Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
So we end up with an elected representative who can actually *acheive* nothing if it doesn't fit in with the existing structure of operations and is thus more or less a total waste of space unless they try to justify their position by attempting to raise some sort of media campaign/ public protest to force some sort of populist policy action through, implying that the Chief Constable isn't doing his job properly.
I can think of much better things to spend money on.
|
You end up with commissioner who can work within the system to ensure the police are tackling issues which the community want them to tackle, rather than spending time and money on other matters.
So you get what you want, someone who cannot just campain on popularist issues, can't claim they'll get the police to stake out all parks incase of paedophiles, can get the police to impliment curfues to curtail youth crime.
You get someone accountable and removable which we currently don't have.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
Er, gatsos are designed solely to catch people driving over the limit (or jumping lights) and then, because people insist on breaking the law (and then whining about getting caught), they generate revenue (or as you put it, the most money for the least effort). And they save lives. All round a pretty good investment. Already said I'd like to see more police - and I'd be happier if gatso revenues were going towards that aim and not into wider Treasury coffers. Speeders don't like cameras because they are more effective than wandering policemen/women at the specific job they do. They're lousy at doing the jobs they're not designed to do though. And I think you'll find the community often does care about speeding; that's why people, like me, lobby for more not less of them in our neighbourhoods (I agree speeding is less of an issue on motorways, but then most speed traps aren't on motorways) because of the selfish actions of so many drivers. But I still think Howard's proposal is nuts.
PS Probably me but I don't really understand your argument about tackling the most common crime. Then again I was convicted of littering in my wayward youth!
|
Speed cameras do not save lives.
The fatality rate on the roads has been decreasing year on year by approx 5% from 1950 to 1993, but from 93 to 01 this decrease averaged less than 3% and from 99 to 01 it was less than 0.5%!
Meaning that the roads are not getting safer, more people are being involved in fatal accidents.
They have not had a detrimental effect on the percentage of vehicles (not just cars) exceeding the speed limit either (according to national statistics)
Very few accidents have ever been been caused by normal motorists exceeding a speed limit so, it's hardly surprising that efforts to enforce speed limits are not reducing accidents. Read what the Chief Constable of Durham was reported as saying:
Mr Garvin explained: "I actually believe in casualty reduction and trying to make the roads safer but, having looked at the accident statistics in this area, we find that if you break down the 1,900 collisions we have each year only three per cent involve cars that are exceeding the speed limit. Just 60 accidents per year involve vehicles exceeding the speed limit.
"You then need to look at causes of these 60 accidents. Speed may be a factor in the background but the actual cause of the accident invariably is drink-driving or drug-driving. Drug-taking is becoming more of a problem. In 40 per cent of fatal road accidents in this area one or more of the people involved have drugs in their system."
Many accidents were caused by fatigue, although one of the most common causes of crashes was the failure of drivers to watch out for oncoming vehicles when turning right. "The cause of accidents is clearly something different than exceeding the speed limit and we ought to be looking at those other factors," Mr Garvin said.
If normal motorists speeding isn't causing accidents, then it has clearly been utter folly to base a road safety policy on a problem that does not exist. But that's exactly what we've done. We have done it because people in and around Government have a series of oversimplified and mistaken beliefs.
A study by the Transport Research Laboratory has shown that vehicle activated signs which can be set at the speed limit (well below speed camera guidlines) are 3 times more effective at reducing vehicle speed, even after the driver has been passing the sign for 3 years.
The study also demonstrated a substantial reduction in accidents where the signs were used.
They also cost a heck of a lot less than gatsos or truvelos!
Now, I'd want my commissioner to campain for more of these signs and fewer gatsos as they are factually more effective at increasing road safety.