£800K per month.

[Royal24s]

I'm sorry to keep disagreeing with you though, because as I've said before, you're definitely a good guy !

[Zambo]

I'm sorry to keep disagreeing with you though, because as I've said before, you're definitely a good guy !

It would be a boring old place if we were all agreed with each other. I've been disagreeing quite a bit lately with those I usually agree with, but that's OK I reckon.

[Basualdo]

You're Brummy.

[Steve Hunt]

You're Brummy.

Take the "r" out and you'd be close, Bas

[Zambo]

Charmed I'm sure.

[Royal24s]

It is ridiculous logic to say that speed causes deaths. The WRONG speed in the wrong situation may cause an accident or even a fatal one, but going 38 mph in a 30 at 2 am on an empty road with no other cars or pedestrians present, good street lighting and a long arc or vision is not dangerous.
Police cars often go fast all the time but they don't usually kill people on the way.
To simplify this down to speed kills is just to take one factor, add the outcome and reach a simplistic but incorrect conclusion.
It's like noting that most drownings involve boats and concluding that boats cause drowning.

Ice cream sales correlate with drowning rates, therefore ice cream must be the problem

[Hillman avenger]

Snag with this theory
Local councils and police forces don't get to keep any surplus. It goes to a central fund which then redistributes for road safety projects.
In fact this is a piece of law which is highly enforceable, gets a 98℅ conviction rate, is cheap to administer and which is self-funding.
The notion that we can let people decide speeds without limit is ludicrous. People notoriously over rate their own driving ability and are increasingly prone to distractions. Every 10mph increase in speed reduces reaction time and increases force of impact.
If this many drivers in one place break the limit more fool them.

[Royal24s]

Snag with this theory
Local councils and police forces don't get to keep any surplus. It goes to a central fund which then redistributes for road safety projects.
In fact this is a piece of law which is highly enforceable, gets a 98℅ conviction rate, is cheap to administer and which is self-funding.
The notion that we can let people decide speeds without limit is ludicrous. People notoriously over rate their own driving ability and are increasingly prone to distractions. Every 10mph increase in speed reduces reaction time and increases force of impact.
If this many drivers in one place break the limit more fool them.

A triumph of disjointed facts and statistics over logical thought. A cat is an animal with four legs and a tail, my dog has four legs and a tail, therefore my dog is a cat !
No one suggested that the law allows people to decide their own speed limits, but that these limits and enforcement of them should take consideration of the prevailing circumstances at the material time.
Littering is anti social and illegal, but we do not prosecute a man who discards his shopping on the pavement to dive into the Thames and rescue a drowning child .
Why not ? Because the matter is not being decided by some pencil necked council goon with a spy camera.

The key to the lie here is the word "surplus". That is after the blood suckers have spent a great deal of money on self beneficial projects and creative income streams such as "speed awareness" courses.
Finally, when we ask whether something is enforceable , we mean generally and equally enforceable, not that it is easy to find a large number of offences because it's something everyone does, but that 99% of offences go un noticed.

[Hillman avenger]

More nonsense.
It clearly IS enforceable. That why people are upset.
As for the speed awareness courses they canbe quite effective in making people more thoughtful about their driving which can onlybe good. The cost is only £30 or so more than the fine so it isn't a great source of revenue.

Its amusing when people who bang on about enforcing the law somehow expect that not to b :the case for their own infraction

[m4rkb]

Surely they can afford to put more traffic cops on the road pulling bad drivers for proper reasons out of the proceeds. Most people are fully behind the Police pulling and prosecuting dangerous driving but aren't so keen on seeing huge revenues raked in over minor breaches of the speed limit. There are many far more dangerous ways to drive than just being a few miles an hour over the limit.

I've always found that drivers who find it hard to take their foot off the gas have many other areas which need improving too like tailgating or poor lane discipline. It was not uncommon to hear a court in the days of old tell someone to retake their test.

I've been in more than a few cars where the driver is doing well under the limit and hasn't got a fucking clue; cutting people up all over the place hitting the kerb, and all sorts of things which are apparently safe because he's going slow.

I've also seen people doing 25/30 on industrial parks which have signs up saying 5MPH. Who the fuck can drive at 5MPH? This is around 6 times the speed limit.

[beingsoblase]

More nonsense.
It clearly IS enforceable. That why people are upset.
As for the speed awareness courses they canbe quite effective in making people more thoughtful about their driving which can onlybe good. The cost is only £30 or so more than the fine so it isn't a great source of revenue.

Its amusing when people who bang on about enforcing the law somehow expect that not to b :the case for their own infraction

£30 pound hillman? when did you take yours, 1978? the one i took was £100, last december and thats the going rate countrywide, that said i actually thought it maybe should have been cheaper because i did benefit from attending one.

[Hillman avenger]

The difference between the fine and the course

[m4rkb]

More nonsense.
It clearly IS enforceable. That why people are upset.
As for the speed awareness courses they canbe quite effective in making people more thoughtful about their driving which can onlybe good. The cost is only £30 or so more than the fine so it isn't a great source of revenue.

Its amusing when people who bang on about enforcing the law somehow expect that not to b :the case for their own infraction

£30 pound hillman? when did you take yours, 1978? the one i took was £100, last december and thats the going rate countrywide, that said i actually thought it maybe should have been cheaper because i did benefit from attending one.

Mine was £80 but in a sense worth it as the fine was bigger and the insurance could use it as an excuse to hike my premium for the next 6 years.

But I learned fuck all from it that I didn't know before and I am no safer after it than before either. I got caught by average speed cameras on the M5 when there were no road works going on yet the speed restriction was in force. Variable digital signs could have been used telling us we could all safely do 50 in this stretch but they were metal signs weighed down with sand bags so we know no one could be really bothered to adjust anything accordingly. I went with the general flow so it must by their definition of dangerous driving have been one of the mnost dangerous stretched of road in the Midlands with almost everyone speeding. No reports of any accidents mind but this is the prevention game

The excuse was the workers could have left plant on the road so extra care was needed. Well if they knew anything about any normal road there's a just as much chance of having to avoid things in the carriageway as on a motorway and I'm on the lookout anyway. They're getting me mixed up with someone who's fucking blind.

The lecturers must have been the two most boring fuckers ever to walk God's earth and neither of them had a better driving record than me because both by their own admission had been done for speeding themselves.

Any road, the lecture went over by about half an hour so I was late for where I needed to get to next. It's their fault I had to put my foot down t get there on time.

[Royal24s]

More nonsense.
It clearly IS enforceable. That why people are upset.
As for the speed awareness courses they canbe quite effective in making people more thoughtful about their driving which can onlybe good. The cost is only £30 or so more than the fine so it isn't a great source of revenue.

Its amusing when people who bang on about enforcing the law somehow expect that not to b :the case for their own infraction

When I explained what enforceable means in terms of jurisprudence , you simply said it again, which isn't an argument is it ?
If we did that debates would consist of two people shouting " yes it is" and "no it isn't " till one of them dies, which would be tiresome .

If you go back to your last posting, in which you pointed out that fines don't go to the councils and police, you will perhaps work out that since the profits from speed awareness courses do go to the councils and police then that is why they are a big source of revenue to them.
In fact, you will see from statistics that you are far more likely to receive a ticket for doing 36 in a 30 than 50 in a 30, and this is because it's within the figure where a speed awareness course can be offered. Cameras are placed in locations where there will be small excesses of speed rather than villages for example where people rattle through the main street at 100mph plus , and this is because they're less concerned about actual danger than raking in money.
Is there no limit to your slavish acceptance of anything the State does to you ?

[Zambo]

Courses? Waste of time. This is black and white as most things are. If you want to stop anything which breaks the law, you have to set the punishment high enough to act as that, and to lock in a deterrent. ffs sake it's not rocket science. Anyone out there will be able to work out in their own mind what the level is/should be. The problem with all this shit is lack of enforcement though. If there is no one out there to catch the cunts, some people are going to risk it even if the punishment is severe.

[antdad]

More nonsense.
It clearly IS enforceable. That why people are upset.
As for the speed awareness courses they can be quite effective in making people more thoughtful about their driving which can only be good. The cost is only £30 or so more than the fine so it isn't a great source of revenue.

Its amusing when people who bang on about enforcing the law somehow expect that not to b :the case for their own infraction

When I explained what enforceable means in terms of jurisprudence , you simply said it again, which isn't an argument is it ?
If we did that debates would consist of two people shouting " yes it is" and "no it isn't " till one of them dies, which would be tiresome .

If you go back to your last posting, in which you pointed out that fines don't go to the councils and police, you will perhaps work out that since the profits from speed awareness courses do go to the councils and police then that is why they are a big source of revenue to them.
In fact, you will see from statistics that you are far more likely to receive a ticket for doing 36 in a 30 than 50 in a 30, and this is because it's within the figure where a speed awareness course can be offered. Cameras are placed in locations where there will be small excesses of speed rather than villages for example where people rattle through the main street at 100mph plus , and this is because they're less concerned about actual danger than raking in money.
Is there no limit to your slavish acceptance of anything the State does to you ?

Firstly a proportion of the monies generated by sacs go to the police and never to local councils, secondly more tickets are issued at speeds below 40mph because yes most offenses and pedestrian/vehicle accidents actually occur at those speeds in built up areas more than any other. However the reason this speed range is targeted (and I'm surprised you don't know as a former police officer) is principally about mortality rates with the chance of death if being hit by a car traveling at 40mph increasing four fold than if it were traveling at 30mph.

[Royal24s]

Well, as I said elsewhere I'm afraid I tended to waste my time investigating murders and terrorism instead of hanging round the High Street checking tax discs , so I'm not all that au fair with that bollocks I must admit. Nonetheless , common sense would suggest that 60 might be more dangerous still.
On the other hand, I know of a local location where people are routinely whipping along at 100 on an A Road with oncoming traffic and no central barrier. There are signs up noting the score of fatals on that stretch which have to be regularly updated but no cameras. About 1000 yards away there are 4 cameras in a village where there's never been a serious accident as far as I know but people tend to exceed the 30 a bit occasionally and not unreasonably given the local road conditions.

[antdad]

In fact, you will see from statistics that you are far more likely to receive a ticket for doing 36 in a 30 than 50 in a 30, and this is because it's within the figure where a speed awareness course can be offered. Cameras are placed in locations where there will be small excesses of speed rather than villages for example where people rattle through the main street at 100mph plus , and this is because they're less concerned about actual danger than raking in money. Is there no limit to your slavish acceptance of anything the State does to you ?

Did you really write that nonsense? Could it not be that most speeding in a 30mph zone isn't usually excessive and occurs up to say 45mph rather than 50 + mph just as most speeding above 70mph doesn't occur above 90+ mph and why when caught traveling at excessively above certain limits you are immediately court summoned rather than given the option of attending a sac. To dispel another myth although benefiting from sacs the police have no say as to where cameras are placed, that's between the LEA ( who only receive setup and running costs), the DOT and an independent road safety body.


https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q584.htm

[antdad]

Well, as I said elsewhere I'm afraid I tended to waste my time investigating murders and terrorism instead of hanging round the High Street checking tax discs , so I'm not all that au fair with that bollocks I must admit. Nonetheless , common sense would suggest that 60 might be more dangerous still.
On the other hand, I know of a local location where people are routinely whipping along at 100 on an A Road with oncoming traffic and no central barrier. There are signs up noting the score of fatals on that stretch which have to be regularly updated but no cameras. About 1000 yards away there are 4 cameras in a village where there's never been a serious accident as far as I know but people tend to exceed the 30 a bit occasionally and not unreasonably given the local road conditions.

Just because I know a 94 year old 40-a-day smoker doesn't mean I advocate smoking or disagree with public health policy, and you investigated serious crime?

[Hillman avenger]

One of the myths in this is that it is instead of policing.
That's one of the merits of the camera system.
It does not divert any police time as the entire operation is civilian staffed, with the exception of a police officer overseeing the admin-one for each force.
It is self-funding.
So if there are less traffic officers about that's for other reasons.
As for tax discs, they were eliminated a year ago anyway, and I have never seen a police officer spending time checking them.
And as for priorities, I am pretty sure that although it is declining, deaths and serious injuries from road incidents still exceed those from murder and assault.
Last figures death on roads 1775 , by murder 518.

[Royal24s]

Well obviously there are gong to be more accidents than murders. Do we really need to start making graphs to work that out, or is that just another example of the bean counting mindset which makes it so hard to get anything done in this country ?

You're quite right that the police n longer deal with this crap, and most of them are angry about the way it's currently done, as well as the fact that they still get blamed for it by the public.
Traffic have always been a bunch of trivial linear minded twats who drive a wedge between the real police and the general public they're trying to work for. I wouldn't like to imagine how many vital witnesses have been alienated and normal decent people who've had they're trust in the police soured by some officious little PC in a white hat treating them like the enemy because they had a bald tyre or a faulty brake light.
At this point the same antipathy is being achieved without any actual police involvement because the public generally perceive that this trivial and money raking way of enforcing marginal infractions is done by the police.

[Royal24s]

Their trust - I'm not editing it but blame the spellcheck Hillman, don't give me a spelling lesson

[Michaelfatley]

Their trust - I'm not editing it but blame the spellcheck Hillman, don't give me a spelling lesson

Lesson for you there Hillman.
Always blame the proof reader for clicking submit before reading the post.

[Hillman avenger]

He has a very interesting view of the law for a police officer.

He was, of course, only concerned with the IMPORTANT stuff, not the stuff that costs 1700 lives a year.

As for the spell checking, wasn't even bothered. The post was so tedious I was not interested long before the end.

[Michaelfatley]

He has a very interesting view of the law for a police officer.

He was, of course, only concerned with the IMPORTANT stuff, not the stuff that costs 1700 lives a year.

As for the spell checking, wasn't even bothered. The post was so tedious I was not interested long before the end.

I wouldn't know as I didn't trouble myself to read it; it was the brevity of his subsequent post which caught my eye.
Usually I begin to lose interest in his/her posts long before the beginning.