Want to tell us about your experiences using The Mix and be in with a chance of winning a £200 Amazon Voucher? Click here to go to our survey!
We are now trialing a points system in an effort to be clearer about the consequences for breaking community guidelines. Head over to this thread to find out more and give your feedback :)

F*$£%*!G Traffic Wardens!!!

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So?

    If councils need money to provide services I'd much rather they got that by speed cameras than increasing council tax, especially as there is an added value of less people dying.

    Whoa, take a step back; you've been befuddled by a tricksy government.

    If the government needs money for services which everyone has access to (or will use) then everyone should pay their equal share, that's fair. Unfortunately, fair isn't always popular policy. I know you’d much rather not have to pay your fair share, you’d like to pay less, it’s only natural. Personally, I’d much rather pay 50% income tax and have the government do away with all the incredibly insulting stealth and emotion tax, but that’s me.

    The government has the problem of extracting as much cash from the public as possible. It’s been proven in the past that you can only tax a people so much before you get revolts. So, revenue needs to be generated in an ever increasing number of novel and clandestine ways.

    The equation the government usually works with is pretty simple; they already know the components. A = Hot Topic / Someone to Vilify; B = Tax, C = Generate Revenue. All they have to do is cherry pick an emotive topic, work out how to tax it, and then suck up the cash. The really clever bit, the real trickery, is getting you to defend it. Sheer brilliance really!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tell you what should fuck off straight away. Those speed bumps. Anyone who gives a shit about their car will agree with me here. No wonder so many people own 4x4s.

    I'm with you on that one, the only car I drive that hasn't been damaged by speed humps and doesn't kill my back to drive over the darn things is the Discovery.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whoa, take a step back; you've been befuddled by a tricksy government.

    If the government needs money for services which everyone has access to (or will use) then everyone should pay their equal share, that's fair. Unfortunately, fair isn't always popular policy. I know you’d much rather not have to pay your fair share, you’d like to pay less, it’s only natural. Personally, I’d much rather pay 50% income tax and have the government do away with all the incredibly insulting stealth and emotion tax, but that’s me.

    The government has the problem of extracting as much cash from the public as possible. It’s been proven in the past that you can only tax a people so much before you get revolts. So, revenue needs to be generated in an ever increasing number of novel and clandestine ways.

    The equation the government usually works with is pretty simple; they already know the components. A = Hot Topic / Someone to Vilify; B = Tax, C = Generate Revenue. All they have to do is cherry pick an emotive topic, work out how to tax it, and then suck up the cash. The really clever bit, the real trickery, is getting you to defend it. Sheer brilliance really!

    I'm not absolutely sure what you are trying to say. I work in Govt and have worked on taxation issues and now deal with local government, so I'm not at all befuddled by the system.

    Speed cameras are not a tax. They are a fine. You pay that fine because you break the law (this is not a new law, either). The law is there because despite all the weird and wacky claims by various pressure groups, there is no doubt that people speeding adds to the numbers killed on the road.

    The fine is there, because Parliament in its wisdom, believes that there should be some sanction on people who break this law, but jail is over the top.

    That is the aim of the fine.

    It has some added value in that people who break the law pay more to the upkeep of the state than those who do not, but the befuddled people are those who claim that speed cameras are there to generate revenue. They're not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Very interesting coathanger, except that speed cameras are not a tax. They are a fine punishing criminal behaviour.

    If you don't want to pay speeding fines then there's one very simple solution- don't speed! If everyone did that then the roads would be safer- although speed is only the primary factor in 12% of fatal crashes, a lower speed would preventa lot of other crashes (such as losing control and pedestrian collisons) being fatal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The equation the government usually works with is pretty simple; they already know the components. A = Hot Topic / Someone to Vilify; B = Tax, C = Generate Revenue. All they have to do is cherry pick an emotive topic, work out how to tax it, and then suck up the cash. The really clever bit, the real trickery, is getting you to defend it. Sheer brilliance really!

    So presumably you dont want speed limits at all?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can someone explain this rule to me please? "85 percentile speed should be at or above the Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) recommended threshold for enforcement (currently 10% +2mph)"

    In other words, there have to be 85% of people using the road to go 2mph or more over the limit. So basically, you won't get a speed camera placed outside a pedestrian area, because less than 85% of people will be stupid enough to speed there. And you don't catch the few nutters that go crazy speeds on streets outside schools and cause accidents, but you will catch the 85% of people who go too fast on the long wide road in the middle of nowhere. So according to the rules, 1000 people could've been killed on a road, but they can't put a speed camera there if the majority of drivers stay within the limit. And you say it's about catching those that cause the accidents, rather than making as much money as possible?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Speed cameras are not a tax. They are a fine.

    I don’t draw distinction. You can dress up the act of handing money to the government anyway you like, it’s the same act.
    You pay that fine because you break the law (this is not a new law, either). The law is there because despite all the weird and wacky claims by various pressure groups, there is no doubt that people speeding adds to the numbers killed on the road.

    I wholeheartedly agree; speeding kills people. I don’t for one second think speed limits are an arbitrary law, and I do agree they need enforcing. I also agree that I hand my money to the government because I broke the law, I’d be silly not to.
    The fine is there, because Parliament in its wisdom, believes that there should be some sanction on people who break this law, but jail is over the top.

    The fine is there because it generates revenue. A think-tank could come up with thousands of effective ways of reducing speeding, many more effective than a fine I’d wager, but the measure that’s chosen is the fine, why? Revenue.
    It has some added value in that people who break the law pay more to the upkeep of the state than those who do not, but the befuddled people are those who claim that speed cameras are there to generate revenue. They're not.

    The added value of taxing law-breakers (fining them, if you draw distinction) is that it appeases the general public; a financial reward for the public for being good boys and girls. You placate them with one hand, while slipping the other into their pocket.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It doesn't mean that...not even 85% of people speed on a motorway at 3am.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It doesn't mean that...not even 85% of people speed on a motorway at 3am.
    No sorry, it means that police judge that there's an 85% chance of people speeding. But I still doubt that police would judge that there's an 85% chance of people speeding outside a school.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Very interesting coathanger, except that speed cameras are not a tax. They are a fine punishing criminal behaviour.

    If you don't want to pay speeding fines then there's one very simple solution- don't speed! If everyone did that then the roads would be safer- although speed is only the primary factor in 12% of fatal crashes, a lower speed would preventa lot of other crashes (such as losing control and pedestrian collisons) being fatal.

    Kermit, I’m more than willing to engage you in this debate. It’s a topic I enjoy discussing and am completely prepared to change my opinions on it, however, I have no interest in personal insults or hyperbole, neither are conducive to anyone learning anything.

    I often agree with and respect your opinions, but if you’ve got you angry / provocative hat on today, I don’t want to play.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The fine is there because it generates revenue. A think-tank could come up with thousands of effective ways of reducing speeding, many more effective than a fine I’d wager, but the measure that’s chosen is the fine, why? Revenue.
    I did find it interesting that the number of fatal crashes went up for quite a few years even after speed camera's were introduced (between 98 and 03 I think), and the pro-speed camera lobby was quite quiet. Then they went down for a couple of years, and suddenly it was all because of speed cameras.

    Incidentally, the main road in my town has just got another set of traffic lights, which from what I can see, has done far more to reduce speed than a speed camera would. But they don't make money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can someone explain this rule to me please? "85 percentile speed should be at or above the Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO) recommended threshold for enforcement (currently 10% +2mph)"

    In other words, there have to be 85% of people using the road to go 2mph or more over the limit. So basically, you won't get a speed camera placed outside a pedestrian area, because less than 85% of people will be stupid enough to speed there. And you don't catch the few nutters that go crazy speeds on streets outside schools and cause accidents, but you will catch the 85% of people who go too fast on the long wide road in the middle of nowhere. So according to the rules, 1000 people could've been killed on a road, but they can't put a speed camera there if the majority of drivers stay within the limit. And you say it's about catching those that cause the accidents, rather than making as much money as possible?

    This is the guidance from Department for Transport on the use of speed cameras

    http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_611087.pdf

    Chapter 6 also includes this
    Number of killed
    and serious
    collisions (KSI)

    And I say its not to do with stopping accidents, neither do DfT for that matter.
    The safety camera programme's objective is to reduce deaths and injuries on our
    roads by reducing the level and severity of speeding and red light running.
    The aim
    is to do this by preventing, detecting and enforcing speed and red light offences,
    which includes encouraging changed driver behaviour, through local safety camera
    partnership's approved programmes of work. The programme supports the
    Government's Road Safety Strategy and its ambitious targets for casualty reduction
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don’t draw distinction. You can dress up the act of handing money to the government anyway you like, it’s the same act.

    No, its not. Taxation and fines are not the same - whilst taxes may have some deterrence value (ie a tax on smoking) they're for legal activities. Fines, by there very nature, are a sanction because you did something illegal.

    I wholeheartedly agree; speeding kills people. I don’t for one second think speed limits are an arbitrary law, and I do agree they need enforcing. I also agree that I hand my money to the government because I broke the law, I’d be silly not to.

    Right so we agree speeding kills and that it needs enforcing.

    The fine is there because it generates revenue. A think-tank could come up with thousands of effective ways of reducing speeding, many more effective than a fine I’d wager, but the measure that’s chosen is the fine, why? Revenue.

    You seem awfully sure of that. But then none of these magic think tanks have suggested something, so I'm less convinced. Fines are effective at concentrating people's minds, - especially if after several of these fines you also loose your license (if it was revenue it would make more sense to allow people to carry on driving and just rake the cash in). The idea of being fined has certainly made me drive slower.
    The added value of taxing law-breakers (fining them, if you draw distinction) is that it appeases the general public; a financial reward for the public for being good boys and girls. You placate them with one hand, while slipping the other into their pocket

    You make no sense. Are you trying to suggest people are appeased about paying normal tax, because a miniscule amount of revenue is levied from fining people :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I did find it interesting that the number of fatal crashes went up for quite a few years even after speed camera's were introduced (between 98 and 03 I think), and the pro-speed camera lobby was quite quiet. Then they went down for a couple of years, and suddenly it was all because of speed cameras.

    Incidentally, the main road in my town has just got another set of traffic lights, which from what I can see, has done far more to reduce speed than a speed camera would. But they don't make money.

    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42140000/gif/_42140396_roadcasualty203.gif

    The scale means that fatalities aren't clear, but the trend on serious injuries is. Now that's not soley to do with speed cameras, but its naive not to think they don't play a part.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I must say it makes me laugh when I hear complaints about speed cameras just being there to 'raise revenue'.

    That is a moot point. The real point is that speed cameras will flash you and issue you a fine when you break the law and go over the limit. If people don't want to get fined, they should simply not speed. It couldn't be any simpler.

    And if they speed and get flashed, they should think 'fair enough' and pay the fine. Which is exactly what I've done in the past.

    Those bastions of law and order, the Mail and the S*n, tend to forget their usually hardline stance about lawbreakers when it comes to road laws. They even speak of a 'war on the motorist' and happily publish full-page advertisements for books that claim to offer you advice & tips on how avoid being fined when caught speeding.

    The hypocrisy of it all is beyond belief.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42140000/gif/_42140396_roadcasualty203.gif

    The scale means that fatalities aren't clear, but the trend on serious injuries is. Now that's not soley to do with speed cameras, but its naive not to think they don't play a part.
    So serious injuries went down, yet fatalities went up? Hmm. Interestingly, I read something about the government changing the definition of "serious injuries" as well. I'll try and dig out the source. But you can't change the definition of fatal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    That is a moot point. The real point is that speed cameras will flash you and issue you a fine when you break the law and go over the limit. If people don't want to get fined, they should simply not speed. It couldn't be any simpler.
    What's that got to do with anything? We're on about reducing accidents and the causes of those accidents on the roads. And some of us aren't convinced that speed cameras are effective at doing that, and the only reason the government maintains the scheme is to avoid losing face, and to raise revenue. I have no doubt that the original intention of them is honourable, I just don't think they are doing their job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I often agree with and respect your opinions, but if you’ve got you angry / provocative hat on today, I don’t want to play.

    It's not angry or provocative to point out that the simplest way of avoiding paying speeding fines is simply not to speed.

    The chance of people speeding is lower outside schools, but in order to install cameras there has to have been fatal accidents. Besides which, even if they are there solely because people speed, I don't see the issue with that. Isn't the police's job to catch criminals?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, its not. Taxation and fines are not the same - whilst taxes may have some deterrence value (ie a tax on smoking) they're for legal activities. Fines, by there very nature, are a sanction because you did something illegal.

    I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here. All I’m saying is that it’s two different names for exactly the act. As far as I can see all you’ve described (albeit quite eloquently :) ) is when you call the act one name and when you call it the other. If I call a fart “letting one rip” in front of my friends, and “passing wind” in front of my parents, I still stink.
    Right so we agree speeding kills and that it needs enforcing.

    Absolutely. I’m all for stopping people being killed.
    You seem awfully sure of that. But then none of these magic think tanks have suggested something, so I'm less convinced. Fines are effective at concentrating people's minds, - especially if after several of these fines you also loose your license (if it was revenue it would make more sense to allow people to carry on driving and just rake the cash in). The idea of being fined has certainly made me drive slower.

    I’m sure think-tanks have come up with some ideas, just none as profitable as taking money from motorists. I’ll do some research into it after work and see if I can’t come up with some solutions which I feel would as effective (if not more so) than fining motorists.
    You make no sense. Are you trying to suggest people are appeased about paying normal tax, because a miniscule amount of revenue is levied from fining people :confused:

    What I’m saying is a good way of getting people to agree to hand over their money is to pick an emotive topic, or to vilify someone or something. You can even get Joe Public to defend the tax / fine if you whip them up into enough of a frenzy.

    I’ll try and find the exact figures about the total money taken from speed camera fines last year. I think we’ll both agree that it’s not a “miniscule” amount.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    It's not angry or provocative to point out that the simplest way of avoiding paying speeding fines is simply not to speed.

    The chance of people speeding is lower outside schools, but in order to install cameras there has to have been fatal accidents. Besides which, even if they are there solely because people speed, I don't see the issue with that. Isn't the police's job to catch criminals?

    I didn't think that your first response to me was either angry or provocative, but I’ve been about here long enough to know that it frequently goes that way.

    I'm not arguing that people should be allowed to speed, nor that there shouldn't be punishments and measures to prohibit speeding in place. I just think that always the first answer a government provides to a problem is to make the public reach into their pocket.

    I also think that the government have the answer: “tax”, they just keep inventing the questions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fines are effective at concentrating people's minds, - especially if after several of these fines you also loose your license (if it was revenue it would make more sense to allow people to carry on driving and just rake the cash in). The idea of being fined has certainly made me drive slower.

    I believe there were approxiamately 2 million prosecuted last year. That`s a hell of a lot of unconcentrated minds.

    If there are 2 million dangerous individuals out there, maybe it`s time to close down the road network.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I must say it makes me laugh when I hear complaints about speed cameras just being there to 'raise revenue'.

    That is a moot point. The real point is that speed cameras will flash you and issue you a fine when you break the law and go over the limit. If people don't want to get fined, they should simply not speed. It couldn't be any simpler.

    And if they speed and get flashed, they should think 'fair enough' and pay the fine. Which is exactly what I've done in the past.

    Those bastions of law and order, the Mail and the S*n, tend to forget their usually hardline stance about lawbreakers when it comes to road laws. They even speak of a 'war on the motorist' and happily publish full-page advertisements for books that claim to offer you advice & tips on how avoid being fined when caught speeding.

    The hypocrisy of it all is beyond belief.

    Aladdin, with all due respect you’re working at the end of the thought process when you should be back at the start. Taking the public’s money shouldn’t immediately be the top answer to every problematic question the government poses.

    Do you honestly think that fining is the only, the most effective, and the most morally honest way of reducing speeding?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin, with all due respect you’re working at the end of the thought process when you should be back at the start. Taking the public’s money shouldn’t immediately be the top answer to every problematic question the government poses.

    Do you honestly think that fining is the only, the most effective, and the most morally honest way of reducing speeding?
    Just wait 'til they start doing it for putting plastic in with your paper recycling.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just wait 'til they start doing it for putting plastic in with your paper recycling.

    I lauged when i first read your post, but it's actually probable.

    They'll first vilify people who don't recycle, then people who don't recycle everything, and before you know it the public will be more than willing to accept fines for the plastic and paper mixing scum bags.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I lauged when i first read your post, but it's actually probable.

    They'll first vilify people who don't recycle, then people who don't recycle everything, and before you know it the public will be more than willing to accept fines for the plastic and paper mixing scum bags.
    Probable? I'm pretty sure it already happens in New York. Possibly just businesses at the moment though. Great when someone walks past your bin and throws something in it without looking.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I lauged when i first read your post, but it's actually probable.

    Already been done.

    Some twat in some thieving council decided to prosecute someone for putting junk mail in their recycling box, and they won with a £100 fine.

    There does come a limit. Fining speeders is fine because speeding is dangerous (though some of the speed limits are stupid, that's a different question), but fining for things that are neither dangerous nor a nuisance is wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What's that got to do with anything? We're on about reducing accidents and the causes of those accidents on the roads. And some of us aren't convinced that speed cameras are effective at doing that, and the only reason the government maintains the scheme is to avoid losing face, and to raise revenue. I have no doubt that the original intention of them is honourable, I just don't think they are doing their job.
    What makes you believe speed camres are not effective at cutting deaths?

    In urban areas in particular they have shown an excellent record of reducing accidents.

    You can perhaps argue that fining drivers for doing 80mph on a motorway on a clear day with little traffic is unfair and uncalled for. And I would even agree with that. But that would be another argument altogether anyway, namely whether our speed limits are always appropriate.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    What makes you believe speed camres are not effective at cutting deaths?
    No, because since the introduction of speed cameras, the statistics say otherwise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin, with all due respect you’re working at the end of the thought process when you should be back at the start. Taking the public’s money shouldn’t immediately be the top answer to every problematic question the government poses.

    Do you honestly think that fining is the only, the most effective, and the most morally honest way of reducing speeding?
    I'm honestly at a loss as to how else you could make people drive slower.

    There has been talk about 'naked' streets with no lines, signals or even kerbs in order to make the driver more aware and have him reduce his speed, but this is only in a very early experimental phase and would only be applicable to certain urban streets.

    Of course they could also install devices in cars that measure and record the speed at all times, like they do in lorries and coaches... but most people in this country would rather commit hara-kiri than allow the government to put such a device in their cars.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,329 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, because since the introduction of speed cameras, the statistics say otherwise.
    There are obviously statistics to suit every opinion and position on this debate. I remember seeing studies in some papers (invariably the Telegraph or the Mail) that claim speed cameras haven't reduced accidents. But I have also seen in the past other studies published by the government that show a dramatic and undeniable reduction in accidents and average speeds since a camera has been erected at a certain site.

    So obviously someone (probably both sides) are massaging figures and distorting the truth a little. The only thing I am sure of is that at the point where a clearly visible speed camera is, practically 100% of vehicles are going to reduce their speed to the limit or just above it. And while nothing is stopping vehicles from accelerating past this point, cameras placed at accident blackspots, schools etc must be saving lives.
Sign In or Register to comment.