Discussion
Read a 'Letter To The Editor' in one of the Tabloids this morning.
[quote=moron]No-one can question the need for smoke alarms to help avert fire-related deaths. So how can anyone be against speed cameras which protect us from speed-freaks?[/quote]
How can you argue against logic like that? :rolleyes:
I just hope this is not indicative of the way the [i]masses[/i] think.
If it is, all is lost :(
[quote=moron]No-one can question the need for smoke alarms to help avert fire-related deaths. So how can anyone be against speed cameras which protect us from speed-freaks?[/quote]
How can you argue against logic like that? :rolleyes:
I just hope this is not indicative of the way the [i]masses[/i] think.
If it is, all is lost :(
Sounds like a non-driver or a very inexperienced driver at best.
I don't know many people who agree with this viewpoint. Come to think of it I'm struggling to think of anybody I know who agrees with the current speed camera policy (apart from the usual vested interests!).
The one person I know who was in favour of it soon changed his views when he got an NIP for 36 in a 30!
>> Edited by timtonal on Monday 11th July 22:39
I don't know many people who agree with this viewpoint. Come to think of it I'm struggling to think of anybody I know who agrees with the current speed camera policy (apart from the usual vested interests!).
The one person I know who was in favour of it soon changed his views when he got an NIP for 36 in a 30!
>> Edited by timtonal on Monday 11th July 22:39
I don't think anyone is against the use of speed cameras in locations such as schools, hospitals or known accident black spots. What annoys me is the fact that the guidelines for positioning seem to be ignored totally. Also which is more dangerous on a dual carriageway, me doing 80mph in a modern well designed sports saloon or a 32 ton artic lorry doing 60. Both 10mph over the speed limit I'd get a ticket from a fixed camera, the lorry wouldn't!!!
pbsaxman said:
I don't think anyone is against the use of speed cameras in locations such as schools, hospitals or known accident black spots.
I used to think so too, but now I'm not so sure. Way I see it, concentrating on a speed camera instead of the hazard is not going to help your reaction times, and this is probably more important than making you drive a couple of mph slower in the first place. If you're alert you'll be aware of the hazards and pick an appropriate speed, if you're in brain dead 'stick to the speed limit no matter whether it is safe to go faster' you stop being involved in the process of selecting a safe speed and may be less likely to go slower than the limit when it is appropriate.
pbsaxman said:
I don't think anyone is against the use of speed cameras in locations such as schools, hospitals or known accident black spots. What annoys me is the fact that the guidelines for positioning seem to be ignored totally. Also which is more dangerous on a dual carriageway, me doing 80mph in a modern well designed sports saloon or a 32 ton artic lorry doing 60. Both 10mph over the speed limit I'd get a ticket from a fixed camera, the lorry wouldn't!!!
It would be 44 tonnes, and 56mph for the truck.
Both vehicles are as dangerous as the driver. In these circumstances both would be safe.
Oh, and for your info, the speed limit for an artic on a dual carriageway is 50mph, so yes he would get a ticket as well.
Phil
moron said:
No-one can question the need for smoke alarms to help avert fire-related deaths. So how can anyone be against speed cameras which protect us from speed-freaks?
Its a common misconception, this.
GATSOs do NOT "protect" anyone from anything. If a "speed-freak" wants to drive past one at a hundred miles an hour then the "freak" can and will. He may get a bill in the post later...
This sort of viewpoint tends to come from timid drivers - who drive very slowly much of the time. When they are overtaken they somehow think that because *they* are afraid to go faster than it *must be unsafe* and that anyone passing them *must be a "speed-freak"*. Rather than simply being a competent driver.
You know - most of this type actually get annoyed when they overtaken at 60mph whilst they are doing 35! Perfectly legally!
They also forget that anyone with a pair of eyes can SEE Gatsos and slow down for them...and speed right back up after if they so wish! Even *if* one is not confident in simply *seeing* them one can buy a map with them all on! (Printed or SatNav)
I have to say - I don't believe that the proliferation of GATSOs is going to be terribly relevant to road safety in the future. They are particularly straightforward to avoid.
For this reason I consider them pointless and unhelfpul. And if they criminalise the honest, decent and law-abiding I think that that price is too high to pay...
philthy said:
It would be 44 tonnes, and 56mph for the truck.
Both vehicles are as dangerous as the driver. In these circumstances both would be safe.
Oh, and for your info, the speed limit for an artic on a dual carriageway is 50mph, so yes he would get a ticket as well.
Phil
Surely he wouldn't get a ticket from a Scamera though?
pbsaxman said:
I don't think anyone is against the use of speed cameras in locations such as schools, hospitals or known accident black spots
I'm not necessarily against the use of them in these places, but I do think from a safety point of view they are utterly pointless as they are merely reactive:
scenario one with no camera present: numpty texting while driving at 33mph runs over mum + 2 children crossing the road outside a school result = 3 injuries/deaths and court proceedings plus guilt etc etc.
scenario two with a camera present: numpty texting while driving at 33mph runs over mum + 2 children crossing the road outside a school result = 3 injuries/deaths and court proceedings plus guilt + 3 points and 60 notes....oooh my yes that really aids the situation
The danger of this sort of thinking is if everyone sticks to the speed limits and road deaths do not drop (which they won't) then the arguement will move to looking at the speed limits being too high. The speed camera freaks (i mean that in every sense of the word) won't be happy until we all use nothing but public transport 
The analogy about fire alarms not preventing fires is a good one. What would the fire brigade rather see; a correctly, safely wired house or a dangerously wired house with 20 smoke detectors....
The analogy about fire alarms not preventing fires is a good one. What would the fire brigade rather see; a correctly, safely wired house or a dangerously wired house with 20 smoke detectors....
maxrider said:
The speed camera freaks (i mean that in every sense of the word) won't be happy until we all use nothing but public transport
Disagree... then where will they get their cash from?
You mistake the SCP for the lental munchers. The SCP are basically a business that claims to be for the good of all. While we realise their intentions are less than altruistic, there's a percentage of the population who despise the motorist and want to see the roads car free. These people are the ones I was referring to, they see speed cameras as another way of forcing drivers off the road while claiming it in the name of safety. These are the same weak minded cretins who drive to anti-road protests and don't see the irony
The comment shows p155 poor logic and a very simple mindset.
Anyway, is not the motoring analogy of the smoke detector the revenue camera detector, and not the revenue camera itself.
After all, if you are going to have some sort of accident just because you are exceeding a certain speed, a prior warning of such an event is what one needs.
Anyway, is not the motoring analogy of the smoke detector the revenue camera detector, and not the revenue camera itself.
After all, if you are going to have some sort of accident just because you are exceeding a certain speed, a prior warning of such an event is what one needs.
pbsaxman said:
I don't think anyone is against the use of speed cameras in locations such as schools, hospitals or known accident black spots.
I am. Anything that distracts a drivers attention by even a small amount in these highest risk areas needs to be removed.
Better to have drivers watching the road than the speedo, dont you think?
Accident blackspots are not necessarily going to be positvely influenced simply cos you erect a piggy bank on a pole.
Yet that seems to be the flawed logic of some people, come what may.
No wonder deaths are still on the rise. No wonder scameras have no real measurable and long term benefits.
The medicine is the wrong one!
As for the lentilists vs scammers point that was raised; no theyre totally different.
One group has a pathological hatred of cars and drivers and the freedom they enjoy via that transport medium, and the the other lot are in it for a big fat payout,while masquerading as some kind of weird, nay perverted safety outfit. The differences between the two couldnt ne more marked.
Ist similar logic....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff