Direct question to vonhosen
Discussion
vonhosen - I'll start by saying that I've read your posts in "advanced driving" and recognise both your obvious expertise and your right expressyour views re "safety" cameras without personal attack.
There is one specific question I'd like a direct answer/view from yourself on which I haven't seen you give (apologies if you have and I've missed it).
I have the view that the use of automated enforcement as a substitute for proper enforcement exercised with discretion by professionals (regardless of why this has happened) is bringing traffic regulation enforcement into disprepute. I say this because of the enormous number of motorists who have been given points as a result without any real decrease in the number of offences, (with at best debatable effect on safety) plus the very large number of people who clearly have no respect for the use of this approach to enforcement.
I don't just mean people like those on PH. I'm an academic and we are not (in general) a particularly wild bunch of motorists (evidenced by the fact that our profession is favoured by insurance companies). Yet, just at my own University there are numerous colleagues (just motorists not enthusiasts) who loudly and vociferously express their negative views of this form of enforcement. Worse, unlike those who frequent PH, I find most ordinary motorists know nothing of the partnerships, and blame the police forces for the cameras. Most of these people have no agenda on increased speed limits et al, but expect to be treated like responsible grown ups and feel they are no being so treated.
Question: How can an enforcement method which is held in disrepute by much of the population at which it is aimed, and which results in many normal people taking negative views of the police (even if that may not be fair) be in the long-term interests of either law enforcement or society at large?
There is one specific question I'd like a direct answer/view from yourself on which I haven't seen you give (apologies if you have and I've missed it).
I have the view that the use of automated enforcement as a substitute for proper enforcement exercised with discretion by professionals (regardless of why this has happened) is bringing traffic regulation enforcement into disprepute. I say this because of the enormous number of motorists who have been given points as a result without any real decrease in the number of offences, (with at best debatable effect on safety) plus the very large number of people who clearly have no respect for the use of this approach to enforcement.
I don't just mean people like those on PH. I'm an academic and we are not (in general) a particularly wild bunch of motorists (evidenced by the fact that our profession is favoured by insurance companies). Yet, just at my own University there are numerous colleagues (just motorists not enthusiasts) who loudly and vociferously express their negative views of this form of enforcement. Worse, unlike those who frequent PH, I find most ordinary motorists know nothing of the partnerships, and blame the police forces for the cameras. Most of these people have no agenda on increased speed limits et al, but expect to be treated like responsible grown ups and feel they are no being so treated.
Question: How can an enforcement method which is held in disrepute by much of the population at which it is aimed, and which results in many normal people taking negative views of the police (even if that may not be fair) be in the long-term interests of either law enforcement or society at large?
I have continually said that I prefer primary traffic enforcement to be done by Police officers, but I have also said that I believe there is a valid constructive use with automated enforcement such as speed & red light cameras. I have not sought to justify that all enforcement should be cameras (ie that they should replace Police) or that all enforcement cameras are currently placed at the sites where they could be most effective.(I don't know if they are because I don't know where they all are). I do think though that if there are only 6,000 cameras there will be at least 6000 sites out on our roads where they could be used intelligently to keep speed down & help safety.
If they are misused yes they could have a negative effect, if they are used well yes they could have a positive effect.
As such I only say that the use of automated enforcement at certain sites is a valid tool & could be of benefit.
As to the question of support for cameras.
Any law or enforcement that provokes a negative response amongst a very broad base of the public, is doomed to failure. The reality of that though is that it has to be a very broad base & in order to force a government to change policy where it is unpopular, it will take a very large group of people to be very active in lobbying for that change. Where it is a relatively small number lobbying & a much larger number, who though opposed to the current policy are apathetic about it, it is likely to continue if the government feel there is benefit in it.
The size of that broad base of course may be countered by a very broad base with an opposite view, who also will have active lobbying sections. So it is with most issues, those for, those against & both have active lobbying sections. But invariably one group will have the upper hand either through sheer numbers or other influence.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 23 April 18:01
If they are misused yes they could have a negative effect, if they are used well yes they could have a positive effect.
As such I only say that the use of automated enforcement at certain sites is a valid tool & could be of benefit.
As to the question of support for cameras.
Any law or enforcement that provokes a negative response amongst a very broad base of the public, is doomed to failure. The reality of that though is that it has to be a very broad base & in order to force a government to change policy where it is unpopular, it will take a very large group of people to be very active in lobbying for that change. Where it is a relatively small number lobbying & a much larger number, who though opposed to the current policy are apathetic about it, it is likely to continue if the government feel there is benefit in it.
The size of that broad base of course may be countered by a very broad base with an opposite view, who also will have active lobbying sections. So it is with most issues, those for, those against & both have active lobbying sections. But invariably one group will have the upper hand either through sheer numbers or other influence.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 23 April 18:01
Thanks very much for the fair response. I understand your stance on the bit I haven't quoted, although I don't agree with with most it. (But that wasn't the question)
This is an honest and considered reply. It shows the need to address apathy to authorian approaches to policy, and is something those who are concerned (like me) will have to work at via support for organisations like Safespeed, the ABD and pepipoo, and also by lobbying our elected representatives (repugnant though that may be for many
). I do all these things.
Folks, unless we do something things will only get worse.
I'd add that disrespect for road safety law will breed disrespect for laws we actually WANT!
>> Edited by prof beard on Sunday 23 April 18:07
vonhosen said:
As to the question of support for cameras.
Any law or enforcement that provokes a negative response amongst a very broad base of the public, is doomed to failure. The reality of that though is that in order to force a government to change policy where it is unpopular, it will take a very large group of people to be very active in lobbying for change. Where it is a relatively small number lobbying & a much larger number who though oppsoed to the current policy are apathetic about it, it is likely to continue if the government feel there is benefit in it.
This is an honest and considered reply. It shows the need to address apathy to authorian approaches to policy, and is something those who are concerned (like me) will have to work at via support for organisations like Safespeed, the ABD and pepipoo, and also by lobbying our elected representatives (repugnant though that may be for many
). I do all these things. Folks, unless we do something things will only get worse.
I'd add that disrespect for road safety law will breed disrespect for laws we actually WANT!
>> Edited by prof beard on Sunday 23 April 18:07
Good response Vonhosen 
It has been discussed in SP&L in the past that by and large the majority of motorists are against the current situation but are by and large apathetic to it (witness the prof's colleagues who have no knowledge of partnerships!). The problem is that activists such as Brake and Transport 2000 are far more vocal and also hold the emotional blackmail card to the politicians.
The only way to fight this malaise is direct action (of various sorts, not necessarily illegal) - and that's not going to happen!
First of all we have to remove the excessive taxes on petrol!
It has been discussed in SP&L in the past that by and large the majority of motorists are against the current situation but are by and large apathetic to it (witness the prof's colleagues who have no knowledge of partnerships!). The problem is that activists such as Brake and Transport 2000 are far more vocal and also hold the emotional blackmail card to the politicians.
The only way to fight this malaise is direct action (of various sorts, not necessarily illegal) - and that's not going to happen!
First of all we have to remove the excessive taxes on petrol!
legislation they'll abuse to prevent it again.vonhosen said
'The size of that broad base of course may be countered by a very broad base with an opposite view, who also will have active lobbying sections. So it is with most issues, those for, those against & both have active lobbying sections. But invariably one group will have the upper hand either through sheer numbers or other influence.'
i just wonder if that 'other influence' you mention is the vast income they generate!
The present Government aren't making any plans to scrap the golden hen then, but to flood our roads with the latest digital cameras, which do not require the films to be changed...
'The size of that broad base of course may be countered by a very broad base with an opposite view, who also will have active lobbying sections. So it is with most issues, those for, those against & both have active lobbying sections. But invariably one group will have the upper hand either through sheer numbers or other influence.'
i just wonder if that 'other influence' you mention is the vast income they generate!
The present Government aren't making any plans to scrap the golden hen then, but to flood our roads with the latest digital cameras, which do not require the films to be changed...
Trust that the Government wouldn't hesitate to scrap the "golden hen" if it were shown that it were likely to cost them an election. They can raise the money another way (as they and previous Governments have shown any number of times) - the path of least resistance is the one they will follow.
7db said:
Trust that the Government wouldn't hesitate to scrap the "golden hen" if it were shown that it were likely to cost them an election. They can raise the money another way (as they and previous Governments have shown any number of times) - the path of least resistance is the one they will follow.
Yes indeed, they would not want to lose power.
As I said before 1p on a litre of fuel would net them around £500million a year , not the £42million that cameras have in three years.
Expect then that 42 million pounds will soon be doubled, or even trebled in the next three years, as the digital ones don't need refilling and will make an even bigger 'profit'of 120+ million. Not such a trifling amount now is it?
Just for good measure they will stick a penny on a litre of fuel aswell!!
Didn't it just reach a £1 a litre somewhere in Britain recently..
Must look into converting the car to run on old chip oil then and pay a reduced tax on it of course.
Just for good measure they will stick a penny on a litre of fuel aswell!!
Didn't it just reach a £1 a litre somewhere in Britain recently..
Must look into converting the car to run on old chip oil then and pay a reduced tax on it of course.
gilberninvader said:
The present Government aren't making any plans to scrap the golden hen
I don't think the government see speed cameras as a money maker. The manufacturers and operators do, of course. But I think the government see cameras as a cheap/free way to be seen to acting to improve road safety, and as another way to penalise and discourage private car use.
7db said:
Trust that the Government wouldn't hesitate to scrap the "golden hen" if it were shown that it were likely to cost them an election. They can raise the money another way (as they and previous Governments have shown any number of times) - the path of least resistance is the one they will follow.
Blimey, you and me in total agreement.
Think i need a lie down.....
Deltafox said:Reported seen outside Deltafox's place
Trust that the Government wouldn't hesitate to scrap the "golden hen" if it were shown that it were likely to cost them an election. They can raise the money another way (as they and previous Governments have shown any number of times) - the path of least resistance is the one they will follow.
Think i need a lie down.....
Deltafox said:
Trust that the Government wouldn't hesitate to scrap the "golden hen" if it were shown that it were likely to cost them an election. They can raise the money another way (as they and previous Governments have shown any number of times) - the path of least resistance is the one they will follow.
Blimey, you and me in total agreement.
Think i need a lie down.....
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...
7db said:
Trust that the Government wouldn't hesitate to scrap the "golden hen" if it were shown that it were likely to cost them an election. They can raise the money another way (as they and previous Governments have shown any number of times) - the path of least resistance is the one they will follow.
Blimey, you and me in total agreement.
Think i need a lie down.....
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...
VH 7db is having a dig at you
turbobloke said:
Trust that the Government wouldn't hesitate to scrap the "golden hen" if it were shown that it were likely to cost them an election. They can raise the money another way (as they and previous Governments have shown any number of times) - the path of least resistance is the one they will follow.
Blimey, you and me in total agreement.
Think i need a lie down.....
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...
7db is having a dig at you
Just goes to show I thought he was talking about you.
I was going to correct him & say that unless it's the LED variety then it's never right. (referring to you again of course)
gilberninvader said:
Expect then that 42 million pounds will soon be doubled, or even trebled in the next three years, as the digital ones don't need refilling and will make an even bigger 'profit'of 120+ million. Not such a trifling amount now is it?
Just for good measure they will stick a penny on a litre of fuel aswell!!
Didn't it just reach a £1 a litre somewhere in Britain recently..
Must look into converting the car to run on old chip oil then and pay a reduced tax on it of course.
Last Friday a filling station in Scarborough was charging 102.9 pence/litre for diesel.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
vonhosen said:
Yes indeed, they would not want to lose power.
As I said before 1p on a litre of fuel would net them around £500million a year , not the £42million that cameras have in three years.
The important point about cameras and money is not just the amount of money they raise, but the amount that the government does NOT then have to spend. The reduction in traffic police throughout the country will have “saved” many millions in tax. Likewise, by NOT spending on genuine road safety measures such as road improvements, which often cost a reasonable amount of money, the government can “be seen” to be doing something yet not only spend less than doing nothing, but actually generate a small income. Additionally they can slightly reduce the unemployment statistics by having “self funded” camera partnerships employ people in “non-jobs”.
What other scheme offers any government the ability to reduce unemployment, reduce police spend, improve crime prosecution statistics and claim that they are attempting to tackle major safety concerns, while actually netting a small income? All they have to do is convince the voting public that there is some safety improvement and political utopia is achieved. Fancy misrepresenting some statistics anyone?
Spot on black-k1, and in addition to all the valid points in your post, there is also the prospect of a car-hating government getting to indulge its perverse ideology and persecute private transport even more in its drive to make private motoring as unpleasant as possible and force us all out of our cars (property is theft after all) and onto filthy polluting unreliable costly inflexible collective inclusive public transport.
We all know which way the wind blows, and what colour the flag is. Comrade
We all know which way the wind blows, and what colour the flag is. Comrade
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff