Fed up of all the whingers on here bleating on about how unfair it is for the police to fine ppl who asre breaking the law.

so why not let them know your feelings.

http://www.south-wales.police.uk/htm...info/index.htm

Chip.

 

Well said
bttt

 

and again

 

Difficult to justify a complaint when the Police were acting within the Law. How can you jump up and down when you are caught fair and square breaking it yourself?

Les

 

Agree with Les here, it is unfair and wrong but the law.

thank God SW Police have the time and rescources to deal with these criminals. Must mean they have no other worries like robberies, burglsries, gun crime, drugs, rape, murder and generally keeping the peace. This is not aimed at the cops on the beat just the short sighted, blinkered money grabbing policy makers who need a good kick in the ***!

change of government will sort it out!

 

Well the police presence seems to have worked anyway.

Rally speeding offences halved


Some of the world's top drivers were fined for speeding in 2002
A controversial speeding camera campaign to catch motorists exceeding the limit during the Wales Rally GB last weekend has been heralded as a success.
The number of drivers caught was more than halved compared with last year, official figures have revealed.

Police were out in force with extra traffic controls on key roads including the M4, following considerable problems with excessive speeding at the 2002 event.

Last year, 1,616 offences were recorded as rally drivers and fans made their way between different stages of the race.

Seventeen drivers were punished by Neath magistrates earlier this week, receiving penalty points and fines for the offences in 2002.

But figures from the Safety Camera Partnership, who monitored roads around the rally stages, showed that the numbers of offences fell from 1,616 to 725 this year.

The number of vehicles recorded travelling more than 20mph above the speed limit also decreased dramatically, from 121 in 2002 to 25 in 2003.


Chip.

 

Unfortunately, given the propensity of this lot to make the figures say whatever they want them to say, you can't tell whether they've actually "worked". The one thing you can guarantee is that no matter what the figures this year, the policy would never have been publicly stated as a "failure". If the number of alleged offences had gone up, they'd still have claimed it was working.

...But for this statement to have any context, you'd also have to know
a) How many speed cameras were out this year compared with last
b) What the trigger values for a prosecution were this year compared with last
c) What the total traffic flow into and through the area were this year compared with last.

The drop in the number of alleged offences could simply be explained by a reduction in the number of cameras in use (they didn't seem to be around every corner like they were last year), or simply putting the prosecution trigger level up a handful of miles per hour. We already know that there was pressure on the safety camera partnership to relax their policy a bit; there's no way of telling precisely to what extent this happened.

That's odd. Other articles have quoted a figure in excess of 2300 offences for last year's rally. Why the sudden drop? I've also always wondered how they are able to tell who is "making their way between stages", and who is simply a local resident getting from A to B. Sure, if they do someone from Yorkshire in the middle of South Wales during rally weekend, they can be pretty confident why he/she is there, but there's plenty of grey area with the locals.

...Again an interesting statistic. A large chunk of the 121 in 2002 would presumably be the rallycars passing the notorious shakedown camera at 50mph plus, so knock those out and the gap between last year and this narrows considerably. As for the rest, again there's no context unless you know how many cameras there were, and where they were located.

Anyone who's ever actually seen the figures used by the speed camera brigade to justify their original existence knows that the statistics are used selectively to prove whatever point they're trying to make. I would be surprised if this case was noticeably different.

However, fewer offences is certainly a good thing, as it means fewer people being fleeced, and hopefully means an improvement in actual road safety.

 

How can you say there was less speeding ?

All th epeople last year will know where the cameras were situated. Did they put them on the same roads at the same time for the same duration under the same volume of traffic in the same weather conditions, with same speed camera operators. Its hardly under a laboratory conditions is it . Perhaps the people caught last year have decided not to come back this year. Too many variables to get any sort of accurate statistics IMHO.