M4 go slow protest, mmmmm!
Discussion
Which is fair enough but my logic suggests why bother slowing down?
If every driver in the country drove past the M4 cameras bang on 70mph there would be a press release from Wilthsire Scamera Partnership saying how successful the scheme had been and how other scamera partnerships will be targetting motorways as a priority.
In the last 7 years of Labour rule we have seen time and again arguments being justified on their packaging rather than the facts of the matter (Fox Hunting, Iraq, Kengestion Charge) and speed cameras are just another of those things.
This is not now and has never been about safety, it is about money. Money which the Labour government will protect vehermently because if they dont, not only will they not be providing a classic police 'service' but they will have to resort to direct taxation to fund the shortfall and people dont like direct taxation...
If every driver in the country drove past the M4 cameras bang on 70mph there would be a press release from Wilthsire Scamera Partnership saying how successful the scheme had been and how other scamera partnerships will be targetting motorways as a priority.
In the last 7 years of Labour rule we have seen time and again arguments being justified on their packaging rather than the facts of the matter (Fox Hunting, Iraq, Kengestion Charge) and speed cameras are just another of those things.
This is not now and has never been about safety, it is about money. Money which the Labour government will protect vehermently because if they dont, not only will they not be providing a classic police 'service' but they will have to resort to direct taxation to fund the shortfall and people dont like direct taxation...
Plotloss said:
Which is fair enough but my logic suggests why bother slowing down?
If every driver in the country drove past the M4 cameras bang on 70mph there would be a press release from Wilthsire Scamera Partnership saying how successful the scheme had been and how other scamera partnerships will be targetting motorways as a priority.
In the last 7 years of Labour rule we have seen time and again arguments being justified on their packaging rather than the facts of the matter (Fox Hunting, Iraq, Kengestion Charge) and speed cameras are just another of those things.
This is not now and has never been about safety, it is about money. Money which the Labour government will protect vehermently because if they dont, not only will they not be providing a classic police 'service' but they will have to resort to direct taxation to fund the shortfall and people dont like direct taxation...
Sounds fair enough to me too, I respect your logic.
Isn't there anybody with a high place in government who can really do anything about this??
Vote in the tories???
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 11:53
funkyrobot said:
Plotloss said:
funkyrobot said:
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
Being a model of perfection I am sure you are familiar with Rule 57
If the UK populace could be relied upon the highway code would need to consist of this one rule and this alone.
Travelling at any velocity only becomes speeding if an arbitary limit is being exceeded.
If the premise of Rule 57 is correct and the public were trained to such a level to be accurately able to make their own judgement on speed there would be no speed limits at all and hence there would be no 'speeding'
This therefore proves that it is the ability to control a car at any given speed rather than the speed itself which is the problem. To frame it in any other way, aside from being delusional, is outright bloody dangerous.
Beautiful post... but wasted when we're dealing with the sort of people who make the following quotes:
Quote by "Not responding"
Speed cameras are ace.
Raise loads of cash from the incompetant and the criminal. I wish that more tax could be raised this way. They also have the added benefit of slowing traffic and saving lives ; and all self funding courtesy of the fools who can't or won't control their cars. end of quote.
Probably responsible for 90% of the greenhouse gasses from the amount of lentils he eats.
I post on that site but my thoughts are very different from the above.
You'd be surprised at how much of a battering I have taken on that forum with my comments about speed cameras doing nothing for safety.
There ist a gang on C+ who post the voice of reason... one ist a paid up safespeed member, und there are others - including three other furry feline family members who put record straight on s/cams. Und funkiest robotic one does at least take on the militiant muesli munchers on there.
COAST did not go down too well on there though...
Cannot think why .. ist HC und Road Craft condensed to one word 
funkyrobot said:
Which is fair enough but my logic suggests why bother slowing down?
If every driver in the country drove past the M4 cameras bang on 70mph there would be a press release from Wilthsire Scamera Partnership saying how successful the scheme had been and how other scamera partnerships will be targetting motorways as a priority.
In the last 7 years of Labour rule we have seen time and again arguments being justified on their packaging rather than the facts of the matter (Fox Hunting, Iraq, Kengestion Charge) and speed cameras are just another of those things.
This is not now and has never been about safety, it is about money. Money which the Labour government will protect vehermently because if they dont, not only will they not be providing a classic police 'service' but they will have to resort to direct taxation to fund the shortfall and people dont like direct taxation...
Sounds fair enough to me too, I respect your logic.
Isn't there anybody with a high place in government who can really do anything about this??
Vote in the tories???
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 11:53
Und ist also to employ those who otherwise unemployable.
Ist job creation, creative accountancy....und we are being taxed to fund these jobs.
In meantime...accidents go up.
But Plotloss.... if we all drive at 70 mph und accidents still occur because of micro-climate on the stretch, poor mirror, lane discipline und COAST skills...then it could not be a success.
Also ... it can cause bunching at 70 mph.....or the wave affect as people brake suddenly to below speed limit on spotting the scam.
Because that ist what they do... hit the brakes even if they are legal ... ist automatic reaction for majority. See it all the time at Shap (und destructive one wonders why there are accidents
) Und then we have the 5 mile jam as result of the ripple..... We need that bit of slack to keep our fastest und safest roads fast und safe....
funkyrobot said:
funkyrobot said:
Couldn't possibly get as boring as you.
I'm also glad we haven't met in person.
Well I dont make a habit of socialising with children so its unlikely to happen...
Maybe its because that court order you have stops you from going near them now.
3 days it took you to come back with that?! Too much homework over the weekend was it....
I suggest you actually take and pass a driving test (a real one, not a legoland special) before you make comments on a driving forum. It gives you the knowledge to back it up...
gh0st said:
gh0st said:
funkyrobot said:
Couldn't possibly get as boring as you.
I'm also glad we haven't met in person.
Well I dont make a habit of socialising with children so its unlikely to happen...
Maybe its because that court order you have stops you from going near them now.
3 days it took you to come back with that?! Too much homework over the weekend was it....
I suggest you actually take and pass a driving test (a real one, not a legoland special) before you make comments on a driving forum. It gives you the knowledge to back it up...
Took me a lot less than that to think that up, but due to other commitments (stuff like girlfriend (you need to kiss a girl, its nice you know), cycling, homework from work (you were right about that) etc etc) I have been away from the comp.
As for where you took your driving test, god only knows. You haven't really discussed anything, just slagged me from the start. Shows how much you have to add doesn't it.
I have both the legoland and a real driving licence, where'd you get yours printed? Did a mate do it for you? Must have. Is the pic on your profile the one you have on your licence id??
funkyrobot said:
I don't intend to argue about this, because as I mentioned before they only catch speeders. How can you argue with that?
Therefore they are a tax (if you could call it that) on people who speed. The word 'tax' isn't really appropriate for this, the word 'fine' is much better.
It could in theory be labelled a stupidity tax, don't speed, don't get taxed. Simple. You speed, you know you are speeding, you get caught, you get fined.
The logic I apply is oh so easy, don't speed and don't get caught. Some people just fail to embrace this because they want to be right, even though it is very easy to understand.
Speeding is still a crime, even though people think it is a silly law. Would you be happy if burglary was thought of in this way and wasn't investigated or tackled because it is a silly law??
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 10:55
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 10:56
Funky, I have some news that you may be interested in.
I've heard reliable reports that in an attempt to reduce bicycle fatalities, the government will soon be passing a law that will limit all non-motorised bicycles to 10 mph, of course they will be enforcing it strictly with the newly formed 'cycle safe camera partnership'.
Unfortunately, I think the law will be broke by most cyclists, well the stupid ones anyway, but what will your stance be?
Will you dare stand up for common sense, afterall 10 mph is safely exceedable when conditions permit, or will you obey those who know best?
The question I guess is, will you feel a need to speed and is it logical? It's not so easy.
Imagine getting caught at 12mph and having to pay them £120. ( it's double the normal amount as there are no panalty points ).
I think it will be a very big revenue earner or tax as you say, aslong as the cyclists dont kick up too much of a fuss that is. Many, like youself I assume, will just accept it and not break the law? It's oh so easy.
Any that dont and think it's a silly law will be investigated and tackled I'm sure.
>> Edited by deeps on Monday 25th April 22:10
iaint said:
This would be fine, but have you seen the level of training the public get at the moment to pass their driving tests??
Compare, contrast and discuss that with the level of training cyclists must receive before being allowed to clutter up our roads...
Ha ha, YOUR roads, utter nonsense. Cyclists have just as much right to be on the roads as motorists do.
NormanD said:
There must be a special section in the highway code that allows cyclists to ride on the pavement, cross red signs, ride against the traffic, no insurance, no lights & still pay NO ROAD TAX!!
Tell me about it. One thing about being a cyclist is that I get really really pi**ed off with the idiots who give us a bad name.
I don't do anything of the above, and as for road tax, well what I am taxed on my wages etc covers that.
I deeply hate cyclists who ride on pavements and jump red lights.
In light of your comments though, should I label you as a very bad driver just because I saw an idiot driver today nearly cause two head on crashes because of stupid overtaking? Always the same isn't it, the minority do something stupid and the majority get blamed.
deeps said:
I don't intend to argue about this, because as I mentioned before they only catch speeders. How can you argue with that?
Therefore they are a tax (if you could call it that) on people who speed. The word 'tax' isn't really appropriate for this, the word 'fine' is much better.
It could in theory be labelled a stupidity tax, don't speed, don't get taxed. Simple. You speed, you know you are speeding, you get caught, you get fined.
The logic I apply is oh so easy, don't speed and don't get caught. Some people just fail to embrace this because they want to be right, even though it is very easy to understand.
Speeding is still a crime, even though people think it is a silly law. Would you be happy if burglary was thought of in this way and wasn't investigated or tackled because it is a silly law??
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 10:55
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 10:56
Funky, I have some news that you may be interested in.
I've heard reliable reports that in an attempt to reduce bicycle fatalities, the government will soon be passing a law that will limit all non-motorised bicycles to 10 mph, of course they will be enforcing it strictly with the newly formed 'cycle safe camera partnership'.
Unfortunately, I think the law will be broke by most cyclists, well the stupid ones anyway, but what will your stance be?
Will you dare stand up for common sense, afterall 10 mph is safely exceedable when conditions permit, or will you obey those who know best?
The question I guess is, will you feel a need to speed and is it logical? It's not so easy.
Imagine getting caught at 12mph and having to pay them £120. ( it's double the normal amount as there are no panalty points ).
I think it will be a very big revenue earner or tax as you say, aslong as the cyclists dont kick up too much of a fuss that is. Many, like youself I assume, will just accept it and not break the law? It's oh so easy.
Any that dont and think it's a silly law will be investigated and tackled I'm sure.
>> Edited by deeps on Monday 25th April 22:10
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.
funkyrobot said:
I don't do anything of the above, and as for road tax, well what I am taxed on my wages etc covers that.
Thats awfully convenient...My income tax covers me for running over cyclists.
Does anyone else here have any special arrangements with the inland revenue that allows you special priveledges on the roads?
funkyrobot said:
funkyrobot said:
I don't intend to argue about this, because as I mentioned before they only catch speeders. How can you argue with that?
Therefore they are a tax (if you could call it that) on people who speed. The word 'tax' isn't really appropriate for this, the word 'fine' is much better.
It could in theory be labelled a stupidity tax, don't speed, don't get taxed. Simple. You speed, you know you are speeding, you get caught, you get fined.
The logic I apply is oh so easy, don't speed and don't get caught. Some people just fail to embrace this because they want to be right, even though it is very easy to understand.
Speeding is still a crime, even though people think it is a silly law. Would you be happy if burglary was thought of in this way and wasn't investigated or tackled because it is a silly law??
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 10:55
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 10:56
Funky, I have some news that you may be interested in.
I've heard reliable reports that in an attempt to reduce bicycle fatalities, the government will soon be passing a law that will limit all non-motorised bicycles to 10 mph, of course they will be enforcing it strictly with the newly formed 'cycle safe camera partnership'.
Unfortunately, I think the law will be broke by most cyclists, well the stupid ones anyway, but what will your stance be?
Will you dare stand up for common sense, afterall 10 mph is safely exceedable when conditions permit, or will you obey those who know best?
The question I guess is, will you feel a need to speed and is it logical? It's not so easy.
Imagine getting caught at 12mph and having to pay them £120. ( it's double the normal amount as there are no panalty points ).
I think it will be a very big revenue earner or tax as you say, aslong as the cyclists dont kick up too much of a fuss that is. Many, like youself I assume, will just accept it and not break the law? It's oh so easy.
Any that dont and think it's a silly law will be investigated and tackled I'm sure.
>> Edited by deeps on Monday 25th April 22:10
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.
But as you have often said, the law is the law. If the suggested universal limit for cyclists comes in, it's easy to avoid. Just don't speed!
Funkyrobot said:
My own logic just fails to see what constant speeding does to help the cause, thats all!
Ok let me demonstrate what constantly speeding does for the cause.
Lift up your left hand, and fold the little finger and the one next to it into your palm.
Now curl your thumb around them.
Extend the remaining two fingers upward towards the ceiling while allowing them to separate.
Thats the message that gets sent to the theiving ratslags scamships every time we exceed the speed limits. Its called "Defiance".
Just a quick question for you: If there was no such thing as a speedometer and no such things as speed limit signs, how fast would it be safe to travel at?
Think about that one for a bit cos its applicable to the way good drivers already DO drive.
Bliarout, YHM, progress has been further made.
funkyrobot said:
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
Because I want to get 'there' faster - a simple concept don't you think?
funkyrobot said:
...and as for road tax, well what I am taxed on my wages etc covers that.
Er, yeah right!? Well I'm "taxed on my wages etc." [sic] so does that exempt me from paying it too... and everyone else who has a car and pays income tax?
funkyrobot said:
Remember the character on the "Fast show", the one in the pub who changed his mind all the time just to try and fit in.........
I have actually, I think thats you.
Ohh, that's such a nasty thing to say.
Always changing my mind, I used to think you were a troll. I now realise you are just a fool.
I'm not the one who described Pistonheads (Without having the nerve to actually name it....
) as, to paraphrase, "Making my skin crawl". Funky's thread
Then tries to make us believe he's a petrolhead.
Funky, if you seriously think that there is enough action to keep you alert on a lightly-trafficed motorway in good conditions at 70mph, then I think you need more training and experience.
Archetypal numptie.
deeps said:
Funky, I have some news that you may be interested in.
I've heard reliable reports that in an attempt to reduce bicycle fatalities, the government will soon be passing a law that will limit all non-motorised bicycles to 10 mph, of course they will be enforcing it strictly with the newly formed 'cycle safe camera partnership'.
Unfortunately, I think the law will be broke by most cyclists, well the stupid ones anyway, but what will your stance be?
Will you dare stand up for common sense, afterall 10 mph is safely exceedable when conditions permit, or will you obey those who know best?
The question I guess is, will you feel a need to speed and is it logical? It's not so easy.
Imagine getting caught at 12mph and having to pay them £120. ( it's double the normal amount as there are no panalty points ).
I think it will be a very big revenue earner or tax as you say, aslong as the cyclists dont kick up too much of a fuss that is. Many, like youself I assume, will just accept it and not break the law? It's oh so easy.
Any that dont and think it's a silly law will be investigated and tackled I'm sure.
Can't someone invent a camera that detects and fines certain road users for wearing ridiculously pink, offensively tight shorts?
I'd rather have that than speed cameras for cyclists!
funkyrobot said:
funkyrobot said:
I don't intend to argue about this, because as I mentioned before they only catch speeders. How can you argue with that?
Therefore they are a tax (if you could call it that) on people who speed. The word 'tax' isn't really appropriate for this, the word 'fine' is much better.
It could in theory be labelled a stupidity tax, don't speed, don't get taxed. Simple. You speed, you know you are speeding, you get caught, you get fined.
The logic I apply is oh so easy, don't speed and don't get caught. Some people just fail to embrace this because they want to be right, even though it is very easy to understand.
Speeding is still a crime, even though people think it is a silly law. Would you be happy if burglary was thought of in this way and wasn't investigated or tackled because it is a silly law??
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 10:55
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 10:56
Funky, I have some news that you may be interested in.
I've heard reliable reports that in an attempt to reduce bicycle fatalities, the government will soon be passing a law that will limit all non-motorised bicycles to 10 mph, of course they will be enforcing it strictly with the newly formed 'cycle safe camera partnership'.
Unfortunately, I think the law will be broke by most cyclists, well the stupid ones anyway, but what will your stance be?
Will you dare stand up for common sense, afterall 10 mph is safely exceedable when conditions permit, or will you obey those who know best?
The question I guess is, will you feel a need to speed and is it logical? It's not so easy.
Imagine getting caught at 12mph and having to pay them £120. ( it's double the normal amount as there are no panalty points ).
I think it will be a very big revenue earner or tax as you say, aslong as the cyclists dont kick up too much of a fuss that is. Many, like youself I assume, will just accept it and not break the law? It's oh so easy.
Any that dont and think it's a silly law will be investigated and tackled I'm sure.
>> Edited by deeps on Monday 25th April 22:10
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.
Your answer should have been that if a speed limit were introduced for bicycles then you would happily adhere to it, as you insist we drivers should.
Why the difference?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff