Police mobile speed cameras - fed up of funding this.

[Agent]

Its times like this I smile due to having no plate on the front of a bike

Not that I speed, I'm very careful (I can't afford it on my licence), I just think there are much better ways of doing things.

[badass]

lol @ 28k after 2 years in the force. I very much doubt that, even in the met its about £26k

Well done for completely missing the point. For the sake of this argument, does the difference between £26K and £28K matter? I was just pointing out some more accurate figures that gives a clearer picture of just how much money is wasted on speed camera vans. I said 2 years because thats how long I can remember him being a policeman for. He's probably been there for longer. He definately does get £28k plus overtime though.

and re: double time only if they are working extra days at short notice, which for traffic duty is unlikely.

In Essex, They get asked "anyone want double time?"
This means that they are being offered a stint in a camera van.

[BEANFro Elite]

A GPS tracking system could be a fairly easy sell mind you, if you include for example, free road tax if you're willing to go along with the scheme.

Or they'll say something like, it will help prevent terrorism

[Agent]

Or they'll say something like, it will help prevent terrorism

I'm sure we can get "Helps stop global warming" in there somewhere too.

[SiM]

Big problem with the GPS idea - what about all the cars on the roads already? Theres no way all these cars will get this...
I would buy 2 cars, one banger with GPS tracking, one Aston Martin without... The GPS one will let the police think that I am a good driver as I will be slow in that... mwahahahahaa

[BEANFro Elite]

I'm pretty sure you'd have to register the GPS device with your car and then digitally "pair" them together much like with Bluetooth, a laptop and mobile phone can be paired together, but meh... Pay as you go driving is a BAD idea, it goes without saying.

[Lucio]

Erm ...... if you're using the GPS scheme to catch speeders, but you include free road tax to those "willing" to go along, doesn't that imply that those that aren't "willing" don't have to go along? They just have to pay road tax?

And if those that aren't "willing" can avoid it by paying road tax, doesn't that kind-of amount to paying a tax to avoid being done for speeding? I rather suspect that'd be a harder sell among some groups (those who either want to speed or are prepared to pay a fee to be able to) than you think, and they are exactly the groups most likely to be speeding in the first place and whom, therefore, the GPS speeding system was aimed at.

I think you have a hole or two in your logic there, Lucio.

I think I half started a thought there and got distracted by work...

What I meant to say is if you sell the GPS system at first with bonuses (e.g. free road tax), is it forms a starting point, so at first you get good drivers on the scheme, checking it works ok, that it can handle heavy loads in built up areas etc. Then a few years down the line you make it mandatory and get the rest of the people who've been thus far avoiding the scheme.

To be fair many government traffic initatives have been introduced this way, like unleaded petrol, at first there were tax incentives, followed by later on it being made mandatory.

[Rave]

personally, i think every car should have an inbuilt limit of 70mph that it cant go above. makes much more sense.

Yeah, it makes sense right up until the point where the limiter kicks in while you're overtaking an articulated lorry and an oncoming car appears round the corner in front of you.

Anything that takes away some aspect of the driver's control over the car is, IMO, inherently dangerous.

Edit: and of course I agree with all this anti-camera moaning. As a bus driver, I see dangerous driving all the time, and yet I have never AFAIK seen a policeman do someone for (say) pulling out on someone/ drifting out of lane/ talking on a mobile phone/ cutting people up/ jumping lights/ parking somewhere dangerous.

[ikonia]

I'm not bothered about the vans (although the ones parked on the motorway bridges where dangerous as they are unmakred and drivers anchor on the breaks once they realise) I'm bothered about 2 resources sat there reading the paper

[iranu]

Speed (excessive, defined as over the speed limit) is not the overwhelming factor in most accidents. How many more times does it have to be said.
Here is an interesting read that shows that the government misuses it's own statistics in order to push the wrong message "speed kills". If you wish to know the truth then read it, it doesn't take long.

In 2004 Smith was able to reveal even worse news for the government. For some time he had argued that, far from reducing the risk of accidents, speed cameras actually increased it, by distracting drivers and causing them to act unpredictably. This was now confirmed by another report from the TRL, Report 595, commissioned by the Highways Agency, looking into the effect of cameras on motorways.

The TRL had found that, where fixed cameras were installed at road works, the risk of accidents giving rise to injury was increased by 55 per cent. Where fixed cameras were installed on open motorways the risk was increased by 31 per cent. In general, fatal and serious crashes were 32 per cent more likely where cameras were being operated. But conventional police patrols reduced the risk of crashes by 27 per cent at road works, and 10 per cent elsewhere.

People who think that limiters are the way forward should not be allowed to drive. They obviously do not have the mental faculty to understand why it would be so dangerous.

There are two things that will reduce deaths (accidents_ on the roads.

1. Better driver training
2. More traffic police

In all likelyhood the blokes in the vans will not be coppers. They don't have to be anymore so will not be paid as much. Cameras are for revenue only. If you look at where mobile cameras set up in your local area then you'll see that they sited to catch the off guard motorist and not to prevent accidents. One site I know is about 200 yards away and they only set up there between 8am and 9pm to catch all the people coming off the 60mph to 30mph limit. The first accident I have known in 20 years occurred the other week and that was at the bend and not the straight bit where the limit changes.

The government can already track you if they wish. It's called your mobile phone

[dangel]

Yeah, it makes sense right up until the point where the limiter kicks in while you're overtaking an articulated lorry and an oncoming car appears round the corner in front of you.

Couldn't agree more - technically overtaking at speed counts as speeding, but i'm sure we're all happy to do it because it's safer to get out harms way as quickly as possible.

Want safer roads? Then (like others) I propose we spend money on real-life traffic police not on cameras. Hence the death rate hasn't fallen despite thousands of cameras.

[usxhe190]

i just wish they use the money on speeding cameras, mobile cameras, red-light cameras, bus lane cameras etc etc they use the money on the following instead:

1. mandatory defensive driving course
2. improving roads planning and signages so there are less black spots and easier to understand for car drivers
3. separate different object speeds (e.g. humans, trucks, cars) by better roads, footbridges, barriers, etc...
4. road police

[Sinizter]

so, you want the government to be able to monitor you where ever you go?

personally, i think every car should have an inbuilt limit of 70mph that it cant go above. makes much more sense.

Really clever. Enough said.

[Stringent]

Whats to stop the system being abused? Lets say we all have GPS monitoring. Oh look Saracens gone out in his car. Ring up some mates, here go round to Saracens house and break in, hes 50 miles away.

Can't remember the exact figure, but compared to drink/drug related accidents, excessive speeding is very low. Something like 18%? Its obvious where the Police should be working towards to reduce accidents.