Forums > Social Discussion > More speed cameras (big brother is watching)
Login/Join to ParticipateCarpal \'Tunnel
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
(yes i did do a search please don't beat me with a stick if i am wrong)
Yet again the British government is at it again, now they want to use cameras to spy on us to make sure we don't do anything naughty on the roads.
There are many sides to this subject like road safety ect. pro's and con's and all the grey areas in between.
currently if you are even 1 mile an hour over the limit you can be fined and penalized points even though it's proven that most speedometers are not 100% accurate.
now they want to fine people for.......
1) not wearing seat belts.
2) using mobile phones.
ok so they are genuine problems i feel should be attended to, i've seen some bloody stupid things other road users have done including trying to read a road map at the wheel whilst driving and it really annoys me when people do use mobile phones at the wheel.
i'm trying to not be one sided on this subject but how far will the government go to make money.
there was a story in the news about some woman taking a sip of water whilst stationary, another person was fined for eating a banana whilst waiting for a friend.
i don't feel those offences warrent a fine but i have expeienced people doing their make up/hair in the rear view mirrors at junctions and a few of my friend have been in accidents caused by such events. their excuse.........." sorry i didn't see you there"
of course you bloody didn't!!!!
(hmmm this is hard being impartial)
ok so there are good reasons for speed camera use but what dose the government do with the £22m each year it gets in kick backs from the police?
(yes i did do a search please don't beat me with a stick if i am wrong)
Yet again the British government is at it again, now they want to use cameras to spy on us to make sure we don't do anything naughty on the roads.
There are many sides to this subject like road safety ect. pro's and con's and all the grey areas in between.
currently if you are even 1 mile an hour over the limit you can be fined and penalized points even though it's proven that most speedometers are not 100% accurate.
now they want to fine people for.......
1) not wearing seat belts.
2) using mobile phones.
ok so they are genuine problems i feel should be attended to, i've seen some bloody stupid things other road users have done including trying to read a road map at the wheel whilst driving and it really annoys me when people do use mobile phones at the wheel.
i'm trying to not be one sided on this subject but how far will the government go to make money.
there was a story in the news about some woman taking a sip of water whilst stationary, another person was fined for eating a banana whilst waiting for a friend.
i don't feel those offences warrent a fine but i have expeienced people doing their make up/hair in the rear view mirrors at junctions and a few of my friend have been in accidents caused by such events. their excuse.........." sorry i didn't see you there"
of course you bloody didn't!!!!
(hmmm this is hard being impartial)
ok so there are good reasons for speed camera use but what dose the government do with the £22m each year it gets in kick backs from the police?
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
The cameras don't bother me. The plan to put tracking devices in every single car bothers me. Then they can tell where you went, how long for and how fast you were going.
Scary. Anyway... I'm off now, more coherency later.
The cameras don't bother me. The plan to put tracking devices in every single car bothers me. Then they can tell where you went, how long for and how fast you were going.
Scary. Anyway... I'm off now, more coherency later.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
if you break the law and get caught you shoud be punished
simple as
you chose to break the law then fece the concequences
if you dont do anything wrong then you have nothing to worrie about.
sounds very simple to me.
if you break the law and get caught you shoud be punished
simple as
you chose to break the law then fece the concequences
if you dont do anything wrong then you have nothing to worrie about.
sounds very simple to me.
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
SILVER Member
fluffy mess
197 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
fluffy mess
197 posts
Location: Brighton, United Kingdom
Posted:
This whole 'more cameras' thing actually makes me feel a bit better about being on the roads. I'm quite a scared driver, not because I lack confidence in my own abilities as a driver, but I have my doubts about others.Ive just seen so many careless mistakes made that ended really badly.
Whats this tracker thing you speak of? I'm not very comfortable with the sounds of that myself!
This whole 'more cameras' thing actually makes me feel a bit better about being on the roads. I'm quite a scared driver, not because I lack confidence in my own abilities as a driver, but I have my doubts about others.Ive just seen so many careless mistakes made that ended really badly.
Whats this tracker thing you speak of? I'm not very comfortable with the sounds of that myself!
"I want to know if you can see beauty even when it's not pretty, every day,and if you can source your own life from its presence.." - Oriah Mountain Dreamer
Carpal \'Tunnel
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
that's fair enought minty, i share the same view but i also don't like the idea of being spyed upon.
the government is nannying us far too much i feel, if they're not telling us what not to do, they are waisting tax money on silly things ( the mellenium dome etc)
the idea of tracking devices fitted to cars is very worrying
gatso's are easy enough to avoid but having a device that plots where you are, for how long, where you end up and how long you took to get there is a bit invasive.
that's fair enought minty, i share the same view but i also don't like the idea of being spyed upon.
the government is nannying us far too much i feel, if they're not telling us what not to do, they are waisting tax money on silly things ( the mellenium dome etc)
the idea of tracking devices fitted to cars is very worrying
gatso's are easy enough to avoid but having a device that plots where you are, for how long, where you end up and how long you took to get there is a bit invasive.
GOLD Member
Clique Infiltrator, Cunning Linguist and Master Debator
4,219 posts
Location: Edinburgh burgh burrrrrr, United Kingdom
Clique Infiltrator, Cunning Linguist and Master Debator
4,219 posts
Location: Edinburgh burgh burrrrrr, United Kingdom
Posted:
I didn't burn him!
but you were there at the time of the murder!
errr someone must have borrowed my car...
I didn't burn him!
but you were there at the time of the murder!
errr someone must have borrowed my car...
Always use "so's your face" and "only on Tuesdays" in as many conversations possible
Carpal \'Tunnel
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
it's an idea to do away with fuel duty and road tax and charge people for the milege they do but also it would make speed cameras redundant as all they have to do is work out the distance covered and the time taken.
distance over time equals speed
Written by: blu_valley
Whats this tracker thing you speak of? I'm not very comfortable with the sounds of that myself!
it's an idea to do away with fuel duty and road tax and charge people for the milege they do but also it would make speed cameras redundant as all they have to do is work out the distance covered and the time taken.
distance over time equals speed
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
I dont mind the speed cameras either, but what annoys me is the plan to put speed bumps all along a main stretch of road near where i live! it's insane!! Bloody local council....grrr...
I dont mind the speed cameras either, but what annoys me is the plan to put speed bumps all along a main stretch of road near where i live! it's insane!! Bloody local council....grrr...
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Seeing as research indicates that using a mobile phone, eating or drinking is far more likely to cause an accident then having drunk 6 pints I think they absolutely should be illegal.
Seeing as research indicates that using a mobile phone, eating or drinking is far more likely to cause an accident then having drunk 6 pints I think they absolutely should be illegal.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
I do generally hate them as a road user, but I think if the government just admited they made cash from it I'd be alot happier. Instead of trying to dress it up as "reducing accidents in blackspots only" and all that rubbish. Like Minty says, if you get caught you get punished, and the current punishment is points and cash out of your pocket.
Distance/time doesn't equal speed, it equals average speed and through differing speed zones it would be largely redundant and far to expensive to operate to be worth while as a speed fine machine. It also lack the specifics required to charge for an offence ie location, date/time of offence etc. Although it wouldn't take much to tap it into modern digital tachographs and GPS to record and report when speeding takes place.
But for all that bother why not just stop cars being able to go over the max speed limits completely!! Linked to GPS it would a very easy and efficient system and would only need to report when/if you break the law, not all your movements.
The mileage wouldn't have to record where you've been either, just how far you've gone (again linked to the digital tachograph) and avoid privacy issues.
I'd hate to see it implemented and I'm sure would create a huge black market for non-linked cars/systems. If it does ever come to force I'll probably give up cars forever. Yey the environment wins again
I do generally hate them as a road user, but I think if the government just admited they made cash from it I'd be alot happier. Instead of trying to dress it up as "reducing accidents in blackspots only" and all that rubbish. Like Minty says, if you get caught you get punished, and the current punishment is points and cash out of your pocket.
Distance/time doesn't equal speed, it equals average speed and through differing speed zones it would be largely redundant and far to expensive to operate to be worth while as a speed fine machine. It also lack the specifics required to charge for an offence ie location, date/time of offence etc. Although it wouldn't take much to tap it into modern digital tachographs and GPS to record and report when speeding takes place.
But for all that bother why not just stop cars being able to go over the max speed limits completely!! Linked to GPS it would a very easy and efficient system and would only need to report when/if you break the law, not all your movements.
The mileage wouldn't have to record where you've been either, just how far you've gone (again linked to the digital tachograph) and avoid privacy issues.
I'd hate to see it implemented and I'm sure would create a huge black market for non-linked cars/systems. If it does ever come to force I'll probably give up cars forever. Yey the environment wins again
Let's relight this forum 
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
Ok, the government gets £20 million in a year from speed cameras.
However, they spent £519 billion in 2005 - that much money is really a drop in the ocean, they probably get more from the tax bill for a couple of footballers.
So I don't reckon speed cameras are all about the money.
Damned right, they should have been doing that for years by now - there's no excuse for using a mobile phone while driving, especially since the hands free kits are so cheap, although actually I'm not convinced they're any safer - you're still distracted from the road.
Ok, the government gets £20 million in a year from speed cameras.
However, they spent £519 billion in 2005 - that much money is really a drop in the ocean, they probably get more from the tax bill for a couple of footballers.
So I don't reckon speed cameras are all about the money.
Written by:
now they want to fine people for.......
1) not wearing seat belts.
2) using mobile phones.
Damned right, they should have been doing that for years by now - there's no excuse for using a mobile phone while driving, especially since the hands free kits are so cheap, although actually I'm not convinced they're any safer - you're still distracted from the road.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Carpal \'Tunnel
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
so what about mothers on the school run with a car load of missbehaving kids in the back that refuse to belt up ( in both sences lol), or people fiddling with car sterio's, or people smoking whilst driving all of which distract the driver and means they are not in total controll. i'm just starting to learn to drive and even i notice how i'm affected if i get distracted for even a second.
dunc you have very good points, even if i do pass my test i may not get a car as i feel motorists get screwd for so much money, road tax for instance...............a cars tax is like £100+ my bike cost £15 for a years tax, it cost me £5 to fill my tank so i may just get another bike
so what about mothers on the school run with a car load of missbehaving kids in the back that refuse to belt up ( in both sences lol), or people fiddling with car sterio's, or people smoking whilst driving all of which distract the driver and means they are not in total controll. i'm just starting to learn to drive and even i notice how i'm affected if i get distracted for even a second.
dunc you have very good points, even if i do pass my test i may not get a car as i feel motorists get screwd for so much money, road tax for instance...............a cars tax is like £100+ my bike cost £15 for a years tax, it cost me £5 to fill my tank so i may just get another bike
A little bit of a board whore
147 posts
Location: Glasgow
147 posts
Location: Glasgow
Posted:
The main issue here is not the fact that they want to put up more cameras. Well, it is, but in a round about sort of way.
Generally, it is the police force who make the money off the camera. They then, supposedly use this money in further "road saftey" measures. However, with one force making about £700,000 off a single camera, it's hard to see how all of this could be reinvested, never mind where it's been used. It's not a way for the government to make money, but the police force.
Also, all that speed cameras do is take a static picture of a speeding car. Even with these new cameras, all they would do is look at static pictures. This is where the main crux of the problem is, as cameras just make the roads "safer" in one area. In the olden days, when you had traffic patrols, not only would they catch the dangerous drivers, and the drunk drivers (which cameras can't do), but they also were able to show compassion, with far more people getting warnings than fines.
If you were a police force, which would you rather have. A traffic patrol which just pays it's own way in a year, or a camera which generates £700,000?
The main issue here is not the fact that they want to put up more cameras. Well, it is, but in a round about sort of way.
Generally, it is the police force who make the money off the camera. They then, supposedly use this money in further "road saftey" measures. However, with one force making about £700,000 off a single camera, it's hard to see how all of this could be reinvested, never mind where it's been used. It's not a way for the government to make money, but the police force.
Also, all that speed cameras do is take a static picture of a speeding car. Even with these new cameras, all they would do is look at static pictures. This is where the main crux of the problem is, as cameras just make the roads "safer" in one area. In the olden days, when you had traffic patrols, not only would they catch the dangerous drivers, and the drunk drivers (which cameras can't do), but they also were able to show compassion, with far more people getting warnings than fines.
If you were a police force, which would you rather have. A traffic patrol which just pays it's own way in a year, or a camera which generates £700,000?
Ancient wiseman say "It is very strange person, who, when left alone in room with teacosy, does not try it on"
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Don't be daft. Heisenberg's uncertainty principal clearly says that they can't possilbly know both your location and your velocity, so you're half safe.
Written by: Sethis
The plan to put tracking devices in every single car bothers me. Then they can tell where you went, how long for and how fast you were going.
Don't be daft. Heisenberg's uncertainty principal clearly says that they can't possilbly know both your location and your velocity, so you're half safe.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
A little bit of a board whore
147 posts
Location: Glasgow
147 posts
Location: Glasgow
Posted:
Do you really think the government cares about fundamental physics when trying to extract money from people.
They'll stop at nothing.
Do you really think the government cares about fundamental physics when trying to extract money from people.
They'll stop at nothing.
Ancient wiseman say "It is very strange person, who, when left alone in room with teacosy, does not try it on"
SILVER Member
addict
475 posts
Location: Van Diemans Land, Australia
addict
475 posts
Location: Van Diemans Land, Australia
Posted:
in australia you need to be a certain speed over the limit before you get fined i think
I have seen women putting on their make-up while driving.
Utter insanity
in australia you need to be a certain speed over the limit before you get fined i think
I have seen women putting on their make-up while driving.
Utter insanity
Fair luna bright, fair luna moon
it shines at night but fades too soon
fair luna moon, fair luna bright
forever we dance
we dance under starlight
BRONZE Member
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
Posted:
Here in Queensland you can get away with 10kmh over on the highways due to the low speed limit (100kmh), but there is zero tolerance around schools. Victoria will nab you at 3kmh over, so you seem to spend a lot of time looking at the speedo and not the road.
I recall in the UK it was 10% plus 2 to allow for speedo wander.
Incidentally, you used to be able to demand to see the calibration report on the speed camera before paying up, if it was unsatifactory or they couldn't produce it you could get off on a technicality.
But there really is no excause for speeding in built up areas, the more they pump into safety stuff the better.
Here in Queensland you can get away with 10kmh over on the highways due to the low speed limit (100kmh), but there is zero tolerance around schools. Victoria will nab you at 3kmh over, so you seem to spend a lot of time looking at the speedo and not the road.
I recall in the UK it was 10% plus 2 to allow for speedo wander.
Incidentally, you used to be able to demand to see the calibration report on the speed camera before paying up, if it was unsatifactory or they couldn't produce it you could get off on a technicality.
But there really is no excause for speeding in built up areas, the more they pump into safety stuff the better.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
just a point on the original post, in Australia speeding, not wearing your seat belt AND talking on you moblie(without a hands free kit) are all illegal and fines are given.
there has even been some talk of banning smoking in cars because they can be a distraction to drivers when dropped, they are often carelessly thrown out the window once used and its not healthy for other people that may be travelling in the car.
just a point on the original post, in Australia speeding, not wearing your seat belt AND talking on you moblie(without a hands free kit) are all illegal and fines are given.
there has even been some talk of banning smoking in cars because they can be a distraction to drivers when dropped, they are often carelessly thrown out the window once used and its not healthy for other people that may be travelling in the car.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
enthusiast
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
Posted:
I have absolutely no tolerance for people being idiots on the road..
Driving intoxicated, on mobiles, too fast..
Yes, even 5km over the speed limit is too fast - In Victoria, Australia they have some funky ads, showing just what a difference it makes..
the difference between squish and squeak.
I have absolutely no tolerance for people being idiots on the road..
Driving intoxicated, on mobiles, too fast..
Yes, even 5km over the speed limit is too fast - In Victoria, Australia they have some funky ads, showing just what a difference it makes..
the difference between squish and squeak.
"You've gone from Loey the Wonder Lesbian to everyone wondering if you are a lesbian." - Shadowman
Yesterday is yesterday. If we try to recapture it, we will only lose tomorrow.
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,848 posts
Location: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Pooh-Bah
1,848 posts
Location: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Posted:
Written by: SpannerWritten by: ]
there was a story in the news about some woman taking a sip of water whilst stationary, another person was fined for eating a banana whilst waiting for a friend.
[/quote
Again, surely these offences could have been simply avoided by switching off the engine beforehand?
Don't be ridiculous! If you're driving accross town on a hot day and you're stopped at a traffic light, i think you have every right to pull on your hand break and have a drink. And if you're parked outside a friends house and you haven't had breakfast, who the helI is anyone to stop you eating a piece of fruit?"i am exotic, and must keep my arms down" - Rougie
"i don't understand what penises have to do with getting married" - Foxie
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Any unnecessary distraction while driving is bad. If you're smart you try to avoid them, fines or no fines. If you're halfways reasonable, you try to avoid the ones that can get you fines or points on your licence. If you're not bothered about yourself, your passengers and other people on the road you deserve every fine the police throws at you, and as far as I'm concerned they can use it to do whatever they want.
I've been in an accident with an idiot who didn't care about road safety, and according to police and the people who looked at my car I'm lucky to be alive. Had I not worn my seatbelt I wouldn't be, and had I had a passenger without a seatbelt, they wouldn't be. Also in a case like that accident, a small difference in speed makes a HUGE difference in the force of your impact. (energy = 0.5 x mass x speed squared, so if you drive 40 in a 30 zone you nearly double the force of an impact into another car, or a child...)
I wouldn't mind more speed control cameras, since usually everyone knows where they are, so they speed up again as soon as they're past...
EDIT: In case someone misunderstood me, "unnecessary distraction" doesn't mean changing the radio station or eating a banana, but something like using a mobile (even freespeak one) because you're bored, or playing with the little percussion set hanging from the rearview mirror instead of just singing along
I do think that dialling a number requires more concentration and time the eyes are off the street than checking the speed or fuel tank...
EDITED_BY: Birgit (1141815509)
Any unnecessary distraction while driving is bad. If you're smart you try to avoid them, fines or no fines. If you're halfways reasonable, you try to avoid the ones that can get you fines or points on your licence. If you're not bothered about yourself, your passengers and other people on the road you deserve every fine the police throws at you, and as far as I'm concerned they can use it to do whatever they want.
I've been in an accident with an idiot who didn't care about road safety, and according to police and the people who looked at my car I'm lucky to be alive. Had I not worn my seatbelt I wouldn't be, and had I had a passenger without a seatbelt, they wouldn't be. Also in a case like that accident, a small difference in speed makes a HUGE difference in the force of your impact. (energy = 0.5 x mass x speed squared, so if you drive 40 in a 30 zone you nearly double the force of an impact into another car, or a child...)
I wouldn't mind more speed control cameras, since usually everyone knows where they are, so they speed up again as soon as they're past...
EDIT: In case someone misunderstood me, "unnecessary distraction" doesn't mean changing the radio station or eating a banana, but something like using a mobile (even freespeak one) because you're bored, or playing with the little percussion set hanging from the rearview mirror instead of just singing along
I do think that dialling a number requires more concentration and time the eyes are off the street than checking the speed or fuel tank...
EDITED_BY: Birgit (1141815509)
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
Could someone explain why this worries them I'm not bothered as long as my 12 wives don’t find out lol
Written by: ravehead
the idea of tracking devices fitted to cars is very worrying
Could someone explain why this worries them I'm not bothered as long as my 12 wives don’t find out
lol before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
No sorry that is completely untrue. The law clearly states that up to 10% + 2 only a verbal warning can be given. This is seen as reasonable as a slight in/decline or pedal wander can vary your speed, and that speedos are not calibrated to such extreme tolerances as it is impracticle.
As cameras can't give verbal warnings they cannot issue fines or penalty notices below this limit.
I got done once for doing 35.12 in a 30, just over...arse I'm quite a stickler for the lower speed limits too and feel they play a very important role in urban areas, but I somehow drifted my speed up without realising while in the flow of traffic and accepted my punishment even though no issue came of it nor negative affect was beheld upon any member of society.
With the issue of mobiles/smoking a fag/whatever, I think it is reasonable to assume that a human being certified as capable of driving a machine that has such lethal potential on a public highway is also capable of performing more than one task safely while keeping their hands on the wheel most of the time, eyes on the road most of the time and maintaining safe operation of the vehicle.
Talking hands free is fine, if you can't talk hands free on a phone then ultimately it means you can't talk to your passengers in the car either, which is rediculous.
If some people (on this board and in general society) really do feel that taking the distraction thing to it's futile and pointless enth as a proper and correct way to manage driving laws in their contry including things like smoking, talking etc then they would have to abolish the speedos and warning lights from the dashboard as you shouldn't look at them while driving because you have to remove your eyes from the road to read them. Also satnav would have to go because you have to look at it AND listen to it, radios/cd players etc would have to be abolished as they can distract you especially if you like to sing along, the police and other emergency services would have to stop their communications while being mobile as they need to talk to their operators while driving, taxi drivers would have to pull over to get their next job etc etc pointless etc.
It's rediculous and IMO is pushing the western world further and further into a truly Nannied society.
Those poor folks who have been done for lighting up and eating bananas or whatever should appeal their convictions. The ruling judges in cases like that deserve sacking IMO (I can only presume they're the same waste of space judges who allow burglars to successfully claim against homeowners who have physically defended their properties). A stationary vehicle under control with a person at the controls is a STATIONARY vehicle UNDER CONTROL, regardless of the engine being on or not. If an accident did occur from the circumstance of eating a banana or such like then perhaps they should be judged individually and a true root cause estrablished, just as it would if a stationary vehicle caused some kind of accident without a ciggy being smoked which ultimately is just as likely. Not penalise an entire nation under the bulls*t guise of prevention.
Surely these pointless offences shouldn't exist in the first place?! Lets look at root causes not systematic symptoms of problems that don't really exist except on paper. If the law is an ass, the law is an ass. It should not be accepted as correct purely because it exists.
You'll notice my key words for this post are POINTLESS and REDICULOUS
ANYWAY......on the topic of speed cameras
I think all new cars should have their speed limited remotly through GPS or at worst locally transmitted signals, it would remove the need for any speed cameras and increase road safety by a million percent at least (that's my own estimation not backed up by any facts or proof ) It would be incredibly simple to implement and post initial teething problems very simple and cheap to manage and sustain.
But we all know safe driving reduces fuel consumption and we couldn't have that could we, hell we might even start saving the earth a little 
Written by: Ravehead
currently if you are even 1 mile an hour over the limit you can be fined and penalized points even though it's proven that most speedometers are not 100% accurate.
No sorry that is completely untrue. The law clearly states that up to 10% + 2 only a verbal warning can be given. This is seen as reasonable as a slight in/decline or pedal wander can vary your speed, and that speedos are not calibrated to such extreme tolerances as it is impracticle.
As cameras can't give verbal warnings they cannot issue fines or penalty notices below this limit.
I got done once for doing 35.12 in a 30, just over...arse
I'm quite a stickler for the lower speed limits too and feel they play a very important role in urban areas, but I somehow drifted my speed up without realising while in the flow of traffic and accepted my punishment even though no issue came of it nor negative affect was beheld upon any member of society. With the issue of mobiles/smoking a fag/whatever, I think it is reasonable to assume that a human being certified as capable of driving a machine that has such lethal potential on a public highway is also capable of performing more than one task safely while keeping their hands on the wheel most of the time, eyes on the road most of the time and maintaining safe operation of the vehicle.
Talking hands free is fine, if you can't talk hands free on a phone then ultimately it means you can't talk to your passengers in the car either, which is rediculous.
If some people (on this board and in general society) really do feel that taking the distraction thing to it's futile and pointless enth as a proper and correct way to manage driving laws in their contry including things like smoking, talking etc then they would have to abolish the speedos and warning lights from the dashboard as you shouldn't look at them while driving because you have to remove your eyes from the road to read them. Also satnav would have to go because you have to look at it AND listen to it, radios/cd players etc would have to be abolished as they can distract you especially if you like to sing along, the police and other emergency services would have to stop their communications while being mobile as they need to talk to their operators while driving, taxi drivers would have to pull over to get their next job etc etc pointless etc.
It's rediculous and IMO is pushing the western world further and further into a truly Nannied society.
Those poor folks who have been done for lighting up and eating bananas or whatever should appeal their convictions. The ruling judges in cases like that deserve sacking IMO (I can only presume they're the same waste of space judges who allow burglars to successfully claim against homeowners who have physically defended their properties). A stationary vehicle under control with a person at the controls is a STATIONARY vehicle UNDER CONTROL, regardless of the engine being on or not. If an accident did occur from the circumstance of eating a banana or such like then perhaps they should be judged individually and a true root cause estrablished, just as it would if a stationary vehicle caused some kind of accident without a ciggy being smoked which ultimately is just as likely. Not penalise an entire nation under the bulls*t guise of prevention.
Written by: SpannerWritten by:
there was a story in the news about some woman taking a sip of water whilst stationary, another person was fined for eating a banana whilst waiting for a friend.
Again, surely these offences could have been simply avoided by switching off the engine beforehand
Surely these pointless offences shouldn't exist in the first place?! Lets look at root causes not systematic symptoms of problems that don't really exist except on paper. If the law is an ass, the law is an ass. It should not be accepted as correct purely because it exists.
You'll notice my key words for this post are POINTLESS and REDICULOUS
ANYWAY......on the topic of speed cameras
I think all new cars should have their speed limited remotly through GPS or at worst locally transmitted signals, it would remove the need for any speed cameras and increase road safety by a million percent at least (that's my own estimation not backed up by any facts or proof ) It would be incredibly simple to implement and post initial teething problems very simple and cheap to manage and sustain. But we all know safe driving reduces fuel consumption and we couldn't have that could we, hell we might even start saving the earth a little
Let's relight this forum
A little bit of a board whore
147 posts
Location: Glasgow
147 posts
Location: Glasgow
Posted:
The highway code isn't actually law. It's just a guide for good driving. Therefore having a quote of the highway code proves nothing.
Yes, it's suggested that you not eat or drink, but nowhere does it say you can be fined for it.
The highway code isn't actually law. It's just a guide for good driving. Therefore having a quote of the highway code proves nothing.
Yes, it's suggested that you not eat or drink, but nowhere does it say you can be fined for it.
Ancient wiseman say "It is very strange person, who, when left alone in room with teacosy, does not try it on"
Carpal \'Tunnel
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
dunc........the nanny state is what i am against........what happened to freedome of choice?
we are told it's bad to eat this, bad to drink that, blah, blah, bloody blah.
anything we do in life that we enjoy has a potential health hazzard............playing with firey thing swirling them round and round............if the nanny state ever ruled we would all be monks as even sex is bad for you so say the experts (only in certain ways)
dunc........the nanny state is what i am against........what happened to freedome of choice?
we are told it's bad to eat this, bad to drink that, blah, blah, bloody blah.
anything we do in life that we enjoy has a potential health hazzard............playing with firey thing swirling them round and round............if the nanny state ever ruled we would all be monks as even sex is bad for you so say the experts (only in certain ways)
A little bit of a board whore
147 posts
Location: Glasgow
147 posts
Location: Glasgow
Posted:
Only if you're doing it right.
Written by: ravehead
...........if the nanny state ever ruled we would all be monks as even sex is bad for you so say the experts (only in certain ways)
Only if you're doing it right.
Ancient wiseman say "It is very strange person, who, when left alone in room with teacosy, does not try it on"
Carpal \'Tunnel
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
should i change this thread to " rants about the nany state???"
should i change this thread to " rants about the nany state???"
SILVER Member
addict
667 posts
Location: Cannock, staffordshire, United Kingdom
addict
667 posts
Location: Cannock, staffordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
eating whilst driving ilegal??? i thought it was only using a fone as when in conversation u lose concentration but eating a packet of crisps or a chocolate bar surely isnt that off putting, i mean you have long distance lorry drivers who work all night like my brother, it is ilegal to just pull over on the hard shoulder yet an intake of sugary food or a can of red bull can help alert someone more by boosting there levels and they are going to fine them for it?
what about dhydration in the hot summers would they rather someone pass out in a traffic jam because it is ilegal to sip water or even when hey are drinving?
the cameras on the other hand are a good idea as ive lost a lot of friends to road accidents, 4 at 1 time once and i was nearly in that same accident but i had met up with a guy i liked and hung about longer where i was saying id catch up later with the others, next day i was told they was all dead.
i hate the roads and suppose thats why i no longer drive.
eating whilst driving ilegal??? i thought it was only using a fone as when in conversation u lose concentration but eating a packet of crisps or a chocolate bar surely isnt that off putting, i mean you have long distance lorry drivers who work all night like my brother, it is ilegal to just pull over on the hard shoulder yet an intake of sugary food or a can of red bull can help alert someone more by boosting there levels and they are going to fine them for it?
what about dhydration in the hot summers would they rather someone pass out in a traffic jam because it is ilegal to sip water or even when hey are drinving?
the cameras on the other hand are a good idea as ive lost a lot of friends to road accidents, 4 at 1 time once and i was nearly in that same accident but i had met up with a guy i liked and hung about longer where i was saying id catch up later with the others, next day i was told they was all dead.
i hate the roads and suppose thats why i no longer drive.
enticed, entrapped, entombed.
intoxicated, impaled, ingested.
bewitched, beaten, broken.
enter the love realm...
insert ur token
o jej, ale bym ci wylizal ten pepek
stepped up promotions
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
being fined for speeding is a voluntary tax that you choose to pay
if you speed and you are caught - don't blame the system, blame yourself for speeding and lining the coffers of the cops or the government
being fined for speeding is a voluntary tax that you choose to pay
if you speed and you are caught - don't blame the system, blame yourself for speeding and lining the coffers of the cops or the government
SILVER Member
comfortably numb
2,676 posts
Location: The countryside, Australia
comfortably numb
2,676 posts
Location: The countryside, Australia
Posted:
I'm pretty sure Australia has similar stuff that's been brought in recently
There are cameras everywhere nowadays. Don't get me wrong, I'm a good driver, I don't speed or whatever so really I should have nothing to worry about if I'm being watched while I drive, but yes, this whole big brother concept type thing is starting to freak me out a little.
One thing that did freaked me out the other day (sort of off topic but bare with me)
Dad and I were driving under the Burnley tunnel in Melbourne (huge tunnel) and it had a flashing sign saying 'Turn radio on'. It is a 3 lane tunnel but 1 lane was closed for some reason. There was a lot of congestion.
All of a sudden there was a beep and:
'Good afternoon drivers, this is the citylink traffic control centre. The left lane is now open'
(something along those lines)
Knowing that they have a base monitoring all the traffic on the road at all times and they can interfere with all radio stations is a little weird.
Yes they are trying to make the roads safer but at what cost? Where should the line be drawn between safety and privacy?
Crazy world.
I'm pretty sure Australia has similar stuff that's been brought in recently
There are cameras everywhere nowadays. Don't get me wrong, I'm a good driver, I don't speed or whatever so really I should have nothing to worry about if I'm being watched while I drive, but yes, this whole big brother concept type thing is starting to freak me out a little.
One thing that did freaked me out the other day (sort of off topic but bare with me)
Dad and I were driving under the Burnley tunnel in Melbourne (huge tunnel) and it had a flashing sign saying 'Turn radio on'. It is a 3 lane tunnel but 1 lane was closed for some reason. There was a lot of congestion.
All of a sudden there was a beep and:
'Good afternoon drivers, this is the citylink traffic control centre. The left lane is now open'
(something along those lines)
Knowing that they have a base monitoring all the traffic on the road at all times and they can interfere with all radio stations is a little weird.
Yes they are trying to make the roads safer but at what cost? Where should the line be drawn between safety and privacy?
Crazy world.
.All things are beautiful if we take the time to look.
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,848 posts
Location: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Pooh-Bah
1,848 posts
Location: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Posted:
And as reluctant as *I* am to repeat myself and/or rave, in both cases the car was, infact, stationary. Hence, the driver was, infact, taking a break as per your suggestion.
Written by: Spanner
Well, here in the UK, you obviously wouldn't have every right to do either of these things, hence the fines. As reluctant as I am to repeat myself, I will again point out that those situations can be simply avoided by taking a break or eating breakfast before driving
And as reluctant as *I* am to repeat myself and/or rave, in both cases the car was, infact, stationary. Hence, the driver was, infact, taking a break as per your suggestion.
"i am exotic, and must keep my arms down" - Rougie
"i don't understand what penises have to do with getting married" - Foxie
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [speed camera * big brother watching] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com