Part of the deal offered by Anna Bligh, to the qld police, was to have moblie speed cameras manned by civilians, rather than trained poice officers.

In my view this is a good idear as it would allow for more officers on the beat, where they are needed.

Now the police have rejected this stating that this would simply make the case for 'revenue raising' stronger.

So, are you telling me that the fact that a trained police officer, that can't be clearly seen, is not revenue raising simply because he/she is in uniform.

You're kidding!

It's just taking away police overtime. Bligh is just spinning. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe speed camera 'duty' and policing road works etc are what they call 'specials', or over time. I don't believe these duties take cops away from the job because they are on their non-roster shifts.

What Bligh is doing is taking away police officers chance at overtime for making more money for themselves to up the pay rate for normal duties. In the end, police officers lose out.

StG, "In the end, police officers lose out."

You know, somehow I'm not overwhelmed with a sense of regret or sorrow for that point, since their overtime is one of the causes for our need for overtime. If they don't do it, I don't need to do it as often.

They want to have overtime taking our money from us? I'm happy for them to lose it. There's a parasitic quality about that scenario that I don't like as well...it's like they're on commission...they make extra dollars for no other purpose than making extra dollars for the government.

I got no problem with police earning overtime fighting crime and maintaining peace and order, but not revenue-raking. It doesn't sit well with me for some reason...revenue-raking is not their purpose for employment. That's the tax-man's role, not the policeman's role.

Imagine this scenario:

Police get taken off speed camera duty and are replaced by public servants.

The public immediately welcome this policy and, like rehctub, rejoice in the possibility that more police will actually be on the beat and more attention to minor crime which is often overlooked due to lack of resources.

That is the dream, the reality is very different.

The reality is it will be an excuse to cut the police budget arguing that as non-police personnel are now manning speed cameras we don't need as many police.

Come on people you know how it works.

MindlessCruelty,

You're joking?. Guess not. Don't speed and you won't need to do over time to pay the fines. Ain't rocket science. Love how it's their fault that they're there and you get fined. That's the most ridiculous thing I've read online this week. And that's saying something

rehctub,
You really do have the GU superficial reasoning.
- First you seem to be saying that because there is no cut in *fatalities* per capita therefore the law serves no useful purpose.
- Second you seem to be saying that speeding is ok or at least there should be no penalty for breaking the law.

Apart from the obvious "if you don't want a fine....don't speed".

It is a known fact that inability to handle speed and all consequences amplifies the number of accidents.

What you seem to fail to understand is that there are other factors that may have contributed to distort the figures.

- less deaths because of better technology.
- not all accidents result in death or catastrophic immediately obvious injuries.
- not all speed related non fatal accidents are reported.
- it can't be established that speed cameras don't work only that the imperfect stats don't SEEM to make a difference. What can't be established that without the cameras the number of the speed related *accidents* would rise.
Statistics show tendencies not absolutes thus one must be careful not to over interpret data.
Without cameras give the decreasing number of police per capita on patrol ....more speeders would be un touched.
Common sense shows that familiarity breeds indifference. Given that the young are most likely to have speed and skill issues with their driving. do you really want to take the risk of being wiped out by someone else?
If you think that's a fair deal I challenge you to counsel the survivors or family of victims.
One could argue that what we need is a cultural attitudinal change to speed etc.

What is your solution or are you happy with hope you or yours won't be the next victim.
There are a myriad of other reasons why speed cameras make sense most backed with reasonable science.