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?
I guess that is what you do mean then?
I covered this in a reply to Maoster, but I`m happy to try again.
Visible police cars, visible speed cameras, visible speed vans (including those you`re warned about by headlight flashing) modify behaviour.
If potential speeders know there is a chance of being nicked, they drive within the limit.
If a potential speeder thinks that there is good chance of getting nicked they are less likely to speed.
So, if a potential speeder realises that there are lots of speed traps then they will speed less often.
So, lots of drones, looking all the time means a greater chance of a nick, so those with brains sped less often.
If someone speeds then
the maoster:
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.
More drones (cheaper than any cop car) means more chance of a fine, and because it isn`t visible less chance of speeding up after the obvious risk is passed.
6 weeks later or not to get a fine? How is that remotely relevant? If someone is speeding then getting a fine will hopefully make them realise that it isnt a sensible thing to do. Speeding and fines isnt some childish game where the speeder is in a safe zone if they aren`t caught at the time.
That is for those who who whinge when they are caught later on. The arrogant ones who moan when they have done the crime, but cry about being caught.
Speeding fines are a voluntary tax paid by the careless and the stupid.
No speeding means no fine, not now, not in 6 weeks.
The only thing that stops speeding drivers is a physical presence and what they can see. Speed cameras with their bright yellow paint and cops sitting in a car perfectly visible and watching the roads dont always work so something way up in the sky no one can see definitely isnt going to stop them.
Thats why using drones is f all to do with safety and prevention. Its no different than hiding speed cameras in trees and cops hiding in bushes. Theres a reason they arent allowed to do that anymore.
Negan:
The only thing that stops speeding drivers is a physical presence and what they can see. Speed cameras with their bright yellow paint and cops sitting in a car perfectly visible and watching the roads dont always work so something way up in the sky no one can see definitely isnt going to stop them.
Thats why using drones is f all to do with safety and prevention. Its no different than hiding speed cameras in trees and cops hiding in bushes. Theres a reason they arent allowed to do that anymore.
Negan:
The only thing that stops speeding drivers is a physical presence and what they can see.
That is a sweeping statement. Any evidence for it?
I fully accept that a visible camera, is a deterrent, but I dont accept it is the only one. Lots of drivers are aware of things that arent in their direct line of vision. Yknow like the hazard around the blind corner, the kid that might be about to run out from behind the parked car.
I reckon most drivers have enough situational awareness to realise that there is more going on in the world than in the little bit they see at any instant.
Negan:
Its no different than hiding speed cameras in trees and cops hiding in bushes. Theres a reason they arent allowed to do that anymore.
Really? What reason is that? And where is that written please?
Franglais:
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.
Really? I’m sure that you are aware of the old adage “out of sight, out of mind”? Do you honestly think that many people will let the thought of a possible drone overhead shape their driving habits? The Taliban were happy to wander around outside toting AK’s and RPG’s despite the knowledge that predator drones were issuing hellfire missiles and not FPN’s.
As for cost (I’m sure you’ll do the research) but I guarantee that the Old Bill will not be operating £10.99 B&M specials! They also require someone to pilot them as well you know. I can’t understand why you or indeed anyone would be in favour of giving any government the green light to further reduce police numbers (not that they need much of an excuse) on what is basically gimmic politics.
Good luck to the drone in closing three lanes of the M1 after a fatal accident and all the traffic cops have been reassigned to investigating hate speech and hurt feelings.
Maybe if you lived in the real world instead of the little black and white bubble youve created for yourself youd stop asking for evidence all the time and see it right in front of your face
Franglais:
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.
Really? I’m sure that you are aware of the old adage “out of sight, out of mind”? Do you honestly think that many people will let the thought of a possible drone overhead shape their driving habits? The Taliban were happy to wander around outside toting AK’s and RPG’s despite the knowledge that predator drones were issuing hellfire missiles and not FPN’s.
As for cost (I’m sure you’ll do the research) but I guarantee that the Old Bill will not be operating £10.99 B&M specials! They also require someone to pilot them as well you know. I can’t understand why you or indeed anyone would be in favour of giving any government the green light to further reduce police numbers (not that they need much of an excuse) on what is basically gimmic politics.
Good luck to the drone in closing three lanes of the M1 after a fatal accident and all the traffic cops have been reassigned to investigating hate speech and hurt feelings.
If cop numbers are cut because of drones that is not a good outcome, agreed. That is nothing to do with the drones. That is due to politicians and their choices.
Politicos don`t need technology to be ■■■■-heads it comes naturally to too many of them.
Agreed they aren`t buying grey imports from eBay, but I would expect them to be cheaper than a car with police crew.
Looks like the drones are operated by civilians. Cheaper than a high speed driving trained cop.
Bottom line, as ever, speed fines are a voluntary tax. How you are caught is irrelevant.
(Btw I ain’t surprised in the least to hear that you do not flash your fellow drivers. )
[/quote]
Robroy,these are the same drivers who have no regard for the law,who probably hog the middle lane through the roadworks,cut you up and so on,and you want to help them avoid justice?
So all that talk about extra police patrols was all smoke and mirrors.
If you flash other cars,you could get a £1000 fine!
Sploom:
(Btw I ain’t surprised in the least to hear that you do not flash your fellow drivers. )
Robroy,these are the same drivers who have no regard for the law,who probably hog the middle lane through the roadworks,cut you up and so on,and you want to help them avoid justice?
So all that talk about extra police patrols was all smoke and mirrors.
If you flash other cars,you could get a £1000 fine!
I don’t flash cars, but I have empathy for fellow truck drivers.
Do you also really believe you are going to get fined a grand?
I doubt that very much, but then again I do not believe every ■■■■ thing I’m told like you do.
Btw…You really need to read stuff first,.the article refers to social media.
■■■■ the fellow drivers,my daughter rides her bike on that with cars whizzing past at 50mph.Its 30mph.If you warn them,you save them £100 fine and 3 penalty points,thats all,its a small inconvenience
Franglais:
Politicos don`t need technology to be ■■■■-heads it comes naturally to too many of them.
.
Amen to that. You’ll get no argument from me on that point.
As for cost that’s a bit of a grey area. My Mrs is chief admin trainer for a nationwide car sales Co so consequently knows a lot more about this sort of stuff than I do and she reckons that the police enjoy massively discounted prices on account of manufacturers attaching a certain kudos to their vehicles being used in a highly visible manner by traffic cops. In certain cases vehicles are donated free over their lifetime.
A quick check on blog.gov.uk maintains that the average cost of purchasing and maintaining a patrol car over a four year period is around £22K, so £5500 per annum. Obviously the crew cost considerably more, but I’d be interested in the economics of operating a drone over the same period.
I still maintain that it’s nothing more than gimmicky policing and will have little or no effect.
Sploom:
Anyway,I see the villa are winning,time to crack open the fortified wine!
Ah so we’re a football fan now are we.
Fortified wine ffs, …that has got to be the limpest football retort I’ve ever heard…bordering on middle class.
Are you having ‘a simply super afternoon of soccer’ whilst feeding on petit fours and foie gras.?
Stick to your bible studies mate.I suspect you know the far end of f/all about football and aye Villa won but I won’t waste my time discussing it with you.
the maoster:
As for cost that’s a bit of a grey area. My Mrs is chief admin trainer for a nationwide car sales Co so consequently knows a lot more about this sort of stuff than I do and she reckons that the police enjoy massively discounted prices on account of manufacturers attaching a certain kudos to their vehicles being used in a highly visible manner by traffic cops. In certain cases vehicles are donated free over their lifetime.
I honestly dont know about that, so wont argue against it.
Drones I will agree arent of the cheap category, but I would be very surprised if they arent cost effective. I daresay if too expensive they will be cut off.
the maoster:
I still maintain that it’s nothing more than gimmicky policing and will have little or no effect.
Well, if it catches a lot of speeders then hopefully they will start thinking past only what is appearing in the 50 metres in front of their noses, or if they don`t they will get enough points to get a ban.
If it doesnt catch a lot of speeders then it cant properly be called a cash cow, can it?
Either way, I reckon they will be appearing (or hiding) in the clouds near you soon.
Franglais:
Either way, I reckon they will be appearing (or hiding) in the clouds near you soon.
Again we’re in agreement (we’ll need to stop this before we get accused of being the same person), where we differ is methods.
I don’t subscribe to the view that “proper” or traditional roads policing is a cash cow, on the contrary it’s labour intensive with (relatively) little reward. Fixed cameras are cheap to run but people get used to them and slow accordingly. Average speed cameras are a more effective revenue raiser as can be witnessed by the 700 odd who’ve been caught last month alone on the 40mph bit on the A1 near Peterborough.
I still maintain that prevention is preferable to prosecution and as such there simply is nothing more effective than a highly visible fully liveried patrol car. The problem here though is that you cannot prove a negative, so it’s impossible to prove that the patrol car prevented bad driving from the guy who would have been involved in a fatal accident had the police car not been there.
Speeding itself is a can of worms though. It appears to be black and white when the reality is much different. I maintain that inappropriate speeding is a major problem, but it may be within the posted limit and still too fast for the conditions at the time. A drone or a camera won’t change that, a cop in a car having a quiet word very well could.
Perhaps someone could do some digging and find out what percentage of accidents happened when a vehicle was travelling above the posted limit? I suggest that the percentage figure would be very low indeed as I also suggest that bad driving per se within posted limits is a major contributory factor to most injuries and fatalities.
Franglais:
Either way, I reckon they will be appearing (or hiding) in the clouds near you soon.
Again we’re in agreement (we’ll need to stop this before we get accused of being the same person), where we differ is methods.
I don’t subscribe to the view that “proper” or traditional roads policing is a cash cow, on the contrary it’s labour intensive with (relatively) little reward. Fixed cameras are cheap to run but people get used to them and slow accordingly. Average speed cameras are a more effective revenue raiser as can be witnessed by the 700 odd who’ve been caught last month alone on the 40mph bit on the A1 near Peterborough.
I still maintain that prevention is preferable to prosecution and as such there simply is nothing more effective than a highly visible fully liveried patrol car. The problem here though is that you cannot prove a negative, so it’s impossible to prove that the patrol car prevented bad driving from the guy who would have been involved in a fatal accident had the police car not been there.
Speeding itself is a can of worms though. It appears to be black and white when the reality is much different. I maintain that inappropriate speeding is a major problem, but it may be within the posted limit and still too fast for the conditions at the time. A drone or a camera won’t change that, a cop in a car having a quiet word very well could.
Perhaps someone could do some digging and find out what percentage of accidents happened when a vehicle was travelling above the posted limit? I suggest that the percentage figure would be very low indeed as I also suggest that bad driving per se within posted limits is a major contributory factor to most injuries and fatalities.
Cameras and drones will never change that.
Aaaand breathe
If the roads had many more clearly marked cop cars then I suspect that there would be fewer accidents etc.
Im sure youre right.
And we also agree that is expensive to do.
And I agree that speed limits are a blunt tool, but what are the alternatives?
On m-ways we now have variable limits that are affected by bad weather and other factors, but we don`t have that elsewhere.
Unfortunately we have too many who are don`t correctly limit their own speed sensibly, so we end up with a crude system of blanket speed limits. Not great, but it seems to me it is the least bad solution.
I think, maybe Ill be proved wrong, that drones may become the new norm. Newer drivers will be aware that their speed will be seen and checked up on a lot more often, and they wont be tempted so to take a chance on it.
I take your point that a bad driver can be within a speed limit and still have a crash.
Limits are a blunt tool, but there are one of the few tools we do have.
I have a plan that I’m going to introduce when I’m King of the world. It’s radical and out of the box but I can’t see any negatives with it.
My plan is that any trained traffic cop upon witnessing really bad driving (at any speed) will have the ability to force the offender to undergo another driving test for the vehicle that he/she was driving at the time. This of course would necessitate the need for more examiners = more tax revenue for the exchequer. This retest would be free and government funded (not popular with the government) however, if the miscreant failed then any subsequent lessons and tests would be funded by them, of course this would mean many many more driving schools = more revenue for the exchequer.
It’s a win win situation; people would take more care with their driving, if they can’t/won’t do that they are ultimately going to be removed from the roads or they will face punitive training and testing costs. The exchequer wins, jobs are created, the exchequer wins again and the roads become a far safer place.
the maoster:
Perhaps someone could do some digging and find out what percentage of accidents happened when a vehicle was travelling above the posted limit? I suggest that the percentage figure would be very low indeed as I also suggest that bad driving per se within posted limits is a major contributory factor to most injuries and fatalities.
From ROSPA
"Exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions were assigned by police officers as contributing to 27% of fatal collisions in 2020, as well as 16% of collisions in which a serious injury occurred and 13% of total collisions.
In Great Britain in 2020, 202 people were killed in collisions involving someone exceeding the speed limit, with a further 1,368 people seriously injured and 2,803 slightly injured. A further 115 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.
Inappropriate speed also magnifies other driver errors, such as driving too close or driving when tired or distracted, increasing the chances of these types of behaviour causing a collision." rospa.com/road-safety/advic … s/speeding
As said nothing wrong with speed, it’s inappropriate speed that causes the crap to hit the fan.
So these drones in Devon and Cornwall, what are the odds of them flying above towns and villages where kids play and people are out walking?
A weeks wages says that the main trunk roads will be the order of the day.
Trunk roads = more traffic = more revenue,.(there goes your chestnut Sploomy)
Towns and villages =less traffic=less revenue,.
But in terms of road safety seeing as we have established (not) that it has nothing to do with cash and everything to do with keeping us all safe it is a lot more inappropriate to fly through a residential village with kids and old people dodging 50mph cars in a 30 zone,.than it is a car doing 80 even 90 on a A road dual carriageway main trunk road on a dry clear day.
So WHO is naive enough to think they will put their money where their gobs are and concentrate on the more potentially dangerous but less financially lucrative small towns and villages.
If the criteria positioning of mobile speed camera vans are anything to go by…not me for one.
That’s a cop out mate. It states exceeding the speed limit and driving too fast for the conditions, but lumps them both together. They are two wildly different things and deserve to be listed as two separate things.
Edit to add; I was answering Franglais but the bloody ■■■■■■■■ got in first!
)
