How to put scamera's out of business
How to put scamera's out of business
Author
Discussion

318ti

Original Poster:

208 posts

267 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
If every one stuck to the limit, then the cameras wouldn't take your photos and they couldn't make any money. Soon they would be out of work and off the roads.

Why don't we try that and see how long they last?

Apache

39,731 posts

304 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
Didn't that happen oop north Notts or something? they introduced specs, everyone realised they were unbeatable so slowed down, no money came in so they binned the whole job as a bad idea.

dazren

22,612 posts

281 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
There was a time when there was discussion of road safety, speed limits, Home Office abuse of the police service, technical issues and interesting debate on this forum. Seems to be a bit too much preaching going on at the moment.

DAZ

PS - Above scenario would not work. The councils would lower the limits even further to maintain revenue and make driving less appealing thus driving motorists out of cars and into buses.

>> Edited by dazren on Sunday 2nd November 16:52

dazren

22,612 posts

281 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
Apache said:
Didn't that happen oop north Notts or something? they introduced specs, everyone realised they were unbeatable so slowed down, no money came in so they binned the whole job as a bad idea.


It was in Notts, from memory the local council had to foot the deficit of over £1/2 million a year. Think they got a local scameraship partnership set up to put mobile units out and about with the "surplus" on these locations covering the cost of the deficit.

Incidently there was an increase in accidents on parallel running roads caused by drivers avoiding the SPECS route.

DAZ

>> Edited by dazren on Sunday 2nd November 16:43

Zod

35,295 posts

278 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
They would probably lower the speed limits.

deltaf

6,806 posts

273 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
Why dont they just get rid of the scameras? Or am i being silly?...

justme

140 posts

268 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
Zod said:
They would probably lower the speed limits.

ditto

gh0st

4,693 posts

278 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
justme said:

Zod said:
They would probably lower the speed limits.


ditto


...and 318 would make the same suggestion, and everyone else would follow it, and they would lower the limits again until eventually everyone was driving in reverse.

Then reversing without a special reversing license would become the penalty and scamera lasers would be modified to detect backward moving vehicles. Then 318 would advise us not to reverse without a reversing license, then we would all follow, then they would make breathing too fast a FP offense etc etc etc]

It will never end while there is money to be made.

A better way to run the scameras out of business - VOTE OUT OUR GOVERNMENT and put one in place that actually gives a damn about ROAD SAFETY and not CASH!

BruceV8

3,325 posts

267 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
Damn right. Except that every government cares about cash. Bugger!

judas

6,194 posts

279 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
Unfortunately the Notts SPECS system is far from dead In fact it's being extended along more of the commuter trunk roads into the city. Robbing b'stards!

Edited to differentiate between computers and commuters

>> Edited by judas on Sunday 2nd November 18:56

james_j

3,996 posts

275 months

Sunday 2nd November 2003
quotequote all
Yes, the whole thing would be hailed as a success (despite no drop in the accident rate) and the screws would be further tightened by lowering the speed limits further still.

(Remember the effect on the death rate reduction as soon as cameras were first installed? - That made no difference to the opinions of the camera-lovers, so don't expect any change in their attitude if everyone complies with speed limits and and there is no consequential death-rate reduction.)