Re: Road Traffic Act
 

What I would be nclined to do is review all speed limits. There will always be bad drivers, and there will always be people speeding... no amount of cameras will ever change that. What I would like to see is:

1) If people cause an accident and speed is a factor, throw the book at them
2) If people drive whilst drunk and/or banned, ban them for life and/or imprison them
3) If people cause a death from reckless diving or speeding, charge them with murder.

Deterrents need to be more than a £60 fine. That is no punishment, just as driving at 3mph above the limit is no crime. The problem in this country is that a driver caught at 35mph is treated as harshly, or more so, than people guilty of much worse offences. The punishment may not be the same, but the resources used to catch them is disproportionate to the severity of the crime. AT the end of the day we motorists are a soft target, and the police have targets to reach. That, my friends, is the WRONG approach to policing.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

You might want to do a wee bit of statistical analysis on the old burglar/speeder death ratio.

Can't argue with your second point though because as you say, you don't care what anyone says on this subject. Although..... 30 is the limit, that is the highest possible speed you can go at, legally, so the caution should be on the side of the driver. Besides do you actually no anyone who has been done for doing 33 in a 30?
__________________

Offences such as? 3 points and a £60 fine is a tough penalty for a potentially life threatening illegal action? Er, OK.
__________________

And we've had the resources debate. Thanks to cameras GATSO's turn a profit. £20m to the Treasury after expenses - annually. The resources argument is a non-starter.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

OK, capital cost is one thing. But there was a case in this week's news which detailed a highly "successful" GATSO. Successful because it earned huge revenue, but also successful because it caused drivers to slow down. Once this happened, the revenue stream eased off. There were then gripes that it was costing too much for the Police to run it!

Here is a fact: GATSOs will not stop speeding motorists from killing people. What they will do is make sure that the Police/Government earn money from it. Litter louts and fouling dogs don't ruin lives, neither does someone exceeding the limit by 3mph necessarily. Burglars and rapists DO ruin lives, and the Police resources used in operating mobile "Talivans" could easily be redployed to work on this "real" crime. Interesting statistic out today: the number of reported rapes leading to conviction is at an all time low. Yet still we are spending more money on GATSOs.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Andyl,

That is a VERY poor argument. Sorry to have to point this out, but driving at 20mph is a "potentially life threatening action", although not necessarily illegal. Does that make it any better? No, because speed DOES NOT KILL. Not on it's own. Now, I don't want to rake up an old debate, but how badly was Brendon Fearon treated in his multiple misdemeanours prior to the Tony Martin case? Did the Police set up cameras to make sure he wasn't burgling?

As for resources, do GATSOs mean we are seeing more Police presence? Actually no, it's decreasing. I can only assume that you have never (or at least not recently) had reason to call the Police.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

"There was a case in the news this week...." Nuff said. Selective facts, selective reporting. We have £20m of surplus revenues annually due to Gatsos (well convicted speeders). Granted that is not being funnelled directly into policing, but the net gain to the state I would imagine - and I concede don't have a Treasury statistical model to work with - will exceed the neglible cost of what? Not putting a film in a Gatso. In one camera? Identified by the media?

And for the record, killing someone while speeding is a crime.
__________________

....and can we merge the RTA and Gatso threads? They seem to be one and the same.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Andyl,

I suggest you check some statistics. There are NO proven statistics to show that GATSOs have reduced deaths on the roads. But hey, they've "earned" "...20m of surplus revenues annually...". So I guess that justifies it then?

Sure, killing someone while speeding is a crime, but so is speeding WITHOUT killing someone. Why not focus on the former?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Ignoring the loud VERY. How strong do you really think an argument is that says hitting somebody at 20 can kill so speed doesn't kill? Ask yourself, is that is really watertight?

You clearly think speed limits are arbitarily dreamt up by cunning politicians who want to raise revenue. That's not really true is it? So, a camera to my mind can be placed anywhere where it is needed to keep drivers to the limit (for reference, that being the maximum) deemed safe by the highway authorities. Break the speed limit (reminder, the maximum, you can drive slower) and you might get done.




Besides, what's the hurry?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Proven statistics? Yes there are. I've posted a link on another thread and I'm not about to dig it out again. Independent report says 100 lives saved due to introduction of Gatsos.

point 2. So what is your argument about resources? Gatsos take resources away from policing (NB, they're paid for by local authorities)? Or Gatsos are unjustified because they generate revenue? Whar goes, you decide.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

We live in a land that has laws. Whatever we think of the laws is irrelevant. If we don't like them we use our democratic right to vote for people who we think may help to change the laws. Until a law is changed we have to abide by it or face the consequences. A gatso camera could be there for any number of reasons, as a road safety measure or as a fund raiser. It doesn't matter at all what the reason for it being there is and if it raises funds then we should be thankful that it is paying for itself.

The situation is quite simple. The law states that driving at a speed greater than the speed limit on the road is an offence. If you commit that offence then you cannot object to the punishment that the offence carries. If you stay within the speed limit you abide by the law and are not punished. It doesn't matter how many gatsos are on the roads or the reason they were put there because you are not affected by them if you stay within the law.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

What is watertight is that 30mph is not the waterline at which people get killed. If I drove at 1000mph and missed you, it wouldn't kill you. My point is that speed ALONE doesn't kill, yet that is all that GATSOs detect. And no life has ever been saved by the driver of a car being photographed.

No I don't think that about speed limits. I think that many need to be reviewed, and I also think that too much focus is placed upon the enforcement of speed limits. I shall re-iterate, cameras do not enforce the speed limit, they merely generate revenue. If speed kills, why don't we have a nationwide blanket speed limit of 10mph? And maybe inhibit vehicles so that they cannot exceed that limit? Or do you not think that would save lives?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I have also read "statistics" that suggest otherwise.

My argument about resources actually focuses more on the fact that (as previously posted) the Police seem to think it's a great idea to set up mobile camera vans within a couple of hundred metres of GATSOs, since "people slow down for the cameras, but this way they get caught anyway". Local authorities don't pay for trained Policemen to sit in vans taking pictures.
__________________

Ian,

Not denying anything that you have said. I am griping (if that's the word) about the way that certain laws (eg speeding) is more vigorously enforced and followed up than other "more serious" crimes (eg rape, burglary).

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Who pays for policing then? Police Authorities raise revenue to fund the operation of their police forces by levying a precept on Council Tax Collection Authorities which is added to local people's Council Tax bills. Police Authorities include nine Councillors from relevant Local Authorities, three local Magistrates and five independent co-opted members. To me that means that the local authorities control police funding to an extent and can influence policing matters in their areas.
__________________



Where are the statistics to back up that claim? Speeding is a far more common offence than rape and burglary and therefore will result in far more convictions making it appear to be more vigorously enforced. The percentage of drivers prosecuted for speeding is a very, very small percentage of those that commit the offence. Lets face it, we have all been guilty of speeding at one time or another, probably every day that we are on the road. So the success rate for catching speeders will be a very much smaller percentage than those for catching burglers or rapists. Also to be taken into account is the fact that catching a person speeding is far easier than catching a burgler or rapist. You can catch thousands of speeding motorists with a gatso camera with little strain on police time which they can better spend on the more serious crimes.

The biggest drain on police time is actually paperwork. Policing would be much more effective if that was reduced.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Ian,

Speeding happens every day, but (one would assume) rarely destroys a life. In very rare cases people may be injured; in a tiny minority of cases someone is killed. In those instances a life can be destroyed; but it is not necessarily the case that speed was the main factor. People are killed by cars travelling below the speed limit too.

Rape is a crime that invariably destroys at least one life. Burglary is a less devastating offence, but probably more so than speeding.

The fact that it is easier to catch a speeding motorist should not deem it justifiable to spend more time on that area of crime than those where it is harder to secure a conviction. People don't join the Police because the work is easy.

Here is a question: Has a life ever been saved by a GATSO? it's impossible to prove. But the fact that people drive past them at speed means that their presence will do nothing to save a life. They don't guarantee that a driver will slow down; they only guarantee that if he does speed then the relevant authority will earn some revenue.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Have a read of http://slower-speeds.org.uk/sk1.htm and see if that changes your views.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

A couple of years back there was a tragic incident in my locality. In the middle of the town centre an elderly gentlemen stepped in front of a vehicle and was knocked over. It happened at some traffic lights which seconds before had changed to green. The driver was completely exonerated by witnesses and the law. The gentleman died almost instantly. From memory the speed estimated that the vehicle was travelling at no more than 10mph. What does this prove:

1) It's not just speed that kills
2) It's not just bad driving that causes road deaths
3) GATSOs are not a surefir way to prevent accidents
4) SOMETIMES we have to look at the "human error" element of road accidents

Another point: Many years ago a friend was stopped by the Police for speeding after being followed past a pub. The Police officer pointed out that someone could have driven out of the pub after having a few drinks and pulled in front of him, so he should have been more careful! Amazing that the speeder was considered dangerous to the drink driver!

I agree that speeding in many circumstances can be dangerous, and should be handled. I just think that the GATSO approach doesn't resolve it, and serves as a cash cow. Surely it would be better to deal swiftly and harshly with those who break the law with tragic results, than to try and benefit from everyone who transgresses even slightly? As an example, when we hear of banned drivers going to court because of their umpteenth offence, instead of giving them a slap on the wrist, the prospect of an immediate jail term might just make them think twice before stepping into a car in the first place. These are the people who should be targetted, and these are the people least affected by GATSOs.