RE: Speed Camera Bombed
Discussion
The intent gets my vote, not the method.
Home made nitroglycerine or a napalm like substance arent all that hard, however they are rather dangerous.
(BTW dont believe the "anarchists cookbook" etc, the recipies are mostly wrong, dangerously so)
Now thermite substitutes are the way to go... Easy to make (ish) no risk of blowing yourself or other people up and they will burn straight through the top of the camera and out the bottom...
Not that I would ever advocate something like that of course :looksinnocent:
Home made nitroglycerine or a napalm like substance arent all that hard, however they are rather dangerous.
(BTW dont believe the "anarchists cookbook" etc, the recipies are mostly wrong, dangerously so)
Now thermite substitutes are the way to go... Easy to make (ish) no risk of blowing yourself or other people up and they will burn straight through the top of the camera and out the bottom...
Not that I would ever advocate something like that of course :looksinnocent:
Thermite - simple mixture of Aluminium powder 3 parts to Iron Oxide powder 1 part ignited by a sparkler or a piece of magnesium ribbon. Produces a hell of a lot of heat. It is reported that the reaction will reach a temperature of about 3000°C, meaning both reaction products are molten (mp Fe = 1530°C; mp Al2O3 = 2030°C).
Teachers ( look it up on tghe net ) use a flower pot and the molten product will run out of the hole in the middle.
Rails are joined on the railway by a pot of about 6 kg of this stuff.
Teachers ( look it up on tghe net ) use a flower pot and the molten product will run out of the hole in the middle.
Rails are joined on the railway by a pot of about 6 kg of this stuff.
Richard C said: Thermite - simple mixture of Aluminium powder 3 parts to Iron Oxide powder 1 part ignited by a sparkler or a piece of magnesium ribbon. Produces a hell of a lot of heat. It is reported that the reaction will reach a temperature of about 3000°C, meaning both reaction products are molten (mp Fe = 1530°C; mp Al2O3 = 2030°C).
Teachers ( look it up on tghe net ) use a flower pot and the molten product will run out of the hole in the middle.
Rails are joined on the railway by a pot of about 6 kg of this stuff.
igniting its a bit dogy with a sparkler.
use magnesium
Since at least one has shown interest in my risky adventure, ill spill der beans guv.
Take 1000feet of cotton thread, wet it and attach one end to the "offending device".
Attach the other end to a large distress rocket.
Fire the distress rocket over the nearest 132,000volt power line, making sure that you are nowhere near.
Watch as a million volts earth down the wet cotton and destroy the little darling.
Totally mad i know, and not something i really would like to do, or wait for a thunderstorm?
Take 1000feet of cotton thread, wet it and attach one end to the "offending device".
Attach the other end to a large distress rocket.
Fire the distress rocket over the nearest 132,000volt power line, making sure that you are nowhere near.
Watch as a million volts earth down the wet cotton and destroy the little darling.
Totally mad i know, and not something i really would like to do, or wait for a thunderstorm?
victormeldrew said: These cameras are weapons of mass harrassment, and the governments refusal to co-operate in their removal constitutes reasonable grounds for military stikes.
Military stikes eh.
Cameras are there because motorists continue to drive too fast. Surveys have shown that a majority of motorists are in favour of cameras, not against them.
Refusal to co-operate with their existence seems to me to also justify 'military stikes' - against the people who try and destroy them.
Can't find the AA one at the moment.
From BBC News;
Residents in Cambridgeshire have shown their overwhelming support for Safety Cameras in the county. More than 1200 road users were surveyed to find out what they really thought of safety cameras and their responses showed they were widely accepted as a tool to save lives.
8 out of 10 people agreed the cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to speed limits and not to punish drivers
77% (942 people) supported cameras as a method to reduce casualties
64% (775 people) felt the primary aim of safety cameras is to save lives
Nearly two thirds agreed fewer crashes were likely on roads where cameras are installed
58% (704 people) cameras mean dangerous drivers more likely to be caught
From BBC News;
Residents in Cambridgeshire have shown their overwhelming support for Safety Cameras in the county. More than 1200 road users were surveyed to find out what they really thought of safety cameras and their responses showed they were widely accepted as a tool to save lives.
8 out of 10 people agreed the cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to speed limits and not to punish drivers
77% (942 people) supported cameras as a method to reduce casualties
64% (775 people) felt the primary aim of safety cameras is to save lives
Nearly two thirds agreed fewer crashes were likely on roads where cameras are installed
58% (704 people) cameras mean dangerous drivers more likely to be caught
Yeah thats all well and good but the questions that led to those answers could have been posed in a very subversive way.
I would like to see the outcome of 'Given the choice, would you rather more or less speed cameras?'. That would be the only true indication of whether people wanted them or not, not arguing the relative merits of them.
Matt.
I would like to see the outcome of 'Given the choice, would you rather more or less speed cameras?'. That would be the only true indication of whether people wanted them or not, not arguing the relative merits of them.
Matt.
I am baffled by these results only in so far as to who was asked, how they were asked etc, these things could have been manipulated so easily. Are they in favour of cameras in general or only in built up areas? do they represent a fair demographic or only older people, did they ask townsfolk, villagefolk or tree dwellers.
I am fairly confident in saying that we, as car enthusiasts are for cameras in built up areas where speeding is a genuine safety issue and can save lives, but, we are not happy with the obvious exploitation of these damn things to earn revenue whilst we are all tarred with the same brush of 'child killing' selfish and irresponsible social pariahs because we have the intelligence to be aware of it. The backlash alone is proof of the general publics discontent. This has all been played out before with painful repetition.
I am fairly confident in saying that we, as car enthusiasts are for cameras in built up areas where speeding is a genuine safety issue and can save lives, but, we are not happy with the obvious exploitation of these damn things to earn revenue whilst we are all tarred with the same brush of 'child killing' selfish and irresponsible social pariahs because we have the intelligence to be aware of it. The backlash alone is proof of the general publics discontent. This has all been played out before with painful repetition.
Wow spn.
Lets look at these "overwhelming" figures supporting cameras as the panacea for all ills shall we?
23% didnt support the view that they reduce crashes.
36% didnt see there primary aim as life savers.
42% didnt think they would catch dangerous drivers.
Overwhelming support for speed cameras? I hardly think so.
The last question regarding catching dangerous drivers is obviously a loaded question, cos everyones view on whats dangerous differs.
So by cynical and deliberate means they lump "dangerous drivers" in with "speeding drivers".
Typical bullshit from those who would be king.
Hows a speed camera gonna catch a drunk or drugged driver, or some moron travelling below the speed limit on the wrong side of the road huh? TELL ME THAT!!!!
Speedings not dangerous in itself, its the other factors that come together that make a situation inherently dangerous.
Stop spinning out the governments lies will ya?
Lets look at these "overwhelming" figures supporting cameras as the panacea for all ills shall we?
23% didnt support the view that they reduce crashes.
36% didnt see there primary aim as life savers.
42% didnt think they would catch dangerous drivers.
Overwhelming support for speed cameras? I hardly think so.
The last question regarding catching dangerous drivers is obviously a loaded question, cos everyones view on whats dangerous differs.
So by cynical and deliberate means they lump "dangerous drivers" in with "speeding drivers".
Typical bullshit from those who would be king.
Hows a speed camera gonna catch a drunk or drugged driver, or some moron travelling below the speed limit on the wrong side of the road huh? TELL ME THAT!!!!
Speedings not dangerous in itself, its the other factors that come together that make a situation inherently dangerous.
Stop spinning out the governments lies will ya?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff