Page 1 of 1
An effective deterrent
Posted: 16 Aug 2023, 6:33pm
by Grandad
One unit caught 297 offenders in 3 days - please can we have lots more
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-c ... 20Cornwall
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 16 Aug 2023, 7:21pm
by Tangled Metal
As a teenager I was in my local barbers waiting my turn and listening to the barber chatting to his client. It was interesting. He was talking about a new speed camera put in at a busy roundabout. This was way back when they were not so common which made this a big thing to talk about. Anyway the guy was saying how the camera caught 300 in the first weekend before they ran out of film for it. Apparently it was going through film so quickly they'd run out of film in the area so it was out of action for a few weeks.
Anyway, the guy's haircut was over and he got up out of the chair. He was wearing a police uniform with pips on the epaulettes of a senior officer so I guessed he knew.
I guess my point is that any new form of enforcement catches drivers out. Over time they get used to it and a degree of mitigation applies so enforcement drops with time. The issue is we don't change behaviours with enforcement we just punish until the enforcement becomes less effective or stops.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 16 Aug 2023, 8:16pm
by Pebble
I remember when the first average speed cameras come out, I was on the wagons at the time (so possibly not even this century) Anyways I was bombing up north one night flat to the mat as usual, At the time there was massive road works (I think Ballinuig area) It was like 2am and not a soul about, and I was bemused at all these signs saying "Average Speed Cameras" Then I remembered the previous evening I had been watching on Reporting Scotland of the introduction of the very first Average Speed cameras, I was soon down to 10mph thinking should I stop for a while? anyways I never got a ticket.
As to the OP - Brilliant, bring it on, lets have them everywhere, fund the economy with them if it was up to me.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 17 Aug 2023, 9:20am
by VinceLedge
If it reduced the use of mobile phones whilst driving they would indeed be a good thing.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 17 Aug 2023, 8:36pm
by MikeF
But it's war on the motorist - not a vote winner
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 18 Aug 2023, 8:01am
by UpWrong
Excellent
. But I can see the Tory libertarians raising objections if they see it as a vote winner rather than addressing the cost of living crisis.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 18 Aug 2023, 8:26am
by Cowsham
We need some to catch the litterers around here. People ( lazy dirty bar steward's ) throwing all the packaging from fast food out of cars especially on quiet country roads where they think they won't get caught. Then a fine of £2000 + community service for each offence. I recon that'll clean the place up and provide money and workers to repair / clean up the damage.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 18 Aug 2023, 10:01am
by peetee
It’s very obvious that policing speed offences is impractical. It would involve thousands of officers on every road, street and motorway for a considerable period of time before the message gets through. In my town and the local area the authorities are planning to introduce an urban 20mph limit on roads currently displaying 30mph. It is, frankly, laughable. I support the initiative but I don’t think it will make a jot of difference to the large proportion of people who ignore the current limit. They are the problem and only effective, widespread enforcement will kerb their behaviour.
The only practical way to do this IMHO is through a country-wide infrastructure of discrete solar-powered, wifi-enabled ‘hubs’ and a set of cameras that can be moved from hub to hub. The initial cost would be considerable but it’s effectiveness would guarantee huge revenue in the short term and, more importantly, in the long term, change for good.
I think that there will be a beneficial knock-on effect of this too. I believe that most instances of speeding are not intentional acts. They result from lack of attention, either of the vehicles speed or the limit of the road it is traversing. It follows then that any infrastructure that makes motorist sit up and pay attention at all times has to be a good thing.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 18 Aug 2023, 5:03pm
by thirdcrank
peetee wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 10:01am
It’s very obvious that policing speed offences is impractical. (etc)
I've trimmed that post for brevity but the point I'd make is that the technology exists to detect "speeding" offences and is improving. Practicality is not an issue. IMO what's missing is any political will to do it.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 18 Aug 2023, 5:57pm
by rjb
They are using AI to interpret the data. How long before it gets to the point of being able to predict crimes before they take place. Didn't they make a film about this. "Minority Report". Predictions to come true.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 18 Aug 2023, 9:14pm
by bikes4two
I suspect if these systems were more widely deployed, the authorities concerned would very quickly run out of manpower (aka women power/resources) to deal with the number of offenders.
Many years ago I worked in the IT dept of our local police force and I remember in the 'ticketing' office where they processed the speed camera footage, there were so many offenders that they often raised the 'threshold' for an offence in order to cope with the workload.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 19 Aug 2023, 7:17am
by peetee
bikes4two wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 9:14pm
I suspect if these systems were more widely deployed, the authorities concerned would very quickly run out of manpower (aka women power/resources) to deal with the number of offenders.
Many years ago I worked in the IT dept of our local police force and I remember in the 'ticketing' office where they processed the speed camera footage, there were so many offenders that they often raised the 'threshold' for an offence in order to cope with the workload.
Could the entire fine process not be electronic? I wouldn’t normally condone such a system but realistically it’s the only way it could become financially viable. That said, human intervention would probably be required if the charge is challenged.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 19 Aug 2023, 8:28am
by Jdsk
peetee wrote: ↑19 Aug 2023, 7:17am
bikes4two wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 9:14pm
I suspect if these systems were more widely deployed, the authorities concerned would very quickly run out of manpower (aka women power/resources) to deal with the number of offenders.
Many years ago I worked in the IT dept of our local police force and I remember in the 'ticketing' office where they processed the speed camera footage, there were so many offenders that they often raised the 'threshold' for an offence in order to cope with the workload.
Could the entire fine process not be electronic? I wouldn’t normally condone such a system but realistically it’s the only way it could become financially viable. That said, human intervention would probably be required if the charge is challenged.
Yes. There are several things going on here:
• A change in technology which allows much greater detection than previously.
• That opportunity to automate the process from detection to sanction at very low cost.
• The behavioural effects on road users of moving from low risk of detection to high risk of detection.
And I'd add a couple more:
• Extending the technology to allow warning of offence, and to prevention of offence. (See the EU technology roadmap.)
• Moving the sanction from the criminal domain to the regulatory domain.
Jonathan
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 21 Aug 2023, 8:10am
by tykeboy2003
peetee wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 10:01am
It’s very obvious that policing speed offences is impractical. It would involve thousands of officers on every road, street and motorway for a considerable period of time before the message gets through. In my town and the local area the authorities are planning to introduce an urban 20mph limit on roads currently displaying 30mph. It is, frankly, laughable. I support the initiative but I don’t think it will make a jot of difference to the large proportion of people who ignore the current limit. They are the problem and only effective, widespread enforcement will kerb their behaviour.
The only practical way to do this IMHO is through a country-wide infrastructure of discrete solar-powered, wifi-enabled ‘hubs’ and a set of cameras that can be moved from hub to hub. The initial cost would be considerable but it’s effectiveness would guarantee huge revenue in the short term and, more importantly, in the long term, change for good.
I think that there will be a beneficial knock-on effect of this too. I believe that most instances of speeding are not intentional acts. They result from lack of attention, either of the vehicles speed or the limit of the road it is traversing. It follows then that any infrastructure that makes motorist sit up and pay attention at all times has to be a good thing.
I get your point about the 20mph limit but you're missing the psychological aspect. People will drive over the speed limit by a certain amount; in a 30 limit they'll drive at 40 not 50 or 60. So in a 20 limit they'll drive at 30 - job done.
Re: An effective deterrent
Posted: 21 Aug 2023, 11:25am
by peetee
I’m not sure that will be the case. If they are ignoring the limits they are hardly likely to be paying attention. For example, where my partner lives is a main road into town. The limit is 20mph and there are speed bumps - not very effective ones at that. There are many cars driving in excess of 30mph, in my estimation. They are driving at the limit of comfort over the speed bumps, and sometimes miscalculating. I see this sort of driving a lot on rural trunk roads too. The cars are driven just below a speed that starts to throw the occupants around. Not a great was to gauge the safe transit speed on any road. I have, on foot, saddle and car seat, had many instances meeting such drivers at a point where one or both of us have had to take avoiding action. The signs are very obvious, from loss of traction in the extreme to passengers or possessions finding themselves forcibly relocated.
. But I can see the Tory libertarians raising objections if they see it as a vote winner rather than addressing the cost of living crisis.