h a l f b a k e r yYou gonna finish that?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Nothing is more annoying than seeing a speeding motorist whiz by, not being pulled over. With radar gun and digital camera technology there could be an integrated device to document a speeder and photograph the car. I think this is already done in Britain and some other places, with automatic cameras.
But
why
let the robots have all the fun? I think hunting licenses should be sold to allow citizen speeder hunters to check out the speed gun and go shoot some speeders. Imagine the fun of constructing a blind by a likely road then shooting the speed gun at passing speeders. The speedhunters could lay in wait for a particular speeder or shoot at each passing car, as he or she saw fit. The gun would register gathered information for documentation at the cop shop and the speeders would later get a ticket in the mail, together with a code corresponding with the speedhunter who busted them. Speedhunters would get pseudomilitary type medals to document the number of speeders successfully ticketed.
This idea has many beautiful aspects:
1: Capture more revenue from speeders.
2: Capture revenue from speedhunter licenses.
3: Give grumpy self-righteous old guys a good hobby / power trip.
4: Safer roads - Big Brother is watching you!
[link]
|
| |
I just hope to God, John Prescott or his predecessor isn't reading this..... |
|
| |
Mixed. Creating a posse of pseudo-deputized power-tripping para-police is a scary idea.
On the other hand, better enforcement can mean safer roads. If the robotics aren't as efficient as humans at identifying which cars are speeding, then speed blinds could be manned by a new class of lower-cost traffic officers, like meter maids.
More employment, safer roads. |
|
| |
// Nothing is more annoying than seeing a speeding motorist whiz by, not being pulled over. // |
|
| |
I'm sure there are some things more annoying, if you really think about it. Anyway, bad way to start your idea, presuming everyone shares that view. Have to give you a (-) on this one, as I am apt to be the motorist in question. |
|
| |
Come on you guys! Speedhunters! Think: hunting culture hybridized with civic duty! Some love for the speedhunters, please! |
|
| |
I'm afraid that pleading with the masses won't help your collection of aquatic carcasses. |
|
| |
Obligatory pitchforks and torches post |
|
| |
Before this gets stupid, let me just check that you're hunting motorists with a portable speed camera, right? Not a shotgun? Good. |
|
| |
Anyway, what waugsqueke said. I've just finished a very satisfying drive into work, speeding most of the way. It was 6:30 am and the country roads I used were mostly deserted. Where they were not, or there was a danger of side exits or pedestrians, I slowed to UNDER - yes UNDER the speed limit. It is not speed that kills, but irresponsible driving. |
|
| |
I worry about the attitude that spawns this kind of idea. When the aim of law enforcement is to catch people breaking a law, rather than to keep society working, there's something gravely amiss. A cop is trained in their job and has a range of options to remedy a situation, from a slapped wrist to removing someone for a period. A hunter, on the other hand, aims to find people breaking the rules. That's a different mentality, one similar to car-park attendant's or traffic wardens who are given a quota for the number of tickets they need to give out in a period. Use strict rules and you're nabbed, not for causing trouble, but for breaking a rule. Please keep judgement involved, don't rely just on rules. As a programmer I write hundreds of rules a day, and I know the frailty of having strict, machine type enforcement - things get chewed up. In computers, that's just data, in society, that's peoples lives.
No-one should be given the job of enforcing a rule in its strict sense without the ability to use judgement to override it. |
|
| |
BTW [Rcomian], traffic wardens (or parking attendants, as they are called in C London) do not have a "quota" of tickets to issue. They _are_ judged on their performance, but a far more appropriate way of doing this is to measure the number of customers who pay tickets issued by each Parking Attendant.
Any numbskull can write a ticket, but only a well trained Attendant can issue a ticket that is legally enforceable. |
|
| |
Borough Councils have absolutely no interest in issuing dodgy tickets, as they cause more customer appeals (each appeal costs the council in the region of £25-£70 to investigate and process) and signify lost opportunities (the Attendant could be issuing a valid ticket to another vehicle instead of wasting their time issuing dodgy tickets). |
|
| |
Also, Councils have no interest in "persecuting" any individual. Councils take discrimination very seriously and one of their strong points is that they treat each individual in the same way. No customer is favoured or unfairly disadvantaged. This is why the tabloids have so much fun slating Council's actions in particular cases. A recent legal case in London detailed a Greek landlord who evicted his racist tenant but didn't follow the lawful eviction process. The council then prosecuted him on behalf of the tenant. Unfair?...Possibly, but within the law and processed without discrimination against the tenant or landlord. |
|
| |
If individuals were to enforce laws (speeding) how would discrimination or vendettas be avoided? |
|
| |
Yayyy, Blissmiss in da house. Give up ya love! |
|
| |
" Nothing is more annoying than seeing a speeding motorist whiz by, not being pulled over " |
|
| |
That's it? That's the most annoying thing you have in your life? I must be doing something wrong. |
|
| |