M1 Variable Speed Limits

[Scott_F]

Great. So speed cameras are not a revenue raising exercise. Glad someone else besides me thinks so. And it's not a punishment you get. Once an offence has been committed, punishment of past events is in itself pointless, it's intended to be a process of education and a deterrent for the future.

Enforcement cameras are a revenue-raising exercise. There is no question about this.

The last time I received a NIP it was for doing 38mph where the limit was 30mph. This was on a long stretch of busy urban road and the camera van was parked at the bottom of a very steep hill where you had to hold the car on the brake for quite some way in order to stay anywhere near the speed limit. They knew exactly which stretch of the road to target.

Nearby is a long road through a residential area where the traffic is usually relatively light. I would regularly see idiots flying through there at 60+mph but never once did I see the camera van. They would much rather catch 200 people a day doing 38mph than catch 3 or 4 maniacs doing more than twice the speed limit and who pose a real danger.

Further, the average traffic cop doesn't give a sh*t about alienating the "more-or-less law-abiding" public. When they've seen their first few dead people, especially children, they become aware how futile law-breaking on the highway is, whether it's to save a few seconds on a journey, or to have "a minor bit of fun on the M40" (quote from a previous thread).

Well they should give one - they really should.

Regardless of what they may or may not have seen elsewhere, the best form of policing is policing by consent. When you are not exactly the most popular or respected group in society, the quickest way to alienate the public still further is to devote huge resources to catching them when guilty of a minor traffic infringement whilst doing nothing (perhaps not even turning up) when their houses and cars are broken into.

 

[markjay]

If speed cameras are supposed to be a deterrent, then the best ones would be those camera that do not generate any revenue at all.

 

[meeeb]

Regardless of what they may or may not have seen elsewhere, the best form of policing is policing by consent. When you are not exactly the most popular or respected group in society, the quickest way to alienate the public still further is to devote huge resources to catching them when guilty of a minor traffic infringement whilst doing nothing (perhaps not even turning up) when their houses and cars are broken into.

Couple of fundamental errors there Scott.

Firstly you are assuming that I am a police officer. I am not. Why don't you assume that I'm a firefighter or paramedic whose opinions may equally have been formed by their RTA experiences?

Secondly you appear to be assuming that you are in a majority when you refer to consent, i.e. that most people agree with you in regard to road policing. They may not. There's a kindred inference that most people disagree with speed enforcement. That may not be the case.

Thirdly that the police are not respected:-

"Polling evidence suggests that whether or not public trust in police is as high as it should be, it hasn't been much affected by the recent bad news. Research company Ipsos MORI asked members of the public earlier this month if they would "generally trust the police to tell the truth or not". Sixty-five per cent said they would, compared with 31% who wouldn't. That rating is as high as trust in police has been since 1983, when Ipsos MORI - which has the longest-running series on trust compared with other polling firms - first asked the question." BBC News, March 2014.

Fourthly that "huge resources" are devoted to road policing. May I suggest that you Google 'traffic policing resources' to get the true picture rather than making assumptions based on your own prejudice, bias and/or ignorance.

Traffic accidents kill people in large numbers, but what is often forgotten is that thousands of people who are not killed suffer life-changing injuries - paraplegia, hemiplegia, quadriplegia, for example.

 

[johns E350]

I am in no doubt speed cameras are a stealth tax I got my nice £100 fine a couple of months ago doing 36 in a 30 this was rolling down a steep hill where you need to be on the brakes to stop yourself the camera van is often hiding there. I must of been in a day dream as completely forgot. No one on here or who owns a car has not at some time broken the 30 mile an hr speed limit. It could be said going slow becomes boring which then leads to a lack of concentration which can then also lead to crash bang wallop

 

[Scott_F]

Several fundamental errors there Meeeb:

Firstly you are assuming that I am a police officer. I am not. Why don't you assume that I'm a firefighter or paramedic whose opinions may equally have been formed by their RTA experiences?

Nowhere have I made any assumptions about you or your profession.

Secondly you appear to be assuming that you are in a majority when you refer to consent, i.e. that most people agree with you in regard to road policing. They may not. There's a kindred inference that most people disagree with speed enforcement. That may not be the case.

The concept of policing by consent is not a subjective one. It has nothing to do with my views on anything nor with the general issue of camera enforcement. It refers to the far wider matter of attitudes to the police as a whole:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent

Thirdly that the police are not respected:-

"Polling evidence suggests that whether or not public trust in police is as high as it should be, it hasn't been much affected by the recent bad news. Research company Ipsos MORI asked members of the public earlier this month if they would "generally trust the police to tell the truth or not". Sixty-five per cent said they would, compared with 31% who wouldn't. That rating is as high as trust in police has been since 1983, when Ipsos MORI - which has the longest-running series on trust compared with other polling firms - first asked the question." BBC News, March 2014.

The simple fact is that trust in the police has been declining for years. Your own figures illustrate that whilst 65% (hardly a ringing endorsement in itself) would generally trust the police, 31% readily admit that they would not. And with every high-profile scandal and public pack of lies the figures will just continue to worsen.

Fourthly that "huge resources" are devoted to road policing. May I suggest that you Google 'traffic policing resources' to get the true picture rather than making assumptions based on your own prejudice, bias and/or ignorance.

OK let's replace "huge" with "disproportionate".

UK police forces have lovely new camera vans packed with expensive equipment and manned all day. Clearly, they prioritise speeding offences (and the revenue that it just so happens to raise) over offences that the rest of us would deem far more serious. There isn't any of my "prejudice, bias and/or ignorance" here - I'm afraid that the facts are unequivocal:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-29125589

 

[vinnie83]

I have had a number of experiences with traffic plod, some good, some bad.

Many years ago, in my E55' I pulled onto a dual carriageway that had not very long been reduced to a 50 limit from 70 for a couple of decades. The rear window was a little cloudy and I noticed some headlights approaching - fast. I was cruising along having slowly accelerated to 50, only to find someone right up the rear of the car - far too close for comfort.... So I accelerated away, only to see flashing lights.... I didn't bother arguing as an officer who acts in such a way wasn't going to listen to anything I had to say - fine and 3 points for 65 in a 50.

Another more recent incident on the m1, I was making great progress in the third lane, minding to pull back in when possible and giving a quick flash when approaching people hogging the outside lane.... I must have lost concentration on the speed and went above what the officer felt was acceptable, if leptons were a unit it may have been 100...

He was in an unmarked BMW and had followed me for about 5 miles so he said. He commended me on my safe and non aggressive driving and said the only reason he stopped me was because I went over that hypothetical 100 leptons, to keep it below in the future and because my driving was otherwise very good he let me off.

Another incident in my 911, having a play with some chap in his EVO on a quiet dual carriageway late at night, officer saw, pulled me over, asked if he could have a sit in the car, joked that it was a good thing I stopped as he didn't fancy trying to catch me and warned me that whilst he won't pull me over if I decide to have a play late at night, his colleagues may not be so friendly.

My point is this - discretion should always be used in any case, and the officer should really use some common sense as in event two and three (maybe three was just lucky)' but in event one he enforced the law, in my opinion unfairly.

Breaking the law isn't always the same as breaking the law - many things need to be taken into account - so IMO a law abiding citizen can be claimed even if he/she occasionally breaks the speed limit - two of the officers above agreed.

 

[meeeb]

Several fundamental errors there Meeeb:



Nowhere have I made any assumptions about you or your profession.

I think you did:- "Regardless of what they may or may not have seen elsewhere, the best form of policing is policing by consent. When you are not exactly the most popular or respected group in society, the quickest way to alienate the public still further is to devote huge resources to catching them when guilty of a minor traffic infringement ...."


The concept of policing by consent is not a subjective one. It has nothing to do with my views on anything nor with the general issue of camera enforcement. It refers to the far wider matter of attitudes to the police as a whole:

Then why bring it up in the context of speed enforcement?


The simple fact is that trust in the police has been declining for years. Your own figures illustrate that whilst 65% (hardly a ringing endorsement in itself) would generally trust the police, 31% readily admit that they would not. And with every high-profile scandal and public pack of lies the figures will just continue to worsen.

The BBC News poll quoted shows no change in the past 30 years. "The figure has varied remarkably little over the past 31 years, generally hovering in the low 60s. The lowest police trust rating was 58% in 2005."
Put the 'ringing endorsement' in the context of how much the public trust other groups. "


OK let's replace "huge" with "disproportionate".

UK police forces have lovely new camera vans packed with expensive equipment and manned all day. Clearly, they prioritise speeding offences (and the revenue that it just so happens to raise) over offences that the rest of us would deem far more serious. There isn't any of my "prejudice, bias and/or ignorance" here - I'm afraid that the facts are unequivocal:

You have a tendency to use words like "huge" and "disproportionate" very glibly. Backing up your assertions with valid data would make your argument more convincing. We could discuss all day, and neither of us could prove one way or the other which one of us has the most relevant views. Some would say that preventing a death, or serious injury on the road, of which there were respectively 1,713 and 21,657 in 2013, ought to be a priority. If the preventative factor of potential prosecution was removed these figures would likely increase, as many drivers cannot be trusted to comply with the law in regard to motoring offences. The Department for Transport's paper regarding road casualties, published in June this year says:-

"There are a number of factors which are likely to have contributed to the falling numbers of people reported killed or injured in road traffic accidents (in 2013). ...... There is also evidence that the average speed in free flow areas as well as the proportion of drivers exceeding the speed limit has decreased over the last decade. This might not only help drivers avoid accidents altogether, but also might reduce the severity and number of casualties when they do occur."

.............

 

[Deleted member 65149]

I am in no doubt speed cameras are a stealth tax I got my nice £100 fine a couple of months ago doing 36 in a 30 this was rolling down a steep hill where you need to be on the brakes to stop yourself the camera van is often hiding there. I must of been in a day dream as completely forgot.

Doing 36 in a 30 limit WHILST IN A DAY DREAM sounds like more than just cause for a hefty fine. Just think yourself lucky that a child didn't chose to dash across the road in front of you instead of a camera pointing at you! Stealth tax my a***!

 

[Scott_F]

Nowhere have I made any assumptions about you or your profession.

I think you did:- "Regardless of what they may or may not have seen elsewhere, the best form of policing is policing by consent. When you are not exactly the most popular or respected group in society, the quickest way to alienate the public still further is to devote huge resources to catching them when guilty of a minor traffic infringement ....".[/QUOTE]

Read the context of my paragraph. That was an abstract "you" and not aimed at anyone in particular.

The concept of policing by consent is not a subjective one. It has nothing to do with my views on anything nor with the general issue of camera enforcement. It refers to the far wider matter of attitudes to the police as a whole:
Then why bring it up in the context of speed enforcement?.[/QUOTE]

Because it's relevant to the topic of maintaining public support. You clearly haven't read or have simply failed to understand the explanation in the link that I posted.

The simple fact is that trust in the police has been declining for years. Your own figures illustrate that whilst 65% (hardly a ringing endorsement in itself) would generally trust the police, 31% readily admit that they would not. And with every high-profile scandal and public pack of lies the figures will just continue to worsen.
The BBC News poll quoted shows no change in the past 30 years. "The figure has varied remarkably little over the past 31 years, generally hovering in the low 60s. The lowest police trust rating was 58% in 2005."
Put the 'ringing endorsement' in the context of how much the public trust other groups. "[/QUOTE]

We are not discussing other groups. In a profession where the importance of public trust is paramount, the fact that nearly one in three people readily admit to not trusting the police is a major concern. The police should strive hard to reduce this figure rather than engaging in practices that alienate and antagonise people.

OK let's replace "huge" with "disproportionate".
UK police forces have lovely new camera vans packed with expensive equipment and manned all day. Clearly, they prioritise speeding offences (and the revenue that it just so happens to raise) over offences that the rest of us would deem far more serious. There isn't any of my "prejudice, bias and/or ignorance" here - I'm afraid that the facts are unequivocal:
You have a tendency to use words like "huge" and "disproportionate" very glibly. Backing up your assertions with valid data would make your argument more convincing. We could discuss all day, and neither of us could prove one way or the other which one of us has the most relevant views. Some would say that preventing a death, or serious injury on the road, of which there were respectively 1,713 and 21,657 in 2013, ought to be a priority. If the preventative factor of potential prosecution was removed these figures would likely increase, as many drivers cannot be trusted to comply with the law in regard to motoring offences. The Department for Transport's paper regarding road casualties, published in June this year says:-
"There are a number of factors which are likely to have contributed to the falling numbers of people reported killed or injured in road traffic accidents (in 2013). ...... There is also evidence that the average speed in free flow areas as well as the proportion of drivers exceeding the speed limit has decreased over the last decade. This might not only help drivers avoid accidents altogether, but also might reduce the severity and number of casualties when they do occur."[/QUOTE]

I'm not glib and I have given you data that you have chosen to ignore. I'll remind you - a large UK force openly admits that it won't attend one-third of the crimes that are reported. No gathering of evidence. No investigation. Nothing. For many offences the police are now becoming seen as simply recorders of crime (and now they even admit to fiddling the figures for that).

 

[E55BOF]

It's all a matter of resources. I trust the police - though not perhaps as much as I used to - but they simply do not have enough to investigate everything that is reported to them; they do the best they can with what they have. The Armed Forces and Border Force, to name two other publicly-funded bodies, are in the same boat. It's not "How much cloth do you need to make the coat?", it's "That's all the cloth you're getting; make the best coat you can."

Some people consider that "The Law is the Law', but let us look beyond that; what is the purpose of the law? Is it not, ultimately, to protect the public from harm? Speed camera vans are cheaper than police officers out there, and they do raise some revenue as well. The problem arises because robots, unlike police officers, cannot discriminate between dangerous and risk-free; they cannot tell when the public is not at risk.

Policing by consent is a very valid point. Why do you think so many people exceed the speed limit? I rather think that for many (generally, and more-or-less) law-abiding citizens, it is because they consider that IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THEN APPERTAINING (deserted motorway early on a Sunday morning, say...) no-one is put at risk.

If you can ask why the law will not allow you to do something, and the only valid answer is "Because it's the law", then either it is a bad law, or it is being badly applied.

 

[johns E350]

Doing 36 in a 30 limit WHILST IN A DAY DREAM sounds like more than just cause for a hefty fine. Just think yourself lucky that a child didn't chose to dash across the road in front of you instead of a camera pointing at you! Stealth tax my a***!

35 years driving never had accident yet. I simply meant I had forgotten they hid there van there. So up your A.... You are