The harsh truth about Tory policies

Graham_Devon

shuze wrote: »

So you'd be OK with a police officer doing you for 83 mph on the motorway, just not the camera?

In all honesty, yes, I would.

I think that type of situation would be extremely rare however, as the police take in all accounts of your driving and the conditions and surrounding conditions and use their !!!!!!.

In the scenario I was in, I'm pretty certain the police would have just cruised past.

However, if they did decide to pull me for doing 83mph on a motorway with 4 other vehicles in view before 6am in the morning on a clear day, I'm pretty sure again, it would be to simply warn me.....but also, check over my car, and myself in the process.

I could be drunk and have bald tyres and be swerving all over the road with half my bodywork missing, which, if I hit someone, would simply slice them up......but the speed camera simply lets me on my way and sends me a fine.

The police on the other hand, would take that car above off the road, and, me off the road.

ess0two

Geoffo_M wrote: »

You're an idiot. Far too many drivers drive excessively with all the cameras we have now. God knows how much more dangerous our roads will become if we get rid of them.

Another fool who fails to realise cameras are just cash generators.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Geoffo_M wrote: »

Surely you don't expect anyone to believe this rubbish. Link please?

West Midlands Police, accident review, 2001.

Excessive speed was a definite factor in just 3.27% of accidents.

Excessive speed was any factor at all in just 4.05% of accidents.

And from the Chief Constable of Durham.

The statistics for Durham showed that, of 1,900 collisions each year, only three per cent involved cars that were exceeding the speed limit, just 60 accidents a year.

Look more closely at the causes of these 60 accidents, the "actual cause of the accident invariably is drink-driving or drug-driving". Drug-taking was now involved in 40 per cent of Durham's fatal road accidents.

Many accidents, he said, were caused by fatigue, although one of the most common causes was the failure of drivers to watch out for oncoming vehicles when turning right.

To none of these could speed cameras offer any remedy. "The cause of accidents," Garvin concluded, "is clearly something different from exceeding the speed limit".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/safety/2749419/Speed-cameras-the-twisted-truth.html

Speed cameras, and speed enforcement, are a HUGE scam to extract £100,000,000 a year from motorists. Nothing else.

baileysbattlebus

Geoffo_M wrote: »

Surely you don't expect anyone to believe this rubbish. Link please?

Here is a link that contradicts Hamish's 5%

Speed increases the impact of many of the factors which contribute to accidents. For example, “aggressive driving” or “driving too closely” are both much worse at speed. Such factors were recorded in the system separately from speed; but speed plays a big part in their effect on accidents. The system also allowed speed to be recorded in its own right. The total effect of speed on accidents is obviously the sum of both types of factor.

Misunderstandings in the press appear to have resulted in two ways. First, speed identified as a separate factor in its own right was present in 15% of accidents, not the 7.3%, or lower figures, that are often wrongly quoted. Secondly, the 15% is only one part of the total effect of speed on accidents. When allowance is made for all of the other speed-dependent factors, the contribution is, we believe, much greater.

http://www.roadsafety.org.uk/information/publish/article_127.shtml

The article is a few years old though, and maybe driving has changed - but I doubt it.

Where I do hate speeding is in built up areas - housing estates etc. I would never speed. You just never know what or who is going step out in front of you.

shuze

ess0two wrote: »

Another fool who fails to realise cameras are just cash generators.

They don't generate any cash from me.

Now who's the fool?

Mr_Mumble

Johann Hari :wall: can't be arsed to do a complete dissection I'll just mention one blatant lie:

The country that has steered out of the recession fastest – China

China never entered recession, the lowest quarterly growth being +6.1% (annualised) in Q1 2009. A high growth rate in China or India is to be expected given the shift from agrarian to industrial society. More advanced economies which have to catch-up to the west have not entered recession either, notably Poland.

ess0two

shuze wrote: »

They don't generate any cash from me.

Now who's the fool?

My sides are splitting,ok, coffers for the government.

shuze

ess0two wrote: »

My sides are splitting,ok, coffers for the government.

Cheers, many thanks for your voluntary tax - saves the rest of us a few bob.

ess0two

shuze wrote: »

Cheers, many thanks for your voluntary tax - saves the rest of us a few bob.

As of yet i aint had a ticket,being a biker,cameras have resulted in some great roads being destroyed.

michaels

He also criticises redistricting as costing Labour seats - so clearly he is comfortable that labour could currently gain a majority of seats whilst polling fewer votes than the Tories...enough said about the value of his arguments methinks...