Login
7th June 2014 - 05:16 PM
|
xr6greg
Post #142
HP Plod. |
|---|
 |
HP Plod
Post #143
I've based all my arguments on the covert versus overt |
|---|
 |
wolfman101
Post #144
Disinterested in your hypothetical. I require evidence. Regardless, it is ONCE AGAIN a bad analogy. Shop one would have a greater success rate of deterrence in the areas with security. This is analogous to black spots on roads. FIND THE PLACES PEOPLE SPEED AND MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THERE IS A 100% CHANCE THEY WILL BE CAUGHT. If you want to stop people speeding, find the areas that people speed, and saturate them with fixed cams. Almost no one will speed. |
|---|
 |
the big finger
Post #145
so much for the unfair defect problem did that bloke get anywhere with his issue |
|---|
|
|
HP Plod
Post #146
QUOTE (wolfman101 @ Jun 8 2014, 05:25 PM)  Disinterested in your hypothetical. I require evidence. Regardless, it is ONCE AGAIN a bad analogy. Shop one would have a greater success rate of deterrence in the areas with security. This is analogous to black spots on roads. FIND THE PLACES PEOPLE SPEED AND MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THERE IS A 100% CHANCE THEY WILL BE CAUGHT. If you want to stop people speeding, find the areas that people speed, and saturate them with fixed cams. Almost no one will speed. Incorrect. You are obviously somewhat educated, my analogy is sound. So you won't answer my analogy honestly because you know it disproves your theory of marked and fixed cameras are a better deterrent. Why is it that you can't see how I'm proving that covert is a positive deterrent to overt. Where is your evidence that overt is better than covert What I'm trying to prove here is that the concept of how they are executed blankets an area much better than a specific location. You now where a fixed camera is, you know where a marked camera sits, you speed anywhere else and slow down at these locations therefore you a geographically specific for where to have to do the limit, so to speak. But if they are hidden, you increase your geographical target area, you don't have the luxury of knowing where to speed, you have to be conscious of it all the time for fear of being detected. Therefore you make people think that THERE IS A 100% CHANCE OF BEING CAUGHT. I can't put it any better than this, and it's obvious there is a agree to disagree and therefore the discussion must end here. QUOTE (the big finger @ Jun 8 2014, 06:48 PM) so much for the unfair defect problem did that bloke get anywhere with his issue Sort of |
|---|
 |
Shuffs
Post #148
QUOTE (minkey85 @ Jun 3 2014, 03:32 PM) *she SHE has tried! QUOTE (xr6greg @ Jun 8 2014, 11:46 AM) Nothing to read,just aggsession I'm sorry,but to me,you come across as having as much charisma as a pitbull in a dog fight,and I may be wrong in saying this but you are coming across as some one who has almost finished their law degree,but is yet to experience life in a legal practice.One of HP Plod's favourite sparring partners (XXXXGold) had more charisma in his little finger,than you appear to have in the whole of your body,(and I'm sure if he were here now,you'd be back on your chain)so I hope you lose some of that aggression before you join a practice,or the best vehicle you can ever hope to drive is part of your current profile name Come at me Bro!!! QUOTE (wolfman101 @ Jun 8 2014, 05:25 PM) Disinterested in your hypothetical. I require evidence. Regardless, it is ONCE AGAIN a bad analogy. Shop one would have a greater success rate of deterrence in the areas with security. This is analogous to black spots on roads. FIND THE PLACES PEOPLE SPEED AND MAKE IT KNOWN THAT THERE IS A 100% CHANCE THEY WILL BE CAUGHT. If you want to stop people speeding, find the areas that people speed, and saturate them with fixed cams. Almost no one will speed. Wolfie,as always splitting hairs again,concerned they're in the Mars Bar row,are we,what if he said random,instead of certain? QUOTE (the big finger @ Jun 8 2014, 06:48 PM) so much for the unfair defect problem did that bloke get anywhere with his issue Must agree,and I'm part of the problem,but see the top post (he's a she!) 
|
|---|
|
|
Shuffs
Post #150
QUOTE (vk134 @ Jun 8 2014, 10:21 PM) I must admit I do find it interesting all the various viewpoints shown in this thread, after last post, i'm callin Shuffs found some spirits snuck away after a nice Sunday BBQ, lol Right about the BBQ,VK,wrong about the spirits,apart from the thread being hijacked (and I've put my hand up,for being part of the problem),the current subject is mainly being represented by two respected professions,and I can see no reason why it can't be carried out with a bit of decorum,but instead,it's turning into a slanging match,and I feel that it's the legal representation of the discussion is mainly at fault.XXXX Gold was more than capable of getting his point across,and ripping the rug out from under your feet,in a civil manner,but maybe that comes from years of experience. |
|---|
|
|
OLD GEEZER
Post #151
Some interesting points of view. |
|---|
|
|
HP Plod
Post #152
QUOTE (OLD GEEZER @ Jun 9 2014, 06:04 AM) Some interesting points of view. Plod I for one appreciate your hanging in therewith all your replies. Thank you.. For a long time I fight alone on here, what frustrates me is that I can argue points from law and from theories of law enforcement to tackle issues that the public want us to try and solve. But the arguments from the other side always revert to revenue raising and I've raised some valid analogies to sort of prove that my theories are sound and are not revenue raising tools, but alas the boys don't see it that way. To them I'm a government puppet, they don't believe my answers (kill sheets for example), why on earth would I bother lying, I came on here to put another side of the single minded, biased threads. You will see how the enemy thinks without giving too much away,I thought it'd be an interesting point if view, because a lot of the time it's a case of "why did the officer do that?" Well I'll tell you why I'm curios also too back on topic so to speak is that no one entered into my analogy for the shops theory...why? Because it blows the covert versus overt camera theory right out of the water. And I pushed the button to launch that missile. P.S. I too miss xxxxgold, he was a worthy opponent, although Wolf and Greg give it to me but never legally speaking only personal p.o.v.. |
|---|
|
|
wolfman101
Post #153
No it doesn't. I DID address your analogy. I pointed out that in it the areas with security (blind spots on the road) would have far less shoplifting (speeding) than the overal general drop that random hidden security (concealed cameras) would achieve. |
|---|
 |
Twat In The Hat
Post #154
Very simply, you CAN'T have a signed camera or patrol car on every street.. Not just about every street, but with a fixed camera they only cover a certain part of the road. Some people speed due to not paying attention.. A couple of fines in the mail, should be enough (for most people) to make the effort to be more careful. |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
HP Plod
Post #157
QUOTE (wolfman101 @ Jun 9 2014, 10:06 AM) I understand the argument, I just don't credit it. Because one covert camera, is more effective slowing people down over a greater area. A known camera spot/fixed speed camera only slows people down in that section (100m or so). The unknown variable of a covert, not knowing where it is, what it's in, will slow you down over a massive area, as you have no idea of its location and therefore you have to drive at speed limit or less everywhere.. How is that not effective. As in my analogy, you can steal from shop one as you know where the security is located, therefore you can steal from sections where they aren't ... In shop two you've got no idea where they are therefore the entire shop is safe. If I advertised that a speed camera would be in the Camp Hill area for example, those travelling in Camp Hill would Drive slower in that entire suburb, than if I advertised that one camera would be on old Cleveland road, outside state school, you'd know you are safe driving at any speed anywhere other than outside the state school. So I've explained pretty thoroughly my argument why it's more effective, maybe I've missed your point on how overt is more effective..so for now treat me like an idiot and explain your theory like I've explained mine, so I can see your point of view. |
|---|
|
|
HP Plod
Post #158
QUOTE (Twat In The Hat @ Jun 9 2014, 10:05 AM) Very simply, you CAN'T have a signed camera or patrol car on every street.. Not just about every street, but with a fixed camera they only cover a certain part of the road. Some people speed due to not paying attention.. A couple of fines in the mail, should be enough (for most people) to make the effort to be more careful. Then there are the people that speed deliberately. Always 5/10 km/h over etc. If all cameras were marked and there were no covert devices, then those people would literally speed all the time, except for the small stretches of certain roads where they KNOW there is a camera. I really don't see how people fail to understand how covert is more effective. G'day twat, nice to see you pop in... Thank you for your support.. You still interested in the vicpol? |
|---|
|
|
wolfman101
Post #159
I believe that the most effective way to reduce the toad toll is to make it impossible to speed in the most dangerous areas without penalty. We know what these areas are. We still choose to leave them randomly patrolled, at a reduced efficacy. We could have these areas completely covered with ease if we favored prevention over punishment. |
|---|
|
|
xr6greg
Post #160
Hey HP Plod. |
|---|
|
|
HP Plod
Post #161
QUOTE (xr6greg @ Jun 9 2014, 12:30 PM) Hey HP Plod. Your interesting analogy of 'overt vs covert' shop stealing with covert be the most effective which you then translated to hiding speed cameras as the best way to reduce speeding offences (not backed up by any researched information by the way so I guess you must have some insight into the subject before you reached that conclusion ...) Why is it then, if covert is the way to go to reduce speeding, mobile phone, seat belt and other more serious crimes that police forces world wide don't put all their officers in plain clothes and into unmarked police vehicles? And don't come up with the "We need marked cars to get from point A to point B quickly" because no one sees or hears them when you go Code 2 or 1 to a job do they regardless of it being a marked or unmarked car. And plain clothes officers can easily have ID displayed by way of vests and LBVs. So tell me, as I'm one of the ignorant apparently, why so little effort is put into your belief that covert is better than overt and why aren't all police, particularly according to your theory, traffic police in plain clothes and unmarked cars. Maybe instead of the Qld road fatalities INCREASING we could eliminate it with unmarked cars? I agree, I believe that we should all be covert, I issue more infringements in an unmarked car than I do in a marked.. I wish we had all unmarked. But again, like a tradesman (sorry for the influx of analogies) has a tool for each part of a job he performs, he can't use a hammer for everything. So we have marked to patrol to use as a tool that we are visible as well as invisible. Sometimes we do a trident strike effect where an unmarked car follows at a distance from a marked patrol and you'd be surprised what we detect in the unmarked, because people see a marked car and stop their behaviour but then return after passing only to be detected by the unmarked. I think there is still a public perception that police must be seen to feel safe, the concept of unmarked is to detect those that show contempt for the road rules. |
|---|
|
|
|---|
 |
clutch-monkey
Post #163
QUOTE (Twat In The Hat @ Jun 9 2014, 10:05 AM) Very simply, you CAN'T have a signed camera or patrol car on every street.. thank fcuk, though i gather the government is gagging for it. what an unnecessary intrusion into everyday life.. nobody wants it but it keeps getting rammed down our throats. it's gotten to the point where i prefer driving through nsw than qld due to the cops (never thought i'd say that..) |
|---|
|
|
HP Plod
Post #164
I read a report just now that was very interesting. It was completed in 2003, by months university about the inception of speed cameras in 1997 and a review over the years to 2001. And it explains both sides of the argument here but I tends to leave eventually to my argument. |
|---|
|
|
clutch-monkey
Post #166
QUOTE (HP Plod @ Jun 9 2014, 01:25 PM) I read a report just now that was very interesting. It was completed in 2003, by months university about the inception of speed cameras in 1997 and a review over the years to 2001. And it explains both sides of the argument here but I tends to leave eventually to my argument. With the inception of cameras in 1997 in queensland "overt cameras" were successful in a massive reduction of all types of crashes and of note was that these reductions were greatest within 2km of the site and increased out to 6km from site. And the reductions continued to decrease because the original camera site numbers were 500 but blew out to 2500 in 2001, again reductions were greatest within 2km from site. So this adds favour to overt cameras reducing crashes and adds weight to wolfs and Gregs argument that the more cameras then there is a reduction of crashes. HOWEVER the report did attribute that the increase if crashes further away from sites was because of and I quote from the report A further differential shown in table 2 concerns crash reduction by distance from camera site. Figure 6 shows that crash reductions are greatest nearest the camera (0-2km) as expected, but least in the next annulus out (2-4km). It is of interest that this violates the simplest deterrence hypothesis, which is that deterrence should decrease with distance from a camera site. This may indicate evidence of site learning. It is proposed that this has occurred partly due to the site-specific deployment of cameras in Queensland. Consequently, some motorists may (1) learn where cameras are likely to be, (2) by subtraction, learn where they are not, and (3) speed on those sections of road where cameras are unlikely to be. The fact that generally crash reductions rise again in the third annulus (4-6km) may result from there being less certainty about camera positionings here so caution returns, albeit at a lower level than when nearest to camera sites. So yes agree that overt cameras reduce crashes, but as we all know, we all know where camera sites are we all know to slow down near this section so it acts as a deterrent, But over the years our learning if camera sites drives back the complacency and as stated less cautious thinking An article in the courier mail in 2010, states that the road toll reduction that year was because of the inception of covert cameras Why was this? Put the two facts together... Road toll, crashes etc reduced in 1997 and 2010 1997...... Speed cameras introduced no one knew where they were, so slowed down for fear of what would occur, it worked. 2010... Covert cameras, again people did not know where they were so slowed down for fear of what would occur. Both these years was because of the UNKNOWN, a reasoning and the entire basis of my argument References: www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muarc204.pdf http://www.couriermail.com.au/archive/news...6-1225873201594 that's interesting but can anyone take monash university seriously anymore? they're pretty much skint and will suck dick for money. so many papers pushed out to support this or that legislation. though it does support wolfie's stance that people slow down for fixed cameras (and honestly who cares about anywhere else) also did lol at toad toll |
|---|
|
|
wolfman101
Post #167
I have no problem with Monash. Still a very well regarded institution AFAIK. All the same, as far as I can see all that does is indeed confirm what we all know - overt cameras stop people speeding where they are placed. |
|---|
|
|
xr6greg
Post #168
HP Plod. You seem more interested in catching people speeding (and all the other things as well) than preventing it. You want to be in unmarked cars and have covert cameras to increase the number of offenders caught? I thought you were in the business of preventing offences (s2.3 PSAA)? |
|---|
|
|
OLD GEEZER
Post #169
Plod quite often I flash cars coming towards me that are obviously way over the limit to try to get them to slow down when there are no police or cameras nearby. Am I committing an offense?? |
|---|
|
|
clutch-monkey
Post #170
QUOTE (OLD GEEZER @ Jun 9 2014, 03:06 PM) Plod quite often I flash cars coming towards me that are obviously way over the limit to try to get them to slow down when there are no police or cameras nearby. Am I committing an offense?? vigilante! quick lynch him! 
|
|---|
|
|
wolfman101
Post #171
QUOTE (OLD GEEZER @ Jun 9 2014, 03:06 PM) Plod quite often I flash cars coming towards me that are obviously way over the limit to try to get them to slow down when there are no police or cameras nearby. Am I committing an offense?? I have done this, and been stopped and told that I am. Yes, they of course have all the technical grounds to stand on that they could want-I am violating the law in regards to "dazzling". All the same, in the "spirit" of the law rather than the letter, if their goal was to stop people speeding as opposed to waiting for them to do so and giving them a ticket in the mail, this action should be welcomed. |
|---|
 |
mark1414
Post #172
QUOTE (wolfman101 @ Jun 9 2014, 04:11 PM) I have done this, and been stopped and told that I am. Yes, they of course have all the technical grounds to stand on that they could want-I am violating the law in regards to "dazzling". All the same, in the "spirit" of the law rather than the letter, if their goal was to stop people speeding as opposed to waiting for them to do so and giving them a ticket in the mail, this action should be welcomed. Or you could just simply say you are warning the person of an upcoming hazard. I don't think you should have to say any more than that. |
|---|
|
|
Shuffs
Post #173
QUOTE (mark1414 @ Jun 9 2014, 04:36 PM) Or you could just simply say you are warning the person of an upcoming hazard. I don't think you should have to say any more than that. Pretty sure there is no law regarding warning oncoming motorists,as Wolfie said they use the 'dazzle'law,use highbeam within 200 meters,behind,or in front of another vehicle |
|---|
|
|
wolfman101
Post #175
Also that. Great idea on the highway. Run into enormous problems on surface roads, and would be next to useless on small targeted areas such as black spots. |
|---|
-
Member Login
If you have a BoostCruising account enter your user name and password into the yellow box.
Alternatively, you can quickly login with Facebook.
If you don't have an account create one below.
Create Account -
Login using your Facebook account!