What party is that then?
Police use new tactics where i live for speeding
- Thread starter Greebo
- Start date
What party is that then?
Which is fine. But, if you are so passionate about stopping speeders, surely the example in the OP is exactly what we don't want - just taking a photo and sending them a fine in the post won't slow them down at the point they were speeding.
If you break the limits I hope you get caught
More sensible to hope they slow down first surely....which they won't if they can't see a speed camera hidden as above.
How about ensuring that all speed traps are highly visible, with bloody great yellow cameras and obvious lines on the road? As you say, everyone knows the rights and wrongs and still speeds, so if you want people to slow down rather than just to recieve the odd fine, the only way to do it is blatant enforcement.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
If somebody is driving a car in a manner that is sufficiently dangerous that they pose a risk they should be stopped and charged - not sent a letter in the post 3 weeks after the event with a small fine.
If they are not driving dangerously enough to be stopped then the purpose of the letter in the post 3 weeks after the event is.. what exactly?
If they are not driving dangerously enough to be stopped then the purpose of the letter in the post 3 weeks after the event is.. what exactly?
[TW]Fox;28627342 said:
Well i'd hope they might be thinking seriously after they get the third with a potential ban for number 4.
Marked speed cameras are a waste of time, ever since I got overtook by a corsa doing about 50 in a 30 only for him to brake for the camera up ahead & then floor it again afterwards straight past a school at 8:45am I've never seen the point in them as you have to be an utter moron to be caught in a familiar area.
What is the point in enforcing the speed limit with a camera for about 10 meters of the road? Everyone learns where they are and just speeds the rest of the time, plus the bright yellow ones are bloody annoying as far too many drivers over compensate & slow right down.
If they really wanted to cut out speeding, they'd plaster mobile cameras absolutely everywhere with about 20 times the volume they have now. Make it so that you would never have any idea where they are but so common you'd be extremely lucky to not come across one on any journey upwards of 5 minutes.
The speeding would plummet, amongst a lot of complaining, as people realise they just can't get away with it.
However that would also see revenue plummet as they'd not be catching people. It would be expensive and fruitless financially, however if the argument is truly about road safety, should cost really be a barrier?
I suspect they'll stick with the 'odd vans appearing here and there' so everyone carries on speeding and gets caught and fined every so often though.
The speeding would plummet, amongst a lot of complaining, as people realise they just can't get away with it.
However that would also see revenue plummet as they'd not be catching people. It would be expensive and fruitless financially, however if the argument is truly about road safety, should cost really be a barrier?
I suspect they'll stick with the 'odd vans appearing here and there' so everyone carries on speeding and gets caught and fined every so often though.
[TW]Fox;28627342 said:
That's all well and good but just where do you suppose you are going to get all of these extra traffic policemen from to stop people and pull them over?
The whole purpose of issuing a ticket through the post rather than pulling somebody over in person is to allow cameras to catch people, freeing up police units to do other things like catching 'real' criminals, like the majority of people start talking about whenever police speed enforcement comes up.
Have you also considered the safety implications as police seek to chase down speeding drivers, essentially what you suggest could lead to more pursuits if speeding drivers have to be pulled over every time, rather than sending a letter to the registered keeper asking them to nominate the driver who committed the offence....
Personally I feel speed cameras should always be obvious and visible, the deterrent serves to slow people down, which if we assume that greater speed equals greater danger, is surely the point after all
Absolute rubbish. 99.9% of speeding motorists will immediately pull over if beckoned by police. Those that don't are probably more than just speeding motorists.
[TW]Fox;28627472 said:
Of course the vast majority of people stop for the police, thats not the point I am making.
Its basic statistics...assume a hypothetical 0.1% of all drivers will flee from the police if they attempt to pull them over, for whatever reason (criminality, uninsured/disqual/drink drivers/unlicenced/avoiding a ticket etc).
In 1000 traffic stops conducting over a period - how many will flee?
Now conduct 3500 traffic stops over the same period, because you have to pull over speeders as well - how many now?
Last edited:
Of course the vast majority of people stop for the police, thats not the point I am making.
Its basic statistics...assume a hypothetical 0.1% of all drivers will flee from the police if they attempt to pull them over, for whatever reason (criminality, uninsured/disqual/drink drivers/unlicenced/avoiding a ticket etc).
In 1000 traffic stops conducting over a period - how many will flee?
Now conduct 3500 traffic stops over the same period, because you have to pull over speeders as well - how many now?
Fine then. Don't pursue them if they pose a danger. From watching the police shows, that's exactly what they do where it is too dangerous.
After all, in your scenario you wouldn't have even attempted in the first place.
[TW]Fox;28627608 said:So police shouldn't attempt to stop law breaking motorists in-case they don't stop
No of course not
, I am stating that if you do away with the ability to send tickets for speeding through the post, and go down the route of stopping everybody at the roadside as the only way of dealing with speeding offences, which is what you seemingly first suggested in post #65, then you are likely to end up having more fail to stops and more pursuits as a result, something which is to the detriment of road safety. I don't know what is complex or difficult to understand about this.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;28627693 said:
I refer you to my first point, where are the extra police officers going to come from to achieve this increased presence on the roads that you (and me, incidentally) would like?
I am a police officer, you'd be surprised at the amount of times where we get jobs coming in that would normally warrant an immediate response (where the home office states we should get there within 15 minutes), and there are no officers free to send to them. The proposed cuts to police funding nationally is unlikely to help matters without significant changes in terms of what the police are expected to do.
Policing the roads in the way you suggest where the only way to catch speeders is through pulling people over would be much more manpower intensive than the appropriate use of unmanned systems such as cameras.
There is a balance to be struck here - the sorts of things like hiding cameras in bushes I do not agree with at all, on a personal level, but to do away with cameras at all, or to go back to traffic stops alone rather than prosecutions via post, is totally impractical IMO
Yeah, we all know what happened in 40-45 because of the almighty ''laws'' imposed by the nazi's. There was a certain group of people that didn't come off too good of it...what makes them people more important than the law?
Ok, somewhat extreme/distasteful example, but just because something is a law doesn't make something right or wrong.
I'd be happy if they increased fines & penalties for actual crimes that matter, instead of minor traffic infractions.
I don't think speeding is a ''crime'', it's just a minor ''infraction''/''violation''. Big difference between the two imho.
Over here most traffic fines are just administrative fines, not crimes, and parking ''fines'' are actually legally a tax assessment/fine. They aren't legal but administrative matters. Unlike other more serious fines like some heavier violations like drink driving which are legal matters and go through court...
I'm not for increasing the speed limit on motorways, I'm for abolishing it.
Fair enough, I live in a dead end street, so don't really hear any traffic but the odd thing in the distance like a car or bike accelerating hard or trains in the distance.
But I have spend weeks at family in Poland every year who live on farms right next to roads or in the middle of Warsaw and I can't say traffic noise has ever bothered me.
I can understand that it's **** if you have problems with vibrations due to traffic because of living beside a road, however, you have to admit, you did enjoy a cheaper rent/buy for living right on a (busy?) road! You'd probably have to pay more for a house in a ''quiet'' area/street. I personally can't stand it when people who go live cheaply right next to a busy road, then start going all NIMBY and demanding a road be replaced, downgraded, or have traffic calming crap placed...
Last edited:
True.
Maybe the best way would be an average speed check system, like you see through some long term roadwork sections on motorways and duals. This is the only tech that seems to slow drivers over a whole section of road, and therefore works... but would be near impossible to implement on a wider scale. I agree that being sneaky and hiding doesn't not solve a wider problem, but if you do get caught in this situation then you only have yourself to blame... and it might make you think next time. My beef is not with those who drift a bit above limits, but those who don't give a toss for anyone else, and are reckless regardless of conditions, or situation.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,926
- Location
- Rutland
Not at all impossible to implement nationwide average speed checks. Simply make black boxes mandatory on all vehicles - automated fines for speeders and further revenue from fining those that fail to comply. Suprised it's not been done already.
Well, yeah, okay.. I guess not that hard then
Perhaps this is the way ahead, but it won't be popular
Or perhaps the best way would be to realise that arbitrarily exceeding a limit often applied with little or no real technical rationale* probably isn't the end of the world.
*How else do you explain smooth, high visibility, wide and well surfaced roads with 30 limits which change to 60 limits at exactly the point they become narrow, twisty and potholed?
*How else do you explain smooth, high visibility, wide and well surfaced roads with 30 limits which change to 60 limits at exactly the point they become narrow, twisty and potholed?