HADECS 3 cameras on the M25
Discussion
The Mad Monk said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
Remind me, how many few motorway casualties are caused by excessive speed?
In part because we have enforced limits encouraging compliance?A speed limit is an inanimate abstract concept.
I was there. I witnessed it.
vonhosen said:
As is drink/drive etc.
Not sensible to ignore them though because they are still significant & easy to deal with proactively.
A work colleague of mine has an aunt who is one of those endearingly ditzy people and I'm told she's been driving her children around in a Vauxhall Zafira with no MOT since January and the tax has more recently run out. She knows it will fail its MOT because one of the seatbelts doesn't work, she has to wrap it round her child and tie it to the next seatbelt because it won't buckle into the anchor, and the tyres need replacing. There's probably a lot more wrong with it that isn't immediately obvious as well. Not sensible to ignore them though because they are still significant & easy to deal with proactively.
Apparently last year it got an MOT certificate from her brother-in-laws mate without an inspection after he did a botch job on it to keep it going.
I suggested to my work colleague that the car was unroadworthy and my colleague said it wasn't because it was still going, as if still going is all that matters.
This same work colleague bought a car with a similar catalogue of faults and dodgy MOT. The aunt also has a habit of crashing into things, parking illegally when late for bingo and leaving the handbrake off when parking.
She's dangerous but gets away with it through lack of policing on the roads and issues of keeping a car in a legal and roadworthy condition are thought to not really matter and be something to outwit or not bother with. She's refusing to think about getting an MOT for her car until next January.
It's easy to tell people that speed kills because it's a nice little soundbite and it minimises the risk from all the people driving in a dreamworld in cars with bald tyres and no brakes. It's also easy to police automatically with cameras.
I read an article the other day saying that people feel they can get away with using their mobile phones while driving because it's not something that can be policed by cameras.
The government is willing to compromise safety to save money, for example, by taking away the hard shoulder to widen motorways more cheaply than building more road.
Blakewater said:
vonhosen said:
As is drink/drive etc.
Not sensible to ignore them though because they are still significant & easy to deal with proactively.
A work colleague of mine has an aunt who is one of those endearingly ditzy people and I'm told she's been driving her children around in a Vauxhall Zafira with no MOT since January and the tax has more recently run out. She knows it will fail its MOT because one of the seatbelts doesn't work, she has to wrap it round her child and tie it to the next seatbelt because it won't buckle into the anchor, and the tyres need replacing. There's probably a lot more wrong with it that isn't immediately obvious as well. Not sensible to ignore them though because they are still significant & easy to deal with proactively.
Apparently last year it got an MOT certificate from her brother-in-laws mate without an inspection after he did a botch job on it to keep it going.
I suggested to my work colleague that the car was unroadworthy and my colleague said it wasn't because it was still going, as if still going is all that matters.
This same work colleague bought a car with a similar catalogue of faults and dodgy MOT. The aunt also has a habit of crashing into things, parking illegally when late for bingo and leaving the handbrake off when parking.
She's dangerous but gets away with it through lack of policing on the roads and issues of keeping a car in a legal and roadworthy condition are thought to not really matter and be something to outwit or not bother with. She's refusing to think about getting an MOT for her car until next January.
It's easy to tell people that speed kills because it's a nice little soundbite and it minimises the risk from all the people driving in a dreamworld in cars with bald tyres and no brakes. It's also easy to police automatically with cameras.
I read an article the other day saying that people feel they can get away with using their mobile phones while driving because it's not something that can be policed by cameras.
The government is willing to compromise safety to save money, for example, by taking away the hard shoulder to widen motorways more cheaply than building more road.
That's why people keep speeding, because they believe the odds are in their favour of getting away with it (& they're right).
You're most likely to see a behavioural choice change when the odds of getting away with it don't suddenly seem so good, or the consequences become so severe if caught that people will alter their choice.
People keep doing it though because it suits their purpose to & they believe the odds are they'll get away with it (it's the same rationale used by people who habitually shoplift etc too).
Of course some will get caught for all of the offences & then the odds don't suddenly feel so good. They don't like the consequences of getting caught & It's then so unfair that they got caught whilst others didn't.
Police support staff have been decimated due to public finance cut backs, that means there will be fewer people to do backroom processing of offences that do get reported by Police officers. Traffic Police numbers are reduced because of Policing plan priorities that have to be taken with tighter budget controls, so there will be fewer people getting reported by traffic officers too.
Of course traffic offences that are dealt with under different auspices, that is where you don't tend to get reported by traffic officers or the backroom processing staff are supplied under different financing arrangements, aren't so affected by those budget restraints or plans.
Also just because the Police aren't able to report people for one offence, where the Police don't have the means at their disposal to report them for it, it doesn't follow then that people shouldn't be reported for a different offence that somebody else does have the means at their disposal to report them for it.
I would expect all that to result in a drop in people being reported for traffic offences dealt with by patrolling Police officers, but traffic offences dealt with by SCPs & local councils to not be so affected because they aren't affected by those Police budget cutbacks.
That's not the fault of the SCPs or councils who operate outside of those Police budgets. The different funding arrangements just mean that they aren't so affected & they become more efficient at processing the offences they have taken on from the Police. You only need to look at when parking offences moved from Police to local authority control & the numbers reported/processed increased enormously. The same happens with bus lanes, no right turns, speeding etc. because they are dealt with outside of the Police budget constraints & the units only have a small focused remit.
So yes, more people aren't reported for some offences that only the Police can deal with because the Police haven't got the budget or resources (due to priorities) to deal with them in large numbers, whilst others who are funded under alternative strategies don't suffer that fate & can be more efficient than Police in the numbers they deal with/report.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 5th December 00:59
MarcelM6 said:
Spend less on cameras and overpriced computers and more on physical officers?
The speeders are & can pay for the cameras & computers. They can also fund other road safety initiatives.If it's more officers we all have to pay, in general people don't want to pay more tax for more roads Policing officers, if we are to pay more tax they would prefer it be spent elsewhere first.
Following your logic then, (as I pay tax), I want fewer cameras worrying about speeders on motorways, and more police to investigate unsafe following distance, mobile phone usage, unroadworthy cars, etc. As well as more cameras in 30mph zones, where speed is genuinely dangerous.
And I doubt that only speeders pay for road safety initiatives, as that would mean if nobody broke the speed limit there would be no funding for road safety initiatives.
And I doubt that only speeders pay for road safety initiatives, as that would mean if nobody broke the speed limit there would be no funding for road safety initiatives.
janesmith1950 said:
Do the cameras cost more to install and run than they generate in fine income?
Why not have both?
If the function of the camera is to stop people speeding then it will have achieved its objective if nobody pays any fines.They will still need maintenance after that point, so how will that be paid for?Why not have both?
janesmith1950 said:
Do the cameras cost more to install and run than they generate in fine income?
I'm sure some do. There are 4 GATSOs in 30 limits within 1/2 mile of my house I pass very regularly. I have a radar detector so I can tell when they're active and not.
They are on for maybe 2 or 3 days each month, if that. I can only assume there is a finance/resource reason for that?
MarcelM6 said:
Following your logic then, (as I pay tax), I want fewer cameras worrying about speeders on motorways, and more police to investigate unsafe following distance, mobile phone usage, unroadworthy cars, etc. As well as more cameras in 30mph zones, where speed is genuinely dangerous.
And I doubt that only speeders pay for road safety initiatives, as that would mean if nobody broke the speed limit there would be no funding for road safety initiatives.
The funding structure of Safety partnerships & Police are different.And I doubt that only speeders pay for road safety initiatives, as that would mean if nobody broke the speed limit there would be no funding for road safety initiatives.
The government have reduced the central payment to safety partnerships & then allowed revenue gained from SACs etc to pick up the shortfall. They can use that money gained to fund their road safety initiatives (any money from fines going to central government).
The Police's budget covers everything they do & then the Police have to prioritise under their Policing plan. Road traffic Policing doesn't figure highly in that Policing plan as a priority when the cake is getting divided.
Over the past couple of decades the responsibility for a lot of what Police used to do with regards to roads Polciing has been transferred to other agencies to allow Police to deal with what are seen as Policing priorities.
If there is spare central money I'd prefer it to be spent on housing, education, health, fighting crime etc rater than more roads Police dealing with minor traffic offences.
I'd rather speeders who get caught pay for the road safety initiatives, than it be to the detriment of those priorities to give us more roads Police.
No wonder I'm confused, I thought speeding was a police matter.
Typical government tactic of overcomplicating what is a simple process. Parliament makes the law, police catch anyone who breaks it. Magistrates/judges impose penalties.
By giving it out to agencies they have turned law enforcement into a business - what next, privatised police forces? Privatised NHS, privatised roads?
Then we won't have to pay any tax, just pay businesses for the services we want.
Typical government tactic of overcomplicating what is a simple process. Parliament makes the law, police catch anyone who breaks it. Magistrates/judges impose penalties.
By giving it out to agencies they have turned law enforcement into a business - what next, privatised police forces? Privatised NHS, privatised roads?
Then we won't have to pay any tax, just pay businesses for the services we want.
MarcelM6 said:
No wonder I'm confused, I thought speeding was a police matter.
It is, but not in isolation.Police don't have the resources to spare in order to do much with it due to their other priorities (just like they didn't with parking on yellow lines, no right turns, motorway patrols etc before they were farmed out to other agencies).
MarcelM6 said:
Typical government tactic of overcomplicating what is a simple process. Parliament makes the law, police catch anyone who breaks it. Magistrates/judges impose penalties.
Police had too many laws/responsibilities for the number of officers the government were willing to provide. Therefore as the low fruit was hardly getting picked at all it was decided to give it to somebody else who could devote time/resources to it more cost effectively. The low fruit being matters that could easily & efficiently be dealt with rather than using an expensive highly trained resource that could be better utilised on more appropriate tasks.MarcelM6 said:
By giving it out to agencies they have turned law enforcement into a business - what next, privatised police forces? Privatised NHS, privatised roads?
We already have some private security, private medical & private roads.MarcelM6 said:
Then we won't have to pay any tax, just pay businesses for the services we want.
You'll have a combination of tax paid for centrally supplied services & local payments for the local services.Got flashed by one of those just after the cobham services by j9-j10, was doing 90 at about 12am.
Real pain in my backside as my insurance is already a fortune.
The only comfort I have received from this is that my brother got flashed by one of those around the same time on the 17th June and hasn’t received anything in the post.
My fellow pistonheads, has anybody escaped points from being done doing 90? I’ve been driving since 2011 and have the cleanest licence apart from one time I got done in a bus lane. This always gets mentioned and there is no consolation in any of the answers I see by people however it makes me feel better asking and sharing!
Real pain in my backside as my insurance is already a fortune.
The only comfort I have received from this is that my brother got flashed by one of those around the same time on the 17th June and hasn’t received anything in the post.
My fellow pistonheads, has anybody escaped points from being done doing 90? I’ve been driving since 2011 and have the cleanest licence apart from one time I got done in a bus lane. This always gets mentioned and there is no consolation in any of the answers I see by people however it makes me feel better asking and sharing!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff