Speed Camera Loophole Exposed
Discussion
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
The sum in question is £114m which is a large amount of money.
The accusation is one of huge revenue, not what one considers a "large amount of money". You've substituted the question for one you find easier to answer. 
In the context of this thread it might have been better to compare all speed related fines with gov't revenue from other types of penalty fine. Just a thought and it would have given a bigger percentage for sure.
La Liga said:
If you go through psychological 'intensity matching' and 'substitution', then we can easily reach that conclusion. Yes, it's a lot of money to an individual and we will feel it's a lot of money. But we're not talking about an individual, we're talking about the state's revenue.
You were indeed talking about that, but this part of the thread is inherently about revenue from law enforcement.La Liga said:
An emotive, intuitive response to the plus-hundred million figure is what creates the irrationally and momentum around the accusation. The media plays people like a fiddle with this repetitive story.
They're pushing on an open door. Refer back to those comments from senior police officers.The sum involved also rests on the bogus basis for obtaining almost all of it, which applies regardless of the amount but is certainly not immune from consideration of the actual sum - whether or not it's labelled as revenue or an amount of money. In a context where HMRC has been earnestly chasing monies at the level of a couple of hundred pounds in income tax from individuals via P800 as though it were important to this overspent nation of ours, £114m is a significant amount of money and significant in terms of revenue from penalty fines. Turning it into a percentage of an inapplicable and even larger sum won't change that.
La Liga said:
Ask people how much effort they'd put into raising 0.019% of their income and you're more likely to align to collective human thinking and behaviour since you're getting a truer response.
Ask them if they'd be totally OK with a rounded 0.02% of their income being removed on a spurious basis and that will change, they may not be happy with anything at all being removed. Psychologically, losing something you already have is a different matter compared to chasing something you never had. Seeing it removed on the back of a myth isn't going to sweeten the pill. La Liga said:
A whole conspiracy...
Who are the conspirators? turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
Does that mean that the police get the money for speed course fees while also keeping any serving officers off the streets to conduct the courses? There's a vested interest issue there either way.
Aren't the courses externally tendered with external staff? Personal email communication from a recently retired Class 1 Police Driver and Motorcycle Traffic Officer said:
Speed awareness, driver awareness, cycling awareness? What next? Disabled scooter awareness? All for profit and keeping badly needed coppers cosily off the bloody streets where we want them too.
This would suggest police officers are involved at least in his area. Then there's the mention of a for-profit angle within a vested interest.I'm not sure I'd listen to people who dismiss driver improvement schemes. I think educating people for due care offences and putting them on a course is really good way to reduce risk rather than give them points and a fine. All the courses externally provided. I don't believe any employ serving officers from what I can find. It's wrong to conclude police time is used with them without knowing.
Back to "it's all about raising revenue". The question here is the motive. Would the state consistently create and perpetuate a pretty large-scale conspiracy that requires continuity over three different political parties? They'd do this despite the vote-reducing negative publicity for an irrelevant sum of money?
It all sounds improbable to me. Of all the easier ways the state could raise that minuscule amount of money, they create something that causes them so much friction. It's easy to ignore all these flaws in the theory when you want it to be true.
But then, I'm not making the assertion so it's not for me to prove.
Exactly.
Back to "it's all about raising revenue". The question here is the motive. Would the state consistently create and perpetuate a pretty large-scale conspiracy that requires continuity over three different political parties? They'd do this despite the vote-reducing negative publicity for an irrelevant sum of money?
It all sounds improbable to me. Of all the easier ways the state could raise that minuscule amount of money, they create something that causes them so much friction. It's easy to ignore all these flaws in the theory when you want it to be true.
But then, I'm not making the assertion so it's not for me to prove.
turbobloke said:
Psychologically, losing something you already have is a different matter compared to chasing something you never had. Seeing it removed on the back of a myth isn't going to sweeten the pill.
The 'framing effect' is relevant here, not 'loss aversion'. It'll be seen as a cost, not a loss. Especially as they are completely in control as to whether they receive the 'cost' or not, as oppose to something like inheritance tax, which is viewed as a loss. turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
A whole conspiracy...
Who are the conspirators?La Liga said:
I'm not sure I'd listen to people who dismiss driver improvement schemes.
Nor would I listen to such people, if that motive was at the heart of their communication, but when somebody with that type of background speaks about use of police time within a set of for-profit vested interest activities, then I listen!There was nothing disparaging of driver improvement courses per se, though any event wholly or mainly about giving and receiving of speed propaganda is more akin to a church service. Police use of the Education in the 3Es is a good thing in my view
La Liga said:
I think educating people for due care offences and putting them on a course is really good way to reduce risk rather than give them points and a fine.
Me too, we appear to be in violent agreement 
La Liga said:
All the courses externally provided. I don't believe any employ serving officers from what I can find.
Certainly as far as I can see from the outside, speed awareness courses FAQ say "Each police authority will appoint a Course Provider in their area" but that's not to say it's not police. I'm more than happy to take your word for it. La Liga said:
Back to "it's all about raising revenue". The question here is the motive.
May I snip in at that point...if the motive is claimed to be safety based then there is a high degree of external or uninformed self-deception at work. La Liga said:
...large-scale conspiracy that requires continuity over three different political parties? They'd do this despite the vote-reducing negative publicity for an irrelevant sum of money? It all sounds improbable to me...
Not sure that fully answers who the conspirators are, but there are fundamental issues im terms of the principles of natural justice in the establishment and operation of camera partnerships.La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
A whole conspiracy...
Who are the conspirators?Precisely.
turbobloke said:
May I snip in at that point...if the motive is claimed to be safety based then there is a high degree of external or uninformed self-deception at work.
The motive, if the purpose were to raise revenue, would be to raise revenue. The problem is it really doesn't do that. The negative, vote-reducing publicity isn't worth such a small income. I'd find it much more likely there to be a mistaken, well-intentioned belief in the safety cameras.
witko999 said:
vonhosen said:
A perfectly natural consequence of speed limits is enforcement of the same for no other reason than to encourage compliance.
Why do we need such strict compliance? Going by the graph posted earlier, the number of deaths has been steadily reducing at the same rate before speed cameras were introduced, and continues at that same rate after their introduction. So why suddenly do a relatively large number of the driving population have to be fined for minor (consequence-less) infringements, when they weren't before? I'm certain that it's only about the huge revenue raised. And why are speed limits being widely cut?I'd be interested to know what percentage of the driving population have been fined for speeding in the last 5/10 years. I would hazard a guess that it's the highest number ever recorded, and yet that graph gradient remains exactly the same.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
May I snip in at that point...if the motive is claimed to be safety based then there is a high degree of external or uninformed self-deception at work.
The motive, if the purpose were to raise revenue, would be to raise revenue. The problem is it really doesn't do that. The negative, vote-reducing publicity isn't worth such a small income. I'd find it much more likely there to be a mistaken, well-intentioned belief in the safety cameras.
“Speed cameras have their limitations...but when these matters can be overcome they will be a sure winner for raising revenue.”
The Metropolitan Police magazine 'Metline'
“Speed cameras don't reduce casualties — they are just for revenue generation.”
Paul Gilroy as a Chief Inspector of Northumbria Police
"With more than 20 years as a traffic inspector and chief inspector, I always thought that, when decisions were made to prosecute motorists, the police had to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubt - and that they also had to use a certain amount of discretion and commonsense. Now I believe those basic principles are being ignored in pursuit of revenue.”
Neil Longsden, former Chief Inspector, Greater Manchester Police Motorway Group
"They're (speed cameras) primarily a revenue generator rather than a safety measure."
Anthony Beresford, Lecturer in Road Transport, Cardiff University
“Electronic speed cameras are hiding behind a guise of pedestrian safety to raise money, and are planned for motorways where there are no pedestrians. The Government is blatantly dishonest”
Professor Garel Rhys as Head of Automotive Economics at Cardiff Business School and Parliamentary Adviser on Trade and Industry
Following on from the comment by Prof Rhys concerning motorways, this may be of interest.
TRL 595 said:
Where fixed speed cameras were installed at motorway road works the risk of personal injury crashes was increased by 55%.
Where fixed speed cameras were installed on open motorways the risk of
injury crashes was increased by 31%.
Average speed cameras also increased the risk of crashes by 4.5% at motorway
roadworks and 6.7% elsewhere.
Conventional Police patrols reduced the risk of crashes by 27% at road works
and 10% elsewhere.
As far as I can see, fixed cameras and average speed cameras are still in use in motorway roadworks.Where fixed speed cameras were installed on open motorways the risk of
injury crashes was increased by 31%.
Average speed cameras also increased the risk of crashes by 4.5% at motorway
roadworks and 6.7% elsewhere.
Conventional Police patrols reduced the risk of crashes by 27% at road works
and 10% elsewhere.
turbobloke said:
There are people who find it more possible to consider the money raising aspect. In offering a further selection of quotes (below) several of which are new to this discussion, I appreciate that you already disagree with them but others following this thread may be interested as they represent the views of credible and informed individuals.
You're highly likely to find within a sample of 136,000 people who repeat popular and frequently repeated views (within the police), and beyond it, too. Anyone can have an opinion, offering proof and a rational, logical explanation is another thing. I wonder how many of those actually have the full, basic data of revenue and %s?
Anyway, you'll like this one: 'Allegedly', there were one force where an email had to be sent around to the officers who were based at the same place the vans were, warning them to stop letting the tyres down overnight.
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
Are the fatal figures are wrong? Are fatal RTCs being missed by the police and the bodies managing to to find their way into the hospitals without them knowing? Or have we an accurate down trend over time?
On the contrary they could well be correct. However let's go back to that chart you posted. The periods of all 3 big plunges in the graph correlate remarkably well with periods of major decline in UK economic activity.To listen to the speed enforcement lobby/industry you might think that they alone have played the major role in overall reduction. Automated enfocement didn't exist in the UK in the 70s. It's just like Hollywood used to try to portray America as the only country that fought in and was responsible for the defeat of the Axis powers in WW2. They believe in their own hype and want the public to swallow it whole.
When reading the conclusions of a report you first need to know the terms of reference and who commissioned it. Academics do these things for two reasons. Kudos with their peers and getting paid for it. However cuddly they may appear, altruism stops at their front door.
Edited by Red Devil on Wednesday 20th August 19:48
La Liga said:
Sometimes speed cameras catch bad driving! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yo...
Fair cop! How often does that happen though? And why such a derisory fine? Most speedsters get a lot more than that.
Inattention, as shown here, is a far more serious 'crime' imo (granted he got 1 extra Nectar point but how much real difference does that make?).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff