So in your am post a dreaded NOIP - well yep I was pushing it.
But hey, bloke in pub the other night was spouting that if I name the driver as Johnny Foreigner on the 172 request instead of me then quids in. Cannot fine, add points etc. Give me that pen.
www.tinyurl.com/5jbkq
Whooooppppps....
DVD
|
I have encountered a talivan on an approach into Preston, parked on the pavement and double yellows, forcing pedestrians to walk onto the busy road to get round it.
Anyone else would have been done for obstruction plus God-knows-what else. It's that kind of boneheaded stupidity that's driving us to rebellion, not speed traps per se. The local paper ran a campaign for a while, publishing photos of such situations night after night, but no-one in authority gave a stuff.
|
its a question of priorities
if you really think thugs who beat people up every weekend, burgalars, car thiefs taking several cars a week, general disorder and strife on some of our largest estates
are a lower priority than joe bloggs doing 10 mph over the limit you have a very sad view of why we pay for the police
having had an inspector say "sorry we carnt arrest them their fathers are the local big time criminals", im afraid respect is now for the police to earn
|
>>"if you really think thugs . . .are a lower priority"
I don't think I said that, John.
|
|
I misread your post, John -- I take your point.
|
|
|
|
its a question of priorities if you really think thugs who beat people up every weekend, burgalars, car thiefs taking several cars a week, general disorder and strife on some of our largest estates are a lower priority than joe bloggs doing 10 mph over the limit you have a very sad view of why we pay for the police
John,
Totally agree with your priorities!
For my 2 speeding offences in the pre-camera days I was followed by a policeman for the statutory distance, pulled over, details taken and he then prepared a report that resulted in a prosecution.
Not been caught by the dreaded blue flash, but SWMBO has. Some administrative staff dealt with it and, as far as I am aware, no policeman involved.
I would have thought that the latter system would enable policemen to devote more time to the priorities on which we both are in agreement.
C
|
I would have thought that the latter system would enable policemen to devote more time to the priorities on which we both are in agreement.
Yes, that would seem to be logical. But it doesn't seem to have happened.
No idea why.
|
It hasn't happened bcause cameras have replaced policemen rather than supplemented them, because the authorities have been brainwashed into believing that speeding is the main cause of accidents and that cameras reduce speeds.
So the logic goes: reduced speeds=reduced accidents=reduced police. QED.
|
|
|
>> I would have thought that the latter system would enable policemen >> to devote more time to the priorities on which we both >> are in agreement. >> Yes, that would seem to be logical. But it doesn't seem to have happened. No idea why.
Patently/BrianW
IMO it has happened. Police numbers are considerably higher now than at any time in our history and an even higher number of support staff. This was discussed in another thread.
Increased crime, different priorities, inefficient utilisation of resources all might be reasons why policemen are still hard pushed to cope - but that is not the issue.
Whatever the moral argument against speed cameras it is inescapable that they do release policemen from a time consuming task.
C
|
>>Whatever the moral argument against speed cameras it is inescapable that they do release policemen from a time consuming task.<<
A good argument but that's assuming that the sole role of a traffic officer is sitting on a bridge with a laser gun when surely this is one of the many things that they do.
I'm not going to say it but you all know what cameras don't measure...
--
Adam
|
but that's assuming that the sole role of a traffic officer is sitting on a bridge with a laser gun when surely this is one of the many things that they do.
And if the traffic oficer sitting on a bridge doesn't have to handle a laser gun 'cos that job has been automated, she's free to concentrate on the many other things which can be done.
|
I think that was the crux of my argument NW. They aren't doing the "many other things" because cameras have supposedly made those redundant. Traffic bobbies are getting put on other duties not policing the traffic.
Hello by the way - long time no argue ;-)
--
Adam
|
Hi Adam, nice to argue again :)
I think you state the situation perfectly: "Traffic bobbies are getting put on other duties not policing the traffic"
Exactly. The problem is not the cameras, it's the traffic police being redeployed.
The fact that some forces use cameras as a pretext for the redeployment is a good argument for chief constables to have their thinking skills enhanced, but it's not much of an argument against cameras.
FWIW, I suspect that the real reason for the redeployment is that traffic policing duties don't generate results which affect the the targets that forces have to reach. Burglary, violent crime, car theft etc, seem to be the priority indicators.
|
Yet another seemingly watertight argument. However.....;-)
>>Exactly. The problem is not the cameras, it's the traffic police being redeployed.<<
I'd argue that the former is a prerequisite for the other. Whilst I'm sure that as you say, some forces use it as a pretext for the redeployment, I still don't think that makes any difference to what is actually happening.
The way I see it, if cameras had never been brought in, traffic departments would still be...thriving I suppose. I know it's a simply way of boiling it down but wouldn't you agree?
--
Adam
|
The way I see it, if cameras had never been brought in, traffic departments would still be...thriving I suppose.
I doubt it. If the pressure is there to redeploy officers to activities which appear more likely to help meet targets, then absence of a lame excuse would't make much difference.
They'd just have to think of another lame excuse :)
|
>>I doubt it. If the pressure is there to redeploy officers to activities which appear more likely to help meet targets, then absence of a lame excuse would't make much difference.<<
Yes - I suppose you're right - damn you!
>>They'd just have to think of another lame excuse :)<<
Lame? LAME?!?!? My arguments may be misguided. They may even be incorrect to some degree....but LAME?!?! I'm hurt. Really I am.
--
Adam
|
Sorry Adam, I wasn't accusing you of being lame -- that tag was meant for the police who trot out that excuse!
I'd describe your argument as more unFocused ;-)
|
>>Sorry Adam, I wasn't accusing you of being lame -- that tag was meant for the police who trot out that excuse!<<
Yes yes. Of course you did NW. I'm afraid the damage has been done. ;-)
>>I'd describe your argument as more unFocused ;-)<<
Har de har har. Lame.... very lame.
:-)
--
Adam
|
|
>>Whatever the moral argument against speed cameras it is inescapable that they do release policemen from a time consuming task.<< A good argument but that's assuming that the sole role of a traffic officer is sitting on a bridge with a laser gun when surely this is one of the many things that they do. I'm not going to say it but you all know what cameras don't measure...
Adam,
Not like you to miss the point - or have I missed yours?
All I stated was that speed cameras release policemen for other tasks.
C
|
I suspect I've probably missed your point C ;-)
I read your comment as suggesting that cameras eliminate the need for cops to enforce speed and so, to get on with (what some would argue) more worthwhile tasks.
I was assuming that these tasks were traffic related - e.g. Drunk/Careless/Dangerous driving etc and not other police tasks which would equate to less traffic police despite higher police numbers.
Does that make sense because I think I've confused myself? :-) I'm all for devices to help the police get on with more important jobs but only if it doesn't mean getting rid of a traffic division....
....and that to me sounds like I'm endorsing cameras!!! Help me!
--
Adam
|
Adam,
I came into this discussion in reply to John Deacon who felt police should concentrate on real crime - burglaries etc.
How these released extra police are deployed is another matter.
We live in an era with some of the safest roads in the world with casualties at an all time low; and at the same time with a huge increase in non-motoring crime.
Could it be that re-deployment of traffic police to other duties is the correct way to go?
C
|
Sorry Cardew - I didn't mean to butt into an argument and I must confess, I never read the preceding posts.
I agree that non-motoring crimes should also be policed actively - I know that sounds like I'm trying to get the best of both worlds - traffic and non-motoring crimes being policed.
I didn't just miss your point, I completely misunderstood it (which is quite embarrassing :-))
I'm not saying that we should have squllions of traffic police to the detriment of other police but simply that we shouldn't think cameras are the be all and end all of traffic policing.
As you well know, whether rightly or wrongly, speeding doesn't get high on the list of my serious crimes and I've been trying to steer away from moaning abotu cameras and to see other people's point of view (such as NW) but it is the law and I suppose needs to be policed.
I apologise for interrupt an argument which was making perfect sense to everyone until I came along.
Cheers,
--
Adam
|
We live in an era with some of the safest roads in the world with casualties at an all time low; and at the same time with a huge increase in non-motoring crime. Could it be that re-deployment of traffic police to other duties is the correct way to go?
Interesting question. I guess the answer depends in part on how folks rate the different hazards. Is it more important to reduce the chances of losing a few chattels being burgled or to cut the chances of being killed in a car crash? Or, put another way, is it better to lower the risk of your home being ransacked than to minimise the chances of a few airbags being set off in cars?
Not easy questions to answer, 'cos there are a lot of value judgements involved. But before anyone gets complacent about road safety, look at the DfT's 2003 stats on deaths, at tinyurl.com/55d2g -- road casulaties amounted to 28% of all accidental deaths in the UK, and 80% of accidental deaths for males aged 15-19. Sounds to me like something worthy of a reasonably high police priority.
|
>> We live in an era with some of the safest roads >> in the world with casualties at an all time low; and >> at the same time with a huge increase in non-motoring crime. >> >> Could it be that re-deployment of traffic police to other duties >> is the correct way to go? Interesting question. I guess the answer depends in part on how folks rate the different hazards. Is it more important to reduce the chances of losing a few chattels being burgled or to cut the chances of being killed in a car crash? Or, put another way, is it better to lower the risk of your home being ransacked than to minimise the chances of a few airbags being set off in cars? Not easy questions to answer, 'cos there are a lot of value judgements involved. But before anyone gets complacent about road safety, look at the DfT's 2003 stats on deaths, at tinyurl.com/55d2g -- road casulaties amounted to 28% of all accidental deaths in the UK, and 80% of accidental deaths for males aged 15-19. Sounds to me like something worthy of a reasonably high police priority.
NW,
As you say not easy questions to answer.
I don't think anyone is complacent about road safety. However if we doubled the traffic police on our roads - at huge cost - how much would it reduce casualties? Quadruple them - what then? It follows the law of diminishing returns.
If accident reduction was the sole aim, halving all speed limits and have it enforced by speed cameras every 100yards would achieve this and would probably be self financing! Yes I am advocating this - as long as I am exempt!!!!
Now if we want to talk about complacency and priorities, we could widen the issue and look at reducing avoidable casualties for GB Ltd. Twice as many innocent people die in hospital from the MRSA infection(superbug) than on UK roads. These deaths are largely caused by negligence - lack of hygiene - but are not classified as accidents. For a fraction of the cost of policing our roads we could make huge inroads into that casualty toll.
C
|
We live in an era with some of the safest roads in the world with casualties at an all time low
No we don't.
Road casualties are increasing, and have been for the last few years. We used to live in that era, and then we introduced cameras and redeployed traffic police.
Cameras catch the marginal speeders - those who trundle at 35 unaware. They are dangerous; but not as dangerous as the reckless who do 55 but slow to 28 for the camera.
Traffic police ignored the trundlers and went for the reckless. Speed cameras catch some illegal drivers, but miss the most dangerous.
That is why they are hated; because they are the motoring equivalent of prosecuting every single litter lout but ignoring the muggers.
|
Incidently, jumping on the Patently bandwagon, 2 more people were killed on Lancashire's road in 2003 than in 1996.
i think that's the first time I've ever had any statistical evidence to back anything up.
--
Adam
|
Cameras catch the marginal speeders - those who trundle at 35 unaware. They are dangerous; but not as dangerous as the reckless who do 55 but slow to 28 for the camera. Traffic police ignored the trundlers and went for the reckless. Speed cameras catch some illegal drivers, but miss the most dangerous.
SPECS cameras don't ignore the reckless. I take it from this that you'd approve of SPECS cameras, or of hidden cameras in well-signed limits
|
Er....isn't weaving all over the motorway, being drunk, unroadworthy car being wreckless? None of which are measured by SPECS. I take it you mean that the average speed is measured? Yes. But you can be reckless in other ways.
Oh how I love this. It's like the old days all over again!
--
Adam
|
Er....isn't weaving all over the motorway, being drunk, unroadworthy car being wreckless?
"Wreckless" No I think you might have a wreck!
LOL
|
Hmmm. I appear to have made a mistake....the first time in......4 hours!
I of course meant reckless. Apologies!
--
Adam
|
If you decide to focus the entire road safety effort on catching speeding motorists, then SPECS is the best way of doing so.
But I would argue that you would not be acting wisely. And, sadly, the death rates would back me up.
|
>> We live in an era with some of the safest roads in the world >> with casualties at an all time low No we don't. Road casualties are increasing, and have been for the last few years. We used to live in that era, and then we introduced cameras and redeployed traffic police. Cameras catch the marginal speeders - those who trundle at 35 unaware. They are dangerous; but not as dangerous as the reckless who do 55 but slow to 28 for the camera. Traffic police ignored the trundlers and went for the reckless. Speed cameras catch some illegal drivers, but miss the most dangerous. That is why they are hated; because they are the motoring equivalent of prosecuting every single litter lout but ignoring the muggers.
Patently,
In general terms our casualties ARE at an all time low(or very close to it) - despite vastly more traffic they about a third of that 30 or so years ago. Mainly due to safer cars and less tolerance of drunk driving, rather than curbs on speeding.
Of course I have the same reservations about speed cameras as you and many others and preferred the discretion and judgement exercised by traffic police.
So what should we do? Abolish speed cameras and take police away from catching the muggers and burglars to stand on motorway bridges, or behind bushes, with their lasers?
Lets have more police - especially traffic police, more doctors and nurses, more teachers, more prisons. Oh and lower taxes please.
C
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
