Speed Camera's - Cash Cows.

[upinwath]

A question.

 

Have any of the anti speed camera group considered what the roads would be like without laws governing their use?

 

I've seen it in Indonesia and I can assure you your being ruddy idiots.

[HeadingNorth]

So the question has to be, what do you think reduces speeding more of the two? The moral of it may be questionable, but its true. Absolutely everybody slows down when warned of a speed camera.

 

But only where the camera is; they will continue to break the law all the rest of the time.

 

Stop warning people where the cameras are, and they will abide by the speed limit everywhere, or else lose their licence. That is, self-evidently, a far more efficient way of reducing the number of speeding drivers.

[Cyclone]

 

 

Why is it a good thing? I'm amazed you can ask. I've never met anyone who The cameras cannot be influenced; anyone, and everyone, who transgresses is automatically punished. In the few cases where there actually is a legitimate defence, the penalty can be waived by a court.

 

You say this as though it's a good thing, I'm amazed that you can't see how automating the enforcement and punishment of what are in the most case trivial transgressions of the law is a bad thing.

[HeadingNorth]

You say this as though it's a good thing, I'm amazed that you can't see how automating the enforcement and punishment of what are in the most case trivial transgressions of the law is a bad thing.

 

Because it is not. Computerised systems cannot be influenced by anybody; they're entirely neutral.

[Cyclone]

You didn't think it was laughable when you complained that speed cameras cannot be persuaded to let an offence slide.

 

You must think that police officers are real idiots if you think that their decision not to give someone a ticket is actually down to them being persuaded to let it slide.

[Cyclone]

That's a nonsensical sentence. The signs are the warning. People who ignore them don't need to be warned, they need to be penalised.

 

The point you appear to be missing is that if the sign is legal, then why is not legal to draw the drivers attention to the changing speed limit in another way?

 

How can warning someone to not commit a crime be considered obstructing the course of justice

[Cyclone]

Because it is not. Computerised systems cannot be influenced by anybody; they're entirely neutral.

 

It is a bad thing. Not only are they neutral, they're also lacking common sense and discretion.

[Cyclone]

A question.

 

Have any of the anti speed camera group considered what the roads would be like without laws governing their use?

 

I've seen it in Indonesia and I can assure you your being ruddy idiots.

 

Look at you knocking down that straw man down, that's really impressive how you set it up and then lay into it like that. Congrats.

[DT Ralge]

Forget speed, legal/illegal, cameras ...

What should be quite educational on here is that one contributor has admitted slamming on when he saw a camera (at Elkesley).

"Educational", in that, whatever the facts about cameras/scameras, he had not taken in and acted on any of the warnings that had been given to him from at least half a mile back. This lack of response may indicate "autopilot" driving, bolstered by a dollop of belief that a reduction in limit and its enforcement is nothing more than a revenue-generator.

It's a good job the driving environment is generally forgiving. With such poor hazard perception and with no obvious plan to deal with what you see and (at Elkesley) what you can't see, I'm glad I've gone past "go" in developing my defensive driving skills I.e. Consider everyone else on the road as an idiot.

We shouldn't be reduced by cameras to drive by numbers but it might be an idea for some to ask why the numbers change on occasions and see them as an indication of levels of hazard changing (mostly - NSL on country lanes is self-regulating until ...) rather than feel miffed at another attempt to fleece you.

[alchresearch]

Speed cameras collect money from motorists exceeding the speed limit without question, discretion or prejudice. They also fail to educate the 'victim' or detect any other issues that may be present with the vehicle or driver in question.. IE Drunk, bald tyres etc.

 

That's because they have one function - to catch speeding. They're not drunk driver cameras, bald tyre cameras. They shouldn't be there to replace policemen, but compliment their work.

 

As for discretion, don't they allow 10% and / or a few mph? Seems fair to me.