Speed camera cut down for second time in Cornwall
Speed camera cut down for second time in Cornwall
A speed camera only replaced in November is among two cut down in Cornwall.
It's insane the lengths that some people will go to save a few seconds on their commute, while also endangering others.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't understand why these people can't see the cameras are there to protect everyone - including drivers.
Maybe because cameras can't protect anyone. They gather evidence for incrimination, not prevention.
From 1992 to 2016, speed cameras reduced accidents by between 17 to 39 per cent and fatalities by between 58 to 68 per cent within 500 metres of the cameras.
That's a report on a single study in the UK. We cannot necessarily assume that the outcome will be the same or even similar in all jurisdictions and social driving norms. The US, for instance, doesn't have speed cameras, but the use of red light cameras has no effect in the rate of accidents at best and an increase in the rate of accidents at worse and it's not clear what impact the introduction of such cameras to the US would have. Meanwhile the UAE does have speed cameras, but they do nothing to limit the speed of the Emirate citizens and only the threat of harsh fines, punishment, or deportation keeps the immigrant and working population in line.
While this camera was in a location which already has cameras, the claim quoted was not that "UK cameras protect UK drivers," but one of "Cameras [in general] protect everyone" which is simply not true. Cameras have only the mechanisms necessary to record and report, they have no mechanism by which they can divert, slow, or stop a car or pedestrian and no mechanism they can use to stop an accident.
The cameras in question are on the UK, and cameras change behaviour because they enforce rules, as the study shows.
The US, for instance, doesn't have speed cameras
That's just straight up wrong.
Cameras have only the mechanisms necessary to record and report, they have no mechanism by which they can divert, slow, or stop a car or pedestrian and no mechanism they can use to stop an accident.
There is no need to stop a crash in-progress when the dangerous behavior that would have resulted in that crash never happened in the first place because of the discouraging effect of traffic cameras.
Some places in the US definitely do have speed cameras.
Speed cameras do prevent speeding, they are used to trap in some cases, but almost always they are sign posted, which causes people to slow down.
That sounds like the signs have a correlated impact more than the cameras having a causal relationship.
The signs work because people are scared of speeding cameras.
If you put up signs everywhere without backing them up with cameras people will obviously ignore them.
The cameras are doing the real work, the signs are just for people new to the area.
There's not much point arguing with these people my guy. There's no rational thinking.
How so? Isn't knowing the consequence a form of prevention?
You’ll never get a real answer because the types of people that post these idiotic disingenuous complaints about speed cameras have nothing to say to the simple question:
Why not just drive within the speed limit?
Or maybe I was just out during the day and didn't have a chance to respond until now?
I didn't post a complaint about speed cameras and certainly not a disingenuous one at that. I was just pointing out an incorrect assumption made by an official quoted in the article.
I do think it's kinda silly that your response to the fact that cameras don't have a means to control traffic or stop accidents is to ask why I don't drive the speed limit.
I do.
And cameras still can't stop me from getting into an accident.
And cameras still can't stop me from getting into an accident.
Are you stupid? The whole premise is that the risk of actual consequences will slow people down, which in turn reduced the risk of getting into an accident.
If traffic cameras worked to prevent traffic violations they wouldn't be revenue streams. People would just rationally follow the traffic laws to avoid consequences. Yet, in the real world, we know it will only slow down the people who think about consequences.
If traffic cameras worked to prevent traffic violations they wouldn't be revenue streams.
They can be both lol. Prevent traffic violations for the people that care about the consequences, and a revenue stream from people that don't.
Yet, in the real world, we know it will only slow down the people who think about consequences.
Better than nothing.
They literally can't be both. If the camera is a revenue stream then people are constantly getting tickets, which means nothing has been solved.
I don't really care about motorists, but that doesn't stop me from acknowledging these as a scam
Not really. Awareness of punishment does little to abate crime in general and while increasing the chances of getting caught (say by automatic cameras) does discourage crime in a meaningful way it does not prevent it.
Even so, the camera itself is not offering protection. It has no mechanism to control traffic or stop an accident.
I see this language far too often around cameras, but the fact remains they serve only to incriminate after the fact, not to prevent before the fact.
If you want protection, reduce lane sizes, make drives less straight, install speed tables, incentive alternate arterial routes, make sure alternate forms of transportation are effective and available. Hell, install the cameras even, but don't be dissolutioned that they are what is actually doing anything.
Speed cameras do work though. Here they are often used in specific places where people are driving too fast, especially if near schools and other places where it's extra dangerous.
For example close to where I live there is a steep hill with a road that goes straight down and after there is a completely straight road and then a really small bridge with a bump.
Some people like to speed down the hill and basically "jump" the bridge bump. Fortunately a speed camera was installed at the bridge and they warn about it well in advance.
While you could technically redesign the road, it would be very costly compared to a camera and that road is a very small road with low traffic and private farmland (or grazing land, I don't remember) on both sides.
Here the cameras aren't even activated all the time just enough to achieve their goal of reducing traffic.
These are all better options, but that'll require closing the road for a while and more money to spend, which have been gambled on leaving the EU from my American understanding of modern British history. Speed cameras are much cheaper, will not require road closure, and there have been studies indicating a 22% effectiveness after installation.
That is a bad take.
TL;DR: If you do incriminating stuff, you should be incriminated.
There are rules that every driver has to adhere to. The rules are there for protection of the drivers and the people that rely on the drivers driving safely. But the thing is: without consequences, some people show bad behaviour, one being ignoring the rules which are made to keep people safe. In order to suppress such behaviour, fines and punishment are used.
I have been driving cars for around 10 years and have gotten a fine three times. The amount I paid for it in total was roughly 10 Euros per year, which is less than 1 Euro per month. And I could have avoided having to pay this by just being mindful and acting according to the rules, which I did not.
If people feel like they should drive 120 kmh in a 50 kmh zone or even worse, without any proper justification, they do not belong behind the wheel of a car.
People would be less upset about the cameras if a) we weren’t already the most surveilled western country already. B) the fine for minor speeding was minor. as you mentioned you paid 100 euros for 3 fines. In the uk you can be fined for doing 33 in a 30, and the fine will be 100 euros per time, plus points that makes your insurance go up as well. And c) there weren’t so god slam many of them. I live in Europe now, but went back to the uk to visit friends and family and honestly there have to be about 40-50 times many cameras in the uk than in Germany!
Speaking from germany, 33 in a 30 wouldn't even trip the speed cams here. Earliest infraction is basically doing 6mph over on a 30mph road, which would come at 50€ fine. We apparently also have 50 times less speed cameras and it absolutely does not stop people from fucking malding over them. They have to be designed bulletproof here now and even those still get regularly blown up. None of the points you raise change anything about it, because the core issue is people are terminally car brained
Plus they often feel like they're placed to catch people who drift upto 35 on the downhill section of a road that looks like it should be national speed limit anyway.
If they didn't feel like a way for them to make money people would accept them easier.
Personally I'm a rare sunday driver so they don't really affect me but I absolutely see how people can be annoyed by them
Agreed. If they were actually there to stop speeding and not just cash in, then they would just put average cameras on every slip road and then nobody could speed on the motorway at all. Obviously this would be hell for someone like me but I couldn’t argue with it for safety really.
Just drive the speed limit and there's no problem. Driving massive multiple ton killing machines is already a massive privilege, if you can't adhere to simple rules of the road, you shouldnt be driving at all.
Self righteous much? You talk like it’s not possible to stray a bit over the speed limit and still be safe. Honestly imo, anyone timid enough to feel like 35mph in a 30 is genuine,seriously dangerous should not be allowed to drive. You should be confident and commanding of said multiple ton machine.
If that is your mindset, then just pretend every speed limit is 5mph lower than it is, so when you are going 5mph faster, you are still driving within the limit. It's a matter of moving your own personal goalposts if you can't follow a very simple limit. Not wanting to follow such a basic rule as stay within the speed limit tells me you shouldn't be allowed to drive and if you cannot understand what a limit is, you should be retaking your test.
You are saying it should be fine to drive 5mph over the limit, okay so let's say we make that legal. Now you are caught doing 37, that's only 2mph over the 5mph extra we allow, so should you be punished? All you have effectively done is increase the speed limit by 5mph. The 30 on the sign, that's all it is, a speed limit. It's not saying "drive around this number", it's saying: do not drive above this number, that's what a limit is. There's already a 10% leniency on speed limits to account for things like instrumental errors and minor mishaps, but that doesn't mean you should be knowingly driving 10% faster than the limit.
I am going to take my own advice and not engage with this any further as it's a very simple subject of just following the rules of the road and arguing/encouraging otherwise is just illegal and dangerous advice. If you have a problem with a speed limit on a road, you should take that up with your local government and not drive over the limit.
I’m not saying they should abolish or raise speed limits at all. But I’m just sick of this sub randomly popping up on /all and everyone here freaking out that straying over the speed limit by a few mph is a heinous crime when realistically it makes little difference. Again, talking about 30-35 in a 30 not 40 or 50 or something. Makes me worried all these pussies are super jumpy and jittery behind the wheel instead of calm and collected, which imo would cause my accidents than people driving assertively and confidently.
TL;DR: If you do incriminating stuff, you should be incriminated.
Boot tasty.
It's a bad TL;DR but they do lay out why it's illegal
I couldn't care less. These cameras exist entirely to make councils money. When they actually want traffic slowed they redesign the road properly with traffic islands.
Destroying these cameras is a good thing. It either fucks over council revenue sources that mainly fuck the poor while affecting the rich not one bit, or it results in getting actual redesigns of the roads properly because they do actually want that road to be safer.
This method is a little extreme though tbh we usually just chuck paint on them. This one is tall in order to make that less viable it seems.
What's your usual transportation method?
Bus, train or taxi.
Oh, yeah... so if you do incriminating stuff, say... acting in a way that directly leads to people being hurt, maimed and / or traumatized, you should just get a pat on the back. I will just have to presume that this is what you are saying.
acting in a way that directly leads to people being hurt, maimed and / or traumatized
If that's your benchmark then 90% of people should be considered criminal.
Out of interest do you support Israel and/or the continuation of the war in Ukraine or do you support ceasefires?
Do you not feel discouraged from speeding or running red lights when there are traffic enforcement cameras watching?