loads of felled scameras
Discussion
No Discretion said:
I think the current speed campaign is also coincidental with how we in England have developed financially...
I might be wrong with this idea, but here goes;
As a nation we are richer and have more opportunity to buy fast/expensive cars than we've ever had. Consequence, 17 yr olds are now driving about in decent motors...that accellerate quick etc..where at one time we would have had a hand-me-down Vauxhall Viva or even not had a car at all.
The youths nowadays don't seem to respect what they have....yes they polish them and look after them cosmetically, but the easy-come-easy-go mentality is rife. It's handed on a plate.
Same with people further up the age brackets....the ability with Hire Purchase, 0% finance, better wages etc etc means that performance cars are now well within the budget of the masses...where at one time only a small amount of people would drive such cars.
So we've now got roads full of decent and powerful cars and also a speed enforcement camera epidemic.
As much as I think speed cameras have their place...when sited correctly...I'm still 100% in favour of trafpol outnumbering cameras...for the reasons we all know....
Can’t really see how that works. Name one car than can’t break a 70 MPH speed limit let alone a 30MPH one
No Discretion said:
I might be wrong with this idea, but here goes;
As a nation we are richer and have more opportunity to buy fast/expensive cars than we've ever had. Consequence, 17 yr olds are now driving about in decent motors...that accellerate quick etc..where at one time we would have had a hand-me-down Vauxhall Viva or even not had a car at all.
[...]
So we've now got roads full of decent and powerful cars and also a speed enforcement camera epidemic.
I've done some work on these changes. As far as I can tell the progressions have been more or less constant throughout the history of motoring. The average 60s car was much faster than the average 50s car for example. And so on.
Modern changes are far more likely to be the continuation of an earlier tend than any significant departure.
However there are big problems with modern road safety results. After 50+ years of the fatality rate falling by between 5 and 7% (like clockwork actually) we've destroyed the trend since 1993 and in 2003 it finally went into REVERSE. And we can't blame improvements in vehicle performance for that.
grahamdance said:
[quote=BliarOut]Perhaps it's because speed DOESN'T kill!
If speed killed, Concorde would be the most dangerous method of transport. And how many people have died on Concorde because of its speed.....?
However No Discretion does have a point, removing/destroying fixed cameras (no matter how amusing/rebellious
it may be) will result in more plods with hair dryers sat by the side of the road. At least fixed cameras don't move .....
quote]
The ones in South Cambs did!
Now, where do I send my donation?
deeen said:
However No Discretion does have a point, removing/destroying fixed cameras (no matter how amusing/rebellious
The hair dryer (pro-laser) isn't a bad thing. I mean the officer can decide which car he pulls in. He/She might even let the driver off if the excuse/reason is good enough. If the driver is drunk they'll get arrested...If the car isn't registered in their name, that can be sorted out. The tax might be out, it might be uninsured etcetc..
Much better than a cameravan which can't do the above.
Both static and mobile revenue camera attempts are of course a menace and do not reduce accidents, only a fool would believe otherwise - just look at the statistics as outlined by the SafeSpeed post above.
Has anyone wondered why the government wants to ban the use of devices which detect the presence of both mobile and fixed revenue camera devices, but will allow the use of GPS-based camera detectors?
I'm sure it's because the government has planned an increase in the use of mobile traps, which would of course render GPS-based devices less useful given that they are using a database of known fixed camera locations. Something reserved for after the election no doubt...
Has anyone wondered why the government wants to ban the use of devices which detect the presence of both mobile and fixed revenue camera devices, but will allow the use of GPS-based camera detectors?
I'm sure it's because the government has planned an increase in the use of mobile traps, which would of course render GPS-based devices less useful given that they are using a database of known fixed camera locations. Something reserved for after the election no doubt...
james_j said:
Something reserved for after the election no doubt...
And I predict that Billy Liar and his boys will be back for a third term because there are too many people out there who, even though they are getting shafted by the scameras, and none of the public services work, are quite happy with the financial state of the country: the very rich have enough not to be bothered, the chavs are still getting their giro and the people in the middle have been able to buy that 2nd home abroad and don't want to rock the boat.
I give Billy L 6 months after winning before he hands over to Grim Gordon. THEN you'll look back on pre 2005 as "the good old days"
Sorry. Off topic and I need my medication.
viperdave said:
No Discretion said:
I think the current speed campaign is also coincidental with how we in England have developed financially...
I might be wrong with this idea, but here goes;
As a nation we are richer and have more opportunity to buy fast/expensive cars than we've ever had. Consequence, 17 yr olds are now driving about in decent motors...that accellerate quick etc..where at one time we would have had a hand-me-down Vauxhall Viva or even not had a car at all.
The youths nowadays don't seem to respect what they have....yes they polish them and look after them cosmetically, but the easy-come-easy-go mentality is rife. It's handed on a plate.
Same with people further up the age brackets....the ability with Hire Purchase, 0% finance, better wages etc etc means that performance cars are now well within the budget of the masses...where at one time only a small amount of people would drive such cars.
So we've now got roads full of decent and powerful cars and also a speed enforcement camera epidemic.
As much as I think speed cameras have their place...when sited correctly...I'm still 100% in favour of trafpol outnumbering cameras...for the reasons we all know....
Can’t really see how that works. Name one car than can’t break a 70 MPH speed limit let alone a 30MPH one
Exactly, and the people being pulled are from every walk of life not just boy racers. There does seem to be a recurring theme in your outlook on motorists ND,(donuts in tescos) (I never pull over) are you lumping us all under one category?
>> Edited by apache on Wednesday 29th December 14:41
I passed my test 22 years ago, and drove my dads vauxhall viva. It managed to break all of the speed limits. Amazingly though, I never had an accident, never had the urge to try a desperate manouver round some dawdling berk, why?......because that was when you could drive with a reasonable chance of not ticketted by a "safety" camera. Most motorists used to drive at a speed they felt comfortable at, not now, they drive at half the speed. Accident statistics climbing again, does anybody have an idea why that might be ? 
Back on topic, a friend of my mothers got snapped by a local gatso. She's seventy odd, still drives reasonably compared with a lot of the older drivers down here in Devon. She's been past this camera hundreds of times, and knows full well it's there (it's at the bottom of a hill to make it as profitable, oops sorry "safe" as possible). Drifted slightly over the limit (6mph) flash flash, thank you.
When I told her about the stories of people smashing these things, she replied "the very best of British to them, I wouldn't report them".
A law that most people break, quite simply is a stupid law, and needs changing. Sometimes by civil disobedience if necessary.
Can anybody send these guys down to the westcountry please?
Phil
Back on topic, a friend of my mothers got snapped by a local gatso. She's seventy odd, still drives reasonably compared with a lot of the older drivers down here in Devon. She's been past this camera hundreds of times, and knows full well it's there (it's at the bottom of a hill to make it as profitable, oops sorry "safe" as possible). Drifted slightly over the limit (6mph)
flash flash, thank you. When I told her about the stories of people smashing these things, she replied "the very best of British to them, I wouldn't report them".
A law that most people break, quite simply is a stupid law, and needs changing. Sometimes by civil disobedience if necessary.
Can anybody send these guys down to the westcountry please?
Phil
philthy said:
A law that most people break, quite simply is a stupid law, and needs changing. Sometimes by civil disobedience if necessary.
Phil
I've been saying it for years, if it didn't make so much cash such an obviously failing and unpopular idea would have been binned ages ago.
I had an insurance quote recently, "how many points sir, don't worry everyone has some, even my mother"
No Discretion said:
However No Discretion does have a point, removing/destroying fixed cameras (no matter how amusing/rebellious
The hair dryer (pro-laser) isn't a bad thing. I mean the officer can decide which car he pulls in. He/She might even let the driver off if the excuse/reason is good enough. If the driver is drunk they'll get arrested...If the car isn't registered in their name, that can be sorted out. The tax might be out, it might be uninsured etcetc..
Much better than a cameravan which can't do the above.
Much better to sack most of the DVLA and make them join the road building squad that is deperately needed. Scrapping road tax and RTA insurance and making them part of the fuel cost would eliminate most of the problem. Then just legislate so the insurers need to check MOT annually and most of the trafpol can also join the road building gang.
Oh yeah, speed, well its not a problem anyway so may as well make derestricted mean just that and perhaps the deaths would fall.philthy said:
...a friend of my mothers got snapped by a local gatso. She's seventy odd, still drives reasonably compared with a lot of the older drivers down here in Devon. She's been past this camera hundreds of times, and knows full well it's there (it's at the bottom of a hill to make it as profitable, oops sorry "safe" as possible). Drifted slightly over the limit (6mph)
When I told her about the stories of people smashing these things, she replied "the very best of British to them, I wouldn't report them".
How lovely, bless her, but a thousand curses on the camera people. May she continue to enjoy her driving, as camera free as possible.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Interesting point about safety and road building. I wonder if anyone has ever plotted road spending versus the loss of trend in deaths. I wonder if there could be any correlation.
Roads are increasingly left longer than is safe before resurfacing. Most of the braking zones on the routes I regularly travel now resemble glass. Many of the fen roads are now badly potholed and are developing an adverse camber. Could it be that failure to adequately maintain roads has a bearing on the number of KSI?
Roads are increasingly left longer than is safe before resurfacing. Most of the braking zones on the routes I regularly travel now resemble glass. Many of the fen roads are now badly potholed and are developing an adverse camber. Could it be that failure to adequately maintain roads has a bearing on the number of KSI?
No Discretion - I think parts of your theory are fundamentally flawed. Yes, we have more money etc... and yes cars are much more powerful and "the masses" can purchase a high performance car should they so choose.
BUT.......
Cars are much, much safer. Cars have multiple airbags, ABS on DISC brakes, safety cages/crumple zones, traction control, the list goes on.... I remember inheriting my Grandads Moggie. Crossplys, drum brakes! My Elise (indeeed any modern car) would stop from 120mph in half the distance that would take to stop from 70 mph on a wet motorway.
But, had I followed my missus on a dual carriageway part of the A303, recently reduced from NSL to a 60 mph limit, I too would have got an NIP for doing 70mph. Difference is, in her brand new BMW it is perfectly safe, in a Moggie somewhat less so.
Secondly, average speeds overall in the UK are falling, due to increasing congestion. Yet deaths on the roads are increasing. Drink driving is increasing. Uninsured driving is increasing. In 2003, deaths on UK roads went up. The number of speed cameras has multiplied several fold in the last 5 years. The only notable fact is that serious injuries fell slightly. I would proffer that is everything to do with cars becoming ever safer and nothing to do with cameras.
Speed cameras are there to raise money from the law abiding motorist who registers his car to his home and fills in his NIP. I've had that from the horse's mouth, i.e. the head of my own force's SCP. See my thread on "how to respond to an NIP."
The proloferation of cameras is already having a detrimental effect on the relationship between the public and the Police and if SCP are allowed to spout their usual cr@p they will in fact do more harm than good. More people will tell fibs to their insurers. More people will just drive uninsured. More motorists will Fail to Stop after an accident (FTS RTAs are also on the up). More people will fail to register their vehicles to their addresses. It's already happening.
Don't get me wrong, cameras do have a place. As far as I'm concerned every set of traffic lights can have a camera. Bus lanes can be enforced by cameras. But the sooner we, and by that I mean the Police start telling the truth then we may just be able to undo the damage done and make some real headway into road safety.
BUT.......
Cars are much, much safer. Cars have multiple airbags, ABS on DISC brakes, safety cages/crumple zones, traction control, the list goes on.... I remember inheriting my Grandads Moggie. Crossplys, drum brakes! My Elise (indeeed any modern car) would stop from 120mph in half the distance that would take to stop from 70 mph on a wet motorway.
But, had I followed my missus on a dual carriageway part of the A303, recently reduced from NSL to a 60 mph limit, I too would have got an NIP for doing 70mph. Difference is, in her brand new BMW it is perfectly safe, in a Moggie somewhat less so.
Secondly, average speeds overall in the UK are falling, due to increasing congestion. Yet deaths on the roads are increasing. Drink driving is increasing. Uninsured driving is increasing. In 2003, deaths on UK roads went up. The number of speed cameras has multiplied several fold in the last 5 years. The only notable fact is that serious injuries fell slightly. I would proffer that is everything to do with cars becoming ever safer and nothing to do with cameras.
Speed cameras are there to raise money from the law abiding motorist who registers his car to his home and fills in his NIP. I've had that from the horse's mouth, i.e. the head of my own force's SCP. See my thread on "how to respond to an NIP."
The proloferation of cameras is already having a detrimental effect on the relationship between the public and the Police and if SCP are allowed to spout their usual cr@p they will in fact do more harm than good. More people will tell fibs to their insurers. More people will just drive uninsured. More motorists will Fail to Stop after an accident (FTS RTAs are also on the up). More people will fail to register their vehicles to their addresses. It's already happening.
Don't get me wrong, cameras do have a place. As far as I'm concerned every set of traffic lights can have a camera. Bus lanes can be enforced by cameras. But the sooner we, and by that I mean the Police start telling the truth then we may just be able to undo the damage done and make some real headway into road safety.
xxplod: Hear hear, well said sir!
May I ever so humbly make one qualification to the comment quoted below.
OK as long as the length of the amber and the sensitivity of the camera are appropriate to the situation in question.
The reason I say this is that have seen the results of a set of lights on an NSL dual with amber duration of just over 2 seconds coupled with a camera on a hair trigger.
Camera now removed but for a time..... not pleasant.
May I ever so humbly make one qualification to the comment quoted below.
xxplod said:
As far as I'm concerned every set of traffic lights can have a camera.
OK as long as the length of the amber and the sensitivity of the camera are appropriate to the situation in question.
The reason I say this is that have seen the results of a set of lights on an NSL dual with amber duration of just over 2 seconds coupled with a camera on a hair trigger.
Camera now removed but for a time..... not pleasant.
gh0st said:
Its a shame XXPlod Missus had to get done but in a way its done us a favour.
Hopefully once more police officers get more points on their license for rediculous breaches of the law then things should REALLY get interesting...!
Yeah theyll move to Oz like the other 400 plus...
Well done to the Scamera fellers, hope they go into overtime soon and rid us of more of these malicious menaces.
The whole thing is flawed though. Speed doesn't kill. Crap driving kills. More emphasis on driving standards and road manners would be more effective, but would cost more to police.
Much easier to keep tapping the generally law abiding who will pay up rather than tackle real criminals and uninsured, inconsiderate numpties.
The whole thing is flawed though. Speed doesn't kill. Crap driving kills. More emphasis on driving standards and road manners would be more effective, but would cost more to police.
Much easier to keep tapping the generally law abiding who will pay up rather than tackle real criminals and uninsured, inconsiderate numpties.
ratpit said:
The whole thing is flawed though. Speed doesn't kill. Crap driving kills. More emphasis on driving standards and road manners would be more effective, but would cost more to police.
Much easier to keep tapping the generally law abiding who will pay up rather than tackle real criminals and uninsured, inconsiderate numpties.
Now while I agree camaras can play a role in road safety.....dedicated traffic officers is the best policy...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff