Police writing against scameras
Discussion
Just read a letter from last month in my local paper from a retired police officer.
How much sense does he speak?
How much sense does he speak?
He said:
The survey showing that speed cameras out number police patrols by two to one, by a leading motoring magazine, is fiercely defended by Road Safety Partnerships who like the rest of the country are obsessed by the notion that speed kills.
The reality is, of course, that even according to official statistics speed is only responsible for about 39 per cent of accidents, so in reality around 61 per cent of accidents are caused by other factors.
So it stands to reason that these will range from drink-driving to using a mobile, not wearing a seatbelt, stolen vehicles, etc.
Therefore the resource that should be increased and funded is police patrols.
As a retired Lincolnshire police officer, I have personal experience of traffic officers who had a very high arrest rate for crimes that were detected as a result of stopping vehicles.
The arrests resulted for various reasons, including theft, burglary and drugs, by stopping a vehicle for simple traffic offences – not speeding.
So by scaling down patrols in favour of cameras, then not only are the 61 per cent of traffic offences that cause accidents less likely to be detected, but also many crimes also go undetected as well.
Why do safety partnerships defend cameras with vigour? Is it because they are funded by the revenue from the cameras?
Personally I would prefer to see money put in to more police patrols, road safety education for kids (many haven't got a clue and expect cars to stop on a sixpence, even when they are travelling at a legal speed) and the return of cycling proficiency tests (the amount of cyclists both old and young who go through red lights, dive out of junctions without looking and cycle on the wrong side of the road is appalling especially in Peterborough – all accidents waiting to happen where a car driver will get the blame)
Sadly, the Road Safety Partnerships appears to be a quango style organisations with employees who are trying to protect their own jobs and it seems will not listen to any reasonably constructed opposing viewpoint.
If you don't believe me, then try these two simple tests:
1) Next time you are on a journey, count how many police vehicles you see as you travel through each count. If you can count them on two hands it must be a very good day, or Tony Blair is being escorted on a visit!
2) Next time you see someone driving while on a mobile see if the nearest speed camera flashes... errr no I don't think it will.
The reality is, of course, that even according to official statistics speed is only responsible for about 39 per cent of accidents, so in reality around 61 per cent of accidents are caused by other factors.
So it stands to reason that these will range from drink-driving to using a mobile, not wearing a seatbelt, stolen vehicles, etc.
Therefore the resource that should be increased and funded is police patrols.
As a retired Lincolnshire police officer, I have personal experience of traffic officers who had a very high arrest rate for crimes that were detected as a result of stopping vehicles.
The arrests resulted for various reasons, including theft, burglary and drugs, by stopping a vehicle for simple traffic offences – not speeding.
So by scaling down patrols in favour of cameras, then not only are the 61 per cent of traffic offences that cause accidents less likely to be detected, but also many crimes also go undetected as well.
Why do safety partnerships defend cameras with vigour? Is it because they are funded by the revenue from the cameras?
Personally I would prefer to see money put in to more police patrols, road safety education for kids (many haven't got a clue and expect cars to stop on a sixpence, even when they are travelling at a legal speed) and the return of cycling proficiency tests (the amount of cyclists both old and young who go through red lights, dive out of junctions without looking and cycle on the wrong side of the road is appalling especially in Peterborough – all accidents waiting to happen where a car driver will get the blame)
Sadly, the Road Safety Partnerships appears to be a quango style organisations with employees who are trying to protect their own jobs and it seems will not listen to any reasonably constructed opposing viewpoint.
If you don't believe me, then try these two simple tests:
1) Next time you are on a journey, count how many police vehicles you see as you travel through each count. If you can count them on two hands it must be a very good day, or Tony Blair is being escorted on a visit!
2) Next time you see someone driving while on a mobile see if the nearest speed camera flashes... errr no I don't think it will.
Einion Yrth said:
seanh said:
Spot on. I agree with this guy 100%
this guy said:
according to official statistics speed is [only] responsible for about 39 per cent of accidents
Got this wrong though, DfT 'no longer use this figure' (because it's bollox).
but even with an artificially high figure for speed related accidents his comments still ring true. The PR war against the scammers is slowly but surely being won
If I take a photo of someone who is driving their car whilst using a mobile phone and the picture includes his number plate as well as a recognisable mug shot - i.e. the evidence is incontrovertible - would the police do anything if I gave the picture to them?
ETA it could become quite an amusing hobby. Make a camera sized hole in a cardboard box, paint it yellow (the box) and put it over my head. Use a strobe (red eye reduction) flash and record the drivers' reactions for posterity.
Hmmm. I might try this and post the results up here.....
ETA it could become quite an amusing hobby. Make a camera sized hole in a cardboard box, paint it yellow (the box) and put it over my head. Use a strobe (red eye reduction) flash and record the drivers' reactions for posterity.
Hmmm. I might try this and post the results up here.....
Edited by percy flage on Wednesday 20th September 16:01
If you notice though, a few retired officers are telling the truth. I guess, in the interests of protecting themselves they have been forced to wait until retirement before speaking out.
Unfortunately news delivery, both TV and Newspapers are engaged in the propaganda war espousing speed kills and cars are bad.
Unfortunately news delivery, both TV and Newspapers are engaged in the propaganda war espousing speed kills and cars are bad.
percy flage said:
If I take a photo of someone who is driving their car whilst using a mobile phone and the picture includes his number plate as well as a recognisable mug shot - i.e. the evidence is incontrovertible - would the police do anything if I gave the picture to them?
ETA it could become quite an amusing hobby. Make a camera sized hole in a cardboard box, paint it yellow (the box) and put it over my head. Use a strobe (red eye reduction) flash and record the drivers' reactions for posterity.
Hmmm. I might try this and post the results up here.....
ETA it could become quite an amusing hobby. Make a camera sized hole in a cardboard box, paint it yellow (the box) and put it over my head. Use a strobe (red eye reduction) flash and record the drivers' reactions for posterity.
Hmmm. I might try this and post the results up here.....
Edited by percy flage on Wednesday 20th September 16:01
Just dont take the photo whilst you are driving with a mobile phone camera....!
Einion Yrth said:
this guy said:
according to official statistics speed is [only] responsible for about 39 per cent of accidents
Got this wrong though, DfT 'no longer use this figure' (because it's bollox).
Aah, the old 1/3 lie that included accidents caused by 'wet road', 'failing to judge another driver's speed', 'Following to close'! Even the 7.3% that were caused by 'excess speed' were not necessarily over the limit!
Still gets trotted out now and again. Average Joe who drives 2 miles to work each day and back will still believe this!
francisb said:
sad how they have to retire before they speak out.
I know a retired Police officer who lives just down the road from me, and he too is genuinely disgusted by the swathes of camera partnerships and speed kills propaganda that affect us today. He also writes many letters to the local papers. I'm trying to get him to join here but he's not too good with computers.
Funny though, because his son is a high ranking officer in Bristol and gets the full works when he visits!
fluffnik said:
francisb said:
sad how they have to retire before they speak out.
Sad how the senior ones are not sacked for lying.
they are cut from the same mould as polititians - its how they get there in the first place. in fairness you can't blame the lower ranks for not speaking out with their careers on the line. in private the guys i have met will express the same (and more) sentiments as us oppresed masses.
The double standards shown by our current administration are completely shocking. On the one hand, here on PH, we have BiB scared to death of disciplinary action because of what they post.
Yet on the other, we have the senior officers of North Wales Police having their own blogs stating points of view that quite frankly I find offensive.
It doesn't seem to matter whether the uniforms are based on red politics or blue politics. Us plebs should just know our place
Yet on the other, we have the senior officers of North Wales Police having their own blogs stating points of view that quite frankly I find offensive.
It doesn't seem to matter whether the uniforms are based on red politics or blue politics. Us plebs should just know our place
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff