RE: Helicopters To Catch Speeding Drivers
Wednesday 27th August 2008
High speed cameras?DRIVERS in Essex could soon be caught speeding by a police helicopter armed with a radar device. Around 20 signs are being placed around the county to warn drivers they are being watched from the sky.
Helicopters To Catch Speeding Drivers
Essex Police could track speeders from the sky
High speed cameras?
Alongside the radar tracking equipment the helicopters are understood to be carrying a ‘Skyshout’ public address system which would warn drivers they are being tracked. The choppers will carry automatic number plate recognition that can identify a car from 700ft.
Norman Hume, chairman of the Essex Casualty Reduction Board, which aims to lower road casualties, said: 'We are seeing accidents in Essex dramatically reduced as a result of our intervention and education campaign but need to make more impact on motorcycle accidents. There is a perception it is sometimes easier for motorcyclists to evade detection of offences because of the speed they travel at. We feel signs warning of the likelihood of detection by air will be an extra incentive for motorcyclists in particular, and all motorists, to drive safely.'
Campaign group the TaxPayers Alliance has estimated that the helicopter will cost around £1,000 an hour to run. Captain Gatso of Motorists Against Detection said: ‘Essex tax payers should be outraged at the way the police are wasting their money – get the cops on the streets.’
Discussion
lokichokio44 said:
What a great pity they can't come up with some 'intiatives' to catch burglars, muggers, sex offenders and all the other scum bag criminals in the country. I used to have respect for the police, now I just resent them full stop.
Are you mad, since when is it cost effective to reduce crime. Much better to nick motorists where you have guaranteed revenue. End of the day the Police are about as useless now as they have ever been.Mr_annie_vxr said:
Right.
This is a very badly written sensationalist bit of press.
OK so its not being used to monitor speeding.......This is a very badly written sensationalist bit of press.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
It will not be used for low speeds but for those when the person stands out so as I said most likely 120 +. Its not going to be hovering over the M25 catching speeders. What it will do is using video catch the evidence and send a police vehicle to intercept at a safe location or when the vehicle stops.
...but it is. Likely means 'I dont know' Mr_annie_vxr said:
Another reason it is used like this every now and then is that it enables the cost of the helicopter to be off-set by the money generated by speeding fines.
Bingo. So every time your skint break out the air camera, same principal as you have adopted in your other 'innovative' road policies.Mr_annie_vxr said:
Its getting typical of PH that people don't read any further than the articles before launching into tirades of abuse when they know little about what the police or the specialist unit actually do.
The reason than the general public aka your paymasters hate you is the way you focus on the motorist everytime you need revenue. Its nothing to do with safety, to say so is the biggest load of BS you could ever try to sell. As soon as multiple people poke holes in your performance you say the same thing 'you dont understand'. Mr_annie_vxr said:
My force made over 3000 arrests for burglary last year. This month my team have not issued one speeding ticket but we have arrested 6 people for burglary, 3 for robbery, 8 people for car related crime and 1 chap for plant theft and theft of a motorbike - along with 22 people for a variety of assaults, criminal damages and domestic incidents. This past weekend we siezed 10 cars for no insurance and I think we are up to about 5 drink drivers this month. Not one speeding ticket - which is odd as apparently thats all we do.
And what is the average conviction rate for burglary, its funny its easy to view trends but no real data on converting these into putting people away? Mr_annie_vxr said:
This month I used a helicopter to find a missing old man, to locate or try to locate offenders made off from a shed break and then officers. To video a large scale disturbance we were dealing with and to try to find a vehicle that had been stolen. Not one speeder though.
Because you hadn't been told to. When you are you will do so.Glorified traffic wardens, good for f
k all and never around when you are needed. Mr_annie_vxr said:
I will try to answer your points without insulting you personaly as you have done me.
Your choice it means nothing to me either way.Mr_annie_vxr said:
The article and indeed you have implied that it will be out monitoring speeders all the time. That is not the case, so yes that makes it a badly written sensationalist article.
I do know that it will only be targeting those whose speed differential is obvious or those that have already been identified by ground units. The signs are designed to deter people from these high speeds, in particular bikers who are the ones most likely to not stop and are rarely if ever chased by officers.
The article is saying Police helicopter used to monitor speeding motorists. That is what it is doing. Right now the net is 'high' speeding next it will be 'moderate' speeding. Thats how you work.I do know that it will only be targeting those whose speed differential is obvious or those that have already been identified by ground units. The signs are designed to deter people from these high speeds, in particular bikers who are the ones most likely to not stop and are rarely if ever chased by officers.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
You have failed to understand that the force pays for the helicopter out of a policing budget.
The 'force' pays for nothing. Central fund management is tied into Govt not revenue streams.Mr_annie_vxr said:
That budget is limited and in real terms reduced for most forces each year, by accessing SCP funds they can ensure that the helicopter can be kept for the things it was actually bought for.
Its not limited its capped there is a difference.Mr_annie_vxr said:
Speeding fines are recouped by SCP's which pay for the speed enforcement, police forces do not get any money back from fines they generate.
And the fines go to central and central funds you.Mr_annie_vxr said:
People being caught for speeding pay for their own enforcement and in this case and many other accounting tricks other resources used primarily to tackle crimes and criminals are purchased and payed fore when otherwise they would not have them.
Basically taxpayers income is used to generate interest against your funding. Its very clever actually.Mr_annie_vxr said:
ANPR, police vehicles, helicopters cost money and nearly all are used all the time on criminal matters. Your right its outrageous - we should all be paying more tax instead of people voluntarily paying it. I avoid paying or it by being sensible about where and when I choose to exceed the limit.
I get no say in what my contributions are spent on. There is not another type of business that is basically a LTD Company that fks over its shareholders in the in the way the public sector does.Mr_annie_vxr said:
You as an individual are not my paymaster - we serve the whole of society not one individual - the argument that this is all about revenue and thats all cameras are for is where I lose interest.
Wrong. Your primary goal is to protect and serve supposedly.Mr_annie_vxr said:
If you were to argue that a focus on speed enforcement and not the use of traffic officers or education was not the way forward I would listen but the actual camera revenue is minute compared to the total revenue of the government.
That is nothing to do with it. Police on the street is the way forward but CPO's and Specials are the way the modern force chooses to deal with things.Mr_annie_vxr said:
You choose to put yourself in the revenue collection stream, its easy not to do so.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Nearly all police resources paid for by tax (real tax not voluntary tax) are spent on criminal matters, a small part of it on traffic work and an even smaller part on purely speed enforcement. Just as you are convinced that the police spend all their time creating revenue does not make it true.
Real tax, yup that makes it better! All my tax money that funds you is involentary i.e I dont have a choice. Mr_annie_vxr said:
Conviction rate - about 80-90 % at court nearly all people charged get convicted. 80% of those arrested are dealt with by caution/ charge or pnd.
80% of 5% is what exactly?Mr_annie_vxr said:
What you meant to try to say was the detection rate which is anything from 20-30% for most offences and about 25 % or greater for burglary, now what that does mean is you have a 1/4 chance that your burglary will be solved- however the chances that the person who burgled your house will be arrested and put before a court for a burglary is about 80-90%. Many burglars are identified but not able to be charged with the specific burglary. Nearly all criminals are known on every area and every series of breaks will see the offenders for that series arrested and dealt with - what happens with regards prison terms is out of my control. To detect an offence you have to be able to show to an evidential standard who did it, sometimes that is not possible - it does not mean you do not gain intelligence that can be used to locate and target the offender and catch them for further burglaries in the same crime series as yours.
Basically you know what I am trying to say and depsite dodging the question with fluff the Police currently translate less than 10% of burglary into convictions. Very impressive. Meanwhile entrapment by hiding in vans on the side of roads, by sitting in reduced limits, and fixed and mobile sites seems to be a 100%b closure rate.Mr_annie_vxr said:
Remind me what it is you do for a living
I pay your fking wages. Without idiots like me your great force wouldn't exist. In a past life I was involved with TVP and the Met.Mr_annie_vxr said:
- just so I can be assured your out there trying to do your bit to make the country you live in that better and a little bit safer and your not just someone who reads what is in the paper and believes the hype.
I write software that you probably use in your daily routine. Mr_annie_vxr said:
Your obviously someone who does not believe in the need for speed limits, or the need for double yellow lines and disabled bays - so what else don't you see the need for?
Well pious people like you for a start. Since when have I mentioned disabled bays and yellow lines? Is this your training coming through..undermine and suggest guilt? I though that in basic training now the personality tests streamed out passive aggresive types?Mr_annie_vxr said:
Try to know a bit more about what people do before you start insulting them or the efforts that they make each day on you behalf.
What a crock of st. If you dont like the job get out of the business. Truth is you enjoy ramming sensibility down peoples throats, in normal society you would be hopeless, or a security guard to be precise. You dont do a damn thing for me and the times I needed help it wasn't there, thats why I removed myself from all the BS you call home. Carry on there DI(maybe?) I'll keep doing my bit and dont worry, if I ever see an opportunity to shaft you I most certainly will.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Clearly you got turned down at some point for the police service. Have you thought of applying to be a CSO?
lolMr_annie_vxr said:
Your argument has many holes and comments based on anger and mis-perception. You also don't it appears know half as much as you think you do. Wow you worked on the computer help desk in a police force, your right that gives you such an insight.
A computer 'help desk' this is getting better and better, dont stop you're on a roll 
Mr_annie_vxr said:
You talked about figures but you did not actually know what figures you meant and you still don't read or understand them. Nearly all burglars are caught and convicted, very few crime series remain undetected. Of the people we arrest 80% or more are dealt with by some form of sanction - you conveniently failed to understand that. As for your 100 % of speeders, you really think that 100% of all speeders each day are caught? People speed all the time, the detection rate for speeding is less than 1 %.
You're right I just 'dont understand'. I dont understand why the Police do what they do and I am guessing 90% of the masses dont understand either. 'Nearly all burglars are caught' really, show me the link I am prepared to be amazed.Mr_annie_vxr said:
It helps to make points where you don't thrown in Daily Mail figures. This is where arguments against speed cameras fall down. People like you throw in all these rubbish factually incorrect comments that make people lose interest.
I dont read papers that much. And as for losing interest you are still here are you not?Mr_annie_vxr said:
Now you hate parking wardens and speed cameras - therefore you don't think they do a job worthwhile as such you don't believe in speed limits or parking enforcement. If you do believe in speed limits and the need to enforce disabled bays and double yellow lines - then you have to support the enforcement of them, if you don't have enforcement then you may as well not have the regulations.
I dont 'hate' parking wardens, thats you putting words in my mouth. I dislike to the nth degree certain parts of what they do but they do what they say on the tim. Unlike the Police force who wrap up BS camapigns against the motorist a. when there really are better things to do and b. under the banner of 'its for your own good' i.e a matter of our personal safety when its all about revenue.Mr_annie_vxr said:
If you are against speed limits you should say.
Never said that either. I think it is commonly accepted that things have moved on since the time when the current limits were imposed. There is no real excuse for travelling at 150 mph on the roads but in the same way IMO it shouldn't be punishable by a prison term.Mr_annie_vxr said:
You are a person full of anger and hatred as a result it undermines a lot of what you say as you don't actually have anything to back up the comments you make .
If you say so.Mr_annie_vxr said:
Your personal insults are nothing new and to be honest lack any inventiveness. If I had stayed in the private sector I would be earning far more than I do now. I do my job as its a vocation not to ram anything down anyones throat unless it needs ramming.
Of course they're not, my lack of respect for you and your colleagues is very well founded I can assure you. Of course you do the job for the greater good, have you thought of becoming a Saint?Mr_annie_vxr said:
I was not aware you worked for microsoft. You are a very angry Bill Gates and I claim my five pounds.
I don't. Mr_annie_vxr said:
I gave up trying to be nice and polite as you don't seem to respond in a similar way.
Like I said, makes no difference to me. Mr_annie_vxr said:
As I said - you have not a clue what you talk about. Speeding alone is not punishable by a prison term. When you have anything else to add to a debate other than your personal anger you may get somewhere. It is the ill-founded ranting like this that undermines the anti-speed camera argument. You don't have any actual valid points to make. Just sweeping comments based on nothing,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7400557.stmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/24/ukcrime.j...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3...
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Your revenue argument falls to pieces when you look at the cost of a helicopter against how many 'speeders' it could ever catch. It will only be able to catch a very small number even if it was dedicated to the task for an hour. The ticket revenue would never match the cost. Yet you argue that its about revenue.... Its hardly a sound way to make money.
Its a great way to make money. I mean if you can't afford to carry out vital things you need greater funding. Mr_annie_vxr said:
Speed enforcement is not about revenue its about making up the gap lost by the removal of traffic officers for other roles. Nothing more. Police forces have no revenue targets they only have road death and SI crash reduction targets.
Just as you think something is the case it does not make it the case.
It is 99% about revenue and always will be. Othewise 33mph in a 30 would always be a caution.Just as you think something is the case it does not make it the case.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
The very fact you cannot understand why anyone would do a job for anything but personal gain is part of the issue. You just do not get it.
So you are saying I dont understand Soldiers/Nurses/Fireman/Aid workers or just the Police? Sorry different level altogether. Are you tryign to convince me or yourself how righteous you are?TPAC said:
allforone said:
Dangerous driving was the offence. Not speeding.Speeding wrapped up in DD to give a jail term. This is of course totally different
Do you actually have an opinion of your own or are you completely indoctrinated?TPAC said:
What makes you ask?
Because only someone out of touch with reality would be able to associate excessive speed with criminality. I have no idea how you are involved with the Police but obviously the way you defend your 'colleague' there is a tie.edit - you're not a part of the legal team by any chance?
Edited by allforone on Thursday 28th August 12:43
Einion Yrth said:
allforone said:
TPAC said:
What makes you ask?
Because only someone out of touch with reality would be able to associate excess speed with a criminal offence. I have no idea how you are involved with the Police but obviously the way you defend your 'colleague' there is a tie.If only ABH etc were dealt with with such vigour.
TPAC said:
Driving at those sorts of speeds, is, more often than not, dangerous. To do so in comparative safety, you need to have all sorts of factors in place: A car that is up to it in every way, and maintained fastidiously; Some sort of Advanced Driving knowledge, obtained either through one-on-one training or at the very least, reading and practicing; Many thousands of miles of experience, and a good few thousand in the same car that you're driving; road conditions; potential known hazards, etc. If I were to go out and do that sort of speed now, without all those precautions in place, I would recognise, even if it were only a nagging feeling at the back of my mind, that I was taking a risk. Taking a risk of harming others, and not just me.
And that, in a nutshell, is the offence of dangerous driving.
It is a risk to drive, period. Most of us take that risk every day. The examples were extreme but I just cant get my head around jailing people for speeding.And that, in a nutshell, is the offence of dangerous driving.
TPAC said:
Out of touch with reality? No. It goes a little bit against the grain for me to defend the validity of speeding regulations and enforcement. I love fast cars and driving. I (like everyone else) believe I am capable of it. But, I liken it to being made to eat vegetables as a child, and to go to bed at the right time, etc. Its a bloody bore, but its actually right.
I don't work in the criminal justice side of the police. I get a pretty good, rounded view, actually, from where I am.
Far too much emphasis is placed on pure speed and limits. Unfortunately scamera vans and fixed sites have turned any chance that the Police had of convicing people about safety issues relating to driving habits into a very tall order. Take the course, pay the fine and stick two fingers up is the mentality it rightly or wrongly breeds.I don't work in the criminal justice side of the police. I get a pretty good, rounded view, actually, from where I am.
TPAC said:
Some risks are greater than others. The tendency, in a RTC at extreme speeds, is for there to be resultant deaths and serious injuries. Thats the knowledge you take with you when you choose to drive at that speed.
No doubt crashing at higher speeds is more damaging but crashing directly related to speed and not driver error is a less simplistic aruguement. Unfortunately all speed is deemed as dangerous and its only recently that the penny has dropped and cameras are not considered the solution to bad driving, which is not purely a speed related issue.
No doubt crashing at higher speeds is more damaging but crashing directly related to speed and not driver error is a less simplistic aruguement. Unfortunately all speed is deemed as dangerous and its only recently that the penny has dropped and cameras are not considered the solution to bad driving, which is not purely a speed related issue.
TPAC said:
You can only do that for a while, though, can't you?
The attitude remains, even if actually getting caught is less frequent as you get older/wiser. I think that's potentially more damaging to the Police in the long run i.e a large sector of pissed off motorists that dont really want to help them out in any shape or form.FishFace said:
allforone said:
TPAC said:
What makes you ask?
Because only someone out of touch with reality would be able to associate excessive speed with criminality. I have no idea how you are involved with the Police but obviously the way you defend your 'colleague' there is a tie.edit - you're not a part of the legal team by any chance?
Edited by allforone on Thursday 28th August 12:43
Why have you not replied to my posts addressing your original points?
To me its not directly a speed issue. If you want to be really black and white any speed is a danger to people. My point is that a car travelling at 35mph in a 30mph limit is not necessarily a greater risk than one travelling at 29mph. 80mph on the motorway, infact 90 on the motorway is hardly pushing the envelope of most cars, if the driver is half asleep it is a different matter.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff