Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads

[newvanandman 10]

Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads? Err-Mmmm:huh:mm. C-could it have something to do with too many speeding over too many years--- and something to do with RTAs? Huh, yea , that c-could be it

 

You watch too much tv...

[krooner 10]

A tax on idiots who can't keep to the speed limit. Stay within the limit and you don't have to pay. Simple. Anyone would think you habitually ignore speed limits, the fuss you're making about it.

 

Now why didn't I say that!

[Halibut 12]

Now why didn't I say that!

 

Indeed. Strangely serapis appears to have conveniently chosen to ignore that very simple and obvious point......

[nationalist 10]

Its bad enough we have as many cameras as we do right now without even more being considerd.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm

 

if it gets rid of the speed humps does me

there recking our cars

[jeremyjh1 10]

No, but it does leave the police free to catch those that do. Cameras are not a replacement for the police, but a countermeasure to speeding.

 

What, the mobile speed camera's that require a policeman to operate them?

 

How can 'leave the police free to catch those that do' if they're required to be there to operate them?

 

Think before you type, I suggest.

 

Look, fixed, visible camera's are a deterrent. Like them or not, if you see them and you still exceed the speed limit and get caught, more fool you.

 

My beef is with (and has always been with) the mobile camera's that are hidden from view. They are there to simply catch 'speeding' motorists. There is, so I have been told (by someone working for South Yorkshire Safety Camera Partnership), a tolerance factor of 10%+2. Thus, in a 30 zone, if you're doing 35 mph or less you're within the 'tolerance'.

 

So, why have I been issued with two speeding 'offences' in the last 4 years when I was allegedly caught doing 34 mph in a 30 zone and 35 mph 'just' entering a 30 zone?

 

So much for tolerance and fair play.

 

No, they just want the money. That's all.

 

Hide camera's - money making. Plain and simple.

 

Like I have said previously, in another post, you drive with no insurance, no licence and smash in to a car driven by a woman 5 months pregnant and get let off with a caution.

 

You exceed the speed limit by 4 or 5 mph and the law comes down on you like a ton of bricks.

 

Why? Probably because I am easier to prosecute than a reckless, dangerous driver.

 

The law is supposed to just and fair. Sadly, I see it as neither. And, until such inequalities and injustices are sorted out, I will continue to see it that way, no matter how you defend the indefensible.

[jeremyjh1 10]

Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads? Err-Mmmm:huh:mm. C-could it have something to do with too many speeding over too many years--- and something to do with RTAs? Huh, yea , that c-could be it

 

1. There is a clear distinction between those that speed those who are 'caught' speeding. And 'too many' is a point of view based on a personal assumption of what is sufficient.

 

2. RTA's - it may surprise you to learn that not all RTA's are as a result of speeding. Well, actually, unless the vehicles we not moving, then they were, technically, 'speeding'. It is a relative term which, in the context of the debate, you must take it to mean driving beyond the legal limit for the road.

 

If you really want to reduce the instances of RTA's and fatalities, ban driving.

 

Yep, that would do it. And that would certainly satisfy the 'holier than thou' brigade.

[hagardriley 10]

Why doesn't this idiotic Government take this sort of barmy idea to its ultimate conclusion and pass a law to force every motorised vehicle to have someone walking in front carrying a red flag to warn the general population of its impending approach.

 

Problem solved, as if by magic..............no more accidents, no more pedestrians killed or injured, totally minimise all road casualties to red flag carriers dropping dead from exhaustion, which could, of course, be explained away as an occupational hazard.

 

On the other hand, perhaps pedestrians should be legally obligated to actually look where they are going and not simply walk out into traffic at great risk to life and limb, theirs in particular.

[krooner 10]

1. There is a clear distinction between those that speed those who are 'caught' speeding. And 'too many' is a point of view based on a personal assumption of what is sufficient.

 

2. RTA's - it may surprise you to learn that not all RTA's are as a result of speeding. Well, actually, unless the vehicles we not moving, then they were, technically, 'speeding'. It is a relative term which, in the context of the debate, you must take it to mean driving beyond the legal limit for the road.

 

If you really want to reduce the instances of RTA's and fatalities, ban driving.

 

Yep, that would do it. And that would certainly satisfy the 'holier than thou' brigade.

 

Ahh, yessss------preecisely

[alchresearch 214]

So, why have I been issued with two speeding 'offences' in the last 4 years when I was allegedly caught doing 34 mph in a 30 zone and 35 mph 'just' entering a 30 zone?

 

Ah, now we're getting to the reason for your hatred of cameras - you were caught twice!

 

There is no 'buffer zone' between speed zones. The change of zone is signified by a sign which should be visible well before the zone begins, that's where you reduce your speed accordingly. If the sign isn't visible then you can dispute the penalty. But if it is, then I'm afraid it's down to your poor driving skills.

 

Incidentally, I just caught the thread about your ticket for parking in a taxi bay. Seems you aren't having much luck on the roads.

[Berberis 10]

No, but it does leave the police free to catch those that do. Cameras are not a replacement for the police, but a countermeasure to speeding.

 

Have you actually driven on the roads? There are less traffic police these days than ever before!

[Berberis 10]

Indeed. Strangely serapis appears to have conveniently chosen to ignore that very simple and obvious point......

 

No, I ignored it because it was a stupid 'it doesn’t effect me so I don’t care' remark that gets us nowhere.

 

Maybe along with your idiot tax there should be a stupid tax too. I’m sure you will end up paying one of them

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one is entirely wrong. I’m not a fast driver, I have never (touch wood) been fined for any road traffic offence as I’m a pretty safe driver, but I do draw the line at idiotic ideas that come out of unelected quango’s. Yes a 20 mile an hour limit outside schools is a good idea. Speed bumps on side streets should be the norm, but a blanket 20mph limit on all urban areas is plain stupid and shows a lack of thinking or pandering to the very vocal but tiny minority of anti driving pressure groups.

[BorderReiver 10]

Drivers who ignore a 30mph speed limit are even more likely to ignore a 20 mph limit. This is just another money-spinner from the Tax & Squander Party, aka Nu Labour, desperate to raise more cash to finance their wasteful policies.