Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
Vehicle activated signs (VAS) are not cheap (in the context of speeding) because they don't catch people who then pay fines and generate revenue. So no they're not cheaper. That's what I said. I also said I can see that VASs can be effective, but that effectivenesss will be short lived as muppet drivers realise they will not be hit in the pocket and on their licence. But I accept unreservedly that vehicle activated signs should be used more widely to warn of road dangers.
|
As I stated earlier, even after 3 years VAS are still more effective at reducing vehicle speeds than cameras.
The police routinely break the law when issuing NIP's by not using recorded or registered delivery
They claim that speed cameras are "to prevent speeding" but then hide gatsos behind street signs, and mobile cameras in hedges, and plan to use a camera which can spot vehicles 2Km away, how is that preventing speeding?
They park illegally as the police are not above the law.
They tail gate on dual carrigeways trying to get motorists to break the speed limit.
I want a commisioner to hold the police to account and get them to do their jobs properly.
The increase in overall road deaths suggests that the cameras and VAS are not placed where they would prevent the most deaths, but in places where they are most likely to produce revenue.
An AA survey lists 173 miles of the most dangerous roads in the country. So how may of the thousands of speed cameras are on these killer-roads? Four! No wonder we now have over 1,000,000 people persecuted every year whilst the number of road-deaths is actually rising. The police are in it for the money!