Hull speed cameras sites 'picked to make most money'

[randlemarcus]

vonhosen said:

rewc said:

RobinOakapple said:

I've just found out that the people who run and staff courts and prisons are only doing it for the money

Are their salaries and the court buildings etc paid out of the fines imposed?

What's that got to do with it?.
Safety partnership's camera operators aren't paid from fines collected.

No, they, their nice offices, their salaries and pensions are paid for from the bribe system we call Speed Awareness courses. Points for me then, as even central government spending is better than that.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

What's that got to do with it?.
Safety partnership's camera operators aren't paid from fines collected.

I expect the security and longevity of their employment may be helped by increasing the number of prosecutions they generate.

[vonhosen]

randlemarcus said:

vonhosen said:

rewc said:

RobinOakapple said:

I've just found out that the people who run and staff courts and prisons are only doing it for the money

Are their salaries and the court buildings etc paid out of the fines imposed?

What's that got to do with it?.
Safety partnership's camera operators aren't paid from fines collected.

No, they, their nice offices, their salaries and pensions are paid for from the bribe system we call Speed Awareness courses. Points for me then, as even central government spending is better than that.

They have to operate within the financial framework that the government imposes. That has changed many times over the years through successive governments.
What I said still stands, fines go to the government.
They also issue speed awareness courses to a criteria.

[RobinOakapple]

randlemarcus said:

vonhosen said:

rewc said:

RobinOakapple said:

I've just found out that the people who run and staff courts and prisons are only doing it for the money

Are their salaries and the court buildings etc paid out of the fines imposed?

What's that got to do with it?.
Safety partnership's camera operators aren't paid from fines collected.

No, they, their nice offices, their salaries and pensions are paid for from the bribe system we call Speed Awareness courses. Points for me then, as even central government spending is better than that.

Bearing that in mind, if it's true, one wonders why so many people choose to pay into such a corrupt system? It is optional, they haven't had any money from me in the last ten years.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

What's that got to do with it?.
Safety partnership's camera operators aren't paid from fines collected.

I expect the security and longevity of their employment may be helped by increasing the number of prosecutions they generate.

Their security & longevity will be tied to doing the job asked of them & the need for that job (just like any other then). They can't effectively control the numbers of prosecutions, because the speed chosen lays with the driver.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

Their security & longevity will be tied to doing the job asked of them & the need for that job (just like any other then). They can't effectively control the numbers of prosecutions, because the speed chosen lays with the driver.

Way too simplisic, unless you're employing androids to do the job.

Do the occupants of said van have any discretion as regards reporting offenders?

If not, then we move to the next individual up the chain who by association has a direct impact on the operator's security/longevity by his or her actions.

There is no doubt the longevity of the 'Partnerships' is preserved if they maintain a high level of prosecutions.
After all, can you imagine a scenario where "You lot are year on year dishing out more tickets, so you are obviously ineffective in slowing people down, and therefore we are shutting you down" ever happens?

[RobinOakapple]

cmaguire said:

Way too simplisic, unless you're employing androids to do the job.

Do the occupants of said van have any discretion as regards reporting offenders?

If not, then we move to the next individual up the chain who by association has a direct impact on the operator's security/longevity by his or her actions.

There is no doubt the longevity of the 'Partnerships' is preserved if they maintain a high level of prosecutions.
After all, can you imagine a scenario where "You lot are year on year dishing out more tickets, so you are obviously ineffective in slowing people down, and therefore we are shutting you down" ever happens?

Too much focus on the number of prosecutions, and too little on the avoidability of those prosecutions.

Also, think about it- large number of prosecutions, large number of drivers dissuaded from speeding- less prosecutions in the future, it's a pretty crap business model.

[cmaguire]

RobinOakapple said:

Too much focus on the number of prosecutions, and too little on the avoidability of those prosecutions.

Also, think about it- large number of prosecutions, large number of drivers dissuaded from speeding- less prosecutions in the future, it's a pretty crap business model.

It works though doesn't it?
Primarily because the camera vans near enough only operate in NSL areas, where there will always be a neverending supply of speeders because the limit is too slow and can be exceeded without any safety concerns, and so is exceeded.
And the fixed cameras 'patrol' the urban areas (there is some crossover here) where a lack of action is happily construed as them doing their job (and no individuals job relies on the location or argued effectiveness of any specific cameras).

[RobinOakapple]

cmaguire said:

It works though doesn't it?
Primarily because the camera vans near enough only operate in NSL areas, where there will always be a neverending supply of speeders because the limit is too slow and can be exceeded without any safety concerns, and so is exceeded.

Well, that's one explanation, the other explanation is that there is a never ending supply of people who are too stupid to learn from the misfortunes of others so offer themselves up to the cameras like sacrificial lambs. I don't want to share the roads with people that thick, they can either slow down or be eventually taken off the roads.

[cmaguire]

RobinOakapple said:

Well, that's one explanation, the other explanation is that there is a never ending supply of people who are too stupid to learn from the misfortunes of others so offer themselves up to the cameras like sacrificial lambs. I don't want to share the roads with people that thick, they can either slow down or be eventually taken off the roads.

You'll have a long wait.
The 70 limit is ignored by a significant number of people.
I don't relate that to their intelligence in the same way you seem to. I suspect if they were tested for I.Q. the results wouldn't support your viewpoint either.
I might even hazard that it could be higher, based on the vehicles tending to travel faster.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Their security & longevity will be tied to doing the job asked of them & the need for that job (just like any other then). They can't effectively control the numbers of prosecutions, because the speed chosen lays with the driver.

Way too simplisic, unless you're employing androids to do the job.

Do the occupants of said van have any discretion as regards reporting offenders?

If not, then we move to the next individual up the chain who by association has a direct impact on the operator's security/longevity by his or her actions.

There is no doubt the longevity of the 'Partnerships' is preserved if they maintain a high level of prosecutions.
After all, can you imagine a scenario where "You lot are year on year dishing out more tickets, so you are obviously ineffective in slowing people down, and therefore we are shutting you down" ever happens?

The offence is perfect for it. It's a binary offence, you are either exceeding the limit or you aren't. It is written for that & need not be based on anything else. It's a waste of an expensive well trained resource in having Police officers deal with it (but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to, just that it shouldn't be them posted doing speed enforcement, they should just supplement it as they see fit as part of their general duties). The legislation has never required any consideration of circumstance in the committing of the offence, it's only disposal & sentence that do. People have been prosecuted for 'safe' speeding for almost as long as we've had the car, it's not a new concept, prosecuting for exceeding the limit on no other basis than to uphold limits.. All that's changed is that there are far more disposal options now & that the chances of being caught increased.
Discretion is therefore not necessary, what you have instead is an inbuilt varied disposal which is out of the hands of the evidence gatherer.
The evidence gatherer doesn't choose the locations, doesn't choose the thresholds, doesn't choose the disposal options. They can't influence how many they catch, they just record the choices of others. Where you can mitigate & get dealt with as an individual is in more serious but that'll mean court.

[Digby]

RobinOakapple said:

I don't want to share the roads with people that thick, they can either slow down or be eventually taken off the roads.

I would rather not share this country with the sheeple who are happy to be lied to and who prefer to defend parasites, regardless of their actions, over those who can fall foul of their often 'carefuly created for maximum profit' regulations simply for being human.

Sadly, there are many who are prepared to defend those who openly admit they lie, cheat, doctor and conceal yet who are happy to see those who may have made a single and simple "mistake" during decades of being a model citizen and driver get punished.

How very sad.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

RobinOakapple said:

Well, that's one explanation, the other explanation is that there is a never ending supply of people who are too stupid to learn from the misfortunes of others so offer themselves up to the cameras like sacrificial lambs. I don't want to share the roads with people that thick, they can either slow down or be eventually taken off the roads.

You'll have a long wait.
The 70 limit is ignored by a significant number of people.
I don't relate that to their intelligence in the same way you seem to. I suspect if they were tested for I.Q. the results wouldn't support your viewpoint either.
I might even hazard that it could be higher, based on the vehicles tending to travel faster.

Thing is that what the limit is still tends to affect the choice of speed of those who decide to break it, so it is still serving a purpose even with most of those who decide to exceed it because it still ultimately limits their choice of speed (i.e. those who stick under 100 in the belief that they'll avoid a ban if caught but would otherwise happily do more than 100).

[RobinOakapple]

Digby said:

RobinOakapple said:

I don't want to share the roads with people that thick, they can either slow down or be eventually taken off the roads.

I would rather not share this country with the sheeple who are happy to be lied to and who prefer to defend parasites, regardless of their actions, over those who can fall foul of their often 'carefuly created for maximum profit' regulations simply for being human.

Sadly, there are many who are prepared to defend those who openly admit they lie, cheat, doctor and conceal yet who are happy to see those who may have made a single and simple "mistake" during decades of being a model citizen and driver get punished.

How very sad.

It's sad indeed that suggesting that those who don't get caught by speed cameras are people who lie, cheat, doctor and conceal. Are you aware of how ridiculous you sound spouting rubbish like that? Is that really the best defence for speeding that you can come up with?

[RobinOakapple]

cmaguire said:

You'll have a long wait.
The 70 limit is ignored by a significant number of people.
I don't relate that to their intelligence in the same way you seem to. I suspect if they were tested for I.Q. the results wouldn't support your viewpoint either.
I might even hazard that it could be higher, based on the vehicles tending to travel faster.

Higher intelligence because of higher speed?

[Digby]

RobinOakapple said:

It's sad indeed that suggesting that those who don't get caught by speed cameras are people who lie, cheat, doctor and conceal. Are you aware of how ridiculous you sound spouting rubbish like that? Is that really the best defence for speeding that you can come up with?

I will continue to listen to those directly involved in the industry who tell me it's all smoke and mirrors and mostly all about revenue. You can carry on appreciating those types whilst I will not. Are you telling me to ignore some of the very people involved with this laughable affair? How strange.

The same revenue ideas were behind several box junction layouts and people like you tried to defend those, too. Fortunately, thanks to people like myself, most have been altered. In fact there have been speed limits raised due to people like me and HGV speeds were also increased etc. All of the above examples came about due to either the obvious entrapment, or studies showing the limits were pointless and dangerous.

Brush those under the carpet along with all the other examples, though and carry on enjoying being lied to. :-)

[RobinOakapple]

Digby said:

RobinOakapple said:

It's sad indeed that suggesting that those who don't get caught by speed cameras are people who lie, cheat, doctor and conceal. Are you aware of how ridiculous you sound spouting rubbish like that? Is that really the best defence for speeding that you can come up with?

I will continue to listen to those directly involved in the industry who tell me it's all smoke and mirrors and mostly all about revenue. You can carry on appreciating those types whilst I will not. Are you tellibg me to ignore some of the very people involved with this luaghable affair? How strange.

The same revenue ideas were behind several box junction layouts and people like you tried to defend those, too. Fortunately, thanks to people like myself, most have been altered. In fact there have been speed limits raised due to people like me and HGV speeds were also increased etc. All of the above examples came about due to either the obvious entrapment, or studies showing the limits were pointless and dangerous.

Brush those under the carpet along with all the other examples, though and carry on enjoying being lied to. :-)

Appeal to ridicule isn't going to work either.

One of the misapprehensions you are labouring under is that I care or even know about what apologists for speed cameras might be trying to tell me, I really couldn't care less. I expect to be lied to by most of the people who have a message to propagate, so mostly ignore them, whatever side of whatever argument they might happen to be on.

I participate in these threads because they amuse me, especially when people imply that the enforcement of speed limits is somehow invalid because of the motives of some of the people involved. I don't get caught by speed cameras myself because for the most part I stay under speed limits. I can afford to do this because I leave 5 minutes earlier (for long journeys).

[cmaguire]

RobinOakapple said:

Higher intelligence because of higher speed?

Perhaps you are not as intelligent as you believe.
Or perhaps you have a habit of interpretation that supports your point of view.

The vehicles that tend to be travelling faster tend to be both newer and higher end proportionately than those that don't. If we are inclined to accept that the more affluent have flashier cars and that the more affluent are generally somewhat brighter than the average then my point is made.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

Thing is that what the limit is still tends to affect the choice of speed of those who decide to break it, so it is still serving a purpose even with most of those who decide to exceed it because it still ultimately limits their choice of speed (i.e. those who stick under 100 in the belief that they'll avoid a ban if caught but would otherwise happily do more than 100).

We don't agree here, apart from the bit in brackets.
I drive a lot in France and have done in Germany. The limit there is effectively 80mph yet the speed at which the outside lane flows is not dissimilar to here on the whole (85mph).
All the 70 means is that here "The Law is the Law" types sit at or below 70, whereas abroad the same people are doing around 75 (not the 80 on the whole, strangely?).

[RobinOakapple]

cmaguire said:

RobinOakapple said:

Higher intelligence because of higher speed?

Perhaps you are not as intelligent as you believe.
Or perhaps you have a habit of interpretation that supports your point of view.

The vehicles that tend to be travelling faster tend to be both newer and higher end proportionately than those that don't. If we are inclined to accept that the more affluent have flashier cars and that the more affluent are generally somewhat brighter than the average then my point is made.

I'm not so inclined, so your point fails.