It was also on page of the "Sexpress" .. by John Ingham
Quote:
A Speed camera lottery is deciding whether offending drivers are caught or fined.
Prof Rose Baker also commented on this too.
Quote:
In some areas motorists can drive up to 15 mph above the speed limit before being flashed.
In other regions they will be rarely pursuded over a fine and only 60% of drivers had to pay up
It depends on the way the cameras are set up. - and researchers found it varies across the country
There should surely be no "regional variation"
We all live in the same country after all.. and all should offer Speed Awares and ping at the same tolerances if "safety really is the goal or target"
But then this research only underpins what we campaigners for REAL and not "Lah Lah Land" road safety policy have been saying for years ... and echoes Paul Garvin's stance on this matter.
We have all been aware of
Quote:
Their study turned up "shocking" evidence of differences in how the Department for Transport guidelines are interpreted. In one are scams were only set up to cop drivers exceeding 45 mph in 30 mph zones.
This was because the partnerships did not have the staff to process the number of prosecutions that would result if they stcuk to the lower limit
Whatever happened to that advert then
And if scams are supposed to "save lives" .. then this proves no one actually died from people whizzing past these scams more than a blip above 30 mph
(I do NOT ever excced 30 mph in an urban and even drop below as conditions dictate to me and Wildy
(and indeed the rest of our rather large family) . Where we may be a little "risque" is on a deserted motorway or empty road around here
should we be "so lucky as to find one of course
" )
real King of the understatement wrote:
RAC chief Edmund King said the lottery was bad for road safety. One of the diversity of the scams is that drivers are playing Russian Roulette with them.
If they know they will get away with 40 mph in a 30 mph zone in their own area .. then they will think they will get aways with it elsewhere
Now .. I know what the lurks will say to that... but it is a fact of life and it is really unfair that someone in Lancs get stuck with a Speed course for 34 mph as was the case up to 2004 (till Swiss fought wth words and the Swiss "Clay Pigeon" - aka - "Willispeed if only he could's" efforts along with his group of campaigners at least helped secure a more decently educational programme across the whole speed spectrum to realistic margins of warranted action
which is 10%+5 across the board.)
Yes.. it should be uniform throughout the land .. and I would concede to some point that 10% +5 is is a very fair cut off point overall - but would argue even that first offenders at higher margin are offered the remedial before points .. and all - including all OTT offenders should receive some education to prevent further grief to their licences and at least some remedial COAST.
Most importantly though RAC's Ed King says
Quote:
So they take chances which they would not take if there was a police car on the street
Now I have to admit..
When I was a mere lad .. 17 years old.. up to qualifying as a doctor and even during my junior years to reaching the giddy big
THREEE ZE-E-RRO! - I always was on the look out for that cop car
Formed my COAST skills perhaps
... and I was stopped by IG when he was with GMP. I was dating Wildy at the time. I think he was sniffing me out in reality. He claims not.. but I still wonder about that pull in my Stag at the time. I did not know she had UK relatives at that time.. to me she was a really beautiful Swiss girl whom I wanted to marry.
But I do think we "jump to attention" even now if a police car is around.. we know they just might be
It's not about "discretion and whether or not they will let us off the hook" ..
it is more about the respect which the normal average law abiding citizen still has for our
s - and I think most of us still have this in reality. I would hope and like to think so anyway. (could be being subjective .. as we do respect our
really and truly
and think The Man.. IanH/Iaha/ Stephen/Neil /IG and all the guys on PH do much to prove why a good
is worth his weight in gold!)
RAC King of the Understatement wrote:
Some speed camera partnerships have lowered thresholds for trigerring cameras to increase the amount of revenue raised
Whilst I praise Lancs for a decent Speed Aware Course offering.. I also have to criticise the manner in which they funded it .. up to 2004. Staffs run the same course in partnership with Lancs .. but to draconian revenue raising tolerances still
In 2004 when I first signed up.. I recounted the tale of my colleague who was pinged at 34 mph outside the hospital car park - as he returned to hospital on an emergency. We cannot really afford to lose a surgeon for a day on a licence protection racket .. and he had to fight to get this dropped ..eventually
Quote:
Researcher Dan Neyland of Oxford University's Said Business School said
"The partnershops wanted to maximise the amount of revenue they were getting from drivers.
The odd aspect is that the people working at the partnerships had [i] no incentive to do the job well because if they did, drivers would not speed - revenue would not be generated - and they would be out of a job!
We know this. We accused Steve of this. Poor Steve
Quote:
The DfT has been "resistant to discussions about these findings" Mr Neyalnd said
whether it's because it's politically sensitive .... I really do not know That is on a par with the late Ian Richardson's Urquahart!
Let's just say
"political gelignite"
or the equivalent of a "necklace"
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
