Police are cunts

[Pureblood]

I didn’t agree with 1mph, I agreed with 5mph. The sentence was ambiguous I guess. The earlier post was moaning about 35.

 

But again stop banging on about conviction rates; it’s a bullshit falsehood.

 

Yeah it was ambiguous.

 

It wouldn't be bullshit if they brought in this 1mph nonsense.  

[Pureblood]

One of my birds mates is a copper and whilst she was off duty last week I saw her pull out of a junction in front of me and rocket away up the road. I was doing the 30 limit, she must have been going at least 50. I’ll be having a stern word next time I see her.

 

Did she have her woo-woo on?

 

[Charles Penrose]

Yeah it was ambiguous.

 

It wouldn't be bullshit if they brought in this 1mph nonsense.

If that’s what you believe then just what is the motivation for it? There isn’t one overall statistic of detections that can somehow be padded out by getting people done for speeding whilst we ignore people getting assaulted. Neither is this government particularly focused on detected crime rates or convictions in Courts. Fourteen years ago when I joined we were ridiculously driven by statistics and that has all been put to one side for ‘victim satisfaction’ despite everyone being dissatisfied regardless.

 

People have been fed these lies about forces raising money via speeding fines or getting easy wins for a long time and quite simply they are false. Being run over by a speeding driver or a drunken one is far and away the biggest external threat to life that you, your family and everyone else you know. If the occasional Chief Constable decides cutting down on road deaths is going to be his priority then it’s fuck all to do with the two ready made bullshit arguments I’ve seen on here already. It’s as lazy and I’ll informed as being turned against the EU due to fearmongering about the curvature of bananas.

 

But I repeat, 1mph is a load of shite.

[Rico1304]

How much over the drink driving limit is ok?

[magicrat]

It's a shitty bar to set but you don't have a problem with it, how does that work?

 

1mph over would be preposterous.  It would result in the police targeting the low-hanging fruit of drivers 1mph over the limit to boost their own conviction rates. 

 

1 mph is ridiculous esp now we have loads of 20 mph zones,   Cylclists trying to overtake cars will certainly make things safer.

Police imo should be directing their efforts to catch loons on bikes, kids driving recklessly and those uninsured, Targeting everyone is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, Lazy policing and the idea that any breaking of the speed limit , however marginal, will be regarding by the public in the same way as drunk driving just bollocks, Serious crime rates  sharply increasing and a senior policeman wants to divert scant resources to this initiative is pathetic 

[Pureblood]

If that’s what you believe then just what is the motivation for it? There isn’t one overall statistic of detections that can somehow be padded out by getting people done for speeding whilst we ignore people getting assaulted. Neither is this government particularly focused on detected crime rates or convictions in Courts. Fourteen years ago when I joined we were ridiculously driven by statistics and that has all been put to one side for ‘victim satisfaction’ despite everyone being dissatisfied regardless.

 

People have been fed these lies about forces raising money via speeding fines or getting easy wins for a long time and quite simply they are false. Being run over by a speeding driver or a drunken one is far and away the biggest external threat to life that you, your family and everyone else you know. If the occasional Chief Constable decides cutting down on road deaths is going to be his priority then it’s fuck all to do with the two ready made bullshit arguments I’ve seen on here already. It’s as lazy and I’ll informed as being turned against the EU due to fearmongering about the curvature of bananas.

 

But I repeat, 1mph is a load of shite.

 

The motivation is to make money in the same way those speed awareness courses and digital cameras make money from speeding drivers.  A handy by-product is that conviction rates go up against the low-hanging fruit of drivers breaking the limit by 1mph. 

 

Just my opinion. 

[Evelyn Tentions]

NSW has a 2 kph tolerance. Anything over 2 kph attracts large fines which are doubled for school holidays and long weekends.Lots of highway patrol vehicles  (which make KIT look like a model T Ford), unmarked cars and radar, fixed and mobile. There is now talk of point to point cameras to measure (and regulate) average speeds. I think they need the revenue to buy all the armaments for the riot police/swat teams. I think the drug squad is self financing.

[Oh Buoy]

I'm all for the 1mph clamp down if...

 

1. You get to attend multiple speed awareness courses rather than the current 1 in three years or whatever the shit is.

 

2. The awareness course is modernised and taken away from just being a room in some industrial estate with shite coffee and two fuck heads called Dave and John. The new location would be an indoor go-kart track.

 

3. For attendees, whoever finishes last, gets everyone's points and is banned from driving for five years.

 

4. Good coffee is provided for morning sessions, ale for the evening sessions.

 

5. Winner gets to have autobahn-rules applied for a year and get to use the breakdown lane on motorways to skip the traffic. Parking is free too.

 

6. If driver who is pulled over wishes to contest police officers decision, they both must race around the block and winner enforces/overturns decision and gets to have their wife.

[mattyq]

How much over the drink driving limit is ok?

Wait... is there a connection?

[Charles Penrose]

The motivation is to make money in the same way those speed awareness courses and digital cameras make money from speeding drivers. A handy by-product is that conviction rates go up against the low-hanging fruit of drivers breaking the limit by 1mph.

 

Just my opinion.

Make money for who? I’ve already told you the force issuing the fine don’t get a single penny of it. Neither are Police budgets increased by how much you bring back through the door.

 

I’ve also told you they don’t get thrown in with conviction rates. Police aren’t judged at all by what happens in a Court Room. There are statistics relating to how many get to the point of charge or are ‘detected’, to use Police jargon. And, once again, traffic matters aren’t even thrown in with those anyway as they are not recordable offences. Both of your arguments are completely and utterly wrong.

 

The Chief Constable who mentioned this is the UK lead for road policing, just as there is another for sexual offences and another for other violent crime. Clearly it’s his bag and his belief that this would reduce road deaths. I disagree with him and his idea is so unenforceable in the Courts as to be ridiculous anyway.

[Pureblood]

Make money for who? I’ve already told you the force issuing the fine don’t get a single penny of it. Neither are Police budgets increased by how much you bring back through the door.

 

I’ve also told you they don’t get thrown in with conviction rates. Police aren’t judged at all by what happens in a Court Room. There are statistics relating to how many get to the point of charge or are ‘detected’, to use Police jargon. And, once again, traffic matters aren’t even thrown in with those anyway as they are not recordable offences. Both of your arguments are completely and utterly wrong.

 

The Chief Constable who mentioned this is the UK lead for road policing, just as there is another for sexual offences and another for other violent crime. Clearly it’s his bag and his belief that this would reduce road deaths. I disagree with him and his idea is so unenforceable in the Courts as to be ridiculous anyway.

 

It must make money for someone, the government or whatever.  

 

I'm sure the data is useful in some way, to make insurance companies richer etc.  Data like that is always open to manipulation by someone. 

 

I'm not sure why you're taking issue with it if you don't agree with his views and proposals. 

[cloggypop]

How much over the drink driving limit is ok?

Car or bike?

[Strontium]

Got fined for doing 35 in a 30 zone just before christmas. Would have fought it but no way can I afford to hire a lawyer or risk an even larger cost if case was upheld. Other option is to attend a speed awareness course costing £85. Its a farce and nothing more than a money making exercise for the local chief constable to try and plug their lack of funding.

 

Consider yourself lucky you didn't kill someone you plantpot.

[VladimirIlyich]

Why would you fight it? You were going too fast.

Because my car is an old banger and most likely the calibration is fucked and I slowed to below 30(or at least that's what the speedo showed) when I saw the hand held camera a good distance away.Maybe I should just have said I was a football manager with diarrhoea and I'd have had no problems.

[VladimirIlyich]

Consider yourself lucky you didn't kill someone you plantpot.

Don't be a prick when you know nothing of the road,where it is,or the circumstances of the situation.

[Captain Turdseye]

Don't be a prick when you know nothing of the road,where it is,or the circumstances of the situation.

Where was it, John? In Runcorn? Do the sneaky bastards still park near Burger King waiting for people approaching from the Spur Road to catch people speeding about 20 yards on from where the limit drops from 40 to 30?

[Rico1304]

Because my car is an old banger and most likely the calibration is fucked and I slowed to below 30(or at least that's what the speedo showed) when I saw the hand held camera a good distance away.Maybe I should just have said I was a football manager with diarrhoea and I'd have had no problems.

I’m still struggling to understand why you think you should be let off for speeding. ‘I’m sorry I was going too fast but car may be broken’ doesn’t seem to work.

[Anny Road]

20 and 30 zones should be strictly enforced to protect pedestrians.

70 on a motorway and 60 on wide open country roads is bollocks in modern vehicles.

[Nasty Lizard]

20 and 30 zones should be strictly enforced to protect pedestrians.

70 on a motorway and 60 on wide open country roads is bollocks in modern vehicles.

 

20 is fucking wank. Its feels completely alien trying to drive that slow.

At 20 mph, protecting the pedestrians, you virtually become one..

 

Don't get me me started on 50mph on the motorway, protecting the fucking workers - that are not actually there.

[Charles Penrose]

To be fair almost everyone that gets caught speeding justifies it in some way. I last got caught driving home at 7.20am a few yards before the road goes to 30 from 60 and was moaning like fuck about it, cursing them going after working people like me going few over after a long shift. Think I was going about 36. The other times were 56 and 62 in a 50 going back some years and I found reasons in my own head why it was unfair.

 

Get hit at 30mph and you’re about 50/50 to die as a pedestrian and at 40mph it’s about 90%, so I don’t think people can complain too much getting done at 35.

[Sputnik1]

Nobody should complain about getting done for 35mph, the actual issue was the suggestion that travelling at 1mph over the limit should be the point at which people get fined.

 

Then further suggestion from the thick cunt that people shouldn't whinge at this.

 

How about sending warnings to drivers that travel over the limit instead? Oh hang on that would cost money.

 

I understand its hidden behind saving lives, I get that. That's the argument that enables the cash grab. Fining drivers for 1mph over the speed limit is a retarded idea, from a senior officer so out of touch with reality that its scary.

[Rico1304]

Doesn’t he say that 1mph incurs a speed awareness course the first time then a fine?

[Pureblood]

If he does then he's still a profiteering cunt.  

[Rico1304]

It seems to me everyone think the limits should be increased, so 30-35. That will cause more people to die. Seems a bit much to me.

[Sputnik1]

Doesn’t he say that 1mph incurs a speed awareness course the first time then a fine?

 

Speed awareness course, £85, fine. 

 

Then insurance companies start asking if you've been on a speed awareness course. 

 

 

 

Julie Robertson, the head of the driving offences team at law firm Simpson Millar, says: “There is no question that having taken part in a speeding course can, and often will, inflate a person’s insurance premium - sometimes quite substantially.

 

“Several of my clients have reported significant rises in their insurance premiums after they attended a speeding course, and subsequently informed their insurer. Clearly, it is interpreted as an element of enhanced risk despite the fact that it might actually be the opposite.”

 

Experts say that premiums can rise by between 10% and 30%, but it depends on your insurer because not all ask drivers to declare a course.

Admiral Group is one insurer that increases premiums. A spokesman at the firm, which includes companies such as Admiral, elephant.co.uk, Diamond, and confused.com, said: “Attending a speed awareness course is something we take into account when calculating a premium. Although a speed awareness course is a replacement for penalty points, it doesn’t change the fact that the person involved has committed a speeding offence.

 

 

 

 

Unlike penalty points, insurance firms cannot check whether a driver has taken a speed awareness course unless they admit to it, as this information is held by local police forces rather than the DVLA. However, if you fail to reveal that you have and later make a claim, you could find that your policy is invalid.

Ian Belchamber, a campaigner who runs an anti-speed camera campaign in Dorset, said: “The police’s actions are potentially resulting in people driving uninsured because they haven’t told motorists to tell their insurers about the speed awareness course.

“I would make sure your insurer knows you’ve been on a course regardless of whether they specifically ask for that information.

“If you are involved in an accident and the insurer looks into your history and sees you’ve been on a speeding course they could say ‘You didn’t tell us about this, you’re not covered’.”

He added: “The police don’t want people to know this because they make a lot of money out of the courses.”