Proof that speed traps are only meant to be revenue generators

d wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:02:26 -0000
wrote:
Perhaps when police officers are lying in wait for robbers to arrive, after
being given a tip-off, they should be forced to stand in the open wearing
day-glo yellow jackets. After all - it wouldn't be fair on the robbers if
the police hid and used 'underhand tactics' to catch them would it?

Umm , so ...

A) Police hide , robbery occurs and police nick robbers.

B) Police in full view, no robbery occurs.

I don't know about you Kev but I think B is the better option for all
concerned don't you? Surely its better to make sure the horse doesn't
bolt in the first place rather than catching it once it has? Or am I missing
something?

Yes.

Since I assume you'll ask what...

If a gang has been committing multiple robberies in an area,
and the police stake out a likely target to catch them.

A) gang are caught, punished, and they (and others) are deterred from further crime.
No actual robbery takes place takes place of course.

B) Gang see rozzers, scarper, plan new robberies in new (likely un-staked) locations,
crime spree continues.

So (A) looks favourite.

BugBear

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:08:01 -0000
"Ret." wrote:
I don't know about you Kev but I think B is the better option for all
concerned don't you? Surely its better to make sure the horse doesn't
bolt in the first place rather than catching it once it has? Or am I
missing something?

I think so. The type of people who commit robberies are not going to be
deterred from their life of crime by being frightened off from a single job
are they?

So tell me whats the point of having any police presence on the streets then
perhaps in areas where there tends to be vandalism or fights? If the police
arn't interested in preventing crime but only nicking people why bother
having bobbys on the beat? Surely it would make more sense just read the paper
and wait until the 999 call comes in?

B2003

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:09:31 -0000
"Ret." wrote:
No surprise this guy was convicted in a magistrates court since the
sort of stuck up, self important, self righteous pompous asses who
put themselves forward to become magistrates are just the sort of
people who love to screw down the little guy trying to help others.

I know two magistrates - and both of them are far more 'bleeding heart
liberals' than punishment freaks.

The bleeding heart bit only kicks in when they're dealing with criminals.
When they're dealing with members of the public who haven't done anything
wrong they'll do their best to screw them over.

B2003

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:14:44 -0000
"Ret." wrote:
Let's just say that a technological means was devised that would
automatically detect if a driver exceeded a speed limit by more that
10% + 2 mph. How many drivers would exceed that margin? The answer
is very very few

Oh don't worry , that tech is just around the corner. I'm sure the
police and various politicians are mentally masturbating about it
even now.

Bearing in mind it would signifcantly reduce income from fines - and that is
what most of the anti-camera brigade think they are for - why would you
think that?

They wouldn't set the device up to prevent you speeding - that would be
dangerous anyway if you needed to overtake or take some sort of avoiding
manouver - but it would simply report back to the central computer when you
had and the fine would be in the post. No effort required.

B2003

On 06/01/2011 10:14, Ret. wrote:
d wrote:
On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:00:29 -0000
"Ret." wrote:

I always keep my speed below the 10% + 2mph and therefore I couldn't
give a tinkers whether there were hidden cameras every 100 yards.

And no doubt you have a half mile queue of cars behind you.

Actually no - my perception is that the overwhelming majority of drivers
today keep with 5 mph or so of urban limits.

Indeed they do, and probably always have done.

--
Matt B

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:12:59 +0000
Matt B wrote:
Actually no - my perception is that the overwhelming majority of drivers
today keep with 5 mph or so of urban limits.

Indeed they do, and probably always have done.

Only because it only takes one old duffer perhaps called Kev to slow down
dozens of other cars on the road. Given a clear road more than 50% of drivers
will speed in my experience.

B2003

On 06/01/2011 11:13, d wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:12:59 +0000
Matt wrote:
Actually no - my perception is that the overwhelming majority of drivers
today keep with 5 mph or so of urban limits.

Indeed they do, and probably always have done.

Only because it only takes one old duffer perhaps called Kev to slow down
dozens of other cars on the road. Given a clear road more than 50% of drivers
will speed in my experience.

I'm talking about free-flow speeds, but you've moved the goalposts now
from "keep with[in] 5 mph or so" to "speed" (by which I presume you mean
exceed the speed limit by any amount at all).

--
Matt B

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:21:16 +0000
Matt B wrote:
I'm talking about free-flow speeds, but you've moved the goalposts now
from "keep with[in] 5 mph or so" to "speed" (by which I presume you mean
exceed the speed limit by any amount at all).

Kev mentioned 5mph , not me. And on a clear urban main road - not residential -
most people will do 35 - 40 even if the limit is 30. In fact there are a
couple of roads in my local area where 50 is a frequent occurance despite the
limit being 30.

B2003

d wrote:
|| On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 11:21:16 +0000
|| Matt B wrote:
||| I'm talking about free-flow speeds, but you've moved the goalposts
||| now from "keep with[in] 5 mph or so" to "speed" (by which I presume
||| you mean exceed the speed limit by any amount at all).
||
|| Kev mentioned 5mph , not me. And on a clear urban main road - not
|| residential - most people will do 35 - 40 even if the limit is 30.
|| In fact there are a couple of roads in my local area where 50 is a
|| frequent occurance despite the limit being 30.

This is where Kev's analogy with warning burglars falls flat. The
overwhelming majority of drivers occasionally speed (including him), it's by
far the country's most popular offence, and is de facto normal behaviour.
Few people would want to see all speeders caught and punished, the same
however cannot be said for burglars or those that carry out other true
crimes.

--
Rob

d wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 04:02:22 +0000
Phil W Lee wrote:
d considered Wed, 5 Jan 2011 09:56:53 +0000
(UTC) the perfect time to write:

On Wed, 5 Jan 2011 09:51:55 +0000
Ian Jackson wrote:
Are you assisting a deliberate law-breaker to evade prosecution?

Or, if you see someone inadvertently breaking the law, are you
simply warning them that, if they continue, they are likely to be
prosecuted?

I'm not sure I know the right answer.

Its more a case of warning them not to break the law up ahead.

If the police use underhand tactics to try and catch motorists they
don't exactly have the moral highground to whinge when motorists
also use similar tactics.

It's hardly underhanded to capture evidence of a crime.

Its hardly underhand to help people not commit one.

No surprise this guy was convicted in a magistrates court since the
sort of stuck up, self important, self righteous pompous asses who
put themselves forward to become magistrates are just the sort of
people who love to screw down the little guy trying to help others.

B2003

I have known about 6 magistrates on a personal basis and have found them all
to be intelligent, nice people, trying their best.