Hoon backs speed camera overhaul

[Wendy]

point of info, Fuzzy;
- do these schemes catch taxed cars with no insurance?
- or 'borrowed' cars driven by the 'wrong' drivers?
- stolen cars?

Ta.

Surely those are not realistic questions?  Of course they do.  I passed two such operations today and cheered the coppers when I passed.  They gave back huge smiles.

[Jaded]

- or 'borrowed' cars driven by the 'wrong' drivers?

If there is a way of detecting this, I'd be interested. (Assuming the driving is giving no cause for concern)

[fuzzy]

Bent Mikey:
Would you say this is how MOST cameras are used?
Would you say that the operation you describe has much opposition?

This is how our ANPR teams are used.

Yes we do get opposition- from those that the system catches. It is amazing how unfair an uninsured or unlicenced driver thinks it is when we sieze their car. Do I give a toss?

point of info, Fuzzy;
- do these schemes catch taxed cars with no insurance?
- or 'borrowed' cars driven by the 'wrong' drivers?
- stolen cars?

Ta.

matt,

In answer to your questions (in order)-

Yes. Just about all insurance policies are now recorded on a Motor Insurance Database, incuding details of permitted drivers. This database is accesible by ANPR. If the system reads a plate that is not attached to a policy, an alert is given. Insurers keep the database very up to date.

Sometimes. If intelligence is received that someone is driving a car for which they are not insured, a local marker can be put on the local systems. These are accesible to Local and, insome cases, cross border ANPR systems.

Yes. Stolen vehicles are recorded on PNC which is accesible by ANPR nationwide.

 

[Tourist Tony]

Bent Mikey:
Would you say this is how MOST cameras are used?
Would you say that the operation you describe has much opposition?

This is how our ANPR teams are used.

Yes we do get opposition- from those that the system catches. It is amazing how unfair an uninsured or unlicenced driver thinks it is when we sieze their car. Do I give a toss?

point of info, Fuzzy;
- do these schemes catch taxed cars with no insurance?
- or 'borrowed' cars driven by the 'wrong' drivers?
- stolen cars?

Ta.

Can I refer you back to the point made earlier about aspirin not curing cancer? These schemes don't catch many rapists, or long-firm fraudsters, or people who mis-sell endowment policies.
They do a specific job, and do it very well.
Once more, you cannot criticise a sheep for not being a cow.

[mattc]

matt,

In answer to your questions (in order)-
...

Thanks Fuzzy. Glad to hear it's a worthwhile technique.

[Tourist Tony]

On another note, I spotted a comment from a supposed cooper, on "another" website devoted to stopping the mass slaughter perpetrated by cameras.
He mentioned that ANPR was only being used for "revenue-generating offences, such as driving without insurance"
No further comment is necessary.

[mattc]

Can I refer you back to the point made earlier about aspirin not curing cancer? These schemes don't catch many rapists, or long-firm fraudsters, or people who mis-sell endowment policies.
They do a specific job, and do it very well.
Once more, you cannot criticise a sheep for not being a cow.

You can refer me all you like, to whatever you like, but I have no intention of reading it. I was just asking a question, which fuzzy kindly answered.

To be honest Tony, I'm having difficulty following your logic here ...

[Wendy]

In fairness, it seems there are several of us having difficulty following your logic about cameras, mattc.  Tony's point was quite reasonable given your views, and I follow what he meant.

[mattc]

In fairness, it seems there are several of us having difficulty following your logic about cameras, mattc.  Tony's point was quite reasonable given your views, and I follow what he meant.

I asked a question - Fuzzy was kind enough to answer.

I don't understand why anyone needed to make things any more complicated.

Can we get back to actually making points, then discussing them? please?

[Wendy]

I asked a question - Fuzzy was kind enough to answer.

I don't understand why anyone needed to make things any more complicated.

Can we get back to actually making points, then discussing them? please?

Let's not obfuscate and/or split hairs.  Your point was that speed cameras are no good at all because they only catch some offenders.  Tony's point was that this is just fine - no one strategy fixes all ills.

[Mr Larrington]

On another note, I spotted a comment from a supposed cooper, on "another" website devoted to stopping the mass slaughter perpetrated by cameras.
He mentioned that ANPR was only being used for "revenue-generating offences, such as driving without insurance"
No further comment is necessary.

That's scraping the bottom of the barrel, that is.

[mattc]

Let's not obfuscate and/or split hairs.  Your point was that speed cameras are no good at all because they only catch some offenders.  Tony's point was that this is just fine - no one strategy fixes all ills.

OK, fair enough - we got into a bit of a cul-de-sac there.

Right, so to address the above point. I think you/Tony are over-simplifying the argument I think I put forth. The problem is that when they "only catch SOME offenders", the sampling is not random, and is in fact seen as highly "unfair" (that's a great term, isn't it?!?).
I shall paint a school-days analogy, if you'll forgive me.
Imagine you, a lifelong goody-goody, and some "known troublemakers" are all caught smoking behind the bike shed. You hang your head in shame, whilst the others leg it, taunting the teacher as they go, in full view of your peers. You find yourself the only one outside the head's office at going home time. No child psychologist is required to guess that you feel hard done by. Some might say that the school's justice system has taken a knock due to the visible failure to bring the others to justice.

Now, I'm not saying that you should have got away with smoking BECAUSE the others escaped, I'm saying there are subtleties at work here that need considering.

To be honest, if you still don't see this is a valid viewpoint, I shall give up, no hard feelings. I think speed cameras have good and bad points, most of which have now been discussed here or on other threads, and they are difficult to evaluate. My view, currently, is that the way they are currently used does as much harm as good. I do think speeding needs to be tackled in the UK today, but so do other big safety issues.

Your view may well differ to mine!

[Adrian]

I can't imagine that anyone ever left my school, and most probably any other, expecting any form of justice to be fair.

[Wendy]

I guess the problem is that I don't see speed cameras doing any harm.  If you're caught, it's because you're speeding.  End of problem, well, apart from some moaning about "go and catch real criminals".  Yes, that's you, speeder.

[Jaded]

I guess the problem is that I don't see speed cameras doing any harm.  If you're caught, it's because you're speeding.

Hear hear.

I shall paint a school-days analogy, if you'll forgive me.
Imagine you, a lifelong goody-goody, and some "known troublemakers" are all caught smoking behind the bike shed. You hang your head in shame, whilst the others leg it, taunting the teacher as they go, in full view of your peers. You find yourself the only one outside the head's office at going home time. No child psychologist is required to guess that you feel hard done by. Some might say that the school's justice system has taken a knock due to the visible failure to bring the others to justice.

How would you be caught smoking if you weren't smoking?

Are you suggesting that the bulk of people caught by speed cameras have false number plates? WOW!!!!

[Tourist Tony]

The basic point here appears to be that only "otherwise law-abiding" drivers get penalised for speeding, in that the scum on false plates, or with cars registered in the name of the recently-dead, don't get caught.
It has already been pointed out that the sheer number of criminals caught by the cameras shows that they are effective. Those on the various SScams can mostly be filtered out by such systems as ANPR.
Win-win.
But I suppose we should abandon ANPR. It doesn't catch speeders.....

Seriously, any law-enforcement strategy has to deal with the basic facts that there are a multitude of possible offences, each requiring a different strategy. Just like in medicine.

[Cunobelin]

...
Don't be daft! You can't catch unregistered/untaxed/uninsured drivers with cameras!
...
ANPR?

OK - before this diverges into a lengthy discussion of what COULD be done with cameras, let me just state:
The current speed cameras aren't going to be used to catch UNREGISTERED speeders.

By paying your dues (VED, insurance etc) you sign up to a system that allows you to be fined automatically for an offence that 10%* of offenders (who are paying less than you to use the roads) are invulnerable to.

This doesn't sound terribly good for road safety, overall.

(*Just an underestimate, one would imagine.)

Yet ANPR which does do this is also anathema, persecution, victimisation, revenue raisng only, kills millions of drivers with panic braking, diverts Police form more important road safety measures etc.....

The A14 explodes the myths.... The only intervention was the introduction of Average Speed cameras..

TRaffic now drives within the limit, and we have accidents down over 60% and deaths down 100% and only 11 fines issued.

Yet the local ABD still churns out all of the above!


Now you really need to explain how these figures are NOT a road safety improvement!

[Adrian]

Obviously the could be improved if say cyclists who, not having any form of speed measuring device, inadvertently tripped one could get the photo from the relevant police authority.

[Jezza]

Rather worrying that road deaths and injuries in my region are up one third this year, despite a proliferation of cameras:

BBC NEWS | England | Suffolk | Road deaths and injuries increase

A crackdown in September brought 2165 prosecutions for motoring offences including 328 against drivers using mobile phones and 661 for speeding.

What that would seem to suggest is that speeding is in fact not the most common crime being committed on the roads. I wonder what is? Perhaps something that only police can detect. If we can have HATOs and such like on motorways with some traffic powers, why not have them on other roads as well? I'd dearly love to see some tailgaters pulled and fined, such as the clown last night who drove a metre from the car in front with his brights on.   

Yet the local ABD still churns out all of the above!

I didn't realise anyone was still under the impression that the ABD were a credible source. Shrill indignation knows no bounds. There's an amusing little tendency amongst the lunatic fringe of labelling anyone who questions the efficacy of the current road safety scheme as being a closet speedophile. The ABD seem to perform exactly the same role in reverse. So no, I wouldn't take whatever they have to say too seriously. 

[Polar Bear]

On another note, I spotted a comment from a supposed cooper, on "another" website devoted to stopping the mass slaughter perpetrated by cameras.
He mentioned that ANPR was only being used for "revenue-generating offences, such as driving without insurance"
No further comment is necessary.

That's one opinion.

AIUI ANPR is used to identify vehicles identified in all manner of situations o the roads.   Using it to identify suspect vehicles on the roads.  Drivers without insurance, VED etc. are criminals.   I don't see this in any way as 'revenue generating', I see it as catching and punishing toe rags.

   

[Jaded]

What that would seem to suggest is that speeding is in fact not the most common crime being committed on the roads.

It does nothing of the sort.

What it shows is that, in that area, for that period of time, under the regime in place at the time, 328 people were prosecuted for using a mobile phone and 661 were prosecuted for speeding.

You can't really read anything else into that unless you have some kind of agenda.

[Dondare]

What that would seem to suggest is that speeding is in fact not the most common crime being committed on the roads.

It does nothing of the sort.

What it shows is that, in that area, for that period of time, under the regime in place at the time, 328 people were prosecuted for using a mobile phone and 661 were prosecuted for speeding.

You can't really read anything else into that unless you have some kind of agenda.

I recall a clamp-down on illegal drivers which showed that about 1 in 3 of all motorists are commiting an offence relating to "paperwork": registration, licence, MOT, insurance or VED. Some of these were wilful and some the result of genuine mistakes and oversights but it might explain the discrepancy between the 2165 prosecutions overall and the 661 for speeding.

[Cunobelin]

A clampdown on Portsmouth Taxis a few years ago saw 1 in 4 being prevented from moving - defects serious enough to render the vehicle sufficiently unroadworthy to issue an immediate notice!

[Jezza]

What that would seem to suggest is that speeding is in fact not the most common crime being committed on the roads.

It does nothing of the sort.

What it shows is that, in that area, for that period of time, under the regime in place at the time, 328 people were prosecuted for using a mobile phone and 661 were prosecuted for speeding.

You can't really read anything else into that unless you have some kind of agenda.

I see. You can't explain the discrepancy in figures, therefore any explanation must be the result of some unspecified agenda. Good one.  

In fact it transpires that failure to wear a seatbelt is the most common cause of prosecution in this instance:

Officers have also caught 1,176 people in cars not wearing a seatbelt.

Frankly, I'm appalled. Almost twice as common an offence as speeding. You'd have thought they'd learned by now.

[Jaded]

Certainly much more needs to be done to raise the levels of seatbelt wearing.

However what your figures do show is that motorists, in large numbers, don't give a shit about the law.

Clamp down on all of them.