Criminalizing Cameras Speed
Sleaze-Spun Slavery
…
research has shown that drivers exceeding the average speed on a road by 25 per
cent are six times more likely to have an accident. Government figures to be
published will claim that cameras are cutting deaths and serious injuries by 35
per cent. … The Association of the Chief Police Officers (ACPO) says that it
wants to tighten the current "10 per cent + 2mph" buffer that means,
for example, cameras policing a 40 mph limit are only triggered by vehicles
travelling at 46mph.
…
Downing Street has become alarmed by motorists' hostility towards speed
cameras… Mr Darling will try to calm
the public outcry… In 2002, 30,000 drivers lost their licences through the
totting up of points. The number of motorists caught speeding on camera in 2002
rose by 40 per cent to 1.5 million, Home Office figures show. That could double
to an estimated 3 million this year… Mr Darling said: "We must reduce
speeding but the public must have confidence that the punishment fits the
crime."
Profiteering proponent
politicos and pinnacle plods know this is a great game for boosted bank
balances but politicians just exceeded
their own electoral speed limits in reversing away from a monumental meltdown
caused by their crafty criminalization of what will soon become a majority of
otherwise impeccably law abiding voters. Read on to see why it was so stupid
and why a sweet-spot solution won’t be substituted… but not what it might have
been!
First though, unlike
regulators and hangers-on in those unsavoury suppressant sectors, we must
recognise as axiomatic that drivers are sentient so systemic solutions sold by
scummy screwballs won’t suffice here any more than they have in any other
sector. People possess personalities across all persuasions so they cannot all
ever be accommodated by any automaton however universal its claimed
capabilities (Goedel humanised, almost!) ~ and clouting citizens with cameras
is about as crude as could be in its moronic mimicking of impersonalised
impositions initiated by banking blockheads. Sentience exists statistically on
a scale from sensible to stupid and sentience alone should suffice to see that
having people deal with disputes results in less resentment than decisions made
by binary bits in mindless machines. Sadly this self-evidence has increasingly
evaporated from ever expanding numbers of ever more remotely removed
prattish poseurs leaving no-one
empowered to evaluate anything in what is rapidly becoming a digital
dictatorship.
Percy Public knows it, even
the prats know it, but few care enough even to try thinking about it never mind
intervening intelligently. In a nutshell then, our coercive culture has swept
aside everyone regardless of sentience and camera correctness was about the
silliest manifestation because it was obvious from the outset, at least to
sensible souls, that its failure to fix the fines on stupid sods wouldn’t work.
Indeed that much was surely also cynically obvious to the pundits, politicos
and plods who harnessed it as a haymaking heaven and sod the poor souls spiked
on their pitchforks ~ the sleazies always knew it was a win-win setting to spin
subsequent cash into their coffers for inevitable revisions and replacements,
just like the railways debacle and so much else since we allowed our societal
virginity to be raped by raw rednecks. Anyway enough of that superficial
scene-setting so now some sensible stuff as follows.
Given overwhelming
uncertainties in imponderables of special circumstances that confuse the main
messages, basic ballistics best portray uncluttered essentials for distance
stopping S dependence on velocity V as ratio S/V=B+R in terms of braking B=˝V/D
at deceleration D after reaction R. Brighter bods spotted that braking time is
2B but average braking speed is ˝V so braking distance is still BV and reaction
distance RV of course. In all of the endless hours of pseudo-scientific
pontificating from politicians and ambitiously ambiguous aspirants purporting
to portray all angles of public prejudice, I have heard nothing about D and not
a lot more about R yet both play parts as substantially significant as V.
It’s the same psychological
phenomenon seen in all the recent great “debates” from gemganic to Iraq via
climate, all of which exploited non-linear lock-on of publicity to spin
selected emphasis sought by politicos and manipulators and invariably promoted
by our Pavlovian media malignantly aligned on agenda axes nowadays. None of this
spin works in the end though because commonsense finally prevails to confirm
percy public is usually right to be disinterested (as in gemganic irrelevances,
95% ignored the campaign clamours) or to be disdainful (climate confusions,
consolidating scepticism as contrary characterisations emerge in turn
heightening hysterical hype from politico proponents) or to be dismissive
(cameras are cash cows, not cost-effective controls).
Whilst gemganic and climate
claptraps can’t be so easily ejected without leaning on facets of fancier
physics, cleverer chemistry and even bootstrapped biology, camera claptrap can
thanks to S/V=B+R which immediately demands that D and R be included in the
“debate” whereas they haven’t because they don’t fit the portrait painted by
our press pandering to politicians and politicos.
R isn’t in the picture
because distraction can’t be captured on camera, so it is still set aside for
analytical assessment after accidents or roadside by breathalysers ~ both
entailing sentient intervention, ideally also sensible although that’s less
assured nowadays with everyone expertly assertive however silly their
statistical superstitions. Anyway R clearly can’t be had from cameras as
conceived nor is it likely to be accessible unless intrusion invades the
interior of the car ~ a nightmare that can’t be entirely excluded thanks to
ever expanding political promotion of terrorism as the emergent universal
voodoo.
What about D? ~ it’s absence
seems a complete conundrum seeing as blockbusters manage no more than ˝g or so
against g or so for your average carriers and even 2g or so accessible to
slickers (NB g=10 metric and imperial 2mph = 1mps metric). These are decisive
differences, indeed it wouldn’t be exaggerating to say enormous even in the
context of speeds for safe stopping. In the spirit of simple illustration take
1 second as reference for R returning reaction contribution to S of 20 metres
from a reference V of 20mps (40mph). As defined above, blockbusters then have
B=2 and so entail a braking contribution to S of 40 metres whereas carriers
(B=1) add 20 metres and slickers (B=˝) 10 metres. Alternatively taking carriers
as a central reference for safety (ie S= 40m) it means that blockbusters should
be restricted to 30mph or 15mps (ie B=3/2 so B+R=5/2 which times V=15 returns
S=37.5, or 40 to warranted accuracy). On other side, slickers should sensibly
be limited at 50mph or 25mps (ie B=5/8 so B+R=13/8 which times V=25 returns
S=40 to warranted accuracy). Doing the same exercise for a reference V of 40mps
(80mph) returns for carriers B=2 so with R=1 again we get a central safety
reference S=120 which means limiting V to 60mph for blockbusters (ie B=3) and
100mph for slickers (ie B=5/4), again to warranted accuracy.
A key consideration for the
crudeness of camera criteria has been clout carried by the haulage sector,
ironically in unholy alliance with unsuspecting nannies who merrily intone the
mantra “speed kills” like all others without any insight whatsoever as to
whether or not it has any sensible substance beyond self-evident
oversimplification. Manifestly the law really is an ass in this arena, as
indeed everyone knows from everyday experience and as would surely be confirmed
by real data if they were ever sensibly sorted ~ which they haven’t because the
mantra would be unmasked as a fallacious oversimplification by opportunistic
politicians, politicos and poseurs. Moreover accommodating these realities
within the law, allowing slickers to speed past carriers, would seriously
conflict with coercive correctness collusion that is fast converting our
formerly Highest Individual Factor stoical society into a Lowest Common
Denominator compensation commune thanks to centralised command and control
covertly conveyed via privateers in purported partnerships that invariably
profit conveyors at the expense of their powerless customers.
Finally, again remark that
there exists an established capability which is ideally attuned to continuous
monitoring of relevant performance using a technology that would be publicly
acceptable, incentivised even by the insurance sector happy to discount cover
for better risk reliability but this sensible solution has never been publicly
aired because it would displace chief constables’ cash cow cameras, indeed
would dismantle the entire gravy train they’ve become!
PS Note that the numbers
retrieved above accord with what was always not just tolerated but routinely
adopted by most sensible drivers including cops but inevitably ignored by
idiots (including cops) residing in the lunatic limits of the sentience
distribution. Cameras are crap aren’t they, just like so many other aspects of
our feely-touchy correctness culture where distorted democracy opened the
floodgates for everyone to force a focus faction influence however ignorant /
irrelevant ~ whilst societal stoicism that served us so well for centuries has
been suffocated thanks to compensation culture cowboys. Never a mention
nowadays of inattention or aggression which in reality of course are the real
killers and used to be properly punished ~ consider that for a carrier one
extra second of distraction adds 20m at 30mph, in effect transforming it into a
blockbuster so far as stopping is concerned although not of course in terms of
impact damage~ another unheeded real reason for discriminating size in
regulatory rationale. A second is not a long time when it comes to distraction
intervals ~ indeed it’s pretty much minimum in refocusing to click radio or
mobile buttons and any aberration can easily turn 1 into 2 or even more…! Of
dear ~ such a pity that driving without due care and attention doesn’t feature
in ACPO’s crazed careerist campaign ~ and it doesn’t of course because it’s not
readily measurable (but it could be!) other than by traffic cops observing
events through experienced eyes!
Cops of course cost much
more than cameras, nowadays more than ever at an all-inclusive 90% over
national average against 10% over average 50 years ago. Moreover cops are much
less attractive to accountants carrying personnel costs on current accounts
unlike cameras on capital ones, this perversion a microcosm of our universally
flawed econometrics thanks to blinkered bean buggers who prefer things to
people across the board ~ because things are amortised much more quickly than
people. Well, that used to be so but the past decade has seen these heartless
hoorays given increasingly free rein to transform people into things via
short-term contracts with no continuing consideration never mind commitment on
implications into retirement ~ well apart from favoured fortunates, including
cops of course. So it’s no coincidence we’re now into pensions crises all
around us whilst (all-time high) taken taxes are squandered at ever
accelerating rates on obsessive inconsequentialities like due diligence in top
slicing 80% of most administered monies into kickback corporate alleyways.
I digressed again but only
to paint in the bigger picture as proper perspective for all this camera
codswollop ~ which is all it is and has been from the outset. No coincidence
that the exciting economies have eschewed all our ineffectual navel-glazings
(meldrewism to follow on government garbage as climate claptrap, obesity
obfuscation, ecological exaggeration, smoking gun) whilst pursuing permanent
progress, whereas expansion in our economy has been at the expense of poverty
disguised into unredeemable personal debt burdens in return for postmodernist
slaveries such as call centres. Moreover all this has been done on some silly
notion that shopping debt will secure social stability akin to that
historically delivered by housing debt when anyone with an iota knows that
psychological resistance to defaulting on possessions (or qualifications)
doesn’t even begin to compare with defaulting on property.
Anyway I just digressed from
driving again so as takeaway tag consider that simple cheap technology to track
transgressions (inattention / aggression above) has been around for years in
other arenas and in a form that would probably prove acceptable to percy public
by way of insurance discounts for goodies. However it hasn’t even been
considered publicly by ACPO’s poseurs because it couldn’t put cash in their
coffers, unlike cameras which are indeed a cash cow for the very good reasons
spelled out above. Policing was always only ever by consent in this country but
sadly the motley mob of present politicos played a trump card of terrorism as
universal voodoo and the prospect of coffins everywhere has exploded
constabulary coffers to the tune of 12.5% hike in local taxes in my neck, as against
a core grab up by a tolerable 1.5%. What on earth will we see for all this
terrorist tax-take, well after the 80% has been top-sliced / kicked-back into
due diligence? ~ probably nothing more than consolidating curtailment of the
freedoms we used to regard as essential elements of our democratic legacy. And
cameras will continue of course, indeed only get worse!
PS’ Just noticed a sadly all
too common pejorative rendering of central sentence in ACPO’s statement
(Independent 16may) ~ “exceeding the average speed on a road by 25%…” is not
the same as “exceeding the speed limit by 25%” yet is used as if it were the
same to assert a case for even more stringent stealth stealing. We all know
from firsthand experience that (for carriers) 40 is the sentient upper norm in
a 30 limit and 50 in a 40 limit, likewise 90 in a 70 limit ~ all in line with
simple sums outlined above and all adopted by drivers inside the lunatic limits
of sentience distribution. All are also on the high side of the 25% above
regulation so clearly the ACPO sentence didn’t mean these excesses, not so as
to be able to claim a six-fold increase in accident occurrence ~ that’s simply
unbelievable. What the sentence strictly must have meant is 25% on top of the
25% adopted as normal practice by most motorists ~ so that’d be 50 in a 30
limit and 60 in a 40 limit, also 110 in a 70 limit. Now it makes sense, indeed
it fits with what most sensible people would say is stupidity if only for
probability of catching attention from prowling traffic cops never mind
cameras. Note that 60 in a 40 limit adds a second to stopping time which is
also the distraction time limit I suggested above for radio / mobile blipping ~
so probably no coincidence that it concurs with exceeding sentient sensibility!
What seems surprising at
first sight is the claimed six-fold increase even when this statistic is taken
strictly as stated and not its intended (mis)interpretation. It means either
that 1 second really is critical or it could mean that these accidents involved
higher numbers of blockbusters (˝g brakers) rather than carriers or even less
slickers. Commonsense suggests it’s size that counts here in which case the
ACPO sentence was doubly pejorative, firstly as indicated above and secondly for
failing to discriminate what is probably a significant sub statistic that would
reinforce the case for regulatory refinement as deduced from simple sums
showing significance of size for stopping. Indeed, this interpretation would
also be consistent with injury severity remarks in same statement ~ also noted
in passing in my simple sums and self-evident that blockbusters do much more
damage than carriers. This prima facie indication of ACPO’s probable intended
distortion of the evidence purely for political pressure could be readily
tested to confirm if indeed there is a disproportionate involvement of
blockbusters, and even more tellingly should the accident reductions claimed
for cameras be less pronounced for the them (ie less excess speed, more excess
injury). The figures are readily retrievable but I doubt they will be tested
because cars comprise by far the bulk of what should be deemed illicit earnings
from improper practices!