OT:speed cameras

Yes they do. The decision to reduce the numbers of patrol cars on the roads was made by the police, not anyone else according to ACPO. With the increasing number of revenue cameras they felt they could safely reduce road patrols. The figures of course show quite the opposite.

The govt. have set road safety as a high priority and Chief Constables have a large amount of autonomy already in how they spend their budget. Having experienced the US system I am very suspicious of it. The person elected tends to be more politician than independent policeman and invariably has to seek financial support to run from local industry which in turn makes them beholden to their sponsors - not something I would like to see here.

On 20/11/2003 07:35 SteveG wrote

Well I was born in Scotland, so I could never say I support the Poms, could I? :-)

Seriously though, I don't mind who wins any sporting match as long as it's played fairly etc. I'll just be glad when it's all over and the British and Aussie press stop trying to make an issue out of what's "boring" or not.

On 20/11/2003 07:40 Paul S. Brown wrote

Our system is a system of 12 demerit points and you lose your licence. But the number of points varies with the amount you're over.

Under 13 km is 1 point and $100 (around 42 pence to the dollar at the moment) Over 13 to less than 20 is 3 points and $150 Over 20 to less than 30 is 4 points and $250 Over 30 to less than 40 is 6 points and $350 Over 40 is 8 points and $700 plus your licence is automatically suspended for 6 months.

Personally, I think that there has been an over-concentration on speed and speed limits. Yes, the greater the speed the worse any accident will be, but the danger is bad driving, and that's something which isn't detectable by speed cameras, and which can involve speeds well below the posted limit.

Remember, a person can pass a driving test with no experience of driving at over 30mph. I was lucky, living out in the country and taking lessons from a good driving instructor. I did learn what safe distances looked like. And, since I broke my leg, I've travelled to hospital in ambulances driven by people who were worryingly close to the vehicle ahead.

Am I too cautious? Maybe so, but I've had road accidents too. I'm not perfect, but a lot of people seem worse. And I wonder if too many drivers come out of the test, over-encouraged to make "adequate progress", and not realising how dangerous and aggressive their driving might be in other conditions.

Personally I think this kind of system is preferable to our fixed penalty (3 points + £60) one.

Regards Steve G

SG: I accept that iw was the chief constables who decided to reduce the number of patrol cars but that was partly in response to initiatives and priorities for other areas of policing set by central government. One example here in Bristol has been the use of ARV officers to do foot patrols in certain areas of the city in an attempt to reduce drug dealing on the streets. Very successful they were too, but car crime increased elsewhere and as soon as the patrols stopped the dealers were back in their old haunts again. The simple fact is that there are not enough police officers available to cover every aspect of policing adequately so where they can automate detection they will.

Road safety, drug dealing, burglaries, street crime are all "priorities" for the government. You can't deal with every aspect of policing being a priority unless you seriously increase resources (manpower more than money) and put those resources where they are needed - on the streets - rather than behind a desk filling out forms.

CPO's have autonomy to spend budgets as they see fit but if they don't meet government targets then their budget for next year will be reduced (David Blunkett made this statement to the ACPO recently). In reality he is telling them how to police their force areas and that can't be right; what's needed in Bristol may not be the same as Birmingham, London or Newcastle.

I've lived in the USA and although their system isn't perfect I still thin it's better than ours.

Regards Steve G

That might be the case in NSW or QLD, but down here in Victoria all the laws have changed recently... The new penalties are:

Less than 10km/h over : 1 point and $125

They've also changed the rules where we used to get a 10% margin over the posted limit, but now it's down to 3km/h tolerance.

I got pegged doing 127 in a 100 zone (half-way between Melbourne and Adelaide [700ish km's] on a good bit of straight road) just before they changed the rules and it cost me $200 and 3 points. (I was in the Range Rover too!)

Revenue raising...

Macca

On 20/11/2003 20:53 Macca wrote

It makes you wonder why they bothered establishing the national road rules only 4 years ago. I know that in Qld, they repealed our old traffic act and brought in the new act so that the rules would be standard throughout the country.

I think that they should work on a sliding scale as they do now, but based on a percentage of the posted speed limit. I mean 10 km over the limit right outside a school is potentially much more risky than your trip of 127 km/h in a hundred zone out in the middle of nowhere.

Some years ago my Dad and I were driving through a remote bit of Victora and were stopped doing 125 kph on a 100 stretch. We received three bits of advice

i) stick to 110 and no one will bother you ii) watch out - there's one of my mates a few km down the road iii) let him drive (pointing to me). Foreigners are too much trouble to book.

I like Australians. Even the coppers.

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 '77 101FC Ambulance '95 Discovery V8i