Next time you flash you headlights.........

Harry_Flashman

Flyboy152 wrote: »

A report on a radio station about something, sometime ago?

What did this random report say about how much councils earn from the cameras and how much does it cost to run them?

Aye a report on Radio 4 which tends towards balanced reporting.

I've no idea what the earnings are from these scams, but it was very clearly stated that some councils would no longer be using their cameras as the money will go to central government while they are still expected to maintain them.

Now - your evidence to the contrary?

Paradigm

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

So what is your answer to my question then or do you not have one but are happy to spout off 5hite without justifying what your saying?

If you could remind me of the question please?

I wouldn't want to waste time spouting 5hite answering the wrong one

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Paradigm wrote: »

If you could remind me of the question please?

I wouldn't want to waste time spouting 5hite answering the wrong one

If you think fining people for speeding is not a good enough deterrent and is only used to make money what would you do to people who speed instead?

Paradigm

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

If you think fining people for speeding is not a good enough deterrent and is only used to make money what would you do to people who speed instead?

Ok...

Two seperate issues IMO.

I don't have a problem (well, not much of one) with static cameras & well signed, highly visible mobile cameras (of any type), they can be seen & therefore achieve the desired goal, drivers adhere to the limits. After all, speed kills as we're continually told so slower drivers = less deaths & mission accomplished! Anyone caught speeding under these circumstances deserves all they get!

There is, however, one major flaw with this.... hardly anyone speeds & no cash is collected!

Enter the un-marked camera van/plod hiding behind a tree etc etc.

They have no interest in slowing drivers down, else they wouldn't be hidden so if lowering the speed of vehicles, aka Road Safety, isn't the priority.... what is?

Also, a speeding driver is likely to be blissfully unaware that he's been caught (until the NIP drops through the door days later) meaning he carries on speeding with the obvious possible outcome... I do hate to mention children in a speeding thread but you get the gist!

I'll take some convincing that hidden mobile traps are nothing more than cash cows with the sole purpose of raising as much revenue as possible... while sticking one finger up to any thoughts of safety!

Just to add, I know some posters will come up with "if you stick to the limits blah blah" & in an ideal world that would be true but we live in a far from ideal world & none of us are perfect!

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Good to see a decent answer not full of the normal rhetoric that a lot of people spout so thankyou

Gene_Hunt_2

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

Good to see a decent answer not full of the normal rhetoric that a lot of people spout so thankyou

You mean one you agree with.

Paradigm

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

You mean one you agree with.

To be honest, from reading his posts on this thread, I doubt he agrees with anything I said so all credit to him for his response... makes a change on this forum

Sid_Wolf

anyone else think he looks a bit like Jigsaw??

Flyboy152

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

Aye a report on Radio 4 which tends towards balanced reporting.

I've no idea what the earnings are from these scams, but it was very clearly stated that some councils would no longer be using their cameras as the money will go to central government while they are still expected to maintain them.

Now - your evidence to the contrary?

To the contrary of what? You have provided nothing whatsoever that reinforces your claims.

Flyboy152

Paradigm wrote: »

Ok...

Two seperate issues IMO.

I don't have a problem (well, not much of one) with static cameras & well signed, highly visible mobile cameras (of any type), they can be seen & therefore achieve the desired goal, drivers adhere to the limits. After all, speed kills as we're continually told so slower drivers = less deaths & mission accomplished! Anyone caught speeding under these circumstances deserves all they get!

There is, however, one major flaw with this.... hardly anyone speeds & no cash is collected!

Enter the un-marked camera van/plod hiding behind a tree etc etc.

They have no interest in slowing drivers down, else they wouldn't be hidden so if lowering the speed of vehicles, aka Road Safety, isn't the priority.... what is?

Also, a speeding driver is likely to be blissfully unaware that he's been caught (until the NIP drops through the door days later) meaning he carries on speeding with the obvious possible outcome... I do hate to mention children in a speeding thread but you get the gist!

I'll take some convincing that hidden mobile traps are nothing more than cash cows with the sole purpose of raising as much revenue as possible... while sticking one finger up to any thoughts of safety!

Just to add, I know some posters will come up with "if you stick to the limits blah blah" & in an ideal world that would be true but we live in a far from ideal world & none of us are perfect!

If these stop people from speeding, how is that a flaw?

You may scoff at those who advise staying within the limits, but it is inescapable logic that if they don't speed they have nothing to worry about.

The speed at which it takes drivers to receive their NIPs is irrelevant; they get caught, get fined and have been punished for their crime.

However, you quite falteringly sidestepped the question; what is the alternative punishment for speeding drivers?