Police drones for safer driving

[negan]

Franglais:
I saw the word “usually”.
How does it change any context?

Because it means I wanst saying they didnt spend more money on catching speeders than anything else. It was pretty self explanatory

Franglais:
Stopping and searching youths for knives etc might be viewed as low level stuff, but that might be stopping murders etc.

Dont recall ever saying it wouldnt be but the power to stop and search isnt down to the cops instinct but can only be done if the offender has done something first. How many stabbings could be avoided if the carrier got caught first?

Franglais:
Investigating serious offences properly isn`t only about making victims or their families feel better.
It is also about letting possible criminals know that they will likely be caught and so act as a deterrent.

Is that why muder is so rare?

Franglais:
“allegedly limited” police resources?
What? Are they really unlimited? Do tell.

You dont think theres a place between limited and unlimited?

Franglais:
I would like to see more resources given to prevention and solving of car and domestic theft. If that costs a few more quid on my taxes, fine.

Or they could use the money they already have to deal with it

Franglais:
If only those doing 100mph on the m-way were targeted then wouldnt there be vast numbers driving at 99mph all the time? They would then moan and whinge for getting fined for doing 1mph more than someone doing 99. Youre effectively changing the speed limit by selective enforcement.

Nope, not even close. Nowhere did I say 100mph would be the cut off

Franglais:
Easy to cut down the 10mph over the top small fines: make them £1,000 fine and a year ban. Bet they would decrease a lot.
We know that 10 over the top is a smaller penalty so maybe are careless. Anyone who gets caught can only blame one person.

Not sure about a grand and a ban but I do agree the penalty for going over by more than is justifiably a lapse in concentration being increased might make the problem decrease

[yourhavingalarf]

Help yourselves…

[robroy]

Franglais:

robroy:

Sploom:
People who dont like police enforcement of traffic laws are a bit like those who dont like “grassers”.
They dont like them but at the same time,they cant really justify their position.If you ask them to explain,you hit a brick wall,they just say,yeah,whatever!

People who don’t see the real picture and the real reason and hidden priority agenda, but instead always blindly believe the official line are somewhere between naive, gullible…and brainwashed, not to mention non ‘streetwise’.

Ah, of course.
Just another facet of the great coordinated plot against a few knowledgeable “special” people.

I am so unhappy that I am not one of chosen ones, clever enough to be able to see this happening. Is there anywhere I can look to see proof of this?

Nah…cba.
It would be a waste of time and effort.

[franglais]

Negan:

Franglais:
I saw the word “usually”.
How does it change any context?

Because it means I wanst saying they didnt spend more money on catching speeders than anything else. It was pretty self explanatory

Negan:

Sploom:
Why would you be against bringing justice to these people?

Ever noticed that the biggest injustices they want to fight and spend resources on are usually the ones with fines attached?

You said they usually spend more money on speeding. Yes, not always.
Im no asking you to show they spend more on speeding *always*, Im asking you to show they usually spend more on speeding.
(or other offences with fines)

[franglais]

Sploom:
If you ask them to explain,you hit a brick wall,they just say,yeah,whatever!

robroy:
Nah…cba.
It would be a waste of time and effort.

Game, set, and match, to Sploom.

[franglais]

Negan:

Franglais:
If only those doing 100mph on the m-way were targeted then wouldnt there be vast numbers driving at 99mph all the time? They would then moan and whinge for getting fined for doing 1mph more than someone doing 99. Youre effectively changing the speed limit by selective enforcement.

Nope, not even close. Nowhere did I say 100mph would be the cut off

The actual figure doesn`t matter does it? Wherever you put a " cut-off" that will effectively be the new limit.
Someone will always cry about being “only just over” wherever it is.

[negan]

Franglais:
Im no asking you to show they spend more on speeding *always*, Im asking you to show they usually spend more on speeding.
(or other offences with fines)

How many big drives and launches to big fanfares do you see to deal with crimes that involve nothing more than a fine compared to those that dont?

Franglais:
The actual figure doesn`t matter does it? Wherever you put a " cut-off" that will effectively be the new limit.
Someone will always cry about being “only just over” wherever it is.

I didnt say there would be a cut off, nor a new limit.
I made an example and what youve done is latch on to it like a limpet and now cant see past it because you have this incredible inability to think outside the box and see a whole picture

[franglais]

Negan:

Franglais:
Im no asking you to show they spend more on speeding *always*, Im asking you to show they usually spend more on speeding.
(or other offences with fines)

How many big drives and launches to big fanfares do you see to deal with crimes that involve nothing more than a fine compared to those that dont?

I`m not talking about how many I see. You made a statement about spending, not me.
Justify it if you can.

[franglais]

Fixing quotes…

[franglais]

Negan:

Franglais:
The actual figure doesn`t matter does it? Wherever you put a " cut-off" that will effectively be the new limit.
Someone will always cry about being “only just over” wherever it is.

I didnt say there would be a cut off, nor a new limit.
I made an example and what youve done is latch on to it like a limpet and now cant see past it because you have this incredible inability to think outside the box and see a whole picture

You gave an example, and I took that example, and used it
If it was a bad example, change it or use a general case.

[franglais]

Negan:
what youve done is latch on to it like a limpet and now cant see past it because you have this incredible inability to think outside the box and see a whole picture

I do agree that limpets probably have a limited field of vision.
If they exist inside a box then their existential cognisance might well be limited too.
What`s your excuse?

[negan]

Franglais:

Negan:
what youve done is latch on to it like a limpet and now cant see past it because you have this incredible inability to think outside the box and see a whole picture

I do agree that limpets probably have a limited field of vision.
If they exist inside a box then their existential cognisance might well be limited too.
What`s your excuse?

Im going to go ahead and assume that this reply is your way of admitting Ive got valid points but you dont want to admit it

[negan]

Franglais:

Negan:

Franglais:
The actual figure doesn`t matter does it? Wherever you put a " cut-off" that will effectively be the new limit.
Someone will always cry about being “only just over” wherever it is.

I didnt say there would be a cut off, nor a new limit.
I made an example and what youve done is latch on to it like a limpet and now cant see past it because you have this incredible inability to think outside the box and see a whole picture

You gave an example, and I took that example, and used it
If it was a bad example, change it or use a general case.

Wasnt a bad example though was it? It was a generic figure picked from way above the legal limit to make a point and you decided to focus on the fact that everyone would just drive at 1mph below it and cant seem to understand that the figure was in no way supposed to be a cut off point.

[franglais]

Negan:

Franglais:

Negan:
what youve done is latch on to it like a limpet and now cant see past it because you have this incredible inability to think outside the box and see a whole picture

I do agree that limpets probably have a limited field of vision.
If they exist inside a box then their existential cognisance might well be limited too.
What`s your excuse?

Im going to go ahead and assume that this reply is your way of admitting Ive got valid points but you dont want to admit it

You assume an awful lot, with no evidence at all to support it, when asked you provide nothing, so assuming yet something else is no shock at all.

[negan]

Franglais:
You assume an awful lot, with no evidence at all to support it, when asked you provide nothing, so assuming yet something else is no shock at all.

Theres plenty evidence.
Its in the fact ive asked you about 4 questions you havent answered and ignored everything ive said bar one hypothetical example that you seem to have taken as a set in stone solution

[franglais]

Negan:

Franglais:

Negan:

Franglais:
The actual figure doesn`t matter does it? Wherever you put a " cut-off" that will effectively be the new limit.
Someone will always cry about being “only just over” wherever it is.

I didnt say there would be a cut off, nor a new limit.
I made an example and what youve done is latch on to it like a limpet and now cant see past it because you have this incredible inability to think outside the box and see a whole picture

You gave an example, and I took that example, and used it
If it was a bad example, change it or use a general case.

Wasnt a bad example though was it? It was a generic figure picked from way above the legal limit to make a point and you decided to focus on the fact that everyone would just drive at 1mph below it and cant seem to understand that the figure was in no way supposed to be a cut off point.

My point being that if there is a cut-off as you suggested

Negan:
If this were used solely to catch excessive speeders (over 100mph on m/ways, 50 is a 30 etc)

Then the cutoff would become in real life the new limit.

[negan]

Franglais:
My point being that if there is a cut-off as you suggested

Negan:
If this were used solely to catch excessive speeders (over 100mph on m/ways, 50 is a 30 etc)

At no point whatsoever did I suggest a cut off.
Try to stay with me here. Those wernt suggested cut offs. Those were examples of excessive speeds worthy of a huge crack down. I notice youve missed the bit about most people caught by this use of resources being only a few mph over. How convenient for you

[franglais]

Negan:

Franglais:
You assume an awful lot, with no evidence at all to support it, when asked you provide nothing, so assuming yet something else is no shock at all.

Theres plenty evidence.
Its in the fact ive asked you about 4 questions you havent answered and focused on the one hypothetical example that you took as a set in stone solution

You made a statement which I have challenged. You have given no evidence to support it.
You have asked other questions, and said “there is loads of evidence” but nothing else.

Why would I waste my time answering random questions about things you have said? When you don`t!
Why ask me about publicity campaigns etc? You introduced them.

[franglais]

Negan:

Franglais:
My point being that if there is a cut-off as you suggested

Negan:
If this were used solely to catch excessive speeders (over 100mph on m/ways, 50 is a 30 etc)

At no point whatsoever did I suggest a cut off.
Try to stay with me here. Those wernt suggested cut offs. Those were examples of excessive speeds worthy of a huge crack down. I notice youve missed the bit about most people caught by this use of resources being only a few mph over. How convenient for you

[franglais]

Negan:

Franglais:
My point being that if there is a cut-off as you suggested

Negan:
If this were used solely to catch excessive speeders (over 100mph on m/ways, 50 is a 30 etc)

At no point whatsoever did I suggest a cut off.
Try to stay with me here. Those wernt suggested cut offs. Those were examples of excessive speeds worthy of a huge crack down. I notice youve missed the bit about most people caught by this use of resources being only a few mph over. How convenient for you

The resources exist.
That most people are only a few mph over the limit is probably true. After all how could you have more doing 90 plus than do 70 plus?!

What is inconvenient to me?