Log in

Thu, Apr. 19th, 2007, 12:35 pm
Speed Cameras

Some things can't be automated, you need to have a trained, experienced professional doing it. I've always said that Road Safety should be one of those things.

Automated cameras can only detect pre-programmed quantitave data, whereas dangerous driving is not something that can be quantified.

It seems I'm not the only person who thinks this way

Thu, Apr. 19th, 2007 01:05 pm (UTC)

Speed cameras aren't supposed to detect dangerous driving. They're supposed to detect going faster than a set speed limit.

On the assumption that going faster than what is presumed to be safe is going to make you unsafe.

Of course, you can argue I was on a flat straight piece of the M1, dry, in daylight with no other traffic so 150mph was safe. But, it's still illegal.

Thu, Apr. 19th, 2007 06:04 pm (UTC)

That's my point, the government seems to be pushing the idea that dangerous driving and speeding are the same thing. Those who look upon the government favourably may suggest that it's because they don't understand the situation fully, those who are more cynical might suggest that it's because speed is something quantifiable that they can automate and rake in the fines for.

The article mentions that there are fewer traffic police on the roads now than there were 10 years ago, which is a shame, because a trained traffic police officer can pick up on the full range of dangerous driving, which a camera can't.

Going back to your example, you could be travelling along the same stretch of road at 65mph in heavy fog, or a torrential downpour which would be far from safe, yet the camera wouldn't catch you.