Woe,Woe. and thrice times woe.

bxbodger · Unread post by **bxbodger** » 11 Aug 2005, 16:24

The speed cameras do do a good job by default against phone yakkers, tailgaters, and red light runners, because its the same half wits who repeatedly get caught by speed cameras and rack up the speeding points and eventually hopefully lose their licences who commit these types of offences as well.
So, they do do good road safety work, just in a roundabout way.....

bxbodger · Unread post by **bxbodger** » 11 Aug 2005, 16:27

The speed cameras do do a good job by default against phone yakkers, tailgaters, and red light runners, because its the same half wits who repeatedly get caught by speed cameras and rack up the speeding points and eventually hopefully lose their licences who commit these types of offences as well.
So, they do do good road safety work, just in a roundabout way..................Its a bit like when the coppers occasionally have a blitz on people who park on yellow lines, in disabled bays without a badge, etc-these are the same people who commit bigger offences and it gives the coppers an excuse to turn turn the car over, do ID checks and see what comes up.

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 12 Aug 2005, 10:49

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bxbodger

The speed cameras do do a good job by default against phone yakkers, tailgaters, and red light runners, because its the same half wits who repeatedly get caught by speed cameras and rack up the speeding points and eventually hopefully lose their licences who commit these types of offences as well.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That's a bit like rounding every third person up and putting them in prison on the grounds that some of those you catch will be burglars.
80% of drivers speed. 80% of drivers do not have accidents.
There is no excuse for speed cameras.

Kowalski · Unread post by **Kowalski** » 12 Aug 2005, 18:16

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bxbodger

The speed cameras do do a good job by default against phone yakkers, tailgaters, and red light runners, because its the same half wits who repeatedly get caught by speed cameras and rack up the speeding points and eventually hopefully lose their licences who commit these types of offences as well.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I think what you're saying is that the same people who get CAUGHT for driving while on the phone, tailgating, running red lights etc get CAUGHT for speeding. There are still those who tailgate, run red lights, speed etc who don't get caught.
The automatic numberplate recognition systems that police forces have now mean that the traffic police don't need to stop a car to find out whether or not it's taxed, MOT'd and insured etc, the system does the checks automatically.

batwad · Unread post by **batwad** » 12 Aug 2005, 19:17

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bxbodger

The speed cameras do do a good job by default against phone yakkers, tailgaters, and red light runners, because its the same half wits who repeatedly get caught by speed cameras and rack up the speeding points and eventually hopefully lose their licences who commit these types of offences as well.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
But they're not being punished for all those other offences, only the one that they're caught at. They'd be disqualified a lot quicker if they'd been caught for all those other offences as well as speeding.

chaseracer · Unread post by **chaseracer** » 12 Aug 2005, 19:46

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by batwad

But they're not being punished for all those other offences, only the one that they're caught at...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Isn't that a basic tenet of English law, or has Tony managed to rewrite Magna Carta...?[;)]

batwad · Unread post by **batwad** » 12 Aug 2005, 20:10

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by chaseracer

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by batwad

But they're not being punished for all those other offences, only the one that they're caught at...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Isn't that a basic tenet of English law, or has Tony managed to rewrite Magna Carta...?[;)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
[:p]You know what I mean! It's like saying that it's okay they got away with those offences, just as long as they get caught for something.
Pedant! [:p][:D]

chaseracer · Unread post by **chaseracer** » 12 Aug 2005, 20:57

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by batwad

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by chaseracer

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by batwad

But they're not being punished for all those other offences, only the one that they're caught at...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Isn't that a basic tenet of English law, or has Tony managed to rewrite Magna Carta...?[;)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
[:p]You know what I mean! It's like saying that it's okay they got away with those offences, just as long as they get caught for something.
Pedant! [:p][:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Damn! Rumbled!! [;)][:D]

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 14 Aug 2005, 13:23

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kowalski

The automatic numberplate recognition systems that police forces have now mean that the traffic police don't need to stop a car to find out whether or not it's taxed, MOT'd and insured etc, the system does the checks automatically.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You mean on the 70% of plates it actually recognises which are not part of the 32% incorrect entries in the DVLA database.
The police are so fed up with stopping people for no reason based on ANPR "hits" that they are turning it off in their patrol cars. Over half of ANPR based stops are a waste of time.

Kowalski · Unread post by **Kowalski** » 15 Aug 2005, 02:42

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Homer

The plate recognition system will flag up some of the faults on the 32% that aren't correct. If the officer is looking at the screen and the car is the wrong colour, wrong make or model it'll be flagged up. If the car is registered at the wrong address, the owner won't be able to tax it, MOT it or insure it.
The police are so fed up with stopping people for no reason based on ANPR "hits" that they are turning it off in their patrol cars. Over half of ANPR based stops are a waste of time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
When I've seen ANPR used on the TV it seemed pretty effective, the thing is, the officers using it would spend all of their time dealing with untaxed cars that they just would not have otherwise spotted. If there are faults with the DVLA data etc, the officers should be able to fix them. Without ANPR, the traffic police could actually be stopping people for their driving behavior.
It is a tool and has to be treated as such, one of the things it was probably devised for would be to find cars that the Police were specifically interested in, e.g. stolen cars, cars involved in crimes, cars belonging to fugitives etc, but because of the number of uninsured drivers on the roads they are kept busy.
I think that once ANPR is established and used everywhere, people who would drive illegally, (without license / tax / insurance) won't bother (or will drive legally) and the officers won't be so tied up. The faults with the data will gradually get ironed out too.

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 15 Aug 2005, 12:53

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Kowalski

[quote]
I think that once ANPR is established and used everywhere, people who would drive illegally, (without license / tax / insurance) won't bother (or will drive legally) and the officers won't be so tied up. The faults with the data will gradually get ironed out too.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And I think that people who don't want to get caught will just start stealing other peoples registrations.
The main reason the DVLA database is such a mess is precisely because people are not registering their vehicles properly in order to avoid things like congestion charging and speeding fines. ANPR will just create smarter criminals.
Another little snippet which just came to light.
Figures for one speed camera slipped out recently. Just over 6000 drivers were caught in a certain time period. only 3000 got fined! What happened to the other 3000? My guess is they are part of the untraceable driving population who know they don't have to slow down unless there is a real police officer around.

James.UK · Unread post by **James.UK** » 16 Aug 2005, 08:08

Homer.... Up till now I have seen no evidence that I was actually speeding, so I propose to ask for some when the next lot of paperwork arrives, I fail to see how requesting such evidence could legaly disqualify me from accepting a fixed penalty, after all, as far as I know, I may not have been speeding at all..
Either way, I can't reasonably be expected to make an informed judgement whether to accept or not unless I have some sort of evidence that a 'crime' has been committed for me to plead guilty too?? Is this not so??
.

uhn113x · Unread post by **uhn113x** » 16 Aug 2005, 12:58

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by chaseracer
Isn't that a basic tenet of English law, or has Tony managed to rewrite Magna Carta...?[;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Give him time.........[}:)]

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 16 Aug 2005, 13:14

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by James.UK

I fail to see how requesting such evidence could legaly disqualify me from accepting a fixed penalty, after all, as far as I know, I may not have been speeding at all..
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It doesn't but from what I have seen the Camera partnerships fall into two camps.
Some send out photos with the NIP.
Others refuse to send out photos at all unless you refuse the fixed penalty notice and plead not guilty.
When a court date is set you have the right to request anything you think is relevant to the case.
You really need to visit the Pepipoo forums, at least take a look at a few current cases. Otherwise you risk being blinded by legal mumbo jumbo, threats and lies.

James.UK · Unread post by **James.UK** » 16 Aug 2005, 20:58

Hi Homer, I rather like legal mumbo jumbo, in my experience the people that write it understand even less of it than I do.. heh heh.. [;)] [:D] [:)]