The difficulties that digital services have in coping with the subtleties of real-life is a topic of perpetual fascination. To me, at least.
As well as providing an example of a meaningful “government” transaction which is mostly binary in outcome (you’re either nicked or you’re not), the speed camera also throws up some softer material in terms of the relationship between citizen and state.
I say “mostly binary” – but of course we throw in appeals and tolerances to give a bit of fuzz around an otherwise clear-cut picture. We do this with most things. Because real-life decisions are analogue – they rely on judgement, exceptions and context. That’s usually where their incarnation as digital services, with their hard computational grounding in a world of 1s and 0s begins to break down. (But that’s what the book’s about…)
It’s interesting how most articles on the subject of speed cameras tend to focus more on the relationship between individual and state than on road safety. And why is it that almost all of them are written from the “public services are greedy and useless” camp? Just coincidence?
I can honestly say that the libertarian argument seems shaky here. If it’s all about the right of the invidual to determine their outcome, remind me who else had their foot on the accelerator? There’s a purely rational choice: don’t break the limit, if you aren’t prepared to pay.
I have no truck with this description of them as “revenue generators”. Instead, I see automated speeding fines as a voluntary tax on arrogance and incompetence. Voluntary, because the terms of the transgression are pretty clear and nobody else is responsible for the speed of your car. You can quibble about where the limits are set, and please do if you can make a good case, but don’t argue that someone else has forced you into making money for them.
And the arrogance and incompetence? Look at what actually happens. If you’re nicked (particularly by a 30mph camera) you either:
a) didn’t see it [so are you really observant enough to be in charge of a car in a built-up area if you can’t spot a large, brightly-painted yellow box on a pole after a string of warning signs? And if you hurtled round a corner into it, need I say more about the wisdom of hurtling round corners in built-up areas?]
b) saw it and were unable to slow down in time [stopping distances in the vicinity of 30mph are miniscule with modern brakes and tyres and if you didn’t manage it you’re probably incompetent at driving as well as unobservant – are you seriously going to argue that you weren’t going too fast?]
c) decided to chance it and blazed on through based on some “they give you 10% leeway coz of measurement errors”-type argument that somebody told you about in a pub, or you read in the Telegraph Motoring section [in which case you’re a nobber.]
And yet you really think your groaning about it “only being 35mph” still has some validity? Where is this coming from? Let’s look at those tolerances in more detail – do they even make sense? Because my serious point here is about on which side the benefit is given, and what other consequences that has for us as a society.
Let’s say you’re clocked doing a true 81mph on a dual carriageway. Your speedo probably says 84mph. The camera “allows you” 10mph (more than 14%) over the 70 limit, but you’re beyond that so you’re nicked. And you put in an appeal because you read in the paper that Chief Constables recommend 80mph as the sensible enforcement limit, and your speedo was far less than 10% past that, so you’ve been diddled. Or something along those lines. Double counting FTW!
I think that these problems (and this sort of accompanying gobbledygook logic) creep in here because we tilt the benefit-of-doubt towards the driver. Why should the error risk always be placed on the public service side?
Humour me with this thought experiment. Imagine a society where the risk was loaded the other way. Where the limit (wherever set) was rigorously enforced. Any error margin on your car’s instruments would be your problem – for you to plan into your choice of speed. 65mph would become a common speedometer reading on a motorway. (Yes yes, this is undoubtedly too slow, so limits need adjusting, but that’s not my point here.)
What I ask you to imagine is: in a culture where risk was loaded like that, what else might be different about our behaviour as members within a society? Would we still accept a culture of regular lateness? Of last-minute cancellation? Of slipped deadlines? In the little things, even the nuances of speeding enforcement, lie hints about wider societal behaviours.
I’ve skipped some of the other usual arguments here for brevity – sudden braking dangers, obscured cameras round bends, etc – and because I seem them as peripheral to the core point here about risk. Full disclosure: I’ve never been nicked by a static speed camera, just a covert, mobile one, once. And in plenty of pursuits, but that’s a different story.
I wrote a long comment but then realized the point could be made much more concisely.
When we compare standard speed cameras with average speed checks through road works (and permanently on the A14), we can see that what you are saying here is: speed cameras are a tax on being caught breaking the law. If you are smart enough or skilled enough not to get caught, then you don’t have to pay the fine.
Surely if we think the law is worth having, then the sanctions ought to be sensitive to whether you break the law, not just whether you break it carelessly.
One thing you’ve not touched on and I’ve not seen (nor looked for) research on whether speed cameras make some drivers less safe because they spend so much time checking their speedo and looking for big yellow boxes on sticks, rather than watching the road.
I’m trying not to get too deeply into the whole “are speed cameras good for safety or not”, which really relies on data for a good answer. Instead I’m focusing on this point about who carries the error risk. But in my view if you can’t maintain a controlled speed without your driving becoming dangerous, you’ve got all sorts of problems that you should probably work on before heading on to a public road. You managed to pass your test by being controlled and observant – is it really that difficult to keep it up?
I find the behaviour of suddenly braking as you approach a camera followed by speeding up once you’ve passed it somewhat hypocritical.
If you claim to be a good driver and to follow the rules, you should of course stick to the limit everywhere – regardless of where the cameras are. Cameras will become meaningless little yellow boxes to you.
Also, it makes you wonder whether the camera really is there to ‘catch’ people at random, on a road where they ought to stick to the speed limit all the way or whether it has been placed there for strategic, speeding ‘hot spot’ reasons. If the latter, they are really just glorified humps in the road and I don’t think they will have any greater effect on the general behaviour of motorists.