|
|
May 24, 2006 17:47:48 GMT
|
Good job alistairk lives in nottingham there are loads of camera's to play with there, I went there recently and wouldnt drive to the supermarket and back without my Snooper and Road Angel on the dash.
I don't believe myself to be a dangerous driver but I do enjoy driving fast, sometimes very fast on public roads but only when I am posing no danger to anyone, yet if I drive past a camera at 100mph (remember empty country road, no one to hurt) I could lose my licence, where is the sense in that.
The problem with set laws is that they do not alow for grey areas, yet grey areas make up a large proportion of road traffic offences, Policing used to be done by policemen and women who have a brain (I hope) and can decide for themselves whether or not something is worthy of prosecution. Since camera's have been alowed to grow all over our roads, I have seen a noticable decline in the number of police on the roads, I have also noticed an increasing number of people complaining about bad driving and an increase in the number of accidents. Camera's don't work police do. Kill bad driving not my speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 18:23:36 GMT
|
That kinda my point but put better!
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 18:28:20 GMT
|
yet if I drive past a camera at 100mph (remember empty country road, no one to hurt) I could lose my licence, where is the sense in that. What's the difference between driving past a camera at 100mph and driving past a parked police car at 100mph? Either way, you're going to lose your license - you'd have to be very, very lucky for a policeman to let you off at that speed. And - empty country roads? What about tractors/cyclists/hikers/wildlife/fallen trees/flooded bits of road/ad infinitum? I can't afford to get too far up on my high horse because I know that I regularly drive quickly down my local windy B-roads, but if you can't react to a bright yellow camera fast enough to slow down from 100mph to 60mph, you can't react fast enough to stop before you hit whatever it is around the next corner. To avoid this thread getting too heated - here's some pictures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 18:41:41 GMT
|
Thanks for the calming pics,
Ahhhh
100mph well yes you are right they would bend me over and demonstrate the law of the land, but actualy policing used to be a bit more considerate of individual circumstances, unfortunately still not 100mph cicumstances though,
You are right about not seeing the camera's as well especialy since blunket got them made yellow (does he realise how obvious they are on a dark road now.......No he's blind) Ive only ever had 3 points and I saw the camera and slowed down to 30, but accelerated a bit to hard a bit to early, oops still 3 points only makes me "average" now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 18:46:58 GMT
|
yet if I drive past a camera at 100mph (remember empty country road, no one to hurt) I could lose my licence, where is the sense in that. What's the difference between driving past a camera at 100mph and driving past a parked police car at 100mph? Either way, you're going to lose your license - you'd have to be very, very lucky for a policeman to let you off at that speed. And - empty country roads? What about tractors/cyclists/hikers/wildlife/fallen trees/flooded bits of road/ad infinitum? I can't afford to get too far up on my high horse because I know that I regularly drive quickly down my local windy B-roads, but if you can't react to a bright yellow camera fast enough to slow down from 100mph to 60mph, you can't react fast enough to stop before you hit whatever it is around the next corner. To avoid this thread getting too heated - here's some pictures: good points and pictures I agree with 2002Ti in a lot of respects, more cops would be my favoured approach, but all we get is more "community wardens" and they are not the same thing no matter how hard the Home Office tries to screw the figures... Agree with angle more though
|
|
Last Edit: May 24, 2006 18:48:21 GMT by akku
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 18:48:03 GMT
|
More clever police on the roads streets basically what i was getting at. 100mph is naughty what ever and care in built up and country areas is req'd. Police did get to decide how the offence looked, a camera wont do that, some serious shoddy, lazy and dangerous driving out there and it doesnt always involve speeding. no more artificial 'intelegence'/spy tools please
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 19:04:50 GMT
|
More clever police on the roads streets basically what i was getting at. 100mph is naughty what ever and care in built up and country areas is req'd. Police did get to decide how the offence looked, a camera wont do that, some serious shoddy, lazy and dangerous driving out there and it doesnt always involve speeding. no more artificial 'intelegence'/spy tools please Nope, I agree entirely that more police on the roads is what is needed (if only so the person who tried to overtake me whilst I'm in the process of turning right into my driveway just now gets an ass-raping), I just think that cameras are a useful tool as well. That's assuming that they're used as a deterrent - brightly coloured and very obvious. If they go back to hiding them behind trees and collecting money from them like they did around Brighton then I'm firmly back in the anti-camera camp. I won't say anything about my dissertation on traffic monitoring on motorways for my artificial intelligence degree that I did in conjunction with the Highways Agency, mind. (Disclaimer - don't think it can be used for catching people who speed...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 20:30:27 GMT
|
Really though, if cameras had been restricted to school areas, and residential trouble spots, yeah thats fine, but theres some silly ones in areas that have already had massive limits put in to slow the people who take the mick or cant drive above 35MPH, then slung a load of cameras on there. people have lost faith and trust.
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 21:07:46 GMT
|
Good points from everyone, good argument. In the end I did a cost-benefit analysis in my head, and its pretty clear in my head that recording the movements of every person and vehicle on a nationwide camera network, watching and checking everyone several times a day in real time for tax/MOT/Insurance + recent criminal activity, if the benefit is to catch the few persistent road tax dodging w****rs that the dwindling numbers of proper traffic coppers cannot keep up with, represents the worst cost/benefit ratio I have ever heard of. I simply don't want to be watched, checked and recorded everywhere I fuggin go. Does that mean I have therefore got something to hide? I hope thats not the assumption.
|
|
1972 Fiat 130 1985 Talbot Alpine 1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 + 1986 Mazda 929 Koop + Wagon 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 BEST CAR EVER!!!!!!!! 1979 Datsun B310 Sunny 4-dr 1984 Audi 200 Quattro Turbo 1983 Honda Accord 1.6 DX GONE1989 Alfa 75 2.0 TS Mr T says: TREAT YO MOTHER RIGHT!
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 21:31:38 GMT
|
Good points from everyone, good argument. In the end I did a cost-benefit analysis in my head, and its pretty clear in my head that recording the movements of every person and vehicle on a nationwide camera network, watching and checking everyone several times a day in real time for tax/MOT/Insurance + recent criminal activity, if the benefit is to catch the few persistent road tax dodging w****rs that the dwindling numbers of proper traffic coppers cannot keep up with, represents the worst cost/benefit ratio I have ever heard of. I simply don't want to be watched, checked and recorded everywhere I fuggin go. Does that mean I have therefore got something to hide? I hope thats not the assumption. This is assuming the government manage to get any sort of scheme like that off the ground without utterly ballsing it up, which given the congestion charging scheme seems fairly unlikely. London is the only place in the world to enforce congestion charging solely by camera (other places use smartcards) and 50% of fines handed out for non-payment are contested. Mmm, efficient. Anyway, you want scary, look at what my new boss (yes, I'm off to work for TfL) is proposing now - Banning all cars that are more than 8 years old from London. I hope that's hyperbole, or I'm not going to last long in this new job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 23:04:40 GMT
|
I'm sorry, but I can't see how a speed camera is anything but a money making machine. I remember reading a while ago about a brand new road that had been built and was littered with speed cameras - yet speed cameras are only supposed to be placed on acident black spots; therefore the new road must of been built as an accident black spot! It wouldnt be quite so bad if the money raised from speed cameras was used to fund more traffic cops I suppose. I agree with bo11ox, no matter what, i really don't fancy being followed around all the time. Veering slightly off-topic. An idea of how Big Brother everything is getting. Back in 2001 a failing school in Hartlepool changed its name and status and became St Hilds Church of England Volentary Aided School. At the same time i became a student there. Under the new name we were able to get money to build a brand new school. the building was finished by september 2004. the new school featured CCTV cameras down every corridor and automatically locking electric doors. effectivly meaning that if you want to get out during the day you have to be let out and have a legitimate excuse. it feels like a prison. you constantly feel like you cant escape and it is horrible. now expand that, from the 4 walls of the school to the whole country and you have the biggest prison the world has ever seen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2006 23:33:48 GMT
|
Sounds horriffic!
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
|
|
|
I have a way of avoiding speed camera fines and other minor traffic offences that is foolproof. But I fear this thread is so long and wordy that nobody is interested.
Charlie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
come on then, whats your idea?
|
|
1972 Fiat 130 1985 Talbot Alpine 1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 + 1986 Mazda 929 Koop + Wagon 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 BEST CAR EVER!!!!!!!! 1979 Datsun B310 Sunny 4-dr 1984 Audi 200 Quattro Turbo 1983 Honda Accord 1.6 DX GONE1989 Alfa 75 2.0 TS Mr T says: TREAT YO MOTHER RIGHT!
|
|
Nick
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,483
|
|
|
just take your numberplates off and wear a balaclava, as motorists we are the most hated kind lately (apart from people who breed guinea pigs for animal testing)
so nothing will ever be done now in our favour, ive just come to the conclusion of F*ck it. if someone else wants to come up with a winning argument to shut this pathetic country up once and for all, i'll happily back it. but I'm not going to spend my days gurning whilst getting stressed over this sh*thole and its attitudes towards motorists.
|
|
idea stolen from rattely eddie.
this weeks car count "5"
|
|
MWF
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,945
|
|
|
I read recently in the Times that although Speed Cameras generate a lot of turnover they haven't actually turned profit yet.
I am pretty pro-camera. I think they can be very effective when used right. I just think there should be more tollerence for minor offences. If you are doing 35 in a 40 then you should just get one point or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats why 3 points on insurance mean little these days. Rearwheelnick, I saw the guinea pigs testing thing on TV! Prob is there seems to be little fight for rights here, freedom is worth fighting for defo, it'll be like that will smith film if were not careful! I'm not pretending i'd start and lead a fight back but i'd definately back it! Skodanormans post says it all for me, part of the reason for increased rage i recon. The fuel protest was a glimpse of whats possible, and that could of got a lot worse.
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
Shortcut
Posted a lot
I won't be there when you cross the road, so always use the Green Cross Code.
Posts: 3,037
|
|
|
I have a way of avoiding speed camera fines and other minor traffic offences that is foolproof. But I fear this thread is so long and wordy that nobody is interested. Charlie I think he means don't break any traffic laws.
|
|
This space available to rent. Reach literally dozens of people. Cheap rates!
|
|
|
|
|
i hate speed cameras, particularly when they are placed in such places its clear they are out to catch you. Theres a few electronic boards round here that flash "slow down" or "30MPH LIMIT" if you are speeding, and they tend to work it seems to me. So if I'm right, and they work, then why cant they be used instead of cameras? And if they don't work then why are they there instead of a camera?
With regards BB and cameras, i wouldnt worry about cctv - you're already being watching by those big things orbiting the earth. Check out google earth. We can zoom in and see tashas uncles house in gibraltar! So if thats what they let the public have access to, think what they don't let us see!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you think surveillance and automated motoring law is bad (and it is). For god sake, support the Save Parliament campaign. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will kill any responsibility that the ruling government has to parliament and the people to make sure that it has some kind of restrictions. As well as being able to amend any law, it will be able to amend itself. So after being passed, it will be able to be used, to remove it's own safe guards.
|
|
|
|
|