Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 23:10

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 01:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 15:13
Posts: 269
Hello people,

It's been a long time since I've posted on here so a warm hello to everybody.

I have a suggestion which I would see as an interim compromise (I must state it would still be my view and ambition that speed cameras should be totally removed from our roads but perhaps my offering will disarm some of the zealots or take even more of their spite away).

The interim compromise would be to keep (yes, I did say KEEP the cameras)

BUT

Change the law ever so slightly so that the first NIP must be served on the registered keeper by a police constable IN UNIFORM within the first 14 days of the commission of the offence.

Not ideal, I know - but seeing as we know speed cameras are a tool to milk the motorist cash cow, a quick thought should tell you all that they simply don't have the manpower to pursue the average of 500 tickets per day per force. When the cameras pings someone innocuously doing 35 in a 30 unless this really is past a school at turn out time, because of the lack of manpower that such a move would bring into focus, nothing would get done about the otherwise heinous transgression (the way it used to be).

But when the camera catches the @rsehole doing 65 in a 30 (someone who, in my view would likely have little in a mitigating comment of "it was safe"), then the Boys in Blue can send a rep round to inform the prat doing such speeds he's won the draw to appear and explain himself.

The reason why cameras don't work is because 99% of the offences are about ordinary people doing ordinary things that just happen to be "offences". Changing the rules to force the police to present a NIP in person would almost certainly stop the abuse of the speed camera system overnight.

What are the views of others? And does someone fancy doing the wording so it can be put up on the No 10 website


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 03:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
My initial thought is, that whilst showing the authorities the whole process is 'pointless', it is shy if the mark in stating, that their Policy is causing road deaths, and creating many dangerous road behaviours.
The Police have been known in a number of cases, to hand deliver photographic evidence etc (already), and more than once, to one 'home' too, so, it might back fire and the Police themselves might see it, that their job had become one of a 'postie'. Even more Police spending time on paperwork than 'their job'.
I am sure the Police would appreciate the non sitting and waiting in cars, for visiting house after house dropping off NIP's - (whole new meaning to 'nip-by' !). Still, I suppose, they would 'just' create another new force to do the deliveries.
The Police I think would see it as pointless when they could just stop the person in the first place and had them a ticket or not.
I would far, far rather see more police on the road, using their judgment to advise, enforce or re-train as an when appropriate. They would need to be re-trained too as many only know of the speed camera's era.
Having Police behave in a moderately consistent manner, is pretty fundamental to a fair and just system of Law Enforcement. When rules become very variable between Counties or Towns, then consistency is removed and it becomes a Post Code Lottery as to what punishment one receives for the 'crime'.
With the new (possible) cameras the ticket will be sent out automatically from wireless cameras. :( <gulp!>
Once a greedy person see the 'green', it is hard, if not impossible for them to stop their justification for the ploy no matter how obvious it is that they should. Again, saving face, not lives. :(

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 09:59 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
Change the enforcement thresholds? A letter in the Honest John Letters page from an engineer made a salient point about time to refocus even at 30mph added several mph to your speed effectively. He said the majority of people can usually tell within 10 mph how fast they are going so if you have leniency up to 10mph over then you can continue enforcement but the majority don't need to waste attention constantly checking their speedos.

I also think anywhere that has had a recent (within 12 months) downgrade of speed limit should be excluded from all speed enforcement below the old limit for a year.

I also think anyone with a first offence should automatically do the driving improvement course instead of the fine and points and that it should be free. I also think this course should be offered to any driver that wants it and that in particular foreign nationals and recent test passers should be targetting for extra free tuition. If you can get the insurance industry to offer good incentives for completing the free course then hopefully it will have a reasonable take up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 15:13
Posts: 269
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
My initial thought is, that whilst showing the authorities the whole process is 'pointless', it is shy if the mark in stating, that their Policy is causing road deaths, and creating many dangerous road behaviours.
The Police have been known in a number of cases, to hand deliver photographic evidence etc (already), and more than once, to one 'home' too, so, it might back fire and the Police themselves might see it, that their job had become one of a 'postie'. Even more Police spending time on paperwork than 'their job'.
I am sure the Police would appreciate the non sitting and waiting in cars, for visiting house after house dropping off NIP's - (whole new meaning to 'nip-by' !). Still, I suppose, they would 'just' create another new force to do the deliveries.
The Police I think would see it as pointless when they could just stop the person in the first place and had them a ticket or not.
I would far, far rather see more police on the road, using their judgment to advise, enforce or re-train as an when appropriate. They would need to be re-trained too as many only know of the speed camera's era.
Having Police behave in a moderately consistent manner, is pretty fundamental to a fair and just system of Law Enforcement. When rules become very variable between Counties or Towns, then consistency is removed and it becomes a Post Code Lottery as to what punishment one receives for the 'crime'.
With the new (possible) cameras the ticket will be sent out automatically from wireless cameras. :( <gulp!>
Once a greedy person see the 'green', it is hard, if not impossible for them to stop their justification for the ploy no matter how obvious it is that they should. Again, saving face, not lives. :(


As I stated in my original post. This is an intermediate, compromise suggestion - not a target end solution. I would agree and echo a lot of the comments highlit by Claire....

But this still comes down to a manpower issue for the Police. The reason why they didn't process every shoplifter nicking a packet of revels from Woolworths was simply due to manpower. We all know that there are instances where driving at 10mph (or more) LESS THAN the 'speed limit' can be bloody dangerous.... What has brought the whole speed-camera thing into focus is the "one-size-fits-all / the-invoice-is-in-the-post" solution which frankly IS being abused for money.

South Yorkshire "catch" 500 speeders automatically with cameras alone every day. It would be my view that typically 98% (or more) of these 'criminals' are doing nothing except committing a technical offence; they certainly wouldn't be driving dangerously.

Making the police deliver in person all of those NIPs would mean it wouldn't get done. That in turn would mean they would likely "target" the extreme or the persistent offenders with only the unlucky generally law-abiding and sensible-reasonable member of the public being done. (in other words, exactly as it used to be).

I have often ranted about the damage these cameras do to the image of the Police. How they tarnish the public's view of law enforcement and actually makes their jobs harder because the perception that money's involved can't be washed off - even in those tiny places where enforcement for anything other than money isn't happening. In short a hand delivered NIP would leave the police little option than TO BE REASONABLE when applying and enforcing the law. I also think that the things really would then die a natural death on their own in due course.

P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 12:40 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
The purpose of traffic police also leads to the detection of other crimes so the personally delivered NIP seems a good idea. Those that were persistent would be targetted more. Alternatively get rid of static cameras and stick with mobile vans but all those caught must be dealt with at the roadside not 2 weeks later. Again it becomes more about changing behaviour rather than just getting the £60.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 13:05 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3427
With all the millions of drivers that get speeding fines every year, you would expect that there are now millions of better drivers on the road after their experience. I somehow doubt if many of those drivers are now better drivers for their experience, speed cameras aren't going to make us a nation of better drivers so I can't see how the roads are going to get safer just through fining the nation.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 16:11 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I like the spirit of your suggestion. It is somewhat unrealistic. This government wont even spend a few extra pennies to send s second reminder of the nip by recorded delivery, Let alone a real police officer.

If a police officer were sent they would need an army of them. This would soon be downgraded to some sort of PSCO/ Parking Attendant grade.

It angers me that 5mph over some daft limit you get fined and 3 points yet some drivers get offered a driver improvement course after a serious accident. There was one on "Real Rescues" where the chap had strayed onto the oncomming lane and 1/8th of his car had crashed with a school bus and removed its air tanks which were squeezed just infront of the drivers front wheel. The bus had lost steering and brakes and crashed across a pavement, and a low brick wall. and the driver has no points!

In a sensible world your suggeston would make a difference! Three visits from a patrol car would be very noticable in most addresses not to mention 'er indoors! It also would be an oppertunity to look at the cars at the address.

They don't want to do propper policing. It is all about the money! remember , they wont even spend out on recorded delivery. Not even when the driver has had thier licence suspended for two offences within thier probational period.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 10, 2009 21:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 15:13
Posts: 269
anton wrote:
{snip}
If a police officer were sent they would need an army of them. This would soon be downgraded to some sort of PSCO/ Parking Attendant grade.
{snip}


Which is why, if a fully paid up 'proper policeman' had to deliver a NIP in person the abuse we're all suffering would stop!

Before speed cameras, if a driver were taking liberties (by grossly exceeding the speed limit), he'd get done. Whether that be by a stop there and then or by a later NIP... The odd ordinary Joe, doing 35 in a 30 very infrequently also used to get done too. But the police didn't start getting computers to despatch letters by the thousands per week!!!!!!

If a copper in uniform had to take a NIP in person to the registered keeper's house and deliver it himself (making a note in his book if the intended recipient wasn't at home) then sending "the invoices" out by the thousand simply would not be able to take place. Cameras would still have their deterrent value (from their point of view) and the NIPs which were delivered by a police constable in uniform would almost certainly only go to those deemed to be persistently flouting the law or those caught as such grotesquely excessive speeds that questions should be rightly asked of their behaviour.

The law comes into disrepute when it gets abused. FWIW, I used to be a football (soccer) referee. Law 12 says a player shall be sent of if he is guilty of using offensive language: But I can tell you if I'd shown a red card to every player who ever used the F word, I would have been abandoning every single game within 10 minutes for lack of players!

I disagree with cameras because they are being abused. If they were solely used to sort out those who actually do need their licences removed rather than an easy way to frighten ordinary people with what really is a state run extortion racket into coughing up, perhaps people like me would be more conducive to accepting them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 04:48 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Well I’m sorry folks but we shouldn’t be looking for anything less than getting rid of speed cameras. What was wrong before we ever had them! The British public fall for it every time and now we are looking for compromises, which is what our masters rely on. (The Hegelian dialectic) That’s what they have been using on us for centuries to whittle away our rights and freedom. We need to stick by our guns and tell them what we the “public” want.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 13:16 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 15:13
Posts: 269
Dixie wrote:
Well I’m sorry folks but we shouldn’t be looking for anything less than getting rid of speed cameras. What was wrong before we ever had them! The British public fall for it every time and now we are looking for compromises, which is what our masters rely on. (The Hegelian dialectic) That’s what they have been using on us for centuries to whittle away our rights and freedom. We need to stick by our guns and tell them what we the “public” want.


Dixie. In principle, I agree with you - this is how the state erodes our rights.

But "we" have been calling for the abolition of speed cameras ever since they were implemented - and nothing happens.... I will repeat, I'd rather the state stop using the police to thieve off of us, but in the absence of a majority of 300 being found down the back of the settee, perhaps getting them to to back down in steps might be on?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 16:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 23:07
Posts: 135
PaulF wrote:
The law comes into disrepute when it gets abused. FWIW, I used to be a football (soccer) referee. Law 12 says a player shall be sent of if he is guilty of using offensive language: But I can tell you if I'd shown a red card to every player who ever used the F word, I would have been abandoning every single game within 10 minutes for lack of players!


I've reffed a few football matches also and have a few basic rules: if you ask how much time is left, whats the score or to clarify a rule then no problem, the captain and only the captain can say anything else to me, everyone else gets a yellow or free reversed/brought forward depending on what is said, works very well, players learn very quick not to speak badly to you. The problem with the method your describing is simple, I might do 40 in a 30 but its a busy week so the cops decide to let mine go, a month later you do 35 in a 40 and its a slow week so you get done. There is nothing wrong with the concept of speed limits, its applying them to suit all road users that the problem arises. So instead of compromise, work out exactly how to apply the speed limit so it suits all road users.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 16:38 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
I quite like this idea, it would force Chief Constables to make some judgement calls and in that respect I see it as coming from the same stable as the end of hypothecation and I supose the likes of Swindon pulling out of the SCP.

Basically what you're saying to a CC is, 'of course you can have cameras but you must pay for them and you must resource the process from begining to end, you will have your annual budget and you must determine your own priortities'.

Of course if speeding is the henious crime that some would have us believe then the CC's would choose accordingly and the prosecutions would remain unchanged.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 05:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
Sorry about the untimely response, but here goes ...

Just as red light cameras are only abusive when the yellow light isn't long enough (you have it lucky on your side of the pond, Amerikan yellow lights are very variable, and most Amerikan drivers have no idea how long they are supposed to last, so they'd have no idea if they were being victimized) ...

Speed cameras are only abusive in the context of posted speed 'limits' that are just too low. In an area of reasonable speed limits, they not only stop being a problem, they literally can't afford to be there.

Long story short:
1) Why have police constables deliver tickets to people's homes after a fortnight when they should be out there doing their original job?

2) Cameras are not cost effective if the posted speed limits are truly reasonable. Thus, speed cameras are a symptom, unreasonably low posted speed 'limits' are the real cause, and those who have been and still are lowering posted speed 'limits' are to blame.

The sooner it stops being about the money ...

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.250s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]