surely as all the boy racers who have been complaining that speed cameras
only catch people who drive "safely" at 70mph in town and 120 on motorways
should be glad that all misdemeanours will be caught on camera ?

Now come the new excuses --------------

"David from Oz" wrote:

Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented
on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit
further offences.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined? I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences of
little consequence.

Is it worth doing? It depends of how many persistent offenders there are
and what problem they cause, I'm very doubtful.

The only sure thing is offences will be committed, and enough revenue will
be generated to pay for the enforcement and turn a profit.

It would be more effective to not penalise drivers for making an occasional
mistake, say to notify but not fine them for the first 2 offences in any 12
month period. Persistent offenders would change their behaviour for the
better and the large majority would not have to change their behaviour for
the worse. Of course it will never happen because such a scheme would
generate far less income and the authorities like to **** off motorists
anyway.
--

Tom wrote:
surely as all the boy racers who have been complaining that speed
cameras only catch people who drive "safely" at 70mph in town and
120 on motorways should be glad that all misdemeanours will be caught
on camera ?

Now come the new excuses --------------

I doubt it.

The vast majority of people agree that speed limits are necessary , just
that the ones chosen are often unrelated to safety issues and that
enforcement is often targeted to raise most revenue rather than prevent
accidents.

For things like red light cameras , box junction cameras and so on there is
no such debate over where to draw a line and enforcing them shouldn't be an
issue.




--
Alex - posting using all 64 bits in widescreen :0)

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

"SteveH" wrote


automated revenue cameras
--





You are at liberty to opt out...



--
Regards, Vince.

www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk

nospam wrote:

"David from Oz" wrote:

Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented
on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit
further offences.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined? I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences of
little consequence.

You can read about my one (and only) offence here
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....2e88cb0d92173b
which was a result of me misunderstanding the rules on right turning at
box junctions.

I don't really follow your point on vigilance.

Cheers,

David

David from Oz ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction
offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences
etc)

Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group)

Not for years.

was interviewed and argued against such measures stating his
view that that they did not *prevent * such offences, merely *punished*
but did not reduce the number of offices.

He's wrong. They do.

What they DON'T do, though, is do anything whatsoever about those whose
vehicles aren't registered legitimately.

They also fail to truly reflect the gravity of many of those offences. In
many cases, there's no "victim" - it's a purely administrative offence.
Quite often, though, it's a far more serious offence - DWDC&A or
careless/reckless driving.

nospam wrote:
"David from Oz" wrote:

Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented
on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit
further offences.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined? I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences of
little consequence.

Is it worth doing? It depends of how many persistent offenders there are
and what problem they cause, I'm very doubtful.

The only sure thing is offences will be committed, and enough revenue will
be generated to pay for the enforcement and turn a profit.

It would be more effective to not penalise drivers for making an occasional
mistake, say to notify but not fine them for the first 2 offences in any 12
month period. Persistent offenders would change their behaviour for the
better and the large majority would not have to change their behaviour for
the worse. Of course it will never happen because such a scheme would
generate far less income and the authorities like to **** off motorists
anyway.



I think it's a completely wrong assumption to treat stopping on a box
junction as a minor offence not related to safety. If I remember
rightly, the Highway Code says that you shouldn't go past a green light
unless you actually have somewhere to go to beyond the junction. So
the rule isn't really any different for box junctions, although maybe
the penalty is.

But my point is that doing so is definitely a safety issue. When the
lights change to red, they therefore change to green for other road
users, including pedestrian crossing lights. I have lost count of how
many times I've been in a crowd of people crossing with a "green man",
only to find several motor vehicles still trying to drive through it
because they had previously driven on to the junction.

They have the choice of staying in the path of other vehicles or
driving at the pedestrians. Neither is safe, but as a pedestrian I
strongly object to the latter.

"Adrian" wrote in message
David from Oz ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction
offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences
etc)

Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group)

Not for years.

was interviewed and argued against such measures stating his
view that that they did not *prevent * such offences, merely *punished*
but did not reduce the number of offices.

He's wrong. They do.

What they DON'T do, though, is do anything whatsoever about those whose
vehicles aren't registered legitimately.

They also fail to truly reflect the gravity of many of those offences. In
many cases, there's no "victim"

Depends on your understanding of 'victim'. I am quite often unable to
proceed due to traffic illegally blocking a box junction, and I welcome an
increase in the chances of them being caught and prosecuted. If I can't
proceed due to their lack of consideration am I not a victim? Obviously not
in terms of being injured but of being inconvenienced.

Ian

Ian ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

They also fail to truly reflect the gravity of many of those
offences. In many cases, there's no "victim"

Depends on your understanding of 'victim'. I am quite often unable to
proceed due to traffic illegally blocking a box junction

There y'go, then - they're not committing a minor administrative box
junction offence (£100, no points), they're DWDC&A, and they should be
prosecuted as such. CD10, 3-9 points plus fine up to £2500.

"MIG" wrote in message

nospam wrote:
"David from Oz" wrote:

Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented
on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit
further offences.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined?
I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional
mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences
of
little consequence.

Is it worth doing? It depends of how many persistent offenders there are
and what problem they cause, I'm very doubtful.

The only sure thing is offences will be committed, and enough revenue
will
be generated to pay for the enforcement and turn a profit.

It would be more effective to not penalise drivers for making an
occasional
mistake, say to notify but not fine them for the first 2 offences in any
12
month period. Persistent offenders would change their behaviour for the
better and the large majority would not have to change their behaviour
for
the worse. Of course it will never happen because such a scheme would
generate far less income and the authorities like to **** off motorists
anyway.



I think it's a completely wrong assumption to treat stopping on a box
junction as a minor offence not related to safety.

Quite agree. It depends on the location of the box junction. One I come
across daily is at the roundabout at the end of the M275 coming into
Portsmouth. Traffic coming from the next junction around the roundabout
blocks the box junction preventing traffic coming down the motorway from
proceeding which leads to stationary traffic on the motorway, especially in
the outside lane.

Ian