I think this is a stupid Idea

[obviously]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Oi you cheeky what not! :P
__________________



Sorry? Having more police is ineffective policing?

Xaccers , I hate to point this out - especially when Andyl chose not to - but you ignored his point about the economic comparison. We can't simply compare salaries to one-off install costs,

Obviously the salary is a recurring charge and the salary is only part of the cost of employing someone (not sure what figures the police use but one of the companys that I've worked with used a +80% figure on salaries to include additional costs like training/admin/etcetera). Similarly the Gatsos would have running costs (simply mailing someone to inform them that they've been 'caught' costs money) hence the comparison would/should be moderately complex.

This ties back into andyl's point, I think, in that someone seeking election could go for a populist, emotional comparison (1 Gatso = 2 police on the beat) which might get them elected but would not necessarily be accurate or achievable

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by obviously

Xaccers , I hate to point this out - especially when Andyl chose not to - but you ignored his point about the economic comparison. We can't simply compare salaries to one-off install costs,

Obviously the salary is a recurring charge and the salary is only part of the cost of employing someone (not sure what figures the police use but one of the companys that I've worked with used a +80% figure on salaries to include additional costs like training/admin/etcetera). Similarly the Gatsos would have running costs (simply mailing someone to inform them that they've been 'caught' costs money) hence the comparison would/should be moderately complex.

This ties back into andyl's point, I think, in that someone seeking election could go for a populist, emotional comparison (1 Gatso = 2 police on the beat) which might get them elected but would not necessarily be accurate or achievable

My point is that for the money you get a heck of a lot more with an aditional policeman than you do with a gatso, after all, when was the last time a gatso caught anyone doing anything other than driving over the limit?

As for popularist policies, surely the police should be tackling things which actually affect the comunity rather than concentrating on things which get them the most money for least effort or matters which the community don't care about.
For instance, if the police tackled the most common crime, and that turned out to be littering but most people were affected by burglaries.
Which would you prefer they went for?
Tackling the most common crime, or tackling something popularist which actually affects people's quality of life?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I assumed you knew what the PA's powers were rather than just blindly commenting on something you're not well informed of, but for any others who don't know what PA's actually do:

And your point is *what* exactly?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

And your point is *what* exactly?

You seemed to be under the impression that the commissioner would be able to dictate to the cheif constable how to do his job, showing a lack of understanding of the current PA's powers and responsibilities.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

My point is that for the money you get a heck of a lot more with an aditional policeman than you do with a gatso, after all, when was the last time a gatso caught anyone doing anything other than driving over the limit?

As for popularist policies, surely the police should be tackling things which actually affect the comunity rather than concentrating on things which get them the most money for least effort or matters which the community don't care about.
For instance, if the police tackled the most common crime, and that turned out to be littering but most people were affected by burglaries.
Which would you prefer they went for?
Tackling the most common crime, or tackling something popularist which actually affects people's quality of life?

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!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You seemed to be under the impression that the commissioner would be able to dictate to the cheif constable how to do his job, showing a lack of understanding of the current PA's powers and responsibilities.

Quoting Michael Howard from the original link:

"The commissioner will have the powers which existing police authorities have," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme'

Quoting from your quote above:

"The Chief Constable of Humberside Police is accountable to the Police Authority for the performance of the force, although the force itself is under his direction and control. He has 'operational independence', which means neither the Home Secretary nor the Police Authority can instruct him as to how he should carry out policing duties.

"He must, however, 'have regard to' the Police Authority's local Policing Plan and carry out other duties required by legislation and/or the Home Secretary." (My emphasis)

So let's just follow the idea through for a moment:

1) The People elect an official to be their "voice" and express their views to the Chief Constable

2) The Chief Constable must "carry out duties required by legislation and/ or the Home Secretary"

3) The Chief Constable must only "have regard to" the views of the people and their elected representative.

4) But the elected representative, in order to get *re*-elected, is going to have to convince the public that he or she is doing a good job and getting their points across, but they can't if the Chief Constable decides that it goes against legislation or the wishes of the Home Secretary.

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.

[Xaccers]

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.
__________________

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.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

And you can achieve the same thing by telling the goverment and the opposition to stop playing political football with the Police and just let them get on with their jobs!

And that would be a damned sight cheaper too.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

And you can achieve the same thing by telling the goverment and the opposition to stop playing political football with the Police and just let them get on with their jobs!

And that would be a damned sight cheaper too.

Who's going to tell the police what their job is or should the cheif constable decide himself with nothing actually pushing him to tackle crime?
Who's to hold the police accountable for their actions?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Who's going to tell the police what their job is or should the cheif constable decide himself with nothing actually pushing him to tackle crime?
Who's to hold the police accountable for their actions?

I believe that the system that is in place at the moment is more than adequate.

We really don't need another layer of elected officials.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Who's going to tell the police what their job is

Oh ye gods, Xaccers...!

I think the Police know damn well what their job is and they're probably absolutely fed up to the back teeth with people *telling* them what their job is...!!!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I believe that the system that is in place at the moment is more than adequate.

We really don't need another layer of elected officials.

This wouldn't be another layer though incog, this is a replacement, and unlike the current system, this would be more open and accountable and be able to respond to the actual concerns of the community, wether that be by tackling different crimes, or educating the community that their percieved issues are incorrect.
Also, instead of 7-9 officials, it would be just one.

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh ye gods, Xaccers...!

I think the Police know damn well what their job is and they're probably absolutely fed up to the back teeth with people *telling* them what their job is...!!!

Really? Then how come I had 27 f'ing undealt with incidents????
Why were people afraid to park their cars by their homes?
Why were the firebrigade such regular visitors?
Why did it take an hour to respond to a 999 call?
Why when I told the police that a wanted criminal was in the area did they take so long to arrive and were so obvious, that he escaped?

And you wonder why I think it would be a good idea to have someone actually accountable for the police's failings and successes???
You live through months of hell, not knowing if you're going to come home to find your windows smashed, your home broken into, your belongings stolen, your house burnt down, your car vandalised.
Spend your time in your home walking round with a metal bar because you don't know when they're next going to break in!
You see your dreams be ripped out from under you and see how you feel.

I was lucky in the end, a very good policeman realised I was being victimised and got the ball rolling at about the same time as family contacts intervined to have something done, but not everyone is that lucky.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.
__________________

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.

An independent report last year said speed cameras save on average 100 lives per year. And they raised £20m. Top! Extending your argument, should we scrap speed limits as speed is not such an important factor? But I will say that I like those vehicle activated signs and would guess they are quite effective (but there's no way I would concede they're cheaper than gatsos because gatsos, as I say, raised £20m last year thanks to the fundraising efforts of speeding drivers who can't quite grapple with the legal entity that is a speed limit). But a speeding driver that freqently uses a route with a vehicle activated sign will soon get wise to the fact that s/he will not be punished for breaking the law and so will return to old ways. And, there is a flaw in your argument. If vehicle activated signs produce a 'substantial reduction in accidents' then surely speed is indeed a factor?!!

And I'd also be interested in how serious those 60 speed related collisions in Durham were in relation to the others. Volume does not tell anything like the whole story.

I also don't dispute that there are other causes of accidents which need more effective policing and that we need more traffic police* - and more proactive traffic police at that - to achieve that aim.

What will happen with the proposed system is that topics like this will become dominant when, as always with politics, there are more important things to hand. Leaving aside for one moment the argument as to whether speed cameras reduce accidents, surely we should applauding their effectiveness at detecting a crime and ensuring an offender faces justice (whilst covering local authority prosecution costs and returning a dividend to the Treasury). I mean this is the cause of so much angst with other offences - that people get away with it and don't pay the price. From where I'm standing this is not an issue worthy of lengthy political debate, but is precisely the sort of issue that will be raised countless times by aspiring politicians under Howard's proposals.

EDIT: NB noticed an error on one of my earlier posts which suggests I think the reduction in traffic police wasn't numb. It is.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

This wouldn't be another layer though incog, this is a replacement, and unlike the current system, this would be more open and accountable and be able to respond to the actual concerns of the community, wether that be by tackling different crimes, or educating the community that their percieved issues are incorrect.
Also, instead of 7-9 officials, it would be just one.

This looks pretty accountable to me: http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/introduction.htm and the (relatively) good news for you: http://www.operationscorpion.org.uk/...r_0502010a.htm

Tell you what though, you don't make Leighton Buzzard sound a good place to live.

[punky]

Anyone who has worked in a medium to big company will tell you, is that the reason why most middle to upper management are such useless articles is that they get a job, and they have some security in it. So long as there isn't a lot of internal competition from below for the job (and sometimes, even if there is it doesn't make a difference), then the employee can generally sit there and just do a mediocre job. Doesn't have to perform well, just keep the place ticking over. So long as he doesn't do a bad job, he won't be sacked, but there is no drive to do a good job. If he takes a chance he could be fired, but if he doesn't then he won't. If someone knows their job is on the line they will always try harder to do a better job,

Originally Posted by Russ D

Do speed cameras automatically cause a car's engine to lower in RPM? Do they automatically apply the vehicle's braking system?

No, it's the thought that he/she will get caught which is what causes the driver to slow down.

Which is precisely why vehicle activated signs will have only a temporary effect.