LeMaquis Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Reading the link I notice the following; "According to the Daily Mail", "do gooders", "ORWELLIAN", "giving our money away to EU" (no, honest) and "total idiots that are pedestrians". So we know where this is coming from, a load of right-wing whingeing car drivers who read the Daily Mail, feel that pedestrians are some sort of threat and think that speed cameras come from Brussels. Nutters, in other words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 No one is complaining about paying for speeding. we're questioning the lies used in order to get them in situ in the first place. i.e safety. That would never have been necessary if the roads lobby hadn't kicked up a stink in the first place. It is obvious, and always was obvious, that the purpose of speed cameras should be to catch and punish people who break the law! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perplexed Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Hang on a minute. I thought some cameras were switched off because they cost money? How does that square with them being "revenue raisers"? No accidents doesn't equal speeding not being a problem. If I'm on my bike (and for the record I drive many, many thousands of miles a year too) then cameras (even better if they're mobile and hidden) might mean that the traffic in a 30 mph limit may vaguely stay somewhere near that figure. And not be quite so antisocial. There's also the noise issue and pollution. Remove the cameras, and with precious few traffic coppers about, what's the deterent top speeding? Hide the cameras (no gaudy vans), place a number 20-30, I don't know, randomly round Sheffield and shift them frequently. That'll concentrate the mind... Even better will be the day when the mobile phone using morons are actively persued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin's Wrath Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Don't go fast?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Hang on a minute. I thought some cameras were switched off because they cost money? How does that square with them being "revenue raisers"? . You'd think they'd increase the use rather than reduce or remove them, working on that basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapleboy Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 I'd like to take this opportunity to thank those very generous people who choose to speed and end up paying the voluntary tax that is a speeding fine. Your generosity is helping to keep the overall level of taxation that law-abiding folks pay down a little. Well done, keep it up (until you get 12 points and then lose your licence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Seems that the twaddle foisted upon us that "Speed Cameras" are there to stop accidents has been proved wrong now. Seems like a study on them has come up with a different reason - as many of us thought from their onset - most are just simple "revenue collectors". What makes this story credible is that it was carried out by the DOT, aye the Department of Transport, a Government body. So there you have it, we are been fleeced again it would seem. http://www.walletpop.co.uk/2011/08/24/speed-cameras-revealed-as-dangerous-money-spinners/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk-bb%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk3%7C75327 Regards Angel. You are NOT being fleeced. You choose to pay it so therefore you accept the cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Surely a forty mph limit along roads such as this would help to alleviate some of the derogatory remarks and criticism attached to the units. P.S. i'm not a speeder...........46 years with a clean license. you would still get the moans and then someone would come on saying make it 50 and that would reduce the complaints and the circle continues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 The mobile one on Carlisle St. is purely for collecting revenue,no housing,no school,virtually no footfall and mainly bordered by empty premises. . have there not been several serious accidents in the last few months in that area? also, i believe that a speed camera exerts a restraining influence on many drivers for a distance outside the range of its lens and the area around there is rather populated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 A mobile camera had an effect on the car in front of me, this afternoon. I was following him down the A61, Halifax Road, in the 30 limit. We were travelling at around 25 mph, when he saw the camera van and braked down to around 20. We stayed at that speed past the van and down the hill until just before the 40 limit, when he finally accelerated. He had to keep braking, on and off, to keep his speed down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.