It's not about the money (yeah, right)!

[vonhosen]

Engineer792 said:

If you're driving according to conditions, you should have little fear of prosecution, regardless of what your numerical speed happens to be.

Not realistic though if you are talking about if detected.
Of course if you are saying provided you show some restraint with regard to when & where you might be detected, then yes you probably will have little to fear in respect of prosecution (because the places where enforcement is more likely to take place is mostly pretty easy to work out).

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

The officers that are out there can deal with dangerous driving where detected. They just don't have to be tasked to stand on a fixed point doing speed enforcement because the SCP can be there doing that simple job instead.

Who cares about the officers? They may well be less amenable than in the past, as the Police appear to be more politics driven as time passes, but the reality is that on the whole it's all about cameras and petty little brainwashed individuals, both on the ground and in the back offices, backed up by corporate bullst about the evils of speed.

I struggle to comprehend the mindset or intellect of those that buy into this nonsense.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

The officers that are out there can deal with dangerous driving where detected. They just don't have to be tasked to stand on a fixed point doing speed enforcement because the SCP can be there doing that simple job instead.

Who cares about the officers? They may well be less amenable than in the past, as the Police appear to be more politics driven as time passes, but the reality is that on the whole it's all about cameras and petty little brainwashed individuals, both on the ground and in the back offices, backed up by corporate bullst about the evils of speed.

I struggle to comprehend the mindset or intellect of those that buy into this nonsense.

Buy into what?

[Engineer792]

vonhosen said:

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

The officers that are out there can deal with dangerous driving where detected. They just don't have to be tasked to stand on a fixed point doing speed enforcement because the SCP can be there doing that simple job instead.

Who cares about the officers? They may well be less amenable than in the past, as the Police appear to be more politics driven as time passes, but the reality is that on the whole it's all about cameras and petty little brainwashed individuals, both on the ground and in the back offices, backed up by corporate bullst about the evils of speed.

I struggle to comprehend the mindset or intellect of those that buy into this nonsense.

Buy into what?

You seem to be so inured by the idea that speed limits have to be enforced that you don't seem to be able to fathom how things could be done differently.

As an attempt to show you a bit of where I'm coming from, how many people have been prosecuted for crossing a white line to pass someone doing a bit more than 10mph, or even the speed of the vehicle being passed being measured?
That's because the 10mph limit isn't the important bit, it only being important that it should be going slowly - something which should be within the judgement capability of any cop.
That's the way it should be with any speed limits - it should be within any cop's judgement capability whether or not you're going too fast for conditions, with the limit being there to enable prosecution if necessary.

Edited by Engineer792 on Tuesday 24th October 23:45

[vonhosen]

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

The officers that are out there can deal with dangerous driving where detected. They just don't have to be tasked to stand on a fixed point doing speed enforcement because the SCP can be there doing that simple job instead.

Who cares about the officers? They may well be less amenable than in the past, as the Police appear to be more politics driven as time passes, but the reality is that on the whole it's all about cameras and petty little brainwashed individuals, both on the ground and in the back offices, backed up by corporate bullst about the evils of speed.

I struggle to comprehend the mindset or intellect of those that buy into this nonsense.

Buy into what?

You seem to be so inured into the idea that speed limits have to be enforced that you don't seem to be able to fathom how things could be done differently.

They 'could' be done any number of ways, indeed however the government choose.

Engineer792 said:

As an attempt to show you a bit of where I'm coming from, how many people have been prosecuted for crossing a white line to pass someone doing a bit more than 10mph, or even the speed of the vehicle being passed being measured?
That's because the 10mph limit isn't the important bit, it only being important that it should be going slowly - something which should be within the judgement capability of any cop.
That's the way it should be with any speed limits - it should be within any cop's judgement capability whether or not you're going too fast for conditions, with the limit being there to enable prosecution if necessary.

I couldn't tell you, I don't have the numbers to hand & I'm not inclined to go searching for them.

That's the way you believe it should be with speed limits.

I'd rather Police officer's deal with more important matters (they can of course reserve the power to intervene in speed enforcement matters where they personally deem it appropriate at the time) & others be left to deal day to day with matters like speed enforcement etc.

[Engineer792]

I'm now going to bed

[Engineer792]

vonhosen said:

I'd rather Police officer's deal with more important matters (they can of course reserve the power to intervene in speed enforcement matters where they personally deem it appropriate at the time) & others be left to deal day to day with matters like speed enforcement etc.

I feel that speed enforcement matters aren't important enough to warrant police officers spending any more time on than they already do, if that much.
And that doesn't mean that I think that speed enforcement should be dealt with by others - it's just not important.

[vonhosen]

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

I'd rather Police officer's deal with more important matters (they can of course reserve the power to intervene in speed enforcement matters where they personally deem it appropriate at the time) & others be left to deal day to day with matters like speed enforcement etc.

I feel that speed enforcement matters aren't important enough to warrant police officers spending any more time on than they already do, if that much.
And that doesn't mean that I think that speed enforcement should be dealt with by others - it's just not important.

I realise you feel like that but not everybody feels the same way as you.

[irocfan]

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

I'd rather Police officer's deal with more important matters (they can of course reserve the power to intervene in speed enforcement matters where they personally deem it appropriate at the time) & others be left to deal day to day with matters like speed enforcement etc.

I feel that speed enforcement matters aren't important enough to warrant police officers spending any more time on than they already do, if that much.
And that doesn't mean that I think that speed enforcement should be dealt with by others - it's just not important.

obviously speed enforcement matters more than a certain level of drug enforcement....

[Engineer792]

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

I'd rather Police officer's deal with more important matters (they can of course reserve the power to intervene in speed enforcement matters where they personally deem it appropriate at the time) & others be left to deal day to day with matters like speed enforcement etc.

I feel that speed enforcement matters aren't important enough to warrant police officers spending any more time on than they already do, if that much.
And that doesn't mean that I think that speed enforcement should be dealt with by others - it's just not important.

I realise you feel like that but not everybody feels the same way as you.

Of course.
But feelings can't dictate policy in the long term - facts take over sooner or later

[vonhosen]

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

I'd rather Police officer's deal with more important matters (they can of course reserve the power to intervene in speed enforcement matters where they personally deem it appropriate at the time) & others be left to deal day to day with matters like speed enforcement etc.

I feel that speed enforcement matters aren't important enough to warrant police officers spending any more time on than they already do, if that much.
And that doesn't mean that I think that speed enforcement should be dealt with by others - it's just not important.

I realise you feel like that but not everybody feels the same way as you.

Of course.
But feelings can't dictate policy in the long term - facts take over sooner or later

Long term, governments around the world have had a policy of enforceable limits, where people end up getting prosecuted for exceeding speed limits even where they can & do so 'in relative safety'. As time has gone by more of that is happening not less. Them's the facts. Realistically (given how long we've had enforceable limits) technology like driverless cars are likely to be here before any large U turn on that policy takes place.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 25th October 21:26

[Engineer792]

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

I'd rather Police officer's deal with more important matters (they can of course reserve the power to intervene in speed enforcement matters where they personally deem it appropriate at the time) & others be left to deal day to day with matters like speed enforcement etc.

I feel that speed enforcement matters aren't important enough to warrant police officers spending any more time on than they already do, if that much.
And that doesn't mean that I think that speed enforcement should be dealt with by others - it's just not important.

I realise you feel like that but not everybody feels the same way as you.

Of course.
But feelings can't dictate policy in the long term - facts take over sooner or later

Long term, governments around the world have had a policy of enforceable limits, where people end up getting prosecuted for exceeding speed limits even where they can & do so in relative safely. As time has gone by more of that is happening not less. Them's the facts. Realistically technology like driverless cars are likely to be here before any large U turn on that takes place.

Policy has been driven by feelings for too long, but it's not going to last forever.
However, as you say, it might well take the advent of driverless cars to bring the facts home.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

Long term, governments around the world have had a policy of enforceable limits, where people end up getting prosecuted for exceeding speed limits even where they can & do so 'in relative safely'. As time has gone by more of that is happening not less. Them's the facts. Realistically technology like driverless cars are likely to be here before any large U turn on that takes place.

Just why is there this irrational obsession with speed where authority is concerned?
If it weren't for the fact most people had better things to worry about then perhaps they would have been pulled up for this by now. The shame is that they appear to believe approval for their attitude has been given by the lack of opposition.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Long term, governments around the world have had a policy of enforceable limits, where people end up getting prosecuted for exceeding speed limits even where they can & do so 'in relative safely'. As time has gone by more of that is happening not less. Them's the facts. Realistically technology like driverless cars are likely to be here before any large U turn on that takes place.

Just why is there this irrational obsession with speed where authority is concerned?
If it weren't for the fact most people had better things to worry about then perhaps they would have been pulled up for this by now. The shame is that they appear to believe approval for their attitude has been given by the lack of opposition.

I don't see any obsession (the numbers involved in that enforcement are pretty small in proportion to the number of offences as is the case with most traffic regulation enforcement). Road use is a heavily regulated activity all round, speed is just one aspect of that.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Long term, governments around the world have had a policy of enforceable limits, where people end up getting prosecuted for exceeding speed limits even where they can & do so 'in relative safely'. As time has gone by more of that is happening not less. Them's the facts. Realistically technology like driverless cars are likely to be here before any large U turn on that takes place.

Just why is there this irrational obsession with speed where authority is concerned?
If it weren't for the fact most people had better things to worry about then perhaps they would have been pulled up for this by now. The shame is that they appear to believe approval for their attitude has been given by the lack of opposition.

I don't see any obsession (the numbers involved in that enforcement are pretty small in proportion to the number of offences as is the case with most traffic regulation enforcement). Road use is a heavily regulated activity all round, speed is just one aspect of that.

You mystify me sometimes, it is almost like you have amnesia and really believe nothing has changed.
I first threw caution to the wind and ventured onto the roads in 1983. Things have changed massively since then with regards to the freedoms of road users on a practical level. It doesn't really matter what the rules do or don't say to a point, because what the road user is subject to is the application of those rules and the prevalence of that application.
To suggest we are subject to the same circumstances now as we were then is a fallacy. The saving grace for the authorities is that those 'coming through' have grown up in a society that doesn't know any different, and thus have little appreciation of the freedoms they have lost. This is a general societal problem of course, speed is merely a facet of that, but I feel pity for the poor buggers that follow (although they seem pre-occupied with vanity, FaceBook, Instagram and all manner of other trivial crap so they probably don't deserve the pity).

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Long term, governments around the world have had a policy of enforceable limits, where people end up getting prosecuted for exceeding speed limits even where they can & do so 'in relative safely'. As time has gone by more of that is happening not less. Them's the facts. Realistically technology like driverless cars are likely to be here before any large U turn on that takes place.

Just why is there this irrational obsession with speed where authority is concerned?
If it weren't for the fact most people had better things to worry about then perhaps they would have been pulled up for this by now. The shame is that they appear to believe approval for their attitude has been given by the lack of opposition.

I don't see any obsession (the numbers involved in that enforcement are pretty small in proportion to the number of offences as is the case with most traffic regulation enforcement). Road use is a heavily regulated activity all round, speed is just one aspect of that.

You mystify me sometimes, it is almost like you have amnesia and really believe nothing has changed.
I first threw caution to the wind and ventured onto the roads in 1983. Things have changed massively since then with regards to the freedoms of road users on a practical level. It doesn't really matter what the rules do or don't say to a point, because what the road user is subject to is the application of those rules and the prevalence of that application.
To suggest we are subject to the same circumstances now as we were then is a fallacy. The saving grace for the authorities is that those 'coming through' have grown up in a society that doesn't know any different, and thus have little appreciation of the freedoms they have lost. This is a general societal problem of course, speed is merely a facet of that, but I feel pity for the poor buggers that follow (although they seem pre-occupied with vanity, FaceBook, Instagram and all manner of other trivial crap so they probably don't deserve the pity).

Of course it's not exactly the same, because we didn't always have automated enforcement etc. But the fact remains that in the early 80''s people were being prosecuted for exceeding speed limits in what could be deemed 'relative safety', i.e. for no other reason than they exceeded the number on the stick & were outside the tolerance threshold of the officer viewing/dealing with it.
I've been driving all that time too, I'm no more concerned about speed enforcement for me in my personal driving/riding now than I was back then & that doesn't mean I'm some kind of Saint, just that the chances of me being caught exceeding the limit by a margin where I'm likely to end up getting prosecuted are pretty slim with all things considered.

[ashleyman]

It’s funny how we all obey a bunch of painted lines on the floor and numbers printed on signs.

I’d rather do a test and pay a fee per year and be able to drive faster on the roads. Would never work but we can dream.

Thought it was interesting that on Police Interceptors the other night they showed how a camera van worked. The Police officer set the speed to 35 and anyone over that got a letter or NIP. If the speed limit is sooooo important. Why allow the 5mph leeway?

It’s ALL about the money. I wonder what they’ll do when nobodies got a license and nobody owns cars and they can’t make money from us.

[vonhosen]

ashleyman said:

It’s funny how we all obey a bunch of painted lines on the floor and numbers printed on signs.

I’d rather do a test and pay a fee per year and be able to drive faster on the roads. Would never work but we can dream.

Thought it was interesting that on Police Interceptors the other night they showed how a camera van worked. The Police officer set the speed to 35 and anyone over that got a letter or NIP. If the speed limit is sooooo important. Why allow the 5mph leeway?

It’s ALL about the money. I wonder what they’ll do when nobodies got a license and nobody owns cars and they can’t make money from us.

Don't hold your breath.
There are about 46.7million licence holders of which about 44million have zero penalty points.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

Don't hold your breath.
There are about 46.7million licence holders of which about 44million have zero penalty points.

Prove it.

On a separate note it was reported on national news today that a third of all motorists get issued a PCN every year. PCNs cover a multitude of made-up crimes, but it goes to show how much money there is to be made from all this nonsense.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Don't hold your breath.
There are about 46.7million licence holders of which about 44million have zero penalty points.

Prove it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/total-number-of-driving-licences-with-and-without-penalty-points

cmaguire said:

On a separate note it was reported on national news today that a third of all motorists get issued a PCN every year. PCNs cover a multitude of made-up crimes, but it goes to show how much money there is to be made from all this nonsense.

Well yes, mostly parking fines.

I live in a city with a lot of vehicles & limited parking, but I manage to avoid them, so it's possible if you make the right choices.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 25th October 22:45