snip]
The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted
the perception of what is safe. *As far as the cameras are concerned
an idiot driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving
all over the road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady
60mph on a road designed for 70+ but somebody has decided to
designated as a 50 limit for no logical reason is defined as driving
dangerously.

Cameras do not pass judgments about what is safe. They are not
intelligent entities.

I never said they were.

You may like to read the first clause of your second sentence, which
looks like a well-constructed set of words that is arguing for the
cameras passing a judgment; if one substituted the word "Johnson" for
the word "camera" it would certainly read as a comment about Johnson's
judgment.

Speed cameras, like many other automated processes, make decisions based on a
previously defined sets of circumstances. *In this case IF vx THEN take
picture. *Making such decisions does not infer that the machinery involved is
intelligent. *As the cameras are, alledgedly, to enforce safe behaviour then
the decision process programmed into them can be presumed to be intended to
choose between safe/not safe. *Therefore, as far as the camera's programmed
instructions are concerned, IF vx THEN the vehicle is being driven safely.

No, the cameras are there to enforce the speed limit. That is all they
do. Someone could be driving their car sideways, but within the limit.
It's your assumption or the assertion of others that cameras monitor
safety. And it's a flawed way of looking at it.

The point I was labouriously trying to make is that reliance on detection and
punishment of a single factor by automated means because it is an easy and
cheap, or even profitable, way of policing the roads is not the best option
available. *Especially when the factor being detected is responsible for a
very small percentage of accidents overall.

I have sufficient years of driving experience to say that most drivers
do something unsafe or illegal at some stage of their driving careers.
The only way such things are going to be stamped out is for everyone to
be followed by a traffic cop. But since that isn't going to happen, then
the police are perfectly entitled to use technology to enforce clearly
defined rules. If there is a 50 limit, then someone driving at 55 has
violated it. That's clear. The question is, does it matter? If so, then
it's right to punish the offender. That's what speed cameras do, and
they do it dispassionately, and impartially (though as you indicate
below, incompletely). Similarly, cameras can catch people who go through
traffic lights on the red phase. Similarly, some cameras can be used to
look for number plates of stolen or other cars that should not be on the
road. Each different type of camera is looking for a different type of
offence. Any link to safety is a side-effect. It's the going through a
red light that is the offence, irrespective of whether there is any
transverse traffic through the junction at the time.

You may be perfectly right in saying that those who perceive the cameras
as enforcing safety are being lulled into a false sense of security, but
that's a problem of their perception (and yours, it seems) but not
everyone sees things in the same way.

Further the system is manifestly weighted against the private motorist as
against other road users. *A speed camera on a 70mph dual carriageway will
detect a motorist exceding the speed limit by 8mph but will not detect a
white van exceding the speed limit by 15mph or an HGV exceding the speed
limit by 20mph. (assuming the camera is set for the 10% allowed error of the
speedometers)

That's undeniable. It's not that much different from the general law
enforcement case, though, is it. Some people are caught. Others go
unpunished.

--http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632947.html
(43 044 at London Kings Cross, Aug 1985)

Cameras on the M4 trial can discriminate between classes of vehicles
and are combined speed detection/ANPR devices.

In general, if an electronic camera reports to a central location then
it needs no discrimination other than ignoring vehicles travelling
below the lowest applicable limit; the comparison of speed against
vehicle type can be done later and/or remotely with the "innocent"
ones being discarded. Recognition on site is only really necessary to
determine a mismatch between the actual vehicle type and the
registered vehicle type. Simplifying the on-site detection apparatus
would also reduce the financial consequences of vandalism - IMU the
film-type cameras (ignoring the electronics for the speed detection)
are in practice now disproportionately expensive for the task they
perform (i.e. taking and storing lots of images when the control
equipment triggers the shutter).

In message

Andy wrote:

On Jul 28, 10:05*pm, Adrian wrote:
Andy gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

The theory is commonplace, but I doubt the practice - not least
because it's entirely possible for two nominally visually identical
vehicles (and certainly very similar in overall outline or
cross-section) to have different speed limits.

Basically, I just don't think the cameras are intelligent enough.
Well, the cameras don't need to be that intelligent. The software for
working out the fines can do a final check on whether the speed is
legal for the vehicle in question.

So you're suggesting that the cameras in a 60 limit single carriageway
NSL should take a photo of every vehicle doing over 40mph, in case they
might be HGVs?

No, just that if, as suggested, they have the capability to check for
'large' vehicles which have a lower speed limit, there can be a final check
of the speed before fines are issued.

I don't believe they have that capability, based on conversations with people
from TRRL.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:36:45 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 08:44:46 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
wrote:

I suspect the Taxpayer’s Alliance primary objection to speed cameras
is more down to the revenue raising aspects rather than perceptions on
safety.

Which is interesting, as one would think therefore that speed cameras
would be profitable[1]. It seems, however, that the ones in
Oxfordshire are not. Perhaps they are too successful?


When central government paid for the cameras, and local authorities
got the cameras free and kept the proceeds from the fines levied,
speed cameras were very "profitable" for those local authorities.

Now that central government funding has been slashed and all the fines
go to the Treasury rather than being kept by the local authorities,
the camera are no longer "profitable" for those local authorities. So
their "missionary zeal" (which was probably motivated by greed) has
begun to evaporate rather quickly.

What makes you think there ever was a time when the Treasury didn't get
the fines?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?


All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local
authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from fines.

Nobody has yet pointed out that speed limits generally were set at the
nearest 10 mph lower than the 85th percentile (approx from memory) of
all road traffic on a stretch of road (blanket 30 mph zones excepted)
in the 1960s. Therefore, "exceeding" a posted speed limit just means
that you are driving faster than the 85th percentile - not an offence
if you are driving sensibly.

Since the 1960s car control has improved tremendously from power
steering through ABS brakes, yet the Highway Code still has the
stopping (thinking/braking) distances of old. I would like to see
these distances recast for modern cars with two tables, one for dry
conditions and one for wet. Modern downward tinkering of speed limits
is practically all about anti-car, not common sense, cf ever
increasing swathes of 20 mph zones, etc.

Speed cameras are a danger (except at real accident black spots) as it
is a reflex action to brake when you see one on a road not traveled
before, and you lose concentration checking that you are 'safe'.
There is also the huge cost to the economy of braking/accelerating and
wear and tear on the brakes at these points and at speed cameras in
general. As the tolerances for speed cameras are not advertised, then
it is foolish to risk your license by driving past at any mph above
the posted limit.

Ken Wilshire gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Speed cameras are a danger (except at real accident black spots) as it
is a reflex action to brake when you see one on a road not traveled
before, and you lose concentration checking that you are 'safe'.

Hmm. I'd have said that knowing what the limit is and knowing what speed
you are doing were fairly essential pre-requisites to being considered to
be driving in an attentive manner.

As the tolerances for speed cameras are not advertised, then it is
foolish to risk your license by driving past at any mph above the
posted limit.

ACPO's recommended +10%+2 notwithstanding...

In message
Adrian wrote:

Ken Wilshire gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Speed cameras are a danger (except at real accident black spots) as it
is a reflex action to brake when you see one on a road not traveled
before, and you lose concentration checking that you are 'safe'.

Hmm. I'd have said that knowing what the limit is and knowing what speed
you are doing were fairly essential pre-requisites to being considered to
be driving in an attentive manner.

As the tolerances for speed cameras are not advertised, then it is
foolish to risk your license by driving past at any mph above the
posted limit.

ACPO's recommended +10%+2 notwithstanding...

ACPO also recommended upping the Motorway limit to 80mph, that was ignored as
well.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/