Anony-Moose wrote:
Unfortunately I was one of them and I held my hands up and said "fair enough guv... you got me."

No complaints.

Coffee anyone?

Triumph Herald wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote:
Unfortunately I was one of them and I held my hands up and said "fair enough guv... you got me."

No complaints.

Coffee anyone?

Then you are the sort of ill informed patsy who is complying with the on-the-spot justice menancing our freedoms and civil protections. Giving the police the power to bully people into paying fines to them was one of the most evil and pernicious attacks on our society. See also: haebus corpus, detention without trial, etc

Triumph Herald wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote: Unfortunately I was one of them
and I held my hands up and said "fair enough guv... you got me."
No complaints.
Coffee anyone?

Then you are the sort of ill informed patsy who
is complying with the on-the-spot justice menancing our freedoms and
civil protections. Giving the police the power to bully people into
paying fines to them was one of the most evil and pernicious attacks on
our society. See also: haebus corpus, detention without trial, etc

hmm wrote:

Triumph Herald wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote: Unfortunately I was one of them and I held my hands up and said "fair enough guv... you got me." No complaints. Coffee anyone?

Then you are the sort of ill informed patsy who is complying with the on-the-spot justice menancing our freedoms and civil protections. Giving the police the power to bully people into paying fines to them was one of the most evil and pernicious attacks on our society. See also: haebus corpus, detention without trial, etc

Ha! This guy admits he did wrong and takes it on the chin, nothing to moan about here

Erm. He wasn't bullied, he has the option to not accept the fine, and go to court. He did break the speed limit, and like it or not, that is illegal.

Pernicious attack on our scoiety - what are you on???
Like it or not speeding is dangerous - personally if 60,000 caught speeding will make them think twice next time and save the life of a single innocent person/child well done speed cameras!

...hobsons choice of "Admit guilt and receive a small punishment (a fine)", or "Dare to challenge us and the legal system will bankrupt you".

Triumph Herald wrote:
George wrote:-

Erm. He wasn\'t bullied, he has the option to not accept the fine, and go to court. He did break the speed limit, and like it or not, that is illegal.

I\'m not suggesting people should be let off illegal activities, particularly not speeding. My concern is that the police are being given greater powers to administer justice on the spot, as they see fit. And the \'bullying\' aspect - perhaps that should be \'blackmailing\' - is the hobsons choice of \"Admit guilt and receive a small punishment (a fine)\", or \"Dare to challenge us and the legal system will bankrupt you\". On-the-spot fines may be a thoroughly pragmatic way of dispensing punishment, but this represents a fundamental shift in police powers. As a result the police constantly push the boundaries with people too frightened or poor to challenge them in court. The current example is A27 speeding tickets - Police issuing fines when they know the road signage etc does not legally support it. But Joe Public doesn\'t risk challenging it in court and pays up the fine, taking points etc. Only when someone rich or clever enough takes them to court does the con get revealed. Any one who thinks this is OK cos \"them drivers are guilty any way, innit\", should look forward to being framed for a crime in the future or otherwise being treated to summary plod justice. But that\'s ok because \"you were probably guilty and deserved it\". And the removal of haebus corpus, and the introduction of detetion without charge or trial are all other signs of our march into totalitarianism. (end rant) Some muppet blathered:-

Pernicious attack on our scoiety - what are you on??? Like it or not speeding is dangerous - personally if 60,000 caught speeding will make them think twice next time and save the life of a single innocent person/child well done speed cameras!

Look the big words up in the dictionary if they confuse you dear. And then, the idiots cry \"won\'t somebody think of the children\". Classic. Actually you should be trotting out the \'protect us from terrorists\' - that\'s the excuse de jour. I\'m in favour of all bad driving being identified and prosecuted through the courts. Lots more to say but I don\'t want to get into the speed camera debate. BTW, I have a clean driving licence.

Thanks although I'm not sure which of us is the muppet - my comments are specifically regarding the FACT that people get killed by speeding motorists, ergo less speeding WILL save lives. As one who has had to misfortune to see the impact on a family of their child being killed by a speeding motorist and having had friends killed as a result of speeding I speak with some authority.
BTW I have a clean license too, nothing clever about that really though is there?
Terrorists - completely different subject and absolutely nothing to do with the article discussed here

Oz wrote:
"The number has fallen steadily at our camera sites. That's what people should concentrate on because that is what we are about - reducing casualties, not giving out tickets." Yes, but what about the rest of the county? Oh my, they've gone up, proving that cameras aren't actually saving lives other than at the spots they are installed. why are so many installed at spots where accidents are not frequent?

Derek wrote:
For a fairly modest outlay you can arm your vehicle with the latest technology to avoid everything from speed cameras to mobile traps. Oddly enough, I've never been caught speeding and never been involved in a road accident and I don't hang around while I'm on the road. When the 'Safety' Camera partnerships achieve their desired aim of being able to go back to the disguising and hiding of these devices, a lot more drivers will probably make similar investments.

Rich wrote:
Speed camera's are fine if they are installed in the correct places to reduce the number of accident and injuries. However I think that there is a money making incentive as well used by the authorities when deciding the placement of the camera's

George wrote:

Triumph Herald wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote: Unfortunately I was one of them and I held my hands up and said "fair enough guv... you got me." No complaints. Coffee anyone?

Then you are the sort of ill informed patsy who is complying with the on-the-spot justice menancing our freedoms and civil protections. Giving the police the power to bully people into paying fines to them was one of the most evil and pernicious attacks on our society. See also: haebus corpus, detention without trial, etc

Erm. He wasn't bullied, he has the option to not accept the fine, and go to court. He did break the speed limit, and like it or not, that is illegal. Freedom does not mean "the freedom to do whatever I please at all times", that simply doesn't work. You cannot just cry "bully boy!" and "unfair!" and "woe is me! our liberties are at risk!" every time someone is arrested or fined. That demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of what civil liberties are really about. Is the right not to be run over by someone driving at 100mph not also a civil liberty? Habeus corpus does not come into this, he was't detained at all. If you think this makes him an ill-informed patsy, you're making the mistake that all justice is corrupt, and that's utter nonsense I'm afraid. Re-think your position and try focusing on where our liberties are really being eroded, because it ain't being done by speed cameras There, you've made me defend speed cameras, and I hate the bloody things! Satisfied?

Hiram Hackenbacker wrote:

Rich wrote:
Speed camera's are fine if they are installed in the correct places to
reduce the number of accident and injuries. However I think that there
is a money making incentive as well used by the authorities when
deciding the placement of the camera's

Tell you what - I don't
care if it is about raising revenue. It simply becomes a tax on the
stupid - one which I don't pay.

George wrote:

Hiram Hackenbacker wrote:

Rich wrote: Speed camera's are fine if they are installed in the correct places to reduce the number of accident and injuries. However I think that there is a money making incentive as well used by the authorities when deciding the placement of the camera's

Tell you what - I don't care if it is about raising revenue. It simply becomes a tax on the stupid - one which I don't pay.

Any idea how much money has been spent on these cameras? I'm torn between buying into the "it's a revenue machine!"/conspiracy idea, and plain old business sense. Cameras might bring in revenue, but they still cost money You seem to have a knack for finding these things out :-)

toxteth o'grady wrote:
Statistics clearly show that speed is NOT the main contributor to road accidents...it's driver skill (or lack of it). It's not speeding drivers that i have near misses with everyday, it's looney drivers with no awareness to what is around them !. I agree with Mike, the Driving Test needs a rigerous overhall & made far harder. Also a compulsory post test to cover things like motorways.

George wrote:
I'd like to see the speed limit in urban areas dropped to 20, but the archaic 70mph motorway limit - brought in when we still had drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - to be raised to something more sensible. The conception that if one is sticking to the speed limit, one is automatically safe, is fundamentally flawed

hmm wrote:

George wrote: I'd like to see the speed limit in urban areas dropped to 20, but the archaic 70mph motorway limit - brought in when we still had drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - to be raised to something more sensible. The conception that if one is sticking to the speed limit, one is automatically safe, is fundamentally flawed

Increasing the speed limit would cause horrific accidents in rush hour, the bmw lot would be right at the limit still, with not regard for whoever. But if they were to up the max limit but only on roads thats had variable speed limits and average speed cameras i think this would be a great improvement! Cars may have got a lot better but people are getting a lot worse

hmm wrote:

George wrote: I'd like to see the speed limit in
urban areas dropped to 20, but the archaic 70mph motorway limit -
brought in when we still had drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - to be
raised to something more sensible. The conception that if one is
sticking to the speed limit, one is automatically safe, is
fundamentally flawed

Increasing the speed limit would cause
horrific accidents in rush hour, the bmw lot would be right at the
limit still, with not regard for whoever. But if they were to up the
max limit but only on roads thats had variable speed limits and average
speed cameras i think this would be a great improvement!
Cars may have got a lot better but people are getting a lot worse

Simon wrote:
As a motorist who does not speed and does not have device to identify
cameras lets just get rid of the fine but give 6 points instead. If you
get caught twice you get a ban. I cannot see how anyone could complain
as there is no revenue raising issue and you would have broken the law.
It would also help with congestion as lots more would be unable to use
their car.

Simon wrote:
As a motorist who does not speed and does not have device to identify cameras lets just get rid of the fine but give 6 points instead. If you get caught twice you get a ban. I cannot see how anyone could complain as there is no revenue raising issue and you would have broken the law. It would also help with congestion as lots more would be unable to use their car.

car commuter wrote:
Speed cameras do very little for road safety. They create a bubble of
compliance. Any one caught by a static camera deserves their fine for
being stupid.
What speed cameras cannot do is catch the uninsured, untaxed and
unlicenced drivers who are a bigger menace on the roads than somebody
doing 45 mph within a 40 mph speed limit. The former are those who
should have their cars impounded and crushed !

George wrote:

car commuter wrote: Speed cameras do very little for road safety. They create a bubble of compliance. Any one caught by a static camera deserves their fine for being stupid. What speed cameras cannot do is catch the uninsured, untaxed and unlicenced drivers who are a bigger menace on the roads than somebody doing 45 mph within a 40 mph speed limit. The former are those who should have their cars impounded and crushed !

Although there are cameras that can do all that

Hiram Hackenbacker wrote:

George wrote:

car commuter wrote: Speed cameras do very little for road safety. They create a bubble of compliance. Any one caught by a static camera deserves their fine for being stupid. What speed cameras cannot do is catch the uninsured, untaxed and unlicenced drivers who are a bigger menace on the roads than somebody doing 45 mph within a 40 mph speed limit. The former are those who should have their cars impounded and crushed !

Although there are cameras that can do all that

There are and I am sure the Government is looking at installing, what we shall call, "compliance cameras". On the face of it they could be very useful. Here in London it would be very easy to use the congestion charge camera system and database to check compliance with insurance, road tax, MOT and ownership.

Hiram Hackenbacker wrote:
Anony-Moose wrote:- "Big Brother is going to be watching ALL of us. BEWARE!! lol" Is going? Is - I use my Oyster card and that tracks every trip by bus and tube and my new Eros card tracks every time I buy the Evening Standard. Oyster and Eros are both being expanded. Still I have nothing to hide :-)

Mr T.Watt wrote:
Denzil wrote:I don't have any points Most accurate post I have ever witnessed on this site.

Ian Watson wrote:
Same old story, casualties have fallen at the camera sites. Meanwhile nationally casualties especially amongst pedestrians continue to rise, up 13% this year. Just another example of exploiting statistics to justify the cash cow. ps to Anoony-Moose ....so, which partnership are you the spokesman for then? ...no ones fooled I'm afraid.

Elaine Klose-Doff wrote:
This is bloody ridiculous ! These camera can't take into account the
fact you may have been stuck in a jam (caused by some idiot driver) for
ages and have to put the foot down to make up for lost time. In recent
weeks I have had to 'bend' a few limits to get to very important
meetings on time - after some idiot has caused a prang on the motorway
!!

George wrote:
I'd like to see the speed limit in urban areas dropped to 20, but the archaic 70mph motorway limit - brought in when we still had drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - to be raised to something more sensible. The conception that if one is sticking to the speed limit, one is automatically safe, is fundamentally flawed

Jam Doughnut wrote:
GOD, don't you drool on and on. Hey why don't you go be a teacher or even better try running for presidency BUT you're likely to bore the death out of society. God talk about getting worked up about things. Except speed camera its part of this society we live in. If you don't like then don't drive simply, then it wont effect you.

Colin wrote:

George wrote: I'd like to see the speed limit in
urban areas dropped to 20, but the archaic 70mph motorway limit -
brought in when we still had drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - to be
raised to something more sensible. The conception that if one is
sticking to the speed limit, one is automatically safe, is
fundamentally flawed

Isn't the 70mph speed limit in place also
for the fact that motorway safety barriers etc aren't built for
accidents at speeds excessively more than the limit?
Also, going back to the topic, simple solution for all those whose
previously undetected crime is now catching them out, if you cant do
the time, dont do the crime. Simple.

Hiram Hackenbacker wrote:

Oz wrote:
"The number has fallen steadily at our camera sites. That's what people should concentrate on because that is what we are about - reducing casualties, not giving out tickets." Yes, but what about the rest of the county? Oh my, they've gone up, proving that cameras aren't actually saving lives other than at the spots they are installed. why are so many installed at spots where accidents are not frequent?

I am often asked to provide a source for my rants - could you do the same please?

Mr T.Watt wrote:
Denzil wrote:I don't have any points Most accurate post I have ever witnessed on this site.

Oz wrote:

Hiram Hackenbacker wrote:

Oz wrote: "The number has fallen steadily at our camera sites. That's what people should concentrate on because that is what we are about - reducing casualties, not giving out tickets." Yes, but what about the rest of the county? Oh my, they've gone up, proving that cameras aren't actually saving lives other than at the spots they are installed. why are so many installed at spots where accidents are not frequent?

I am often asked to provide a source for my rants - could you do the same please?

These are the latest figures I believe are available - the number of seriously injured is down, but fatalities is up, and previous years don't hold a general trend either: http://www.hampshire policeauthority.org/ hpa/hpapublications/ sotonpolicing.htm

carol wrote:
I was given a ticket for 32 in a 30. Don't tell me that I was a danger, especially on Mountbatten way were there is no public walking.

Ian Watson wrote:
Oh, cameras are going to stay anony-moose. All the time there is corrupt politics at hand and the \'kerching\' factor blinds otherwise sane councillors and politicians to support this policy I have no doubt the death rate will continue to rise. Partnerships wanted the driving style of an entire country to change because of these speed cameras, they\'ve succeed, only not in the way they\'d intended ..a classic example of be careful what you wish for ..you may get it. There\'s little point in me saying anything further, the pressure is on the partnerships to perform to prove me wrong! ...and if they do, I\'d be the first to write a letter of congratulation!

jason wrote:
You can buy a special can of spray on the internet that lines a a thin transparent coating over your numberplate that reflects the camera flash so your registration is totally blurred out. I purchased this and tested it down bishopstoke road and drove past the camera there at 75 mph (it's a 30 zone) I did this twice (at night) and got away with it - so it works

carol wrote:
I was given a ticket for 32 in a 30. Don't tell me that I was a danger, especially on Mountbatten way were there is no public walking.

Anony-Moose wrote:

jason wrote: You can buy a special can of spray on the internet that lines a a thin transparent coating over your numberplate that reflects the camera flash so your registration is totally blurred out. I purchased this and tested it down bishopstoke road and drove past the camera there at 75 mph (it's a 30 zone) I did this twice (at night) and got away with it - so it works

Bit of an idiot aren't you Jason.

last one out wrote:

hmm wrote:

Triumph Herald wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote: Unfortunately I was one of them and I held my hands up and said "fair enough guv... you got me." No complaints. Coffee anyone?

Then you are the sort of ill informed patsy who is complying with the on-the-spot justice menancing our freedoms and civil protections. Giving the police the power to bully people into paying fines to them was one of the most evil and pernicious attacks on our society. See also: haebus corpus, detention without trial, etc

Ha! This guy admits he did wrong and takes it on the chin, nothing to moan about here

Pernicious attack on our scoiety - what are you on??? Like it or not speeding is dangerous - personally if 60,000 caught speeding will make them think twice next time and save the life of a single innocent person/child well done speed cameras!

Moose face wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote:

jason wrote: You can buy a special can of spray on the internet that lines a a thin transparent coating over your numberplate that reflects the camera flash so your registration is totally blurred out. I purchased this and tested it down bishopstoke road and drove past the camera there at 75 mph (it's a 30 zone) I did this twice (at night) and got away with it - so it works

Bit of an idiot aren't you Jason.

and ur not?

Anony-Moose wrote:

Moose face wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote:

jason wrote: You can buy a special can of spray on the internet that lines a a thin transparent coating over your numberplate that reflects the camera flash so your registration is totally blurred out. I purchased this and tested it down bishopstoke road and drove past the camera there at 75 mph (it's a 30 zone) I did this twice (at night) and got away with it - so it works

Bit of an idiot aren't you Jason.

and ur not?

He went down Bishopstoke Road at 75mp - not once, but twice. Bishopstoke Road is a busy road and lots of people walk down it too - so this idiot going down it at 75mph is sure to cause an accident or a death of an innocent sooner or later. So tell me again... whose the idiot you idiot.

Moose blew his top wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote:

Moose face wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote:

jason wrote: You can buy a special can of spray on the internet that lines a a thin transparent coating over your numberplate that reflects the camera flash so your registration is totally blurred out. I purchased this and tested it down bishopstoke road and drove past the camera there at 75 mph (it's a 30 zone) I did this twice (at night) and got away with it - so it works

Bit of an idiot aren't you Jason.

and ur not?

He went down Bishopstoke Road at 75mp - not once, but twice. Bishopstoke Road is a busy road and lots of people walk down it too - so this idiot going down it at 75mph is sure to cause an accident or a death of an innocent sooner or later. So tell me again... whose the idiot you idiot.

You, hope your be walking down that road when he's next driving down there.

carol wrote:
I was given a ticket for 32 in a 30. Don't tell me that I was a danger, especially on Mountbatten way were there is no public walking.

Anony-Moose wrote:

Moose blew his top wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote:

Moose face wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote:

jason wrote: You can buy a special can of spray on the internet that lines a a thin transparent coating over your numberplate that reflects the camera flash so your registration is totally blurred out. I purchased this and tested it down bishopstoke road and drove past the camera there at 75 mph (it's a 30 zone) I did this twice (at night) and got away with it - so it works

Bit of an idiot aren't you Jason.

and ur not?

He went down Bishopstoke Road at 75mp - not once, but twice. Bishopstoke Road is a busy road and lots of people walk down it too - so this idiot going down it at 75mph is sure to cause an accident or a death of an innocent sooner or later. So tell me again... whose the idiot you idiot.

You, hope your be walking down that road when he's next driving down there.

Thanks and goodnight you idiot.

King Mush wrote:

carol wrote: I was given a ticket for 32 in a 30. Don't tell me that I was a danger, especially on Mountbatten way were there is no public walking.

Eh? So what about the generally accepted idea that any speed camera/mobile cop-held gun etc has to have some tolerance? I thought it was allowing 10% over the limit plus 1/2 mph? Car speedos are not 100% accurate. These infernal Dick Turpin machines need sorting by whatever means possible. I dont advocate EXCESSIVE speed, especially through built up areas. Different story at say 4am or driving along a deserted country road in the middle of the night and being mugged by a camera. I'm still laughing at the S Yorkshire police chief who got stung by one of his own! Mind you - it was in N Wales and they hate all English anyway!

Oz wrote:
@ Hiram Hackenbacker, Tracey Island: No, I don't unfortunately. I believe though that motorcyclists make a disproportionately large number of those killed and seriously injured, and yet the majority of cameras are still front facing.

gladstone wrote:

Ian Watson wrote: Oh, cameras are going to stay anony-moose. All the time there is corrupt politics at hand and the \\\\\\\'kerching\\\\\\\' factor blinds otherwise sane councillors and politicians to support this policy I have no doubt the death rate will continue to rise. Partnerships wanted the driving style of an entire country to change because of these speed cameras, they\\\\\\\'ve succeed, only not in the way they\\\\\\\'d intended ..a classic example of be careful what you wish for ..you may get it. There\\\\\\\'s little point in me saying anything further, the pressure is on the partnerships to perform to prove me wrong! ...and if they do, I\\\\\\\'d be the first to write a letter of congratulation!

There is little point in you saying anything further because all you have done is to put up a series of straw men and non-sequiturs in the place of any serious argument. The money raised does not go into politicians\\\' pockets. It firstly covers the cost of operating the safety camera partnership with any excess going into the exchequer like fines do for any other form of law-breaking. The statistics are quite clear - cameras are installed where there were previously high rates of accident and those rates fall once the cameras have been installed. There are people - perhaps you, perhaps me - who are walking around today who would otherwise not have been. Where I do agree with those who are anti-camera is that people get to know where the cameras are and slow down to pass them only to speed up again. There are two answers to this. Either get rid of cameras altogether or to stop the nonsense whereby they are highly visible and preceded by warning signs. I favour the latter option. The speed limit sign (or the fact that you are in an urban area) should be all the warning you get that cameras (fixed or mobile) may be operating. If you don\\\'t break the speed limit you have nothing to fear. I have never understood why a minority of motorists feel that the law on speeding is optional and they can choose whether or not to obey it. Do they apply this idea to other areas of the law such as theft, fraud or violence as in \\\"Yeah, I punched him but it\\\'s not fair you caught me on camera. There should have been a police officer standing behind me to catch me fairly.\\\" If you don\\\'t want a fine and a points endorsement, obey the speed limit. I don\\\'t see how anybody can rationally argue against this point.

jason wrote:
You can buy a special can of spray on the internet that lines a a thin transparent coating over your numberplate that reflects the camera flash so your registration is totally blurred out. I purchased this and tested it down bishopstoke road and drove past the camera there at 75 mph (it's a 30 zone) I did this twice (at night) and got away with it - so it works

hmm wrote:

George wrote: I'd like to see the speed limit in urban areas dropped to 20, but the archaic 70mph motorway limit - brought in when we still had drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - to be raised to something more sensible. The conception that if one is sticking to the speed limit, one is automatically safe, is fundamentally flawed

Increasing the speed limit would cause horrific accidents in rush hour, the bmw lot would be right at the limit still, with not regard for whoever. But if they were to up the max limit but only on roads thats had variable speed limits and average speed cameras i think this would be a great improvement! Cars may have got a lot better but people are getting a lot worse

Anony-Moose wrote:

Hiram Hackenbacker wrote:

George wrote:

car commuter wrote: Speed cameras do very little for road safety. They create a bubble of compliance. Any one caught by a static camera deserves their fine for being stupid. What speed cameras cannot do is catch the uninsured, untaxed and unlicenced drivers who are a bigger menace on the roads than somebody doing 45 mph within a 40 mph speed limit. The former are those who should have their cars impounded and crushed !

Although there are cameras that can do all that

There are and I am sure the Government is looking at installing, what we shall call, \"compliance cameras\". On the face of it they could be very useful. Here in London it would be very easy to use the congestion charge camera system and database to check compliance with insurance, road tax, MOT and ownership.

Big Brother is going to be watching ALL of us. BEWARE!! lol

Wilberforce wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote:

Hiram Hackenbacker wrote:

George wrote:

car commuter
wrote: Speed cameras do very little for road safety. They create a
bubble of compliance. Any one caught by a static camera deserves their
fine for being stupid. What speed cameras cannot do is catch the
uninsured, untaxed and unlicenced drivers who are a bigger menace on
the roads than somebody doing 45 mph within a 40 mph speed limit. The
former are those who should have their cars impounded and crushed
!

Although there are cameras that can do all
that

There are and I am sure the Government is looking at
installing, what we shall call, \"compliance cameras\". On the face of
it they could be very useful. Here in London it would be very easy to
use the congestion charge camera system and database to check
compliance with insurance, road tax, MOT and ownership.

Big
Brother is going to be watching ALL of us. BEWARE!! lol

Compliance cameras? ...eeeek ..I'd better start writing a worm to drop
on that database so that I can add all your driving habit info to the
cd's I got from HMRC

Geek wrote:

Wilberforce wrote:

Anony-Moose wrote:

Hiram Hackenbacker wrote:

George wrote:

car commuter wrote: Speed cameras do very little for road safety. They create a bubble of compliance. Any one caught by a static camera deserves their fine for being stupid. What speed cameras cannot do is catch the uninsured, untaxed and unlicenced drivers who are a bigger menace on the roads than somebody doing 45 mph within a 40 mph speed limit. The former are those who should have their cars impounded and crushed !

Although there are cameras that can do all that

There are and I am sure the Government is looking at installing, what we shall call, \\\"compliance cameras\\\". On the face of it they could be very useful. Here in London it would be very easy to use the congestion charge camera system and database to check compliance with insurance, road tax, MOT and ownership.

Big Brother is going to be watching ALL of us. BEWARE!! lol

Compliance cameras? ...eeeek ..I\'d better start writing a worm to drop on that database so that I can add all your driving habit info to the cd\'s I got from HMRC

Obviously doesn\'t know what a \"worm\" is

mike wrote:
Have as many speed cameras as you want it wont reduce accidents. The only way to do that is to reduce the number of god awful drivers on the roads. Make the test much harder enforce a minimum period of tuition that would include motorway night driving etc. when will people realise its the terrible quality of british driveing that is killing so many people and speeding is only a small part of it!

Anony-Moose wrote:

hmm wrote:

George wrote: I\'d like to see the speed limit in urban areas dropped to 20, but the archaic 70mph motorway limit - brought in when we still had drum brakes and cross-ply tyres - to be raised to something more sensible. The conception that if one is sticking to the speed limit, one is automatically safe, is fundamentally flawed

Increasing the speed limit would cause horrific accidents in rush hour, the bmw lot would be right at the limit still, with not regard for whoever. But if they were to up the max limit but only on roads thats had variable speed limits and average speed cameras i think this would be a great improvement! Cars may have got a lot better but people are getting a lot worse

Why are you picking on BMW drivers? Can\'t you say company car drivers instead or high powered car drivers? I, for one, do not agree with the fact all BMW drivers are dangerous drivers.

What we look at is casualties. The number has fallen steadily at our camera sites.