Why are people against CCTV and speed cameras on the roads?

[GrumpyGregry]

You beleived his story -for one there is no "automatic ban" - the mags would weigh up the circumstances and mitigation and may ban OR impose points (not both). It is more likely that the officer was under instruction, for a variety of reasons, not to send particular offences to court.

Just confirmed with a Sargent of Sussex traffic police. What goes to court and what doesn't varies over time, depending on the instructions given by his inspector.

 

[dellzeqq]

No it isn't. I have triggered several but only ever had a letter on one occasion.

to be fair....you had help. Mind you, I was worried. I had my Cheam and Morden top on......

 

[Rahul Sapariya]

In regards to car drivers overtaking a cylist and then slamming on the brakes because of a speedcamera...wouldn't a camera that viewed your driving ability help? Imagine if someone overtook you dangerously and a camera spotted it so it sent a fine to your house? People say the death penalty is a deterrent against crime but America proves otherwise. What about taking money from people? Now that'd screw them up more.

 

[400bhp]

Sorry, I forgot to use a yellow face to indicate intended humour.

so did i

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

In regards to car drivers overtaking a cylist and then slamming on the brakes because of a speedcamera...wouldn't a camera that viewed your driving ability help? Imagine if someone overtook you dangerously and a camera spotted it so it sent a fine to your house? People say the death penalty is a deterrent against crime but America proves otherwise. What about taking money from people? Now that'd screw them up more.

I've probably mentioned this before, but one of the original ideas for the Galileo satellite system was speed control and monitoring of motor vehicles.
If that reappears now the system is being put in place things could get interesting.

 

[theclaud]

Sorry, I forgot to use a yellow face to indicate intended humour.

Hmmmm. I'm not sure it works...

 

[Linford]

Well you'll forgive me for not trusting drivers to make their own judgement as to when it's safe to speed.

You could make a similar argument that as people react to alcohol in different ways, we should give drivers the leeway to decide themselves whether it is safe to drive after a pint or two.

Many drivers have shown that they cannot be trusted to drive safely - they must be forced to do so. The fact that this inconveniences "safe" drivers who can safely exceed the posted limit is the price we must pay for having idiots in society!

Driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances removed the ability to accurately make any appraisal of the circumstances as they present. I find this argument to be a bit of a straw man. Irrespective of the speed travelled at, if the maxim is followed, then it matters little what speed is attained as long as enough time is made to react correctly to it. If a car hit you head onat 40 mph, you would be no less likely to survive than if at 50mph

We have no other choice than to trust the judgment of other on the roads in their vehicles as we have seen on here a few instances where a car has been used as a weapon that people have died.

 

[mickle]

Driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances removed the ability to accurately make any appraisal of the circumstances as they present. I find this argument to be a bit of a straw man. Irrespective of the speed travelled at, if the maxim is followed, then it matters little what speed is attained as long as enough time is made to react correctly to it. If a car hit you head onat 40 mph, you would be no less likely to survive than if at 50mph

We have no other choice than to trust the judgment of other on the roads in their vehicles as we have seen on here a few instances where a car has been used as a weapon that people have died.

You really have totally convinced yourself that it's ok to drive as fast as you like haven't you? So what, precisely, is the big difference between you and any other speeding muppet in their badly slammed Corsa? And how would the powers that be tell the difference?

 

[Linford]

Just confirmed with a Sargent of Sussex traffic police. What goes to court and what doesn't varies over time, depending on the instructions given by his inspector.

He claimed I was 50mph over the NSL, I would have argued that it was an indicated 45mph over the NSL which is actually closer to 40mph over it, and the disparity between what he saw, and what I momentarily glanced down and saw when I shut off came from the much greater acceleration I initially achieved against what his vehicle could muster, and the peak was what he needed to attain to make ground on me (by which time I was already slowing down) Either way, both would have resulted in a ban which whilst not happy with, I would have also accepted as would have been his right to pursue.
I argue that he chose to not do this as whilst I was obviously winding it on, did not do anything which would have caused an obvious and measured danger to other - people usually hit 70 up there anyway.
Going back to Smeggers point, a static cam will never make the judgement of whether the speed is a particularly dangerous act and indeed it is possible for vehicles to tailgate at below the limit and be a real danger to others (HGVs do it all the time)

 

[Linford]

You really have totally convinced yourself that it's ok to drive as fast as you like haven't you? So what, precisely, is the big difference between you and any other speeding muppet in their badly slammed Corsa? And how would the powers that be tell the difference?

No I haven't, I acceptedthe punishment handed down and it has changed what I do. The powers that be was the officer who followed me who not only clocked me speeding and handed out a fine, but also decided that there was no other case to answer and let it go at that.

 

[Linford]

You already knew that smeggers

 

[400bhp]

He claimed I was 50mph over the NSL, I would have argued that it was an indicated 45mph over the NSL which is actually closer to 40mph over it, and the disparity between what he saw, and what I momentarily glanced down and saw when I shut off came from the much greater acceleration I initially achieved against what his vehicle could muster, and the peak was what he needed to attain to make ground on me (by which time I was already slowing down) Either way, both would have resulted in a ban which whilst not happy with, I would have also accepted as would have been his right to pursue.
I argue that he chose to not do this as whilst I was obviously winding it on, did not do anything which would have caused an obvious and measured danger to other - people usually hit 70 up there anyway.
Going back to Smeggers point, a static cam will never make the judgement of whether the speed is a particularly dangerous act and indeed it is possible for vehicles to tailgate at below the limit and be a real danger to others (HGVs do it all the time)

You really don't get it do you. I thought you were of reasonable intelligence too.

 

[Linford]

I didn't

You really don't get it do you. I thought you were of reasonable intelligence too.

I didn't say what I did was right though did I. I did the crime, I accepted the penalty.

I take it you have never touched 100mph on the road before ?

 

[400bhp]

I didn't


I didn't say what I did was right though did I. I did the crime, I accepted the penalty.

I take it you have never touched 100mph on the road before ?

Of course, and have probably travelled faster than yow (and been caught too).

 

[400bhp]

Ah, this will be some that "faux solidarity of empathetic whinging", that TeeCee was wibbling on about will it?

nope