Not convinced on cycle lanes

[kwackers]

In that situation are we really ready to pick a fight with people doing upto 10mph above the limit who equally disapprove of the nutters?

I reckon the situation we've currently got to in this country is this:-

The public have no sympathy with anyone caught grossly over the limit (and indeed when caught they're frequently jailed).
There's very little sympathy for people given big fines and lots of points (or even bans) when they're quite a lot over the limit.

However we do need more enforcement for the 10mph lot and we shouldn't allow them to use the 'real' speeders as an excuse. In these cases I believe the current penalties are fine, they just need enforcing, combine this with education and the public (I believe) will stay on the right side and conform. The education will show them why, the penalties will seem fair and ultimately and more importantly it will become socially unacceptable.

[kwackers]

This is getting too tabloid for me. What next - the police should be chasing criminals and not nicking law abiding citizens going about their business? No wonder you like Clarkson's vision of Merrie Olde England Kwackers. An Englishman's home is his castle and the car his battering ram, eh?

And at what point did I say that?

I simply want a system that works, you on the other hand seem to prefer a more right wing approach - probably a sniper at a suitable vantage point taking out people over the limit.

Show me a system where a heavy handed approach has worked and I'll show you a failed society.

[glueman]

Yeah a sniper, that would do it. On the other hand some nice tall gantry cameras and an automated system of fines until drivers work out they can't take the **** and get away with it.
The police can then free their time for catching serious criminals, including the unlicenced drivers who are often found to be very dodgy as well. And cyclists can ride knowing the numpties will be unlikely to kill them.

[kwackers]

Yeah a sniper, that would do it. On the other hand some nice tall gantry cameras and an automated system of fines until drivers work out they can't take the **** and get away with it.
The police can then free their time for catching serious criminals, including the unlicenced drivers who are often found to be very dodgy as well. And cyclists can ride knowing the numpties will be unlikely to kill them.

I'm afraid the p is already being taken. I seem to remember there's a growing number of people who enter London each day on false plates. Often they swap a couple of letters round and claim it must've been the garage etc that did it.
The government response to this was laughable, make it so you couldn't buy number plates without a log book! Because of course that'll work...

So for the time being cameras will work for otherwise law abiding types. But personally, I'd sooner forgo the cameras and buy police cars, that way we can also spread the message that speeding isn't the only dangerous thing people do on the roads and get rid of some of the ugly clutter at the sides of the roads.

[kwackers]

This is getting too tabloid for me. What next - the police should be chasing criminals and not nicking law abiding citizens going about their business? No wonder you like Clarkson's vision of Merrie Olde England Kwackers. An Englishman's home is his castle and the car his battering ram, eh?

I'm curious about this statement.
Given that your view seems to be a fairly simplistic 'hang em high' and my view that the issue is more complex - why do you consider mine 'tabloid'?

Isn't tabloid by it's very nature simplistic? Ignoring any nuances and inconvenient reality? Preferring only to 'rally the troops' as it were...
(Not that I don't appreciate 'rallying the troops' it's often the way of the forum warrior )

[glueman]

It's not one or the other whatever the Daily Mail might say. Average speed cameras work; they're well signed, high enough not be intrusive and if strangers aren't aware of them they'll soon be freaked out by a whole stream of traffic driving correctly at 30 mph at the same time. Drivers don't want points on their licence and they dead easy to avoid unless you're stupid or arrogant. Whole towns work it out overnight and it's worked marvellously on the M1 widening roadworks that have gone on for years with millions of drivers getting the picture that 50 means 50.

Swapping numberplates is a serious criminal act. You don't have to be Judge Jeffreys to know that anyone doing it should face a custodial sentence. Being untaxed and uninsured (other than obvious oversights of a few days) is a serious criminal act worthy of pursuit by the courts. Otherwise you're sending a signal that being untraceable in a motor vehicle is perfectly acceptable. Everyone knows where they stand and everyone who isn't a criminal benefits.

By tabloid I mean the insistence that driving a car is a birthright and its errors easily separated from criminal acts, even when that birthright leads to thousands of injuries and deaths.

[kwackers]

It's not one or the other whatever the Daily Mail might say. Average speed cameras work; they're well signed, high enough not be intrusive and if strangers aren't aware of them they'll soon be freaked out by a whole stream of traffic driving correctly at 30 mph at the same time. Drivers don't want points on their licence and they dead easy to avoid unless you're stupid or arrogant. Whole towns work it out overnight and it's worked marvellously on the M1 widening roadworks that have gone on for years with millions of drivers getting the picture that 50 means 50.

Swapping numberplates is a serious criminal act. You don't have to be Judge Jeffreys to know that anyone doing it should face a custodial sentence. Being untaxed and uninsured (other than obvious oversights of a few days) is a serious criminal act worthy of pursuit by the courts. Otherwise you're sending a signal that being untraceable in a motor vehicle is perfectly acceptable. Everyone knows where they stand and everyone who isn't a criminal benefits.

Actually because swapping number plates is a criminal act has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. How do you prove it was done deliberately? Most don't end up prosecuted, you don't have to be a criminal genius to realise what that means.

Like I said I think average speed cameras are a good thing.

[glueman]

High profile cases including serial killers, serious gang crime and armed robbers have been apprehended through diligence on traffic offences.

[kwackers]

By tabloid I mean the insistence that driving a car is a birthright and its errors easily separated from criminal acts, even when that birthright leads to thousands of injuries and deaths.

I never claimed it was a birthright - but if you want to be picky then we've built a society with dependence upon it and so its deprivation isn't something that should be taken lightly because the repercussions can be fairly serious.

TBH glueman I'm not sure what your issue is. I've provided a reasonable (given the medium) description of what I think works, you haven't attempted to disprove or find fault with any of it - which I'm perfectly happy for you to do, after all that would be a discussion.
You've voiced your own opinions and in the interests of discussion I've pointed out what I see as the issues with them (even the one's I broadly agree with).

Looking back it seems to me that the only thing we disagree on (possibly) is the size of the penalties and the effect of simply creating road nirvana by increasing them substantially.

[kwackers]

High profile cases including serial killers, serious gang crime and armed robbers have been apprehended through diligence on traffic offences.

Using police cars, not cameras.

I suspect most serious criminals don't respond to a letter through the door asking for them to show up at the local nick.

[glueman]

Both cameras and cars. Automated processing of car description to registration with mobile pursuit for infringements. Libertarians will argue it's a step to the police state, but libertarians are comfortable with individuals arming themselves to the teeth to protect property and person.

[reohn2]

Spot on! the law needs to be applied with a no nonsense approach,I'm meaning zero tolerance.
But first we need the will to do it,which is sadly lacking in the UK.

Employ every tenth person as a policeman and spend most of the public purse turning the roads into a police state and you may succeed. Of course public resentment will be at an all time high, you'll create a criminal subclass along with black economies dealing in all things people need to continue to exist. But the world will be a better place (apparently).

I just love right wing politics...

Thats your opinion,mine is if you want to stop something that you know is making the roads unsafe,catch,fine and put points on the licences of the criminals,if they continue, take their cars from them.
You take things to a logical conculsion but the problem is,its your logic,and like my logic it isn't always perfect.

Please don't continue to label me.

[thekelticfringe]

Eeerrrm........ this thread is about the wisdom of cycle lanes, right?

[reohn2]

Yes I agree I'm out too.

[kwackers]

Thats your opinion,mine is if you want to stop something that you know is making the roads unsafe,catch,fine and put points on the licences of the criminals,if they continue, take their cars from them.
You take things to a logical conculsion but the problem is,its your logic,and like my logic it isn't always perfect.

Please don't continue to label me.

I can't actually label you - like most people I suspect your views swing politically depending on what we're discussing. But the simplistic 'string em high' is essentially a right wing view of things.
The Victorians loved it - did them no good though.

The issue is simple. You either have the public on your side or you don't. If you don't you haven't a cat in hells chance.

Currently the public are in favour of policing speed limits, put more police on the ground, catch more people and that won't change but start the Dirty Harry approach to people a few mph over the limit and you'll lose their vote.

Public opinion is the reason speed camera's failed the first time - despite being an easily defensible technology. It's taken years for cameras to re-acquire an acceptable face and even then they have to have numerous conditions imposed.

Doesn't matter what we're discussing, cycle paths, speed limits, shared use of roads. The public is key, if they decide tomorrow they don't want to share the road with cyclists then we'll be walking. Politicians realised this a long time ago, if you want to win a war they're the people you need on your side.