Road rules1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip-flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have a problem with totting up procedures where somebody can leave home with a clean licence trip 4 cameras (possibly very slightly over the limit) and arrive at a destination with an impending ban.
It makes a mockery of the points system.
in 2002/3 they raised �4 million one thousanth of a percent of government revenue
So the piggy bank charge is nonsense
On balance I wouldn't want to get rid of them or it would be open season for the speed freaks but they do need reform
It makes a mockery of the points system.
in 2002/3 they raised �4 million one thousanth of a percent of government revenue
So the piggy bank charge is nonsense
On balance I wouldn't want to get rid of them or it would be open season for the speed freaks but they do need reform
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5383726.stm
I agree with the principle of the arguement. It is a basic human right not to have to incriminate yourself. I'll plead the 5th the next time............
I agree with the principle of the arguement. It is a basic human right not to have to incriminate yourself. I'll plead the 5th the next time............
Yes I agree eh? I hope they lose the case eh? And I hope the judges throw out the arguments of these whingers eh? It will be a positive result when the criminals who break the law by speeding get thrown into a pit of scorpions and sent to the Moon and have their cars crushed eh? Fining them is not enough eh?
A bloke for the government came on the radio today (no, missus, titter ye not) and had the eminently sensible argument that the police ought to be entitled to know who was driving the car. Driving the car is not an offence, so shouldn't be covered by the self-incrimination law. Speeding while driving the car is an offence, which the person can either admit to or go to court to contest the charge.
Yawn - same old trolley trotted out about by people with beards and Guardian readers - if you don't speed you won't get caught yadda yadda yadda.
You are missing the point.
What we need is more police, not cameras: cameras are arbitrary whereas the police can, and do, exercise common sense. 80mph on a 70mph dual carriageway in good conditions is no more dangerous than 70mph, and 99 times out of a 100 the police will either ignore you or just tell you to slow it down a bit. However, a camera will catch you, you will be fined and you will receive points.
Meanwhile, just behind you, you have Mr Chav 18 year old in an uninsured un-mot'd untaxed Nova ripped to the tits on drink and drugs, weaving all over the road with a boot full of anthrax, semtex, ricin, ebola, cocaine, heroin, guns, knives and rotweillers generally being a danger to himself (so what) and others. However, he's going 69mph in a 70 and therefore doesn't get 'done'.
So, who would you rather see 'done' - Mr Salesman straying over the limit to get to his next appointment in order to pay the mortgage and feed his kids, or Mr Chav.
Clearly, and quite rightly, the police would be more interested in the latter.
AND that is why the answer is more police, not static piggy banks - and make no mistake, these things have absolutely nothing to do with safety - and it is naive to think they do.
Bit of an extreme example, but you get my point.
Have no argument with them being outside schools or genuine accident spots (i.e, not just spots where they know the cameras will earn more money).
You are missing the point.
What we need is more police, not cameras: cameras are arbitrary whereas the police can, and do, exercise common sense. 80mph on a 70mph dual carriageway in good conditions is no more dangerous than 70mph, and 99 times out of a 100 the police will either ignore you or just tell you to slow it down a bit. However, a camera will catch you, you will be fined and you will receive points.
Meanwhile, just behind you, you have Mr Chav 18 year old in an uninsured un-mot'd untaxed Nova ripped to the tits on drink and drugs, weaving all over the road with a boot full of anthrax, semtex, ricin, ebola, cocaine, heroin, guns, knives and rotweillers generally being a danger to himself (so what) and others. However, he's going 69mph in a 70 and therefore doesn't get 'done'.
So, who would you rather see 'done' - Mr Salesman straying over the limit to get to his next appointment in order to pay the mortgage and feed his kids, or Mr Chav.
Clearly, and quite rightly, the police would be more interested in the latter.
AND that is why the answer is more police, not static piggy banks - and make no mistake, these things have absolutely nothing to do with safety - and it is naive to think they do.
Bit of an extreme example, but you get my point.
Have no argument with them being outside schools or genuine accident spots (i.e, not just spots where they know the cameras will earn more money).
It cant be beyond the bounds of technology to build speed limiters into all vehicles, which would be triggered by transmitters in, say, lamposts depending on the speed limit in the area. Then no one in a 40 area could go over 40, no one in a 30 area could go over 30 etc etc, and make the removal of the devices a crimal offence.
It cant be that difficult, surely?
It cant be that difficult, surely?
I have nothing against laws against speeding, but just find the cameras terribly distracting. I'm a fairly new driver, and spend too much time frantically glancing at my speedometer rather than looking at the road when I'm going past these things. I've noticed a lot of people seem to have to break sharply too before passing one, which can't be very safe.
