alchresearch Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 It all depends how you define safety. If a camera is erected in a village because drivers are ignoring the limit then that's definitely safety. If a camera is sited in a known accident spot, that's also safety. But I don't think the public is under any impression that they're for safety - that's why everyone still refers to them as speed cameras. It would be nice to know who exactly renamed them and when, because when they first appeared they were known as speed cameras. I find the whole thing very perplexing, who cares what they're called. They're only triggered if you're breaking the law, so just about any argument about them is moot. Do people complain about ANPR cameras catching VED dodgers and uninsured drivers? Why is speeding considered an acceptable law to break? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 yea thats the one, thanks for throwing in another valid reason they should not be there,,, there are many more camera like this all over the country. The villagers of Elkesley will burn you in effigy if they hear you want those cameras removed ... unless, of course, you're intending to replace them with the flyover junction that they should have had forty years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 I don't. You are making my point for me! We should be discussing what the limits should be, and setting them appropriately. I don't think they are set appropriately in a lot of cases..it's usually a knee jerk reaction..the council feels it has to be seen to be doing something..whatever that something is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeeeeeeeek Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 If it was all about safety then they money raised would not go to central government, it would stay with the councils. As this is not the case the councils are no longer prepared to pay for the cameras which is why the majority of them have been switched off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 You don't have to pay anything if you aren't a mindless, semi sighted cretin who drives too fast. Being intelligent and because I observe the road when I drive, I've never had to pay the optional speed tax for idiots. Not only missing the point, but missing the point about the point and confused about the topic, impressive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 It's funny how drivers only post threads about how persecuted they are by speed cameras, bus gates, potholes, road tax, etc, etc, but never about the number of accidents some of them cause or the number of people, including each other, they kill. Some of them seem to think it's a basic human right to act like a tosspot once they get behind the wheel of a vehicle regardless of the consequences. I wonder how long it will be before Sheffvan1 is on here comparing himself to Joan of Arc. It'd be a pretty odd thread that I posted with this title wouldn't it? "I haven't caused an accident or killed anyone". What discussion is there to have about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 It's a fairly reliable bet that 90mph is dangerous outside a school... If you'd said 40 I'd have taken that bet. You realise that schools are only open for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 35 ish weeks a year. ...But in any event, that's the whole point. This argument should be about where the limit should be set. Nobody in their right mind would argue that people should be entitled to break the law and that catching them is a bad thing - yet, when it comes to speeding laws, many people are not in their right mind. You're arguing about the wrong topic though. The government DID call them safety cameras, this thread isn't about whether you should speed or not, it's about the government lies in order to hoodwink people like you into accepting the cameras. It's worked obviously, you still think that safety is all about speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 It all depends how you define safety. If a camera is erected in a village because drivers are ignoring the limit then that's definitely safety. If a camera is sited in a known accident spot, that's also safety. But I don't think the public is under any impression that they're for safety - that's why everyone still refers to them as speed cameras. It would be nice to know who exactly renamed them and when, because when they first appeared they were known as speed cameras. I find the whole thing very perplexing, who cares what they're called. They're only triggered if you're breaking the law, so just about any argument about them is moot. Do people complain about ANPR cameras catching VED dodgers and uninsured drivers? Why is speeding considered an acceptable law to break? In YOUR narrow minded opinion but actually there are many arguements.One would be that the speed limits have been lowered solelyfor the purpose of increasing revenue where a camara has been erected.If speeding was actually as dangerous as SOME would like us to think then there would be alot more accidents as there are billions of speeding occurances each day. Theres also the fact that where its bleated that cameras have been erected because of accidents with the intent to mislead people to think that the accidents were caused by speed when actually in alot of cases speed had nothing to do with it at all. One example was a camera was erected after 2 accidents,one of which was caused by a heart attack! Any driver worth there salt will tell you nowadays its not speeding motorists they fear but actually the slow drivers and the day these are targeted wont be a day too soon.How some of them tie their own shoe laces never mind manage to get a vehicle from a to b is beyond me,never mind their bad attitudes,and you seem to fall well in with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 In YOUR narrow minded opinion but actually there are many arguements.One would be that the speed limits have been lowered solelyfor the purpose of increasing revenue where a camara has been erected.If speeding was actually as dangerous as SOME would like us to think then there would be alot more accidents as there are billions of speeding occurances each day. Theres also the fact that where its bleated that cameras have been erected because of accidents with the intent to mislead people to think that the accidents were caused by speed when actually in alot of cases speed had nothing to do with it at all. One example was a camera was erected after 2 accidents,one of which was caused by a heart attack! Any driver worth there salt will tell you nowadays its not speeding motorists they fear but actually the slow drivers and the day these are targeted wont be a day too soon.How some of them tie their own shoe laces never mind manage to get a vehicle from a to b is beyond me,never mind their bad attitudes,and you seem to fall well in with that. You mean anyone going slower than you.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 You mean anyone going slower than you.. You wouldnt understand! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.