Tom wrote:
surely as all the boy racers who have been complaining that speed
cameras only catch people who drive "safely" at 70mph in town and
120 on motorways should be glad that all misdemeanours will be caught
on camera ?

Now come the new excuses --------------

I doubt it.

The vast majority of people agree that speed limits are necessary , just
that the ones chosen are often unrelated to safety issues and that
enforcement is often targeted to raise most revenue rather than prevent
accidents.

For things like red light cameras , box junction cameras and so on there is
no such debate over where to draw a line and enforcing them shouldn't be an
issue.




--
Alex - posting using all 64 bits in widescreen :0)

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:23:59 +0100, Dr Zoidberg wrote
(in message ):

The vast majority of people agree that speed limits are necessary , just
that the ones chosen are often unrelated to safety issues and that
enforcement is often targeted to raise most revenue rather than prevent
accidents.

For things like red light cameras , box junction cameras and so on there is
no such debate over where to draw a line and enforcing them shouldn't be an
issue.

And the other factor that is important today - that enforecement is now
automated and there is little alloowance for the situations. Already we have
heard of people genuinely caught out by box junctions - a common one being
that there's a space when you enter but someone else takes it and leaves you
with no-where to go.

In these situations, I'd like to think that the majority of reasonable
coppers would observe this and not prosecute - whilst throwing the book at
the blatent ignorers. And contrary to what many people claim, most people can
tell the difference.

With cameras, they appear to simply photograph any vehicle stationary in the
boxed area and sent out the penalty notice. Because the system is so geared
up to the motorist being guilty unless proven innocent, most people pay up
because it's cheaper than going to court and winning, even more so than going
to court and losing.

David from Oz wrote:

Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group)

Paul hasn't posted on this group for a considerable period of time, not
under his own name anyway.

Brimstone wrote:
David from Oz wrote:

Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group)

Paul hasn't posted on this group for a considerable period of time, not
under his own name anyway.

Perhaps he is too busy running the vast organisation that is Safespeed,
with its membership (at 45 quid a year) numbering, erm, curiously the
web site doesn't give any indication.

But hey, it must be for real, becase it has a bank account and
everything. Oh, hang on ...

========

How do I pay?

By Cheque

Make your cheque payable to Paul Smith and send it to ...

========

Very impressive.

Ian

Ian wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
David from Oz wrote:

Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group)
Paul hasn't posted on this group for a considerable period of time, not
under his own name anyway.

Perhaps he is too busy running the vast organisation that is Safespeed,
with its membership (at 45 quid a year) numbering, erm, curiously the
web site doesn't give any indication.

But hey, it must be for real, becase it has a bank account and
everything. Oh, hang on ...

========

How do I pay?

By Cheque

Make your cheque payable to Paul Smith and send it to ...

========

Very impressive.

Ian


OK Ian, what is your manifesto for giving us a high level of safety,
reasonable freedom for drivers, and pleasant and harmonious conditions
for all road users?

Paul has obviously put a great deal of effort and a considerable amount
of his own money into trying to do something constructive. It doesn't
entirely tally with how I would like things to be, but IMHO his regime
would be a lot better that what we have at present.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

TripleS wrote:
Ian wrote:

Perhaps he is too busy running the vast organisation that is Safespeed,

Paul has obviously put a great deal of effort and a considerable amount
of his own money into trying to do something constructive. It doesn't
entirely tally with how I would like things to be, but IMHO his regime
would be a lot better that what we have at present.

Nevertheless, he likes to present himself as the head of a significant
movement. That would be a more convincing claim if he gave membership
numbers, and wasn't putting any donations and membership fees straight
into a personal bank account.

Oh yes, and my manifesto ... 90mph on motorways, 80mph NSL, both -10mph
at night or in rain, rigorously enforced. Wanna send me 45 quid? Make
it out to "Creating A Safer Highway". The initials will do ...

Ian

In article . com,
says...
Paul has obviously put a great deal of effort and a considerable amount
of his own money into trying to do something constructive. It doesn't
entirely tally with how I would like things to be, but IMHO his regime
would be a lot better that what we have at present.

Nevertheless, he likes to present himself as the head of a significant
movement.


I've just had a large bowl of chilli (with a good 8 chillies in it), and
feel significant movement in the offing.

Pete.

"David from Oz" wrote:

Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented
on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit
further offences.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined? I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences of
little consequence.

Is it worth doing? It depends of how many persistent offenders there are
and what problem they cause, I'm very doubtful.

The only sure thing is offences will be committed, and enough revenue will
be generated to pay for the enforcement and turn a profit.

It would be more effective to not penalise drivers for making an occasional
mistake, say to notify but not fine them for the first 2 offences in any 12
month period. Persistent offenders would change their behaviour for the
better and the large majority would not have to change their behaviour for
the worse. Of course it will never happen because such a scheme would
generate far less income and the authorities like to **** off motorists
anyway.
--

nospam wrote:

"David from Oz" wrote:

Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented
on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit
further offences.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined? I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences of
little consequence.

You can read about my one (and only) offence here
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....2e88cb0d92173b
which was a result of me misunderstanding the rules on right turning at
box junctions.

I don't really follow your point on vigilance.

Cheers,

David

nospam wrote:
"David from Oz" wrote:

Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented
on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit
further offences.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined? I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences of
little consequence.

Is it worth doing? It depends of how many persistent offenders there are
and what problem they cause, I'm very doubtful.

The only sure thing is offences will be committed, and enough revenue will
be generated to pay for the enforcement and turn a profit.

It would be more effective to not penalise drivers for making an occasional
mistake, say to notify but not fine them for the first 2 offences in any 12
month period. Persistent offenders would change their behaviour for the
better and the large majority would not have to change their behaviour for
the worse. Of course it will never happen because such a scheme would
generate far less income and the authorities like to **** off motorists
anyway.



I think it's a completely wrong assumption to treat stopping on a box
junction as a minor offence not related to safety. If I remember
rightly, the Highway Code says that you shouldn't go past a green light
unless you actually have somewhere to go to beyond the junction. So
the rule isn't really any different for box junctions, although maybe
the penalty is.

But my point is that doing so is definitely a safety issue. When the
lights change to red, they therefore change to green for other road
users, including pedestrian crossing lights. I have lost count of how
many times I've been in a crowd of people crossing with a "green man",
only to find several motor vehicles still trying to drive through it
because they had previously driven on to the junction.

They have the choice of staying in the path of other vehicles or
driving at the pedestrians. Neither is safe, but as a pedestrian I
strongly object to the latter.