vonhosen wrote:So if I understand you right you are saying inappropriate speed under the speed limit is the greatest threat, but you can do nothing about it other than words of advice (which many of those who you stop will view as toothless as you have no means to enforce it), because the establishment doesn't recognise the threat & they won't accept your evidence of that threat as you see it. The establishment instead prefers to merely discount it because your accused is shown to be travelling under the speed limit. In short you are saying the CPS/Court doesn't trust your judgement or evidence, preferring instead to say any speed under the limit is an appropriate speed in law.
Completely wrong I'm afraid.
What I am saying is that, in the urban area, inappropriate speed under the limit is a significantly greater fatality causation factor than appropriate speed above the limit. My best guess of the comparison would be 100 to none, we are not talking about the big causation culprits like boy racer activity, thrill seeking, drink driving etc. But in the sphere of speeding behaviours among compliant generally law abiding drivers, (the arena in which speed cameras can influence behaviour) it's worth recognising that overenforcement may well be doing more harm than good.
Prosecution is not the only tool in our box von, and many people will learn from some words of advice about their driving, whether it be tailgating, whether it be considering his potential effect on a pedestrian who is looking the wrong way as he steps out.
As has been discussed on a few different forums, the law is often a blunt tool - a proxy to the desired behaviours. My concern is that if we emphasise one aspect too much (speed compliance), we instill the wrong balance, hence the wrong behaviours, through failure to place enough significance on the important driver skills.
If I have understood you correctly & your aim is to do something about it you are in the wrong job, because you are going to have to address the establishment view before you can even start to effectively bother with the end user who you are powerless to deal with in law.
Good luck.
I have no problem with helping chipping away at glaringly flawed establishment dogma while continuing in the job I enjoy. I see no conflict, indeed I see more conflict of principle in standing back saying and doing nothing, toeing the line. As with every job, I might say a little more if I wasn't gainfully employed, but I have plenty to say on the inside, and my views are almost totally endorsed by the sharp end ranks, the ones who know the job and see the consequences of policy.