RE: Man trashes speed camera

[Streetcop]

Archie..
I can see where you're coming from and where you're heading....

However, it's not going to happen..Over half of the police force isn't interested in traffic law, let alone enforcing it. The other half is often too busy doing other things to really sort out any protests...

There are many things wrong with the police forces that need to be changed before speed enforcement changes...

Street

[V8 Archie]

Streetcop said:

We've buggered it then...

Does that mean I've won?

Streetcop said:

That's where the problem starts..We're talking about humans...a percentage of which are w@ankers, irresponsible, ill-educated, careless, selfish etc etc

Of course! If the percentage was 0% you'd be out of a job along with the rest of the force!

Streetcop said:

What? In the UK? It's a hard enough task at the moment to convict someone of an offence where their driving standards have been at fault. We, the police, also have a duty of care to the public and the enforcement of speed limits (along with other motoring offences) goes some way to providing that duty of care. I've seen my fare share of widows, widowers and orphans whos loved ones have been killed by a speeding driver. You try telling them that it's a nanny state or to try justifying the need to 'feel the speed' on the open road, because I for one daren't.

I'm sure it is hard to convict people for sub-standard driving, but that doesn't give you, the government or society the right to "criminalise" people who are doing nothing to endanger anyone with an ounce of sense. We could eliminate crime if everyone was strapped to a bed from the moment they were born. The quality of life would be st, but no-one would steal, rape, pillage, speed or throw litter.

I'm not going to get into the emotional bit. St happens. Get over it or let it eat you from inside. I wouldn't try an justify my "need to 'feel the speed' on the open road" to someone if I was telling them their loved one had just died. I wouldn't be trying to get my leg over, or get a refund for the widget that I bought of them that didn't work either. There's a time and a place for everything, and that isn't it.

Streetcop said:

If people would be prepared to pay more in taxes....then I'm sure something could change, but people want the world for the £1.98 of council tax that goes to their local police force.

True, and personally I'd be happy to pay more in tax if I thought it would be spent sensibly. But that's beside the point. Overall taxes have risen steadily for the last ten (probably twenty) years. The money is there if the government feels the need to spend it. How much went on bombing the cp out of Bagdad?

[V8 Archie]

Streetcop said:

Archie.. I can see where you're coming from and where you're heading.... However, it's not going to happen..Over half of the police force isn't interested in traffic law, let alone enforcing it. The other half is often too busy doing other things to really sort out any protests... There are many things wrong with the police forces that need to be changed before speed enforcement changes... Street

That's as may be, but the only reason hunting got banned last week is that enough people shouted it from the roof-tops for long enough. Smoking in public places will be next.

The Poll Tax collapsed in a matter of months because people shouted loud enough.

You sit there in quietly in st and all you'll get is dirty, wet and smelly. Shout about it and someone will help you out.

[Streetcop]

V8 Archie said:

You sit there in quietly in st and all you'll get is dirty, wet and smelly.

I've often come up smelling of roses....

Street

[V8 Archie]

Streetcop said:

I can see where you're coming from and where you're heading....

If you're peering in through my window I'll have you up for harassment .

[V8 Archie]

Streetcop said:

Over half of the police force isn't interested in traffic law, let alone enforcing it.

I'm tempted to ask what the fk they are interested in then, 'cause it doesn't seem like they give two hoots about what happens round here!

On the other hand, if they don't care about traffic law enforcement, how come I've got a dozen scameras within 5 miles of my flat?

[Streetcop]

V8 Archie said:

Streetcop said: Over half of the police force isn't interested in traffic law, let alone enforcing it. I'm tempted to ask what the fk they are interested in then, 'cause it doesn't seem like they give two hoots about what happens round here! On the other hand, if they don't care about traffic law enforcement, how come I've got a dozen scameras within 5 miles of my flat?

You're not drinking are you Archie? The later it gets..the more you swear...

Anyway..over half the beat bobbies are interested in getting all the jobs done for the day. Answering the radio and attending trivial jobs that never required a BiB at one time. Schoolboy fights, neighbours arguing over parking spaces etc etc. In the spare time that the bobbies have, they are more interested in crime issues than traffic law as they feel traffic laws upset decent people and turn them against the police.

Consequently, only a small number of beat bobbies deal with motoring offences (ie: seat belts, red traffic lights, etc). Trafpol have to deal with specialist laws..speeders, etc. However, Trafpol numbers have decreased and those that remain spend a large proportion of their time dealing with fatal crash investigations.

So that leaves...................cameras to detect speeders....

Street

[V8 Archie]

Streetcop said:

You're not drinking are you Archie? The later it gets..the more you swear...

God forbid! (You are looking through my window. I can tell).

Streetcop said:

In the spare time that the bobbies have, they are more interested in crime issues than traffic law as they feel traffic laws upset decent people and turn them against the police.

That speaks volumes! You know what happens when nobdy is prepared to enforce the law.

a) The law is revised in line with the way the population currently behave; or
b) Revolution.

Mind you, this is England .

[Streetcop]

Going to 'turn in' now Archie...
Goodnight, God Bless...

Street

[V8 Archie]

Streetcop said:

Going to 'turn in' now Archie... Goodnight, God Bless... Street

Ditto. Work calls in an hour or two.
Have a good one Gary.

[TripleS]

ben_london said:

Do the government really expect us to believe that 70mph is as fast as you can safely go on an empty motorway.

Probably, but then they're seriously lacking in balanced judgement, as is surely apparent to most of us here.

ben_london said:

I dont consider my driving to be unsafe at 80mph. If I did then I wouldnt go anywhere near motorways. In general speeding laws and the way they are enforced are laughable and to consider it road safety is a complete joke.

You're happy with 80 mph, which is completely OK if you have judged the conditions in a proper manner and driven with appropriate care.

I followed a Traffic car on a motorway recently, and when he got into lane 3 he went up to about 85 mph in heavy rain with a lot of spray about. In view of the dense spray from HGVs he was passing I was a bit surprised how quickly he went but obviously he felt OK about it. There was no sign that he was really on urgent business, no flashing lights or audible warning system in use. The rest of us were doing a similar speed, but the police driver didn't seem to bother. It was far too wet to be stopping and getting out of cars to discuss speed limits with us anyhow.

Later in the day I found conditions where 100 mph was quite satisfactory for short distances on a wet dual carriageway, and I doubt if any real expert would have found much fault with it.

If you'll excuse me now I'll see if I can find my flak jacket, as I'm expecting to hear from Steve at Maidenhead any minute.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

Streetcop said:

....Like one of our members recently posted...we'll have sped uncaught 1000s of times before actually getting caught... Street

Oh absolutely, what a happy situation - for the moment!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

Streetcop said:

What is the problem with speed limits? Is it the fear of points and a fine...? Is it because we want to get to places faster? Is it because we like the thrill of speed? or do we just not like to be told how to drive? Street

Hi Gary, in answer to your questions, speed limit problems in my view are:

1. I object to the threat of points and fines for doing something that I have proved capable of doing safely over a very long period.
2. It is not often I need to get anywhere fast. I use what is, for me, a natural pace.
3. I enjoy high(ish) speed driving by virtue of maintaining the ability to do it safely, and I find that satisfying and take a pride in it.
4. I do not want to be told how to drive, certainly not by those who have no qualification to lecture me. I want the freedom to decide for myself what speed is appropriate, which is how it used to be prior to about 1965. I guess I'm still working to the old system where the white disc with the diagonal black stripe meant derestricted. It still should mean that, for those who can demonstrate a satisfactory level of ability to use speed - any speed - prudently and safely.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[observer]

Streetcop said:

What is the problem with speed limits?

I don't think there is anything wrong with speed limits which have been set appropriately. The problem is the enforcement. I wrote the following essay some months ago and posted it here and elsewhere. Having dusted it off and re-read it, I still think it's a fair analysis.

From my analysis of the present speed enforcement system, I have come to the conclusion that the state has redrawn the boundary of criminal behaviour and seeks to turn a majority of its citizens into serious criminals. I draw this bizarre but unavoidable conclusion for the following reasons.
It only takes a moment's thought to realise that speed limits are not, never have been and never will be anything but a guide to safe speed. In absolute terms, millions of speeding offences occur every single day (I believe a police estimate is 10.5 million), counting every discrete occasion on which any vehicle, anywhere, exceeds a posted speed limit. Only a vanishingly small percentage of these violations result in actual harm. If "speed kills" (meaning speed above a posted limit), we would be measuring fatalities in the hundreds of thousands or millions per annum.

Speeding is an absolute offence and it is understandable that it must be so, because enforcement would be almost impossible if it were not. Therefore (unless one takes the view that a crime is a crime only if the offence is detected), there are millions of criminal speeders (reportedly 99% of the driving population, which does not appear to be a wild exaggeration) whose culpability in law depends on no more than luck and/or their ability to avoid detection. If it was possible to detect all incidences of 'speeding' and enforce the law accordingly, it is clear that very few drivers would retain their licences for more than a few weeks or even days. If speeding really represents the danger to public safety that the 'speed kills' lobby would have us believe, that would be a desirable outcome.

In fact, that would be an absurd result, which would be hugely damaging to the country as a whole. (This is not the case with other crimes; for example, if it was possible to detect all incidences of burglary or theft and enforce accordingly, that WOULD be in the public good.) So, in establishing and maintaining this system of law, it must follow that the state (consciously or subconsciously) acknowledges that it is NOT the legal definition of the offence itself, but the scope and scale of activity employed to detect offences and punish offenders, that defines the real boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. Put another way, it is not exceeding the speed limit which represents the crime but whether the speed limit is exceeded so frequently or flagrantly or unsafely that, at a given level of detectablility of the offences and enforceability of the law, the offender is detected and prosecuted. Therefore, speeding is a "technical" offence.

Hitherto (before widespread use of automated speed detection), a (hypothetical) reasonably careful and reasonably competent driver, who exceeded the speed limit from time to time where the conditions were safe to do so, may well have avoided detection for speeding during an entire driving career without causing harm or alarm to anybody, although, on simple application of law, he would have been guilty of numerous criminal offences. The reason he would have escaped detection and conviction is that the narrow legal definition of the technical offence was balanced by the limitations of the previously existing detection and enforcement mechanisms so that, give or take a bit, the level of detection and punishment of offenders was proportionate to the harm which the offence actually caused. The introduction of systems which, on a previously unimagined scale, are able to detect the 'technical' offences, together with corresponding law enforcement systems, has destroyed that balance and redefined the boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour.

In the binary world of current speed enforcement practice, there can be no distinction between those people who exceed a speed limit and are detected, prosecuted and convicted, and those (reducing in number) who exceed a speed limit and are not caught. Each is equally culpable. Speaking in the House of Commons on 8.12.2003, Caroline Flint, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said: "There is no doubt that speeding is a serious criminal offence". On that basis, 99% of drivers are serious criminals. This is complete nonsense. The competent and careful actions of a majority of responsible people should obviously be considered legal (Paul Smith, Safespeed). But, according to law, they are not.

Is it surprising then that speeding has "proved ... resistant to social stigma". The simple explanation is: (a) practically everyone who drives exceeds the speed limit to some degree; (b) it is not inherently unsafe to do so; and (c) their conduct is not inherently blameworthy either morally, nor, at the pre-existing levels of detection and enforcement activity, in law. The question that should be asked, and answered, is "Why has the state re-defined the boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour so as to increasingly produce the result of turning law-abiding citizens into serious criminals?"

[Streetcop]

Hi Observer..

Well written post...even if I did get a bit lost half way through...

There are many reasons why speed enforcement is taken much more seriously nowadays.

Accidents resulting from vehicular use are now investigation to the same rigourous end as murders. The Road Death Investigation Manual is a huge and very indepth publication with sets out the process for such investigations.

Speed, when coupled with other factors; driver error for example, means that death or serious injury is much more likely. ie: if you rear end someone at 20mph, the chances are you'll exchange insurance details and move on. If you do the same at 80mph, there'll be fatalities...(obvious, but true)...

All countries have speed limits..the USA for example has a 55mph blanket rule on some of it's more straight and boring highways..

The government are also bowing to pressure from groups such as BRAKE and others associated with the dreadful aftermath of death on our roads.

Quite simply, us, the general public cannot be allowed to drive about at what speeds we like as a large percentage of us are inexperience, unskilled and travel in unsuitable vehicles.

The law is the law, whether you or I like it or not. If you don't like the law, you either break it and suffer the consequences or you move to another country and see if their laws are to your liking..

I'm not speaking on behalf of the government. I mean, only this week I'm considering selling my powerful motorbike as the thrill of it is too much and the chances of me speeding inappropriately and getting caught are getting higher...

Street

[observer]

Streetcop said:

Quite simply, us, the general public cannot be allowed to drive about at what speeds we like as a large percentage of us are inexperience, unskilled and travel in unsuitable vehicles. Street

Street

Thanks for your comments. I'm not arguing aginst speed limits in general. I was interested to know if you agree with my central thesis - that it is and always has been the scale and scope of enforcement activity that defines the boundary (absent any direct consequences) between "criminal" and "non-criminal" behaviour. To me, it seems impossible not to agree with that because a 'crime' which neither causes nor contributes to any harm cannot, in a moral sense, be a "crime" so can only be a "crime" in the social context if it is capable of being detected and the offender prosecuted.

It must follow, if the "criminality" is defined by the capacity of the state to detect and prosecute, that a material change in that capacity re-defines the boundary.

Why does that matter? Because it has the effect of criminalising activity which was hitherto not "criminal" in either the narrow or wider context. So the state is gratuitously making criminals out of a huge number of its citizens. I do predict that resentment will continue to grow and a backlash will result unless our politicians (and the civil service) wake up.

[Streetcop]

Nothing will change and IMHO nor should it....Speed limits are there for safety's reason...It's only our desire for excitement or to feel liberated that we want to speed...If we do and get caught..we know the risks and should take the punishment like adults.....

My only wish is for Trafpol numbers to increase...for detection and prevention purposes of offences like; drink driving, disqualified driving, unroadworthy vehicles, dangerous driving etc etc..

Street

[mybrainhurts]

Streetcop said:

Nothing will change and IMHO nor should it....Speed limits are there for safety's reason... Street

That was the case when limits were set to common standards nationwide.

But, now that brain-dead councillors are free to think of a number, then stick it on a pole and stick the pole next to a road, we end up with pointless limits.

I objected to a the blanket 40, reduced from 60, imposed on the North Lees Estate (open moorland). The Council sent me minutes of a Council meeting which included reference to the fact that Derbyshire police had objected to the limit, on the grounds that it was unnecessary and unenforceable.

The limit was imposed regardless. 'Nuff said.

[Streetcop]

Absolutely...what is posted is enforced.....Your objections will reach deaf ears in court, I'm afraid....

Street

edited to say "Dyslexia for cure has not yet been found

>> Edited by Streetcop on Thursday 23 September 19:49

[mybrainhurts]

Is that the deaf hears of the hmaghistrates, hor hother deaf hears?


edited to say...that sneaky edit has made me look like a right wazzock.....thanks, sweetplop.......

>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Thursday 23 September 19:51