F**King livid.
Discussion
madant69 said:
Toad, this is clearly an "I need more mescallin" post.
Instead of whining about a situation that's out of your control, why not take steps to increase roadcraft skills? Why the bloody hell was your brother accelerating before the nsl sign anyway...can't he wait, or doesn't he think he has to??
Most of you need to change the way you think...where would YOU put a camera? Behind trees? Behind a roadsign? At the start of a dual carriageway? If you think a site is a sneaky-beaky location then slow down ffs.
Calling people scum cause they out-thought your bro is a real no-brainer arguement...
dragstar said:
im not changing the way i think.
just because scameras are everywhere doesnt mean i have to accept it.
yes he was caught, and yes posting insults doesnt help anybody, but what happened to toady's bro aint right either.
accept it? never
wouldent want you to m8, I know I wont
up the revoluution I say.
madant69 said:
Toad, this is clearly an "I need more mescallin" post.
Instead of whining about a situation that's out of your control, why not take steps to increase roadcraft skills? Why the bloody hell was your brother accelerating before the nsl sign anyway...can't he wait, or doesn't he think he has to??
Most of you need to change the way you think...where would YOU put a camera? Behind trees? Behind a roadsign? At the start of a dual carriageway? If you think a site is a sneaky-beaky location then slow down ffs.
Calling people scum cause they out-thought your bro is a real no-brainer arguement...
Must admit that insulting all police officers and even the civilian operators of these vans is a bit extreme. Simple fact is whether we like it or not they have targets to meet, and those targets are set, I assume, by the Home Office.
However to make a comment concerning the increasing speed as approaching an in the limit. The camera sites are suppossed to be safety related. I think it is fair to say that in all all cases where the limit changes it occurs some distance away from the hazard which, in theory, is the cause of the limit change.
Therefore it follows that if the "safety partnerships" were really interested in safety they should be targetting drivers approaching the hazard not leaving it. This is particulary true where the limit has arbitrally been reduced in the first place.
There are many roads where limits have been reduced shortly followed by the installation of a camera. Surely the correct procedure if a road does have accident figures to support a camera is too install the camera to enforce the current limit. If the accident figures remain high then there is (maybe)justification for reducing the limit. The alternative is to look at other ways of improving the road.
Whilst the goverment and some elements of the police might like to crow about the number of speeders caught I believe that at some point a cticical mass will be reached and they will either find the jobless totals increasing, or all those that rely on cars for work crawling around so productivity drops, wrecking the economy.
None of this is to say that all speeding is good, however it does appear that some "safety partnerships" give the impression of having a fixation with raising revenue and not targetting the real causes of accidents.
318ti said:
I agree that this is more about money than safety but you do have to be so careful.
As for the locus of the vans. Our scameraship people put little camera on the road side and the van is parked out of site. That could be what this was. Camera was in 40 zone so that when you see van, it's too late.
As a matter of interest where does this happen, and how big is the camera?
Whilst I indeed sympathise with your brother, there really is no excuse for calling the police "filth". The bib on here I have always found to be pleasant and very helpful and the last thing we want is for childish name calling to pi$$ them off and make them leave. Pistonheads would be a far poorer forum without them.
Also outlaw suggesting he would drive without insurance and a license shows him to be a complete and utter muppet. Just imagine how you would feel if you made a mistake and crashed into someone and seriously injured/killed them. Without any insurance to cover it, you would prob be sent to prison and the person(s) you had injured would have their lives ruined with little chance of compensation.
But then you dont make mistakes do you, so I guess that wouldnt happen. Its just everyones elses fault that you have got points on your licence i guess
Also outlaw suggesting he would drive without insurance and a license shows him to be a complete and utter muppet. Just imagine how you would feel if you made a mistake and crashed into someone and seriously injured/killed them. Without any insurance to cover it, you would prob be sent to prison and the person(s) you had injured would have their lives ruined with little chance of compensation.
But then you dont make mistakes do you, so I guess that wouldnt happen. Its just everyones elses fault that you have got points on your licence i guess
SpudGunner said:
Whilst I indeed sympathise with your brother, there really is no excuse for calling the police "filth". The bib on here I have always found to be pleasant and very helpful and the last thing we want is for childish name calling to pi$$ them off and make them leave. Pistonheads would be a far poorer forum without them.
Also outlaw suggesting he would drive without insurance and a license shows him to be a complete and utter muppet. Just imagine how you would feel if you made a mistake and crashed into someone and seriously injured/killed them. Without any insurance to cover it, you would prob be sent to prison and the person(s) you had injured would have their lives ruined with little chance of compensation.
But then you dont make mistakes do you, so I guess that wouldnt happen. Its just everyones elses fault that you have got points on your licence i guess
Don't you find it even slightly curious that we have all mysteriously become unsafe drivers in the last few years, if you believe the scamera partnerships..
Do you really think that we will all be personally in the wrong when millions of previously good drivers are being banned by a new government initiative?
I think it is a pile of crap, and i will certainly drive with no insurance when my license is taken away..it is either that or fail to be able to function.
a few years ago, i would never even have considered it, but then a few years ago i would not have felt that my license was unfairly at risk.
Silver Back Mike: Fair point - I've calmed down a bit now. He has options - after even more thought it struck me he has the option of continuing to drive without his license. What’s he got to lose? Their only way of taking his job is to ban him - if he ignores the ban they've got no other hold over him. I've chilled right out now but after yesterday I seriously think one of these guys is going to get wasted one day, maybe soon. Agree following you home is an outright disgrace.
FinF: Hi mate. Was spitting blood yesterday! As, I hope, you know 99.999 of Toad nonsense is said with a smile on my face - yesterday was in the heat of the moment. Will find the exact stretch and mail it to you! Pa Toad knows the road.
madant69: Dunno what mascallin is but if you're saying that the world will be a better place with my brother out of work then I'd be interested to hear your logic. As I say elsewhere, if it's serious enough to lose his career over why not just kill him or give him life imprisonment? It would be cheaper FFS! The reason he won't be doing advanced training his because he'll be f**king banned!
chrisgr31: If targets are set by the home office why do some police forces have a sensible attitude to speed enforcement. I'm up and down a couple of junctions of the M23 twice a day. Never yet seen a scamera van. Not seen a plod car on a bridge. The only time I've come across plod was in a residential area *without* a radar gun checking what people were up to randomly. Exactly what policing was about in the good old days! Agree with the rest of your post. I've already conceded my phraseology was unacceptable.
spudgunner: Agree with paragraph one 100 pc. (Although at the time of writing I'd have been very happy for the PH plod to disappear.) Can't agree with your criticisms of outlaw. Driving without insurance, logbook or tax is the *only* sensible way to behave in this climate. It's us legal ones who are morons. If my brother hadn't been foolishly legal they'd have let him get away with it. If two people speed, it's the legal one that gets done. That's official acceptance and encouragement of Outlaws tactics.
>> Edited by toad_oftoadhall on Saturday 1st November 11:24
FinF: Hi mate. Was spitting blood yesterday! As, I hope, you know 99.999 of Toad nonsense is said with a smile on my face - yesterday was in the heat of the moment. Will find the exact stretch and mail it to you! Pa Toad knows the road.
madant69: Dunno what mascallin is but if you're saying that the world will be a better place with my brother out of work then I'd be interested to hear your logic. As I say elsewhere, if it's serious enough to lose his career over why not just kill him or give him life imprisonment? It would be cheaper FFS! The reason he won't be doing advanced training his because he'll be f**king banned!
chrisgr31: If targets are set by the home office why do some police forces have a sensible attitude to speed enforcement. I'm up and down a couple of junctions of the M23 twice a day. Never yet seen a scamera van. Not seen a plod car on a bridge. The only time I've come across plod was in a residential area *without* a radar gun checking what people were up to randomly. Exactly what policing was about in the good old days! Agree with the rest of your post. I've already conceded my phraseology was unacceptable.
spudgunner: Agree with paragraph one 100 pc. (Although at the time of writing I'd have been very happy for the PH plod to disappear.) Can't agree with your criticisms of outlaw. Driving without insurance, logbook or tax is the *only* sensible way to behave in this climate. It's us legal ones who are morons. If my brother hadn't been foolishly legal they'd have let him get away with it. If two people speed, it's the legal one that gets done. That's official acceptance and encouragement of Outlaws tactics.
>> Edited by toad_oftoadhall on Saturday 1st November 11:24
zorro said:
...I'd have been very happy for the PH plod to disappear.)
Yeah and fk it up for the rest of us when we may need some advice/assistance in the future. Get a grip.
As I've said 15 times, including in the post you're replying to: I have now got a grip I'm 99 per cent back to my old self.
ledfoot said:
If someone has a job that depends on them having a clean licence then they shouldn't be speeding
You have a choice in life...to speed or not to speed, that is the question
that from someone with the moniker ledfoot, why don't you f**k off to Caravanners weekly you sanctimonious twat
toad_oftoadhall said:
chrisgr31: If targets are set by the home office why do some police forces have a sensible attitude to speed enforcement. I'm up and down a couple of junctions of the M23 twice a day. Never yet seen a scamera van. Not seen a plod car on a bridge. The only time I've come across plod was in a residential area *without* a radar gun checking what people were up to randomly. Exactly what policing was about in the good old days! Agree with the rest of your post. I've already conceded my phraseology was unacceptable.
Ok good point, not sure who does set the targets, and perhas we ought to take steps to find out. However one thing is certain the targets aren't set by the policeman on the ground or civilian operater of the camera itself.
I have no doubt that if camera locations were chosen by traffic police we would have them in justified locations.
As regards the M23 I do wonder who polices it. After all about 10 miles of it is in Sussex, and I can't believe they have a motorway traffic unit for only 10 miles of motorway! The other bit is in Surrey but don't they have enough to do with the M25?
I have posted before that the Sussex Safety Partnership seems to be sensible at present, and if one has to have a "safety partnership" I'd rather have Sussexes than Northamptons, or Kents come to that!
Chrisgr31 said:
Ok good point, not sure who does set the targets, and perhas we ought to take steps to find out.
A mate had the cunning idea of applying for a job as a scamera operator and then simply sit there reading a paper not doing anyone ever. I'm sure this would not be acceptable even though the safety aspect would be achieved.
This raises the issue that they must be targetted on prosecutions not on safety issues!
...which blows the safety argument out of the water.
Who do camera operators report to?
What happens if at the end of the shift they have recorded no offences?
>> Edited by toad_oftoadhall on Saturday 1st November 12:09
Apache said:
If someone has a job that depends on them having a clean licence then they shouldn't be speeding
You have a choice in life...to speed or not to speed, that is the question
that from someone with the moniker ledfoot, why don't you f**k off to Caravanners weekly you sanctimonious twat
a little harsh, nah it wasnt
toad_oftoadhall said:
If Howard offered a points amnesty and banned cameras from issuing points in addition to the fine there would be two effects:
1) He would be prime minister.
2) Revenue would *increase* from the cameras because some people would still risk it.
You forgot the 3rd: Anyone
wit earning enough money can drive any speed he likes becasue he can afford any fine that the court gives him!! What a great idea.....NOT. 
The rich don't go to jail 'cos they can afford the best lawyers & they know the right people. Actually having the law provide them with a "get out of jail free" card by only fining them & not taking their licence away is ridiculous. And if you can't do the time, don't do the crime, i.e. if your job depends on your driving licence, don't do anything to jeopardise it. I've had a few points on mine in the past (only 3 at the mo), so I'm not taking a holier than thou stance, just saying if it means that much to you, why risk it?
centurion07 said:
You forgot the 3rd: Anyone
Erm we mangaged before cameras with the police patrolling our roads the world didn't end then!
Police could still issue points as they alaways had. Cameras could collect revenue as they do now.
Only differnce would be would be nobody got banned!
>> Edited by toad_oftoadhall on Saturday 1st November 13:24
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff