New Met Police Commissioner and Traffic Law

[User]

 

[dynohub]

Actually the article seems a bit illogical to me. There is a debate to be had around speed enforcement (I'm not taking sides please note) and the first quote in the article from Stephenson relates to that but the second quote from Jones:

"This report describes the rise in “hit-and-run” incidents, the widespread evasion of vehicle tax and insurance, and the declining enforcement of traffic offences not detected by electronic devices, such as speed cameras. Cuts in the number of traffic police have lead a minority of drivers to believe that they can break the law with impunity."


could almost be used as ammunition by the likes of the ABD as part of there "less cameras more police" view. The article says nothing to suggest Stephenson would reduce traffic policing - merely that he has views on the relative seriousness of offences. Whilst no expert on the ABD and their like, I imagine even they are opposed to things like evasion of vehicle tax and insurance?

Sorry about the italics - had trouble with formatting

 

[Tony]

Not at all. A quote from one of their supporters a little while back, on the subject of ANPR, had a claimed copper refer to "revenue-raising by concentrating on technical offences, like driving without insurance"
Anyway, our friends have long advocated registering cars in the name of children, or recently deceased neighbours. How does insurance work there, then?

 

[dellzeqq]

We're just going to have to suck it and see, but I've not noticed the Met taking driving offences seriously thus far...

 

[Tony]

Hmm. Noticed another idiot taking Smith's advice here?
http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2009/01/speed-camera-fraud.html

 

[dynohub]

Not at all. A quote from one of their supporters a little while back, on the subject of ANPR, had a claimed copper refer to "revenue-raising by concentrating on technical offences, like driving without insurance"
Anyway, our friends have long advocated registering cars in the name of children, or recently deceased neighbours. How does insurance work there, then?

I think driving without insurance is a far from "technical" offence - I'd ban people who do it at once. Nevertheless the article itself does seem contradictory anyway?

 

[Tony]

Your comment was that the ABD would agree with your statement there. My reply was that both the ABD and the pretend policemen in the playpen (who claim that you can get driving licence points for walking and cycling, pathetic fantasists that they are), describe it as "technical" and enforcement as "revenue-raising"

 

[dynohub]

Your comment was that the ABD would agree with your statement there. My reply was that both the ABD and the pretend policemen in the playpen (who claim that you can get driving licence points for walking and cycling, pathetic fantasists that they are), describe it as "technical" and enforcement as "revenue-raising"

That may well be the case (there is no way I'm trawling those sites looking for quotes!) - but I stand by my comment that the original article was self contradictory (regardless of what the ABD et al may think!)