M42 Junction 3a to 2 - Cameras?

bigadaj

Don't try and reason with Bob, he'll try and drag you down to his level if you knew what I mean.

bigadaj

GingerBob wrote: »

Sorry, but that's rubbish. The purpose of a speed camera is not to catch "criminals" as you describe them, but to stop people speeding. If it's raising vast amounts of money then it's not working and should be removed. It couldn't be simpler.

So you would continue to encourage speeding by your logic?

GingerBob_3

bigadaj wrote: »

So you would continue to encourage speeding by your logic?

How? .

Fat_Walt

GingerBob wrote: »

Sorry, but that's rubbish. The purpose of a speed camera is not to catch "criminals" as you describe them, but to stop people speeding. If it's raising vast amounts of money then it's not working and should be removed. It couldn't be simpler.

Why? If you remove it they won't stop speeding.

GingerBob_3

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Why? If you remove it they won't stop speeding.

You put it somewhere that it might stop speeding.

Fat_Walt

GingerBob wrote: »

You put it somewhere that it might stop speeding.

Well if it's raising large amounts of cash people are speeding there so why move it?

Mercdriver

GingerBob wrote: »

You put it somewhere that it might stop speeding.

Do try and make sense.

Why would it stop people speeding elsewhere if it isn't there?

If you choose to break the law don't moan about the prospect of being made to pay the prescribed action for it.

Do I always drive within the limits? If I were to answer that truthfully, I'd have to say no, but if I get caught either by a policeman or by a camera, I have no-one to blame other than myself.

Don't blame the camera being there for getting points and a fine, the fault is the driver for driving over the speed limit. If you want to drive faster legally, then petition parliament to increase the speed limits. Otherwise you have actions and consequences. Do the thing that is against the law and get caught, you then have to deal with the consequences. Whose fault is it for breaking the law? Yours, or the cameras, because you got caught?

GingerBob_3

Mercdriver wrote: »

Do try and make sense.

Why would it stop people speeding elsewhere if it isn't there?

If you choose to break the law don't moan about the prospect of being made to pay the prescribed action for it.

Do I always drive within the limits? If I were to answer that truthfully, I'd have to say no, but if I get caught either by a policeman or by a camera, I have no-one to blame other than myself.

Don't blame the camera being there for getting points and a fine, the fault is the driver for driving over the speed limit. If you want to drive faster legally, then petition parliament to increase the speed limits. Otherwise you have actions and consequences. Do the thing that is against the law and get caught, you then have to deal with the consequences. Whose fault is it for breaking the law? Yours or the cameras because you got caught?

Unfortunately you and Fat Walt are completely missing the point. You and me are talking about different issues. You clearly think revenue raising is a valid reason for deploying speed cameras. Well it isn't, and even the government says it isn't (but then does the opposite anyway).


To go back to my original post, and one former Inspector Mick Bennett of Cleveland Police hoping that motorists would continue to speed at an accident black-spot so that he could get more loot to spend on yet more cameras: what a bast**d!

Mercdriver

GingerBob wrote: »

Unfortunately you and Fat Walt are completely missing the point. You and me are talking about different issues. You clearly think revenue raising is a valid reason for deploying speed cameras. Well it isn't, and even the government says it isn't (but then does the opposite anyway).


To go back to my original post, and one former Inspector Mick Bennett of Cleveland Police hoping that motorists would continue to speed at an accident black-spot so that he could get more loot to spend on yet more cameras: what a bast**d!

Whatever reason they are deployed for is irrelevant. You break the law and get caught, you pay the penalty for doing so. You could use the same argument you are using to say that CCTV shouldn't be used to prosecute thieves.

If you don't want to face the consequences, then don't break the law. Simples.

Yes, cameras are a blunt instrument, but that doesn't change the fact that getting caught committing a criminal offence has consequences (and yes, speeding is a criminal offence, just not a recordable one for background checks).

ETA Also, if your observation skills are insufficient to notice cameras ahead of you, should you be even contemplating driving above the limit?

GingerBob_3

Mercdriver wrote: »

Whatever reason they are deployed for is irrelevant. You break the law and get caught, you pay the penalty for doing so. You could use the same argument you are using to say that CCTV shouldn't be used to prosecute thieves.

If you don't want to face the consequences, then don't break the law. Simples.

Yes, cameras are a blunt instrument, but that doesn't change the fact that getting caught committing a criminal offence has consequences (and yes, speeding is a criminal offence, just not a recordable one for background checks).

ETA Also, if your observation skills are insufficient to notice cameras ahead of you, should you be even contemplating driving above the limit?

I give up! Are you a current or former plod? This is the sort of dumb argument - which isn't even addressing the point I'm making - that one might expect from them.