mightysaints Posted 6 January, 2011 Share Posted 6 January, 2011 Just had a call from a work mate. Be carefull as there is a copper stood under the bridge at Bitterne just passed the static speed cameras with a speed gun. Think they would have something better to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightysaints Posted 6 January, 2011 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2011 same old story is it. Speed camaras are a means of making money and have nothing to do with slowing people down. Why did the CPO nick this guy this week who was warning motorist that a speed camera had been set up. Surley he was slowing people up so thats safe but no the coppers wanted people to speed so they could nik them. Also if its about speed and not money why are councils around the country taking them out, because they don't get to keep the money raised. So that means that they care more about the money than saving lives. I do agree with cameras if they are in the right place say outside schools, local parks etc but normaly they are placed to make the max money. The temp signs you see telling you to slow down are very good. One other thing cameras do not catch drink/drug and un insured drivers and that is a bigger menace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 6 January, 2011 Share Posted 6 January, 2011 One other thing cameras do not catch drink/drug and un insured drivers and that is a bigger menace. Anti fraud laws don't stop muggings, rapists, murderers, speeding drink/drug driving etc etc etc. Should they be repealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 6 January, 2011 Share Posted 6 January, 2011 heard on R4 today about some chap who'd been prosecuted for alerting oncoming drivers about a mobile speed camera by flashing at them. He defended himself which was a mistake apparently as a proper brief would have cited a case from 2005 which would have swayed it, he is though appealing. I thought it was just courtesy to let others know in that manner but I guess this just emphasises that they just want the 'collar'. He also apparenetly made the mistake of arguing with the officer who stopped him, again he may have been let off he had not questioned the authority of said officer.. Link: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/police-officer-thompson-speed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 6 January, 2011 Share Posted 6 January, 2011 /\ I liken the act like one might warn oncoming traffic of a broken down car or accident that they are approaching, am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleaver Posted 6 January, 2011 Share Posted 6 January, 2011 Self righteous ****. I bet you drive at 70mph in the outside lane on a motorway cos 'that's the legal limit' regardless of the amount of frustrated motorists behind you, who through your selfishness will do their utmost to get past you and thereby driving dangerously, causing accidents because YOU will not move over, thereby you are the cause!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleaver Posted 6 January, 2011 Share Posted 6 January, 2011 That was a reply to mehill ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleaver Posted 6 January, 2011 Share Posted 6 January, 2011 Or mehball. Lol ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 6 January, 2011 Share Posted 6 January, 2011 If you want to drive then you're going to have to accept that there is potential for someone to be hurt or even killed, wether by accident or speeding. Personally i think that the idea of slowing everything down to crawling pace is ridiculous and that we have to accept a certain number of people will be killed, its not particularly palatable but should every driver suffer to save 100 or so lives a year? What is the acceptable trade off? Does slowing everybody down reduce the perception of risk and actually increase the risk? Should parents take more responsibility for the their children rather than seeking to blame others? Not going to be a popular opinion but it doesn't mean its wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 6 January, 2011 Share Posted 6 January, 2011 That was a reply to mehill ! thank **** for that, i was quite taken aback at first. not that i agree with the sentiment nor the chosen victim of the attack. are we not all self righteous to some degree cleave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 7 January, 2011 Share Posted 7 January, 2011 heard on R4 today about some chap who'd been prosecuted for alerting oncoming drivers about a mobile speed camera by flashing at them. He defended himself which was a mistake apparently as a proper brief would have cited a case from 2005 which would have swayed it, he is though appealing. I thought it was just courtesy to let others know in that manner but I guess this just emphasises that they just want the 'collar'. He also apparenetly made the mistake of arguing with the officer who stopped him, again he may have been let off he had not questioned the authority of said officer.. Link: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/01/police-officer-thompson-speed Crikey, no wonder the guy was hacked off, if I got pulled over for flashing my lights to warn someone of a mobile camera I'd be a little unhappy too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 7 January, 2011 Share Posted 7 January, 2011 /\ I liken the act like one might warn oncoming traffic of a broken down car or accident that they are approaching, am I wrong? If I remember my highway code correctly (I may be wrong, I haven't seen one for 25 years ), but I think this is technically illegal. I believe headlight flashing is equivalent to sounding your horn ie. it should only be used to let others know that you are there. Having said that, I’ve flashed police cars before to let them through without being thrown into the clink, so I may be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 7 January, 2011 Share Posted 7 January, 2011 If speed cameras are a way of making money, why are some local authorities turning them off "to save money"? Surely they should be installing more to get even more cash. Let's face it, we all break the speed limit at times. If you get caught, just accept it, there's not really any excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 7 January, 2011 Share Posted 7 January, 2011 Is he still there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 7 January, 2011 Share Posted 7 January, 2011 Is he still there? As of 30 mins. ago yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 7 January, 2011 Share Posted 7 January, 2011 The speed cameras do make money just not for the local authority, they do however make a few quid from theses driver awareness courses, or so I am told, hence why some are being turned off. Re the highway code; I learnt something from my recent daliance with an awareness course and that is that when the lights change to amber it does not mean be prepared to stop as most people think, it means STOP. I am also bemused as to why they use that bellows type camera picture on the warning sigs, when did antone last (if ever) see one of them in real life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 8 January, 2011 Share Posted 8 January, 2011 but should every driver suffer to save 100 or so lives a year? Well, yes, obviously. If that's the option. If you can save 100 lives, yes. If you can save one life, yes. Are you really that much of a c*nt that you think 100 lives are not worth as much as you being able to drive how you want? And what do you mean by 'suffer'? 'Suffer'? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al de Man Posted 8 January, 2011 Share Posted 8 January, 2011 heard on R4 today about some chap who'd been prosecuted for alerting oncoming drivers about a mobile speed camera by flashing at them. Do you think mightysaints will get a visit from the local constabulary for starting this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 8 January, 2011 Share Posted 8 January, 2011 Southampton and hampshire councils pay a grant to the camera partnerships out of our council tax. FACT! Hampshire camera partnership make money not from fines but those stupid speed awareness courses people pay for to avoid points. Many of the trainers on these courses are jobs for the boys ( retired cops ) in firms set up by retired police chiefs. All approved by ACPO a private company of current police chiefs. They can retire after just 30 years service to those nice little earners. The prison service is not quite so appealing these days to retired plod when these is easier money available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 8 January, 2011 Share Posted 8 January, 2011 Well, yes, obviously. If that's the option. If you can save 100 lives, yes. If you can save one life, yes. Are you really that much of a c*nt that you think 100 lives are not worth as much as you being able to drive how you want? And what do you mean by 'suffer'? 'Suffer'? Really? So 62 Million people should have stupidly restrictive driving rules imposed on them to save 100? I don't agree, just because we have a difference of opinion does not make me a ****. People driving like idiots should be punished with the full force of the law but driving at reduced speed limits isn't the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tractor_Saint Posted 8 January, 2011 Share Posted 8 January, 2011 As of 30 mins. ago yes. Um, anyone know what time he started? PS Glad Mehball has posted his 3 for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 8 January, 2011 Share Posted 8 January, 2011 So 62 Million people should have stupidly restrictive driving rules imposed on them to save 100? Of course they should, you callous buffoon. What value do you put on a human life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 8 January, 2011 Share Posted 8 January, 2011 Of course they should, you callous buffoon. What value do you put on a human life? I honestly have never thought of putting a value on it, what do you have in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 9 January, 2011 Share Posted 9 January, 2011 You just have. Maybe it's the "never thought" bit that's confusing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 9 January, 2011 Share Posted 9 January, 2011 Re the highway code; I learnt something from my recent daliance with an awareness course and that is that when the lights change to amber it does not mean be prepared to stop as most people think, it means STOP. I thought it meant speed-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 9 January, 2011 Share Posted 9 January, 2011 So 62 Million people should have stupidly restrictive driving rules imposed on them to save 100? I don't agree, just because we have a difference of opinion does not make me a ****. People driving like idiots should be punished with the full force of the law but driving at reduced speed limits isn't the answer. All laws are restrictive, that is exactly the point of them, whether you think it's "stupidly restrictive" is irrelevant, it's the law. You can't pick & choose which laws you wish to obey. If someone takes it upon themself to break a law, and get caught - tough, suck it in, man up and take the punishment which may be coming without bleating like a spoilt kid. It amazes me that "lay-people" seem to think they know better than the experts who have done the studies & research before setting the speed limits. Surprisingly they don't select speed limits by drawing bits of paper out of a hat, there is a lot of consideration that goes into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 9 January, 2011 Share Posted 9 January, 2011 At no point did i even mention that i would break the law, i would stick to whatever restrictive limit is imposed and as for the so called experts deciding speed limits it's been proven that speed is not the main reason for accidents, by the AA and the RAC so who are these so called experts you're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 9 January, 2011 Share Posted 9 January, 2011 You just have. Maybe it's the "never thought" bit that's confusing you. Still confused, would you like to explain your train of thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 10 January, 2011 Share Posted 10 January, 2011 Still confused, would you like to explain your train of thought? Seems clear to me you've valued a human life as less than the inconvenience caused to a number of motorists from having to drive slower. Most, I would have thought, would have thought its a very worthwhile sacrifice to make. How many inconvenienced drivers would you say is too many to save a human life? 1 million? 1,000? 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 10 January, 2011 Share Posted 10 January, 2011 At no point did i even mention that i would break the law, i would stick to whatever restrictive limit is imposed and as for the so called experts deciding speed limits it's been proven that speed is not the main reason for accidents, by the AA and the RAC so who are these so called experts you're talking about? Um... these guys.... "National speed limits are set by the government. Traffic Authorities (the local highway authority on local roads, and the Highways Agency on trunk roads and motorways) are responsible for introducing local speed limits where the national limits are not appropriate." http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/WhereYouLive/StreetsParkingCleaningAndLighting/DG_10028438 or did you think just random members of the public do it, maybe by taking part in a phone vote. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 10 January, 2011 Share Posted 10 January, 2011 Um... these guys.... "National speed limits are set by the government. Traffic Authorities (the local highway authority on local roads, and the Highways Agency on trunk roads and motorways) are responsible for introducing local speed limits where the national limits are not appropriate." http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/WhereYouLive/StreetsParkingCleaningAndLighting/DG_10028438 or did you think just random members of the public do it, maybe by taking part in a phone vote. HTH masons and jobs for the boys the whole lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted 10 January, 2011 Share Posted 10 January, 2011 Still there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 10 January, 2011 Share Posted 10 January, 2011 I'm not sure how to articulate what i want to say without making that vein throb on your forehead. I do think Human life is valuable but not invaluable, if you actually thought this through that would mean you wouldn't allow anybody to drink alcohol, eat sugary or fatty foods because they pose an even greater threat to human wellbeing. I'm aware i'm being facetious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 10 January, 2011 Share Posted 10 January, 2011 You're not aware you are being stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 10 January, 2011 Share Posted 10 January, 2011 You are aware i'm being stupid. Possibly, but you're entitled to your opinion. HTH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted 10 January, 2011 Share Posted 10 January, 2011 I understand what you are trying to say swanny, you've just got your estimation a bit wrong, I think they work in financial cost vs. loss of life, including in that cost legal, disruption and repairs and consequential alterations which they try to avoid by getting it right beforehand. you're being bullied and people trying to make cheap points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 10 January, 2011 Share Posted 10 January, 2011 I understand what you are trying to say swanny, you've just got your estimation a bit wrong, I think they work in financial cost vs. loss of life, including in that cost legal, disruption and repairs and consequential alterations which they try to avoid by getting it right beforehand. you're being bullied and people trying to make cheap points. Thanks, i knew somebody more articulate than myself would pop-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now