Drivers = cash cows

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by chocolate_frog, Jan 10, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Are the Government/Transport department/Police ever going to admit they would rather fleace motorists than do anything constructive?

    From Sunday Times (9th Jan 05)
    Covert enforcement must be the only thing they do hide now adays, drivers will just be done for getting in the car next!!!
     
  2. Just about killed the debate on that one then :wink:
     
  3. 'Cash cow'; you do know that is a product which is infact losing money and market share? not that i did marketing ever.
     
  4. No. No No.

    A Cash Cow is a a cow that can be milked for cash. Like a Dairy Cow, only with Money, instead of Milk.

    see:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cash+cow&r=f

    Also, I should just like to ask what EXACTLY people have against speed cameras. This interests me, since much of the ire is aimed squarely at the device, rather than the speed limits themselves. You see, if people got very upset at the low set limits and petitioned/complained/chunted at them, to get them changed, then I would be quite interested in hearing arguments and wish them well at adjusting statutes etc&.

    But they don't.

    They complain about what amounts to a near flawless system for regulating a law. The frustration expressed is solely for the device that catchs people breaking a law, and not the law itself.

    Now, I'm not trying to start a fight or abuse anyone, so if I have this wrong, or have misrepresented someone, do tell. I'm just keen to see the arguments here.
     
  5. I recently wrote a letter to my local paper about a police 'safety vehicle' that has taken to parking on the pavement, outside a local school, at kid kicking out time, in an attempt to catch (sorry, read fine) speeding motorists. For half an hour, gaggles of kids have to step out into the (busy) road to get around this illegally parked van.

    When a kid does get knocked down it'll be interesting to hear the Chief Constable's excuses. He'll probably blame speed.
     
  6. Surely speeding is a human right ? :p
     
  7. Good point well made, AWOL

    BUT, are ya fer it or ag'in it?

    Surely my whole point is that with a camera, instead of the offensively parked van (which is surely there to either appease an insane mother or else achieve some absurd offender quotient) there would be
    a. no speeders there anyway (at least eventually, it may be hoped)
    b. no reason for the police to expend manning and equipment on what must be for them a pretty bone task anyway. Unless they're from Cambridge, in which case they probably requested the job and I'd pay attention to where the cameras are pointing. . .

    And don't even start me on rights. Else I might have to show you a red card for upsetting my delicately balanced psyche by trying to actually challenge my limits. Or molesting me. You call it.
     
  8. S_J

    the majority of us law-abiding car drivers are resentful at the fact that speed cameras are another government initative against the car driver. Those of us who have a car are being taxed to death and now, rather than chase real "criminals" the police go for an easy option of getting more cash via fines and then massaging their stats to make them look better than they are :roll:

    I have no objection to cameras in areas of accident black spots or where boy racers decide to kick the ass out of it but to put them up everywhere in the hope of fleecing more from us is becoming intolerable :evil:

    So why are you so pro-cameras? Are you by chance a traffic cop trying to justify his existence? :wink:
     
  9. To respond in reverse order.

    No, I'm not a traffic cop.

    I never said I was pro camera, per se. I'm just trying to capture the essence of the argument.

    My whole problem lies right here: "I am a LAW ABIDING citizen, I object to getting fleeced by fines incurred by speeding recorded by speed cameras"

    There's a paradox here. Since we can safely assume that speed cameras don't err, you cannot then be refered to as "law abiding" since you have to break a law to get fleeced. Stop me if I'm wrong. SO. Why is the hate directed at the cameras, and not the law? If a similar system could automatically nail every drunk driver on the streets with similar reliability, not one word would be said.

    My real complaint is that since all the criticism is fired at the devices themselves, (and they are simply idiot proof ways of enforcing a particular law) then the complaint, to me anyway, comes off as sounding a little petulant.

    I'm always concerned when people feel the need to describe themselves as law abiding, as though that might not be a given. I'm pretty sure that the amusingly illiterate mob that burned down a paediatricians house would all describe themselves as law abiding. Just not in writing.
     
  10. You seem pretty blinkered about my arguement, I am objecting to the police targeting motorists who stray slightly over the speed limit, not targeting those who seriously speed down built up areas or boy racers of which they never seem to catch :roll: It is a case of anger being directed at both camera, an upholder of said law and the law itself.

    I and the vast majority of the public object to this governments and certain police chiefs attitude towards car drivers. They use speed cameras as a means to increase their coffers and massage their policing statistics.

    Speeding and even slightly at that is viewed by some idiots in police uniform as par with that of child molesters (slightly overacting but I have seen some of the plods in action with speeders :roll: ).

    I never used to argue over speed cameras and have never been above the legal limit 8O however I know view that the car driver is an easy option in the fight against crime and an easy option to raise money for cash strapped forces :evil:
     
  11. S_J,

    A couple of points - Gatso cameras do err, but many motorists are unaware that there may have been a mistake. Their accuracy and resolution are a matter of dispute. There have been cases thrown out when it's been shown that it was impossible for the traffic to have been exceeding the speed limit, the faults were traced to rainy conditions and radar reflections measuring speeds of vehicles on the OTHER carriageway!

    There are many cameras that are placed purely with the aim of gaining cash rather than any safety reason. My favourite example of this is the new link road in London between the Blackwall Tunnel and the North Circular. The cameras were placed as the road was built, therefore there could not have been any accident data to base the decision on. The cameras are generally placed just before junctions, this would be correct if it was to enforce speed limits in likely accident black spots, but H&S legislation would dictate that these junctions should have been designed to be safer in the first place (safety devices should be a measure of last resort). Additionally the speed limits have been set absurdly low, most of that route is 40mph on a road that is easily capable of dealing with traffic moving at 60+mph.

    The idea of prosecuting people warning drivers of the presence of speed cameras actually goes against the spirit of the legislation in that, as pointed out in another post, the warning causes drivers to check their speeds and comply with the law!
     
  12. I wouldn't place your entire faith in the accuracy of speed cameras. The Victorian State Government (Australia) have recently made a provision of 10s of millions of dollars for compensation when it was found that motorway cameras had not been regularly calibrated. We're not just talking about fines but loss of license leading to loss of jobs and income.

    On the general question. As much as they irritate me the crazy driving, mostly by Probationary drivers, creating a huge road toll has got to be confronted. They are talking seriously of '3 strikes and your car is crushed' punishments for excessive speeds and drink driving.

    Bring it on.
     
  13. S_J

    There seems to be a general theme in the pro-camera argument about 'law-abiding' people do not break the speed limits. If you speed you break a limit, yes fine, but there is a masive moral difference doing 80 on a dry straight motorway in a modern car and boy racering 80 in a 40 zone. If you take the argument that by going over the speed limit makes you a criminal then this must be applied to every law and regulation in the uK today and everyone would be in clink or bankrupt through debts.

    The speeding lobby also hurts itself with the silly braking distances it maintains, which are not proven with modern cars. This alienates the motorist who feels that the speed levels are not imposed by scientific procedures but by the will of politician
     
  14. the reason the cameras are so hated , is that it is seen as a money making machine as many of them are sited in spurious locations
    i.e. clear open road with no hazards and no accident records.

    they are not "safety cameras" since they are sited incorrectly

    posted outside schools and hospital and bad accident blackspot has my support.

    anywhere else ....no.

    one of the dangers now is that the speed cameras is destroying public trust in the police and the police cannot operate without public support.
    cheif constable like North Wales Chief constable Brunstrom going around telling everybody "if you are as much as 1mph over the limit i will do you"
    then he gets caught doing it himself and get let off, worse his own daughter drive 69 in a 50 zone and hey presto gets let off !

    http://www.safespeed.org.uk/nwpa.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3978957.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/3134845.stm

    brunstrom daughter episode
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3291109.stm
     
  15. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    I did read in a motoring magazine recently that the stopping distances (which I must have memorised at one time) enshrined in the Highway Code were measured in the '30s, and had not been updated for "safety reasons", despite modern braking systems being far, far superior.

    Also, the nice TV advert where the young boy gets thrown in the air as a car brakes from 40, instead of 30? The brakes were 'adjusted' prior to filming to get a longer skid...

    Can anyone confiem this? I'm afraid that I am of a mind to believe this sort of claim, having suffered from the Traffic Nazis myself.