Marque
Active Member
There has been much comment recently about 'unnecessary' enforcement of traffic regulations 'just to make money' and how the police 'should be solving real crimes'. This has divided forum members broadly into two camps:
Let's start with a basic premise: we need to regulate traffic and how people use the roads. This seems obvious to me, but I will provide some reasons just in case anyone thinks otherwise:
I'm not trying to say that every speed limit is sensible, but let's presume for a moment that the ones we have are broadly reasonable. The question then becomes how should speed limits be enforced?
Any rule that is not actually enforced is basically 'advisory'. I'm sure that everyone on this forum would agree that effective enforcement of speed limits and other traffic regulations is necessary, otherwise the carnage on our roads would be two or three times worse than it is now.
So, we need traffic regulations and we need them to be enforced. How should this be done? Let's take speed limits as an example.
Almost every driver exceeds the speed limit at some time, often many times a day. (I do and so does everyone I know.) By and large, we don't do it deliberately or unsafely; it's just very difficult to stick exactly to a certain speed and to see or to remember every time the speed limit changes.
Anyway, most people want to get where they are going as soon as possible. Even if you're not bothered, other drivers would get very frustrated if you didn't drive at the speed limit or above. (Learner drivers are taught to drive at the speed limit and can fail their driving test for going too slow.)
Here is the contradiction: how should we as a society enforce a rule that pretty much everyone breaks frequently? Well, what about not enforcing speed limits. This is not an option for the reasons outlined earlier. OK, let's only enforce 'excessive' speeding (10 mph over the limit, say). In this case, you are basically increasing the speed limit, so surely it would be clearer just to put the enforced speed limit on the sign.
Well, it turns out that the most efficient way to enforce speed limits is by random sampling. "What the heck has random sampling got to do with traffic enforcement?" I hear you cry. Let me explain.
There are, say, 10,000,000 speeding violations that occur every day in this country. Speed cameras and police checks catch around 1 in every 1,000 speeding violations, say. That means that around 10,000 speeders are caught each day. [My numbers are for illustration purposes only and have no evidential basis.]
Obviously, all sorts are people are caught speeding in this way: sensible drivers, boy racers, and everything in between. The important point is not whether you are caught speeding (it will probably happen to all but the most careful drivers) it is rather how frequently you are caught. If you are caught four times in three years then the law regards you as an unsafe driver who should be banned from driving. If you are caught only once or twice in three years then you are just a typical driver. If you have not been caught speeding in three years then either you are a careful driver or you don't drive much.
So, if you are caught speeding once, treat it as a warning and be more careful in future. Don't moan, "I was only doing 32 in a 30 zone." Speeding is speeding (and not a crime). It was just your unlucky day. Or think about the other 1,000 times you were not caught speeding!
As for the police, I think they do a pretty good job. In fact, they do many jobs: catching criminals, enforcing traffic regulations, finding lost children, etc. They are needed to catch speeding motorists where there are no cameras because otherwise the sampling rate would be too low and the whole enforcement system would collapse.
The police also use things like speed traps to enforce other motoring laws, including diving licence, vehicle registration, MOT, insurance and roadworthiness. Enforcement of these laws is done by checking everyone who is stopped for any reason. If they didn't do it then many more people would just ignore these laws.
Speed cameras can make money, but the police don't. It costs much more to send some coppers out to enforce traffic laws than any fines collected. (Fines don't go back to the police anyway.)
Of course, not all coppers are as fair as they should be, and various members of this forum have reported unpleasant episodes when police have stopped them. They are just human, and it must test their patience having to deal with the constant abuse and lying from some members of the public. This can make them rather cynical. However, the vast majority are pretty good when faced with polite compliance, in my experience.
Anyone who feels that the traffic enforcement system is wrong in some way should blame the people who make the rules, not those who enforce them. For example, I think that speeding offences should be more graduated (i.e. £40 + 2 points if 0-10 mph over the limit, £60 + 3 points if 11-20 mph over the limit, £100 + 4 points if 21-30 mph over the limit). However, a Government proposal like this seems to have been kicked into the long grass.
All the above is just my personal opinion and not aimed at any member of this forum!
- those who want the police to stop harassing honest motorists and to concentrate on catching criminals
- and those who think people should take responsibility for their own actions.
Let's start with a basic premise: we need to regulate traffic and how people use the roads. This seems obvious to me, but I will provide some reasons just in case anyone thinks otherwise:
- Our roads are very crowded. Traffic must be regulated to prevent chaos and gridlock.
- Vehicles and drivers must be licensed because vehicles are lethal weapons. (Even America licenses guns and gun owners.)
I'm not trying to say that every speed limit is sensible, but let's presume for a moment that the ones we have are broadly reasonable. The question then becomes how should speed limits be enforced?
Any rule that is not actually enforced is basically 'advisory'. I'm sure that everyone on this forum would agree that effective enforcement of speed limits and other traffic regulations is necessary, otherwise the carnage on our roads would be two or three times worse than it is now.
So, we need traffic regulations and we need them to be enforced. How should this be done? Let's take speed limits as an example.
Almost every driver exceeds the speed limit at some time, often many times a day. (I do and so does everyone I know.) By and large, we don't do it deliberately or unsafely; it's just very difficult to stick exactly to a certain speed and to see or to remember every time the speed limit changes.
Anyway, most people want to get where they are going as soon as possible. Even if you're not bothered, other drivers would get very frustrated if you didn't drive at the speed limit or above. (Learner drivers are taught to drive at the speed limit and can fail their driving test for going too slow.)
Here is the contradiction: how should we as a society enforce a rule that pretty much everyone breaks frequently? Well, what about not enforcing speed limits. This is not an option for the reasons outlined earlier. OK, let's only enforce 'excessive' speeding (10 mph over the limit, say). In this case, you are basically increasing the speed limit, so surely it would be clearer just to put the enforced speed limit on the sign.
Well, it turns out that the most efficient way to enforce speed limits is by random sampling. "What the heck has random sampling got to do with traffic enforcement?" I hear you cry. Let me explain.
There are, say, 10,000,000 speeding violations that occur every day in this country. Speed cameras and police checks catch around 1 in every 1,000 speeding violations, say. That means that around 10,000 speeders are caught each day. [My numbers are for illustration purposes only and have no evidential basis.]
Obviously, all sorts are people are caught speeding in this way: sensible drivers, boy racers, and everything in between. The important point is not whether you are caught speeding (it will probably happen to all but the most careful drivers) it is rather how frequently you are caught. If you are caught four times in three years then the law regards you as an unsafe driver who should be banned from driving. If you are caught only once or twice in three years then you are just a typical driver. If you have not been caught speeding in three years then either you are a careful driver or you don't drive much.
So, if you are caught speeding once, treat it as a warning and be more careful in future. Don't moan, "I was only doing 32 in a 30 zone." Speeding is speeding (and not a crime). It was just your unlucky day. Or think about the other 1,000 times you were not caught speeding!
As for the police, I think they do a pretty good job. In fact, they do many jobs: catching criminals, enforcing traffic regulations, finding lost children, etc. They are needed to catch speeding motorists where there are no cameras because otherwise the sampling rate would be too low and the whole enforcement system would collapse.
The police also use things like speed traps to enforce other motoring laws, including diving licence, vehicle registration, MOT, insurance and roadworthiness. Enforcement of these laws is done by checking everyone who is stopped for any reason. If they didn't do it then many more people would just ignore these laws.
Speed cameras can make money, but the police don't. It costs much more to send some coppers out to enforce traffic laws than any fines collected. (Fines don't go back to the police anyway.)
Of course, not all coppers are as fair as they should be, and various members of this forum have reported unpleasant episodes when police have stopped them. They are just human, and it must test their patience having to deal with the constant abuse and lying from some members of the public. This can make them rather cynical. However, the vast majority are pretty good when faced with polite compliance, in my experience.
Anyone who feels that the traffic enforcement system is wrong in some way should blame the people who make the rules, not those who enforce them. For example, I think that speeding offences should be more graduated (i.e. £40 + 2 points if 0-10 mph over the limit, £60 + 3 points if 11-20 mph over the limit, £100 + 4 points if 21-30 mph over the limit). However, a Government proposal like this seems to have been kicked into the long grass.
All the above is just my personal opinion and not aimed at any member of this forum!
