| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Anthra Kx |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 11:40:14
in finding this site somewhat inspiring?
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| thedrumcrew |
Posted - 13/06/2012 : 15:47:42
Yeah it was me  |
| OriginalAnimal |
Posted - 13/06/2012 : 14:28:57
I'll stick with the revolving number plates
B011OKX
4Q
and of course the real one HRH 1 |
| scoobydude |
Posted - 13/06/2012 : 01:09:19
quote:
Originally posted by Brigham
Surprised no-one has commented on the fact that 'speed' cameras are not called 'speed' cameras; they're called safety cameras because they're supposed to increase safety at certain accident black-spots. Much like the positioning of the damaged camera on the A36 - halfway up a hill, nowhere near a junction or slip road (on or off), not near any footpath, miles from a residential area.
Yet, show me the outside of a school on main road that has a speed camera outside of it. Sorry, but I am of the firm opinion that they are a cash generation exercise and nothing whatsoever to do with safety.
NOT THAT I CONDONE VANDALISM. < before anyone starts
Indeed. I was under the impression that they were supposed to only be used in known accident black spots or roads that were clearly dangerous. Yet when the new section of the A12 opened running through Leyton it already had speed cameras all the way along it. Does that mean they've built a dangerous road or that they've seen the oppotunity to raise some revenue?
Put one outside every school in the country and use them on actual dangerous places, traffic lights etc. and they might be respected rather than be seen as the money making boxes that most of them are. |
| Th0mas25 |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 20:26:32
FWIW I pretty much drive like a pensioner these days, I don't often speed, and if I do I'm aware of the consequences. However, as Brig says, we are supposed to believe these are 'safety cameras'. Which IMO most of them are certainly not. This is what gets my goat. If the government were honest enough to tell us the main reason for cameras was to maximise revenue from motorists, then I wouldn't even mind as much. But don't insult my intelligence by telling me they're safety cameras, when most of the cameras I'm aware of are in relatively safe/incident free places, and most of the accident blackspots have no camera presence whatsoever!!
In that respect, I'm OK with this form of vandalism, I see it more as a form of protest. I agree it costs money Mully, but policing any other protest costs £millions aswell. If we're going to talk about the cost to the taxpayer we could also say that it helps keep people in manufacturing and maintenance jobs?
|
| JGodsall |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 19:42:36
quote:
Originally posted by Brigham
Much like the positioning of the damaged camera on the A36 - halfway up a hill
Blimey, that's unusual! |
| Brigham |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 18:41:21
Surprised no-one has commented on the fact that 'speed' cameras are not called 'speed' cameras; they're called safety cameras because they're supposed to increase safety at certain accident black-spots. Much like the positioning of the damaged camera on the A36 - halfway up a hill, nowhere near a junction or slip road (on or off), not near any footpath, miles from a residential area.
Yet, show me the outside of a school on main road that has a speed camera outside of it. Sorry, but I am of the firm opinion that they are a cash generation exercise and nothing whatsoever to do with safety.
NOT THAT I CONDONE VANDALISM. < before anyone starts |
| Sharklaar |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 16:01:12
I very rarely/ever speed these days, but I did think I'd been caught when I didn't notice I'd gone from a 60 to a 50 limit outside Leicester - not many signs in the area. Saw the camera in my rear-view mirror (it had a tree in front of it so I didn't see it on the way past). Must have been doing 60mph through it, but that was a few weeks ago and I've not heard anything yet. |
| Sharklaar |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 15:59:14
Also surely if there were less/no speed cameras the powers that be would need to raise the extra revenue from somewhere else... |
| Captain Bubble |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 15:51:25
Better the devil you know...! |
| Anthra Kx |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 15:38:39
quote:
Originally posted by Grahame B
quote:
Originally posted by Anthra Kx
quote:
Originally posted by mully
Who ends up paying for them to be repaired/replaced?
Stephen
psssh.
take france for example (at least, I think it was France), when they first introduced speed cameras the people blew them up and burnt them down and they gave up and got rid of them.
...and replaced them with scary police powers. On the spot fines ( big ones ) - if you don't, or can't pay, they take your car away.
ok, I vote keep the kodaks  |
| Grahame B |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 15:02:53
quote:
Originally posted by Anthra Kx
quote:
Originally posted by mully
Who ends up paying for them to be repaired/replaced?
Stephen
psssh.
take france for example (at least, I think it was France), when they first introduced speed cameras the people blew them up and burnt them down and they gave up and got rid of them.
...and replaced them with scary police powers. On the spot fines ( big ones ) - if you don't, or can't pay, they take your car away. |
| JGodsall |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 14:26:01
^
Perhaps Gatso-spotting should be included as part of the hazard perception test? |
| beezerk |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 14:22:48
quote:
Originally posted by JGodsall
quote:
Originally posted by Prog
Surely it's better to drive at the speed limit then the cameras don't pose a problem.
Well, quite. At least past the cameras anyway: anyone who gets caught by a fixed camera further deserves what's coming to them because they clearly weren't paying attention to the road ahead (hint: the cameras are those bleedin' obvious yellow boxes).
Indeed, you could argue they were driving without due care and attention. |
| JGodsall |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 14:15:56
quote:
Originally posted by Prog
Surely it's better to drive at the speed limit then the cameras don't pose a problem.
Well, quite. At least past the cameras anyway: anyone who gets caught by a fixed camera further deserves what's coming to them because they clearly weren't paying attention to the road ahead (hint: the cameras are those bleedin' obvious yellow boxes). |
| Prog |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 14:08:15
Surely it's better to drive at the speed limit then the cameras don't pose a problem. |
| Anthra Kx |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 13:32:34
quote:
Originally posted by mully
Who ends up paying for them to be repaired/replaced?
Stephen
psssh.
take france for example (at least, I think it was France), when they first introduced speed cameras the people blew them up and burnt them down and they gave up and got rid of them. |
| mully |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 13:26:19
quote:
Originally posted by OriginalAnimal
And four of them are around Nuneaton!!!!
Paging Kev (Drumcrew)
Personally I think they are just a cash cow for the local authorities but they should be used on red light duties where they would save lives.
Yes, the clap can be fatal. Or so I'm told.
Stephen |
| OriginalAnimal |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 13:20:12
And four of them are around Nuneaton!!!!
Paging Kev (Drumcrew)
Personally I think they are just a cash cow for the local authorities but they should be used on red light duties where they would save lives.
|
| beezerk |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 13:15:46
And that damn white text in my posts again, is it a conspiracy? |
| mully |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 13:11:01
Ah, right. No, I'm not for it either, it seems a pointless waste of time, effort and money. Hacksaw blades don't grow on trees, y'know.
Stephen |
| beezerk |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 13:03:58
quote:
Originally posted by mully
quote:
Originally posted by beezerk
quote:
Originally posted by mully
quote:
Originally posted by beezerk
Dunno but I'd say there are too many factors other than speed cameras which come into play to know exactly how much it raises bills, if at all.
But you'd agree that it's the public who will pay for the repair or replacement, right?
Stephen
Of course but that's not what my argument was about, if it's 1p every year I couldn't give a hoot to be brutally honest.
OK, so say it costs (plucks figure out of mid-air) £2 million a year to repair all vandalised speed cameras in Engerland. Would that £2 million not be better spent in another way rather than be spent repairing mindless vandalism?
Stephen
Of course it would just like any other act of vandalism which costs money to repair.
I get the feeling you think I'm all for these people who go around smashing up speed cameras.
Whenever I drive past a vandalised one on the A1, and there are lots on the stretch between Newcastle and Edinburgh, I think to myself "what kind of loser actually takes the decision to go out and destroy a speed camera". I saw one past Eyemouth which had actually been cut down!
Are they organized groups or are they disgruntled motorists who have been caught speeding?
Anyway, I'm not for it but it happens and I don't get upset at the thought of having to pay for their repair, it's just $hit that happens in society. |
| mully |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 12:51:50
quote:
Originally posted by beezerk
quote:
Originally posted by mully
quote:
Originally posted by beezerk
Dunno but I'd say there are too many factors other than speed cameras which come into play to know exactly how much it raises bills, if at all.
But you'd agree that it's the public who will pay for the repair or replacement, right?
Stephen
Of course but that's not what my argument was about, if it's 1p every year I couldn't give a hoot to be brutally honest.
OK, so say it costs (plucks figure out of mid-air) £2 million a year to repair all vandalised speed cameras in Engerland. Would that £2 million not be better spent in another way rather than be spent repairing mindless vandalism?
Stephen |
| beezerk |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 12:44:32
quote:
Originally posted by mully
quote:
Originally posted by beezerk
Dunno but I'd say there are too many factors other than speed cameras which come into play to know exactly how much it raises bills, if at all.
But you'd agree that it's the public who will pay for the repair or replacement, right?
Stephen
Of course but that's not what my argument was about, if it's 1p every year I couldn't give a hoot to be brutally honest. |
| mully |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 12:40:08
quote:
Originally posted by beezerk
Dunno but I'd say there are too many factors other than speed cameras which come into play to know exactly how much it raises bills, if at all.
But you'd agree that it's the public who will pay for the repair or replacement, right?
Stephen |
| beezerk |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 12:15:58
Dunno but I'd say there are too many factors other than speed cameras which come into play to know exactly how much it raises bills, if at all. |
| Captain Bubble |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 12:10:10
Have your Council Tax, Business Rates or Road Tax ever gone down?! |
| beezerk |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 12:07:13
I know we pay for them but when it's all said and done do our council tax, road tax or whatever go up because of this?
I doubt it very much. |
| Captain Bubble |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 12:03:54
We all pay.
Vandalism is vandalism no matter what the thing is, and if it's public property then the public pays, and has to pay for any prosecutions too. Bloody silly.
Furthermore encouraging vandalism tacitly or openly makes it socially acceptable to more people, and then the range of items considered alright to vandalise increases, until it's considered fair game to vandalise everyone's private property.
If you don't want to pay the fine don't do the crime. |
| mully |
Posted - 12/06/2012 : 11:55:43
Who ends up paying for them to be repaired/replaced?
Stephen |
All Forums
Am I not alone
