I apologise again for another very long post but while I feel I have made my views clear on previous issues there are naturally questions from other individuals that have arose due to my previous posts. I will do my best to keep things short although (and I'm sure you already guessed with me) it may not always be possible. (I think I'm going to go for the record of 'Longest text only post ever'
Please try not to nod off!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIABLO636 said:
I wonder what is says....... Actually, no......i dont. Gave up after a few lines. <----Cut----> without nodding off.
You might have a point!
DIABLO636 said:
Will make sure those people are around next time to hear your preachings. Maybe you could chair the seminar on road safety for all audi-sport members.
That wasn't quite the point. I honestly wasn't trying to preach, I was simply trying to state my case for what I believe and give background to why I believe it and why I objected to the original post.
DIABLO636 said:
And explain also why so many cameras are not actually posted at accident spots ?
Even I will admit this is a tough question and one that I can't answer fully. To be fair, I did actually make reference to this in a previous post. My previous thinking, before this thread started, was camera positioning has something to do with the relation of actual speeding offences to percieved/actual risk. As it turns out I'm not too far from the truth as, for the purposes of this thread, I decided to check out Derbyshire Safety Camera Team Website:
How is a potential safety camera route assessed to ensure that it meets the necessary criteria?
If a safety camera is requested on a particular route, we must:
A) Analyse the collision database to ascertain how many collisions resulted in injury or death have occured on the route over a three year period.
B) Carry out a speed survey at the suggested location to measure the 85th Percentile speed of traffic, and establish whether at least 20% of vehicles are exceeding the legal speed limit. This involves placing small pieces of equipment called Hi Stars on the road for several days to record information about the vehicles passing over them. Hi Stars, which are placed out on the road in pairs, record speed, weather, temperature, the time of day, traffic flow and vehicle size. The Hi Stars are then collected and the data is then downloaded onto a computer database ready for analysis. The results will be evaluated and if they meet all the necessary criteria they will then be put forward to the Department for Transport for approval.
Many people have an opinion on the positioning of camera's without actually knowing the facts, actual technical requirments can be found in the
Site Selection Criteria Table
My own personal interpretation, before I even read/went anywhere near the above website/document can be explained as follows: There is a road near to where I live that has seen its fair share of serious and often fatal accidents. While these incidents are regrettable and tragic there are very few pedestrians, the volume of traffic is relatively low and the overall speed of traffic along this road is generally within the speed limit, mainly due to the roads notoriety. It would be easy to say "Well, still stick a camera there" but other factors have to be taken into consideration. Would the camera be more effective on the road mentioned just or would it be more effective in an area with more pedestrians, a higher volume of traffic and a higher percentage of speeding vehicles where the potential for accident/injuries/death is even greater?
Think of it this way, would a life guard better serve watching over an tiny pool with few people or a large pool full of people? In an ideal world you would have two life guards, one for each pool, but its not an ideal world and unfortunately most decisions like these are based on numbers. The life guard would have to watch over the large pool because the risk is greater. I know this is a poor anology but its 7:15 in the morning and I finished work at 2am, haven't been to bed yet and its the only thing I could think of, sorry.
DIABLO636 said:
Or if fact you could, with all your insight, explain why its wrong for non police officers to want to know how to get around geting points on their licences when the police themselves seem to be able to do do it so easily.....
I don't believe that it is right for anyone (police officers or not) to attempt to 'get around' having points on their licence if they knowingly and willfully have committed a speeding/traffic offence. However there is absolutely nothing wrong with knowing the correct procedures that should be followed by the authorities in the persuance of a successful fine/prosecution. If the authorities make an procedural error while persuing you for what would otherwise be a sound fine/prosecution, and you have the knowledge to be able to point this out, then I feel this is not you
looking for loopholes as such but simply just
your lucky day and
their fault. Personally, I'd take it as a warning and be more careful in future. If however, you are fully aware you were commiting an offence at the time of being caught and all procedures have been followed correctly then I believe it is wrong to actively seek out a 'new' loophole (usually with the help of a high priced solicitor) to avoid the fine/conviction.
I know the above may seem slightly contradictory but I feel there is a difference between a procedural error and some big-shot solicitor/barrister defending someone on the basis that the 'moon was in the fifth house, affecting the earths gravitation pull on the vehicle alledged to have committed the offence, which would have involuntarily affected the speed of said vehicle and therefore would have been disproportionate to the stationary detection equipment.' A bit far fetched but I'm sure you get the idea; crafty solicitors/barristers doing what they do best!
As far as the police avoiding fines/convictions this is something that will always happen and as much as it is unfair and immoral it is something that will unfortunately, probably never be erradicated. While it is unjust, it does not mean that we should have a society at large that thinks just because one group of people gets away with something we all should. Again, I know its absolutely unfair but its often the case that there is one rule for the rule makers/enforcers and another rule for everybody else. I bet most people have encountered a form of this in the workplace at one point in time or another; The annoying supervisor/boss, that although he/she isn't entitled to it, has more fag/tea breaks than anyone else, does sweet FA and yet somehow manages to keep hold of their job?!
To see how deep-seated the problem with the police is:
October 1975, Paul Hill, Gerry Conlon, Patrick 'Paddy' Armstrong and Carole Richardson (the Guildford Four) were wrongly convicted of killing 5 people and and injuring sixty-five more and were subsequently each sentenced to 30 years in Prison. In 1990, after 15 years of imprisonment, their case was overturned based on evidence that the police had lied in order to convict them. Febuary 2005, Tony blair issued an apology to the Guildford Four and their families, stating: "I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and injustice. They deserve to be completely and publicly exonerated." To this day no-one has been convicted or punished for wrong doing in the case of wrongful imprisonment. Three Police officers were charged, but they were each found not guilty.
That reference may seem a little over dramatic but it is not an isolated incident and it also shows that if the police can avoid prosecution for something as serious as that what are the chances of the majority of them being convicted over a 'piffling' traffic offence? Obviously a few police officers have been convicted of traffic/speed offences but that was probably only because they had pi**ed the boss or CPS off that week!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, I believe that's everything answered! Next?
