The trouble with the marked police car,while they are around,everyone drives correctly.They drive within a law abiding bubble.As soon as they are out of sight,everyone gets on with it as normal.
Its like where I live,we have a problem with cars racing past 50 to 60 mph,its a 30 mph limit.Sometimes the police camera van is there,but everyone flashes the lights to warn each other(except me,I dont warn them),so the van doesnt catch too many ,I would guess.The next day,the van has gone and we are back to square one.But if you had a drone there,nobody would see it,it would catch all the speeding cars,3 points,that should act as a deterrent to slow down if you never know where the drone might be.As for revenue,I couldnt care less how much revenue it raises or where the money goes.Its not coming from my pocket.Anywsy,we are 2.5 trillion pound in debt,we cant afford all these patrol cars,you would need thousands of them to make a difference
Sploom:
If you order a pizza,does it have to be delivered by a car or would you be happy for a drone to deliver it?
Me,I would be happy for the drone to deliver it and it was cheaper
Err ok right then, got it. 
(Thinks to self while stroking chin in a comic style ‘word balloon’ …Is he really that thick or winding me up 
)
Sploom:
The trouble with the marked police car,while they are around,everyone drives correctly.They drive within a law abiding bubble.As soon as they are out of sight,everyone gets on with it as normal.
Its like where I live,we have a problem with cars racing past 50 to 60 mph,its a 30 mph limit.Sometimes the police camera van is there,but everyone flashes the lights to warn each other(except me,I dont warn them),so the van doesnt catch too many ,I would guess.The next day,the van has gone and we are back to square one.But if you had a drone there,nobody would see it,it would catch all the speeding cars,3 points,that should act as a deterrent to slow down if you never know where the drone might be.As for revenue,I couldnt care less how much revenue it raises or where the money goes.Its not coming from my pocket.Anywsy,we are 2.5 trillion pound in debt,we cant afford all these patrol cars,you would need thousands of them to make a difference
As I said before mate when Franglais picked up on it…
CBA !
So as Frangers says …Game set and match to you.
(Btw I ain’t surprised in the least to hear that you do not flash your fellow drivers. 
)
robroy:
Sploom:
.If you put a patrol car there,they wont do it in front of the police(presumably).I think there is potential in those drones.Again…arguing with yourself.
So which is the best method of preventative and efficient Road policing then to actually SOLVE the problem ?
A patrol.car or a [zb] drone.■■I would say best method of POLICING to deter crap driving ?
…A hi visible patrol.car.Best method of collecting revenue BUT the continuation of crap driving …Drone.
So based on recent, present and definitely favoured methods of policing the roads,which one do YOU think they will they favour?
Answers on a post card to…
Rob banging his head against a wall.
Trucknet…
UK.Ffs !
Banging your head against a brick wall? Trying to knock some sense into it?
Keep on going then… 
So, you are arguing that a highly visible police car will reduce bad driving?
Yep that makes sense. There was of course the story of a police car (empty) parked at a bad junction one bank holiday weekend, and the accident rate there dropped.
That makes sense. If you think youre likely to get caught, youre less likely to speed.
That applies to other offences too. Increasing a sentence doesnt have as much effect as increasing the detection rate. Chancers reckon its worth a punt.
But the police are underfunded IMHO. And having lots of cars in order to make a big difference is expensive. If you see a cop now, then you`re probably good to speed the rest of the day!
To stop those who want to speed, but are only deterred by the chance of being caught, it would need an increase in taxes to pay for more cars and cops.
Are you up for that?
Some potential speeders may have a little bit more sense than considering solely (only) what is front of them at any given instant. They may be aware that there is a chance of a drone watching them. They may decide that the chance of getting caught is increased if there are drones around.
Instead of speeding most of the time, unless they see a hi-vis cop car, or a fixed camera, they may think it more prudent to drive legally?
The golden rule still mostly applies: speeding fines are a form of voluntary taxation. It is only paid by those who voluntarily drive over the limit.
Collection is eased by using cheaper drones.
I would have thought that being invisible drones are a greater deterrent. No sense of security from not seeing a cop car.
Visible police cars are a deterrent, yes.
But drones are cheaper, and the thought that they could be anywhere, at any time seems more of a deterrent to me.
Written same time as Sploom above,
Negan:
Franglais:
If fining speeding motorists really brings more cash into the public ■■■■■ then I would agree that would be well spent on more funding for the police and more spent on public safety etc.
Increase fines for all speeders and make the streets safer for women. Good idea.You cant be naive enough to think that is what happens to the money brought in from fines.
The money from fines goes into the public ■■■■■.
From there it can go anywhere.
I suggested that spending it on more funding for police, who as you (seem to) say aren`t spending enough on safety, then that is a good thing.
Did I say anything incorrect?
Or anything correct, that you disagree with?
Please explain.
Oh, and please forgive me, but I am not my own favourite subject. Questions about my stupidity, drug use, naivity, etc dont much interest me, and arent on topic.
Feel free to share with the group anything you want to tell us about yourself though, if you feel the need to discuss such things. I daresay some will be interested in your stupidity and drug use since you introduced the subject.
Negan:
Franglais:
Nope. I can`t recall any huge massively fan-fared drives at all.And on a thread where the police are promoting yet another crackdown on motorists you still feel the need to tell me im wrong?
.
An article on the BBC is now?
Negan:
a huge drive and massively fan fared unveiling of a crackdon on crimes
I thought it was a bit of publicity to warn people to drive within the limits and avoid fines. A bit of prevention that cost the force a phone call and an interview.
Sorry, I obviously got that wrong then.
And I didn`t say you were wrong, I asked what you were talking about.
Your idea of “huge” and “massive” might be different to mine. Do ladies ever ask you about that?
Negan:
Franglais:
I kinda thought using the correct word was quite important, but… so what were you trying to say with your 100mph example?Its been explained to you. 4 times now.
Youre either incredibly stupid or youre trolling
Either way I hope you warmed up because youll do yourself an injury with all that goalpost moving and running around in circles
You said you only wanted technology used on 100mph or whatever (high?/excessive?) speeding vehicles?
How do you know how fast they are going until you measure their speed? Get a copper to stand by and guess before he pushes a button?
Drones are cheap tech. Cheaper than patrol cars with qualified personnel.
They are better suited to keeping the streets safe rather than chasing speeding motorists. All the more reason to have more cheap tech used!
Or do you want fines only for a given amount over the legal speed? We already have that.
You ask if I would be up for more tax to fund visible policing on the roads with the effect of safer driving?
Absolutely,… but why pay more tax ?
Surely better to make the present taxes paid more efficient and cost effective and better spent on stuff like this that benefits everybody, instead of wasting millions on lost causes .
Let me think of an example…
Let’s start with the present and on going obscene amount of money spent 24/7 keeping economic migrants, including the percentage thereof of potential (and active) terrorists, in the lap of fully funded all inclusive luxury in 4 and 5 star hotels…for starters. 
Then I’ll think of something else to do with using Police time more efficiently and prioritising.
robroy:
@Franglais…You ask if I would be up for more tax to fund visible policing on the roads with the effect of safer driving?
Absolutely,… but why pay more tax ?Surely better to make the present taxes paid more efficient and cost effective and better spent on stuff like this that benefits everybody, instead of wasting millions on lost causes .
Let me think of an example…
Let’s start with the present and on going obscene amount of money spent 24/7 keeping economic migrants, including the percentage thereof of potential (and active) terrorists, in the lap of fully funded all inclusive luxury in 4 and 5 star hotels…for starters.
Then I’ll think of something else to do with using Police time more efficiently and prioritising.
RobRoy Bingo !
A thread on speeding and you`ve brought up Covid, Brexit, and now Migrants. Just need Newcastle footie and beer now, for a full house!
Yep …
Thing is though mate if you’re going to try out some comic material, at least think of your own instead of pinching mine.
I’ve used that one against you numerous times.
Brexit?? Nah that’s your life’s obsession mate, not mine. I never mentioned it, try and keep up.
But 5 out if 10 for effort… and all the correct spellings anyway. 
(I Notice your polite replies to me did not last long btw. )
Newcastle 1230 kick off Aston Villa out for a pint later on.
HOUSE !!!
Foxy.
robroy:
Brexit?? Nah that’s your life’s obsession mate, not mine. I never mentioned it, try and keep up.
robroy:
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.
Oh…are we in a competition ■■
Yeh, what am I likeNah it ain’t that mate,.I’m hardly going to get into an argument about believing everything that is released officially with a guy who is a well known serial conformist, who swallowed the whole Covid thing hook line and sinker, to the point where he had a lousy 2020 Christmas and who presumably still wears his mask…
Anyway haven’t you got a Brexit thread to perpetuate and keep bumping to the top.As for Sploomy, he believes in fairy tales and denounces science so I’m hardly going to attempt to point out a hidden agenda on what they like to sell based on ‘road safety’ now am I, unless I can wrap it around a Bible quote.
I’m all for keeping d/heads on the road in their place but call me old fashioned, but I still prefer the old way of prevention and policing by a high traffic division presence on the roads as it once was,…if you see a patrol car once in a week you’ve seen one more than you did last week.
It’s all about policing by stealth nowadays, cameras, [zb] s in tractor units, now drones,.all to increase the coffers…unfortunately not the coppers.In the old days said police presence kept everybody on their toes, so now they will catch a small percentage with their drones, where as the rest of em are on a daily free for all because there are no, or very few police cars around any more
Sorry…I really must hang on my every word and keep stringent checks and accounts on all my posts as you do (on mine )
If I did not know better I’d think you had ‘a thing’ for me…getting slightly scared.
But tbf both references were in context at a pop at you…and both accurate I would add.
robroy:
Sorry…I really must hang on my every word and keep stringent checks and accounts on all my posts as you do (on mineIf I did not know better I’d think you had ‘a thing’ for me…getting slightly scared.
But tbf both references were in context at a pop at you…and both accurate I would add.
Ah, “having a pop”… personal comments not related to the thread…AKA Trolling.
the maoster:
Sploom:
Robroy.
How many idiots have you seen on the roads today?How many drivers have cut you up?
I dont care who reports them,a policeman,a robot or a drone,so long as they have the inconvenience of a fine and pointsSeriously? You think that drones are going to stop bad behaviour? I wish I shared your optimism. There’s one thing and one thing only that curbs bad behaviour and that’s a fully marked up patrol vehicle. Period. Nothing else comes close. Bad driving isn’t accidental you know, it’s born out of arrogance and a “F you” attitude that comes from knowing that there’s zero chance of being caught.
So we can agree that for some it is only the chance of getting caught that makes them obey speed limits?
If there is a fully marked cop car then yes, that will probably have an effect in cutting speeding. But as Sploom says they are expensive and not often seen. As soon as out of sight the speeders go fast again.
But what if the speeders realised that a drone, out of sight, could be nicking them anywhere? Wouldn`t the cleverer ones start to drive more sensibly?
If the loons did get nicked, who is to blame for that? Only themselves. Of course they will whinge on about it “not being fair” or whatever, but they are as you said full of arrogance and F-you attitude. No sympathy from me.
If the drones stop bad driving because they increase the chance of a nick? Job done.
If the drones don`t prevent bad driving but fine and ban bad drivers? Job done.
If the drones nick no-one? No harm done to any “poor victims” of them!
I reckon trying them out is a good idea.
Franglais:
robroy:
Sorry…I really must hang on my every word and keep stringent checks and accounts on all my posts as you do (on mineIf I did not know better I’d think you had ‘a thing’ for me…getting slightly scared.
But tbf both references were in context at a pop at you…and both accurate I would add.
Ah, “having a pop”… personal comments not related to the thread…AKA Trolling.
Just whatever you say my man.
AKA play the victim, give Winseer a bell for some more tips.
.
You’d give a [zb] asprin a headache
Franglais:
I thought it was a bit of publicity to warn people to drive within the limits and avoid fines. A bit of prevention that cost the force a phone call and an interview.
Sorry, I obviously got that wrong then.
Yes, you did
Franglais:
They are better suited to keeping the streets safe rather than chasing speeding motorists.
And doing nothing at the time then sending a letter through the door 6 weeks later when the “danger” is long since past is doing that how exactly?
Franglais:
Im not my own favourite subject
Youre definitely someone who likes the sound of his own voice though
Franglais:
I daresay some will be interested in your stupidity and drug use since you introduced the subject
No I didnt but one thing ive learned over the past 2 days is you tend to read one thing then make it mean something else so its understandable why youd think that
Franglais:
You said you only wanted technology used on 100mph or whatever (high?/excessive?) speeding vehicles?
That isnt what I said though. Thats you making things up to suit yourself again.
What I actually said was if it were being used to catch excessive speeding at the time then id be on board but you grabbed on to the example I made, thought youd found a loophole and now despite being told about half a dozen times cant seem to understand it
Negan:
You’d give a [zb] asprin a headacheFranglais:
I thought it was a bit of publicity to warn people to drive within the limits and avoid fines. A bit of prevention that cost the force a phone call and an interview.
Sorry, I obviously got that wrong then.Yes, you did
Franglais:
They are better suited to keeping the streets safe rather than chasing speeding motorists.And doing nothing at the time then sending a letter through the door 6 weeks later when the “danger” is long since past is doing that how exactly?
Franglais:
Im not my own favourite subjectYoure definitely someone who likes the sound of his own voice though
Franglais:
I daresay some will be interested in your stupidity and drug use since you introduced the subjectNo I didnt but one thing ive learned over the past 2 days is you tend to read one thing then make it mean something else so its understandable why youd think that
Franglais:
You said you only wanted technology used on 100mph or whatever (high?/excessive?) speeding vehicles?
That isnt what I said though. Thats you making things up to suit yourself again.
What I actually said was if it were being used to catch excessive speeding at the time then id be on board but you grabbed on to the example I made, thought youd found a loophole and now despite being told about half a dozen times cant seem to understand it
[/quote]
Ignoring the irrelevant guff.
So you are only happy if someone is caught at the time?
You are unhappy if they get a fine 6 weeks later?
Is that what you mean?
Franglais:
So you are only happy if someone is caught at the time?
You are unhappy if they get a fine 6 weeks later?
Is that what you mean?
How does a fine 6 weeks after the event stop dangerous speeding drivers?