It's not about generating extra revenue

[Softus]

So you think from my response to someone calling me an obnoxious *** and the attitude of other users on speed limits etc, that I do not care about road safety?

No, that's a supposition that I clearly have not expressed.

If your public-facing training hasn't enabled you to receive abuse and deal with it professionally, then I don't think very much of the training.

What I've said is that your posts on this topic fly in the face of improving road safety. If you're not working then of course it isn't your job, but if you're not working then there's no need to mention your job, so either way you're not understanding the principles of boundaries and whose views you represent when you express what might be your own private ones.

What I suggested was that you saying "I couldn't care less..." carries the distinct possibility that you will alienate the people whose road behaviour you're charged with improving.

I beg to differ, I am a traffic officer yes and I know the attitude a large number of drivers have on us.

In that case I have a problem with your attitude, and I would dearly like you to reveal your warrant number so that you can be reported.

 

[Softus]

...I get really annoyed when someone receives a fine/ticket for breaking the law, then gives excuses like the road is clear, it was 4am etc.....

Hmm, the truth will out, eh snico?

This is a can of worms for you, methinks.

Firstly, you claimed to be pleased to be kept in a job by the attitude of speeding motorists. Secondly, the things that some people say appear to personally annoy you when you're doing your job. I suspect that you're entirely the wrong person to be doing it in that case.

If someone claims that the motorway at 4am is entirely clear, and conditions favourable, and that the speed limit is temporary, and fixed (i.e not variable) and therefore not commensurate with the conditions, then they're thinking intelligently about the danger involved. If you regard that intelligence and thought as mere "excuses", and get annoyed about it, then more fool you.

 

[snico]

You seem to have a number of strange views, I'm not going to sit here and nit pick your comments, I dont see a reason to. It seems to me that you have made up your opinion on me.

As for training, yes I am well trained in what I do, I can and do take abuse but I dont think thats relevant in this debate is it.

Would you like to give a bit more detail as to why you have a problem with MY attitude when you do not even know me?

 

[snico]

I think some people are getting the wrong idea in this thread,

 

[Softus]

As for training, yes I am well trained in what I do, I can and do take abuse but I dont think thats relevant in this debate is it.

It's you who said one of your comments was over the top, and that you were provoked by an abusive comment aimed at you, so I think it's highly relevant.

Would you like to give a bit more detail as to why you have a problem with MY attitude when you do not even know me?

It hardly needs anything added - the nub of it is that your training has failed to prepare you for the views expressed on this topic. Nobody asked you to reveal your job, and to abuse it by attempting to use it as a credential for being judgmental about someone speeding.

I think some people are getting the wrong idea in this thread,

Well, you have carte blanche to correct that idea. Go for it.

 

[snico]

I did not state I was provoked by an abusive comment aimed at me. I said it annoys me when people make up daft excuses when they receive a fine or points for speeding, the OP stated he was fined, did he HAVE to mention the time and conditions when it occured? I dont think so.

No I did not have to mention my job, but when I made a valid comment on the OP first post, I received a comment from a user that I think gave me the right to explain my job as to back up my comment

 

[sooey]

the OP stated he was fined, did he HAVE to mention the time and conditions when it occured? I dont think so

Well excuse me for butting back in here but: As I have already stated, it wasn't the fine and the 3 point penalty on a hitherto unblemished licence which prompted me to post. It was the ridiculous claim that came with the paperwork, which tried to justify the need for a fine and endorsement in my case. So, obviously mentioning the time and road conditions were entirely necessarry to the context of my post. Equally obviously, cases like this are about generating extra revenue, and the powers that be are becoming twitchy about the publics increasing realisation of this. Otherwise why the unasked for attempts to justify their position to the general public.

 

[Softus]

I did not state I was provoked by an abusive comment aimed at me.

Well then, it seems that I was mistaken when you mentioned the abuse in response to my point about your reply to sooey.

So, exactly what was the justification for this comment:

Well considering stopping people like you is my job, i couldnt care less what you think

I said it annoys me when people make up daft excuses when they receive a fine or points for speeding, the OP stated he was fined, did he HAVE to mention the time and conditions when it occured? I dont think so.

I don't think so either, but he clearly explained why he mentioned it, which was very much not a mitigation but a criticism of the decision for a fixed speed limit. You haven't even attempted to address the issue of why a fixed limit was in place overnight on a deserted motorway. Ignoring the question doesn't make it go away, it just makes you look like an idiot.

No I did not have to mention my job, but when I made a valid comment on the OP first post, I received a comment from a user that I think gave me the right to explain my job as to back up my comment

So, go ahead - "explain" your job.

 

[Softus]

Equally obviously, cases like this are about generating extra revenue, and the powers that be are becoming twitchy about the publics increasing realisation of this. Otherwise why the unasked for attempts to justify their position to the general public.

sooey, in case you're not aware of it, the police merely enforce the limits - the local authority sets them.

For this reason I believe snico's comments have nothing to do with justification, which is why he's so blinkered about the comments that he hears from drivers - despite his training and experience he mistakenly thinks that the things people say are excuses, whereas they're frequently complaints about the application of the limit rather than a comment about being caught exceeding one. Sadly, many police officers aren't the sharpest tools in the box.

 

[sooey]

I wasn't referring to snico's comments Softus, I was referring to the letter I recieved with my notification. Which was a series of questions and answers, one or two of which were a blatent attempt to justify their position with regard to people caught speeding in the early hours when roads are quiet.

 

[sooey]

Couldn't agree more with what you say though, especially as you say it far more eloquently than I ever could.

 

[snico]

[/quote]
sooey, in case you're not aware of it, the police merely enforce the limits - the local authority sets them.

For this reason I believe snico's comments have nothing to do with justification, which is why he's so blinkered about the comments that he hears from drivers - despite his training and experience he mistakenly thinks that the things people say are excuses, whereas they're frequently complaints about the application of the limit rather than a comment about being caught exceeding one. Sadly, many police officers aren't the sharpest tools in the box.[/quote]

Blinkered by comments, are you actually for real or is this a wind up?

I'll think you will find that they are more excuses than complaints......we are the ones who they complain against....for what? doing the job we are employeed to do?

If I was to stop a vehicle in the exact same situation as the OP, I would receive excuses as to why they thought 65 was acceptable, if thats something you dont believe then that is entirely up to you.

I don't think so either, but he clearly explained why he mentioned it, which was very much not a mitigation but a criticism of the decision for a fixed speed limit. You haven't even attempted to address the issue of why a fixed limit was in place overnight on a deserted motorway. Ignoring the question doesn't make it go away, it just makes you look like an idiot.

Well as this is the first time the question has been asked to me I have not had a reason to explain, he states that the road was coned when it was apparant that no works where taking place. This is really not something I could answer unless I had a reason to find out. In that case the Highways Agency would be contacted, but regardless of that, the speed limit is still in force

 

[snico]

Also, I have no argument with the OP. He has accepted the fine and points. The questions the ask you etc are just a standard thing.

 

[Shytalkz]

In that case the Highways Agency would be contacted, but regardless of that, the speed limit is still in force

That may be so, but why, when no works are in force, when the road is clear and conditions are good, is that the case? Perhaps people might just have a tad more respect for the limits, if they could actually see some reasoning behind them being there - and if there is no obvious reason (and merely saying that the limit was still in force is no answer), then the only reason that they exist in such circumstances can only be for the purposes of revenue gathering.

At least there is the potential for traffic plod to apply a bit of reasonableness to the situation, although that clearly depends on the attitude of said plod as much as anything; there is no such latitude with a camera.

 

[sooey]

At least there is the potential for traffic plod to apply a bit of reasonableness to the situation, although that clearly depends on the attitude of said plod as much as anything; there is no such latitude with a camera.

That may be so shytalks (love that username), but surely there is an opportunity for discretion when the camera data is processed. Or is everything about this proceedure automated. If not all automated then a decision has been taken to prosecute all and sundry regardless of danger or conditions, which as you say can only be revenue gathering at the motorists expense.