Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?
Discussion
Red Devil said:
Back O/T: the real issue is not enforcement but the selection of the limit itself. When the government got all touchy-feely about localism the rot really started to take hold. The DfT devolved far too much power to local authorities. The ability of single interest lobby groups to influence politicians at that level shouldn't be underestimated. Add in an unhealthy spoonful of dogma and the dumbing down process has become a way of life.
This I completely agree with.https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC54604...
Do they know something we don't about possible future developments north of the border?
Do they know something we don't about possible future developments north of the border?
singlecoil said:
wiggy001 said:
Year on year "customer" increases of up to 27%... I'd call that a fabulous business model personally.
Only if it's profitable. If you knew how much it costs to run a business you wouldn't need to be told that.ant leigh said:
Red Devil said:
Back O/T: the real issue is not enforcement but the selection of the limit itself. When the government got all touchy-feely about localism the rot really started to take hold. The DfT devolved far too much power to local authorities. The ability of single interest lobby groups to influence politicians at that level shouldn't be underestimated. Add in an unhealthy spoonful of dogma and the dumbing down process has become a way of life.
This I completely agree with.To add, why on earth is this, the main road into Kirkham, 20mph?
wiggy001 said:
singlecoil said:
wiggy001 said:
Year on year "customer" increases of up to 27%... I'd call that a fabulous business model personally.
Only if it's profitable. If you knew how much it costs to run a business you wouldn't need to be told that.So it's whether or not the police are making a profit that matters, not the training companies. On the figures given in the article quoted, it would seem they are not.
rich888 said:
^^^^ THIS +1
You are spot on with your comments, if government really wanted to reduce deaths in the UK they would ban cigarettes, alcohol and fatty fast foods and then encourage a more healthy lifestyle.
As it stands, the safety camera partnership is nothing more than an inefficient modern day window tax scam, run by parasites to justify their very existence. Note: anyone not familiar with the infamous 'window tax' just do a search on google for it.
This is not the way forward to make our country great again, this very cosy police/council safety camera partnership merely drains huge amounts of money out of the local economy by stealth, so kills local shops and businesses in the process whilst diverting money down south to fund ever more grandiose warmongering and other extravagant 'willy waggling' projects dreamed up by those over-paid self-serving clowns in Whitehall.
Who needs enemies in the world when we have friends like this?
Edited to add the footnote: where do you think the origin of the term ‘daylight robbery’ came from? answer is the window tax in 1696. So what will the modern day tax funded camera partnerships and their staff be remembered as in years to come?
Has this really not had anyone comment on it?You are spot on with your comments, if government really wanted to reduce deaths in the UK they would ban cigarettes, alcohol and fatty fast foods and then encourage a more healthy lifestyle.
As it stands, the safety camera partnership is nothing more than an inefficient modern day window tax scam, run by parasites to justify their very existence. Note: anyone not familiar with the infamous 'window tax' just do a search on google for it.
This is not the way forward to make our country great again, this very cosy police/council safety camera partnership merely drains huge amounts of money out of the local economy by stealth, so kills local shops and businesses in the process whilst diverting money down south to fund ever more grandiose warmongering and other extravagant 'willy waggling' projects dreamed up by those over-paid self-serving clowns in Whitehall.
Who needs enemies in the world when we have friends like this?
Edited to add the footnote: where do you think the origin of the term ‘daylight robbery’ came from? answer is the window tax in 1696. So what will the modern day tax funded camera partnerships and their staff be remembered as in years to come?
Edited by rich888 on Wednesday 7th December 00:34
Do you really think that local shops and businesses are failing because once in a blue moon someone sets up a mobile speed camera nearby?
Your comments are sensationalist at best and complete insanity at worst.
The 20's Plenty lobbyists have got at Fylde Borough Council. It used to be 30. Don't know when it was changed.
A search shows Fylde BC and Lancashire CC have adopted this mantra at an ever increasing rate over the last five years.
Driven more by dogma and politics than objective reasoning, especially on well lit distributor roads.
A search shows Fylde BC and Lancashire CC have adopted this mantra at an ever increasing rate over the last five years.
Driven more by dogma and politics than objective reasoning, especially on well lit distributor roads.
Red Devil said:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC54604...
Do they know something we don't about possible future developments north of the border?
Probably. Looks like he's a member of PACTS.Do they know something we don't about possible future developments north of the border?
Colour me shocked.
768 said:
singlecoil said:
So it's whether or not the police are making a profit that matters, not the training companies.
Because training companies and those who benefit from them would never involve themselves in the shady politics that perpetuate their schemes? Seems unlikely.and not because you were speeding
768 said:
Because training companies and those who benefit from them would never involve themselves in the shady politics that perpetuate their schemes? Seems unlikely.
I can't see your point. If you get caught speeding at a level that qualifies you for an SAC then you're paying c£100 anyway on an FPN. If they abolish SACs then you're down to accepting an FPN only. Rovinghawk said:
I've not been caught speeding but I object to the principle of the same people who set unrealistically low speed limits profiting by enforcing said unrealistic limits.
I think this is the point many of the posters are trying to convey.
With most laws it's those who make the laws who receive the fines (i.e. government)I think this is the point many of the posters are trying to convey.
Do you have a problem with a thief getting fined & the fine going to the exchequer?
It's not the government that sets the limits now that the DfT have devolved that responsibility to local authorities.
Rightly or wrongly, many people see the proliferation of cameras (whether fixed or mobile) as an unholy alliance of interlinked vested interests.
The vast majority of motorists exceed the legal limit at some point. Most of those who get caught simply aren't savvy enough about when and where.
Rightly or wrongly, many people see the proliferation of cameras (whether fixed or mobile) as an unholy alliance of interlinked vested interests.
The vast majority of motorists exceed the legal limit at some point. Most of those who get caught simply aren't savvy enough about when and where.
Gavia said:
768 said:
Because training companies and those who benefit from them would never involve themselves in the shady politics that perpetuate their schemes? Seems unlikely.
I can't see your point. If you get caught speeding at a level that qualifies you for an SAC then you're paying c£100 anyway on an FPN. If they abolish SACs then you're down to accepting an FPN only. Red Devil said:
It's not the government that sets the limits now that the DfT have devolved that responsibility to local authorities.
Rightly or wrongly, many people see the proliferation of cameras (whether fixed or mobile) as an unholy alliance of interlinked vested interests.
The vast majority of motorists exceed the legal limit at some point. Most of those who get caught simply aren't savvy enough about when and where.
In my example (theft) the government make the laws that they receive fines from (which was the point being addressed, those making the law or setting the limit receiving the fine).Rightly or wrongly, many people see the proliferation of cameras (whether fixed or mobile) as an unholy alliance of interlinked vested interests.
The vast majority of motorists exceed the legal limit at some point. Most of those who get caught simply aren't savvy enough about when and where.
Secondly wrongly in my estimation. They are hardly prolific given how many miles of road we have & how many cameras we have operating at any one time covering a fraction of the network, then to further undermine any money making scheme intent claims they largely advertise where they are & sat navs etc will give you a good clue.
I do agree however that the vast majority of motorists exceed the legal limit at some point & that those who get caught are simply not savvy enough about when & where. It being a fool that is easily parted with his money springs to mind.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff