Roadside cameras to catch drivers using their mobile phones

Let's put this into perspective.

Let's put our resources into roadside camera vans - 35 in a 30, £60 thank you very much.

Someone has tried to break into our house - any response, like hell.

Do I have repsect for the police - no.

MichaelC

Obviously subject to area concerned proviso...

Andy c you are naturally the exception tomy comments. Maybe it is different in Notts.

MichaelC,

may be not...

The point is that until folk realise that finite resources = not being able to do everything in some cases, & speed camera staff not =ing police officers in most cases, then the differentiation can then be made re who exactly to slag off!

I have no issue with someone telling me they are not happy with what I do or don't, but I do have a issue with carte blanche 'let's blame so and so' when the blame is wrongly targetted.

andy c!

quote:

Originally posted by MichaelC:
Let's put this into perspective.

Let's put our resources into roadside camera vans - 35 in a 30, £60 thank you very much.

Someone has tried to break into our house - any response, like hell.

Do I have repsect for the police - no.

Every time a motorist is caught speeding it is registered as a crime detected, a crime solved.
Multiply this one crime by x amount of motorists caught each year and our government come out with the " crime figures are falling " when in reality they are not.
Its far easier to detect a speeding offence than say an old granny being mugged of her pension, the clear up rate on speeding offences paints a false picture of the crime figures.
I too can have no respect for a body that puts more energy into one area than another.
How people carry on working in such a job is beyond me, job satisfaction has to be the bottom of the list in this one imo.

quote:

Every time a motorist is caught speeding it is registered as a crime detected, a crime solved.

That isn't true, actually. The crime recording standards as set by the home office do not include offences of speeding.

By all means diss, but diss factually.

quote:

I too can have no respect for a body that puts more energy into one area than another.

Then perhaps your comments would be better directed at your MP.

andy c!

I am sure that I am not alone in questioning what the police appear to be getting up to.

Notice I say "appear". Opinions are driven by experience (firsthand) and the press (second hand). Maybe the police should embark upon an effective pr exercise to explain what they are doing and why. And maybe the diseffected will be more understanding.

A look on the bright side

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2003/07/14/northants-crime.handheld.html

The reality is this government is turning the UK into a police state without police. If you aren't caught on camera committing some misdemeanour, you are caught by a council official.

I'd love to be caught doing something trivial by a council official like dropping a fag end on a pavement, say 100 miles from where I live. "Yep, my name is Mick Parry and I live in Swindon. See ya wanker!"

Real police officers in uniform command respect. Officials working for Bolloxdale Borough Council do not. Cameras deserve to be vandalised.

MichaelC,

You have a right to question what the police are doing. Full stop, and I have no issue with that at all.

But there is too much 'this is what is happening' being said these days, when the more probing question would be ' why is this happening?' IMV.

There is also too much jumping to conclusion taking place, this in some instances despite some folk getting an explanation as to correct courses of action etc.

Steve,
Your suggestin that all camera's are crap does you no favours. I have said before the truth is in the microdetail, and this is so for camera enforcement/use, whether it be CCTV in town centre's, or on the A/B/M road near you.

You can ring up your local camera team and ask them, but that's an easy answer, isn't it? I mean, they will tow the party line, won't they? Well, not in Notts they won't.

andy c!

quote:

I'd love to be caught doing something trivial by a council official like dropping a fag end on a pavement, say 100 miles from where I live. "Yep, my name is Mick Parry and I live in Swindon. See ya wanker!"

Tee hee, but you won't be able to do that when (if) we all have to carry I cards.

That should be ID cards.

Why can't I edit my posts?

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen B:

quote:

I'd love to be caught doing something trivial by a council official like dropping a fag end on a pavement, say 100 miles from where I live. "Yep, my name is Mick Parry and I live in Swindon. See ya wanker!"

Tee hee, but you won't be able to do that when (if) we all have to carry I cards.

Imo the only ones who should carry ID cards are people who come into the country, forget this thing about it being brought in to stop terrorism, the terrorist is a lot cleverer than your enforcement agencies, I have paid tax since I was old enough to work, they know my details, I do not need a piece of card to say that I am entitled to be in this country, the whole idea needs kicking into touch.
The only thing that will work will be a total refusal by the people to carry these cards, what gives anyone the right to know your personal details such as your credit history etc.? if youre happy with this card being swiped by a copper and your whole life story coming up on his screen then carry one, if not bin it.

quote:

Imo the only ones who should carry ID cards are people who come into the country.... the only thing that will work will be a total refusal by the people to carry these cards

Why only "people who come into the country" (and are we talking tourists or "immigrants"); and what would be the point if they "refuse" to carry them?

quote:

Tee hee, but you won't be able to do that when (if) we all have to carry I cards.

Unless the council official has one of those remote card readers and nobody else is standing near you he's got know way of forcing you to show your ID card. These guys don't have powers of arrest or walkie-talkies to summon back-up...

quote:

You can ring up your local camera team and ask them, but that's an easy answer, isn't it? I mean, they will tow the party line, won't they? Well, not in Notts they won't.

Unfortunately I'm in Staffs where the camera pratnership team use a number of tricks to extort money from drivers, mainly these so-called "buffer zones" that are used to snap drivers accelerating away from the hazard area where the speed restriction may be appropriate into a safe area where it is no longer (or not decelerating soon enough on the approach to a given hazard) but where there is a lot of cash to be made for the pratnership.

Examples:

A51 between Weston and Stone just after the A518 Stafford-Uttoxeter junction. The 40mph restriction continues some 300 yards after the junction into countryside along a dual carriageway. Between the junction and the 60 mph limit signs (they used to be 70) there is often a Talivan parked just around the gently sweeping left-hand bend in a slight dip...

A460 running alongside the M6 Toll from J11 M6 towards Cannock. The 30mph limit starts some 400 yards before the roundabout junction with the A5 and A34 on a road with no pavements, buildings or junctions on either side. There is just a fence separating this road from the toll road. I haven't seen a Talivan here yet though.

A51 North of Rugeley as you approach Wolseley Bridge and the junction with the A518 to Stafford. There is a GATSO enforcing a 40 mph limit some 400 yards before the junction on a road with fields either side and no pavements. I frequently, and quite safely, slow to 40 for the GATSO, accelerate back up to 50 before slowing down again upon approach to the roundabouts.

Of course they will tow the party line. Listening to their bullshit won't be good for my blood pressure...

At the moment I'm too busy backing the local Head of Environmental Health into a corner over another legal matter related to Hackney Carriages licensed by his department.

When this particular issue has been resolved I'll consider taking on the pratnership.

No my job isn't on the line, I'm not in any trouble, but someone else could be...

Just copy and paste em onto a letter, find out the address of the local police headquarters, send the bloody thing in and ask for stats etc as to why camera's are there.

You imply that you don't 'actually' know why?!? Assumptions don't help arguments, or sway opinions.

Don't diss until you have actually been fobbed off - you lower yourself to other's levels, Steve.

Oh, and b4 you fire back, a similar debate over on PFM caused me to make a phone call, if you remember, and come back with facts. I made said call as I was intrigued re the claims made...

regards

andy c!

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Just copy and paste em onto a letter, find out the address of the local police headquarters, send the bloody thing in and ask for stats etc as to why camera's are there.

You imply that you don't 'actually' know why?!? Assumptions don't help arguments, or sway opinions.

Don't diss until you have actually been fobbed off - you lower yourself to other's levels, Steve.

Oh, and b4 you fire back, a similar debate over on PFM caused me to make a phone call, if you remember, and come back with facts. I made said call as I was intrigued re the claims made...

regards

andy c!

Andy, I get sick to the back teeth of hearing the " alleged " reasons for these cash cows, please do not join the bandwagon.
Are we so concerned with saving lives?
If you answer yes then perhaps the government can bring in limits on the amount of cancer sticks people can buy, and the amount of alcohol people can buy, there are more people killed through smoking related deceases than are killed on our roads.
So if we are to value life, lets have all the bases covered hey?

Van,
You make assumptions in all cases and that in my book = stereotyping...

I did my own research based on places I know and crash sites where I have been before etc etc - it's area dependant but the stats make interesting reading.

Now I'm for giving reasons for why they are there - if the area's in question can't back up the imposition of camera's for safety reduction etc - you work it out...

Unless I am mistaken something was being done about smoking in public places.

No-one is restricting the number of cars you can buy yet, are they?

Your linking of the two issues is not appropriate in my book. BTW dangerous driving and death by dangerous driving are recordable crimes (Just to bolt on to your earlier assumption re speeding offences).

You need to look at the DfT figures re AIC's to link this to any claims of speed enforcement reducing crashes. Just trying to point you in the right direction, that's all.

regards

andy c!

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Imo the only ones who should carry ID cards are people who come into the country.... the only thing that will work will be a total refusal by the people to carry these cards

Why only "people who come into the country" (and are we talking tourists or "immigrants"); and what would be the point if they "refuse" to carry them?

I would start with the immigrants.
Getting benefit payments galore when people BORN here cant even get a dentist, just a thought, as an assylum seeker you've more chance of getting to see a dentist.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Van,
You make assumptions in all cases - stereotyping...

I did my own research based on places I know and crash sites where I have been before etc etc - it's area dependant but the stats make interesting reading.

Now I'm for giving reasons for why they are there - if the area's in question can't back up the imposition of camera's for safety reduction etc - you work it out...

Thats not the point andy.
Why are there no limits on smoking and drinking when they kill as many people as road accidents?
You said in a previous post that people are creatures of habit, you hit it on the head with the governments attitude, " people are creatures of habit, they will carry on exceeding speed limits, lets make some money out of it "
Sorry the safety reason does not wash with me, maybe when I see the government being more transparent in their quest to save lives.
I think my linking the two things is very appropriate, yes they have stopped smoking in public, but that is small change in the bigger scheme of things.

Van,
sorry but added a bit more to my previous post...

I am not aware of anyone being killed on the A1 at Elkesley by smoking, but am aware of several that have been killed by speeding motors. Are you telling my I should ignore that?

regards

andy c!

"BTW dangerous driving and death by dangerous driving are recordable crimes (Just to bolt on to your earlier assumption re speeding offences)."

Andy, would you agree that in most cases of dangerous driving and death by dangerous driving there is some element of speeding?
So in a roundabout way speeding is reported although in a different guise?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by andy c:
Van,
sorry but added a bit more to my previous post...

I am not aware of anyone being killed on the A1 at Elkesley by smoking, but am aware of several that have been killed by speeding motors. Are you telling my I should ignore that?

I am not telling you to ignore it andy, far from it.
What I am saying, is that it cheeses me off when I hear on one hand that it is so important that these cameras are in place to save lives, yet there are more people killed through smoking as a past time and in a passive sense than are killed on our roads, the safety argument for cameras when weighed against deaths by smoking/smoking related deceases does not make sense.
If they just came out and be honest about it, it would help.
To me it is an opportunity to make money plain and simple.
Why not do away with monetary punishments?
regards

Do away with monetary punishments?
What would you replace it with that would work?
Hwo would you fund it? How would you convince folk to pay up for whatever enforcement/education etc???

Oh, and you are right to measure this in lives. That is a very purist notion, and you know what i could follow that up with?!?