New scameras - why do we accept this??
Discussion
Because we arent motivated enough yet, and because most people havent got the stomach to put up a fight, just want a quiet life and so on.
Maybe when they start introducing even more laws to curb our usage of our vehicles, then maybe we will organise and give these bastards what they want: A good shoeing.
>> Edited by Deltafox on Tuesday 11th April 18:23
>> Edited by Deltafox on Tuesday 11th April 18:24
Maybe when they start introducing even more laws to curb our usage of our vehicles, then maybe we will organise and give these bastards what they want: A good shoeing.
>> Edited by Deltafox on Tuesday 11th April 18:23
>> Edited by Deltafox on Tuesday 11th April 18:24
deadslow said:
Its a new camera - digital, on all the time, sending constant info via broadband. Within 6 months no-one in the UK will still have a license (leastways no-one on this forum)!
The bastards still have to find a way to legally convict you - and as far as I can tell they don't have one - doesn't matter how many photographs they have.
Of course that won't stop em in the short term...
Sean
deadslow said:
Its a new camera - digital, on all the time, sending constant info via broadband. Within 6 months no-one in the UK will still have a license (leastways no-one on this forum)!
At least these are visible easily, they do not come close in terms of vileness to the sneaky, despicable speed camera partnership vans and their operatives.
I'm currently reading 'The Traveller' by John Twelve Hawks. I'm coming to think the main point of the book is possibly our government's clear motivation.
Basically if you convince the public that they're always being watched and all misbehaviour will be seen and punished you will end up with 100% compliance. Even if noone is actually watching - a Pavlovian response to an assumed constant monitoring.
If everyone believes that a) speeding is dangerous; b) You'll always get caught then eventually noone will speed. Expand this to all aspects of behaviour that are deemed unacceptable by the authorities, create a climate of acceptance that something is unacceptable and provide a visible means of detecting and low-level punishment and eventually you get 100% compliant behaviour.
Two generations time and speeding will be a thing of the past. One the criminal will do it and society will be glad to be rid of the evil people who do it. Punishment at that time will be a tad worse than a £60 fine - people will disappear.
Basically if you convince the public that they're always being watched and all misbehaviour will be seen and punished you will end up with 100% compliance. Even if noone is actually watching - a Pavlovian response to an assumed constant monitoring.
If everyone believes that a) speeding is dangerous; b) You'll always get caught then eventually noone will speed. Expand this to all aspects of behaviour that are deemed unacceptable by the authorities, create a climate of acceptance that something is unacceptable and provide a visible means of detecting and low-level punishment and eventually you get 100% compliant behaviour.
Two generations time and speeding will be a thing of the past. One the criminal will do it and society will be glad to be rid of the evil people who do it. Punishment at that time will be a tad worse than a £60 fine - people will disappear.
You have to be worried, when under 10% of KSI are caused by excessive speed ABOVE the speed limit, that it is made to be such an "evil" and the focus of nearly all road safety policy.
Think how bad it will be when all the other causes of accidents are hounded in a similar way, and made to be socially unacceptable with such vigour.
Unprotected sex, extreme sports like rock climbing, swimming, fatty foods, salt, ***motorsports***
We all expose ourselves to undue risk, it's part of being alive. The crusade against speeding is insidious that it WILL be worrying when the focus does move onto the "next enemy", and starts to erode into other freedoms that were not really ever problems to start with, but the fact they allowed us freedom was the problem for some it seems!
Nasty direction we are heading in
Dave
Think how bad it will be when all the other causes of accidents are hounded in a similar way, and made to be socially unacceptable with such vigour.
Unprotected sex, extreme sports like rock climbing, swimming, fatty foods, salt, ***motorsports***
We all expose ourselves to undue risk, it's part of being alive. The crusade against speeding is insidious that it WILL be worrying when the focus does move onto the "next enemy", and starts to erode into other freedoms that were not really ever problems to start with, but the fact they allowed us freedom was the problem for some it seems!
Nasty direction we are heading in
Dave
There's no doubt that motorists are easy targets, in terms of available snooping technology and public acceptance of dumb/wrong PR. But why are we such 'soft' targets - are we really that spineless/lacking in passion/disenchanted that we will accept anything that is dished down to us?
If we dont find a way to articulate our point of view in an effective way, our interests will be crushed/brushed aside under the weight of potential (easy and massive) revenue streams for the authorities.
We are allowing ourselves to be villified and criminalised and exploited by a system which is too lazy to even attempt to improve driving standards and which will always just 'take the money'.
If we dont find a way to articulate our point of view in an effective way, our interests will be crushed/brushed aside under the weight of potential (easy and massive) revenue streams for the authorities.
We are allowing ourselves to be villified and criminalised and exploited by a system which is too lazy to even attempt to improve driving standards and which will always just 'take the money'.
deeps said:
Its a new camera - digital, on all the time, sending constant info via broadband. Within 6 months no-one in the UK will still have a license (leastways no-one on this forum)!
At least these are visible easily, they do not come close in terms of vileness to the sneaky, despicable speed camera partnership vans and their operatives.
Definitely not the case in the dark, if the Cumbrian examples are anything to go by - they are yellow but not reflective, and being smaller and higher up they are very difficult to see (especially if there are oncoming cars, by definition with their headlights on).
Mr Whippy said:
You have to be worried, when under 10% of KSI are caused by excessive speed ABOVE the speed limit,
All KSI are caused by excessive speed!
The human body is not designed to travel at more than 20mph and that is if you happen to be Linford Christie
. Even then running into something or tripping over has the potential to seriously injure a human body. The collisions that occur because of excess speed alone above the posted limit are less than 10%
Mr Whippy said:
that it is made to be such an "evil" and the focus of nearly all road safety policy.
Think how bad it will be when all the other causes of accidents are hounded in a similar way, and made to be socially unacceptable with such vigour.
Unprotected sex, extreme sports like rock climbing, swimming, fatty foods, salt,
Are unlikely to have an impact on theinjury or death of people not directly involved in them at the time a risk taken goes wrong!
Mr Whippy said:
***motorsports***
Are strictly monitored and marshalled so they do not have a risk to those not directly invovled! Do you ever see pedestrians crossing the track at random to get to the chip shop in an F1 race? Not very often!
Mr Whippy said:
We all expose ourselves to undue risk, it's part of being alive. The crusade against speeding is insidious that it WILL be worrying when the focus does move onto the "next enemy", and starts to erode into other freedoms that were not really ever problems to start with, but the fact they allowed us freedom was the problem for some it seems!
The point is. Why should someone who unintentionally is, or happens to enter into the vicinity of your individual decision to increase the risks around your actions be put in that position by you? Especially when they may not be aware that you are involved in that extra risk.
Mr Whippy said:
Nasty direction we are heading in
Dave
Only if you happen to in the vicinity of someone elses risk that you have not assessed at that point to decide whether it is acceptable to you personally.
Only if you happen to be curtailed in your quest for greater risk in a public environment
>> Edited by mg6b on Wednesday 12th April 15:12
mg6b said:
All KSI are caused by excessive speed!
Really? Hows that work then in the case of a truck doing 20mph rolling over a cyclist undertaking it?
mg6b said:
The human body is not designed to travel at more than 20mph and that is if you happen to be Linford Christie . Even then running into something or tripping over has the potential to seriously injure a human body.
Blimey! I must be dead already then! I wasnt designed to travel faster than 20?????
Goddam those 30 mph signs!
I think you mean that the human body wasnt designed to propel itself at more than 20...actually its higher than that methinks.
turbobloke said:
All KSI are caused by excessive speed!
You've got it
If nothing moved, then no one would get hurt!
Deltafox said:
All KSI are caused by excessive speed!
Really? Hows that work then in the case of a truck doing 20mph rolling over a cyclist undertaking it?
I think you mean that the human body wasnt designed to propel itself at more than 20...actually its higher than that methinks.
Humans unless they adapt the method they travel other than running along at the maximum speed they can possibly achieve through evolution, are not desgined to travel faster than that. The fact the human body can stand higher impact speeds is fortunate. 40mph and above to a sudden halt is likely to cause death through deceleration injury.
Unless cave men travelled on skis or swinging through the vines, I doubt they would have got anywhere near those sorts of speeds.
Walking into something hard and immobile that you have not seen is likely to cause an injury which could be serious!
I have just come back from Toronto where the traffic is horrendous in places, not a camera in site and was surprised how slowly people drive the police patrol car presence is noticeable and makes you feel safe on unfamiliar roads, maybe we should go back to the old methods instead or is that to simple an idea.
mg6b said:That's fair enough - one cannot expect to be at liberty to increase the risk to a third party to an unreasonable degree.
Only if you happen to in the vicinity of someone elses risk that you have not assessed at that point to decide whether it is acceptable to you personally.
The case against arbitrary, indiscriminate speed enforcement accepts your point. What it challenges, however, is that
- the enforcers make no attempt to assess what would be an unreasonable degree of risk, or to take into account driving conditions, driver competence, and vehicle ability, and that
- the enforcers fail to allow for the numerous occasions when no risk is created for any third party.
Much of the time people are punished for behaving in a way that is entirely safe. If certain circumstances had been different, then they might have been guilty of increasing the risk to third parties, but the circumstances weren't different. They were what they were, and there was no increased or unreasonable risk to those third parties.
In my kitchen I have bread knives. If I were to used them in a certain way, they could be lethal weapons and I, potentially, a murderer. Instead, I use them to spread butter on bread. The fact that they could potentially be misused would not justify punishing their owner for holding them in his hand.
Then again, in the 1984 world of Tony and Gordon, anything could happen. I wonder if at some point we butter-knife menaces will be offered an amnesty to turn in our weapons?
>> Edited by flemke on Wednesday 12th April 22:57
Anyone interested in this subject should watch (or record) the "Parliament Channel" tonight at 03.10 to 07.45 in the morning. I don't know if it's a repeat of last nights showing but it made MY blood boil! (be warned) the three witches of BRAKE, ROADPEACE and Intitiatve for Lower Speeds, star as "Experts" in the House of Commons Commitee on traffic Policing (rec on 8th March)......
From last night....What they want is: 20mph in EVERY AREA where houses are present irrespective of road type....
Satellite speed control of cars so they CANNOT speed..... Cameras, 20mph and other measures outside EVERY school in Britain... and a host of other measures to ensure the demise of the British economy....
ACPO are not much better.....being led by Meridydd Hughes. GRrrr!
Lord save us from these people!.........
"Where shall we three meet again? in Thunder, Lightning or the "House of Commons Commitee on Traffic Policing"?...
>> Edited by 8Pack on Wednesday 12th April 23:54
>> Edited by 8Pack on Wednesday 12th April 23:57
From last night....What they want is: 20mph in EVERY AREA where houses are present irrespective of road type....
Satellite speed control of cars so they CANNOT speed..... Cameras, 20mph and other measures outside EVERY school in Britain... and a host of other measures to ensure the demise of the British economy....
ACPO are not much better.....being led by Meridydd Hughes. GRrrr!
Lord save us from these people!.........
"Where shall we three meet again? in Thunder, Lightning or the "House of Commons Commitee on Traffic Policing"?...
>> Edited by 8Pack on Wednesday 12th April 23:54
>> Edited by 8Pack on Wednesday 12th April 23:57
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff