RE: M4 scamera protest planned
Discussion
I can only suggest that a "Stop the War on the Motorist" banner would be welcome here. Good luck to all those in the area taking part!
Remember though what they did to the "fuel protesters" and the miners before them, as regards: "Mobile phones", Don't use 'em, before, after, or during, Don't take 'em with you.
I hear on the news that similar "restrictions" are being enforced in: "formerly Communist"
China to control "protestors". MMmmmh! Isn't it great to live in a "Free country"? Extreme left or Extreme right! It's all the F"*-i.g same! Corruption!............. Bookends!!!!
Remember though what they did to the "fuel protesters" and the miners before them, as regards: "Mobile phones", Don't use 'em, before, after, or during, Don't take 'em with you.
I hear on the news that similar "restrictions" are being enforced in: "formerly Communist"
China to control "protestors". MMmmmh! Isn't it great to live in a "Free country"? Extreme left or Extreme right! It's all the F"*-i.g same! Corruption!............. Bookends!!!! For what my comments are worth, I agree with a protest for the continuous war against the motorist, but not against this.
I suspect that most people that have commented on this post don’t use this motorway on a daily basis?
(hides in a box to avoid large pointy objects coming my way)
Well I have to commute on this god forsaken highway every day, and since the speed limits have been applied the journey has become so much easier. People are obeying the rules of lane control and aren’t tailgating 2 inches off your rear bumper.
As much as I hate the relentless attack, trying to control the motorist, this I feel has had a good effect. What legally have you got to protest about? OK it is a money making scheme, but if you don’t want to contribute to the money making scheme don’t speed.
Right I'm off to tackle the M4
I suspect that most people that have commented on this post don’t use this motorway on a daily basis?
(hides in a box to avoid large pointy objects coming my way)
Well I have to commute on this god forsaken highway every day, and since the speed limits have been applied the journey has become so much easier. People are obeying the rules of lane control and aren’t tailgating 2 inches off your rear bumper.
As much as I hate the relentless attack, trying to control the motorist, this I feel has had a good effect. What legally have you got to protest about? OK it is a money making scheme, but if you don’t want to contribute to the money making scheme don’t speed.
Right I'm off to tackle the M4
atom290 said:
What legally have you got to protest about? OK it is a money making scheme, but if you don’t want to contribute to the money making scheme don’t speed.
Read the site: www.m4protest.org - it isn't about "speed", it's about the big brother style of oppression being piled on motorists as if we're all evil when in fact we are the 'general public' and 'voters'.
atom290 said:
What legally have you got to protest about? OK it is a money making scheme, but if you don’t want to contribute to the money making scheme don’t speed.
What have we got to protest against? Well, there are numerous issues concerneing the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing road deaths. There is also a sense that the use of automated law enforcement is not fair. The point of any law is that not only must the law itself be just but the way in which that law is implemented has to be just. Our laws are based on a basic morality. Which is immoral, exeeding an arbitary speed limit or using automated law enforcement to criminalise the majority of the public, and in doing so, take hard earned money from them with little or no recourse to due process?
MilnerR said:
What legally have you got to protest about? OK it is a money making scheme, but if you don’t want to contribute to the money making scheme don’t speed.
What have we got to protest against? Well, there are numerous issues concerneing the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing road deaths. There is also a sense that the use of automated law enforcement is not fair. The point of any law is that not only must the law itself be just but the way in which that law is implemented has to be just. Our laws are based on a basic morality. Which is immoral, exeeding an arbitary speed limit or using automated law enforcement to criminalise the majority of the public, and in doing so, take hard earned money from them with little or no recourse to due process?
Plus the most angering point is the sheer number of resources being deployed to catch drivers exceeding a speed limimt while crime is rising and (I really hate this term
) Yob Culture is on the riseMilnerR said:
What legally have you got to protest about? OK it is a money making scheme, but if you don’t want to contribute to the money making scheme don’t speed.
What have we got to protest against? Well, there are numerous issues concerneing the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing road deaths. There is also a sense that the use of automated law enforcement is not fair. The point of any law is that not only must the law itself be just but the way in which that law is implemented has to be just. Our laws are based on a basic morality. Which is immoral, exeeding an arbitary speed limit or using automated law enforcement to criminalise the majority of the public, and in doing so, take hard earned money from them with little or no recourse to due process?
I do agree with you, don’t get me wrong.
The use of the speed cameras have been an entire lie from the outset, and that annoys me too. As with most things that have come from this government daub it with enough spin and people won’t complain, because it’s a way of dumbing down the masses.
Speed cameras do have their place in society, and as for taking away resources from other areas of crime, well I disagree with that as most of the work is handled by private firms. What does frustrate is the fact that the money raised isn’t then ploughed back into the area it most needs to be, and that’s getting the police out into the field.
The problem is that speed cameras only work for the law abiding society. The people that genuinely have their car taxed, MOT’d, and insured. Those that don’t, well they don’t tend to care, because the car probably isn’t registered to them so who is the ticket going to get sent to?
Speed cameras don’t stop people from driving in the middle lane of the motorway with their fog lights on whilst on their mobile phone eating an apple and trying to tune the radio whilst on the way back from the pub having had a skin full.
How many people could object if the money raised from the speed cameras was then used to fund:
Burglary crime
Rape crisis centres
Or something that is really rare the police driving around pulling the drunken idiots with no insurance and no social/moral cares?
The problem is it isn’t, and if it is then we don’t know about it.
You don’t complain at the use of CCTV when some old person gets mugged and the person involved gets arrested from the footage, so how can you complain at the fact people are being caught for speeding.
Start turning the attention at where the money goes rather than focusing on the fact they are stopping us from going as fast as you like, because that’s how most people react.
I'm not a nimby I drive a fast car, and ride a fast bike, but there is a time and a place. I don’t think it is speed that kills, it’s the inappropriate use of speed that kills.
gjohnsto said:
I generally don't post on PH, but read it regularly, but the issue of M4 cameras has become the straw that broke the camels back. I shall be cycling down from Bristol to the west end of the protest to offer some support from one of the bridges.
I haven't had a car for the last 4 years and cycle everywhere, but I am still 100% behind this. I am pretty fed up of improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians being claimed as justification for speed cameras. Personally speaking I'd rather have a driver sensibly overtake my bike at 37 MPH, rather that crawl past me at exactly 30, with their attention fixed on the speedo rather than where I am. Let alone all the other issues about the driver being drunk/uninsured/turning without looking/not judging my speed. Compared with these things, which could generally be described as bad driving, exceeding an arbirtary speed limit is trivial.
Fancy standing for government?!?! 
atom290 said:
Speed cameras do have their place in society
Fraid im gonna have to disagree violently (
) there! Cameras dont do anything positive for road safety, they never have and they never ever will.
Its all spin, stats and bull from start to finish.
The sooner people actually grasp why scameras are useless the better off theyll be.
Regards DF.
The simple fact is that the UK has more cameras surveying the general public than any other place on the planet.
Speed cameras are sh**te only because they take cash from our wallets... all the others in shopping centres, down the average high street, in car parks, train stations, department stores, corner shops even your local Town Hall are cool because we generally aren't aware of their existence... yet!
But wait, pretty soon some idiot politician is going to realise that they can make cash by fining us for dropping litter. Silly idea? Just think about it. With a GPRS phone they can tell where and who (providing it ain't nicked) you are. Catch you on camera, quick triangulation (remember all mobiles emit a signal when turned on) and Bob's your dads brother.
Anyway, I'll be there next Saturday although I am not sure what impact we will have.
Speed cameras are sh**te only because they take cash from our wallets... all the others in shopping centres, down the average high street, in car parks, train stations, department stores, corner shops even your local Town Hall are cool because we generally aren't aware of their existence... yet!
But wait, pretty soon some idiot politician is going to realise that they can make cash by fining us for dropping litter. Silly idea? Just think about it. With a GPRS phone they can tell where and who (providing it ain't nicked) you are. Catch you on camera, quick triangulation (remember all mobiles emit a signal when turned on) and Bob's your dads brother.
Anyway, I'll be there next Saturday although I am not sure what impact we will have.
deltafox said:
Speed cameras do have their place in society
Fraid im gonna have to disagree violently (
Cameras dont do anything positive for road safety, they never have and they never ever will.
Its all spin, stats and bull from start to finish.
The sooner people actually grasp why scameras are useless the better off theyll be.
Regards DF.
Why though?
You cant just making a sweeping statement! Back up your thoughts
kettl said:
The simple fact is that the UK has more cameras surveying the general public than any other place on the planet.
Speed cameras are sh**te only because they take cash from our wallets... all the others in shopping centres, down the average high street, in car parks, train stations, department stores, corner shops even your local Town Hall are cool because we generally aren't aware of their existence... yet!
But wait, pretty soon some idiot politician is going to realise that they can make cash by fining us for dropping litter. Silly idea? Just think about it. With a GPRS phone they can tell where and who (providing it ain't nicked) you are. Catch you on camera, quick triangulation (remember all mobiles emit a signal when turned on) and Bob's your dads brother.
Anyway, I'll be there next Saturday although I am not sure what impact we will have.
Almost every point in this post is in favour of what can only be deemed as anti social behaviour.
Why shouldn’t you be fined for dropping litter?
There are plenty of other countries that do, and heavy fines at that.
As for your other points I don’t understand? I’ve stated that I don’t think that the cameras are run very well. And yes they are shrouded in spin. But fundamentally they curb excessive use of speed. PERIOD.
If you carry on speeding you lose your license. End of story.
I do not agree with the use of speed cameras on the motorway in the current manner. However it is because the speed limit that is too low.
More than half the cars exceed this limit by some amount but then motorways have the best safety record in the world. It does not add up that exceeding the speed limit is the cause of accidents here.
I drive a very high mileage most of which is on motorways or good dual carriageways and I can honestly say that from my experience exceeding the 70mph speed limit when conditions allow is NOT unsafe. I have the clean accident record and maximum no-claims bonus to reinforce this.
I also have a clean license (have had 2 speeding convictions in the past).
There's a lot of drivers like me - I have not met any who disagree with the above, though I've heard many unsubstantiated claims on the forums.
Best of luck to everybody who goes on the protest!
Just wish my mate could postpone his wedding so I could come down!
More than half the cars exceed this limit by some amount but then motorways have the best safety record in the world. It does not add up that exceeding the speed limit is the cause of accidents here.
I drive a very high mileage most of which is on motorways or good dual carriageways and I can honestly say that from my experience exceeding the 70mph speed limit when conditions allow is NOT unsafe. I have the clean accident record and maximum no-claims bonus to reinforce this.
I also have a clean license (have had 2 speeding convictions in the past).
There's a lot of drivers like me - I have not met any who disagree with the above, though I've heard many unsubstantiated claims on the forums.
Best of luck to everybody who goes on the protest!
Just wish my mate could postpone his wedding so I could come down! atom290 said ...
"You don’t complain at the use of CCTV when some old person gets mugged and the person involved gets arrested from the footage, so how can you complain at the fact people are being caught for speeding"
Are you serious?! You really cant see the difference?!
How you can compare someone driving perfectly safely and causing no harm to anyone, with a mugger is beyond me. I can only conclude you have no common sense.
Yes, we all know if we dont exceed a speed limit we wont get caught, but exactly what is the benefit to raod safety in slowing from 80 to 70?
A camera van can catch one hundred cars per hour exceeding a speed limit safely, what would you say they have contributed to road safety in doing that?
atom290 said:
Almost every point in this post is in favour of what can only be deemed as anti social behaviour.
Why shouldn’t you be fined for dropping litter?
There are plenty of other countries that do, and heavy fines at that.
As for your other points I don’t understand? I’ve stated that I don’t think that the cameras are run very well. And yes they are shrouded in spin. But fundamentally they curb excessive use of speed. PERIOD.
If you carry on speeding you lose your license. End of story.
What really p*sses people off is that the only thing that appears to have "zero tolerance" is speeding. Try and get the Police to do something else.....
Not that it's the fault of the Cops themselves ; did you read PC Carl of Boston's views ?
atom290 said:
The simple fact is that the UK has more cameras surveying the general public than any other place on the planet.
Speed cameras are sh**te only because they take cash from our wallets... all the others in shopping centres, down the average high street, in car parks, train stations, department stores, corner shops even your local Town Hall are cool because we generally aren't aware of their existence... yet!
But wait, pretty soon some idiot politician is going to realise that they can make cash by fining us for dropping litter. Silly idea? Just think about it. With a GPRS phone they can tell where and who (providing it ain't nicked) you are. Catch you on camera, quick triangulation (remember all mobiles emit a signal when turned on) and Bob's your dads brother.
Anyway, I'll be there next Saturday although I am not sure what impact we will have.
Almost every point in this post is in favour of what can only be deemed as anti social behaviour.
Why shouldn’t you be fined for dropping litter?
There are plenty of other countries that do, and heavy fines at that.
As for your other points I don’t understand? I’ve stated that I don’t think that the cameras are run very well. And yes they are shrouded in spin. But fundamentally they curb excessive use of speed. PERIOD.
If you carry on speeding you lose your license. End of story.
Curb speed my arse - maybe for the 50 metres before and after a camera but other than that they don't slow people down at all. If they slowed people down then they wouldnt be making any money from all the fines now would they
mindgam3 said:
Curb speed my arse - maybe for the 50 metres before and after a camera but other than that they don't slow people down at all. If they slowed people down then they wouldnt be making any money from all the fines now would they
But this is why the money needs to be put back into policing the roads through traffic police.
They obviously catch people else the money raised wouldnt be so high.
atom290 said:
atom290 said:
Speed cameras do have their place in society
Fraid im gonna have to disagree violently (
Cameras dont do anything positive for road safety, they never have and they never ever will.
Its all spin, stats and bull from start to finish.
The sooner people actually grasp why scameras are useless the better off theyll be.
Regards DF.
Why though?
You cant just making a sweeping statement! Back up your thoughts
Speed cameras are supposedly there to discourage speeding. Why? because apparently accidents are apparently a direct result of speed.
This is clearly not the case. Using excessive speed without regarding whether, traffic and general road conditions is dangerous and likely to result in an accident.
Speeding with respect to the environment you're in and those around you is unlikely to cause an acident.
If speed was directly linked to accidents then why aren't there twice as many accidents at 60/70 than there is at 30/40?
If theres and empty 3 lane motorway, its the middle of a sunny day, the chances of you causing an accident at say 100mph is minimal.
However if you were weaving in and out of traffic and driving like a mad man at 30mph in a 40mph zone then you're clearly going to do damage but you're well within the speed limit....
If speed was directly linked to accidents then surely all those participating at Vmax would have crashed seeing as the lowest speed was about 140 was it not?
Why didnt they crash because the conditions were right. I'm not saying 140mph is accectable on public roads but you get the idea.
atom290 said:
Curb speed my arse - maybe for the 50 metres before and after a camera but other than that they don't slow people down at all. If they slowed people down then they wouldnt be making any money from all the fines now would they
But this is why the money needs to be put back into policing the roads through traffic police.
They obviously catch people else the money raised wouldnt be so high.
You said they curb excessive speed, they don't... whether people get caught is a different matter.
And as I said, they wouldnt be catching people if they weren't speeding... and seeing as though the number of tickets have been going up then i dont think you can say that the public hae been getting the message...
autismuk said:
What really p*sses people off is that the only thing that appears to have "zero tolerance" is speeding. Try and get the Police to do something else.....
Not that it's the fault of the Cops themselves ; did you read PC Carl of Boston's views ?
Now this is a valid point!
There is no distinction between being caught on a camera along the M4 at 2:30 in the morning, or in the middle of rush hour. But this is the thing, speeding is speeding. You cant get away from the fact that you are breaking the law.
People treat this as a game, in Ireland before the points system came into place it was just a £50 fine, and NO points. So it was a rich mans game.
Why do we need to speed? Does it prove anything?
Im curious to know. I can see a point if you are late for something, due to extenuating factors, but apart from that?
mindgam3 said:
Speed cameras are supposedly there to discourage speeding. Why? because apparently accidents are apparently a direct result of speed.
This is clearly not the case. Using excessive speed without regarding whether, traffic and general road conditions is dangerous and likely to result in an accident.
Speeding with respect to the environment you're in and those around you is unlikely to cause an acident.
If speed was directly linked to accidents then why aren't there twice as many accidents at 60/70 than there is at 30/40?
If theres and empty 3 lane motorway, its the middle of a sunny day, the chances of you causing an accident at say 100mph is minimal.
However if you were weaving in and out of traffic and driving like a mad man at 30mph in a 40mph zone then you're clearly going to do damage but you're well within the speed limit....
If speed was directly linked to accidents then surely all those participating at Vmax would have crashed seeing as the lowest speed was about 140 was it not?
Why didnt they crash because the conditions were right. I'm not saying 140mph is accectable on public roads but you get the idea.
I agree, as I said in a previous comment its not speed that kills its inappropriate speed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff