Dan, I don't know why I would answer someone whose been banned on the BBS for winding up poor innocent palace fans but there seem to be more and more "average speed" cameras on motorways esp at road works.
I know...Im a bad bad man :-)
There are now and they work very well, so why not use them over 200-500 yards either side of school gates meaning that motorists dont just slow down and the accelerate back up to their original speed?
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]
In my opinion there is not that much need for the police to involve themselves in speeding because of the preponderance of cameras effectively doing the job for them. The cameras should be releasing police to apprehend the murderers, rapists, muggers , burglars, vandals etc that blight the quality of life of far too many people.
what about where there aren't cameras though? they can't be on every road? people don't speed on every road, so surely some percentage of police have to dedicate an amount of time to road safety. protecting kids, adults and cyclists and other motorists. its in the interest of the public to have the police enforcing the rules.
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]If i speed and get caught my fault i wont get the ache about it when i get prosecuted i have broken the law
however
If i get Burgled i expect the OB to come to my house preferably within the hr hopefully same day not the next.
I want prints done and i want the bstd caught
If i get my car vandalised i expect the same
if i or any of my family get hurt by a scum bag I expect the same
Absolutely spot on
So getting back to the original point, is it the fault of the police not attending to your crimes, or is it the fault of other rule breakers for speeding for leading to the police wasting their time dealing with other issues to come to your aid?
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]
In my opinion there is not that much need for the police to involve themselves in speeding because of the preponderance of cameras effectively doing the job for them. The cameras should be releasing police to apprehend the murderers, rapists, muggers , burglars, vandals etc that blight the quality of life of far too many people.
what about where there aren't cameras though? they can't be on every road? people don't speed on every road, so surely some percentage of police have to dedicate an amount of time to road safety. protecting kids, adults and cyclists and other motorists. its in the interest of the public to have the police enforcing the rules.
We come back to the "limited resources" point. If the police are chasing motorists (a job already being done in part by cameras) they are not investigating crimes that the majority of the public, the people they are meant to be serving don't forget, regard as far more serious and worrying.
My point essentially is that with finite resources choices need to be made and at present those choices are driven by quotas and financial considerations rather than protection of the public and prevention of those crimes of most concern to the public.
Suzi if i speed as i get caught OK. if its by a camera OK. If i have to pay a fine OK.
The point is that OB see motorists as an easy target. Henry says dont speed and therefore more OB will be able to go after the more serious criminals. Possibly they would. What though if today the OB stopped going hell for leather after the mororist and did get back on the streets ? would there be a huge rise in people breaking mororing laws ? would people suddenly drive faster ? are people more concerned about someone driving 40MPH in a 30MPH zone of the fact the may be burgled or stabbed ?
I thought the two elemements of the Police mission statement was to "protect and serve " sorry but i just see that as laughable.
Suzi when ur driving over blackheath or down Gravel Hill do yu keep to 30MPH ? i dont have a big car or drive that fast but i dont keep to 30 in those areas and dont know many who would or do.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]are people more concerned about someone driving 40MPH in a 30MPH zone of the fact the may be burgled or stabbed ?
Depends on whether or not me/my friends or my family are going to get knocked over and killed by said driver whereas if he/she was going 30mph there would be less chance of it happening.
And I know people should be looking when crossing the road etc.
And i've been done for speeding and do speed in built up areas so i'm not preaching here. I can understand where Suze is coming from though.
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]So getting back to the original point, is it the fault of the police not attending to your crimes, or is it the fault of other rule breakers for speeding for leading to the police wasting their time dealing with other issues to come to your aid?
blame the offenders not the police.
Can blame for the police for getting their priorities very wrong.
Going back to that herbert who is breaking into sheds/garages. I'd like him off the streets. Why? An example - The neighbour to the back of us is ex forces, he's in his 60's now so physically not good but still has the 'have a go' mentality. What if his shed is next, he hears the burgular and comes out to confront him? The herbert has tools with him for breaking in, screwdriver, jimmy, whatever. Which way do you think the confrontation will go? I know where my money would go... yet with decent policing, herbert could have been in the nick months ago...
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Suzi if i speed as i get caught OK. if its by a camera OK. If i have to pay a fine OK.
The point is that OB see motorists as an easy target. Henry says dont speed and therefore more OB will be able to go after the more serious criminals. Possibly they would. What though if today the OB stopped going hell for leather after the mororist and did get back on the streets ? would there be a huge rise in people breaking mororing laws ? would people suddenly drive faster ? are people more concerned about someone driving 40MPH in a 30MPH zone of the fact the may be burgled or stabbed ?
I thought the two elemements of the Police mission statement was to "protect and serve " sorry but i just see that as laughable.
Suzi when ur driving over blackheath or down Gravel Hill do yu keep to 30MPH ? i dont have a big car or drive that fast but i dont keep to 30 in those areas and dont know many who would or do.
the thing is, driving affects you, and its like afka says, and easy arguement. if you get burgled you want an instant response, you deem that more important. but what if your wife/relative was killed by someone doing 35 in a 40 zone, and you knew that the police couldn't attend as they were seeing to someone who had a gnome stolen from their front garden? its all about personally feeling what is more important to you at the time. its also about prevention. by preventing people speeding, stops people getting hurt so often. in the grand scheme of things, what is more important, stopping someone getting run over or a scratch on the side of the car?
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite] so Dan, are you saying that people speed to raise money for the govt?
if you don't want your money to go to the govt through fines, then don't do the crime that leads to that!
Suze there's no need to be obtuse. I'm giving you my perspective on something, apologies if they don't match yours.
You're missing the point that I and many others have made in that were not complaining about paying fines if we've committed the crime, however, and there has been evidence provided here to back it up, that speed cameras and catching speeding drivers is not only about preventing speeding / accidents, but also about raising funds and bring up offence quotas. This is on top of various other forms of taxation and exploitation due to the fact that we all need to use our cars and will use them no matter what the cost to us.
I'm not trying to talk you around to my perception, but rather suggesting a point of view you may not have considered.
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]but what if your wife/relative was killed by someone doing 35 in a 40 zone,
Not seeing what that's got to do with this... the driver hasnt broken the law. Car accidents are often just that, an accident... kid runs out between two parked cars, pissed up pedestrian staggers into the road etc
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]So getting back to the original point, is it the fault of the police not attending to your crimes, or is it the fault of other rule breakers for speeding for leading to the police wasting their time dealing with other issues to come to your aid?
blame the offenders not the police.
Can blame for the police for getting their priorities very wrong.
Going back to that herbert who is breaking into sheds/garages. I'd like him off the streets. Why? An example - The neighbour to the back of us is ex forces, he's in his 60's now so physically not good but still has the 'have a go' mentality. What if his shed is next, he hears the burgular and comes out to confront him? The herbert has tools with him for breaking in, screwdriver, jimmy, whatever. Which way do you think the confrontation will go? I know where my money would go... yet with decent policing, herbert could have been in the nick months ago...
Policeman number 1: bloke just went past at 90 mph on his way down to a quiet estate, lets go
policeman number 2: sorry, we just got a call that an hour ago a bloke got his shed broken into and they nicked his gnomes, hoe and lawn mower we've gotta go down there and take prints
policeman number 1: ok, lets get going
radio: alert to policeman 1 & 2 - child just been knocked down in quiet estate by a drive doing 90mph
policeman number 1: just finishing up doing some prints of a gnome stealer, be there in a bit
obviously extreme, but you see my point! its not personal, but its a quick decision they surely have to make, and whats to say in your area something could have been going down that was just 1 iota more important than what happened to you, and then the next day and then the next day.... the resources aren't there, and that stinks, i do sympathise with you for it not being dealt with, but for your crime that wasn't solved, perhaps they solved some other things that were really important to someone else that day.....
A few of you are discussing and speed cameras like they are a profit making organisation - surely it just goes back into the stystem to fund more beat bobbies, more traffic calming measures etc... it's going back into the system not lining the pockets of a few, i'd prefer they had this money to channel elsewhere than not at all...
"Portect and serve" is a US thing. The Met Mission Statement is -
Making London safe for all the people we serve. We make places safer. We cut crime and the fear of crime. We uphold the law
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]they nicked his gnomes, hoe and lawn mower we've gotta go down there and take prints
For someone who knows Medders' missus to call her a hoe is a bit out of order....
Dan, you can't say that speed camera fines is a tax as we can avoid them. Yes, people do need to use their cars but they need them to use them within the law.
If people don't want to get the government to get money this way they don't speed - its simple.
I'd understand an uproar if they suddenly dropped the speed limits to 20, 30, and 50 but the current speeds are more than adequate in my opinion.
You can't moan or blame the government for making money on things that we have total control over and it is our decision whether or not we act in a way that will give them money. Fuel and congestion charge you can moan about, but breaking the law? Sorry, can't buy that at all.
so Dan, are you saying that people speed to raise money for the govt?
if you don't want your money to go to the govt through fines, then don't do the crime that leads to that!
Suze there's no need to be obtuse. I'm giving you my perspective on something, apologies if they don't match yours.
You're missing the point that I and many others have made in that were not complaining about paying fines if we've committed the crime, however, and there has been evidence provided here to back it up, that speed cameras and catching speeding drivers is not only about preventing speeding / accidents, but also about raising funds and bring up offence quotas. This is on top of various other forms of taxation and exploitation due to the fact that we all need to use our cars and will use them no matter what the cost to us.
I'm not trying to talk you around to my perception, but rather suggesting a point of view you may not have considered.
I'm not being obtuse, i'm merely pointing out that people are only seeing it from your personal perspective. on the greater scale you should be angry with other speeders who are taking your resources that you deserve for being a law abider (i'm not being sarcastic, you know wha ti mean) if EVERYONE stayed at 30mph where they should, then other crimes would get solved, as they don't, thats where we have the issue. I'm not saying you personally, i'm not saying other people on this site, there are hundreds of people that speed, as they don't think about the ongoing effect it has on others that have other issues that need dealing with. its selfish and it spirals on to worse things. what is something small to everyone going 32 in a 30 zone, has bigger implications in the bigger picture. and all i'm saying is, that its not the polices fault that people speed.
people are happy to pay the fines for the speed they have done, but perhaps they haven't thought about the time it takes to process all that? I havent really mentioned that today anyway. I'm just trying to see it from the police perspective and perhaps looking at it from a different angle.
medders: this is getting backto the prevention argument in the first pages though. Don't we all talk about how we wish the police could stop kids carrying guns/knives around in the first place, and not feel the need to take them out let alone use them. prevention.
Preventing someone from speeding is essentially preventing someone from knockign someone down? no?
in the City I am much more likely, ten times at least in fact, to be injured in a collision with a cyclist who is either jumping a light, on the pavement, going the wrong way up a one-way street, going excessively fast than I am by a car but they don't even seemingly have to abide by the road rules. That camera down Gravel Hill is a joke, you'd go over 30 down there with your engine switched off.
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]So getting back to the original point, is it the fault of the police not attending to your crimes, or is it the fault of other rule breakers for speeding for leading to the police wasting their time dealing with other issues to come to your aid?
blame the offenders not the police.
Can blame for the police for getting their priorities very wrong.
Going back to that herbert who is breaking into sheds/garages. I'd like him off the streets. Why? An example - The neighbour to the back of us is ex forces, he's in his 60's now so physically not good but still has the 'have a go' mentality. What if his shed is next, he hears the burgular and comes out to confront him? The herbert has tools with him for breaking in, screwdriver, jimmy, whatever. Which way do you think the confrontation will go? I know where my money would go... yet with decent policing, herbert could have been in the nick months ago...
Policeman number 1: bloke just went past at 90 mph on his way down to a quiet estate, lets go
policeman number 2: sorry, we just got a call that an hour ago a bloke got his shed broken into and they nicked his gnomes, hoe and lawn mower we've gotta go down there and take prints
policeman number 1: ok, lets get going
radio: alert to policeman 1 & 2 - child just been knocked down in quiet estate by a drive doing 90mph
policeman number 1: just finishing up doing some prints of a gnome stealer, be there in a bit
obviously extreme, but you see my point! its not personal, but its a quick decision they surely have to make, and whats to say in your area something could have been going down that was just 1 iota more important than what happened to you, and then the next day and then the next day.... the resources aren't there, and that stinks, i do sympathise with you for it not being dealt with, but for your crime that wasn't solved, perhaps they solved some other things that were really important to someone else that day.....
But the point is not whether a child has been knocked down by a driver doing 90 in a built up area, cos that obviously takes priority over garden gnomes. We're talking about getting nicked on an A Road doing 55 in a 50 by a camera thats hidden behind a road sign 500 yards from the nearest off ramp.
Plus the Police dont process tend to get involved in speeding issues in built up areas as the majority are caught by camera which goes to the DVLA in Swansea.
Speed cameras, which I'll say again, I am not againts per say as they actually free up the Police to tend to garden gnomes, knocked over children etc, what I am against is when theyre deployed in safe areas, and therefore NOT accident blackspots, just to generate funds and increase offence quotas.
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]medders: this is getting backto the prevention argument in the first pages though. Don't we all talk about how we wish the police could stop kids carrying guns/knives around in the first place, and not feel the need to take them out let alone use them. prevention.
Preventing someone from speeding is essentially preventing someone from knockign someone down? no?
No. I could knock someone over, in a 30 zone, doing 25 mph and still kill or seriously injure them.
[cite]Posted By: Charlton Dan[/cite] But the point is not whether a child has been knocked down by a driver doing 90 in a built up area, cos that obviously takes priority over garden gnomes. We're talking about getting nicked on an A Road doing 55 in a 50 by a camera thats hidden behind a road sign 500 yards from the nearest off ramp
I'm not Dan, you might be. who cares if the camera is hidden. if you're doing 55 in a 50 you shouldn't be. if it being there stops you from driving so fast down that road next time, then its done the job.
i dont think you understand that its preventative and trying to help people, rather than trying to stitch you up. its better to stop the people getting killed before they are, rather than saying afterwards "if there had been a speed camera here it would have saved that life as people would have obeyed it and not gone faster"
[cite]Posted By: suzisausage[/cite]medders: this is getting backto the prevention argument in the first pages though. Don't we all talk about how we wish the police could stop kids carrying guns/knives around in the first place, and not feel the need to take them out let alone use them. prevention.
Preventing someone from speeding is essentially preventing someone from knockign someone down? no?
No. I could knock someone over, in a 30 zone, doing 25 mph and still kill or seriously injure them.
it could yes. and would you deny that the investigations into that were put in line behind your shed?
Comments
what about where there aren't cameras though? they can't be on every road? people don't speed on every road, so surely some percentage of police have to dedicate an amount of time to road safety. protecting kids, adults and cyclists and other motorists. its in the interest of the public to have the police enforcing the rules.
Absolutely spot on
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Alan Pardew's Red and White Army
Whoops! Sorry wrong ridiculously long thread.....
So getting back to the original point, is it the fault of the police not attending to your crimes, or is it the fault of other rule breakers for speeding for leading to the police wasting their time dealing with other issues to come to your aid?
blame the offenders not the police.
We come back to the "limited resources" point. If the police are chasing motorists (a job already being done in part by cameras) they are not investigating crimes that the majority of the public, the people they are meant to be serving don't forget, regard as far more serious and worrying.
My point essentially is that with finite resources choices need to be made and at present those choices are driven by quotas and financial considerations rather than protection of the public and prevention of those crimes of most concern to the public.
The point is that OB see motorists as an easy target. Henry says dont speed and therefore more OB will be able to go after the more serious criminals. Possibly they would. What though if today the OB stopped going hell for leather after the mororist and did get back on the streets ? would there be a huge rise in people breaking mororing laws ? would people suddenly drive faster ? are people more concerned about someone driving 40MPH in a 30MPH zone of the fact the may be burgled or stabbed ?
I thought the two elemements of the Police mission statement was to "protect and serve " sorry but i just see that as laughable.
Suzi when ur driving over blackheath or down Gravel Hill do yu keep to 30MPH ? i dont have a big car or drive that fast but i dont keep to 30 in those areas and dont know many who would or do.
And I know people should be looking when crossing the road etc.
And i've been done for speeding and do speed in built up areas so i'm not preaching here. I can understand where Suze is coming from though.
Can blame for the police for getting their priorities very wrong.
Going back to that herbert who is breaking into sheds/garages. I'd like him off the streets. Why? An example - The neighbour to the back of us is ex forces, he's in his 60's now so physically not good but still has the 'have a go' mentality. What if his shed is next, he hears the burgular and comes out to confront him? The herbert has tools with him for breaking in, screwdriver, jimmy, whatever. Which way do you think the confrontation will go? I know where my money would go... yet with decent policing, herbert could have been in the nick months ago...
the thing is, driving affects you, and its like afka says, and easy arguement. if you get burgled you want an instant response, you deem that more important. but what if your wife/relative was killed by someone doing 35 in a 40 zone, and you knew that the police couldn't attend as they were seeing to someone who had a gnome stolen from their front garden? its all about personally feeling what is more important to you at the time. its also about prevention. by preventing people speeding, stops people getting hurt so often. in the grand scheme of things, what is more important, stopping someone getting run over or a scratch on the side of the car?
Suze there's no need to be obtuse. I'm giving you my perspective on something, apologies if they don't match yours.
You're missing the point that I and many others have made in that were not complaining about paying fines if we've committed the crime, however, and there has been evidence provided here to back it up, that speed cameras and catching speeding drivers is not only about preventing speeding / accidents, but also about raising funds and bring up offence quotas. This is on top of various other forms of taxation and exploitation due to the fact that we all need to use our cars and will use them no matter what the cost to us.
I'm not trying to talk you around to my perception, but rather suggesting a point of view you may not have considered.
Claire Smith, 38, lives in Bird In Hand Lane and has visited the pub on several occasions.
She said: "The first I heard was when 40 or 50 police turned up last night and cordoned off the road.
"The pub has recently been done up and I think the new pool table is attracting the wrong sort of people.
Bromley is just so snobbish.
Not seeing what that's got to do with this... the driver hasnt broken the law. Car accidents are often just that, an accident... kid runs out between two parked cars, pissed up pedestrian staggers into the road etc
I believe the Bird In Hand is the local of our esteemed fans director.
Policeman number 1: bloke just went past at 90 mph on his way down to a quiet estate, lets go
policeman number 2: sorry, we just got a call that an hour ago a bloke got his shed broken into and they nicked his gnomes, hoe and lawn mower we've gotta go down there and take prints
policeman number 1: ok, lets get going
radio: alert to policeman 1 & 2 - child just been knocked down in quiet estate by a drive doing 90mph
policeman number 1: just finishing up doing some prints of a gnome stealer, be there in a bit
obviously extreme, but you see my point! its not personal, but its a quick decision they surely have to make, and whats to say in your area something could have been going down that was just 1 iota more important than what happened to you, and then the next day and then the next day.... the resources aren't there, and that stinks, i do sympathise with you for it not being dealt with, but for your crime that wasn't solved, perhaps they solved some other things that were really important to someone else that day.....
I really had no idea.............
Yes they're under-resourced, just like the ambulance service... but they manage to prioritise dont they!
"Portect and serve" is a US thing. The Met Mission Statement is -
Making London safe for all the people we serve.
We make places safer.
We cut crime and the fear of crime.
We uphold the law
Dan, you can't say that speed camera fines is a tax as we can avoid them. Yes, people do need to use their cars but they need them to use them within the law.
If people don't want to get the government to get money this way they don't speed - its simple.
I'd understand an uproar if they suddenly dropped the speed limits to 20, 30, and 50 but the current speeds are more than adequate in my opinion.
You can't moan or blame the government for making money on things that we have total control over and it is our decision whether or not we act in a way that will give them money. Fuel and congestion charge you can moan about, but breaking the law? Sorry, can't buy that at all.
If they'd taken her, I really wouldn't be moaning...
;-)
I'm not being obtuse, i'm merely pointing out that people are only seeing it from your personal perspective. on the greater scale you should be angry with other speeders who are taking your resources that you deserve for being a law abider (i'm not being sarcastic, you know wha ti mean) if EVERYONE stayed at 30mph where they should, then other crimes would get solved, as they don't, thats where we have the issue. I'm not saying you personally, i'm not saying other people on this site, there are hundreds of people that speed, as they don't think about the ongoing effect it has on others that have other issues that need dealing with. its selfish and it spirals on to worse things. what is something small to everyone going 32 in a 30 zone, has bigger implications in the bigger picture. and all i'm saying is, that its not the polices fault that people speed.
people are happy to pay the fines for the speed they have done, but perhaps they haven't thought about the time it takes to process all that? I havent really mentioned that today anyway. I'm just trying to see it from the police perspective and perhaps looking at it from a different angle.
medders: this is getting backto the prevention argument in the first pages though. Don't we all talk about how we wish the police could stop kids carrying guns/knives around in the first place, and not feel the need to take them out let alone use them. prevention.
Preventing someone from speeding is essentially preventing someone from knockign someone down? no?
But the point is not whether a child has been knocked down by a driver doing 90 in a built up area, cos that obviously takes priority over garden gnomes. We're talking about getting nicked on an A Road doing 55 in a 50 by a camera thats hidden behind a road sign 500 yards from the nearest off ramp.
Plus the Police dont process tend to get involved in speeding issues in built up areas as the majority are caught by camera which goes to the DVLA in Swansea.
Speed cameras, which I'll say again, I am not againts per say as they actually free up the Police to tend to garden gnomes, knocked over children etc, what I am against is when theyre deployed in safe areas, and therefore NOT accident blackspots, just to generate funds and increase offence quotas.
try your desk, i'm sure it'd help :-)
yes, they do prioritise, and thats probably why you haven't been seen too (oo-er) as you're not priority with all the other crap going on!
No. I could knock someone over, in a 30 zone, doing 25 mph and still kill or seriously injure them.
I'm not Dan, you might be. who cares if the camera is hidden. if you're doing 55 in a 50 you shouldn't be. if it being there stops you from driving so fast down that road next time, then its done the job.
i dont think you understand that its preventative and trying to help people, rather than trying to stitch you up. its better to stop the people getting killed before they are, rather than saying afterwards "if there had been a speed camera here it would have saved that life as people would have obeyed it and not gone faster"
Why would i want to get all the abuse that you lot would give me? ;-)
it could yes. and would you deny that the investigations into that were put in line behind your shed?