Difficult to present the safety argument here I feel.

[Digby]

jith said:

rich888 said:

catso said:

Rovinghawk said:

It's not about money it's about SAFETY.

Well obviously because of all the councils/police forces in the UK, Notts are the most moaning, whingeing of them all with regards to their finances, or rather the lack thereof.

They can't Police the town centre because they have no money, they can't do any number of things because they have no money, yet I see scamera vans every time I travel there and their (camera) bus lane enforcement is world class.

So given their priorities when cash is so tight, they truly must be all about the safety...

You have to remember that modern day policing is prioritised in terms of what is important, and this is important because what they regard as a important may differ from what we think is important, so instead of old-school Dixon of Dock Green with PC Plod out walking on the beat looking out for criminals they have a rather different viewpoint, so top of the list for funding comes the Nottinghamshire Police headquarters which is a rather grandiose place to work and play and is located in luxurious grounds away from all the stress of driving into the city centre, though would make for a lovely hotel or private hospital should it ever be sold off when the Nottinghamshire division is disbanded.

Next down the list is of course the very cosy speed, sorry safety camera partnership between the police and the council, where money is now no object and where millions of taxpayers money has been spent on average speed cameras across the county, and lots of very new safety camera vans decked out with the newest and probably most expensive laser cameras available from the good old US of A, and employing not one operator to point the gun but also fitted out with an accomplice who presumably sits on his arse all day getting fat whilst his veins clog up, just to keep him company and make cups of teas coffee and give him the occasional sausage. Ha, just imagine how cosy they get if they are of that way inclined!

So no recession where taxpayer money is squandered on parasitic organisations that suck money out of the local economy for little or no benefit to the peasants paying their council tax. Yet the council bleat that have little or no money to repair the roads or indeed keep them properly marked. Most road markings badly worn and are shockingly poor. Now if those at the top of the chain of command actually paid themselves a little less money, and stopped diverting funds to pay for their lavish pension pots, which is a bit like the illegal financial pyramid schemes that were outlawed a few years ago, then we might actually have money to spend on projects that would actually benefit the rest of us. Wouldn't it be good if one or more of the tabloid newspapers were investigating this as we speak. I can only assume a few high ranking officials might be falling off their penthouse balconies or their yachts when the true level of fraud is uncovered.

Disclaimer: Now at this point for those more serious people reading this with no sense of humour I need to point out that the above paragraphs are a satire or parody. They are entirely fictitious.

You can't pull the wool over my eyes: there's nothing fictitious about your post which, incidentally, is right on the button. An excellent resume of the current sad state of affairs.

J

Best post I have read on here in a long time.

And people ask why we complain? It's our duty!

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

funkyrobot said:

They are also very good at generating revenue from people who can't drive to the limit. Bit of a fool tax really.

Humans, you mean? The ones no longer allowed to make even the smallest error without getting bent over.

That's often why people complain. Speed cameras, box junction cameras.... cameras, cameras, cameras.

There was a time you could be human. There was a time not noticing you were slightly over a limit, or had a dust cap inside a box juntion etc made no difference. Why should it?

As soon as profit took over, you can now be fined for being a better driver than the slower idiot behind you.

It only ever used to be about catching the serious piss takers. Not any longer.

Call that a fool tax if you like. To me, the only fools are the ones who defend a system sold as being in place to save our lives etc when the reality is, in many cases, they couldn't give a fk.

I would rather we had a road safety scheme based around safety and cameras installed as intended rather than some bellend rubbing his hands together hiding behind a bush, 50 yards past a static camera where the limit changes with the "crime" being reaching that limit 20 yards too early.

You don't get a ticket for small margins over the limit & you aren't fined for being a better driver than the driver behind, you are fined for exceeding the limit by a not insignificant margin.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

You don't get a ticket for small margins over the limit & you aren't fined for being a better driver than the driver behind, you are fined for exceeding the limit by a not insignificant margin.

79 on a Motorway.
Does anyone truly give a toss about that? It certainly isn't a safety issue. Or any other issue worth a damn.
The law's the law though, isn't it?
Probably goes some way to explaining why I have a problem with authority, I don't respect the idiots trying to micro-manage everything we do.

[Digby]

As I said..

I would rather we had a road safety scheme based around safety and cameras installed as intended rather than some bellend rubbing his hands together hiding behind a bush, 50 yards past a static camera where the limit changes with the "crime" being reaching that limit 20 yards too early.

[funkyrobot]

Digby said:

As I said..

I would rather we had a road safety scheme based around safety and cameras installed as intended rather than some bellend rubbing his hands together hiding behind a bush, 50 yards past a static camera where the limit changes with the "crime" being reaching that limit 20 yards too early.

As I said earlier, it is rarely about safety. Where have I argued that it is? It's about speed enforcement. If you can't keep to the limit, then it's tough st if you get caught.

Why do you think some 'bellend' will hide behind a bush, 50 yards past a static camera? Because that 'bellend' knows people will accelerate after the camera. If he is there to ping people speeding, it's a good place to be, isn't it? Far too many people fall into the trap.

Also, to address your earlier point, you don't get pinged doing a bit over the speed limit. I guess anyone could be done for going over the speed limit, but isn't there a bit of leeway? I.e. 10%?

[vonhosen]

The intention of there being a legal limit is to dissuade people from travelling above it, anywhere they exist.
For that to happen it needs to be enforced.
Enforcement is to gather evidence against people exceeding the limit & then dispose of cases on a graduated scale.
Prosecutions only result where people exceed the limit by a not insignificant margin (in the absence of any aggravating factors).

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

The intention of there being a legal limit is to dissuade people from travelling above it, anywhere they exist.
For that to happen it needs to be enforced.
Enforcement is to gather evidence against people exceeding the limit & then dispose of cases on a graduated scale.
Prosecutions only result where people exceed the limit by a not insignificant margin (in the absence of any aggravating factors).

I take it that you think 79 on the Motorway is significant then.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

The intention of there being a legal limit is to dissuade people from travelling above it, anywhere they exist.
For that to happen it needs to be enforced...

...sensibly and fairly.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

The intention of there being a legal limit is to dissuade people from travelling above it, anywhere they exist.
For that to happen it needs to be enforced.
Enforcement is to gather evidence against people exceeding the limit & then dispose of cases on a graduated scale.
Prosecutions only result where people exceed the limit by a not insignificant margin (in the absence of any aggravating factors).

I take it that you think 79 on the Motorway is significant then.

I think 9 is not an insignificant amount of 70.
I'd happily travel a lot quicker myself, but I can understand why the authorities don't want us to.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 30th November 21:15

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

The intention of there being a legal limit is to dissuade people from travelling above it, anywhere they exist.
For that to happen it needs to be enforced...

...sensibly and fairly.

Reporting people on a graduated scale for not insignificant amounts over it is sensible & fair

[Red Devil]

People banging on about enforcement, whichever side of the argument they are on, are missing the real issue which is the figure the limits are set at.
The problem is that dumbing down is frequently politically motivated in order to pander to single interest groups and those driven by emotive reasoning.
Councillors react in order to be seen to be 'doing something' in order to get a lobby group off their back rather than on objective grounds.
There are documented cases of this happening even where the police do not support the reduction.

I don't think anybody seriously believes that 30 is inappropriate for towns and villages.
However when you get a brand new by-pass opened which then has a 50 limit slapped on it, that's a different kettle.
Is it any wonder that some people start to question the credentials and IQ of the decision makers?

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

Reporting people on a graduated scale for not insignificant amounts over it is sensible & fair

They didn't used to care and would almost never target for the speeds you can get fined for today; until all the dodgy camera sellers told them how much can be made. Lower limits, tons of cameras...blah blah.

Sensible to skullduggery.

Fair system to farcical.

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

Prosecutions only result where people exceed the limit by a not insignificant margin (in the absence of any aggravating factors).

And where they exceed by a smaller margin we have the SAC moneymakers.

[cmaguire]

Red Devil said:

People banging on about enforcement, whichever side of the argument they are on, are missing the real issue which is the figure the limits are set at.
The problem is that dumbing down is frequently politically motivated in order to pander to single interest groups and those driven by emotive reasoning.
Councillors react in order to be seen to be 'doing something' in order to get a lobby group off their back rather than on objective grounds.
There are documented cases of this happening even where the police do not support the reduction.

I don't think anybody seriously believes that 30 is inappropriate for towns and villages.
However when you get a brand new by-pass opened which then has a 50 limit slapped on it, that's a different kettle.
Is it any wonder that some people start to question the credentials and IQ of the decision makers?

You'll never get any of those that are happy with the current attitude to enforcement to directly address the differences between urban and non-urban speed and its enforcement. They often claim to, but just sidestep the questions. Probably because they, much the same as the rest of us, know that to admit that exceeding limits in any circumstance is acceptable calls into question the validity of limits as a whole. Although they argue against it (inexplicably to me) it would make their position more convincing if the 70 limit was raised to 80.

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

Reporting people on a graduated scale for not insignificant amounts over it is sensible & fair

They didn't used to care and would almost never target for the speeds you can get fined for today; until all the dodgy camera sellers told them how much can be made. Lower limits, tons of cameras...blah blah.

Sensible to skullduggery.

Fair system to farcical.

They used to prosecute for similar margins, they just didn't do it in the volumes they do now.
That's down to having people that solely target those matters (so they don't have other matters to distract them from it), more efficient detection & processing.

[vonhosen]

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

Prosecutions only result where people exceed the limit by a not insignificant margin (in the absence of any aggravating factors).

And where they exceed by a smaller margin we have the SAC moneymakers.

SACs in the main have just replaced the lower threshold of FPNs, so they have in the main diverted people who would have otherwise have received a lower end FPN (Fine & points).

http://www.safetycamera.org/faqs/speed-awareness-c...

[Devil2575]

vonhosen said:

SACs in the main have just replaced the lower threshold of FPNs, so they have in the main diverted people who would have otherwise have received a lower end FPN (Fine & points).

http://www.safetycamera.org/faqs/speed-awareness-c...

You're clearly a sucker for punishment. You do realise that these posters already know everything, are absolutely certain they are right and will never be swayed, right?
You get the same hackneyed comments in every thread where speed cameras come up.
You might as well go and argue evolutuon with a bunch of creationists.

[Digby]

Devil2575 said:

You get the same hackneyed comments in every thread where speed cameras come up.

Maybe because people like yourself think that by some miracle, an industry with evidence of corruption, hidden and fabricated stats etc and covert and quite openly suggested tales of it being about money and targets, is the only industry in the world where everyone is completely honest and has our safety at heart.

Give up trying to defend it. It's like trying to defend pedo's at the BBC, dodgy bankers, corrupt parliment members... You can keep trying, but we all know it's bks. We have been told by people involved in the industry

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

Devil2575 said:

You get the same hackneyed comments in every thread where speed cameras come up.

Maybe because people like yourself think that by some miracle, an industry with evidence of corruption, hidden and fabricated stats etc and covert and quite openly suggested tales of it being about money and targets, is the only industry in the world where everyone is completely honest and has our safety at heart.

Give up trying to defend it. It's like trying to defend pedo's at the BBC, dodgy bankers, corrupt parliment members... You can keep trying, but we all know it's bks. We have been told by people involved in the industry

I'm not defending corruption, expose corruption. But the use of cameras to enforce legal limits is not inherently corrupt, it's quite logical.
I'm merely following a logical train of thought that starts with where you have speed limits, they need to be enforced anytime anywhere to uphold them. That it's entirely sensible & logical if you are going to have them & that you take action where people are detected exceeding limits by a significant margin. That it's fair & sensible to have a graduated system in dealing with that offending especially as it doesn't even start at a zero tolerance level.
That it's about speed limits that should be offering demonstrative benefits, not cameras.
Cameras merely being a means to encourage compliance of the limits, limits that themselves offer the safety/societal benefits whilst the cameras detect/provide evidence of transgressions. After all we don't require or call on an officer in a car stopping a driver & reporting them for speeding to offer a demonstrative safety benefit, we accept it's the limit that provides it & the officer is just enforcing that limit.

Now that doesn't mean that I think it's always going to be unsafe when you exceed a limit, or that I wouldn't wish to travel faster than the current limits at times.
But it does mean that I can understand why the authorities would like to limit my choices by imposing easily enforceable limits that require no evidence of danger on my part. That may go against my own personal desires, but it's not unreasonable behaviour on the part of the authorities in putting that legislation in place & enforcing it with patrols or cameras.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 1st December 02:08

[Red Devil]

cmaguire said:

Red Devil said:

People banging on about enforcement, whichever side of the argument they are on, are missing the real issue which is the figure the limits are set at.
The problem is that dumbing down is frequently politically motivated in order to pander to single interest groups and those driven by emotive reasoning.
Councillors react in order to be seen to be 'doing something' in order to get a lobby group off their back rather than on objective grounds.
There are documented cases of this happening even where the police do not support the reduction.

I don't think anybody seriously believes that 30 is inappropriate for towns and villages.
However when you get a brand new by-pass opened which then has a 50 limit slapped on it, that's a different kettle.
Is it any wonder that some people start to question the credentials and IQ of the decision makers?

You'll never get any of those that are happy with the current attitude to enforcement to directly address the differences between urban and non-urban speed and its enforcement. They often claim to, but just sidestep the questions. Probably because they, much the same as the rest of us, know that to admit that exceeding limits in any circumstance is acceptable calls into question the validity of limits as a whole. Although they argue against it (inexplicably to me) it would make their position more convincing if the 70 limit was raised to 80.

To be clear, I don't have any problem with the concept of limits nor with enforcement per se. The acceptability of exceeding them in any circumstances is not the issue either AFAIAC. What gets me exercised is the actual figures that are chosen for placement within the red ring, the basis of their selection, and where they are applied.

Other examples in addition to the one I mentioned previously: extending 30 limits well beyond the end of towns and villages for little or no discernible reason and reducing NSL roads to 40 and 50 limits due to ideology and/or vocal campaigning by single interest pressure groups rather than on objective criteria. Legislating as a result of extreme events often caused by either basic incompetence and/or the few who will drive to wild excess irrespective of whatever number is displayed on the pole is not the answer.

We need the political will to invest in education and raising competence levels rather than rolling out yet more policing by robotics. Donkeys respond far better to carrots than sticks. I bet that many local authority decision makers nowadays have never heard of J J Leeming.

John Leeming argues that the whole effect of our present motoring laws and the propaganda to which we are all subjected is to concentrate attention on punishing the motorist rather than on discovering what causes accidents.

The book about which those words were written was published nearly 50 years ago. It is utterly depressing that we are still being subjected by TPTB to the same old tune from the same old tired back catalogue .