Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
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.
|
Damn, I'm back
Litter louts and fouling dogs do not threaten the lives of others. It's a crucial difference. As I said before GATSOs are an extremely effective - not least in cost terms - method of dealing with this offence (and light jumpers etc). I agree, as I said, that other motoring offences should be targeted but GATSOs are extremely effective at dealing with this widespread, life threatening issue.
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
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.
|
Democracy has to represent the overall interests of all the people.
Yes, I agree that more of the revenue generated by GATSOs should go back into road safety. No argument there. But don't confuse an annual salary with a one-ff capital cost for a piece of kit that will pay for itself many times over unless drivers alter their habits (dealth with this on another thread which is why I'm losing interest).
Anyway. It's Friday. It's 6.15. It's the pub!
