Do cameras, speeding chiefs damage relations?
Discussion
Ok, prompted by the speeding chief constable thread.
Question is, do the cops on here think that the public is getting more and more aggreieved by instances like that described, ie, the chief constable effectively getting away lightly with something he is reporting others for?
Do the bibs here believe that the speed camera issue is seriously affecting co-operation between public and themselves?
Whats are your thoughts on this issue?
Question is, do the cops on here think that the public is getting more and more aggreieved by instances like that described, ie, the chief constable effectively getting away lightly with something he is reporting others for?
Do the bibs here believe that the speed camera issue is seriously affecting co-operation between public and themselves?
Whats are your thoughts on this issue?
Hello! Anyone there! 
Looks like it:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1208040,00.html
Police join the assault on speed cameras
Juliette Jowit, transport editor
Sunday May 2, 2004
The Observer
Speed cameras have long been loathed by motorists, but now Britain's rank-and-file police have turned on them too.
They fear the cameras are replacing traffic officers and that the rising number of fines issued is destroying public trust in the police.
However, the Department for Transport is expected to strongly defend their use with the most comprehensive study yet of accident rates at camera sites.
The Police Federation has organised a debate to discuss members' fears at its annual conference this month. The move comes as the latest Home Office figures show that the number of speeding fines increased from 1.1 million in 2001 to 1.5m in 2002. This year motoring groups forecast the total will top 3m.
Rod Dalley, the federation's vice-chairman, said it did not oppose cameras in principle, but was increasingly worried by the way they were being used to replace officers by cash-strapped forces with many other high-profile policing targets.
Cameras cannot detect other problems such as drivers who are under age or uninsured, under the influence of drink and drugs, not wearing seatbelts, or involved in other criminal activity such as possessing drugs and firearms, said Dalley.
This problem was highlighted by last week's Home Office figures, which showed the number of drink-drive tests had fallen but the proportion of positive tests rose.
The effectiveness of traffic policing also has a significant impact on society: last year 3,400 people were killed and 36,000 seriously injured on Britain's roads, and the cost of congestion - often caused by accidents - has been estimated at more than £20bn a year.
Many of the 'best' arrests of Britain's most wanted criminals have also been by traffic cops, said Dalley. The most famous is probably the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe.
'You start taking them off the roads and you start taking a core piece of policing off the streets,' he added. 'What we're saying is there should be a balance between properly trained police patrols and the use of these automatic devices.' The second big concern among the 135,000-strong federation was the growing public anger over what is seen as just a way to make money.
Last year the Treasury made £7m profit from cameras and this year the forecast is £20m. Motoring groups and chief constables have called for some offenders to pay for a speed awareness course instead of a fine. 'We can't produce evidence, but people are saying they won't help or assist the police,' said Dalley. 'Whether they carry out that threat we can't measure or quantify, but it raises serious concern.'
The federation move follows concerns raised by other groups such as the RAC Foundation and AA Motoring Trust, as well as the Conservative Party. Safety campaigners and road experts such as the Transport Research Laboratory say strict rules mean cameras can only be used at the worst accident blackspots, and studies show a 35 per cent drop in people killed and seriously injured when cameras are installed.
Last night a government official said the results of a three-year study of cameras in 24 areas were expected to support the effectiveness of cameras when published this summer. However, there are reports that transport Ministers have urged the Home Office to increase the number of traffic officers.
The Home Office said traffic police numbers were distorted because technology meant fewer were needed and many were doing other jobs as well. 'To look at it just in a numbers sense might be a bit naive,' said an official.
A previous Department for Transport review of speed cameras found virtually all were properly sited and the number is expected to rise from 5,000 today to up to 6,500 next year.
==================================
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1208040,00.html
Police join the assault on speed cameras
Juliette Jowit, transport editor
Sunday May 2, 2004
The Observer
Speed cameras have long been loathed by motorists, but now Britain's rank-and-file police have turned on them too.
They fear the cameras are replacing traffic officers and that the rising number of fines issued is destroying public trust in the police.
However, the Department for Transport is expected to strongly defend their use with the most comprehensive study yet of accident rates at camera sites.
The Police Federation has organised a debate to discuss members' fears at its annual conference this month. The move comes as the latest Home Office figures show that the number of speeding fines increased from 1.1 million in 2001 to 1.5m in 2002. This year motoring groups forecast the total will top 3m.
Rod Dalley, the federation's vice-chairman, said it did not oppose cameras in principle, but was increasingly worried by the way they were being used to replace officers by cash-strapped forces with many other high-profile policing targets.
Cameras cannot detect other problems such as drivers who are under age or uninsured, under the influence of drink and drugs, not wearing seatbelts, or involved in other criminal activity such as possessing drugs and firearms, said Dalley.
This problem was highlighted by last week's Home Office figures, which showed the number of drink-drive tests had fallen but the proportion of positive tests rose.
The effectiveness of traffic policing also has a significant impact on society: last year 3,400 people were killed and 36,000 seriously injured on Britain's roads, and the cost of congestion - often caused by accidents - has been estimated at more than £20bn a year.
Many of the 'best' arrests of Britain's most wanted criminals have also been by traffic cops, said Dalley. The most famous is probably the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe.
'You start taking them off the roads and you start taking a core piece of policing off the streets,' he added. 'What we're saying is there should be a balance between properly trained police patrols and the use of these automatic devices.' The second big concern among the 135,000-strong federation was the growing public anger over what is seen as just a way to make money.
Last year the Treasury made £7m profit from cameras and this year the forecast is £20m. Motoring groups and chief constables have called for some offenders to pay for a speed awareness course instead of a fine. 'We can't produce evidence, but people are saying they won't help or assist the police,' said Dalley. 'Whether they carry out that threat we can't measure or quantify, but it raises serious concern.'
The federation move follows concerns raised by other groups such as the RAC Foundation and AA Motoring Trust, as well as the Conservative Party. Safety campaigners and road experts such as the Transport Research Laboratory say strict rules mean cameras can only be used at the worst accident blackspots, and studies show a 35 per cent drop in people killed and seriously injured when cameras are installed.
Last night a government official said the results of a three-year study of cameras in 24 areas were expected to support the effectiveness of cameras when published this summer. However, there are reports that transport Ministers have urged the Home Office to increase the number of traffic officers.
The Home Office said traffic police numbers were distorted because technology meant fewer were needed and many were doing other jobs as well. 'To look at it just in a numbers sense might be a bit naive,' said an official.
A previous Department for Transport review of speed cameras found virtually all were properly sited and the number is expected to rise from 5,000 today to up to 6,500 next year.
==================================
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
I've just had a complete turn of opinion, more scameras please. They're yellow so I can see em, if Im pished and forget to look out for em, they probably wont have any film in, I can drive like a complete arse, intimidate others (while on my moby)tailgate, you name it, if my car is nicked or a heap of shit? no worries! fog lamps? I can bung in feckin carbon arc jobbers cos the cameras don't mind. Big up for the scameras.
a pikey
a pikey
I would assume the Asst Chief Constable at one point took the standard response course or even was/is a Class 1 driver.
If that is the case, then the court should take into account these skills whendecising on punishment.
As much as I abhor cameras as my view is they take Trained TrafPol off our roads, the courts have to be able exercise discretion when it coems to bans.
The ACC got caught, a decision was made to prosecute, he was prosecuted, he was convicted and he got his punishment.
In the scheme of things he is probably far less likely to cause a collision that a boy racer numptie who just faniced a bit of quick driving.
If that is the case, then the court should take into account these skills whendecising on punishment.
As much as I abhor cameras as my view is they take Trained TrafPol off our roads, the courts have to be able exercise discretion when it coems to bans.
The ACC got caught, a decision was made to prosecute, he was prosecuted, he was convicted and he got his punishment.
In the scheme of things he is probably far less likely to cause a collision that a boy racer numptie who just faniced a bit of quick driving.
rospa said:
In the scheme of things he is probably far less likely to cause a collision that a boy racer numptie who just faniced a bit of quick driving.
Quite correct. Just like a driver doing 36 in a 30 limit a few yards before a national limit sign with a clear road ahead which is often just where the scamera vans are trapping
rospa said:
I would assume the Asst Chief Constable at one point took the standard response course or even was/is a Class 1 driver.
If that is the case, then the court should take into account these skills whendecising on punishment.
As much as I abhor cameras as my view is they take Trained TrafPol off our roads, the courts have to be able exercise discretion when it coems to bans.
The ACC got caught, a decision was made to prosecute, he was prosecuted, he was convicted and he got his punishment.
In the scheme of things he is probably far less likely to cause a collision that a boy racer numptie who just faniced a bit of quick driving.
Rubbish! He should have known better and the courts should have made an example of him!!
LOOK! I am sorry, but never mind this: "we are all equal, but some are more equal than others" rubbish.
He was out in what I presume was his private car, certainly he was NOT using any lights or sirens, and he was NOT responding to an emergency!
Unlike him and many other people of his ilk. I do NOT have friends in high places, who, while they cannot find him NOT GUILTY, for the truth is there for all to see. They can however, "in his case" use their DISCRESSION, to ensure that he gets the least of available of punishments.
I, like you and others here, do not agree with the massive use of speed cameras in place of eyes and ears, or the sometimes imposition of unwarranted speed limits. But at the moment these are "the law" and they apply to EVERYONE!
ACC Thomas is in a priviliged position and should Know better. More so I would say that because of his position a more stern judgement of him would have been more appropriate.
P.S. Oh! and Jenson Button is a boy racer and I would NOT like to try and keep up with him. It means nothing!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Monday 3rd May 11:17
He was out in what I presume was his private car, certainly he was NOT using any lights or sirens, and he was NOT responding to an emergency!
Unlike him and many other people of his ilk. I do NOT have friends in high places, who, while they cannot find him NOT GUILTY, for the truth is there for all to see. They can however, "in his case" use their DISCRESSION, to ensure that he gets the least of available of punishments.
I, like you and others here, do not agree with the massive use of speed cameras in place of eyes and ears, or the sometimes imposition of unwarranted speed limits. But at the moment these are "the law" and they apply to EVERYONE!
ACC Thomas is in a priviliged position and should Know better. More so I would say that because of his position a more stern judgement of him would have been more appropriate.
P.S. Oh! and Jenson Button is a boy racer and I would NOT like to try and keep up with him. It means nothing!
>> Edited by 8Pack on Monday 3rd May 11:17
I'm sorry, I don't understand what privileged position the ACC is in. How did that privileged position prevent him from being dealt with by the courts?
Bannng someone is at the discretion of the magistrates. If a yoof turns up in jeans and T shirt then I'd imagine they would get a ban. If an ACC or a Solicitor turns up in a suit, is apologetic, etc.. then they might just get the points and/or a fine.
At the risk of repeating myself, I think UK Police do a terrific job in very difficult circumstances. I am on record here and in my local paper that we need mroe trained TrafPol so they can catch drunk/drugged/careless/dangerous/unlicensed drivers.
Police drivers (assuming they have passed the relevent police driving test) should be following the key policy of Roadcraft - "Never drive so fast thaty you cannot stop comfortable in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road."
If EVERY driver on our roads did this, then they would be a much safer place.
This anti-police sentiment is just pathetic.
Finally, don't fogrget that where a vehicle that is being used for police purposes is involved in a collision, a very through investigation will be carried out. It is in no-one's interest for police drivers to be involved in collisions.
Bannng someone is at the discretion of the magistrates. If a yoof turns up in jeans and T shirt then I'd imagine they would get a ban. If an ACC or a Solicitor turns up in a suit, is apologetic, etc.. then they might just get the points and/or a fine.
At the risk of repeating myself, I think UK Police do a terrific job in very difficult circumstances. I am on record here and in my local paper that we need mroe trained TrafPol so they can catch drunk/drugged/careless/dangerous/unlicensed drivers.
Police drivers (assuming they have passed the relevent police driving test) should be following the key policy of Roadcraft - "Never drive so fast thaty you cannot stop comfortable in the distance you can see to be clear on your own side of the road."
If EVERY driver on our roads did this, then they would be a much safer place.
This anti-police sentiment is just pathetic.
Finally, don't fogrget that where a vehicle that is being used for police purposes is involved in a collision, a very through investigation will be carried out. It is in no-one's interest for police drivers to be involved in collisions.
ACC Thomas was stupid! He is however convicted!
He also pleaded guilty!
He is not the first or the last Police Officer to be convicted of motoring offences from either speeding or more serious ones.
In his position he was irresponsible to be driving at that speed without a valid defence for his actions.
It was a Police Officer that stopped and reported him for the offence! He could have used some discretion no doubt
but chose to use it in the correct way.
Cameras are hated by most Police officers. They get caught as well especially off duty.
Behaviour such as that of ACC Thomas does nothing to improve the public immage of the Police in general. Strangely as a very senior manager, that is one of his main priorities. His judgement and especially his speech afterwards have some questions to be asked of!
The thread may have been quiet but some of us have been very busy of recent days issuing yellow tickets
with not much time for opinions and arguement
He also pleaded guilty!
He is not the first or the last Police Officer to be convicted of motoring offences from either speeding or more serious ones.
In his position he was irresponsible to be driving at that speed without a valid defence for his actions.
It was a Police Officer that stopped and reported him for the offence! He could have used some discretion no doubt
but chose to use it in the correct way. Cameras are hated by most Police officers. They get caught as well especially off duty.
Behaviour such as that of ACC Thomas does nothing to improve the public immage of the Police in general. Strangely
as a very senior manager, that is one of his main priorities. His judgement and especially his speech afterwards have some questions to be asked of! The thread may have been quiet but some of us have been very busy of recent days issuing yellow tickets
with not much time for opinions and arguementgone said:
Behaviour such as that of ACC Thomas does nothing to improve the public immage of the Police in general. Strangely
For goodness sake everyone capable of a moment of madness. He did the crime and now he'll do the time. Speeding is not a criminal offence anyway.
I think the incident shows that the Police Officer on duty wasn't imtimidated by booking the ACC and it clearly shows that there isn't one rule for "them" and another rule for "us".
I still don't know what exactly it was that he got away with.
This man, sits at a desk where under his orders, motorists may lose their licences and maybe their livelyhood for doing a lot less than he did!
He has a responsiblity in his position to show an example.
A moment of madness! Now come on! I can't prove it of course but I live in the real world too. I drive motorways (not at that speed I may add) and see the speed of some drivers.(not that I consider them dangerous BUT the limit is 70mph, for him as well)
80mph may be "pushing" it a bit! but 104mph is a flagrant disregard of the law, something that anyone in his position should be more concious of.
P.S. I am NOT "anti-police" and feel that you are resorting to smears when you can't win the discussion.
If I were in the Police I could certainly NOT defend his actions, as you rightly said, the policeman who reported him didn't.
He has a responsiblity in his position to show an example.
A moment of madness! Now come on! I can't prove it of course but I live in the real world too. I drive motorways (not at that speed I may add) and see the speed of some drivers.(not that I consider them dangerous BUT the limit is 70mph, for him as well)
80mph may be "pushing" it a bit! but 104mph is a flagrant disregard of the law, something that anyone in his position should be more concious of.
P.S. I am NOT "anti-police" and feel that you are resorting to smears when you can't win the discussion.
If I were in the Police I could certainly NOT defend his actions, as you rightly said, the policeman who reported him didn't.
8Pack said:
This man, sits at a desk where under his orders, motorists may lose their licences and maybe their livelyhood for doing a lot less than he did!
He has a responsiblity in his position to show an example.
A moment of madness! Now come on! I can't prove it of course but I live in the real world too. I drive motorways (not at that speed I may add) and see the speed of some drivers.(not that I consider them dangerous BUT the limit is 70mph, for him as well)
80mph may be "pushing" it a bit! but 104mph is a flagrant disregard of the law, something that anyone in his position should be more concious of.
P.S. I am NOT "anti-police" and feel that you are resorting to smears when you can't win the discussion.
If I were in the Police I could certainly NOT defend his actions, as you rightly said, the policeman who reported him didn't.
Where did I smear you?
8Pack said:
80mph may be "pushing" it a bit! but 104mph is a flagrant disregard of the law, something that anyone in his position should be more concious of.
Maybe you aren't aware but the police only report the matter. It is the CPS who decides whether to prosecute and the courts who decide guilt and then had out the punishment.
As already stated speeding is NOT a criminal matter so while you might think it justifies this particular officer losing his job, pension or whatever other punishment you think is appropriate, the magistrates didn't think so.
If this officer travelled at that speed in total safety, I don't see the problem. If a MOP drives at that speed in total safety, I don't see the problem. If any police officer or any MOP drives at that speed but compromises safety then they should have the book thrown at them.
The emphasis for me is on safe driving and not adherence to a pseed limit nor what a particular profession a motorist belongs to. YVMV.
deltaf said:
Do the bibs here believe that the speed camera issue is seriously affecting co-operation between public and themselves?
Here's a first hand response to that question.
I've been asked to help the police with info on an ongoing basis.
I have declined, pending the withdrawal of their policy of driver persecution...............
But perhaps it is people LIKE you who SHOULD be there! 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff