ronthenekred Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 It would seem to some that they want the law changed to fit in with their own individual habits rather than conforming to what we all have to adhere to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Apart from the authority that benefits from the revenue, please explain why you think that automated prosecution is a good thing? You can appeal if you think you have a case. It isn't cut n dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Apart from the authority that benefits from the revenue, please explain why you think that automated prosecution is a good thing? I don't count the authority collecting revenue as a good point. I would happily support the fines being abolished and the number of points being doubled instead. Why is it a good thing? I'm amazed you can ask. I've never met anyone who actually liked the fact that some people sweet-talk, bribe, or otherwise negotiate their way out of paying a fine where others have no choice. The cameras cannot be influenced; anyone, and everyone, who transgresses is automatically punished. In the few cases where there actually is a legitimate defence, the penalty can be waived by a court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Apart from the authority that benefits from the revenue, please explain why you think that automated prosecution is a good thing? Why detach all responsibility from the driver. If they were caught by A(automatic)NPR for no VED, it would be seen as a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Squirrel Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Why detach all responsibility from the driver. If they were caught by A(automatic)NPR for no VED, it would be seen as a good thing. Im not detaching responsibility from the driver and neither am i condoning law breaking. I am making the point that automatic prosecution is leaning toward an Orwellian state. If the same automatic prosecution were to be implemented in all other factors of law, the outcry would be deafening. I don't count the authority collecting revenue as a good point. I would happily support the fines being abolished and the number of points being doubled instead. Good idea.. i wonder why the authorities didnt think of a non profit making penalty for this.. erm.. 'crime'? Why is it a good thing? I'm amazed you can ask. I've never met anyone who actually liked the fact that some people sweet-talk, bribe, or otherwise negotiate their way out of paying a fine where others have no choice. The cameras cannot be influenced; anyone, and everyone, who transgresses is automatically punished. In the few cases where there actually is a legitimate defence, the penalty can be waived by a court. As for the Police succumbing to bribery or sweet talk.. Thats laughable. I do believe that the penalty for attempting to bribe a police officer would be somewhat harsher than a small fine and 3 points on ones driving license. I do agree though that there is little legitimate defence when caught by camera and im also aware of the appeal procedure. I would still prefer though, to see more active Police patrols than yellow one armed bandits strewn across the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Im not detaching responsibility from the driver and neither am i condoning law breaking. I am making the point that automatic prosecution is leaning toward an Orwellian state. If the same automatic prosecution were to be implemented in all other factors of law, the outcry would be deafening. You called a driver caught by a camera in an earlier post a 'victim', a victim would not have responsibility for a situation they found themselves to be in. A speeding driver is hardly a victim. As pointed out by another poster, the prosecution is not final, there is the right to a day in court. Strange, you didn't comment about getting caught for no VED via ANPR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Squirrel Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 You called a driver caught by a camera in an earlier post a 'victim', a victim would not have responsibility for a situation they found themselves to be in. A speeding driver is hardly a victim. As pointed out by another poster, the prosecution is not final, there is the right to a day in court. Strange, you didn't comment about getting caught for no VED via ANPR. I called the driver a 'victim' because i couldnt think of a better description at that moment... culprit perhaps?.. villain?.. thoughtless numbskull? In the same manner that i may describe members of this forum as 'posters'.. perhaps armchair politicians would be better? or anal retentives, perfect specimens of humankind? or plain gits? As pointed out by myself.. i am aware of the appeal procedure. No, i didnt comment on ANPR as i didnt see what relevance ANPR had to do with speed camera revenue. But yes, People caught without current MOT or Road fund license by ANPR should be exterminated by schools of Darleks without trial or right to a appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 As for the Police succumbing to bribery or sweet talk.. Thats laughable. You didn't think it was laughable when you complained that speed cameras cannot be persuaded to let an offence slide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickeyLove Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 The world though, would be a much better place if we all just calmed down and stop rushing about like idiots.. However, what miffed me more about the issue is that you can get pulled for warning others that a mobile speed camera was operating. If you flash someone to let them know there's one about and the police see it you'll get a 60 quid fine. But surely flashing someone to let them know makes them reduce their speed, which is the intention in the first place, and its also saving the driver points and a fine. Its this issue that's convinced me they're a cash cow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Don't speed and they are not a problem yada yada yada Stretch of the A1 goes from a 70mph to a 50mph back to a 70mph, the 50mph part has two speed camera's, I know they are there as I drive regular, a couple of occasion I have been slightly distracted and forgot to reduce speed until I saw the camera and jumped on the brakes - why = because I am human and make mistakes Forgetting to reduce speed danger factor on that part of road 2/10 maybe? - no houses no pedestrians nothing really of note at all Jumping on the brakes because of a speed camera and slight human error danger factor I would say 7/10 Conclusion, all the camera does is decrease road safety in my eyes there obviously many more examples and factors in other ones. Tear them down! Would that be at Elkesley where there had been a number of very serious smashes, hence the reduced limit and cameras to enforce it. If so, I'm sure the reduction in limit is broadcast to passing Martians, so luminous are the yellow-backed signs that count down to the reduction in limit. If so, how can you excuse yourself from spotting it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.