• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Drivers = cash cows

#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)
If you own one of those devices that alerts you to police radar guns and mobile speed cameras, you may know that they will soon be outlawed under the Road Safety Bill, which has its second reading on Tuesday.

But the governement's plans face a late challenge from Car Parts Direct, the company that sells most of the devices. It has promised its customers a £100 refund if their £199 product is banned within 12 months of purchase and is mounting a legal case citing European human rights legislation to make the government pay for the refunds.

"Our radar detector does exactly what a speed camera is supposed to do: it advises motorists to check their speed and keep within the limits of the law," said Mark Cornwall, the company's managing director. More than 10,000 radar and laser detectors have already been sold to motorists.

However, the transport department is not planning to reconsider the ban. "Radar and laser detectors infringe on the polices's right to carry out covert enforcement," it said...
Covert enforcement must be the only thing they do hide now adays, drivers will just be done for getting in the car next!!!
 
#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.
 
#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
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
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.
 
#16
Now this is far more interesting, appreciate the information.

As I said, I'm not pro camera, I'm just curious what the arguments might be, and there are certainly some better ones there.

And no random or unneccersary vitriol either. I am on the internet, aren't I? You know, the one with the porn?
 
#17
Another reason many are against the proliferation of cameras is that they only detect speeding, but are used as a reason to reduce traffic police patrolling, and because they principally 'catch' the normally law-abiding citizen. Cameras cannot stop disqualified drivers, under-age drivers, uninsured drivers or unroadworthy vehicles. I suspect that these are responsible for a high proportion of accidents. Disqualified or uninsured drivers are unlikely to have the car registered to their correct address, so will evade the fine and continue driving. Traffic police can also deal with non-seatbelt wearers, handheld phone users and other dangerous driving practices. Probably the greatest argument for police and against cameras is that police officers can use discretion.
 

maninblack

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
Many police forces have used the presence of speed cameras as a reason to reudce the number of road patrols that their traffic department makes.

Traffic police deal with accidents, catch dangerous drivers, advise motorists who are dicking about and sometimes send them on their way with a bit of advice. Traffic police are humans who have the capability to apply common sense to a situation for the good of the majority.

Speed cameras are, in the vast majority of cases, merely a revenue raising tax collector managed by "Safety Camera Partnerships" who are answerable to nobody.

Speed cameras themselves are not the problem. The scum who manage and manipulate them are the problem with their false statistics and lies.
 
#19
chocolate_frog said:
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)
If you own one of those devices that alerts you to police radar guns and mobile speed cameras, you may know that they will soon be outlawed under the Road Safety Bill, which has its second reading on Tuesday.

But the governement's plans face a late challenge from Car Parts Direct, the company that sells most of the devices. It has promised its customers a £100 refund if their £199 product is banned within 12 months of purchase and is mounting a legal case citing European human rights legislation to make the government pay for the refunds.

"Our radar detector does exactly what a speed camera is supposed to do: it advises motorists to check their speed and keep within the limits of the law," said Mark Cornwall, the company's managing director. More than 10,000 radar and laser detectors have already been sold to motorists.

However, the transport department is not planning to reconsider the ban. "Radar and laser detectors infringe on the polices's right to carry out covert enforcement," it said...
Covert enforcement must be the only thing they do hide now adays, drivers will just be done for getting in the car next!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but were the police not told it was illegal to carry out covert enforcement of speeding motorists. Hence cameras are now bright yellow and not allowed to be placed behing road signs etc. Furthermore, mobile camera positions have to be notified in the local press or they will be deemed illegal. There was a case in Cambridgeshire where offenders had their fines refunded and points taken off them because the site of the mobile camera was not exactly were it was stated in the press. That is fact.
 
#20
This topic certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons!!!

My personal belief is that with this new bill the powers that implement speed cameras are as good as admiting that they are in place to earn money first, with safety as a secondary role.

Many have seen the cameras placed on straight roads or moterways, a visiting traffic cop to our regiment even slated these motorway cameras as nearly pointless from a safety point of view.

If a camera is placed for safety, then something that gives advance warning to the driver to slow down is a good thing, especially if you don't know the area. I don't own one myself, but I beleive you get something like 50 - 100m warning. This is better than maybe 20m visual, providing the hedge has been cut back!!! (On the sign not the camera, hedges always cut back for cameras!)

The only possible reason why "covert enforcement" would be necessary is to fleece drivers, not to promote safety. Where else do you find "covert enforcement" of safety issues?

This is merely another battle that drivers will fight and probably lose. The idea prpbably comes from the same clown who thought it was better to paint cameras in grey or blue instead of bright yellow, so they would be able to prevent speeding more "efficiently".

I think there is a little too much beleif that speed cameras make safe roads. No! They can help but to make safer roads you need more traffic cops actually patrolling, lolly pop ladies and strict punishment for those who take the P*ss.

Also I would like to see the car B licence split in to catergorys. In particular, house wives in big FCUK OFF 4 x 4s tested specifically in that vehicle to ensure they can drive it.

The over deployment of cameras also harms the perception of the police in the public eye. They are all seen as wasters, who are all over you like a rash if you've got a brake light out, but no where to be seen if there is a shoot out at a barbcue!!!

Incidently, I'm not a boy racer, I passed an Institute of Advanced Motorists driving test and hold C + E with Hazmat, and have never been fined or given penalty points (touch wood/cross fingers). I wonder how long this will last, my dad isn't a chief constable.

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 !
FCUKING disgraceful, man should be sacked for these offences. Especially as he does act the tough guy in public. Glass houses and stones I feel.
 

Latest Threads