View Full Version : Safety Cameras..... Safety my A?$e
SoulKiss
21-04-08, 10:35 AM
Was watching the BBC Breakfast program this morning and they had an item on Safety cameras.
They were out at a Mobile Detector Van, and they explained how it worked and everything - it was a laser based system.
They then cut to some footage of vehicles travelling at excessive speed - one was a biker doing 137Mph.
However there were a couple of clips of vehicles seeing the van (this was commented on the sound track), braking too hard and spinning out.
So by their own admission, the presence of the van CAUSED those accidents.
So how is this safe?
done it myself mate.Involuntary stab at the brakes and then 5 mins worrying about it "did they get me,did they not etc"
Ceri JC
21-04-08, 10:51 AM
Yep. Emergency stopping type braking always carries some inherent risk- the possibility of a car behind you rear ending you, you losing control and skidding etc. Anything that makes people emergency stop is a very bad idea. Speed cameras unfortunately cause people to brake hard. I'd imagine police officers would be more inclined to book someone who braked dangerously hard when they saw them, rather than someone who took another 3-4 seconds and slowed down in a more controlled manner, rather than the opposite situation we have with cameras.
EDIT: As an aside, I nearly lost control of my bike braking very hard in the wet for a camera that was obscured behind vegitation till I was right up on it. There was no danger in the speed I had been going and I could of stopped in the distance I could see to be clear as the road was visible for a fair way after the (faded) dragons teeth.
SoulKiss
21-04-08, 10:54 AM
Yep. Emergency stopping type braking always carries some inherent risk- the possibility of a car behind you rear ending you, you losing control and skidding etc. Anything that makes people emergency stop is a very bad idea. Speed cameras unfortunately cause people to brake hard. I'd imagine police officers would be more inclined to book someone who braked dangerously hard when they saw them, rather than someone who took another 3-4 seconds and slowed down in a more controlled manner, rather than the opposite situation we have with cameras.
EDIT: As an aside, I nearly lost control of my bike braking very hard in the wet for a camera that was obscured behind vegitation till I was right up on it. There was no danger in the speed I had been going and I could of stopped in the distance I could see to be clear as the road was visible for a fair way after the (faded) dragons teeth.
The made comment on how there was the camera that recorded the speed, the one on the side that recorded you passing and then the one on the front that got your rear number plate - so I dont think there is any need for "officers" discression - they just send as many out in the post as they can process in 2 weeks.....
ThEGr33k
21-04-08, 11:29 AM
Just a money making exercise lets face it.
The made comment on how there was the camera that recorded the speed, the one on the side that recorded you passing and then the one on the front that got your rear number plate - so I dont think there is any need for "officers" discression - they just send as many out in the post as they can process in 2 weeks.....
Yeah, sounds like a cash machine to me!
MiniMatt
21-04-08, 01:08 PM
Yeah, saw this as well. Was quite interesting how they were apparently concentrating on "dangerous driving", mentioned off the cuff that speed was only a factor in a third of serious accidents and then went back to wittering on about speeding drivers/riders. Lets forget about the two thirds caused by muppets driving with their eyes closed, half an inch off the backside of the guy in front, chuffing down quarter pounders whilst programming the sat-nav and talking on their phone.
So wheras the concentration was apparently on "dangerous driving" over here we weren't actually doing anything of the sort.
To be fair whether I'm speeding or not I instinctively brake, its like i have no control of myself, i feel the need to brake.
I often brake when I see a mobile trap and look down and I'm well within the limit.
Dicky Ticker
21-04-08, 02:22 PM
Since my escapade last year I genuinely wonder if it is worth having a 150mph bike any more as by the law of averages you are going to get nicked sooner or later. OK it only goes as fast as you make it go but it is so so easy to drift above the speed limits when the max legal speed limit is probably less than half revs in top gear
Sorry but this is sore point with me regarding the flaunting of the law/judges rules/home office rules and ACPO guide lines,not to mention Crown Prosecution Service
..So by their own admission, the presence of the van CAUSED those accidents...
This will then fuel the arguement to have mobile camera systems placed as covertly as possible.
Dicky Ticker
21-04-08, 02:43 PM
As far as I am aware Saftey Partnership speed cameras are not allowed to work covertly,they must operate where camera signs are displayed at a pre set distance from them. The police seem to have laws to themselves
I think the Horsebox must have been quite spacious. Perhaps they could try a wheelie bin next.
Was this it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7358372.stm
SoulKiss
21-04-08, 02:56 PM
Was this it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7358372.stm
Thats the one - well found :)
It's a really great example of how safety cameras cause accidents... the cars were built for the speed... the road conditions in all of those crashes were excellent (clear straight road, good visibility etc)... but the reaction to not being caught "speeding" has caused an accident.
That is unacceptable.
I wouldn't mind if it were a police car tailing someone and pulling them over - fair game... but to have caused that distruction by a simple distraction really is pathetic.
... and it's the drivers that get in trouble - and no questions asked about the police methods.
It's a really great example of how safety cameras cause accidents... the cars were built for the speed... the road conditions in all of those crashes were excellent (clear straight road, good visibility etc)... but the reaction to not being caught "speeding" has caused an accident.
That is unacceptable.
I wouldn't mind if it were a police car tailing someone and pulling them over - fair game... but to have caused that distruction by a simple distraction really is pathetic.
... and it's the drivers that get in trouble - and no questions asked about the police methods.
somebody with some sense
dirtydog
21-04-08, 04:12 PM
If that bike was doing 137 then i'm a monkeys uncle! The car that comes round the corner just after it is going just as fast, the rider is sat almost bolt upright as well!
Yeah, saw this as well. Was quite interesting how they were apparently concentrating on "dangerous driving", mentioned off the cuff that speed was only a factor in a third of serious accidents and then went back to wittering on about speeding drivers/riders. Lets forget about the two thirds caused by muppets driving with their eyes closed, half an inch off the backside of the guy in front, chuffing down quarter pounders whilst programming the sat-nav and talking on their phone.
So wheras the concentration was apparently on "dangerous driving" over here we weren't actually doing anything of the sort.
In all fairness they did feature a van driver putting a pullover on and a woman on a mobile phone. Unfortunately if you break the law you'll get done and pay a fine. If you don't break the law you won't get done or pay a fine (usually)
What a little O:) I am.
shifter
21-04-08, 05:39 PM
I nearly went into the back of someone once, It was on a 60mph road, they where doing 60, I was doing 60, then they saw the camera and stamped on their breaks down to 30. Because they where doing the speed limit I assumed they new what it was.:smt092
rick0361
21-04-08, 05:57 PM
I think the worst thing is going to be these new average speed cameras that check you over a period and issue tickets based on that.
All the cat a%$e that is being talked about them being trialled is just that, They have had them on the approaches to the M1 at Sheffield for ages and through all the road works round junction 31 for ages as well.
It is all about taxing by stealth and not having the cojones to say so.:mad:
Rhiwbina_Squirrel
21-04-08, 07:00 PM
They say they put them in 'accident blackspots'. What a load of cr*p! When my father takes me to the nearest pitches, which is less than a kilometre away, there are FOUR seperate speed cameras and not once have I seen or heard of an accident there.
I'm with dirtydog on that bike - there is no way in hell that was 137mph!
Alex
DANINPLYMOUTH
21-04-08, 08:52 PM
What a load of ****e if thats 137mph then my sv is good for at least 200.
I remember reading a while ago in mcn that the home office has never tested speed cameras on bikes, as apparently were such a minority and the camera works the same on cars and bikes. Mcn then catch a fireblade doin 20 or 30mph, whilst resting on its sidestand!!!
SoulKiss
21-04-08, 08:55 PM
TWhen my father takes me to the nearest pitches, which is less than a kilometre away, there are FOUR seperate speed cameras and not once have I seen or heard of an accident there.
That, just proves that it works :)
Gene genie
21-04-08, 09:30 PM
they've just mounted a speed camera 200yds down from me on a 40mph limit.
now there is a school (750 pupils) 100yds on the same road from me, now this is in a 30mph limit just before it ups to the 40mph limit. so the question is which way is the camera facing to catch speeders. is it towards the school as they enter the 30mph limit or after the school during the 40 limit. yes thats right its the later. safety my a?$e, 750 school childrens lives to protect and they decide to pitch it after the school. money, money, money. :smt093
punyXpress
21-04-08, 10:24 PM
What a load of ****e if thats 137mph then my sv is good for at least 200.
I remember reading a while ago in mcn that the home office has never tested speed cameras on bikes, as apparently were such a minority and the camera works the same on cars and bikes. Mcn then catch a fireblade doin 20 or 30mph, whilst resting on its sidestand!!!
When you are doing 60mph, the top of your front ( and rear ) tyre is travelling forward at 120mph:smt028
yorkie_chris
21-04-08, 11:31 PM
There's a stretch near me, 2 miles long, NO houses, schools, old people, cuddly wildlife etc. For all the years my family's lived in Halifax noone remembers a bad crash up there, there's now 5 speed cameras there.
This is what I'm wondering, if you get caught by all 5 (doubtful as they wouldn't all have cameras in at once), could you argue you didn't drop below 50 in between?
ThEGr33k
22-04-08, 07:29 AM
Heh Speed lasers do not work on bike for the reason Puny says... Shame most people have Puny minds and cant figure that out! He was maybe doing 70 id say.
dirtydog
22-04-08, 07:46 AM
I'm with dirtydog on that bike - there is no way in hell that was 137mph!
Plus the bike and van on the oppposite side of the road would approaching each other a hell of a lot more quickly with a combined speed of maybe near 200mph wouldn't they?
When you are doing 60mph, the top of your front ( and rear ) tyre is travelling forward at 120mph:smt028
Eh? You're either taking the **** or talking ********.
Ah, I see what you mean now... relative to the person with the speed camera. I think it's irrelevant though - it's not going to measure the speed of the piece of grit still managing to stick to the tyre as it comes over the 0 degree point (under the fender). Simply doesn't work like that.
yorkie_chris
22-04-08, 09:05 AM
So why do they work so badly on bikes then? No way was that guy doing 137 lol
SoulKiss
22-04-08, 09:09 AM
So why do they work so badly on bikes then? No way was that guy doing 137 lol
I would have thought lack of flat surfaces would be the issue - either angles bouncing the laser away, or, imagine how much it would freak the laser out if the beam went from your lid to the fairing - that would be like the object sudenly getting a foot closer which equals acceleration to the laser.
yorkie_chris
22-04-08, 09:11 AM
Buy that new BMW superbike then? That looks like a stealth bomber lol
2 reasons, depending on what they're being tracked with.
The radars were designed to measure car speeds, and weren't ever "type approved" on motorcycles. That is to say, their accuracy on bikes is not proven. Partly this is because motorcycles offer a much smaller object, giving a much smaller return signal to the radar - giving a much larger margin for error.
Secondly, motorcycles, being smaller, have less ability to absorb road shocks and vibrations - and generally vibrate more. Their mechanics are also more exposed, adding to the visible vibration. This vibration, which is considerably less in cars with large bodywork etc, can be affect the laser that is measuring your speed... hence why some very strange results have been seen on motorcycles.
I'm sure there are other reasons too, but these are the ones I'm aware of.
gettin2dizzy
22-04-08, 09:46 AM
I did my thesis in laser tracking, and it's a bloody hard thing to get right! In controlled conditions (ie a table with a stationary object) lasers struggle to work properly so it's no surprise that they don't work well for bikes. I'm so glad that work is over, I've never dealt with anything quite so frustrating.
21QUEST
22-04-08, 09:56 AM
I got done by a speed gunlast year. I was pretty sure I wasn't going ove the 40mph speed limit. I say 'pretty sure' because the last time I looked at the speedo was going past a fixed camera a short distance from where the copper was stood. Anyhoos, took the 3 points and paid fine as couldn't be arsed(long story)/couldn't afford to go arguing about it.
Some years back, I asked asked a copper if he could clock me to check accuracy of speedo....I was using an aftermarke speedo and was just kinda curious. He admitted it was a bit pointless as it's difficult to get an accurate reading on bikes WTF :confused: ;)
Cheers
Ben
Honestly, Lasers are so damn senstive, that's why they're used to track the tiniest of movements, or the greatest of distances - everything from the distortion in the surface of a cylinder block as the pistons fire up and down, to the distance of here to the moon.
Is it really reasonable to expect a numpty traffic policeman (no offense ;)) to appreciate the physics and variables involved? No, not until they've got a few years experience in a laser lab working towards their PhD.
It's quite simple. Very few of these devices were tested on bikes to see how accurate or inaccurate they can be. So why haven't they been successfully challenged as flawed in the real world.
Some years back, I asked asked a copper if he could clock me to check accuracy of speedo....I was using an aftermarke speedo and was just kinda curious. He admitted it was a bit pointless as it's difficult to get an accurate reading on bikes WTF :confused: ;)
Eh? But it's fine if they think it's enough to write out a ticket. My dwindling respect for those charged with enforcing our laws and maintaining civilised society just dropped down another notch.
I'm an only child, but I constantly have a bigger know-it-all brother watching over me. I wish he'd **** off!
MiniMac
22-04-08, 10:27 AM
As far as I am aware Saftey Partnership speed cameras are not allowed to work covertly,they must operate where camera signs are displayed at a pre set distance from them. The police seem to have laws to themselves
IRRC the rules have changed. Previously, they needed the signs so they could take the profits. Not anymore.
I think.
gettin2dizzy
22-04-08, 10:55 AM
IRRC the rules have changed. Previously, they needed the signs so they could take the profits. Not anymore.
I think.
Safety camera partnership have to have signs, the police can do what they want, including covert cameras. These are two different bodies completely hence bound by different rules
punyXpress
22-04-08, 09:36 PM
2 reasons, depending on what they're being tracked with.
The radars were designed to measure car speeds, and weren't ever "type approved" on motorcycles. That is to say, their accuracy on bikes is not proven. Partly this is because motorcycles offer a much smaller object, giving a much smaller return signal to the radar - giving a much larger margin for error.
Secondly, motorcycles, being smaller, have less ability to absorb road shocks and vibrations - and generally vibrate more. Their mechanics are also more exposed, adding to the visible vibration. This vibration, which is considerably less in cars with large bodywork etc, can be affect the laser that is measuring your speed... hence why some very strange results have been seen on motorcycles.
I'm sure there are other reasons too, but these are the ones I'm aware of.
If it's a hand-held gun the excitement of getting another victim could cause it to vibrate, giving a dubious reading. But what the heck, it's another criminal nailed.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.