This Thursday, 19 April, at 20.00:
tinyurl.com/3743ah
|
Excellent. I look forward to an interview with HJ in "blowing a gasket" mode ... (That is just a guess, in case anyone listens to hear HJ and is disappointed by his non-appearance.)
|
I didn't hear the programme but a summary, on BBC Teletext this morning, mentions that of about 500,000 drivers caught offending in various ways in London, 1/3rd cannottbe traced to a known address for prosecution. This is the sort of highly effective system that will probably be used to run the ID card system and which will be fining us up to £5K if we don't notify them of a change address! Always assuming that they know where we live in the first place!
|
|
If they actually spent the time and resources on catching Road Tax/Insurance/MOT dodgers the revenue they would raise would far exceed what they extort from decent everyday drivers who play the game. They get £60 for a speeding fine yet £175ish for Road Tax stands to reason you catch less people for the same money. Silly me, of course criminals are hard to catch. No tax, no insurance, no licence, no MOT- no record. Nowhere to send a nice clean fixed penalty notice. Why get your hands dirty when you can get fat from easy targets like us. I would like half an hour in a telephone box with certain members of this so called government, I guarantee they would listen then. Concrete.
|
|
If you had a solution, they might listen. Not otherwise.
|
|
|
|
It sounds better if you can convince yourself that speed cameras save lives (and I do not doubt that they can when well used), then create targets, achieve the targets, and then convince yourself you have saved huge numbers of lives. And all at zero cost to the Exchequer. Problem is, when you effectively criminalise most of the population, since we all can miss a road sign, you get problems. Anyway I look forward to the programme.
|
|
|
|
I didn't hear the programme but a summary on BBC Teletext this morning mentions that of about 500 000 drivers caught offending in various ways in London 1/3rd cannottbe traced to a known address for prosecution.
So how on earth would they expect road pricing to work??
|
So how on earth would they expect road pricing to work??
in exactly the same way as the rest of the uk's laws and tax system works:
the average middle-of-the-social scale law-abiding people pay up in full without hesitation for any minor or major indiscretion,
the rich get highly paid mr. loophole lawyers to get them off.
those on the bottom of the ladder gt legal-aid, or get let off with warnings, or gt away with repeat unpaid fines, or get fines geared "appropriate" to their minimal income.
|
So how on earth would they expect road pricing to work??
Quite. So the high speed roads would be reserved for blatant criminals and the rich. Oh, and we know that the government cannot for the life of them get an IT project to work due to complete incompetence.
|
|
|
|
I didn't hear the programme
It hasn't been on yet, Nick - 20:00 toniggt
>>but a summary on BBC Teletext this morning
And also taking up a large part of the morning news - [rant] - I hate it when the Beeb use the News to promote other programs [rant off]
--
Go on, get out of the car...
www.mikes-walks.co.uk
|
An introduction to the programme's content;
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6571257.stm
|
Well, I will beat the rush, and post a comment. I found it very interesting. They did not dismiss speed cameras as worthless, but they did highlight major flaws in the current use of them:
> They are only effective if the transgressor is on the vehicle registration database. Honest types tend to be in the database. True criminals are not.
> The regression to the mean argument was well presented. And it was pointed out that regression to the mean does not apply to true black spots.
> It was pointed out that speed cameras can be erected after road deaths occur even when the road deaths had nothing whatsoever to do with speeding, or the road in question e.g. faulty brakes. In this case the number of deaths is most likely to drop significantly irrespective of the presence of cameras.
> The spokesperson for a speed camera partnership sounded, well, not exactly intellectually gifted. In fact she sounded rather dim. (I only hope she is not reading this.)
> The response from a speed camera partnership to a question from the programme makers was shallow and evasive i.e. along the lines of "We are here to save lives".
Anyone care to knock holes in the programme? Point out what they missed, on either side of the argument?
|
|
I thought it was a very well balanced account. What will stay with me is what I have always suspected: the statistics are not to be trusted any more than the politicians and pressure groups using them. "We are here to save lives" -- who isn't?
|
|
|
|
|
