Why?????????????
Discussion
We know that they do nothing for safety on the road and we know they are designed to make revenue. But why on earth do people still do it considering the fact that they are allowed to put some money back into the partnership and buy more cameras!!!!!!!
Why???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4487497.stm
>>> Edited by funkyrobot on Wednesday 27th April 09:35
Why???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4487497.stm
>>> Edited by funkyrobot on Wednesday 27th April 09:35
dazren said:
People don't drive along with the intention of giving money to scamera partnerships. They drive along at a level they feel safe, many of us with years of accident free motoring. This problem will carry on occuring whilst the law has been abused to overrule the people rather than serve it.
As for your opening line, where do you get the "we" from? I know the scameras are about revenue and oppression of motorists. From your previous posts I'm not so sure you do.
DAZ
I said that because I know what speed cameras are really about, check my posts properly and you'll see.
Just because I state that if you do the speed limit you won't be caught you assume that I don't really know what the cameras are about, but you're wrong. It seems that the thousands of people caught a year speeding do not know what the cameras are really about.
superfool said:
onesubjectrobot said:
I said that because I know what speed cameras are really about, check my posts properly and you'll see.
We're just not convinced that you understand what driving is really about.
It is either getting from a to b, or enjoying the feel of motoring, both in a safe and law abiding manner?
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Wednesday 27th April 10:55
hedders said:
onesubjectrobot said:
I said that because I know what speed cameras are really about, check my posts properly and you'll see.
We're just not convinced that you understand what driving is really about.
He is just a wind up merchant...ignore him.
No decent comments or opinions on the points in my post once again.
deltafox said:
If you bothered to read the other thread Funky, youll see the explanation as to "Why?".
Its as plain as the nose on your (robotic) face mate.
Its called (once again for those that missed it) " Defiance".
People who continue to get caught on these theiving machines are termed "Defiers" by the scamships.
Others are termed "Manipulators" (they slow down then speed up) and "Conformers" (who do what theyre told unquestioningly) they always do what unelected officials tell them to...no free will of their own ya see.
Defiers cannot have their behaviour changed by the use of a scamera, points or fines. They can only be turned into conformers if the argument is sensible and logical...which it isnt.
So there ya have it. "Why?", cos we Defy!
Defiance?? Points, fines, possibly totting up to a ban, where you're off the road for a year?? Higher insurance?? More money for speed cameras??
Its a costly form of defiance ins't it.
deltafox said:
deltafox said:
If you bothered to read the other thread Funky, youll see the explanation as to "Why?".
Its as plain as the nose on your (robotic
Its called (once again for those that missed it) " Defiance".
People who continue to get caught on these theiving machines are termed "Defiers" by the scamships.
Others are termed "Manipulators" (they slow down then speed up) and "Conformers" (who do what theyre told unquestioningly) they always do what unelected officials tell them to...no free will of their own ya see.
Defiers cannot have their behaviour changed by the use of a scamera, points or fines. They can only be turned into conformers if the argument is sensible and logical...which it isnt.
So there ya have it. "Why?", cos we Defy!
Defiance?? Points, fines, possibly totting up to a ban, where you're off the road for a year?? Higher insurance?? More money for speed cameras??
Its a costly form of defiance ins't it.
Putting yourself in the firing line always is, or didnt you know that?
Try this scenario,
you get caught speeding one day and it just so happens that the money from your fine completes the budget for the siting of a new speed camera.
A few days after the speed camera goes live your best friend (who normally drives at the limit) is in a real rush to get to work for an important meeting, he/she doesn't know its there and snap!
Your defiance has effectively cost your friend points and money.
How do you feel about that?
deltafox said:
Your defiance has effectively cost your friend points and money.
How do you feel about that?
Indifferent.I wouldnt get the points, he would, Should have kept his eyes open and "manipulated" the scamera shouldnt he? How do you feel about it?
I feel that because of your 'defiance' you have added another money making item to the road. Therefore effectively shooting yourself in the foot.
blueyes said:
deltafox said:
funkyrobot said:
deltafox said:
If you bothered to read the other thread Funky, youll see the explanation as to "Why?".
Its as plain as the nose on your (robotic
Its called (once again for those that missed it) " Defiance".
People who continue to get caught on these theiving machines are termed "Defiers" by the scamships.
Others are termed "Manipulators" (they slow down then speed up) and "Conformers" (who do what theyre told unquestioningly) they always do what unelected officials tell them to...no free will of their own ya see.
Defiers cannot have their behaviour changed by the use of a scamera, points or fines. They can only be turned into conformers if the argument is sensible and logical...which it isnt.
So there ya have it. "Why?", cos we Defy!
Defiance?? Points, fines, possibly totting up to a ban, where you're off the road for a year?? Higher insurance?? More money for speed cameras??
Its a costly form of defiance ins't it.
Putting yourself in the firing line always is, or didnt you know that?
Try this scenario,
you get caught speeding one day and it just so happens that the money from your fine completes the budget for the siting of a new speed camera.
A few days after the speed camera goes live your best friend (who normally drives at the limit) is in a real rush to get to work for an important meeting, he/she doesn't know its there and snap!
Your defiance has effectively cost your friend points and money.
How do you feel about that?
I feel that your simplistic logic is robbing me of my will to live.
Go and troll somewhere else!
Its funny how it is so simplistic, but too hard to be understood by people.
BliarOut said:
But what about this proposed legislation to restrict all cyclists to 12MPH with a £120 fine if they get zapped. You said you don't want to obey a law like that. As you have said many many times, the law is the law.
I publicly challenge you to justify your apparent hypocrisy.
In case you missed my challenge on the first page Funky... Do your best, I'm all ears on this one
Where will the limits be posted then?
I assume that with motor vehicle speed limits they will be higher in some areas than others?
Can't see this happening though because a bicycle speeding over the speed limit is a whole different ball game to a motorist speeding over the limit.
Maybe if they are trying to cut fatalities they can also address the element of bad cycling, just like they should be doing now with motorists (bad driving)??
They could bring in some harsh punishments for pavement cycling, jumping red lights etc. I would be for that
Where in this post does it say that 'I' don't want to obey this law?
MilnerR said:
Funkyrobot, are the current speed limits and the manner in which they are enforced in the name of safety fair and justified? Is it fair that motorists do not have the right to remain silent? Is it fair that accused speeders are assumed to be guilty unless they are able to prove their innocence? Is it fair that the areas of road safety that will save lives are being ignored in preference to a self funding sham? If you think these policies are unfair then you already have the answer to your question....
I drive at the speed that is appropriate to the situation unless there's a scamera present in which case its bang on the speed limit.
I do think that they are unfair!
I just don't think that if I were to speed and be caught I would have done anything positive in getting rid of the schemes.
superflid said:
I do think that they are unfair!
I just don't think that if I were to speed and be caught I would have done anything positive in getting rid of the schemes.
Now that is an interesting point.
What are your suggestions for getting rid of the schemes, remembering that simply not speeding will only encourage the proliferation of cameras and lowering of limits. Both of which are already widespread.
Think of it from my perspective though. I value my licence a lot and I really do enjoy driving (honestly I do, I may sound like I don't). I also need it for my job.
If I were to go down the road nearest to me with 4 speed cameras on and get caught on every one, thats my licence gone. My insurance would go up, I would have to use the disgraceful public transport system, and I would be very very disappointed.
Ok, maybe I could flick a finger at the partnership in defiance, but what good will this do for me?? I would lose out a hell of a lot more than I would gain.
Its frustrating because what can you do to sort out the problem with speed partnerships? Is there any chance we could ALL overload the system by constantly speeding everywhere? If this is so then we need a proper group effort from thousands of motorists, and would this happen?
The only other way I have been informed of getting rid of speed partnerships (although I don't condone this) is the use of criminal damage, hint hint. I won't be caught doing this because I am dead against any form of criminal damage. But would this work with a concerted effort by vandals??
superflid said:
From what I read in the draft legislation, it won't need signs, as it will be a blanket 12MPH limit for cyclists, much like the current NSL for cars.
Sounds like you cyclists are in for a similar tax raising binge just like us motorists!!!
I sincerely hope they also insist on compulsory insurance.
Nothing wrong with that. I would be miffed if my £1300 bike got trashed and it wasn't insured!!
WildCat said:
funkyrobot said:
superflid said:
BliarOut said:
From what I read in the draft legislation, it won't need signs, as it will be a blanket 12MPH limit for cyclists, much like the current NSL for cars.
Sounds like you cyclists are in for a similar tax raising binge just like us motorists!!!
I sincerely hope they also insist on compulsory insurance.
Nothing wrong with that. I would be miffed if my £1300 bike got trashed and it wasn't insured!!
We insure our bikes as we also purchased a qulaity bike.
But doubt whether thos idiots who purchase the £69 bike for Tesco or halfords will bother mit insurances - und they form majority of the muesli munching twazaks.
Those who take pride in purchasing best bike - usually the enthusiast who cycles craftwise
That is me wildcat, I have spent no end of money on my bikes and accessories. My new cycle helmet just set me back over £70.00. I ride courteously on the road and never go on the pavements or jump lights etc.
It will be, as you say, the casual cyclist who buys their £50 monster from Tesco etc who will give every cyclist a bad name. They are most probably the sort who go out at night with dark clothes on and no lights, very stupid indeed.
Anyway, how come you didn't start your post this time with Lieberchen or whatever it is? :smile:
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Wednesday 27th April 13:41
bennyboysvuk said:
On Speeding
I just noticed that the report said that there were 2.2 million speeders caught in a year. Surely there should have been a hell of a lot more crashes involving speed if all those people really were speeding.
On Bicycle Insurance
Cycling insurance could be a real scam. If a car hits you, then your insurance company can claim against the car drivers insurance company. If you're a cyclist and you hit a car, then there's no need to stop as you're effectively unidentifiable. Hmm, something's not quite right here don't you think?
I agree with that, its still criminal damage at the end of the day. However, how many times have car drivers not stopped at accident scenes even though they have number plates??
WildCat said:
bennyboysvuk said:
On Speeding
I just noticed that the report said that there were 2.2 million speeders caught in a year. Surely there should have been a hell of a lot more crashes involving speed if all those people really were speeding.
On Bicycle Insurance
Cycling insurance could be a real scam. If a car hits you, then your insurance company can claim against the car drivers insurance company. If you're a cyclist and you hit a car, then there's no need to stop as you're effectively unidentifiable. Hmm, something's not quite right here don't you think?
I agree with that, its still criminal damage at the end of the day. However, how many times have car drivers not stopped at accident scenes even though they have number plates??
Because they are in throwaways? Or in stolen car... or not insured, in unregistered car....unlicenced/ jpy rider?
They may trace to RK - but if RK has reported car as stolen und has crime number.... or if DVLA has not updated record of ownership change - und has been known as this ist numpty civil servant who ist very junior keyboard basher und swamped mit mile high in-tray....
Ist never so simple or clear cut ...my funky Liebchen
Precisely!!
If it happens like this with cars, it will surely happen with bicycles my feline forummer!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff