Should speeding be an offence?
Discussion
Hello
Since I've been on this forum, I've noticed that almost all the threads end up in a slanging match about whether people should be punished if they are caught speeding (exceeding an arbitrary limit posted by goverment agencys just interested in collecting revenue as a lot of members see it.
)
I think the problem is that this forum is inhabited (mainly
) by people who take care over their driving 
They observe the road well, judge distances properly etc. and resent having to break the law and risk points on their licence to travel at speeds they know to be safe.
The trouble is that most drivers are not like this
Imagine the worst boy racer driver you have ever seen or been unlucky enough to passenger. Think about their inapropriate speed, poor observation, lack of courtesy to other road users etc. Do you want them to be allowed to travel at whatever speed they feel fit without fear of punishment
Think also about the drivers who have so little idea of what is going on that the only reason they slow down in a built up area is beacuse of the 30 signs and the worry about being flashed.
I don't like scameras, but I do like proper police enforcing the limit with a degree of discretion.
Dave
Since I've been on this forum, I've noticed that almost all the threads end up in a slanging match about whether people should be punished if they are caught speeding (exceeding an arbitrary limit posted by goverment agencys just interested in collecting revenue as a lot of members see it.
)I think the problem is that this forum is inhabited (mainly
) by people who take care over their driving They observe the road well, judge distances properly etc. and resent having to break the law and risk points on their licence to travel at speeds they know to be safe.The trouble is that most drivers are not like this
Imagine the worst boy racer driver you have ever seen or been unlucky enough to passenger. Think about their inapropriate speed, poor observation, lack of courtesy to other road users etc. Do you want them to be allowed to travel at whatever speed they feel fit without fear of punishment
Think also about the drivers who have so little idea of what is going on that the only reason they slow down in a built up area is beacuse of the 30 signs and the worry about being flashed.
I don't like scameras, but I do like proper police enforcing the limit with a degree of discretion.
Dave
Sounds good in theory, doubt it would work in practice. I think most would agree that a proper police presence on the road would be a much preferred thing rather than the talivan / scammeras 
Speed limits in built up areas should be enforced, there is usually no reason to go any faster due to traffic volumes, lights, roundabouts etc your unlikely to make progress that much quicker than you would at legal speeds.
Open road driving is a different matter though, luckliy i live in County Durham where the chief constable does not think camera's are the best solution to dangerous driving
hence having only 2 mobile vans for the entire county (as far as i am aware there arent any fixed cameras). The county also has one of the best road safety records in the country despite being littered with narrow country roads and hilly terrain with dips and crests etc. Northumbria seem to be using more and more camera's though, still not as bad as southern england from what i have seen.
Speed limits in built up areas should be enforced, there is usually no reason to go any faster due to traffic volumes, lights, roundabouts etc your unlikely to make progress that much quicker than you would at legal speeds.
Open road driving is a different matter though, luckliy i live in County Durham where the chief constable does not think camera's are the best solution to dangerous driving
hence having only 2 mobile vans for the entire county (as far as i am aware there arent any fixed cameras). The county also has one of the best road safety records in the country despite being littered with narrow country roads and hilly terrain with dips and crests etc. Northumbria seem to be using more and more camera's though, still not as bad as southern england from what i have seen.Blue160 said:
Imagine the worst boy racer driver you have ever seen or been unlucky enough to passenger. Think about their inapropriate speed, poor observation, lack of courtesy to other road users etc. Do you want them to be allowed to travel at whatever speed they feel fit without fear of punishment
Driving with undue care and attention!?!?Jasandjules said:
Blue160 said:
Imagine the worst boy racer driver you have ever seen or been unlucky enough to passenger. Think about their inapropriate speed, poor observation, lack of courtesy to other road users etc. Do you want them to be allowed to travel at whatever speed they feel fit without fear of punishment
Driving with undue care and attention!?!?And we wonder why accident stats are getting worse and we have lost our 'best in the world statsu'
'Should speeding be an offence?'
Of course. There must be a way to differentiate between the nutters and the considerate and safe.
www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html
Scroll to and read the 'Speed limits' section halfway down.
Of course. There must be a way to differentiate between the nutters and the considerate and safe.
www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html
Scroll to and read the 'Speed limits' section halfway down.
It always bugs me on the SP&L forum that everyone agrees that dangerous driving is dangerous but an arbitrary limit is just that, arbitrary. The consensus solution is "more trafpol". I just don't see anybody following up with an economic argument.
I am not 100% sure where the scamera money goes, I am sure someone will tell me. But we all agree that the cameras are at least self funding if not profitable and more profit means more taxes for whatever; roads, schools, trafpol etc...
Clearly without the cameras, we would all be paying more taxes somehow.
So, more importantly, who pays for the more trafpol? We want them to use discretion and clearly the target-setting news from yesterday is bad news - so making them pay for themselves could be tough. (i.e. we don't want the trafpol to be booking people in order to have a job next year.)
Please see the Simpsons episode with the bear attacks for reference as to what happens when joe public starts demanding more services. (I'll tell you, MORE TAXES, but still watch it.)
I know that speed matters, and it seems that most people here could afford to pay more tax, but do we really, really want that first extra tax £ going on trafpol? Is that where it is most needed? Throwing money at the NHS has not worked but perhaps we should try schools next... I don't know.
Sorry, rant over.
I am not 100% sure where the scamera money goes, I am sure someone will tell me. But we all agree that the cameras are at least self funding if not profitable and more profit means more taxes for whatever; roads, schools, trafpol etc...
Clearly without the cameras, we would all be paying more taxes somehow.
So, more importantly, who pays for the more trafpol? We want them to use discretion and clearly the target-setting news from yesterday is bad news - so making them pay for themselves could be tough. (i.e. we don't want the trafpol to be booking people in order to have a job next year.)
Please see the Simpsons episode with the bear attacks for reference as to what happens when joe public starts demanding more services. (I'll tell you, MORE TAXES, but still watch it.)
I know that speed matters, and it seems that most people here could afford to pay more tax, but do we really, really want that first extra tax £ going on trafpol? Is that where it is most needed? Throwing money at the NHS has not worked but perhaps we should try schools next... I don't know.
Sorry, rant over.
The driving without due care and attention thing is a valid point, but I don't think it's enforceable.
Think of two drivers travelling down a motorway at 100mph. One is alert, anticipating other trafics actions and generally driving safely
The other having an in depth discussion with their passenger about last nights Eastenders, and not paying any attention to traffic in other lanes
From the outside they will both appear to be driving the same way until something unexpected happens.
Dave
Think of two drivers travelling down a motorway at 100mph. One is alert, anticipating other trafics actions and generally driving safely
The other having an in depth discussion with their passenger about last nights Eastenders, and not paying any attention to traffic in other lanes
From the outside they will both appear to be driving the same way until something unexpected happens.
Dave
Blue160 said:
The driving without due care and attention thing is a valid point, but I don't think it's enforceable.
Think of two drivers travelling down a motorway at 100mph. One is alert, anticipating other trafics actions and generally driving safely
The other having an in depth discussion with their passenger about last nights Eastenders, and not paying any attention to traffic in other lanes
From the outside they will both appear to be driving the same way until something unexpected happens.
Dave
The same applies at 70mph, or at 30 passing a gatso. From the outside you sometimes can't tell who's safe and who isn't until something happens. And most of the time when someone's not safe, the "something" doesn't happen and nobody did know. Accidents happen when the driver's not safe (either not concentrating, or not skilled enough for the circumstances), and the "something" happens. Occasionally, the skill level is related to speed.Think of two drivers travelling down a motorway at 100mph. One is alert, anticipating other trafics actions and generally driving safely
The other having an in depth discussion with their passenger about last nights Eastenders, and not paying any attention to traffic in other lanes
From the outside they will both appear to be driving the same way until something unexpected happens.
Dave
Speed limits are needed but many are too low. There are sadly too many morons on the road, some drivers seem to pop their brains in the boot before they set of. (I don't exclude some BiB drivers from this). We are never going to sort this without retests every 5 years with the real posibility of losing your licence, which will never happen due to the effects of jobs etc.
I had the pleasure of directing traffic this week following a road closure (god forbid) in a 30mph limit and was staggered & scared by how many drivers had to break sharply to avoid 6ft of her majesty's finest stood in clear view in the middle of the road resplendent in day glow yellow. Second thoughts it may have been some of the posters on here.
I had the pleasure of directing traffic this week following a road closure (god forbid) in a 30mph limit and was staggered & scared by how many drivers had to break sharply to avoid 6ft of her majesty's finest stood in clear view in the middle of the road resplendent in day glow yellow. Second thoughts it may have been some of the posters on here.
Edited by Sheriff JWPepper on Tuesday 14th August 23:06
Absolutley Not, Its a pointless exersize, nobody pays any attention to them anyway, any competent driver would not need a sign to tell him how fast to go. Anybody who sticks rigidly to the speed limit just becomes a nuisance especially in rush hour.
All they are is a guy behind a desk went well i think you shouldnt go more than this on that road, bang! Pointless! Roads change, cars change, drivers change, use of areas change, habits change. A person in a car is the person who can devise what speed to go.
Consider this:
1.If there were no speed limits what speed would you travel? And why?
2.Without speed limits do you think everyone would start to remember lane discipline more?
3.If you didnt have a speedometer do you think you could drive from one side of your city to the other without killing anyone?
4.If you took a control group/city and a test group/city. You enforce the limit on the control group and not on the test group for a month. In cities they have never been to before. What would be the results? Would you find perhaps the control group were actually more dangerous, or not? Would they be faster or not? Would driving manners increase or decrease? Would there be more or less road rage? Would they be able to cope?
All they are is a guy behind a desk went well i think you shouldnt go more than this on that road, bang! Pointless! Roads change, cars change, drivers change, use of areas change, habits change. A person in a car is the person who can devise what speed to go.
Consider this:
1.If there were no speed limits what speed would you travel? And why?
2.Without speed limits do you think everyone would start to remember lane discipline more?
3.If you didnt have a speedometer do you think you could drive from one side of your city to the other without killing anyone?
4.If you took a control group/city and a test group/city. You enforce the limit on the control group and not on the test group for a month. In cities they have never been to before. What would be the results? Would you find perhaps the control group were actually more dangerous, or not? Would they be faster or not? Would driving manners increase or decrease? Would there be more or less road rage? Would they be able to cope?
A true story, as passed down by the young PC in the story, with some serious points at the end.
Once upon a time the Metropolitan Police had a public image problem.
The press joked that in their pursuit of criminals, Police drivers had left no stone in London unturned.
They had hit all of them.
The average accident rate was one accident for every 900 Police miles driven. To be a Police driver you only needed to pass a normal driving test.
A young PC on point duty directing traffic in a pea-souper fog was trying to keep the traffic flowing, when a powerful car crept slowly through the junction.
The PC shouted at the driver “cant you drive any faster?”
“I could if it were safe to do so” was the reply.
Shortly afterwards the PC was approached by is Sergeant. There had been a phone call and the PC was wanted at Scotland Yard. At the Yard he was shown into a room containing several men, the Commissioner, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Transport and a guy behind a newspaper he couldn’t see.
Introductions were made and the guy to behind the paper, Sir Henry Segrave, World Land speed record holder, ‘King of Brooklands’ fighter pilot, lowered the paper and tersely said “we’ve met”
The driver in the fog, who judged it wasn’t safe to go any faster, certainly not anything like as fast as the legal speed limit was the fastest man on earth.
For the longest few minutes in his life the PC was interrogated about everything he knew about driving, cars and road law. It wasn’t much. Then he was kicked out the office.
Soon afterwards, the PC was told to report to Hendon. Segrave had asked for him. The decision was that Segrave would develop a system of driving, which he called ‘Roadcraft’ and he wrote it into a book of that name. Segrave thought it would be easier to train all new drivers properly than to re-educate the existing ones. The new system was to make Police driving what it is today and is the father of Police driving.
The basis was that a car should be in the correct position on the road, travelling at the correct speed, with the correct gear engaged for that speed. It was impossible to set a limit presupposing what that speed was. Even if a ‘speed limit’ or other traffic laws existed they were to be treated as advisory, if the observance of such laws would hamper the officer in the execution of his duty. A properly trained driver, correctly applying the Roadcraft system would find the maximum safe speed without causing danger to himself or others.
The young PC took to driving rather well and Segrave needed instructors. The PC was soon a Hendon Police Driving instructor.
Some 20 years passed and the PC was now a Superintendent. Again he was summoned to the Yard. This time it was to be offered a job. London traffic had increased and someone was needed to form a new unit to be called ‘The Metropolitan Police Traffic Division’.
Passing the story down to his pupils, the founding father of the worlds first Traffic Division recalled how from the outset the Police and the politicians understood that the correct speed for any situation can ONLY be determined by a skilled, well trained driver applying a highly developed system and never by an arbitrary limit.
Today, politicians continue to accept this premise for Police drivers and give dispensation to exceed the speed limit. When that Police driver goes home he doesn’t leave his judgement and training at work. He is as capable in is own vehicle. Why then does the law not permit him to drive according to his skill? If it is fundamentally unsafe for anyone to drive to according to his ability when that exceeds an arbitrary limit, then Police officers should not be exceeding the speed limit in the execution of their duty.
If we accept the principal that a highly trained driver can drive according to is judgement of conditions, then anyone who can demonstrate they have the same skill should be accorded the same privilege. By extension, if they demonstrate that they can no longer attain that skill level, the privilege should be withdrawn.
If the government were attempting to improve road safety there could be no better measure than to provide incentives for drivers to attain and maintain the standards of the Class 1 Police driver.
A system that allowed for tiers of drivers ability and encouraged drivers to raise their ability should be introduced. Allow those who meet the highest standards to drive accordingly and restrict those not yet able to do so. By making the punishment of being reduced to a lower grade of driver available drivers would be encouraged to maintain standards. Government would encourage drivers to strive to achieve higher standards. People tend to regard their driving ability as an indicator of status and an ego boost. Not being able to drive as well, or without speed restrictions would become embarrassing.
Keep a basic driving test as now, but with a speed limit on those who pass.
After further training, time gaining experience and with age and a good driving record allow novice drivers to move up a rank and go a bit faster.
The idea isn’t untried and works. Police drivers don’t start by being Class one. They start by being restricted to marked cars with power/capacity limits.
There are no learner drivers on F1 grids.
The government has already acknowledged the principle on roads with motorcycles by limiting new riders to 33bhp for two years post-test unless you are older and can pass extra training (direct access).
For the government to insist upon a fixed speed limit system that does not have popular support in a democracy is damaging in several ways.
It undermines confidence in the honesty of government and brings the whole system into disrepute. They purport to be democratic, yet insist upon a measure to which the majority is opposed. In a democracy the majority is sovereign, even if the majority is wrong. The governments’ right to enact laws is that their power is borrowed from the people. If they are not subject to the will of the people then they forfeit their right to make law.
They require the Police to enforce laws that have been recognised, or at least interpreted by the people as cynical theft by the establishment. This harms the relationship between the Police and the community. Policing by consent has long been advocated by government and senior Police officers. That means the Police enjoy popular support and the majority agree to be policed by the Police. Occasionally, in an area you see the effects of the loss of consent.
When this happens in an area you may get a reaction such as the Brixton riots. Alternatively, you get a move away from regarding the Police as the source of justice. People turn to alternative sources within their communities. Historically these tend to develop in undesirable ways. In one instance the local population rejecting the imposed and unjust system found a ‘place of refuge’ in locals would provide vigilante justice. The local dialect word for ‘place of refuge’ is now part of our language. That word is ‘Mafia’. In some ways it is similar to groups of teenagers joining gangs for self-protection.
The social and financial cost of sorting the problems that a loss of the Polices’ ability to Police by consent is more than any scamera can raise. From the point of the Police officer, who once enjoyed a respect that almost guaranteed his personal safety, now he faces hostility, disrespect and a real need for body armour.
Sorry for so long a post
Fester
Once upon a time the Metropolitan Police had a public image problem.
The press joked that in their pursuit of criminals, Police drivers had left no stone in London unturned.
They had hit all of them.
The average accident rate was one accident for every 900 Police miles driven. To be a Police driver you only needed to pass a normal driving test.
A young PC on point duty directing traffic in a pea-souper fog was trying to keep the traffic flowing, when a powerful car crept slowly through the junction.
The PC shouted at the driver “cant you drive any faster?”
“I could if it were safe to do so” was the reply.
Shortly afterwards the PC was approached by is Sergeant. There had been a phone call and the PC was wanted at Scotland Yard. At the Yard he was shown into a room containing several men, the Commissioner, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Transport and a guy behind a newspaper he couldn’t see.
Introductions were made and the guy to behind the paper, Sir Henry Segrave, World Land speed record holder, ‘King of Brooklands’ fighter pilot, lowered the paper and tersely said “we’ve met”
The driver in the fog, who judged it wasn’t safe to go any faster, certainly not anything like as fast as the legal speed limit was the fastest man on earth.
For the longest few minutes in his life the PC was interrogated about everything he knew about driving, cars and road law. It wasn’t much. Then he was kicked out the office.
Soon afterwards, the PC was told to report to Hendon. Segrave had asked for him. The decision was that Segrave would develop a system of driving, which he called ‘Roadcraft’ and he wrote it into a book of that name. Segrave thought it would be easier to train all new drivers properly than to re-educate the existing ones. The new system was to make Police driving what it is today and is the father of Police driving.
The basis was that a car should be in the correct position on the road, travelling at the correct speed, with the correct gear engaged for that speed. It was impossible to set a limit presupposing what that speed was. Even if a ‘speed limit’ or other traffic laws existed they were to be treated as advisory, if the observance of such laws would hamper the officer in the execution of his duty. A properly trained driver, correctly applying the Roadcraft system would find the maximum safe speed without causing danger to himself or others.
The young PC took to driving rather well and Segrave needed instructors. The PC was soon a Hendon Police Driving instructor.
Some 20 years passed and the PC was now a Superintendent. Again he was summoned to the Yard. This time it was to be offered a job. London traffic had increased and someone was needed to form a new unit to be called ‘The Metropolitan Police Traffic Division’.
Passing the story down to his pupils, the founding father of the worlds first Traffic Division recalled how from the outset the Police and the politicians understood that the correct speed for any situation can ONLY be determined by a skilled, well trained driver applying a highly developed system and never by an arbitrary limit.
Today, politicians continue to accept this premise for Police drivers and give dispensation to exceed the speed limit. When that Police driver goes home he doesn’t leave his judgement and training at work. He is as capable in is own vehicle. Why then does the law not permit him to drive according to his skill? If it is fundamentally unsafe for anyone to drive to according to his ability when that exceeds an arbitrary limit, then Police officers should not be exceeding the speed limit in the execution of their duty.
If we accept the principal that a highly trained driver can drive according to is judgement of conditions, then anyone who can demonstrate they have the same skill should be accorded the same privilege. By extension, if they demonstrate that they can no longer attain that skill level, the privilege should be withdrawn.
If the government were attempting to improve road safety there could be no better measure than to provide incentives for drivers to attain and maintain the standards of the Class 1 Police driver.
A system that allowed for tiers of drivers ability and encouraged drivers to raise their ability should be introduced. Allow those who meet the highest standards to drive accordingly and restrict those not yet able to do so. By making the punishment of being reduced to a lower grade of driver available drivers would be encouraged to maintain standards. Government would encourage drivers to strive to achieve higher standards. People tend to regard their driving ability as an indicator of status and an ego boost. Not being able to drive as well, or without speed restrictions would become embarrassing.
Keep a basic driving test as now, but with a speed limit on those who pass.
After further training, time gaining experience and with age and a good driving record allow novice drivers to move up a rank and go a bit faster.
The idea isn’t untried and works. Police drivers don’t start by being Class one. They start by being restricted to marked cars with power/capacity limits.
There are no learner drivers on F1 grids.
The government has already acknowledged the principle on roads with motorcycles by limiting new riders to 33bhp for two years post-test unless you are older and can pass extra training (direct access).
For the government to insist upon a fixed speed limit system that does not have popular support in a democracy is damaging in several ways.
It undermines confidence in the honesty of government and brings the whole system into disrepute. They purport to be democratic, yet insist upon a measure to which the majority is opposed. In a democracy the majority is sovereign, even if the majority is wrong. The governments’ right to enact laws is that their power is borrowed from the people. If they are not subject to the will of the people then they forfeit their right to make law.
They require the Police to enforce laws that have been recognised, or at least interpreted by the people as cynical theft by the establishment. This harms the relationship between the Police and the community. Policing by consent has long been advocated by government and senior Police officers. That means the Police enjoy popular support and the majority agree to be policed by the Police. Occasionally, in an area you see the effects of the loss of consent.
When this happens in an area you may get a reaction such as the Brixton riots. Alternatively, you get a move away from regarding the Police as the source of justice. People turn to alternative sources within their communities. Historically these tend to develop in undesirable ways. In one instance the local population rejecting the imposed and unjust system found a ‘place of refuge’ in locals would provide vigilante justice. The local dialect word for ‘place of refuge’ is now part of our language. That word is ‘Mafia’. In some ways it is similar to groups of teenagers joining gangs for self-protection.
The social and financial cost of sorting the problems that a loss of the Polices’ ability to Police by consent is more than any scamera can raise. From the point of the Police officer, who once enjoyed a respect that almost guaranteed his personal safety, now he faces hostility, disrespect and a real need for body armour.
Sorry for so long a post
Fester
With their Roadcraft training Police drivers aren't permitted to exceed limits when there isn't a suitable Police purpose for doing so. They are told this & their training includes it.
That's because the fact they've had training doesn't remove risk completely.
They can still & sometimes unfortunately do make mistakes (see the PC Langley/Pursuit blame thread).
Although I am permitted to exceed the limit for operational purposes, the risks from doing so are consequently greater. I'm increasing differentials, working to tighter margins & if I make a mistake there is less room to recover from it. Now in some circumstances that increased risk (because there is only the possibility that I may make a mistake at that stage) can be warranted, in others it isn't. The benefits aren't judged to outweigh those risks where it's just for my own pleasure or benefit, that's why I am not permitted to exceed limits legally outside of the purpose.
You are never going to do class one training outside of the Police either, what reason have you to be pursuit trained ?
Class ones would have to be & do you know the cost of doing the training for each individual ?
I don't see evidence that the majority don't support speed limits either. Just because somebody misses the fact that they've gone over a 30 limit, it doesn't mean they want roads without any speed limits. I've noticed personally there appear to be fewer people exceeding the limits than previously. I'm overtaking more on the motorways than I used to whilst I'm adhering to the limit.
That's because the fact they've had training doesn't remove risk completely.
They can still & sometimes unfortunately do make mistakes (see the PC Langley/Pursuit blame thread).
Although I am permitted to exceed the limit for operational purposes, the risks from doing so are consequently greater. I'm increasing differentials, working to tighter margins & if I make a mistake there is less room to recover from it. Now in some circumstances that increased risk (because there is only the possibility that I may make a mistake at that stage) can be warranted, in others it isn't. The benefits aren't judged to outweigh those risks where it's just for my own pleasure or benefit, that's why I am not permitted to exceed limits legally outside of the purpose.
You are never going to do class one training outside of the Police either, what reason have you to be pursuit trained ?
Class ones would have to be & do you know the cost of doing the training for each individual ?
I don't see evidence that the majority don't support speed limits either. Just because somebody misses the fact that they've gone over a 30 limit, it doesn't mean they want roads without any speed limits. I've noticed personally there appear to be fewer people exceeding the limits than previously. I'm overtaking more on the motorways than I used to whilst I'm adhering to the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 15th August 07:13
vonhosen said:
I don't see evidence that the majority don't support speed limits either. Just because somebody misses the fact that they've gone over a 30 limit, it doesn't mean they want roads without any speed limits. I've noticed personally there appear to be fewer people exceeding the limits than previously. I'm overtaking more on the motorways than I used to whilst I'm adhering to the limit.
I've noticed more keeping to the limits in recent years - especially in 30 zones where 40 used to be the norm 10 or 15 years ago. I don't think this is a bad thing in a 30 zone, though I feel more at risk on the motorway due to it taking longer to overtake trucks and slower cars when keeping to the limit. I feel the speed differential is often less than optimum as it's artificially constrained by keeping to the limit. Fortunately round these parts few motorways and good DCs are scammed so not such an issue here.I don't know of many who support the motorway limit - in every poll and survey I've seen, the majority want it raising.
Edited by alphadog on Wednesday 15th August 07:27
walm said:
It always bugs me on the SP&L forum that everyone agrees that dangerous driving is dangerous but an arbitrary limit is just that, arbitrary. The consensus solution is "more trafpol". I just don't see anybody following up with an economic argument.
I am not 100% sure where the scamera money goes, I am sure someone will tell me.
It went to buy more scameras, buy film, pay SCP staff wages with any shortfall to meet bills funded by Central Government (ie taxpayers)I am not 100% sure where the scamera money goes, I am sure someone will tell me.
It now supposed to fund other "road safety projects",... speed humps.. Speedwatch busy body areas.. more scams.. more scams.. more scams.
walm said:
But we all agree that the cameras are at least self funding if not profitable and more profit means more taxes for whatever; roads, schools, trafpol etc...
The scam cash was only used to buy more scams/fund the SCP expenses. Any revenue over expenditure went to Treasury. 
Lot of our tax money go to make sure MPs have payment for not even going to Commons (always empty und when they present - it look more like rowdy classroom with the Speaker behaving a bit like the teacher trying to get them to hush und listen
) It not go to provide services.
walm said:
Clearly without the cameras, we would all be paying more taxes somehow.
We pay more than anyone else in EU. They pay directly und see a return for money in services provided.We pay lot of Indirect Taxes on everything we buy as well as Direct Taxes. In reality .. we pay most of income after direct tax/NIC in taxes
anyway. walm said:
So, more importantly, who pays for the more trafpol? We want them to use discretion and clearly the target-setting news from yesterday is bad news - so making them pay for themselves could be tough. (i.e. we don't want the trafpol to be booking people in order to have a job next year.)
Please see the Simpsons episode with the bear attacks for reference as to what happens when joe public starts demanding more services. (I'll tell you, MORE TAXES, but still watch it.)
I know that speed matters, and it seems that most people here could afford to pay more tax, but do we really, really want that first extra tax £ going on trafpol? Is that where it is most needed? Throwing money at the NHS has not worked but perhaps we should try schools next... I don't know.
Sorry, rant over.
The police have cash. CCs of Manchester/Lancashire/Cumbria/Durham are each on record in the the local press for these areas as lamenting that they have had to freeze recruitment of real officers due to budget cuts/lack of funds und cannot replace retiring officers. However, they are also on record as stating they have been given cash to provide more officers.. PCSOs Please see the Simpsons episode with the bear attacks for reference as to what happens when joe public starts demanding more services. (I'll tell you, MORE TAXES, but still watch it.)
I know that speed matters, and it seems that most people here could afford to pay more tax, but do we really, really want that first extra tax £ going on trafpol? Is that where it is most needed? Throwing money at the NHS has not worked but perhaps we should try schools next... I don't know.
Sorry, rant over.
as it seem they get the cash for these. But it "ringfenced" to be used to recruit the "plastic (now teenagers) policemen" only It true.. we manage to get FOI on this from two of the above forces
But should speeding be offence? Dangerous/careless/inconsiderate driving always an offence.
The odd blip above but very safe - that should be treated with the discretion of olde worlde whether by Gatso or police officer
The blat on empty road?
I think person should be allowed to say how long he blat for 
Sometimes it just for "devilish second" like PC Milton if you know what I mean here (I put my toy boys through paces in Germany though or book a day at the race track anyway .. honest! ) Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff