Discussion
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
All fines for any offences figure in government income because they go to the treasury, nothing strange in that.
"Obtuse" is the word that springs to mind reading that response.Great film, Shawshank!
The government invoke legislation to regulate an activity, fines are the penalty for transgressing them. People caught transgressing get fined & those fines go to the treasury. That's all entirely predictable (whether it be for speeding, going through red lights, not having 3rd party insurance, not wearing a seatbelt, using a handheld mobile phone etc etc).
Yes great film, so is The Green Mile.
Why obtuse? Because it seemed to me you were avoiding the main thrust of the issue, which is the veracity with which speeding in particular is concentrated on compared with other, much more regular occurring, but harder to police motoring transgressions. Therefore harder to make meaningful financial gain from. As a consequence, these transgressions are largely accepted, because they are generally ignored by those who are tasked with policing our roads, and not used as a shock/awe tactic in the way that speeding is when the subject turns to " road safety ".
All in my opinion, which I'm happy to concede may be shown to be wrong.
Agree about the Green Mile. I'm very taken with American history X also.
All in my opinion, which I'm happy to concede may be shown to be wrong.
Agree about the Green Mile. I'm very taken with American history X also.
Edited by Heaveho on Thursday 15th September 00:56
Edited by Heaveho on Thursday 15th September 01:23
Digby said:
Oh! Could it be time to bring out yet again the corruption evidence, the doctored stats, the FOI denials, those in the industry or connected explaining it's almost all about money and targets etc, etc, etc?
It's always good for a giggle, because the "don't speed, then" brigade always shuffle off and suddenly have little to say.
When I speed I know I am at risk of being caught so if a camera van gets me its my fault regardless of time of day etc, I'll take my medicine like a big boy.It's always good for a giggle, because the "don't speed, then" brigade always shuffle off and suddenly have little to say.
It really is as simple as dont speed if you dont want to get caught or pay for one of these police xmas shag fests that people go on about. The fact remains the speed limit is the speed limit, step over it and you can expect to get caught, the method used to catch you is neither here nor there.
So wheel your stats out all you want, I dont recall any drivers getting done for driving within the law.
What a dull, stereotypically brainwashed response. It goes without saying that if you get caught, and it's a legitimately dealt with procedure, you " take your medicine like a big boy ".
The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety. The problem we should be dealing with are the drivers who don't drive within the law for other reasons not getting dealt with adequately or at all in many cases.
The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety. The problem we should be dealing with are the drivers who don't drive within the law for other reasons not getting dealt with adequately or at all in many cases.
Edited by Heaveho on Thursday 15th September 09:27
Heaveho said:
What a dull, stereotypically brainwashed response. It goes without saying that if you get caught, and it's a legitimately dealt with procedure, you " take your medicine like a big boy ".
The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety.
It's not a hyeractive approach at all. There are a teeny amount of vans in action it's just that they are incredibly efficient at processing large numbers of transgressions and above a certain threshold there is no roadside discretion. The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety.
That's what people really care about when they moan about camera vans. A person might let them off, a van won't. It's that simple.
This other stuff about not detecting other aspects of driving is just sounding off at the efficiency of speed detection.
There are more resources looking at other aspects of driving on the roads everyday compared to speeding, it's just that those resources can't process anywhere near the amount of transgressions that one van can.
People don't like the odds and think they should be let off, nothing more to it than that.
Earlier-
When you learn to spell "voracity" correctly I still won't 'credit your opinion' more highly because your opinion about the matters under discussion is clearly based on a very distorted understanding of the issues.
Heaveho said:
When you learn how to spell " suppose " correctly, I'll credit your opinion more highly. Thanks for posting.
LaterHeaveho said:
which is the veracity with which speeding in particular is concentrated on compared with other
When you learn to spell "voracity" correctly I still won't 'credit your opinion' more highly because your opinion about the matters under discussion is clearly based on a very distorted understanding of the issues.
Heaveho said:
Because it seemed to me you were avoiding the main thrust of the issue, which is the veracity with which speeding in particular is concentrated on compared with other, much more regular occurring, but harder to police motoring transgressions.
Which other motoring transgressions occur "much more regular" than speeding? Cat
TheBear said:
Heaveho said:
What a dull, stereotypically brainwashed response. It goes without saying that if you get caught, and it's a legitimately dealt with procedure, you " take your medicine like a big boy ".
The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety.
It's not a hyeractive approach at all. There are a teeny amount of vans in action it's just that they are incredibly efficient at processing large numbers of transgressions and above a certain threshold there is no roadside discretion. The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety.
That's what people really care about when they moan about camera vans. A person might let them off, a van won't. It's that simple.
This other stuff about not detecting other aspects of driving is just sounding off at the efficiency of speed detection.
There are more resources looking at other aspects of driving on the roads everyday compared to speeding, it's just that those resources can't process anywhere near the amount of transgressions that one van can.
People don't like the odds and think they should be let off, nothing more to it than that.
Follow a forces traffic units twitter feed to get an idea of what they do. Very little of it is speed related, its nearly all no insurance, phones, disqual drivers, stolen motors, arrests of wanted people.
Greendubber said:
Follow a forces traffic units twitter feed to get an idea of what they do. Very little of it is speed related,
One would presume that "bagged lots of people doing 36 yards after the 50 becomes a 30 limit" wouldn't garner huge public support & is therefore not mentioned.Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
Follow a forces traffic units twitter feed to get an idea of what they do. Very little of it is speed related,
One would presume that "bagged lots of people doing 36 yards after the 50 becomes a 30 limit" wouldn't garner huge public support & is therefore not mentioned.Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
Follow a forces traffic units twitter feed to get an idea of what they do. Very little of it is speed related,
One would presume that "bagged lots of people doing 36 yards after the 50 becomes a 30 limit" wouldn't garner huge public support & is therefore not mentioned.RobinOakapple said:
Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
Follow a forces traffic units twitter feed to get an idea of what they do. Very little of it is speed related,
One would presume that "bagged lots of people doing 36 yards after the 50 becomes a 30 limit" wouldn't garner huge public support & is therefore not mentioned.Cat said:
Heaveho said:
Because it seemed to me you were avoiding the main thrust of the issue, which is the veracity with which speeding in particular is concentrated on compared with other, much more regular occurring, but harder to police motoring transgressions.
Which other motoring transgressions occur "much more regular" than speeding? Cat
John
TheBear said:
Heaveho said:
What a dull, stereotypically brainwashed response. It goes without saying that if you get caught, and it's a legitimately dealt with procedure, you " take your medicine like a big boy ".
The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety.
It's not a hyeractive approach at all. There are a teeny amount of vans in action it's just that they are incredibly efficient at processing large numbers of transgressions and above a certain threshold there is no roadside discretion. The conversation is more centred around the hyperactive approach to policing speeding compared to all other forms of car related misdemeanours, and the reasons behind it, ie, financial, not safety.
That's what people really care about when they moan about camera vans. A person might let them off, a van won't. It's that simple.
This other stuff about not detecting other aspects of driving is just sounding off at the efficiency of speed detection.
There are more resources looking at other aspects of driving on the roads everyday compared to speeding, it's just that those resources can't process anywhere near the amount of transgressions that one van can.
People don't like the odds and think they should be let off, nothing more to it than that.
This post needs to be Stickied at the top of this forum, and referred to every time this conversation is recycled.
I was caught speeding, by a van, in my irresponsible youth. I was lucky and got 3pts for 90-something on a DC, but I hadn't even noticed the van (part-obscured in a laybay, on the opposite carriageway).
Rather than moan about revenues and entrapment, I took this as an opportunity to improve my driving. I vowed to only exceed ~80mph where conditions are absolutely appropriate (visibility, weather, traffic etc.), and to improve my observational skills.
It's tough to have much sympathy for anyone complaining about being caught out by an easily and arbitrarily enforced law that has been in place for 50 years.
C70R said:
Really excellent stuff.
This post needs to be Stickied at the top of this forum, and referred to every time this conversation is recycled.
I was caught speeding, by a van, in my irresponsible youth. I was lucky and got 3pts for 90-something on a DC, but I hadn't even noticed the van (part-obscured in a laybay, on the opposite carriageway).
Glad to hear your a reformed character as 90+ is taking the piss a bit just like exceeding 30 past schools but certain areas of 30 zones don't warrant 'doing someone' for doing 36.This post needs to be Stickied at the top of this forum, and referred to every time this conversation is recycled.
I was caught speeding, by a van, in my irresponsible youth. I was lucky and got 3pts for 90-something on a DC, but I hadn't even noticed the van (part-obscured in a laybay, on the opposite carriageway).
A bit of common sense is needed to get everyone on side.
Greenmantle said:
using a mobile phone - virtually every other vehicle on the A40 rush hour is doing it.
John
Not just the A40. Handheld use while driving has nearly quadrupled in two years (8% to 31% of drivers admit to doing it). A result I guess of fewer traffic cars and more cameras.John
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37370828
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff