The harsh truth about Tory policies

Graham_Devon

Its 10% over the speed limit and then +2mph in most cases.

So 35mph they would get you.

shuze

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, but scammera vans sitting on bridges at 5.45am on a fine summers morning on the M4 will do you for 83mph.

Now tell me, who was at danger? Me? The one person in my rear view mirror quite a way back, or the two lorries about a minute away from me at that speed?

I understand where you are coming from Graham, but, let's turn that back on you: what is so important that you feel the need to break the law for the extra 13 mph? And you've picked a motorway scenario - how about a trunk road, with junctions?

shuze

treliac wrote: »

Husband of a friend says he was done for this? Doesn't it depend on the authority?

How far over do you think it takes then?

I'd like to see the evidence for that claim.

Graham_Devon

shuze wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from Graham, but, let's turn that back on you: what is so important that you feel the need to break the law for the extra 13 mph? And you've picked a motorway scenario - how about a trunk road, with junctions?

A trunk road is an entirely different situation.

My main point was that the camera van will rarely be sitting on the trunk road with junctions.

They sit where the money is to be made. And that's the roads with good visability (they need this to line up) and good speed conditions (which allows drivers to go over the speed limit).

There was a programme on the BBC not long ago about it, where the camera operators freely admitted they spend over 80% of their time on roads where the limits have been reduced on "good" roads.

What a camera doesn't catch is: People without licences doing the speed limit, drunks, drugged, people without insurance, dangerous driving within the limit, defective cars, defective loads etc etc etc.

I shall complain about the ticket I got, as I don't think there was any need for it. But yes, I was breaking the law and thats that, paid the fine, paid the extra insurance etc. However, just 30 mins later, off the M4, I was witness to an accident caused by overtaking out of sheer frustration due to a needlessly slow driver, and it wasn't the overtaking driver who crashed.

shuze

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A trunk road is an entirely different situation.

.

So you agree that speed cameras are OK there?

treliac

I've noticed the mobiles often situate themselves on a decline, where it is easy to pick up a bit of speed before you realise it fully and deal with it.

And I speak from observation rather than bitterness. I've never had any points, fines or anything. Touch wood, she says, reaching for head!

Come on shuze, you know there's something of a game being played with speed cameras and it's not always about safety.

Graham_Devon

shuze wrote: »

So you agree that speed cameras are OK there?

I don't agree with speed cameras full stop.

The only time I could agree with them is outside of schools etc. But in these zones I would like to see specs. Not just a silly camera which watches your speed over 20 feet.

I would simply like to see more police on the roads. Maybe even more unmarked cars. If I wanted "speed" and dangerous driving, I certainly wouldn't want more unmarked cars!!!

leveller2911

I'm moving this thread to the right section "Motoring".......







Oh come on back to the real issues here....Perlease.....:D

(Wanted to be a mod for some time now...Its the power rush for me)

PaulW1965

carolt wrote: »

Actually, Laura, I happen to both totally agree with you and the post of mbga9pgf's you quoted - it's possible to believe in caring for those who can't get a job and at the same time believe some people take the mick.

His position does not exclude yours or contradict yours.

But how do you distinquish the truly deserving from those taking the mick? And even if you could tell one from the other would it actually be cost effective to do so? Some policing of the system is necessary but not if it ends up costing more than the system itself.

PaulW1965

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Come on.

You don't have to be a right winger to see that the benefit system has imploded into not just a benefit system, but a way of life, a way of life in which you come dependant on the state, and therefore, controlled by the state in many ways.

The system has become very generous, too generous to some of those groups using it.

The generosity towards some of those groups using it has created a divide in society. That's not a good place to be.

Like many a labour policy, the system at the moment cannot contiune....there are just not the funds to pay for it. Not without taxing those who pay for it even more....which just causes those who pay for it, to be worse off than those recieving it.

Can someone tell me how much people get in benefits? I thought it was a titchy amount of money? Why are posters making it sound like people on benefits live in Kenington & Chelsea. A generous amount of money - are you taking the P!!!.