Well done - The Mail on Sunday
Discussion
Very similar letter in today's Sunday Times ... written by a former Traffic Police officer:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=69527&f=10&h=0
>> Edited by huge_ego on Sunday 30th November 19:45
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=69527&f=10&h=0
>> Edited by huge_ego on Sunday 30th November 19:45
Having read The Mail on Sunday (Yesterday)I am amazed at the comments by Chief Constable Garvin of Durham who implied there was nowhere in his area that he believed a fixed camera would help save lives or prevent serious injury ! What's different up there, don't they have cars. And also a comment from a senior figure in the Camera Partnership stating there is a desperate search to find more sites to keep revenue up as it is falling due to motorists getting wise to locations. Surely this is what the end game is - the motorist is not speeding anymore !!!
Whilst its the motorist who should complain I cannot understand how the media is so inert in its take up of the cause, is this perhaps controlled media to the masses?
Whilst its the motorist who should complain I cannot understand how the media is so inert in its take up of the cause, is this perhaps controlled media to the masses?
joe c said:
Having read The Mail on Sunday (Yesterday)I am amazed at the comments by Chief Constable Garvin of Durham who implied there was nowhere in his area that he believed a fixed camera would help save lives or prevent serious injury ! What's different up there, don't they have cars.
No, what is different is that Chief Constable Garvin recognizes the fact that cameras do nothing for safety at all, there is no justifiable location on safety grounds alone. Cameras are purely revenue generators, not safety related in the slightest.
There can now be no doubt, even amongst the most ardent 'scammers' themselves, that public backlash is now growing at an exponential rate.
Brunstrom is obviously seriously worried by Paul's efforts at Safespeed, so much so that he is spreading lies about the contents of that site.
False plates and disqualified drivers are really on the increase and confidence in the role of the police in all this is having a serious effect on the traditionally good relationship between police and public, and this at a time of rising crime.
The press, from the Sun to the Times, are having a field day at the Gov't's expense and there is a General Election not too far away at which the politicians can see votes being lost from Mr. Average Driver in large numbers, just to add to the other reasons for a loss of votes.
Since the cash-camera schemes are all based on the big one-third lie, which is now really being exposed, this will be perceived as another reason to distrust Tony B'Liar and his crew. Cameras are seen as Weapons of Mass Extortion. They can't afford that and may well sacrifice most, if not all, cash-cameras to keep a few marginal seats. In such cases they will just turn the 'spin' around, say that in truth the cameras ain't working and that for the good of road safety all speed-camera schemes are to be discontinued to save lives and have more cash available for other 'initiatives' connected with road safety. The 'Silly-Camera Partnerships' will then have to find redundancy payments for their staffs out of the fines.
The early-day motion now before the House-of-Commons will assist with this.
The non-signing of the NIPs will also contribute to this and the word about this is spreading. It is believed by my buddy in the Met that the total number throughout England/Wales in now approaching 100,000 which is a loss of £6,000,000 in fines.
My business partner had an NIP for her company car about 5 months ago for 49 in a 40 limit on a dry day on a dual carriageway 100 yards after it went from 70 to 40 (bloody typical). She completed this without a signature and after ignoring a couple of 'bluff and bluster' letters she has heard no more. If she does hear more our company solicitor will take over the matter and we would go to appeal if she lost - right to Europe if necessary.
Forced self-incrimination will never work and the law-makers really don't know what to do about this.
Forward facing cameras are not the answer either as they only stand a partial chance of identifying the driver in some conditions, not others. Imagine a spate of Brunstrom or Tony B'Liar masks!
It won't be long now, so the employees of the cash-camera partnerships might do well to start applying for 'proper' jobs.
Brunstrom is obviously seriously worried by Paul's efforts at Safespeed, so much so that he is spreading lies about the contents of that site.
False plates and disqualified drivers are really on the increase and confidence in the role of the police in all this is having a serious effect on the traditionally good relationship between police and public, and this at a time of rising crime.
The press, from the Sun to the Times, are having a field day at the Gov't's expense and there is a General Election not too far away at which the politicians can see votes being lost from Mr. Average Driver in large numbers, just to add to the other reasons for a loss of votes.
Since the cash-camera schemes are all based on the big one-third lie, which is now really being exposed, this will be perceived as another reason to distrust Tony B'Liar and his crew. Cameras are seen as Weapons of Mass Extortion. They can't afford that and may well sacrifice most, if not all, cash-cameras to keep a few marginal seats. In such cases they will just turn the 'spin' around, say that in truth the cameras ain't working and that for the good of road safety all speed-camera schemes are to be discontinued to save lives and have more cash available for other 'initiatives' connected with road safety. The 'Silly-Camera Partnerships' will then have to find redundancy payments for their staffs out of the fines.
The early-day motion now before the House-of-Commons will assist with this.
The non-signing of the NIPs will also contribute to this and the word about this is spreading. It is believed by my buddy in the Met that the total number throughout England/Wales in now approaching 100,000 which is a loss of £6,000,000 in fines.
My business partner had an NIP for her company car about 5 months ago for 49 in a 40 limit on a dry day on a dual carriageway 100 yards after it went from 70 to 40 (bloody typical). She completed this without a signature and after ignoring a couple of 'bluff and bluster' letters she has heard no more. If she does hear more our company solicitor will take over the matter and we would go to appeal if she lost - right to Europe if necessary.
Forced self-incrimination will never work and the law-makers really don't know what to do about this.
Forward facing cameras are not the answer either as they only stand a partial chance of identifying the driver in some conditions, not others. Imagine a spate of Brunstrom or Tony B'Liar masks!
It won't be long now, so the employees of the cash-camera partnerships might do well to start applying for 'proper' jobs.
joe c said:
Having read The Mail on Sunday (Yesterday)I am amazed at the comments by Chief Constable Garvin of Durham who implied there was nowhere in his area that he believed a fixed camera would help save lives or prevent serious injury ! What's different up there, don't they have cars. And also a comment from a senior figure in the Camera Partnership stating there is a desperate search to find more sites to keep revenue up as it is falling due to motorists getting wise to locations. Surely this is what the end game is - the motorist is not speeding anymore !!!
Whilst its the motorist who should complain I cannot understand how the media is so inert in its take up of the cause, is this perhaps controlled media to the masses?
Joe,
How innocent you are. The end game is the removal of as many licences as possible as per the Copenhagen Declaration from the wonderful EU. Read it all here and weep. Especially para 7........
www.myflorida.com/fdi/edesign/news/9708/reviews/mobility.htm
We must move toward a society respecting environmental limits. All decision-makers at the local, regional, national, and European levels are urged to play their part in changing our culture of mobility!
Read how these Marxists tell us that ownership of a car is a major cause of social exclusion. What utter tish.
>> Edited by Tafia on Monday 1st December 12:06
>> Edited by Tafia on Monday 1st December 12:21
We seem to be approaching an interesting crossroads here. On the one hand we have the police/partnerships doing what they've been told to by Government, ie. enforcing the law. On the other, we have some MPs who seem to be saying that the level of enforcement is wrong -- but they made the laws!
Speed limits have existed for decades. If MPs had meant them to be advisory then they could have clarified the law years ago. Only now, when it's possible for widespread technology (cameras) to impose the law strictly, do we have the issue arising, but it's been potentially there since the red flag days.
I remember when police used speeding as an easier offence to prosecute for (a number) than dangerous/careless driving (opinion). That is, "normal" levels of speeding were only really an issue if accompanied by inappropriate driving behaviour. That's how we'd like it to be still, but the law's the law and MPs made it like it is.
So what would we like to see now?
1) Remake the law so that speed limits are advisory only. Some hope!
2) Continue to enforce speeding laws but raise speed limits to sensible levels. I could only imagine some tinkering at the edges. Will we ever see the end of inappropriate 40s and 50s on ex-NSL A-roads, even if M-way limits were raised to 80? Instead we might get M-ways up to 80 but with M25-style reduced limits "for busy periods" ie. always
3) Remove cameras and have an uneasy truce between police and drivers, never knowing quite what's acceptable today depending on targets and mood. Not really a satisfactory way out of the current situation, but perhaps a typical British compromise!
What would we really like to happen now, given that we are where we are and the Government will want to save face and be seen to be safety-conscious and appeasing the greens/T2000/pro-Brunstrom types?
Speed limits have existed for decades. If MPs had meant them to be advisory then they could have clarified the law years ago. Only now, when it's possible for widespread technology (cameras) to impose the law strictly, do we have the issue arising, but it's been potentially there since the red flag days.
I remember when police used speeding as an easier offence to prosecute for (a number) than dangerous/careless driving (opinion). That is, "normal" levels of speeding were only really an issue if accompanied by inappropriate driving behaviour. That's how we'd like it to be still, but the law's the law and MPs made it like it is.
So what would we like to see now?
1) Remake the law so that speed limits are advisory only. Some hope!
2) Continue to enforce speeding laws but raise speed limits to sensible levels. I could only imagine some tinkering at the edges. Will we ever see the end of inappropriate 40s and 50s on ex-NSL A-roads, even if M-way limits were raised to 80? Instead we might get M-ways up to 80 but with M25-style reduced limits "for busy periods" ie. always
3) Remove cameras and have an uneasy truce between police and drivers, never knowing quite what's acceptable today depending on targets and mood. Not really a satisfactory way out of the current situation, but perhaps a typical British compromise!
What would we really like to happen now, given that we are where we are and the Government will want to save face and be seen to be safety-conscious and appeasing the greens/T2000/pro-Brunstrom types?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff