NEW GOVERNMENT 24X7 SPEED CAMERA/VEHICLE MOVEMENT DATABASE
Discussion
www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/15/vehicle_movement
amongst its many uses speeding on the motorway is listed.
will be starting in April 2006, maybe this should be a good time to raise the motorway speed limits?
Gary
amongst its many uses speeding on the motorway is listed.
will be starting in April 2006, maybe this should be a good time to raise the motorway speed limits?
Gary
Hysteria.
See
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=222153&f=10&h=0
and
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=222187
for two sane views...
J
See
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=222153&f=10&h=0
and
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=222187
for two sane views...
J
Neither the Register or the Times are really hysteria papers. And such a thing is totally consistent with Bliarism.
Variable speed limits already exist on the M42. There are gantries with speed limits set by overhead signs with associated Camera signs. They seem to be on pretty much always, and they are a complete disaster because of (i) panic braking (ii) the speed limit is always too far 'behind the action'.
Variable speed limits already exist on the M42. There are gantries with speed limits set by overhead signs with associated Camera signs. They seem to be on pretty much always, and they are a complete disaster because of (i) panic braking (ii) the speed limit is always too far 'behind the action'.
And to quote the Register
"In both cases the penalties are clearly only going to hit people who've previously been registered with the system. Dealing with the large numbers of entirely unregistered and uninsured vehicles will require real-time alerts and pursuit, and these vehicles will have to be differentiated from the many foreign registered cars on the UK's roads. As it will be a lot easier and cheaper to fine the law-abiding but forgetful than it will be to deal with the hardline serial offenders, we think we can guess which way this one will go."
Can anyone point to any piece of legislation which has actually been used against its claimed targets ?
"In both cases the penalties are clearly only going to hit people who've previously been registered with the system. Dealing with the large numbers of entirely unregistered and uninsured vehicles will require real-time alerts and pursuit, and these vehicles will have to be differentiated from the many foreign registered cars on the UK's roads. As it will be a lot easier and cheaper to fine the law-abiding but forgetful than it will be to deal with the hardline serial offenders, we think we can guess which way this one will go."
Can anyone point to any piece of legislation which has actually been used against its claimed targets ?
autismuk said:Sorry, not sure what planet you come from but the Register is all about finding the 'hysterical' angle on stories.
Neither the Register or the Times are really hysteria papers. And such a thing is totally consistent with Bliarism.
Having been at the end of many a Tim Richardson quote, I like their style as it makes entertaining reading, but they never follow the simple "facts".
J
joust said:
Hysteria.
See
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=222153&f=10&h=0
and
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=222187
for two sane views...
J
I for one am afraid. When speed cameras were introduced in the UK we were told they would only ever go in accident blackspots, we all know what happened. Here they are telling us that the things will go everywhere, they WILL be looking for some return on that investment, and there will be the inevitable feature creep. For example might not some politician, say, ah well we've already got a road charging infrastructure in place, why not use it.
The sane views you are referring to seem to suggest:-
i. It's a Government IT project, so it will be screwed up
ii. The population will be able to subvert it, and will do so
Both of which are probably true, but neither answers the objections that Government will try and use this as a stick to beat motorists with. The Police and the Government are now seen as one indivisible whole, they have lost our trust, and it will take more than a piece of complacency from you for us ever to trust their motives again.
IanReid said:
Hysteria.
See
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=222153&f=10&h=0
and
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=222187
for two sane views...
J
I for one am afraid. When speed cameras were introduced in the UK we were told they would only ever go in accident blackspots, we all know what happened. Here they are telling us that the things will go everywhere, they WILL be looking for some return on that investment, and there will be the inevitable feature creep. For example might not some politician, say, ah well we've already got a road charging infrastructure in place, why not use it.
The sane views you are referring to seem to suggest:-
i. It's a Government IT project, so it will be screwed up
ii. The population will be able to subvert it, and will do so
Both of which are probably true, but neither answers the objections that Government will try and use this as a stick to beat motorists with. The Police and the Government are now seen as one indivisible whole, they have lost our trust, and it will take more than a piece of complacency from you for us ever to trust their motives again.
i sadly agree with you...
I judge someone by their actions and unfortunately both the government and police have counlessly acted in both a hypercritical and untrustworthy manner.
IanReid said:Gosh you are paranoid aren't you?
The Police and the Government are now seen as one indivisible whole, they have lost our trust, and it will take more than a piece of complacency from you for us ever to trust their motives again.
I hate to tell you, but ever since the Police were invented they have been "at one" with the government. The government makes the laws that the police uphold. The police have no free will, no choice in the matter.
The magistrates and jury system is the place that makes decisions, not the police. If you read my other post about a speeding ticket you can see that where the laws aren't followed the magistrate system will allow the normal person to easily, and straight forwardly, have the law correctly applied, when the police uphold that law incorrectly.
If you don't like it, buy your own island and make up your own laws. Otherwise you have to accept that the police will always upload the law as they see it. The court system is there to ensure it's done correctly.
J
joust said:
I hate to tell you, but ever since the Police were invented they have been "at one" with the government. The government makes the laws that the police uphold. The police have no free will, no choice in the matter.
But therin lies the difference surely - it's one thing for the police to enforce the law 'as it was intended' and quite a different thing for the police to uphold the law 'as they can twist it to be interpretted'.
What we are seeing more and more of lately is poorly written, knee-jerk legislation that senior BiB interpret (read twist) to suit their needs and cover up for poor 'police' work. If they can't do 'it' easily find a law and twist it to suit.
Police forces have always been "at one" with the government agreed - the difference is the balance of power in that relationship is changing. Instead of the police enforcing government's laws it is now trying to influence the making of those laws quite openly.
It's now reached the point when senior officers seem intent on 'politicising' the police, as in the recent example of the '90 day fiasco' when CC's were lobbying acvtively and openly, campaigning for their 'position' to be adopted.
Would those same CC's not clamp down heavily on 'other ranks' under their command if they decided to campaign openly and politically for something the 'establishment' did not want?
The top of a very dangerous slippery slope - what next? Do Prison Governors start campaiging for the death sentence to be brought back as a measure to reduce prison numbers, or Tax Inspectors for more revenue.
I'm amazed that you think that people who have a job to do can't express their opinion. The Police are human beings, not machines.
Much of international law has been changed "for the good" due to dissentment by the police. The recent 90 day issue was surely a media hyping of a perfectly reasonable point, namely that "if you want us to stop these bombs going off, then in our opinion, we have to have up to 90 days to work on a case before charging the person".
The fact that the media saw it as a cricket bat to hit the obvious target of Blair had nothing to do with it, oh no, absolutly not, never, us, the papers, we would never do such a thing, no we wouldn't.
What is exactly wrong with the senior police offices of this land tell us, in their opinion, what is needed to keep our country safe? I'd much rather have that than some civil servant dreaming up what is needed and then using a stooge in the government to get it implemented. I presume you've never watched Yes Minister.....???
J
Much of international law has been changed "for the good" due to dissentment by the police. The recent 90 day issue was surely a media hyping of a perfectly reasonable point, namely that "if you want us to stop these bombs going off, then in our opinion, we have to have up to 90 days to work on a case before charging the person".
The fact that the media saw it as a cricket bat to hit the obvious target of Blair had nothing to do with it, oh no, absolutly not, never, us, the papers, we would never do such a thing, no we wouldn't.
What is exactly wrong with the senior police offices of this land tell us, in their opinion, what is needed to keep our country safe? I'd much rather have that than some civil servant dreaming up what is needed and then using a stooge in the government to get it implemented. I presume you've never watched Yes Minister.....???
J
But surely one of the tenets of our society is that we have an independant police force not a politicised one.
It's the balance of the relationship worries me.
I have no problem with senior officers advising elected members, I do have a problem with those officers campaigning.
Policing in this country has traditionaly been 'policing by consent';
how much harder will it make it for the BiB to do that job if they alienate themselves from the people by becoming seen as a political weapon.
I'm old enough to remember the miners' strike and the accusations of the police 'taking Thatcher's shilling'. I also live in area that was one of the heartlands of the strike and can tell you that, IMO, the police have never regained the 'public goodwill' they enjoyed before this.
It's the balance of the relationship worries me.
I have no problem with senior officers advising elected members, I do have a problem with those officers campaigning.
Policing in this country has traditionaly been 'policing by consent';
how much harder will it make it for the BiB to do that job if they alienate themselves from the people by becoming seen as a political weapon.
I'm old enough to remember the miners' strike and the accusations of the police 'taking Thatcher's shilling'. I also live in area that was one of the heartlands of the strike and can tell you that, IMO, the police have never regained the 'public goodwill' they enjoyed before this.
joust said:
The Police and the Government are now seen as one indivisible whole, they have lost our trust, and it will take more than a piece of complacency from you for us ever to trust their motives again.
Of course I'm paranoid, I've watched B Liar and the boys in action for the last few years. Unless you haven't read a newspaper for all that time, it's the only rational state to assume.
joust said:
I hate to tell you, but ever since the Police were invented they have been "at one" with the government. The government makes the laws that the police uphold. The police have no free will, no choice in the matter.
Yes very true. You could argue that this latest scheme is simply proposing a way of implementing the laws which currently exist. However the scale of it, remember we are talking about a camera every 400 yards, is such that in reality it is the sort of decison which should be taken by a Government. But instead we have an unelected bunch of Chief Constables it seems making policy on the hoof. Obvioulsy they are not, they are being directed by the Government. As others have said the line between policy making and enforcing policies is becoming increasingly blurred.
joust said:
The magistrates and jury system is the place that makes decisions, not the police. If you read my other post about a speeding ticket you can see that where the laws aren't followed the magistrate system will allow the normal person to easily, and straight forwardly, have the law correctly applied, when the police uphold that law incorrectly.
Again true. However this distinction too is becoming increasinlgly blurred. Witness the Safety Camera Partnerships where the magistrates, councils and Polie are all in it together. Whatever they say this must reduce the indepenedence of the one from the other.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff