CCTV/Camera warnings

[TooNice]

http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/04052010/36...ear-mot-0.html

I strongly believe that provided that the rule is there for a good reason, they ought to be obeyed by all parties unless there is a darn good reason for an exception (and I am referring to disaster type of reason). So I do believe that the council should refund every penny of illegitimately issued fines.

My question is *why* motorists need to be warned about surveillance in the first place. It can't be an issue of privacy, since this is public. Would failure of putting up a sign that states 'Trespasser will be prosecuted' mean that trespassers may not be prosecuted? Assuming no, so what makes this different?

[jim]

I think the whole thing's a bit daft. I remember a few years ago when it went a bit like this:

Drivers: We're getting caught out by your speed cameras, this is an absolute disgrace
Council: Okay, we'll paint them all luminous yellow so they're easier to spot, hope that's a good compromise

So now instead of catching people out, or encouraging people to drive carefully, we get long roads of 15 mph limit, 60 mph limit, 15 mph limit, 60 mph limit, etc. Massively safer.

I think you go one of two ways.

Either you scrap the entire lot, and forget about it

Or you put speed/parking/traffic light cameras everywhere, hidden away. You don't fine unless people are breaking the law significantly - i.e. 41 in a 30 zone, so people aren't looking at their speedo constantly, they're just conscious of needing to drive at the correct speed. They aren't just avoiding parking in particular bus stops, they're avoiding parking in all of them.

Basically they aren't looking for cameras, so they can't avoid them specifically. Then keep their locations secret and ban any device that claims to know their location and warn the driver.

Either they do the job they were intended for, or they can sod off. All this "warning" nonsense is just silly... as far as I can see it's just a compromise that's meant to appease all of these angry motorists - and I don't think it's working anyway. Why not get rid of all the pretence?

[DavidM]

Agreed - either that or fix a maximum limit to cars? (Are there *any* cases where people need to go above say 10% over the speed limit?)

[Saracen]

Agreed - either that or fix a maximum limit to cars? (Are there *any* cases where people need to go above say 10% over the speed limit?)

An emergency, rushing someone to hospital to save their life?

I suspect most parents would say that if their child were dying and seconds difference in arrival time might affect whether they survived or not, the speed limit could go to hell. If you get caught just pay the fine ... or more likely in those circumstances, get a flashing light police escort after they found out what was going on.


Okay, it's an extreme case, but extremes happen from time to time.

[jim]

I thought that for a while David, but in the back of my mind, in addition to what Saracen said - what about accident avoidance?

What if you're on a narrow road, with an ambulance behind you? Or what if you can see can see a danger, and your only option to avoid hitting it is to speed up. Would be pretty nasty if you reached your maximum speed limit and then died in the resulting accident.

[Georgy291]

Agreed - either that or fix a maximum limit to cars? (Are there *any* cases where people need to go above say 10% over the speed limit?)

in a emergency, where you need to get out the way etc. and its already avalible for parents to stick it on to their childs cars.

Secondly, lets point out as to why people speed?

I dont agree with half the speed limits on the roads (i dont have a car so i dont speed, just my point). I mean why are they so low? 70mph on a motorway? This was invented back in the old days where cars could barely get to 70, so that was a good limit to stop people from taking their cars out of control. Now that cars can do 70 easily, why not raise it higher?

Saying that there are cases where i agree that there slow ones for a reason. But say m25, 70 and so many speed cameras everywhere, driving there with a speed camera pointing out GPS, is so annoyng as it bleeps on every corner.

[Jiff Lemon]

So, the camera has netted the council nearly a million quid by fining people who uyse the bus stop as a pickup/drop off point for Clapham South underground station.

So, hands up all the people who think the council will invest that money into building a pickup/drop off point close by, so that it doesn't need the camera anymore?

[peterb]

<---snip

I dont agree with half the speed limits on the roads (i dont have a car so i dont speed, just my point). I mean why are they so low? 70mph on a motorway? This was invented back in the old days where cars could barely get to 70, so that was a good limit to stop people from taking their cars out of control. Now that cars can do 70 easily, why not raise it higher?

snip--->

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/faq.html#SEVENTY

Lower speed limits were also introduced as a fuel saving measure in 1975 after the Arab Israeli war threatened the oil supply (and petrol prices virtually doubled in a 12 month perid from around 35p/gallon (8p/litre) to around 70p/gallon - as they also did 5 years later in 1979/80 when it rose to around £1.40/gallon.

[TooNice]

I dont agree with half the speed limits on the roads (i dont have a car so i dont speed, just my point). I mean why are they so low? 70mph on a motorway? This was invented back in the old days where cars could barely get to 70, so that was a good limit to stop people from taking their cars out of control. Now that cars can do 70 easily, why not raise it higher?

Cars may have gotten better, but has the reaction time/skill of the average driver improved? It [i]might/i] well be that 70 is low. But just because the technology is available for the -average- car to go at over 300mph, it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be safe for everyone to drive at 200. At one point or another, the car may provide more speed than can be safely handled by the average drivers.

There is an interesting table on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#BCMT2003

I might read the pdf source later to see if there are other things the tables do not tell us, but on the face value, a lowered limit seem to have had a positive impact in some countries.

[Georgy291]

Cars may have gotten better, but has the reaction time/skill of the average driver improved? It [i]might/i] well be that 70 is low. But just because the technology is available for the -average- car to go at over 300mph, it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be safe for everyone to drive at 200. At one point or another, the car may provide more speed than can be safely handled by the average drivers.

There is an interesting table on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#BCMT2003

I might read the pdf source later to see if there are other things the tables do not tell us, but on the face value, a lowered limit seem to have had a positive impact in some countries.

but the brakes have also improved, so thinking distance might be bit longer but braking distance got shorter

[Jay]

for minor offences like this CCTV should only be able to be used as evidence to backup the traffic warden. This country spies on you just waiting for you to make a mistake.

[TooNice]

But has it kept up with engine power? Well, quick Google since I don't claim to know much about cars (never been that bothered TBH), and I found this: http://www.stoppingdistances.org.uk/...Distances.html (Can't vouch for the reliability, so if you have a better source..)

Stopping distance:
20mph -> 12m
25mph -> 17m
30mph -> 23m
35mph -> 29m
40mph -> 36m
45mph -> 44m
Another site says:
70mph -> 96m
80mph -> 121m

Those are of course estimates, and not the most extreme (I've seen one estimate of 172m at 80mph here: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/background.html). The breaks may be better than 50 years ago, but stopping distance still grow faster than an increase in speed.