Roadside cameras to catch drivers using their mobile phones

Van

I pay 11% of my monthly wage into my pesnsion, and have done since I started. This is as well as paying more into my state pension and NI contributions. I don't view this amount as insignificant.

quote:

Whatever the circumstances she should not have been paid, imo, tell me, what signal does it send out?

It sends a signal that the paying into a pension fund is not connected with the reason for dismissal, therefore there is no legal reason to freeze the pension assets, is there?

quote:

If someone does not agree with something, I do believe they are right to be abusive if they so feel like, read up the definition of freedom of speech.

Er, you need to read u the contents of section 5 public order act 1986 - its just what is said or how it is said, it is how itis, or could be, recieved. BTW the V sign doesn't bother me - being spat at or worse does. I don't have to put up with that, and I don't.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Council CCTV has assisted in the fair trial/prosecution of countless offences since its introduction. Usually you know its there as well.

But the detection rate is no better and overall crime rates are still rising. Doesn't this imply that they don't work as a deterrant or a detection aid?
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/150/150705_cri...n_rates_too_low.html

Chaps

We have a society of 55 million people and in order for it to run properly, we need rules that must be obeyed. If you allow everyone who ever got done for speeding to argue that in his/her case the speeding was safe, the system would descend into chaos.

The rule is simple, break the rules and you suffer the consequence.

Let us be honest, we all know the limits etc, we all know that the cameras are everywhere, only fools and chancers get caught in this day and age and I will argue that anyone who notches up 12 points is to thick to drive a car and should be banned.

Regards

Mick

Mike

I have just returned from 2 weeks in Lanzarote and my emails seem to have blown a fuse. I will have to get the ISP to sort them out.

No point in trying to contact me at PFM, I am not banned there as such but I have been asked to stay away.

Regards

Mick

Well you're welcome here Mick.

LOL

Glad someone likes me.

quote:

Er, you need to read u the contents of section 5 public order act 1986 - its just what is said or how it is said, it is how itis, or could be, recieved. BTW the V sign doesn't bother me - being spat at or worse does. I don't have to put up with that, and I don't.

The above should say " It's not Just what is said....etc"

For clarification...

Van,

What does it say about someone, that when they have to resort to verbal or physical abuse to get their argument/point accross?

andy c!

quote:

Let us be honest, we all know the limits etc, we all know that the cameras are everywhere, only fools and chancers get caught in this day and age and I will argue that anyone who notches up 12 points is to thick to drive a car and should be banned.

Not paying attention Mick? Again.

This thread isn't about speeding and speed cameras. It's about the whole issue of remote surveillance used as evidence of a whole raft of offences. I.e: getting caught on camera for picking your nose etc.

Should real uniformed policemen be doing the job of applying discretion, handing out advice/bollockings along with tickets, or should the job be left to robots with eyes and the postal system?

Steve

I am paying attention. If you break the rules you get done. The means of detection is irrelevant.

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

quote:

Er, you need to read u the contents of section 5 public order act 1986 - its just what is said or how it is said, it is how itis, or could be, recieved. BTW the V sign doesn't bother me - being spat at or worse does. I don't have to put up with that, and I don't.

The above should say " It's not Just what is said....etc"

For clarification...

Van,

What does it say about someone, that when they have to resort to verbal or physical abuse to get their argument/point accross?

andy c!

Sounds like you have prejudged me already, I just use a wide variety of english vocabulary, we are not banned from doing that yet are we?
Maybe when the id cards come into distribution they will have an embedded microphone that will record speech and issue fixed penalties automatically if language not appropriate is used.
Using a wide range of vocabulary or physical abuse does not mean that person is uneducated, it is just assumption by narrow minded people imo.
When the law is seen as the " ass " is it andy, what are you left with for recourse? please do not say change of government, does not and will not work.
Will Anarchy work? that has not been tried but the way the country is being run it cannot be that far away.
Regards.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

We have a society of 55 million people and in order for it to run properly, we need rules that must be obeyed. If you allow everyone who ever got done for speeding to argue that in his/her case the speeding was safe, the system would descend into chaos.

The rule is simple, break the rules and you suffer the consequence.

Let us be honest, we all know the limits etc, we all know that the cameras are everywhere, only fools and chancers get caught in this day and age and I will argue that anyone who notches up 12 points is to thick to drive a car and should be banned.

Regards

Mick

All well and good in theory, but these gatso cameras are not 100% reliable.
All I would advise anyone caught by one, I certainly would not accuse them of being stupid, what is to say the camera is right? so demand all the evidence, photo's, callibration records and have your day in court, if you are proven innocent the case will be thrown out, but also if enough people clog the courts up they may have to dump these cash cows and get bobbies in cars instead of relying or should I say " over " relying on technology.
Sorry mick, but while we have the theory of innocent until proven guilty everyone should argue their case if they feel they have been wronged, is that not fair?

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Van

I pay 11% of my monthly wage into my pesnsion, and have done since I started. This is as well as paying more into my state pension and NI contributions. I don't view this amount as insignificant.

quote:

Whatever the circumstances she should not have been paid, imo, tell me, what signal does it send out?

It sends a signal that the paying into a pension fund is not connected with the reason for dismissal, therefore there is no legal reason to freeze the pension assets, is there?

quote:

If someone does not agree with something, I do believe they are right to be abusive if they so feel like, read up the definition of freedom of speech.

Er, you need to read u the contents of section 5 public order act 1986 - its just what is said or how it is said, it is how itis, or could be, recieved. BTW the V sign doesn't bother me - being spat at or worse does. I don't have to put up with that, and I don't.

" I pay 11% of my monthly wage into my pesnsion, and have done since I started. This is as well as paying more into my state pension and NI contributions. I don't view this amount as insignificant."


We all pay Ni contributions and tax, you choose to pay 11% into your pension, that is your choice.
On the other hand, I as a council tax payer have no choice that part of my council ( hated poll ) tax goes towards police pensions.


" It sends a signal that the paying into a pension fund is not connected with the reason for dismissal, therefore there is no legal reason to freeze the pension assets, is there?"


The threat of the none payment of a pension should be made when police officers are recruited, because the general perception when people read these stories in the press is that the very people who are meant to implement the law of the land are no different to anyone, I am ofcourse not suggesting that all police officers are the same.


" Er, you need to read u the contents of section 5 public order act 1986 - its just what is said or how it is said, it is how itis, or could be, recieved. BTW the V sign doesn't bother me - being spat at or worse does. I don't have to put up with that, and I don't."

I am affraid that if people get upset by what is said to them then they need to grow up, creating mountains of paperwork, taking coppers off the beat to compile statements, when there is a shortage of manpower to start with, is not the answer.
If someone wants to call me a tosser or whatever that is up to them, as long as they accept the consequence, which would not involve my running to the nearest phone box to dial 999, or is that one 101 now? at a cost of 10p.

Mr Vann

If someone does 40mph in a 30mph zone or drives whilst using a mobile phone then they are guilty and deserve to be punished. They know the rules so no excuses.

If someone wishes to challenge the cameras, then fine, but they will pay heavy court costs and the fine should be more severe if found guilty for wasting public time. The courts are clogged up enough as it is, without some barrack room lawyer protesting his inocence when he is obviously guilty.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Mr Vann

If someone does 40mph in a 30mph zone or drives whilst using a mobile phone then they are guilty and deserve to be punished. They know the rules so no excuses.

If someone wishes to challenge the cameras, then fine, but they will pay heavy court costs and the fine should be more severe if found guilty for wasting public time. The courts are clogged up enough as it is, without some barrack room lawyer protesting his inocence when he is obviously guilty.

Regards

Mick

Mick there is still the " innocent until proven guilty "
I would say that there are a hell of a lot of motorists who are paying incorrect fines, simply because they cannot be bothered going to court, these gatso's are not 100% accurate, that is fact.
It is not wasting public time if you believe you have been mistreated regardless of the outcome, what next? a man who pleads not guilty to murder being hung instead of sent to prison because he wasted public time?
The courts are not clogged up enough imo, more alleged speeding offences should be taken to court to give the law system the kick up the backside it needs, do you know we have a gatso here that flashes at motorists who are driving at legal speeds?
It really annoys me when these cash cows are seen as judge and jury, and what is even worse is when people swallow it.
Cameras do not legislate for drink driving, drug driving, if people are over the limit they just slow down approaching the cameras anyway.
I do not believe for a minute they are being used as a safety device, that has been blown out the water recently around here, they are cash cows purely for the treasury and police, please do not say that none of the money collected from fines filters through to the police.
All this mullarky about mobile phones, tell me something, what are you allowed to do while you are driving that flies right in the face of this two hands on the wheel argument? hand signals ofcourse, it is quite legal to drive with one hand on the wheel and one hand hanging out your side window to indicate directions.
So what is all that about?

quote:

hand signals ofcourse, it is quite legal to drive with one hand on the wheel and one hand hanging out your side window to indicate directions.

I think you'll find that hand signals are no longer part of the highway code, and are no longer taught.

andy c!

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/signs02.htm


That motorcyclist looks really in control

We are clearly witnessing authoritarianism for its own sake. I know Mick is happy with this situation, and I agree that he is paying attention at least on this occasion.

What about the guy who threw his junk mail into a bin on his way? He was caught by the address on his mail. What offence did he actually commit?

Steven

I agree about the guy who is being threatened with prosecution for dumping a small bag of junk mail.

Some brainless bureaucrat needs sacking over that.

Regards

Mick

Van

I'll look up at work re the prosecution guidelines re use of hand signals... I seriously thought their use in motor cars was not being taught, and will seek out the info why I got that impression.

However it seems on this occ my info was wrong - apologies.

andy c!

Mick
I agree............ to a point, however, all this technology is widely used by the states puppets (police) to roger the tax paying, well meaning average citizen.
Did anyone read about the chap in London who was fined £100 for parking? You might say - well ? Well he was caught on CCTV having stopped for 52 seconds to pick up a friend late at night. Another was a resident stopping outside her property (with husband at the wheel etc engine running etc) to take some boxes in to the house before going off to park somewhere - whilst the local council has cut the number of residents parking slots (in favour of pay parking - beginning to get it yet?) And the drivers who were prosecuted by cameras having moved out the way in the rush hour traffic to let a police car and accompanying ambulance through? Should they be prosecuted for common sense and bloody courtesy? What if it were your kid or granny in the ambulance?

Only the thick and the police cant see where this is going – more state control and more “punishment” of the generally law abiding person who puts some rubbish in a bin or drops his granny off outside her flat for a few seconds on a yellow line – so bloody what. No wonder the public has lost it with the police – my old mum is still loosing sleep 2 years after her handbag was nicked from the kitchen by some scumbag – yes the police were really quick – they came round after 2 days – only when me and a brother complained to the cops BTW, he was later caught on the Isle of Wight stealing – he got a caution – FFS

Mick if you’re happy with this BS then fine but I suspect that having read a lot of you posts in the past even you would frown at such circumstances

Martin

Martin

I can see where you are coming from and it all boils down to a question of degree.

I see nothing wrong with cameras on every street and every set of traffic lights. That will teach us all to slow down and whilst it may make life boring, it will reduce accidents and save lives which is the most important consideration of all.

The instances you have quoted need to be addressed as frankly they are providing legitimate ammo for the Steve Toys of this world who are anti camera.

Regards

Mick

FWIW, and I have said this over on PFM, Fritz, I am NOT for camera's for revenue only. I have given good examples, based on fact, of where the imposition of camera's (A1 Elkesley), have reduced fatal and AIC's.

The use of discretion is impossible when zapped - I accept this. But there needs to be a change in the law re speeding etc before this can happen. This is a simple fact I'm afraid.

I have also said before that it all boils down to money: money to employ cops, money to save by targetting aquisitve crime etc and use camera's/ploice staff (Not warranted officers and they don't need to be!) etc etc

quote:

And the drivers who were prosecuted by cameras having moved out the way in the rush hour traffic to let a police car and accompanying ambulance through?

I am amazed!

andy c!

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Mr Vann

If someone does 40mph in a 30mph zone or drives whilst using a mobile phone then they are guilty and deserve to be punished. They know the rules so no excuses.

Quite so. You have to take it on the chin and learn from your mistakes. Regardless of your beliefs in your own driving skills. And if the only thing you learn is how not to get caught next time, it's better than nothing.

quote:

If someone wishes to challenge the cameras, then fine, but they will pay heavy court costs and the fine should be more severe if found guilty for wasting public time. The courts are clogged up enough as it is, without some barrack room lawyer protesting his inocence when he is obviously guilty.

Mick

I don't think it's a waste of public time to acertain that the hardware used to nick you was in good working order. Some people will take the piss and I'm sure they get hammered when guilt is confirmed. I would take a dim view of being kicked into touch as a time waster if I believed that a ticket had been issued to me when I was driving in a law abiding way. Mistakes happen. What I won't do is posture and bluster when I'm insulted at being done bang to rights - maybe there are the "public time wasters" you had in mind? But as Van said, we're all innocent until proved otherwise and we should have redress without all being binned as time wasters. That's a thin end of a long, but nevertheless suspect wedge.

Cheers

Harry

Mick
Agreed - it is a question of degree, I just worry that its so easy with technology.

Martin

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Martin

I can see where you are coming from and it all boils down to a question of degree.

I see nothing wrong with cameras on every street and every set of traffic lights. That will teach us all to slow down and whilst it may make life boring, it will reduce accidents and save lives which is the most important consideration of all.

The instances you have quoted need to be addressed as frankly they are providing legitimate ammo for the Steve Toys of this world who are anti camera.

Regards

Mick

I am anti camera because they are used as a financial tool, that is fact.
For god sake there are more people dying of smoking related deceases every day than the people killed on our roads, but do we limit the amount of cancer sticks each person can buy in a day?
Take the blinkers off with regard this " safety " argument.