RE: Helicopters To Catch Speeding Drivers

[Wilder]

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Wilder said:

Any accident causalty figures must also take into account the difference in traffic volumes from the 60s through to today.
When you take that into account, safety has improved dramatically. This is mainly due to vehicle safety , airbags and seatbelts. I object to people trumpeting the "reductions" on traffic enforcements beyond what they really are, when a healthy part of those numbers are though other factors.

No-one says it is, however part of it will be down to traffic enforcement or at least the 'fear' of it. For example drink drive linked deaths. You have to look at preventions not just reduction. You could for example argue that as traffic has increased at least 4 fold on the road that our road deaths should be some 20,000 or more.

Even now over 200 fatalities a year it would appear are due to excess speed above the posted limit. This allegedly during a time where people are terrified to speed. Imagine how bad it would be without the fear of enforcement that exists.

Its a combination of factors the with the largest part being I'm sure vehicle safety (itself driven from the causes and study of crashes and the data provided by officers investigating crashes) however even 10 % is still a large number of people year on year.

What none of this changes is that the helicopter is primarily used for other things within the police service with speeding only being a tiny part of its role, this whole thread is based on a few signs. The whole thing being aimed at prevention not enforcement. Since your all really worried and as a result I'm sure will nor adhere to limits. That will take care of at least some of the fatals...

As for the helicopter for the ambulance service or not - then I would rather they decide, They most likely would choose to increase their fleet and ability to attend calls before they got a helicopter. A helicopter would save one life and the extra ambulances may save far more.

No one is arguing that traffic enforcement plays no part, its simply a question of how much that impact is being exaggerated purely by inferred statements or statistics, (which happens) especially from government sources.
As far as use of a helicopter, I have repeated that hypothetically there would be no choice given to those who currently decide how the money is spent, and funds currently allocated to the police air support for non essential duties such as catching or monitoring speeders which can be done from the ground, is redirected to the air ambulance service who currently operate at the level they do because of public donations.. ( how shameful is that???). (which was the point of this thread in the first place).

You can speak hypothetically all you like, it makes no difference.

Exactly, which is why people are agrieved at attitudes such as yours ....
The will of the people of this country is disregarded by people so arrogant that they think they have to answer to no one.

If thats your best answer to the argument, its sadly lacking..

I have no say in whether we have a helicopter or not, mine is an opinion just like yours.
I just happen to think that your idea of taking funds from the Police for what you personally perceive as misuse of it, is pie in the sky.

I don't see anything to suggest you are 'tuned in' to the will of the people with your statement.

One thing for certain reading your posts, you are singularly the most arrogant and self opinionated person I have ever read on PH.
You blindly refuse to acknowledge any position but your own.
I view anything you may say further as simply biased partisan views, and quite frankly not worth further discussion.
You lack of acknowledgement that anyone has dissagreed with the use of a helicopter in this thread shows you are blinkered to the point of complete denial, and I bet Im not the only one who thinks that.

[TPAC]

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Wilder said:

Any accident causalty figures must also take into account the difference in traffic volumes from the 60s through to today.
When you take that into account, safety has improved dramatically. This is mainly due to vehicle safety , airbags and seatbelts. I object to people trumpeting the "reductions" on traffic enforcements beyond what they really are, when a healthy part of those numbers are though other factors.

No-one says it is, however part of it will be down to traffic enforcement or at least the 'fear' of it. For example drink drive linked deaths. You have to look at preventions not just reduction. You could for example argue that as traffic has increased at least 4 fold on the road that our road deaths should be some 20,000 or more.

Even now over 200 fatalities a year it would appear are due to excess speed above the posted limit. This allegedly during a time where people are terrified to speed. Imagine how bad it would be without the fear of enforcement that exists.

Its a combination of factors the with the largest part being I'm sure vehicle safety (itself driven from the causes and study of crashes and the data provided by officers investigating crashes) however even 10 % is still a large number of people year on year.

What none of this changes is that the helicopter is primarily used for other things within the police service with speeding only being a tiny part of its role, this whole thread is based on a few signs. The whole thing being aimed at prevention not enforcement. Since your all really worried and as a result I'm sure will nor adhere to limits. That will take care of at least some of the fatals...

As for the helicopter for the ambulance service or not - then I would rather they decide, They most likely would choose to increase their fleet and ability to attend calls before they got a helicopter. A helicopter would save one life and the extra ambulances may save far more.

No one is arguing that traffic enforcement plays no part, its simply a question of how much that impact is being exaggerated purely by inferred statements or statistics, (which happens) especially from government sources.
As far as use of a helicopter, I have repeated that hypothetically there would be no choice given to those who currently decide how the money is spent, and funds currently allocated to the police air support for non essential duties such as catching or monitoring speeders which can be done from the ground, is redirected to the air ambulance service who currently operate at the level they do because of public donations.. ( how shameful is that???). (which was the point of this thread in the first place).

You can speak hypothetically all you like, it makes no difference.

Exactly, which is why people are agrieved at attitudes such as yours ....
The will of the people of this country is disregarded by people so arrogant that they think they have to answer to no one.

If thats your best answer to the argument, its sadly lacking..

I have no say in whether we have a helicopter or not, mine is an opinion just like yours.
I just happen to think that your idea of taking funds from the Police for what you personally perceive as misuse of it, is pie in the sky.

I don't see anything to suggest you are 'tuned in' to the will of the people with your statement.

One thing for certain reading your posts, you are singularly the most arrogant and self opinionated person I have ever read on PH.
You blindly refuse to acknowledge any position but your own.
I view anything you may say further as simply biased partisan views, and quite frankly not worth further discussion.
You lack of acknowledgement that anyone has dissagreed with the use of a helicopter in this thread shows you are blinkered to the point of complete denial, and I bet Im not the only one who thinks that.

Hang on. didn't this thread start because they were putting a few signs up in an effort to concentrate on not allowing the number of motorcyclists killed to escalate more than it has? I'm thinking that the injured motorcyclists and other casualties will take up a lot of NHS resources?
(The signs showing the helicopter is part of the police's range of equipment do not indicate that the helicopter is to be used for speed enforcement per se).

[vonhosen]

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

vonhosen said:

Wilder said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Wilder said:

Any accident causalty figures must also take into account the difference in traffic volumes from the 60s through to today.
When you take that into account, safety has improved dramatically. This is mainly due to vehicle safety , airbags and seatbelts. I object to people trumpeting the "reductions" on traffic enforcements beyond what they really are, when a healthy part of those numbers are though other factors.

No-one says it is, however part of it will be down to traffic enforcement or at least the 'fear' of it. For example drink drive linked deaths. You have to look at preventions not just reduction. You could for example argue that as traffic has increased at least 4 fold on the road that our road deaths should be some 20,000 or more.

Even now over 200 fatalities a year it would appear are due to excess speed above the posted limit. This allegedly during a time where people are terrified to speed. Imagine how bad it would be without the fear of enforcement that exists.

Its a combination of factors the with the largest part being I'm sure vehicle safety (itself driven from the causes and study of crashes and the data provided by officers investigating crashes) however even 10 % is still a large number of people year on year.

What none of this changes is that the helicopter is primarily used for other things within the police service with speeding only being a tiny part of its role, this whole thread is based on a few signs. The whole thing being aimed at prevention not enforcement. Since your all really worried and as a result I'm sure will nor adhere to limits. That will take care of at least some of the fatals...

As for the helicopter for the ambulance service or not - then I would rather they decide, They most likely would choose to increase their fleet and ability to attend calls before they got a helicopter. A helicopter would save one life and the extra ambulances may save far more.

No one is arguing that traffic enforcement plays no part, its simply a question of how much that impact is being exaggerated purely by inferred statements or statistics, (which happens) especially from government sources.
As far as use of a helicopter, I have repeated that hypothetically there would be no choice given to those who currently decide how the money is spent, and funds currently allocated to the police air support for non essential duties such as catching or monitoring speeders which can be done from the ground, is redirected to the air ambulance service who currently operate at the level they do because of public donations.. ( how shameful is that???). (which was the point of this thread in the first place).

You can speak hypothetically all you like, it makes no difference.

Exactly, which is why people are agrieved at attitudes such as yours ....
The will of the people of this country is disregarded by people so arrogant that they think they have to answer to no one.

If thats your best answer to the argument, its sadly lacking..

I have no say in whether we have a helicopter or not, mine is an opinion just like yours.
I just happen to think that your idea of taking funds from the Police for what you personally perceive as misuse of it, is pie in the sky.

I don't see anything to suggest you are 'tuned in' to the will of the people with your statement.

One thing for certain reading your posts, you are singularly the most arrogant and self opinionated person I have ever read on PH.
You blindly refuse to acknowledge any position but your own.
I view anything you may say further as simply biased partisan views, and quite frankly not worth further discussion.
You lack of acknowledgement that anyone has dissagreed with the use of a helicopter in this thread shows you are blinkered to the point of complete denial, and I bet Im not the only one who thinks that.

This thread can't be seen as evidence of 'the will of the public', you are in la la land.
I'm quite happy to acknowledge your position, I just don't agree with it.

[jellison]

There will never catch me.

Just a PURPLE BLURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[BOF]

From the September Essex Police newspaper 'The Law'...

"A trial run by the Essex Casualty Reduction Board will see the helicopter flying over designated areas when returning to its Boreham base after an operation, to monitor drivers speed.

The initiative is particularly aimed at reducing the number of motorcyclists killed or seriously injured in the county.
Signs have been put up to warn motorists of the possibility that offences will be detected from the air.

They warn of the possible detection by the helicopter, which is equipped with an automatic number plate recognition device (ANPR) which can read a vehicle index from 700 feet, radar speed detection, global positioning scheme (GPS) mapping and thermal imaging.

The initiative is being piloted in three areas: the B184 Ongar to Dunmow road;the B1012 Lower Burnham road;and the B1057 Dunmow to Finchingfield road.

Senior traffic management office Adam Pipe said the helicopter would be used 'to enforce road traffic legislation on specific key casualty routes in Essex used by motorcyclists'."

I use two of these roads at around drive 5 with associates...some of the bends can bring tears to your eyes in a car if you don't get it right...the bunches of flowers show where some did not.

BOF.