Speed cameras future in the balance?

[XTR2Turbo]

I hope that the compromise will be that they trigger fines only and not points. In my view a much fairer system.

David

I totally disagree the idea behind the points is to persuade u not to speed because u hit the magic 12 points and you're out. Plus the aggro with insurance or trying to get a new job because u lost it by speeding and got the required amount of points for a ban.

If you just use the fine system then people with money will just take the p*** and abuse it.

I prefer the current system with points means prizes and a hugh fine. Then it will keep the majority of idiots in check.

I generally speed on the motorways/country roads but not in the towns & cities etc

Buzz.

Yes but unfortunately the punishment has got out of proportion to the crime hence the mass opposition to them and the legal haggling.

If they were used sparingly and the speed enforced was appropriate then I could agree with your thinking. When they are blatantly multiplying everywhere and seem to be about raising money then that's all they should do.

[Morbius]

I hope that the compromise will be that they trigger fines only and not points. In my view a much fairer system.

David

I totally disagree the idea behind the points is to persuade u not to speed because u hit the magic 12 points and you're out. Plus the aggro with insurance or trying to get a new job because u lost it by speeding and got the required amount of points for a ban.

If you just use the fine system then people with money will just take the p*** and abuse it.

I prefer the current system with points means prizes and a hugh fine. Then it will keep the majority of idiots in check.

I generally speed on the motorways/country roads but not in the towns & cities etc

Buzz.

Yes but unfortunately the punishment has got out of proportion to the crime hence the mass opposition to them and the legal haggling.

If they were used sparingly and the speed enforced was appropriate then I could agree with your thinking. When they are blatantly multiplying everywhere and seem to be about raising money then that's all they should do.

The opposition is to people being told to drive slower than they want to because they don't see the potential danger, and then being slapped on the wrists when the government enforce the speed limits.

Sadly, excessive speed relative to a nubmer in a circle is seen by too many in positions of authority as symptomatic of bad driving, whereas it is inappropriate speed for the road conditions that is the real problem.  The latter cannot be measured, so they take the easy option.

I have heard it said (mainly by me) that 95% of people think that they are better than average drivers.  The other 5% know they are and are still trying to improve.

[Boomy]

If cameras remain, i dare say they will raise the number of points you need to be banned before long, simply because half the country will be in that boat.

This way, needing say 100 points before you lose your license will keep the cash rolling in.

I was kind of half joking with what i said earlier, but look what i just came across.

http://www.lscp.org.uk/en/news/details.asp?NewsId=2022

You will soon be able to go on a course which costs you £72  to be taught how even 1 mph over a 30 limit wrecks lives and all that jazz.You can do this instead of having points put on your licence or paying a speeding fine!.

You see, as cameras get worse and unneseccary ones are being used more and more, see here for example....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4796593.stm

....they have begun to understand that they simply can't keep banning people over and over and over again.

They need to keep these dangerous, community wrecking animals, (some of whom may dare to hit an average speed of 33 mph over a 5 mile stretch of road etc!) on our streets.

What better way?.

Of course, like you i find it confusing that they wanted these dangerous, accident creating killers off of our roads for so long, but are now prepared to allow them a better chance to carry on.A totaly mystery really.

They will suggest they are using money from scameras to fund this worthwhile project no doubt in an attempt to justify the money they make.

They will still earn money from this "workshop" anyway.

People may also start to become less angry with the police/government and scameras because they now have a way they can get away with being caught by some stupid SPEC system, badly placed camera or stupidly low limit.

All they have to do is cough up some cash (in the interest of safety of course) and go look out of a classroom window for a couple of hours.

Then, like almost anyone else, be it your Granny, your parents, your younger Brother or Sister etc, they too can get caught yet again for driving in perfect safety to the shops etc, but will not have to be removed from the road!.Yay!.

What better way to ensure the cash keeps flowing yet at the same time convince the sheep (and try to convert new ones) into believing this is a huge step forward.

I dare say the people attending such workshops would rather be given a map showing the location of every camera in the country, or maybe be taught how to put the locations onto a Tom Tom etc.

Even the ones still totaly hidden by bushes and trees would be a bonus.

I fear however that this could have a negative effect on money making, so they will probably just show pictures of dummy children stuck up in trees from 31 mph impacts, crying families and the odd grave stone image.

Watch how quickly it catches on, just watch

[pistonbroke]

Were all doomed I tell you  

[Morbius]

According to the news yesterday, only 5% of accidents involved people breaking the speed limit, and I bet most of those involved someone running into the back of someon braking because they had just seen a speed camera                

[Eastern_Westie]

I seem to remember reading about one or two people trying out a method of not admitting guilt in the NIP, but using PACE. Basically, they prepare a written statement, in accordance with PACE, and then return with the unsigned NIP. The statement would admit their guilt (thereby satisfying the Road Traffic Act), but that statement could not be used against them.....

Not sure how far these test cases got in the end......