RE: Speed Camera Bombed
Discussion
spnracing said:
victormeldrew said: These cameras are weapons of mass harrassment, and the governments refusal to co-operate in their removal constitutes reasonable grounds for military stikes.
Military stikes eh.
Cameras are there because motorists continue to drive too fast. Surveys have shown that a majority of motorists are in favour of cameras, not against them.
Refusal to co-operate with their existence seems to me to also justify 'military stikes' - against the people who try and destroy them.
Fair enough, we'll just have to become "freedom fighters" then
Andy
spnracing said:
victormeldrew said: These cameras are weapons of mass harrassment, and the governments refusal to co-operate in their removal constitutes reasonable grounds for military stikes.
Military stikes eh.
Cameras are there because motorists continue to drive too fast. Surveys have shown that a majority of motorists are in favour of cameras, not against them.
Refusal to co-operate with their existence seems to me to also justify 'military stikes' - against the people who try and destroy them.
Isn't there some other forum on the internet where you'd be more at home?
Personally i enjoy hearing others views on such topics as these, itd be no fun, with no opportunity for education for either side of the argument if only one side had their say.
I may not agree with what spn has said, but id not want him censored or otherwise quietened.
Blimey! Was that a reasonable posting? Whats up with me?
I may not agree with what spn has said, but id not want him censored or otherwise quietened.
Blimey! Was that a reasonable posting? Whats up with me?
spnracing said: Can't find the AA one at the moment.
From BBC News;
Residents in Cambridgeshire have shown their overwhelming support for Safety Cameras in the county. More than 1200 road users were surveyed to find out what they really thought of safety cameras and their responses showed they were widely accepted as a tool to save lives.
8 out of 10 people agreed the cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to speed limits and not to punish drivers
77% (942 people) supported cameras as a method to reduce casualties
64% (775 people) felt the primary aim of safety cameras is to save lives
Nearly two thirds agreed fewer crashes were likely on roads where cameras are installed
58% (704 people) cameras mean dangerous drivers more likely to be caught
sure.
First you brainwash people by pounding them with wrong or fiddled figures (motto: 55 billion billion flies can't be wrong - eat more sh*t) and then you ask them questions. What do you expect the outcome will be?!?
These surveys are about as much use as a girlfriend with headache.
spnracing said: Can't find the AA one at the moment.
From BBC News;
Residents in Cambridgeshire have shown their overwhelming support for Safety Cameras in the county. More than 1200 road users were surveyed to find out what they really thought of safety cameras and their responses showed they were widely accepted as a tool to save lives.
8 out of 10 people agreed the cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to speed limits and not to punish drivers
77% (942 people) supported cameras as a method to reduce casualties
64% (775 people) felt the primary aim of safety cameras is to save lives
Nearly two thirds agreed fewer crashes were likely on roads where cameras are installed
58% (704 people) cameras mean dangerous drivers more likely to be caught
So they're calling them "Safety Cameras" now? Further proof that the political weasels realize that we're starting to see through their cheap lies.
One method of trying to make something less odious is to change the name to something that no one wants to argue against. Who could be against something called a "Safety Camera"?
Another method: Go out and poll a bunch of people who don't really understand the issues and ask them what they "think". Then post these uninformed opinions as alleged facts.
How many of the people polled are aware of the fact that when motorway speed limits are increased or eliminated, injuries and accidents decrease?
victormeldrew said:
Cameras are there because motorists continue to drive too fast. Surveys have shown that a majority of motorists are in favour of cameras, not against them.
Wrong. Speed cameras are there as revenue generators, nothing else.
Neither speed limits nor speed cameras to enforce them increase the safety of the roads, in fact the opposite it true and has been proven repeatedly.
The fact that surveys show support for them is irrelvant. Even if the survey were accurate (which is questionable), they are still irrelevant because the people surveyed don't have any authority to place or remove the cameras in question.
It's like asking chickens whether they're in favor of pork sausage.
"victormeldrew said:"
No he didn't, jon, spnracing is the culprit.
spnracing.........are you unwell?
Government surveys or not, have you ever read the questions in these surveys? Show me one that's not biased, without loaded questions, and I might accept the results.
I also need to see who's being interviewed. Select the right people, and you get the result you want. They're quite easy to spot. They usually sit close to the steering wheel and look through it.
What use is public opinion that believes speed cameras catch dangerous driving? Cameras don't, police do.
Do you REALLY think these surveys mean anything?
You said "motorists continue to drive too fast"
That's something of a generalisation, what exactly do you mean?
No he didn't, jon, spnracing is the culprit.
spnracing.........are you unwell?
Government surveys or not, have you ever read the questions in these surveys? Show me one that's not biased, without loaded questions, and I might accept the results.
I also need to see who's being interviewed. Select the right people, and you get the result you want. They're quite easy to spot. They usually sit close to the steering wheel and look through it.
What use is public opinion that believes speed cameras catch dangerous driving? Cameras don't, police do.
Do you REALLY think these surveys mean anything?
You said "motorists continue to drive too fast"
That's something of a generalisation, what exactly do you mean?
spnracing......just spotted your reference to the AA survey. If you find the questions, you only get half the picture. You don't know who responded.
Pointless exercise anyway, they're sold on cameras.
They "play an important role in road safety.......(they) have been successful in cutting down the number of road accidents."
Oh, really...........?
In common with econuts, the AA has a problem of self-interest. In their case, it's profit. They no longer represent the interests of members, safety or motoring in general.
Pointless exercise anyway, they're sold on cameras.
They "play an important role in road safety.......(they) have been successful in cutting down the number of road accidents."
Oh, really...........?
In common with econuts, the AA has a problem of self-interest. In their case, it's profit. They no longer represent the interests of members, safety or motoring in general.
To be totally fair to SPN, i think hes fallen for the same bullshit that a lot of others have.
I dont think hes fully aware of the public feeling regarding the speed issue, but like i said before, i dont blame him for that, the bullshit thats spouted by the scamera partnerships just has an effect on some people, something its designed to do.
Thats not to say he dosnt know what hes talking about, and im not trying to be patronising in any way towards him, but really mate, ya have to try and see thru the lies that theyre spinning for you.
I dont think hes fully aware of the public feeling regarding the speed issue, but like i said before, i dont blame him for that, the bullshit thats spouted by the scamera partnerships just has an effect on some people, something its designed to do.
Thats not to say he dosnt know what hes talking about, and im not trying to be patronising in any way towards him, but really mate, ya have to try and see thru the lies that theyre spinning for you.
spnracing.......back again.
You said "Just search google for speed camera surveys, you'll find a few more, all in favour."
This got me thinking, so I did.
Went through 15 pages. If we ignore government/police/scam partnerships, I came up with three, being :
Slower Speeds Initiative
Transport 2000
One sponsored by SERCo, Gatso manufacturers
No surprise with that lot.
Where are the others, do I need to progress beyond page 15? Getting bored...........
>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Friday 7th February 18:50
You said "Just search google for speed camera surveys, you'll find a few more, all in favour."
This got me thinking, so I did.
Went through 15 pages. If we ignore government/police/scam partnerships, I came up with three, being :
Slower Speeds Initiative
Transport 2000
One sponsored by SERCo, Gatso manufacturers
No surprise with that lot.
Where are the others, do I need to progress beyond page 15? Getting bored...........
>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Friday 7th February 18:50
just a thought as I was reading this thread and someone mentioned nitroglycerine..
everybody's heard of the anarchists cookbook right..
Thermite + Gatso = many many giggles!!!
Ted: do the world a real service and post all recipes for ways of exploding/destroying/melting gatso's on the front page of PH... we will all love you forever!! :-)
everybody's heard of the anarchists cookbook right..
Thermite + Gatso = many many giggles!!!
Ted: do the world a real service and post all recipes for ways of exploding/destroying/melting gatso's on the front page of PH... we will all love you forever!! :-)
WalterU said:
spnracing said: Can't find the AA one at the moment.
From BBC News;
Residents in Cambridgeshire have shown their overwhelming support for Safety Cameras in the county. More than 1200 road users were surveyed to find out what they really thought of safety cameras and their responses showed they were widely accepted as a tool to save lives.
8 out of 10 people agreed the cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to speed limits and not to punish drivers
77% (942 people) supported cameras as a method to reduce casualties
64% (775 people) felt the primary aim of safety cameras is to save lives
Nearly two thirds agreed fewer crashes were likely on roads where cameras are installed
58% (704 people) cameras mean dangerous drivers more likely to be caught
sure.
First you brainwash people by pounding them with wrong or fiddled figures (motto: 55 billion billion flies can't be wrong - eat more sh*t) and then you ask them questions. What do you expect the outcome will be?!?
These surveys are about as much use as a girlfriend with headache.
-------------------------------------------------------Just out of curiosity spnracing what to you constitutes a "Road User", our three cats walk across ,and sometimes sit on the road to me that makes them road users,would you agree?
Ron.
Respect to Captain Gatso.
>> Edited by ronj on Friday 7th February 21:32
Pierscoe1 said: just a thought as I was reading this thread and someone mentioned nitroglycerine..
everybody's heard of the anarchists cookbook right..
Thermite + Gatso = many many giggles!!!
Ted: do the world a real service and post all recipes for ways of exploding/destroying/melting gatso's on the front page of PH... we will all love you forever!! :-)
WARNING NEARLY EVERY THING IN THE anarchists cookbook IS INCORRECT
or total ballshit
TRY IT AT YOUR PERIL TRUST ME.
pluss handerling nitro will give you the bigest headache you have ever had.
ever heard of a nitro headache
some time back I posted the real way to make
nitroglycerine usless on it own and very dangerous to Handel.
But poor ted nearly had a heart attack and deleted it.
but used as a base for many safer high explosives.
I sat safer as there is no such thing as a totally safe one
just out of interest for those who don't know.
with high explosive the most danger comes from the making and handerling of the blasting caps
not the high explosives them selfs
you could quit happy play foot ball with most moden high explosivs
due to the starter explosive being much sesertive to friction ignition and decompression.
RDX, or cyclonite, is a very insensitive high explosive compound. The actual chemical name is cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, although the chemical names hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine; Hexogen; trimethylenetrinitramine; sym-trimethylenetrinitramine ;Hexolite; 1,3,5-trinitrohexahydro-p-triazine; 1,3,5-trinitrohexahydro-s-triazine; cyclotrimrthylene-trinitramine; 1,3,5-triaza-1,3,5-trinitrocyclohexane; trinitrohexahydrotriazine; and T4 are also used. RDX itself stands for Royal Demolition eXplosive and comes from Great Britain, cyclonite is the American usage, Hexogen is for Germans, and T4 is Italian. RDX is a very powerful military explosive that can be stored for long periods of time and handled safely. RDX is usually mixed with other explosives and plasticizers to make a variety of useful compositions for military and civilian use, C-4 and Semtex are two such compounds. It seems so much RDX is made that most scientific books give industrial schematics for thousands of pounds instead of lab preparations. The laboratory methods here are not as efficient as in industry, but are fine. The first method uses methenamine, or hexamethylenetetramine, which can be purchased as heating tablets or synthesized in the lab. The second makes use of acetic anhydride
Put 335 mL of 100% nitric acid in a 500-mL beaker, cool the acid to below 30 °C by setting the beaker in a salt-ice bath. The nitric acid must be as concentrated as possible, it must also be free of nitrogen oxides. Slowly add 75 g of methenamine in small portions to the acid while stirring. The temperature must be kept between 20 °C to 30 °C during the addition
the rest is cencered to save ted doing it
>> Edited by outlaw on Friday 7th February 23:26
deltaf said: To be totally fair to SPN, i think hes fallen for the same bullshit that a lot of others have.
Or maybe I can just see both sides of the argument - which is half way to winning it.
Some other points - why are the opinions of the people questioned in the surveys any less valuable than your own?
Can ANYONE find ANYWHERE a survey that supports the view that camera's are unpopular?
spnracing said:
Can ANYONE find ANYWHERE a survey that supports the view that camera's are unpopular?
Survey's are completely useless IMO, the results are so easily manipulated that they are meaningless. "There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics". 68.9% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I think that the questions asked and the way that theyre asked can have an outcome on the answers given by the subjects SPN.
For instance, asking some one if speed cameras save lives and then asking if they will catch dangerous drivers automatically persuades these people that speeding is automatically dangerous.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Whats the definition of a dangerous driver?
Depends on the person being asked surely.
There ARE most definetely times when speed CAN contribute to danger, in residential areas, in narrow lanes etc etc, id not argue otherwise.
What i will argue about is that speeding in itself is ALWAYS dangerous, this simply isnt accurate.
Surveys such as the one you quoted are always loaded using the method ive demonstrated by those who wish to affect the outcome for their own purposes.
The purpose at the present time is to keep peddling the 33% lie and hammering motorists for exceeding nonsensical "limits".
I dunno if you share any common ground with me on this posting, but id like to think you may do, and ive tried to be as reasonable in my argument as i can be by trying to see your side also.
For instance, asking some one if speed cameras save lives and then asking if they will catch dangerous drivers automatically persuades these people that speeding is automatically dangerous.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Whats the definition of a dangerous driver?
Depends on the person being asked surely.
There ARE most definetely times when speed CAN contribute to danger, in residential areas, in narrow lanes etc etc, id not argue otherwise.
What i will argue about is that speeding in itself is ALWAYS dangerous, this simply isnt accurate.
Surveys such as the one you quoted are always loaded using the method ive demonstrated by those who wish to affect the outcome for their own purposes.
The purpose at the present time is to keep peddling the 33% lie and hammering motorists for exceeding nonsensical "limits".
I dunno if you share any common ground with me on this posting, but id like to think you may do, and ive tried to be as reasonable in my argument as i can be by trying to see your side also.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff