Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
Er, but when people get caught breaking a law do they perpetually whinge about it like speeding motorists do. And, if anything, your argument makes the case for speed cameras; they are a low cost (indeed profit generating) way of enforcing the law without the need for costly police manpower and expertise. Of course I would argue that speed cameras should be complemented by higher profile trafiic policing to target those that hog middle lanes, fail to indicate, lack concentration, drive under the influence or are engaged in motor related crime.
As for more serious offences. To me as a parent, idiot drivers are by far my biggest fear in relation to the safety of me and my family.
These arguments and others have comprehensively been exhausted on this and other threads, and I'm aware I'm therefore repeating myself. I may well tactfully withdraw from this debate (but then again......  ) |
OK, let's think about this. If there were cameras outside every pub, watching for people who threw away cigarette butts (litter louts?), there would be uproar. If every park had cameras looking for dog owners who allowed their dogs to foul the path there would be uproar. The emphasis is the way in which motorists are policed compared to other "criminals".
You also made an interesting point about idiot drivers. But let's clarify that GATSOs do not catch idiot drivers, or drunk drivers, they catch people who could be driving at 33mph on an empty road at 3am in the mid-week. But a drunk driver at 30mph would not be stopped by a GATSO. An idiot driver would get past one as well, if he were driving at 30mph. And as far as I know, there is no GATSO in the land that can identify a banned driver at 30mph.
Police checks are a good thing, in my opinion; the current use of GATSOs is not.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
Democracy is not that simple. Parliament has to represents the interest of all people, not just a majority with a voracious appetite for right wing media led agendas. If it came to a referendums, we'd be hanging people left right and centre - probably without fair trial! - islam would be outlawed and there wouldn't be a black face to be seen in the country. People need protecting from the significant number of drivers who drive recklessly fast because, in their high opinion of themselves, they think they are safe doing so. Until they hit somebody...
The more obvious question is why speed cameras are so high on the agenda when there are so many pressing issues which the media could focus on like child poverty, rising TB, rising racially motivated crime etc, etc.
|
Surely that's a contradiction in terms Andy? If democracy doesn't represent the majority, it must represent a minority, as there is rarely a situation where ALL people agree on an issue?
People need protecting from a lot of things; drivers could well feature low down on the list. But it is not just the "recklessly fast" motorists who are punished; it is also those who exceed the limit by 3mph when most people would deem it perfectly safe to do so.
I agree about other things being more important. But how much GATSO revenue goes towards the things you mention? If the revenue goes to the police, we should expect to see falling crime rates, greater police presence etc. But I think that's not the case. Would you agree?
Or maybe the £20k cost of a GATSO could be spent on the salary of one nurse? Now THAT could be said to be helping save lives.