Hull speed cameras sites 'picked to make most money'

[daytona355]

singlecoil said:

In your conditional (if) scenario above, who is it that assesses whether or not the conditions have been met? Is it the driver himself? If so, how do we decide that the driver in question is capable of making that judgement?

I'm sure that every owner of a performance car would declare himself up to the job, but the truth is that some of them are deluding themselves.

Any driver who has passed his test has been deemed by the law to be capable of driving, and therefore of interpreting the road conditions to travel safely, or are you saying that the test is not fit for purpose? I'm sure there are drivers of not only performance cars, but rusty old bangers too whom might be less than capable behind the wheel compared to others, but their passing of the relevant testing means they are within their rights to interpret their speed of travel the same as everyone else. I see plenty of morons in great cars and not so great cars, but that's irrelevant to speed limits set at arbitrarily low levels. How many dual carriageways are now 40 (or less) where they were previously 70?

[RobinOakapple]

daytona355 said:

Any driver who has passed his test has been deemed by the law to be capable of driving, and therefore of interpreting the road conditions to travel safely, or are you saying they are within their rights to interpret their speed of travel the same as everyone else.?

Of course they are, as long as they stay within the legal speed limits.

[jm doc]

singlecoil said:

daytona355 said:

If you do it safely and with due respect to others on the road, why shouldn't anyone go fast? That's the point, the limits are arbitrary at best, and set to the lowest common denominator or with one eye on the revenue they could generate by posting an inappropriate limit and installing cameras or scamera vans

In your conditional (if) scenario above, who is it that assesses whether or not the conditions have been met? Is it the driver himself? If so, how do we decide that the driver in question is capable of making that judgement?

I'm sure that every owner of a performance car would declare himself up to the job, but the truth is that some of them are deluding themselves.

So the Germans are driving Gods and we're not. Obviously

[jm doc]

Corpulent Tosser said:

daytona355 said:

If you do it safely and with due respect to others on the road, why shouldn't anyone go fast?

No reason at all, and it is what many/most of us do.

daytona355 said:

That's the point, the limits are arbitrary at best, and set to the lowest common denominator

Again I agree with you, at least on the lowest common denominator part, the limits are though are generally set in a generic manner, type of road determines the limit.

daytona355 said:

or with one eye on the revenue they could generate by posting an inappropriate limit and installing cameras or scamera vans

There could be an element of that, but also the sites can and it would appear from the report in another thread are selected based on where there have been accidents, and I am sure are also sited where they think people might be tempted to exceed the limit.

Where we continue to disagree though, is your assertion that it is a scam.

I can agree with all of that except your comments about scammimg. Why then have all the speed limits around the area where I live and work had major reductions. From 60 to 40 on almost all single carriage roads, from 60 to 40 on some dual carriageways and from 40 to 30 on urban roads as well as large numbers reduce from 30 to 20. It's certaintly got nothing to do with accident rates. And suddenly there are camera vans all over these newly reduced speed limits.

Apologies for the formatting issue, there seems to be a problem with the site..

[Corpulent Tosser]

jm doc said:

I can agree with all of that except your comments about scammimg. Why then have all the speed limits around the area where I live and work had major reductions. From 60 to 40 on almost all single carriage roads, from 60 to 40 on some dual carriageways and from 40 to 30 on urban roads as well as large numbers reduce from 30 to 20. It's certaintly got nothing to do with accident rates. And suddenly there are camera vans all over these newly reduced speed limits.

I don't know why the limits have been changed but there would have been a consulation process incuding justification prior to the change, the justification may have been a number of accidents, you assert it wasn't but your local council will have kept minutes of the meetings and they are available to the public, so you could find out if you wish.

The revised limit will have been posted so everyone can see what the current limit is so if caught they only have themselves to blame, I fail to see the scam.

[RobinOakapple]

Corpulent Tosser said:

I don't know why the limits have been changed but there would have been a consulation process incuding justification prior to the change, the justification may have been a number of accidents, you assert it wasn't but your local council will have kept minutes of the meetings and they are available to the public, so you could find out if you wish.

The revised limit will have been posted so everyone can see what the current limit is so if caught they only have themselves to blame, I fail to see the scam.

That will be because there isn't one.

[daytona355]

Well, you guys must enjoy getting it in the ass from the government and the law then, I don't agree that they reduce limits all the time, cameras are a stealth tax, and a scam the way they are used to generate revenue over profit. I'll continue to ensure that they never catch me with a camera, and take my chances elsewhere...

[Devil2575]

Dave Finney said:

Devil2575 said:

No but it (the German Autobahn that has no speed limit) has a higher fatality rate than UK motorways.

Is that true? Could you provide links to evidence for that please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn

Killed per 1 billion veh·km

Country All roads Motorways

Germany 5.00 1.74
UK 3.56 1.16

[jm doc]

RobinOakapple said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

I don't know why the limits have been changed but there would have been a consulation process incuding justification prior to the change, the justification may have been a number of accidents, you assert it wasn't but your local council will have kept minutes of the meetings and they are available to the public, so you could find out if you wish.

The revised limit will have been posted so everyone can see what the current limit is so if caught they only have themselves to blame, I fail to see the scam.

That will be because there isn't one.

nothing to do with let's reduce the limits and catch more motorists then.
lol, your trolling mate

[pinchmeimdreamin]

jm doc said:

RobinOakapple said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

I don't know why the limits have been changed but there would have been a consulation process incuding justification prior to the change, the justification may have been a number of accidents, you assert it wasn't but your local council will have kept minutes of the meetings and they are available to the public, so you could find out if you wish.

The revised limit will have been posted so everyone can see what the current limit is so if caught they only have themselves to blame, I fail to see the scam.

That will be because there isn't one.

nothing to do with let's reduce the limits and catch more motorists then.
lol, your trolling mate

Do they not put big signs up with the new limit on then ?

[jm doc]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

jm doc said:

RobinOakapple said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

I don't know why the limits have been changed but there would have been a consulation process incuding justification prior to the change, the justification may have been a number of accidents, you assert it wasn't but your local council will have kept minutes of the meetings and they are available to the public, so you could find out if you wish.

The revised limit will have been posted so everyone can see what the current limit is so if caught they only have themselves to blame, I fail to see the scam.

That will be because there isn't one.

nothing to do with let's reduce the limits and catch more motorists then.
lol, your trolling mate

Do they not put big signs up with the new limit on then ?

still catches people out for a while though doesn't it, roads that they've used literally for decades suddenly to have abnormally low speed limits imposed. And then of course the frustration of being made to do ridiculously low speeds on roads that have never seen an accident in decades inevitably lead to more people deliberately or otherwise creeping over the limit.

[Corpulent Tosser]

Here are some guidelines regarding setting speed limits, I see nothing in there about raising revenue.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

If you are not happy with how things are done in your area why not go along to the council meetings and see for yourself how decisions are made, or you can look on their website for minutes of the meetings to see why decisions have been made for changes of speed limits.

Even better stand for election as a councilor.

[RobinOakapple]

jm doc said:

nothing to do with let's reduce the limits and catch more motorists then.
lol, your trolling mate

There are trolls on this thread, you and the Daytona character. At least the others posters that don't like speed cameras are making an effort to discuss the matter sensibly, but you pair are spoiling it with idiotic rubbish about people enjoying being arse-raped and wanting to be told what to do.

PS I hope your driving is better than your spelling

[daytona355]

And yet you see no problem with those that personally attack me or anyone else when they make posts. Try looking at the responses I get when I make a totally sensible post...... You guys act like kids, so I treat you like kids.

[C70R]

daytona355 said:

And yet you see no problem with those that personally attack me or anyone else when they make posts. Try looking at the responses I get when I make a totally sensible post...... You guys act like kids, so I treat you like kids.

I'll look when you make one.

[Devil2575]

daytona355 said:

Well, you guys must enjoy getting it in the ass from the government and the law then, I don't agree that they reduce limits all the time, cameras are a stealth tax, and a scam the way they are used to generate revenue over profit. I'll continue to ensure that they never catch me with a camera, and take my chances elsewhere...

Stealth tax? getting it in the ass?

How much is that tax? £100 a time with a maximum of 4 times in a 3 year period?

£400 over three years works out at £133 a year maximum. How much income tax do you pay a month? A lot more than £133 i'd wager.

My council tax is higher than that every month.

Oh and so far that stealth tax has taken £60 off me about 10 years ago.

[RobinOakapple]

Devil2575 said:

daytona355 said:

Well, you guys must enjoy getting it in the ass from the government and the law then, I don't agree that they reduce limits all the time, cameras are a stealth tax, and a scam the way they are used to generate revenue over profit. I'll continue to ensure that they never catch me with a camera, and take my chances elsewhere...

Stealth tax? getting it in the ass?

How much is that tax? £100 a time with a maximum of 4 times in a 3 year period?

£400 over three years works out at £133 a year maximum. How much income tax do you pay a month? A lot more than £133 i'd wager.

My council tax is higher than that every month.

Oh and so far that stealth tax has taken £60 off me about 10 years ago.

It's not a stealth tax, it's a stupidity tax.

I'm not saying people who get caught are stupid, but if they get caught more than once then they are behaving stupidly.

[daytona355]

There you go again, accepting the 'tax' without question. So a covert camera nicks you on a street you once frequented at 60, and as you enter again at 60, notice the limit changed to 30, hit the brakes, but there's a camera 10 yards away in a driveway, you are nicked. But you won't care, it was your fault, you should have known, and they are totally fair being that close to the sign of course. BS, course it's not, if they are parked a ways down the road to catch those that saw the change and didn't care, that's fair, but on top of the sign knowing people won't all be so aware, that's a scam

[Corpulent Tosser]

daytona355 said:

There you go again, accepting the 'tax' without question. So a covert camera nicks you on a street you once frequented at 60, and as you enter again at 60, notice the limit changed to 30, hit the brakes, but there's a camera 10 yards away in a driveway, you are nicked. But you won't care, it was your fault, you should have known, and they are totally fair being that close to the sign of course. BS, course it's not, if they are parked a ways down the road to catch those that saw the change and didn't care, that's fair, but on top of the sign knowing people won't all be so aware, that's a scam

Do you not look ahead, do you only react to situations once you are upon them ?

[singlecoil]

daytona355 said:

A potpourri of fallacies