What to do when you've got better data?
Discussion
So, ignoring the somewhat OTT escalation on this thread, just to keep you all informed I've arranged a meeting with the Chief Inspector of our local area to have a chat regarding this and some other matters. I'll report back on what the repsonse is - I thought this was a much better way of doing it than simply banging a letter our which could potentially be seen as having a bit of a whinge, or the value of the data in it ignored by the admin department.
To be clear I'm not going at this with an eye for causing trouble or giving them a hard time. I really do think there is a serious issue here with the methods employed especially if this data is being recorded and kept!
Will keep you all informed.
To be clear I'm not going at this with an eye for causing trouble or giving them a hard time. I really do think there is a serious issue here with the methods employed especially if this data is being recorded and kept!
Will keep you all informed.
BertBert said:
Digby said:
I got told they would be "phoning my company".It might be trivial to you, I assure you it's not when you have to prove you didn't do something based on the threats of someone whose "concern" wasn't speed, rather they just didn't like vehicles.
Be a pita, please!
And did they, whoever they is?Be a pita, please!
If I say they didn't call and I didn't need to produce any evidence, you will no doubt make a comment about no harm being done.
There may have been harm done, however, had I not avoided her flapping, protruding arms.
Digby said:
If I say they did call and that I had evidence to show they were wrong, you will no doubt make a comment about no harm being done.
If I say they didn't call and I didn't need to produce any evidence, you will no doubt make a comment about no harm being done.
There may have been harm done, however, had I not avoided her flapping, protruding arms.
No actually I have a genuine interest. You can see by my posts that I think the whole follow-up thing is hot air and that receiving the "CSW you've been bad" letter is a non-event. I am surprised to see any actual personal contact or follow-up. I'm seeing if I need to change my view based on actual information. Strange I know If I say they didn't call and I didn't need to produce any evidence, you will no doubt make a comment about no harm being done.
There may have been harm done, however, had I not avoided her flapping, protruding arms.
Bert
So to put a different point of view on CSW...
I used to think they were universally a bunch of tossy busbodies with nowt else to do.
So one day I stopped as I saw them in one place a lot on my way to work. I chatted to them and watched the traffic. It is a very narrow, very busy, pretty dangerous place and the driving and speed I saw was pretty eye-watering. So what do you do? Get a bunch of free people to stand around with a speed gun. Saves paying plod and actually made a difference.
In the end they obviously recorded enough t
ttery for the council to put a traffic throttle thing in.
So PH massive, what is your solution to places where people drive too fast (and above the limit)? Speed camera? Permanent plod stationed? Lower limits?
Bert
I used to think they were universally a bunch of tossy busbodies with nowt else to do.
So one day I stopped as I saw them in one place a lot on my way to work. I chatted to them and watched the traffic. It is a very narrow, very busy, pretty dangerous place and the driving and speed I saw was pretty eye-watering. So what do you do? Get a bunch of free people to stand around with a speed gun. Saves paying plod and actually made a difference.
In the end they obviously recorded enough t
ttery for the council to put a traffic throttle thing in.So PH massive, what is your solution to places where people drive too fast (and above the limit)? Speed camera? Permanent plod stationed? Lower limits?
Bert
As Bert says, CSW do have their place as long as they do what they do properly and accurately.
The bigger issue is the "kept on file" part of the letter. We have already seen insurance companies asking if you have attended a speed awareness course, which legally does not affect your driving record, and taking account of this information in your premium calculation, so when will we start to see them asking if you've had a CSW letter?
It's the law of unintended consequences, a system set up to keep busybodies and whingers off Chief Constables backs ends up driving up insurance premiums on the back off iffy data and out dated equipment. Enjoy your weekend drives folks.
The bigger issue is the "kept on file" part of the letter. We have already seen insurance companies asking if you have attended a speed awareness course, which legally does not affect your driving record, and taking account of this information in your premium calculation, so when will we start to see them asking if you've had a CSW letter?
It's the law of unintended consequences, a system set up to keep busybodies and whingers off Chief Constables backs ends up driving up insurance premiums on the back off iffy data and out dated equipment. Enjoy your weekend drives folks.
BertBert said:
So PH massive, what is your solution to places where people drive too fast (and above the limit)? Speed camera? Permanent plod stationed? Lower limits?
Bert
If someone is driving too fast and above the limits then I'd want the law enforced, that is what the speed limit is supposed to be for after all. You wouldn't be happy for a 'meaningless' letter to be sent to a drunk or dangerous driver or a burglar, as a substitute for prosecution, so why is it OK for excessive speed?Bert
Also, why are these 'community speedwatch' initiatives concentrated in 30MPH villages? 30 limits in narrow hazardous roads through villages are not what the controversy is about, nobody in their right mind would go significantly over the limit there anyway.
Go 15 MPH over the limit on a deserted motorway or NSL A road and Ker-ching, fixed penalty and points on the licence. Do the same in a narrow village street lined with parked cars and it's 'no need for prosecution, just send him a meaningless letter'.
Presumably the people caught by motorway cameras are predominantly the ones that have cars registered in their own name and will meekly pay the fine with a cheque that won't bounce. The kind of people who drive like nutters through villages are far more likely to be driving cars that aren't traceable to them give false names and have their solicitors on speed dial. Far more difficult to deal with.
BertBert said:
So to put a different point of view on CSW...
I used to think they were universally a bunch of tossy busbodies with nowt else to do.
So one day I stopped as I saw them in one place a lot on my way to work. I chatted to them and watched the traffic. It is a very narrow, very busy, pretty dangerous place and the driving and speed I saw was pretty eye-watering. So what do you do? Get a bunch of free people to stand around with a speed gun. Saves paying plod and actually made a difference.
In the end they obviously recorded enough tttery for the council to put a traffic throttle thing in.
So PH massive, what is your solution to places where people drive too fast (and above the limit)? Speed camera? Permanent plod stationed? Lower limits?
Bert
Higher limits.I used to think they were universally a bunch of tossy busbodies with nowt else to do.
So one day I stopped as I saw them in one place a lot on my way to work. I chatted to them and watched the traffic. It is a very narrow, very busy, pretty dangerous place and the driving and speed I saw was pretty eye-watering. So what do you do? Get a bunch of free people to stand around with a speed gun. Saves paying plod and actually made a difference.
In the end they obviously recorded enough t
ttery for the council to put a traffic throttle thing in.So PH massive, what is your solution to places where people drive too fast (and above the limit)? Speed camera? Permanent plod stationed? Lower limits?
Bert
La Liga said:
Garvin said:
So what, exactly, is the point of writing such a letter? If it is not to intimidate then what?
To give people a warning about their excess speed.La Liga said:
Garvin said:
There is absolutely no reason to infer the recording for future use, which we all know is pretty much bks, if it is not meant as a threat!
If you'll only consider a "threat / no threat" possibility, then you can't consider any other reasons.ks, if it is not meant as a threat!La Liga said:
Garvin said:
My real point here is that these letters are being sent out 'willy-nilly' on the mere say so of some third party without any real checks and, in this case (and I'm taking the OP at 'face value' here), erroneous data. Why should anyone put up with that?
All of which are compromises made by choosing this solution rather than having officers who'll issues FPNs and the like.poppopbangbang said:
So, ignoring the somewhat OTT escalation on this thread, just to keep you all informed I've arranged a meeting with the Chief Inspector of our local area to have a chat regarding this and some other matters. I'll report back on what the repsonse is - I thought this was a much better way of doing it than simply banging a letter our which could potentially be seen as having a bit of a whinge, or the value of the data in it ignored by the admin department.
To be clear I'm not going at this with an eye for causing trouble or giving them a hard time. I really do think there is a serious issue here with the methods employed especially if this data is being recorded and kept!
Will keep you all informed.
Nice move.To be clear I'm not going at this with an eye for causing trouble or giving them a hard time. I really do think there is a serious issue here with the methods employed especially if this data is being recorded and kept!
Will keep you all informed.
I find it hard to believe that the Police would firstly give a collection of vigilante geriatric Daily Mail readers the equipment to play out their extreme right-wing prejudices, and secondly take them seriously when they report somebody for speeding.
Edited by Dermot O'Logical on Saturday 24th January 19:10
Not being connected with any CSW, nor being in receipt of any letter, nevertheless have a question.
It's regarding the interpretation of "information retained for further use."
Being the paranoid lot we are this seems to have been interpreted as further use against the particular recipient. Could another interpretation be that the information is collated as "evidence" of a persistent problem and therefore justification for other actions, eg proper enforcement, not against the recipient of the letter but whoever they happened to catch OPL.
It's regarding the interpretation of "information retained for further use."
Being the paranoid lot we are this seems to have been interpreted as further use against the particular recipient. Could another interpretation be that the information is collated as "evidence" of a persistent problem and therefore justification for other actions, eg proper enforcement, not against the recipient of the letter but whoever they happened to catch OPL.
FiF said:
Not being connected with any CSW, nor being in receipt of any letter, nevertheless have a question.
It's regarding the interpretation of "information retained for further use."
Being the paranoid lot we are this seems to have been interpreted as further use against the particular recipient. Could another interpretation be that the information is collated as "evidence" of a persistent problem and therefore justification for other actions, eg proper enforcement, not against the recipient of the letter but whoever they happened to catch OPL.
If the letter said "information retained for further use in gathering data to assess and substantiate whether further highway engineering works maybe required to alievate the traffic blight in this bucolic english village. We anticipate lobbying HM Govt treasury for funding in FY 2016-17 after which this CSW scheme will be concluded and the data destroyed" that would be one thing.It's regarding the interpretation of "information retained for further use."
Being the paranoid lot we are this seems to have been interpreted as further use against the particular recipient. Could another interpretation be that the information is collated as "evidence" of a persistent problem and therefore justification for other actions, eg proper enforcement, not against the recipient of the letter but whoever they happened to catch OPL.
If the letter said "information retained on the voter-citizen's file by the Department for Freedom and Community Assurance for further use in the resultant prosecution and life destruction should the vehicle's mandatory telematic device show that the vehicle has been driven past a school at over 20mph at 2 am." that would be another.
As it is we have a letter from a government backed scheme which is no better than a Parking Charge "notice" from a supermarket in it's reliance on the receiver not understanding the legal position implied by their vague wording.
Collectingbrass said:
If the letter said "information retained for further use in gathering data to assess and substantiate whether further highway engineering works maybe required to alievate the traffic blight in this bucolic english village. We anticipate lobbying HM Govt treasury for funding in FY 2016-17 after which this CSW scheme will be concluded and the data destroyed" that would be one thing.
If the letter said "information retained on the voter-citizen's file by the Department for Freedom and Community Assurance for further use in the resultant prosecution and life destruction should the vehicle's mandatory telematic device show that the vehicle has been driven past a school at over 20mph at 2 am." that would be another.
As it is we have a letter from a government backed scheme which is no better than a Parking Charge "notice" from a supermarket in it's reliance on the receiver not understanding the legal position implied by their vague wording.
Well yes. But I was rather hoping my post would prompt a question from the OP in his meeting with the CI.If the letter said "information retained on the voter-citizen's file by the Department for Freedom and Community Assurance for further use in the resultant prosecution and life destruction should the vehicle's mandatory telematic device show that the vehicle has been driven past a school at over 20mph at 2 am." that would be another.
As it is we have a letter from a government backed scheme which is no better than a Parking Charge "notice" from a supermarket in it's reliance on the receiver not understanding the legal position implied by their vague wording.
We used to have laws that the miscreant, and the miscreant only, could be held liable for misdemeanours.
The slippery slope then started when for speeding offences the RK had to fess up who the driver was or be held liable themselves and face fines/points etc.
Further down the slippery slope, plod can now slap a Section 59 on a vehicle for any reason they like. I know they are not supposed to, but they can and do and with no real appeal against it. Again, as a RK you can end up with your vehicle being seized for some really petty reason for which you have no involvement.
Even further down the slippery slope, for parking misdemeanours the RK can now be held to account regardless of their involvement (apart from being the RK)!
So when authorities keep records on a vehicle just remember that there is absolutley no need, as merely the RK, to be alarmed. To do so, according to some people (you know the sort - if you've done nothing wrong there is nothing to fear blah, blah), condemns you to being part of the tinfoil hat brigade! No, absolutely nothing to be concerned about at all!
The slippery slope then started when for speeding offences the RK had to fess up who the driver was or be held liable themselves and face fines/points etc.
Further down the slippery slope, plod can now slap a Section 59 on a vehicle for any reason they like. I know they are not supposed to, but they can and do and with no real appeal against it. Again, as a RK you can end up with your vehicle being seized for some really petty reason for which you have no involvement.
Even further down the slippery slope, for parking misdemeanours the RK can now be held to account regardless of their involvement (apart from being the RK)!
So when authorities keep records on a vehicle just remember that there is absolutley no need, as merely the RK, to be alarmed. To do so, according to some people (you know the sort - if you've done nothing wrong there is nothing to fear blah, blah), condemns you to being part of the tinfoil hat brigade! No, absolutely nothing to be concerned about at all!
Garvin said:
We used to have laws that the miscreant, and the miscreant only, could be held liable for misdemeanours.
The slippery slope then started when for speeding offences the RK had to fess up who the driver was or be held liable themselves and face fines/points etc.
Further down the slippery slope, plod can now slap a Section 59 on a vehicle for any reason they like. I know they are not supposed to, but they can and do and with no real appeal against it. Again, as a RK you can end up with your vehicle being seized for some really petty reason for which you have no involvement.
Even further down the slippery slope, for parking misdemeanours the RK can now be held to account regardless of their involvement (apart from being the RK)!
So when authorities keep records on a vehicle just remember that there is absolutley no need, as merely the RK, to be alarmed. To do so, according to some people (you know the sort - if you've done nothing wrong there is nothing to fear blah, blah), condemns you to being part of the tinfoil hat brigade! No, absolutely nothing to be concerned about at all!
Careful, you do know they are watching this thread The slippery slope then started when for speeding offences the RK had to fess up who the driver was or be held liable themselves and face fines/points etc.
Further down the slippery slope, plod can now slap a Section 59 on a vehicle for any reason they like. I know they are not supposed to, but they can and do and with no real appeal against it. Again, as a RK you can end up with your vehicle being seized for some really petty reason for which you have no involvement.
Even further down the slippery slope, for parking misdemeanours the RK can now be held to account regardless of their involvement (apart from being the RK)!
So when authorities keep records on a vehicle just remember that there is absolutley no need, as merely the RK, to be alarmed. To do so, according to some people (you know the sort - if you've done nothing wrong there is nothing to fear blah, blah), condemns you to being part of the tinfoil hat brigade! No, absolutely nothing to be concerned about at all!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff