Police blast speed cameras.

[Ixion]

Thats you opinion and you are allowed it. I am not gunna argue, all I have to say yes you may have been given a warning but weren't. Generaly, unfortunetly warnings don't work. I give out a few warnings but nothing fucks you off more than give a motorist a warning and then have them drive off laughing and you know they aren't gunna do anything about it.

Not quite the point. Mr Biggles wasn't complaining because he was not given a warning when he committed an offence. He was complaining because he was given a ticket , not having committed any offence. Out of spite. And knowing who the cop was, I can believe that. There aren't many bad cops (in any sense) out there, but the few that there are poison the well for all the rest.

[Biggles08]

Nah it was probably me, I can now safely log on to KB and recieve a lecture about how bad we are blah blah blah, maybe we can even receive virtual infringements. Maybe now KB is government controlled or spyed on.

Bastard....it was me...it was me! Trying to steal my quote

[Ixion]

They may not assist in significantly reducing the probability of a crash (I refuse to use the word "accident"), but spudchucka made the point eons ago that they can affect the damage that is done when a crash occurs.

E = 1/2 M x V squared

So the energy involved in the crash (or the potential for ripping people apart) goes up as the square of the speed.
Basic physics really.

So, why do we have 50kph and 100kph limits? If we are trying to reduce the energy in a crash, everything should be 50kph. Or, actually, about 20kph, since that is the survival limit.

[Coldrider]

I don't agree with or support any one who breaks the law, i even critisize a few who do, but I don't like the site for police propaganda or lectures either.

ah, I used it too, tell ya what, we'll go halfs on the ticket.

[Biggles08]

They may not assist in significantly reducing the probability of a crash (I refuse to use the word "accident"), but spudchucka made the point eons ago that they can affect the damage that is done when a crash occurs.

E = 1/2 M x V squared

So the energy involved in the crash (or the potential for ripping people apart) goes up as the square of the speed.
Basic physics really.

This is false logic though....lets ban cars altogether then....that will reduce speed down to walking speed. Its called progress and like it or lump it, this includes getting things done faster and more efficiently. How long is this gov going to try to keep us in the dark ages? who made 100kph on the open road the 'safe' speed?

[Bass]

So, why do we have 50kph and 100kph limits? If we are trying to reduce the energy in a crash, everything should be 50kph. Or, actually, about 20kph, since that is the survival limit.

You don't need me to answer that one for you.
You know the answer as well as I do.
I forget the statistics but I think that it's now true that worldwide, we have killed more people on the roads than all the wars in history.
I am intrigued by the level of carnage that we will accept in the name of convenience.
As I said, I agree that speed may be wrongly demonised as a causal factor, but it sure has an influence on the spread of the bits (people included)

[swbarnett]

Criminals have to travel to and you would be surprised who and what they come accross in routine stops.

Why not set up routine stops at supermarket entrances? Presumably crims have to eat?

Why should the fact that I drive make me any more likely to be a crim? Routine stopping is just a way to make a cop's life easier. It's as bad as a teacher punishing the whole class just because the perpetrator cannot be identified.

The end does not justify the means.

[Ixion]

..How often does someone die as a result of a burglary or theft, the real crimes you speak of?? ..

Now this will always get a response from me.

Burglary IS a crime. the police have no remit to decrimalise it.

Burglaries often do more than steal a few replaceable bits of property. They wreck lives, they take away irreplaceable memories, they destroy peace of mind, perhaps for ever.

I know of old ladies who don't sleep at nights ,they sit up awake, and sleep during the day, because they are scared of being burgled again. I know of others who have given up their homes, and moved into rest homes, where they are utterly miserable , for no other reason than fear of burglars. And other people who have lost irreplaceable heirlooms, of little monetary value but immense personal value.

And burglary often leads to more serious crimes. Including murder. The police themselves say so, using that fact as justification for DNA sample taking from burglars. It is possible that the RSA murders by William Bell were a burglary that turned into multiple murder.

Burglary is NOT a joke, and you have no right to contemptuously deride those who have suffered at the hands of burglars. The police attitude toward such crimes is a disgrace , and unacceptable.

Your argument that speeding is more serious than burglary is fatally flawed in logic. EVERY burglary, by definition is a crime that HAS been committed . Someone HAS suffrered the misery that it brings. Probability is 100%.

Speeding MAY cause accidents, and even death, But the likelihood is VERY low. Every day on my ride to work and home, I see hundreds (literally) of drivers. At least 50% of them are speeding. How many of those that I see each day crash that day? None so far. Let alone die.

So speeding is a crime that only has a POSSIBILITY of inflicting misery. A very small possibility. How many "speed crimes" are committed in the country each year. Millions, at the least. How many of them lead to misery. A few hundred? (and remember, we are only considering speed in excess of the law, not inappropriate speed). A thousand at most. So the probability is very very low. Maybe 0.001%

[Bass]

This is false logic though....lets ban cars altogether then....that will reduce speed down to walking speed. Its called progress and like it or lump it, this includes getting things done faster and more efficiently. How long is this gov going to try to keep us in the dark ages? who made 100kph on the open road the 'safe' speed?

Sorry mate, it's not false logic and you have explained why yourself. It's all about what we are prepared to put up with for our own personal convenience.
I actually think that most of us are incapable of truly understanding until we have had to pick up some tattered and bloody pieces.
If the cops enforce the limits to contain the damage after the event, rather than prevent the event in the first place, then thats enough for me.
I agree that there are some spurious claims made in the name of road safety however.

[avgas]

Not really....had a bad accident (still recovering now) in November because of a knobskin in a car parked on the road around a blind corner looking for a Christmas tree

Goodness no, sounds terrible - i hear these new vehicles have a reverse too. Imagine the damage if he had tried that????
Yes he is a knobskin and no im not being cheeky - just merly stating that while you may be able to get him off the road there are about 2 million more left in the country.
The only thing you can change is you.
The world is out to kill you, its only a matter of time - and it happens to everyone.
Until you get on that bike, look your loved ones in the eyes and think to yourself it may be the last time they see you - your 10-ft-tall and bulletproof.

[jahrasti]

plea bargain in the sense that: Cop says "I believe that your conduct was reckless because of blah" punter says "ferk off, it wasnt dangerous at all, I barely touched 'im guvnor" Cop says "rather than fuck about if you agree to cop to careless with X penalty then I will give you the approprate ticket" It goes on now but informally. Cop goes in like a box of hammers knowing he will be bargained down, punter knows he has a shot of getting a reduced penalty, then it falls finally where it should be.

as for your cut springs example, if dickweed does have cut springs, puts the right ones in (i.e. the vehicle is presented to the cop or whatever and yes it has the proper springs in)then dickweed doesnt get caught again with the cut ones in for say a year, whats the harm? In fact is it not arguable that is a better road safety outcome?.

As for GDB cops vs HP cops, again my response is either "so what?" isnt uncle helen giving us all more cops for christmas (its election year after all). And surely, the coercive arm of the state MUST be answerable to the judicial, or are you arguing for an actual fascist police state?

the WOF example is easy too: (and not to mention WAY off my central thesis which is that speed doesnt kill, people do) You have no statutorily required certificate your vehicle is fit to drive. The coercive arm of the state's attention is drawn to that fact somehow. Your vehicle is clamped and then (at your cost) you have to get it towed to where they issue WOFS and get a new WOF. Not difficult is it?

No seatbelt? (and again WAY off the speed thing) Unless your vehicle (pre 1962 innit) doesnt require them, then you get ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt. It might be classed as reckless (but you might plead guilty to careless) or it might attract its own penalties as it does now.


OK ive dealt with your off topic scenarios. I'm waiting for you to address my central thesis. To reiterate: You need to defend speed limits ipso facto as a tool of road safety.

You're up.

I included the other traffic offences are there are traffic offences as well as speed and people would argue that they aren't unsafe.

Whats my personal opinion on speeding? well you aren't going to get me saying it on here.

I have answers for you but just can't be bothered typing them all.
You can type what you want about that.

Oh an ixion i was talking about warnings as a rule.

[HenryDorsetCase]

So, why do we have 50kph and 100kph limits? If we are trying to reduce the energy in a crash, everything should be 50kph. Or, actually, about 20kph, since that is the survival limit.

you beat me to it.

[JMemonic]

Okay, i just had to go back and read the starter post in this thread. I don't see what everyone is getting their dick in a huge knot for. (Apart from perhaps trying to prove that it's long enough for them to tie in a knot).

Interesting metaphor, and I am in no hurry to see someone prove that they are capable of this

If I speed or run a red light and I'm pinged, who do I have to blame for that? Let's see here, thinking really really hard, oh, I've nearly got it, it's on the tip of my tongue....Light bulb: the answer is ME! We know what the road rules are and if we're going to flout them we are well aware what the consequences will be - this is regardless of what our "criminal behaviour" is.

Fair call and I agree, the start of the post was a reference to the fact Police, (in all be it another country), have made the comment that speed cameras are not an effective tool in reducing the speed limit and are as such more of a revenue collection tool, if police feel this to be the case then perhaps it is correct, but this is KB things get taken out of context all the time.

Getting het up over who gets a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce leaf compared to the huge fine we might get for something we feel is far less "dangerous" is understandable but not likely to solve anything. HTFU, suck it up, and take ya medicine. I have nothing but admiration for the police who often have a crap job which seems to result in getting a lot of grief when they're either only trying to do their best and /or following orders. (This from a woman who had to wait for hours before police could arrive when she walked in on a burglar in her own home one night).

Again valid points, I too have admiration for the Police and the role they play in society, I do how ever feel strongly that having officers dedicated to traffic enforcement by manning mobile speed camera units hidden and designed just to collect fines hence revenue is a total waste of manpower (person power or what ever the PC version is). Often those who are fined don't care, look at the number of so called boy racers who have fines in the thousands and no intention of paying them.

Personally I feel it would be better to as I suggested, to have non sworn officers manning these mobile revenue collection devices leaving sworn officers to do actual police work, also I would love to see more red light cameras, and have them capable of proving who the driver of the vehicle is and a system in place that means if they can be positively identified it is not a slap on the wrist with a "wet lettuce leaf", (love that image it says a lot about the current system), but something far more suited perhaps dangerous driving.

Perhaps if our over worked and under resourced Police were not having to fill a quota of hours based on payment from the government department charged with improving road safety, and to fill that requirement were not manning speed cameras they would have more person hours to dedicate to more positive tasks, something that shows tangible results, if they had to dedicate hours to reducing the road toll then more booze buses sounds good, and a visible presence instead of this covert camera system. I remember when we used to have signs saying this is a speed camera area, the first thing folks did was to check their speed, observe what happens when a police car is parked on the side of the road in full view, vehicles slow down to the speed limit.

But at the end of the day I will not change the system, I am not in a position to, it does annoy me when law abiding folks cant get the assistance they need, deserve and have every right to expect when our Police are having to fill a arbitrary quota in hours doing a specific task that has little or no effect in the long run, or worse an officer (not sure if he is but that's another story) takes such umberance at a comment about speed cameras being an ineffective tool.

We have some good Police officers here who are doing a fine job, they know who they are.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I included the other traffic offences are there are traffic offences as well as speed and people would argue that they aren't unsafe.

Whats my personal opinion on speeding? well you aren't going to get me saying it on here.

I have answers for you but just can't be bothered typing them all.
You can type what you want about that.

Oh an ixion i was talking about warnings as a rule.

Jesus Zombie Christ! I dont give a fig about your personal opinion about speed, though given this is an informal, anonymous (kind of and in the sense that anything on the internet is anonymous, which is to say not at all) internet discussion forum, and we were discussing speed, then your opinion is as valid as mine, or hers over there, or anyones.

What I asked, if you will recall, is

Now, please explain to me how enforcement of an arbitrarily set speed limit improves the "standard of riding or driving in this country".

I'm still waiting.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Sorry mate, it's not false logic and you have explained why yourself. It's all about what we are prepared to put up with for our own personal convenience.
I actually think that most of us are incapable of truly understanding until we have had to pick up some tattered and bloody pieces.
If the cops enforce the limits to contain the damage after the event, rather than prevent the event in the first place, then thats enough for me.
I agree that there are some spurious claims made in the name of road safety however.

OK then, given that, why are known safety measures which would reduce carnage from car crashes not made mandatory? Five point harnesses. Full MANZ rollcage, neck brace, fireproof suit, automatic fire extinguishers, fuel cells, just off the top of my head.