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