bashful

Because you can't measure dangerous driving easily. It's a toss-up between hammering something you can measure automatically (very few people get away with say "I *wasn't* doing whatever MPH") and asking the police to make detailed value judgements about whether it's safe to drive in a particular manner.

mwp

i don't mean speeding vs other motoring offences, i mean speeding vs all other offences; burglary, child abduction, personal violence, theft, vandalism, street-crime etc.

medders

The police put nowhere near as much manpower into speeders as they do into all other crime. Traffic catch speeders. There are a small proportion of police employed in traffic.

cheers

Paul

medders

And bashful was trying to say If I understood correctly - more people die on the roads each year from motoring related accidents. it is difficult to catch dangerous driving, so speeding is targeted in an attempt to slow people down. Speeding is measurable. dangerous driving is not

Paul

Stevie

As I sit here now, I believe it is too artificially create good crime figures. A speeding motorist convicted goes in the crime solved pot.

Where as last night, some little c**t puts a brick through my car window, steals my stereo, and the police wont acknowledge it because it will obviously go in the unsolved pot!

Bajie

Makes you wonder what makes someone become a police officer.
If, given a check-list in order of priority, which box would you tick.
Apprehend speeding motorists
or
Apprehend burglary, child abduction, personal violence, theft, vandalism, street-crime etc

Remember this when you get pulled over. The officer is may well be as peed off as you about it.

NotoriousREV

Measure what's important, don't make important what you can measure.

daiscooby

Speeding can be judged objectively because you can measure it. Dangerous driving, undue care and attention etc., are subjective and therefore a persons judgement.

And I agree a speeding conviction is a "crime" solved, therefore its looks good on the numbers. They have to balance the number of unsolved serious crimes somehow.

medders

stevie - what do you mean the police wont "acknowledge" your stereo being stolen ?

As for the other comments, as I've already said, traffic police catch speeders, the rest dont. Traffic police dont investigate murders, CID dont catch speeders.

Paul

Tiggs

Yeah, lets have all traffic cops redeployed on muggings instead.

in fact lets have the Inland Revenue work in Macdonalds and get Traffic Wardens to run theme parks then all will be right in the world

Stevie

I mean they are not interested in pursuing or taking details.

I got through to a help desk 5 times last night who transfered mr to the Sutton Coldfield police station that just rang and rang. I told the 'help' desk I had full description of both youths, stupid cow said, "Oh, are they still there?"!! FFS, I nearly said that I'd invited them in for coffee but just couldn't be arsed.

Woman on help desk also asked if I'd driven round the local unpleasant estate to look for them. I didn't, because I know if I'd found them, I would have been in a right load of trouble!

Re proper traffic police, I have the utmost time and respect and have only once met one I would say was unreasonable.
Re the muppets who ponce around in cafe's having a cuppa, drive 306's and appear to have spent too much time watching The Bill, I dont have a lot of time for them at the moment!!

NotoriousREV

Oh, and just to point out, it's not the police picking on speeders, it's the government.

Except Richard Brunstrom, he's just a ****.

mwp

I guess i didn't explain myself properly

I didn't mean distinctly manpower, quality of people or moving police onto other tasks, i meant in more general terms a lot of effort in trying to catch speeding motorists by deploying many new techniques in either technology or non-police employees.

i guess i'm answering my own question: if the investment to catch the criminal motorist is small compared with the conviction returns, then that's what they are there for - and they know exactly where the criminals will be every day.

i'll get me coat.

Butkus

Two words.... 'Easy money'

BuRR

Only a small percentage of speeders qualify for the force's own use.

Once the speed hits a threshold, the speeding motorist is summonsed to court (no choice for a fixed penalty) and the money from the fine goes to the Crown, and not the police force.

Butkus

Sometimes I wonder if it's really worth having a fast car. Basically, just your normal everyday car's limits are far beyond what is really required on today's roads. Perhaps I shouldn't be on this board?!

I remember reading an interview with Mr. Porsche (the founder - I don't remember his first name). He was an old man at the time (I believe he has passed on since), but they asked him which of the current Porsche cars he would choose for a motoring trip. He said a convertible model, because you could get more excitement at lower speeds.

Perhaps that is the way forward...

C h a z

Move up north mate. Miles and miles of roads with no plods on. Yee haa!

mwp

There seems to be an ever increasing amount of effort going into catching the speeding motorist. From more enhanced technology to the use of non-police personnel manning mobile speed traps and even talk of the use of joe public using hand-held laser !

I don't know the figures, but is it the crime that causes most deaths/disruption/heartache in the public/police eyes ? Is it really just about revenue ?

There may be equal or more effort being put into other crime but I don't see it or read about it.

I'm not whining because i've been done - i have 0 points on my licence (luckily) and do agree with speed traps in appropriate places - it just all seems excessive effort for the type of crime.

Can anyone enlighten me ?

[Edited by mwp - 5/7/2003 8:56:16 AM]