Alcazar Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 [quote user="Jon D"][quote user="Alcazar"] Parity? I think not, Priorities? NOT A CHANCE! Revenue, Yep, bring it on!Alcazar[/quote]This, surely, is absolute rot? If the exercise were simply about revenue then why bother dedeucting points until a point is reached were the licence is suspended? It would be far more sensible to allow persistent speeders to stay on the road, thereby providing a consistant revenue stream (not a bad wheeze - it paid the wages of several thousand Eastern European police officers for some years after the end of the Cold War). The more one were prepared to pay, the more one could "drive as conditions & ability dictate." Maybe discounts could be offered for advance payment or direct debit...[/quote]Sigh, (rolls eyes), So how long do you reckon folk get banned for under the totting up procedure? Forever?Alcazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bixy Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 What's wrong with raising revenue from idiots? If it wasn't for them, your national or local taxes would be higher. I'm very happy for motoring criminals to contribute to the exchequer. Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 [quote user="Alcazar"]Sigh, (rolls eyes), So how long do you reckon folk get banned for under the totting up procedure? Forever?Alcazar[/quote]Even if it is only a couple of years it is still a dent in the revenuestream, and no way to run a business. Plus, being banned might actuallyencourage some people to stop speeding once they've got their licenceback. No, my approach is better. If the intent is just to make money,that is.Actually, I've no idea how long people get banned for. Does anyone everget banned forever? Perhaps that might provide some deterent topersistant offenders on the basis that since they are clearly toostupid to avoid getting themselves caught, they are too stupid to beleft in charge of an automobile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 [quote user="Jon D"][quote user="Alcazar"] Sigh, (rolls eyes), So how long do you reckon folk get banned for under the totting up procedure? Forever?Alcazar[/quote]Even if it is only a couple of years it is still a dent in the revenue stream, and no way to run a business. Plus, being banned might actually encourage some people to stop speeding once they've got their licence back. No, my approach is better. If the intent is just to make money, that is.Actually, I've no idea how long people get banned for. Does anyone ever get banned forever? Perhaps that might provide some deterent to persistant offenders on the basis that since they are clearly too stupid to avoid getting themselves caught, they are too stupid to be left in charge of an automobile.[/quote] I think those who are the worst offenders don't actually get banned. Some time ago my boss got done for for doing 160 m.p.h on a two lane 60 limit road. He got fined but of course "his car was essential for his work" so no ban. Its only those of us who might make an occasional mistake who aren't "high flier" business/sales people who get banned as well as fined.When in the UK I got burgled a couple of times and both times the police commented (in a dis-hearted tone) that even if they caught the person, all that would happen is that he would get told not to do it again. What I find frustrating (as I think others have already commented on) is that the police is a "limited resource" - yet they spend their time doing people for speeding when maybe they should catch a few drug dealers, rapists, bank robbers, etc. When resources are limited you have to prioritise and balance. Concentrating on "easy targets" might make the prosecution rates look good and might help people meet targets but there are some nasty criminals out there who really need to be caught and dealt with (and I'm not talking about the person doing 35 in a 30 limit because they are late to collect the kids from school).Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 [quote user="Deimos"] What I find frustrating(as I think others have already commented on) is that the police is a"limited resource" - yet they spend their time doing people forspeeding when maybe they should catch a few drug dealers, rapists, bankrobbers, etc. When resources are limited you have to prioritise andbalance. Concentrating on "easy targets" might make the prosecutionrates look good and might help people meet targets but there are somenasty criminals out there who really need to be caught and dealt with(and I'm not talking about the person doing 35 in a 30 limit becausethey are late to collect the kids from school).Ian[/quote]Not an unreasonable point - but what proportion of the polices'recource is actually spent on traffic control? I'm sure someone willknow, but I'd be surprised if the personnel and expenditure involvedwere more than 5% of the total, particularly with the degree ofautomation (ie cameras) now in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 And several UK police services are doing away with their traffic departments and making the officers more generalist again to deal with the other types of crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 [quote user="Jon D"] ... particularly with the degree of automation (ie cameras) now in place.[/quote] Before somebody is prosecuted/fined from the traditional speed cameras (the ones with the painted comb on the road) a human must check the two photos to verify that the radar reading matches the time/distance from the two photos. The authorities have recently "come a bit of a cropper" as it has emerged that they have been skipping this. It emerged when some people were convinced they had not been speeding when they were fined and defended their case. It then emerged that they really had not been speeding and the radar inaccuracies had put them over. Thus the investigation showed that the time/distance measurement from the two photos proved they had not been breaking the speed limit, and it then emerged that the authorities had been skipping this verification stage that is mandatory under law. Thus there are now hundred and thousands of drivers who have been fines, given points, etc. who were not speeding yet who "just paid-up". So much for justice.Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWINKLE Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Roads are for getting from one place to another, safely. Racetracks are for driving fast cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Katie Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 [quote user="TWINKLE"]Roads are for getting from one place to another, safely. Racetracks are for driving fast cars.[/quote]Exactly my friend. And between me and you, you have driven me around Brands Hatch on many of an occasion. (As well as around the bend) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Trollope Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 [quote user="TWINKLE"]Roads are for getting from one place to another, safely. Racetracks are for driving fast cars.[/quote]Nope.Roads are for lorries, to move the goods that we all crave.Racetracks are for motorbikes (as is the IOM).That leaves no room for cars, so scrap 'em all, I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-cat Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Racetracks are for motorbikes (as is the IOM). & the North West 200!!! [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard-R Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 Tosser!!!!The point is more money is spent on catching people who have assets i.e.for crimes like speeding ( which makes the police money) then for other petty crimes. It seems to have money makes you a target and a criminals in the goverments eyes. If goverments spent the money it cost to set up traffic cams, etc ( now recouped meny times) nf pedo's and rapists, maybe the world would be a safer place for kids. BUT WHERE IS THE PROFIT IN THAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now