Notice of Intended Prosecution

AdrianC

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

If people all drove according to the RTA

I'll agree, provided you change it to "according to the Highway Code".

There's plenty in the HC that isn't in the Road Traffic Act.

Even then, though, there's certainly no direct correlation between applying the HC flexibly </euphemism> and causing or being involved in collisions.

Lum

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

The primary reason for the fines is as a deterrent. If you don't break the law then they won't make any money from you. It's as simple as that.
...
The DOT hate anything that causes congestion on major trunk roads, and they put traffic police and HATO's under huge pressure to reopen roads as soon as possible. In fact I know of quite a few occasions where traffic officers have had stand up rows with fire officers, because the fire officer wanted to keep lanes shut (to protect crews), but the police wanted to open them as soon as possible. So it is extremely unlikely that the DOT would allow long stretches of road works, and the associated congestion, just to raise revenue.

You missed my point somewhat, I never claimed it was about revenue raising, and I wasn't even talking about cameras.

I was addressing your suggestion that the laws, were about safety. Many are (e.g. RTA) but many of the more recent speed limit changes are not about safety but are about local councillors playing at quick-fix politics that actually fixes nothing.

Only real criticism about cameras you can read from this is that perhaps an old-school copper might turn a blind eye to someone breaking the limit on a road with an obviously stupidly low limit, whereas cameras do not, but as you point out, once that limit is set it is the law and we must respect that.

I just think some of the laws should be more respectable.

Jamie_Carter

AdrianC wrote: »

I'll agree, provided you change it to "according to the Highway Code".

There's plenty in the HC that isn't in the Road Traffic Act.

Even then, though, there's certainly no direct correlation between applying the HC flexibly </euphemism> and causing or being involved in collisions.

Agreed. The RTA is the law, and the HC is a combination of the law and good practice.

AdrianC

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Agreed. The RTA is the law

The RTA is just one of the relevant laws.

Jamie_Carter

Lum wrote: »

You missed my point somewhat, I never claimed it was about revenue raising, and I wasn't even talking about cameras.

I was addressing your suggestion that the laws, were about safety. Many are (e.g. RTA) but many of the more recent speed limit changes are not about safety but are about local councillors playing at quick-fix politics that actually fixes nothing.

Only real criticism about cameras you can read from this is that perhaps an old-school copper might turn a blind eye to someone breaking the limit on a road with an obviously stupidly low limit, whereas cameras do not, but as you point out, once that limit is set it is the law and we must respect that.

I just think some of the laws should be more respectable.

Unless you know the exact criteria being used to set speed limits, then there is no way you can claim that the lower speed limits aren't justified. It could be down to how many people cross the road, visibility at junctions, etc, etc...

Jamie_Carter

AdrianC wrote: »

The RTA is just one of the relevant laws.

Yes it is, but it is the main one. And the HC isn't the law, it is a guide. But as you say, the roads would be far safer if people stuck to the HC.