WARNING REGARDING HIDDEN SPEED CAMERA VANS

[steve_m]

As for enforcing speed limits think of the alternative. Not enforcing them would have many drivers driving at speeds that would be wholly unappropriate and many innocent peoples lives would be put in danger.

Who says we don't enforce them other than with scameras ?

We used to have very effective traffic police units, ksi's, deaths in particular were falling year on year, partially driven by technology in cars, better road engineering and effective policing but with an increasing number of cars on the road, the fact that ksi's were falling year on year shows 'we' were doing something right.

When scameras were introduced and the emphasis changed to speed being the number one danger the ksi's leveled off, and a few years later they started increasing.

In the old days plod used to use their discretion, you could easily get done for dangerous driving because there were enough of them to follow you, they used to sit on roundabouts above motorways, watching dual carriageways and M roads, looking for dangerous loads, odd looking vehicles, untaxed cars etc - nothing got past them and they performed a very useful role that nobody other than the crims criticised.

Now we have cameras which are only interested in if you're doing 6 mph than the posted speed limit, to hell with the fact you're reading the paper, smoking a joint, arguing with your mate and trying to speak to your friend on the phone at the same time, at least you're not speeding !

It's also wrong to assume that "speeding" puts people's lives in danger . . . it's less dangerous doing 100mph on the M6 at 10pm than it is doing 50mph at other times, speed is not the key differentiator to use when assessing danger.  It never has been and never will be.

Speed is just a convienient way of levying a tax, the scameras the most appropriate way of collecting it  

[neilb]

Maybe you should secretly take pictures of the chavs in the shopping centre and then find out where they live and machine gun them in their home a few days later    

Best idea I have heard on this thread particularly when you see the way the courts continually let them away with an apparent slap on the wrist, whilst they really go to town on the normally law abiding person, who has inadvertantly strayed over the nominal limit.

Let's not forget the reason the 70MPH speed limit was bought in originally. It was during the 70's fuel crisis and to save fuel. It had NOTHING to do with saving lives.

Another aspect to it is that the police are not a cheap service to run, we pay a lot for their services, but the courts force them to jump through hoops to prove these scroats are juilty then let them out again . . . so the plod have to go through the same process all over again    

I know a few police officers who say they know who most of the main criminals are in their area, they could stop 80% of the crime in a couple of days by picking up those they know about . . . but they can't keep them locked up.

We need a few more DCI Gene Hunts

[Norman Verona]

Steve, I don't disagree with you. However, it wasn't the police who started the camera enforcement it was the Govt.

The problem with applying discretion to choose your own limit is that whilst it may be OK for you (and me) there are some drivers I consider dangerous at 30mph let alone letting them decide to do 90 mph on a motorway because they think it's safe.

Having had more speeding fines (and lost licence at least 4 times fimes due to totting up) I still accept that speed limits are neccassary and need enforcing (by policemen in cars is best but you're not going to change it now - it's all about costs). I also know the penalties for getting caught.

If anyone is using cameras for raising revenue it's not the police. See if you can vote for a party at the next election whom will scrap all the cameras and put bobbies back in cars.

[perksy]

I'll say it again, Police are subject to the same laws that everyone else is. If they break the law (and get caught) they will be in court. What happens then will be the same process that will occur for you and me.

Same Process

BUT more than likely a Different outcome    

This has been seen on many occassions over here

Perhaps it's different in France            

[Norman Verona]

Certainly is different over here. Here the Gendarme are a part of the army and dish out the punishment to save court time.

Seems to work as there seems to be not much crime (expept in Paris and other big cities)

Maybe we should go back to those methods in the UK  

QUOTE

n my experience magistrates are not exactly friendly towards the police. They treat them on the basis they should know better.

(just thought I'd post the part of the post, just for balance, you see)

[pistonbroke]

How does any camera, including covert speed camera stop the toe rag driver who doesnt give a s**t about road safety from driving like a lunatic ?

Most people just shrug there shoulders and cough up when caught , maybe drive like a boy scout for a day or two then go back to there old everyday driving habit

In the same vein how does doing away with the camera and employing more traffic officers help(which I assume what you are inferring).  How many times on the TV have seen the chav drive off after being stopped and then get stopped again 5 minutes later?

There is no way to force everyone to follow the law, all you can do is persuade the majority to do so.  There will always be the minority who will treat the law with distain and in these cases the courts should use the full powers given to them and send the barstewards down, crush their cars and fine them to the breadline.

As for your second point are you saying that the fine isn't sufficient to prevent reoffending, if so what do you suggest, bigger fines/imprisonment or just relaxing all the limits so less people will be caught? (but then won't that mean less chance for the idiot scumbag to be dealt with?).

All I have heard so far is moaning that there are too many cameras fining too many people, but hey hold on each one of these people was breaking the law, the law may be stupid but it is the LAW.  I may believe that the law saying I can't machine gun chavs in the shopping centre is stupid but I would and should still be prosecuted for ignoring it.  

If you want drive faster on a road than the limit allows try to get the limit changed, don't ignore it and moan that you were fined.

Its common enough knowledge that the fines dont work because they target the wrong people , 99.99 % of people caught on camera are law abiding citizens going about there normal everyday duties .

Show me how speed cameras stop the blatant law breakers who dont give a damn about road safety!

Show me how they prevent accidents? (theres a good argument to say that they actually cause more accidents than they prevent) .

Please dont try to convince me that the things are put on our roads for any other reason than raising revenue.  

I dont know what the answer is,  but it isn't more and more legislation , perhaps more education is the way to go.

Ordinary working man doesnt waste his time going  to court over a speed ticket , because he is threatened with an even bigger fine if he does . even though there may be  reasonable circumstances why he was driving above the limit , he pays up, has a moan and gets on with everyday life .

Im sorry but I see the whole camera thing as being absolutely nothing at all to do with road safety any more , it may have started out with the right intensions but has now become just a major fund raiser for the Gov. hiding under the coat of "road safety"  

Incedentely in more than 40 years of driving (mostly for a living ) I have been fined once for speeding , 43 mph on a 40 mph country road , where a scamera was hidden away in the roadside greenery, I was the only car on the road which had just been changed from unrestricted 60 mph to 40 mph , there were no pedestrians within miles.

What happened to "common sense " the country has gone legislation mad  

[Norman Verona]

QUOTE

What happened to "common sense " the country has gone legislation mad  

I have a theory that todays politicians aren't the traditional type of people to seek public office. Up to the mid 60's to serve the public cost the person money. The Tory politician could affoed it, the Labour man was sponsored by the unions.

Now the salaries (and expenses) are worth seeking as a well paid job. So the people the job attracts are not primaraly interested in serving the public.

Once in Govt. these people (of all parties) feel they must be seen doing something to justify the huge salary they are paid so dream up new legislation 3 time a day... and tell us about it 9 times a day.

OK, you can wake up now.

[steve_m]

Steve, I don't disagree with you. However, it wasn't the police who started the camera enforcement it was the Govt.

If anyone is using cameras for raising revenue it's not the police. See if you can vote for a party at the next election whom will scrap all the cameras and put bobbies back in cars.

The police went along with it, they are and always have been part of the scheme, they have to approve the scheme and they are the only people who have the authority to issue tickets, even today they are issued by the police, even when the scamerasare operated bu a civi.

There's no party that would scrap the scameras because the so called "safety" lobby are so strong and the government have lied and created so called "statistics" to show the scameras work . . . they have engineered a situation where it will be difficult to get rid of them without looking as though you're siding with the boy racers.  Unfortunate because it's killing 100's of people every year.