By Robert Farago
May 8, 2008 -
Pistonheads reports that Suffolk police are leading the charge to ensure that all UK motorists are banned from driving. OK, that's not the goal– even if it isn't entirely unimaginable. As befits the British Nanny State, the police are trying to ticket as many speeders as possible to stop them from killing themselves. Or others. Yes, we've been down this road (at the posted speed limit) before. But I think it's important for TTAC's Best and Brightest to appreciate the Suffolk Po-po's full commitment to public safety. Pistonheads reports that the constabulary nailed 94 percent more mobile scofflaws between April 21 and 27 than they'd collared during their previous six-day high water mark. We're talking 854 selfish bastards vs. 264 'scrotes. Assuming the absolute minimum possible fine for all [who bloody well should be] concerned– £44 or $86.2749– The Suffolk Old Bill added £37,576 ($73,668.63) to the county coffers. If they could maintain that pace (£6,262.66667 per day), they'd raise £2,285,873.33 ($4,481,316.10) in a year. But that's not the point, is it mate? Speaking on behalf of "you should see what I've scaped off the pavement" police everywhere, Sgt Steve Knight said a "significant" number of motorists have "failed to grasp the concept" that speed kills. "Motorists really have no excuse," he said.
Subscribe to Newsletter53 Responses to “ “We are aware that there are those who say police should have better things to do, but this ignores the role speed plays in fatal and serious road traffic collisions” ”
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 » Show All Reverse Order
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 » Show All Reverse Order
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Digg
del.icio.us
Blinklist
Furl
Netscape
Google
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Windows Live
POWERED
May 8th, 2008 at 11:34 am
improvement_needed :
just a thought:
maybe, if the masses were better, less distracted drivers, there wouldn’t nearly as many accidents (at any ‘reasonable’ speed)… - then, there wouldn’t be the need for putting as much money into traffic enforcement and thus less speeding tickets…
It needs saying that the UK was one of the safest countries for motoring ON EARTH before they started this anti-speeding jihad.
And anyway, legislating against a behaviour that the majority of the people practice is insane– even if it really is dangerous and the voters agree with the policy.
Think prohibition.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:37 am
TexasAg03: Tim McVeigh was stopped for a license plate issue.
So, if he had just made sure that his Mercury had a valid license plate, he would still be free, blowing up buildings, because the police would have had no other leads? Highly unlikely.
TexasAg03: Once again I will say that, in many cases, other, more serious crimes are solved due to leads from traffic stops.
Traffic regulations are supposed to improve traffic safety, not give law enforcement officials a gateway or excuse to go on fishing expeditions for other crimes.
TexasAg03: I have a really novel idea - obey the posted speed limit and you will not get a ticket.
I have an even better idea - stop targeting drivers just because they happen to be exceeding two numbers posted on a sign that reflect either a need to generate revenue or the “speed kills” hysteria.
The federal government performed a study in the 1980s that determined that the safest drivers were traveling FASTER than the flow of traffic. The slowest drivers were some of the worst.
TexasAg03: I just don’t understand the reason people are so up in arms about this. I do just fine at 70 mph on the highway.
And lots of sophisticated, informed drivers like to travel at 80 mph, and don’t see why they should be pulled over and ticketed for violating an arbitrary number that has little, if anything, to do with improving highway safety.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Many speed limits are so low that speeds in excess of the limit are not harmful, in which case, to drive at speeds in excess of the limit (but within the threshold of safety) is an innocent activity.
No. A two year old taking a piece of candy is an innocent activity because he doesn’t know better. An adult driving in excess of the posted limit is not innocent. It may be true that the activity isn’t harmful, but it certainly isn’t innocent.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I hate tickets. Therefore I obey the speed limits. But that does not mean that I buy into the hypocrisy of speed enforcement.
There’s something deeply annoying about having the police take the easy way out (sitting in their cars using radar and lasers) rather than actually patrolling the roads looking for the sort of behavior that is much more likely to cause accidents such as tailgating, weaving, blocking the passing lane, agressive driving, etc.
Yes, I know law enforcement is tough. And, yes, I know that they catch some bad guys as a result of traffic stops. But to extend that logic, we would end up with mandatory stops of all traffic with subsequent searches of our vehicles regardless of probable cause. It’s the extension of that logic that must be opposed lest we end up as serfs in our own country.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:41 am
but this ignores the role speed plays in fatal and serious road traffic collisions
Yep, speed is EEEVIL. If people weren’t moving, they wouldn’t have collisions, so let’s rob them of every dime we can steal until they can’t afford to move. Does robbing (ticketing) people reduce fatal accidents? No… Did lower speed limits reduce fatal accidents? No… Do unlimited speeds, a.k.a. Germany, increase fatal accidents? No… Did raising the speed limits in the US increas fatal accidents? No…
This is nothing more than another story of grand theft by the state.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Good point Wolven. Targeting the speeders makes no difference in safety. Just another means to make revenue.
And if you slow the vehicles down 20% that means at any one time you will have 20% more vehicles on the road. Which doesn’t sound safer.
They tried the speed cameras in Ontario one year and traffic deaths took a big jump. Maybe just a coincidence but the cameras were soon gone, along with the government that installed them.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
[TexasAg03 wrote:] “An adult driving in excess of the posted limit is not innocent. It may be true that the activity isn’t harmful, but it certainly isn’t innocent.”
Okay, TexasAg03, can we agree that chewing gum is an innocent activity ?
Now, if an ordinance is passed against chewing gum, does chewing gum suddenly somehow stop being an innocent activity ?
May 8th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
So, if he had just made sure that his Mercury had a valid license plate, he would still be free, blowing up buildings, because the police would have had no other leads? Highly unlikely.
No, I didn’t say that.
Traffic regulations are supposed to improve traffic safety, not give law enforcement officials a gateway or excuse to go on fishing expeditions for other crimes.
I was responding to the point that police should be targeting people committing “real crimes”. Sometimes, serious offenders are stopped for traffic violations.
I have an even better idea - stop targeting drivers just because they happen to be exceeding two numbers posted on a sign that reflect either a need to generate revenue or the “speed kills” hysteria.
The federal government performed a study in the 1980s that determined that the safest drivers were traveling FASTER than the flow of traffic. The slowest drivers were some of the worst.
First, I have never had anyone tell me they were given a speeding ticket for anything less than 5 mph over the limit, and most were for 10+ mph over the limit.
That study was done during the 1980s when the speed limit was 55 mph. I would guess that the difference between the posted limit and the average speed of traffic was greater then than it would be now. Far more people drive closer to the limit since the speed limits were increased to around 70 mph. I remember driving when it was 55 mph. I got my license in 1986 and, as a new driver, I was very careful to drive the limit. I got passed like I was parked. It’s not that way now. Even doing the speed limit, I often pass many other cars on the road.
Maybe they should repeat the study…
And lots of sophisticated, informed drivers like to travel at 80 mph, and don’t see why they should be pulled over and ticketed for violating an arbitrary number that has little, if anything, to do with improving highway safety.
Sometimes I drive over the limit too, but if I get a ticket, that’s on me. I was speeding.
At what speed would you say people should be ticketed? I am curious. At some point there has to be a limit.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I’ve got an idea…how bout we start punishing people for committing crimes and not for possibly maybe being more likely to commit a crime. Our system does things like this, while drunk drivers (who haven’t actually committed a crime against another human until they cause an accident), are thrown in jail:
ELLICOTT CITY, Md. — The Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office says a driver who struck and killed a county police officer last year has paid her traffic fines.
Prosecutors say Stephanie Grissom of Columbia paid $310 in fines for speeding and negligent driving. She also received three points on her driving record.
Police say Grissom was driving 71 mph in a 55-mph zone on Route 32 when she struck Officer Scott Wheeler. The officer was working a speed enforcement detail and had stepped into the road to flag Grissom down when he was struck.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Cody: Well, if that officer wasn’t standing in the middle of the road, he probably wouldn’t have been hit, would he? No way driving 16 MPH over the speed limit was a significant factor there. If it was, Grissom would have been charged with vehicular homicide. She wasn’t probably because they knew they couldn’t convict.