We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
M42 Junction 3a to 2 - Cameras?
Options
Comments
-
I give up! Are you a current or former plod? This is the sort of dumb argument - which isn't even addressing the point I'm making - that one might expect from them.
No never been in the police, and don't wish to be. It's called common sense. Commit the crime, do the time. Motive for detection work is irrelevant to the consequence of getting caught.
I got caught speeding in NZ, was my own fault, I wasn't endangering anyone, but I was breaking the law. So fair cop, took my punishment like a good boy. $400 fine.
Go too far above the limit in OZ, NZ or Canada and a driving ban is instant. In Canada, they will crush your car if owned by you.0 -
Mercdriver wrote: »No never been in the police, and don't wish to be. It's called common sense. Commit the crime, do the time. Motive for detection work is irrelevant to the consequence of getting caught.
I'll try one more time, and this is definitely my last attempt ....
What has that got to do with anything I've said?
Hint: nothing.0 -
Unfortunately you and Fat Walt are completely missing the point. You and me are talking about different issues. You clearly think revenue raising is a valid reason for deploying speed cameras. Well it isn't, and even the government says it isn't (but then does the opposite anyway).
To go back to my original post, and one former Inspector Mick Bennett of Cleveland Police hoping that motorists would continue to speed at an accident black-spot so that he could get more loot to spend on yet more cameras: what a bast**d!
No, but why move them if people are committing criminal offences at that location? It would be like removing cctv in an area where there is a high volume of crime.0 -
-
No, but why move them if people are committing criminal offences at that location? It would be like removing cctv in an area where there is a high volume of crime.
Priorities: The priority of the police is to prevent offending (but they often forget this). So, move the camera to a place where it is likely to do so. Again, the purpose of speed cameras is not to catch people speeding. It is to stop them doing so.0 -
Priorities: The priority of the police is to prevent offending (but they often forget this). So, move the camera to a place where it is likely to do so. Again, the purpose of speed cameras is not to catch people speeding. It is to stop them doing so.
So move a speed camera from X location prevents people from speeding there?
No, it won't so leave it and use the money to buy another for y location if the same offence is being committed there.0 -
I give up! Are you a current or former plod? This is the sort of dumb argument - which isn't even addressing the point I'm making - that one might expect from them.
Don't just read what I say, comprehend it.
The police, Camera Partnerships don't have any legal responsibility to site cameras in any particular spots in spite of anything said by a politician in order to garner votes. They can site them wherever they wish.
So what I have to say has full relevance to what you are saying. It's a blunt instrument to catch out people breaking the law. Doesn't matter what guise it may or may not be under. Good luck standing in court:
JUDGE: What say you to the charge of driving above the speed limit?
DEFENDANT: May it please you M'Lud, David Cameron (call me Dave) said that the war against the motorist is over yet I got caught by a camera that isn't in an accident black spot.
JUDGE: Guilty as charged. There is no legal requirement to keep to certain sites and the evidence satisfies me of your guilt. (to bailiffs) Take him down. (that last bit tongue in cheek)
If you want there to be legislation to have sitings in particular places then use democratic process to get what you want. But beware there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Outside of that, if you get caught breaking the law, take your medicine, no matter how bitter it may taste.
Freemen of the Land arguments are amusing but misguided.0 -
So move a speed camera from X location prevents people from speeding there?
No, it won't so leave it and use the money to buy another for y location if the same offence is being committed there.
Yes, that was the view of Inspector Mick Bennett, as mentioned previously. And he had the nerve to refer to his organisation as a SAFETY Camera Partnership. What a bast**d. "There's a real problem at this location, but please keep driving fast so that we can raise more money". What a bast**d.0 -
Yes, that was the view of Inspector Mick Bennett, as mentioned previously. And he had the nerve to refer to his organisation as a SAFETY Camera Partnership. What a bast**d. "There's a real problem at this location, but please keep driving fast so that we can raise more money". What a bast**d.
I'm sure he's not responsible for naming the department.
Don't speed and they won't get a penny, haven't you worked that out yet?0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards