Zero tolerance proposals for UK roads...

[irocfan]

surprised that this hasn't gained some traction on N, P & E...


Home-office wants to fk about with speeding tolerances and points. Predictably the usual throbbers are in favour (20's plenty - WTF????)


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/19/driver...


though not all are in favour...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/01/roads-...


Amended to remove ancient link

Edited by irocfan on Monday 20th August 09:39

[JagLover]

and the Tories were supposedly going to "end the war on the motorist"

whoever you vote for, the government always gets in.

[ralphrj]

irocfan said:

surprised that this hasn't gained some traction on N, P & E...


Home-office wants to fk about with speeding tolerances and points. Predictably the usual throbbers are in favour (20's plenty - WTF????)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-129780/New...

The Daily Mail article mentions Home Office Minister Bob Ainsworth.

Bob Ainsworth was a Labour MP and worked at the Home Office between 2001 and 2003.

You have linked to an article that is at least 15 years old.

[irocfan]

ralphrj said:

irocfan said:

surprised that this hasn't gained some traction on N, P & E...


Home-office wants to fk about with speeding tolerances and points. Predictably the usual throbbers are in favour (20's plenty - WTF????)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-129780/New...

The Daily Mail article mentions Home Office Minister Bob Ainsworth.

Bob Ainsworth was a Labour MP and worked at the Home Office between 2001 and 2003.

You have linked to an article that is at least 15 years old.

Ohhh fk . Thanks for that - was half asleep earlier, amended.

At least the belly-laugh is current - was a little surprised there wasn't more in the news after hearing about this on LBC last night

[ralphrj]

To be fair, the Daily Mail article doesn't have a date on it so there is nothing obvious to indicate that it is 15-17 years old.

I just happen to remember Bob Ainsworth from his time as Secretary of State for Defence under Gordon Brown. I also think that this is not the first time the story has been posted to PH in the last few years.

I suspect that the omission of the date of the article is deliberate on the part of the Daily Mail as they know that it is the kind of article that will be shared on social media (where the vast majority of readers won't recognise the name of a Home Office Minister) which then drives traffic to their website.

[TooMany2cvs]

ralphrj said:

irocfan said:

surprised that this hasn't gained some traction on N, P & E...

Home-office wants to fk about with speeding tolerances and points. Predictably the usual throbbers are in favour (20's plenty - WTF????)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-129780/New...

The Daily Mail article mentions Home Office Minister Bob Ainsworth.

Bob Ainsworth was a Labour MP and worked at the Home Office between 2001 and 2003.

You have linked to an article that is at least 15 years old.

Yup.

And, if you wanted more proof of the Wail's rabble-rousing spin, here's a different (and date-marked) version of the same story...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2150042.stm

[Jonesy23]

irocfan said:

surprised that this hasn't gained some traction on N, P & E...


Home-office wants to fk about with speeding tolerances and points. Predictably the usual throbbers are in favour (20's plenty - WTF????)


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/19/driver...

A certain Chief Constable is a fkwit.

It is slightly unfair of an article to say 'Police urge' when it's actually a specific person with no clue how to do their job properly.

As for the useful idiot campaigners like '20s Plenty' - FOAD.

[Calorus]

JagLover said:

and the Tories were supposedly going to "end the war on the motorist"

whoever you vote for, the government always gets in.

What kind of cretin believes slogans like that? It's second only in its bullsttery to "The EU made us do it".

[Previous]

IAM bloke on LBC was speaking sense earlier:

How many accidents occur in the 30-34 mph, where speed is a contributory factor (and same question for other limits) that would be prevented by this?

Same guy also menrioned that some enforcement equipment operation manuals say the equipment shouldnt be used for conviction if within 2mph. If moving to 1mp2 then either plod need to replace equipment, or defence solicitors will have a field day.

Should be easy enough to do a cost benefit analysis.

Luckily, most of the crimes which affect day to day quality of life (crimes against the person, anti social behavior, theft / mugging, violent crime etc) are all being managed effectively which frees up police to focus on this sort of stuff.

[so called]

Previous said:

IAM bloke on LBC was speaking sense earlier:

How many accidents occur in the 30-34 mph, where speed is a contributory factor (and same question for other limits) that would be prevented by this?

Same guy also menrioned that some enforcement equipment operation manuals say the equipment shouldnt be used for conviction if within 2mph. If moving to 1mp2 then either plod need to replace equipment, or defence solicitors will have a field day.

Should be easy enough to do a cost benefit analysis.

Luckily, most of the crimes which affect day to day quality of life (crimes against the person, anti social behavior, theft / mugging, violent crime etc) are all being managed effectively which frees up police to focus on this sort of stuff.

The enforcement equipment is subject to accuracy tolerances and regular calibration to be able to be used to support action to enforce the claimed offence.
If the over speed 'allowance' is reduced the cost to adjust and maintain the equipment goes up significantly to cover the cost of maintaining the tighter accuracy tolerance.

I don't know what effect seasonal temperature changes have on the accuracy of the equipment?

Non of this takes into consideration the tolerances of the speed indicators of the vehicle.
How can you be held responsible for being 2% over the speed limit if the manufacturer of your vehicle allows a +10% accuracy tolerance?
GPS speed indication is a measurement of what you just did and not what you are doing and so not necessarily relevant.

I am assuming your last paragraph was a little tongue in cheek.

[Rovinghawk]

Previous said:

Luckily, most of the crimes which affect day to day quality of life (crimes against the person, anti social behavior, theft / mugging, violent crime etc) are all being disregarded which frees up police to focus on this sort of stuff.

FTFY

[TooMany2cvs]

so called said:

Non of this takes into consideration the tolerances of the speed indicators of the vehicle.
How can you be held responsible for being 2% over the speed limit if the manufacturer of your vehicle allows a +10% accuracy tolerance?

Simple. The tolerance is 0% under-read.

[Yertis]

Rovinghawk said:

Previous said:

Luckily, most of the crimes which affect day to day quality of life (crimes against the person, anti social behavior, theft / mugging, violent crime etc) are all being disregarded which frees up police to focus on this sort of stuff.

FTFY

I'm not sure it really needed fixing.

[anonymous-user]

Previous said:

Should be easy enough to do a cost benefit analysis.

Luckily, most of the crimes which affect day to day quality of life (crimes against the person, anti social behavior, theft / mugging, violent crime etc) are all being managed effectively which frees up police to focus on this sort of stuff.

In a similar vain, it should be easy enough to realise that self-funding automated enforcement doesn't detract from the crimes / other you go on to talk of.

[irocfan]

La Liga said:

n a similar vain, it should be easy enough to realise that self-funding automated enforcement doesn't detract from the crimes / other you go on to talk of.

well we're constantly being told that all these scameras lose money so either you're wrong or they are?

[anonymous-user]

irocfan said:

La LigaI said:

In a similar vain, it should be easy enough to realise that self-funding automated enforcement doesn't detract from the crimes / other you go on to talk of.

well we're constantly being told that all these scameras lose money so either you're wrong or they are?

Are we being told that?

I see plenty of examples of 'us being told' how much money they apparently make. A DM-type FOI article.

Easy enough to research funding / grants / etc and see how it all works.

Basically, suggesting police officers are being moved from crime-based roles to carry out speed enforcement is incorrect and the product of lazy thinking.

[oyster]

Previous said:

IAM bloke on LBC was speaking sense earlier:
How many accidents occur in the 30-34 mph, where speed is a contributory factor (and same question for other limits) that would be prevented by this?

How can speed in any accident not be a contributory factor in the outcome? Only a moron would argue that the effect of a collision at 34mph will be less severe on average than one at 30mph.

Previous said:

Luckily, most of the crimes which affect day to day quality of life (crimes against the person, anti social behavior, theft / mugging, violent crime etc) are all being managed effectively which frees up police to focus on this sort of stuff.

I'd have though car accidents had a much bigger impact on the day to day lives of ordinary law-abiding folk than many other crimes you mention. Perhaps only burglary impacts more people.

[Calorus]

oyster said:

Previous said:

IAM bloke on LBC was speaking sense earlier:
How many accidents occur in the 30-34 mph, where speed is a contributory factor (and same question for other limits) that would be prevented by this?

How can speed in any accident not be a contributory factor in the outcome? Only a moron would argue that the effect of a collision at 34mph will be less severe on average than one at 30mph.

Previous said:

Luckily, most of the crimes which affect day to day quality of life (crimes against the person, anti social behavior, theft / mugging, violent crime etc) are all being managed effectively which frees up police to focus on this sort of stuff.

I'd have though car accidents had a much bigger impact on the day to day lives of ordinary law-abiding folk than many other crimes you mention. Perhaps only burglary impacts more people.

Agreed, I know 4 people who've been in serious car accidents including two deaths, but none who've been burgled and two who've been assaulted.

[Rovinghawk]

La Liga said:

Basically, suggesting police officers are being moved from crime-based roles to carry out speed enforcement is incorrect and the product of lazy thinking.

It's not always obvious what else they do.

[EddieSteadyGo]

La Liga said:

re we being told that?

I see plenty of examples of 'us being told' how much money they apparently make. A DM-type FOI article.

Easy enough to research funding / grants / etc and see how it all works.

Basically, suggesting police officers are being moved from crime-based roles to carry out speed enforcement is incorrect and the product of lazy thinking.

That's true. I don't think the issue is about diverting resources, but more to do with priorities.

As things stand, the guidelines allow a small margin of error. It's accepted by pretty much everyone, and it seems reasonable.

When a chief constable uses their time to suggest a more zealous approach is required, it doesn't fit well with what many people feel should be much higher priorities.

For example, I would like to see the chief constable in question advocating a far more zealous approach to dealing with anti-social behaviour, to reducing knife crime, and the epidemic of fraud which is happening online.

But that stuff is hard to tackle, and requires diligent and coordinated effort. And so it is easy to see why it might get pushing onto the 'too difficult' pile.