Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:35am Wed 11 Apr 12

Perthsaint2 says...

Good on em!
Should be more of it!
Good on em! Should be more of it! Perthsaint2
  • Score: 0

6:46am Wed 11 Apr 12

nedscrumpo says...

A sledgehammer to the glass lens would have been more effective.
A sledgehammer to the glass lens would have been more effective. nedscrumpo
  • Score: 0

7:17am Wed 11 Apr 12

solents says...

A well placed camera such as one near a school or in a 30mph limit is fine by me. If it's a 30mph limit then 30mph MAXIMUM is all you should be doing. You can see the camera, it's a 30mph limit for a reason so stop being a pratt and live with it. End of.
A well placed camera such as one near a school or in a 30mph limit is fine by me. If it's a 30mph limit then 30mph MAXIMUM is all you should be doing. You can see the camera, it's a 30mph limit for a reason so stop being a pratt and live with it. End of. solents
  • Score: 0

7:43am Wed 11 Apr 12

AD1234 says...

If somebody burgles your house, you'll think they've broken the law, and should be punished.
Then you'll go out in your car and think it's ok to break a different law (speeding), only to be p*ssed off when you're punished!
If somebody burgles your house, you'll think they've broken the law, and should be punished. Then you'll go out in your car and think it's ok to break a different law (speeding), only to be p*ssed off when you're punished! AD1234
  • Score: 0

8:13am Wed 11 Apr 12

sophijldh says...

Could it hav been the ppl who burnt the car in chilworth tryin to cover ther tracks... To many things bein set alight atm
Could it hav been the ppl who burnt the car in chilworth tryin to cover ther tracks... To many things bein set alight atm sophijldh
  • Score: 0

8:21am Wed 11 Apr 12

Higginz says...

sophijldh wrote:
Could it hav been the ppl who burnt the car in chilworth tryin to cover ther tracks... To many things bein set alight atm
Please don't breed.
[quote][p][bold]sophijldh[/bold] wrote: Could it hav been the ppl who burnt the car in chilworth tryin to cover ther tracks... To many things bein set alight atm[/p][/quote]Please don't breed. Higginz
  • Score: 0

9:18am Wed 11 Apr 12

saintalive'n'kicking says...

There is a reason for seed cameras; if you don't break the speed limit then you won't get fined!
Solent is right live with it. Just remember it might be you family member walking near the next camera, inapropriate speeding KILLS!!
There is a reason for seed cameras; if you don't break the speed limit then you won't get fined! Solent is right live with it. Just remember it might be you family member walking near the next camera, inapropriate speeding KILLS!! saintalive'n'kicking
  • Score: 0

9:20am Wed 11 Apr 12

saintalive'n'kicking says...

And the fire engine might well be needed to save your home!!!!!
And the fire engine might well be needed to save your home!!!!! saintalive'n'kicking
  • Score: 0

9:23am Wed 11 Apr 12

Solomon's Boot says...

AD1234 wrote:
If somebody burgles your house, you'll think they've broken the law, and should be punished.
Then you'll go out in your car and think it's ok to break a different law (speeding), only to be p*ssed off when you're punished!
Errr, I think you'll find that burglary is a tad different from driving, and it isn't a sneaky method to raise revenue for governments!!!

If they were installed at accident blackspots, I'd be in favour of them, but so many are in the most ridiculous locations, and they're dangerous because drivers take their eyes off the road to slow down, check their speed, then they speed up again! Pointless!!!

Labour introduced them because they were running out of our money. They had NO principles when it came to invading our civil liberties, so introducing cameras to raise revenue was the obvious answer! (IMO)
[quote][p][bold]AD1234[/bold] wrote: If somebody burgles your house, you'll think they've broken the law, and should be punished. Then you'll go out in your car and think it's ok to break a different law (speeding), only to be p*ssed off when you're punished![/p][/quote]Errr, I think you'll find that burglary is a tad different from driving, and it isn't a sneaky method to raise revenue for governments!!! If they were installed at accident blackspots, I'd be in favour of them, but so many are in the most ridiculous locations, and they're dangerous because drivers take their eyes off the road to slow down, check their speed, then they speed up again! Pointless!!! Labour introduced them because they were running out of our money. They had NO principles when it came to invading our civil liberties, so introducing cameras to raise revenue was the obvious answer! (IMO) Solomon's Boot
  • Score: 0

9:30am Wed 11 Apr 12

10 Minute Man says...

This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians.

The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.
This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc. 10 Minute Man
  • Score: 0

9:30am Wed 11 Apr 12

Solomon's Boot says...

saintalive'n'kicking wrote:
There is a reason for seed cameras; if you don't break the speed limit then you won't get fined!
Solent is right live with it. Just remember it might be you family member walking near the next camera, inapropriate speeding KILLS!!
"walking near the next camera"??
Like on the Millbrook road or Totton bypass?? Anyone who walks there MUST be very stupid and is clearly dicing with death! Or do you blame the motorist every time someone gets run over?
[quote][p][bold]saintalive'n'kicking[/bold] wrote: There is a reason for seed cameras; if you don't break the speed limit then you won't get fined! Solent is right live with it. Just remember it might be you family member walking near the next camera, inapropriate speeding KILLS!![/p][/quote]"walking near the next camera"?? Like on the Millbrook road or Totton bypass?? Anyone who walks there MUST be very stupid and is clearly dicing with death! Or do you blame the motorist every time someone gets run over? Solomon's Boot
  • Score: 0

9:37am Wed 11 Apr 12

Solomon's Boot says...

Sneaky, as in, a sneaky excuse by the last government, to raise revenue, NOT sneaky, as in we can't see them, 10 minute man. DOH!!
Sneaky, as in, a sneaky excuse by the last government, to raise revenue, NOT sneaky, as in we can't see them, 10 minute man. DOH!! Solomon's Boot
  • Score: 0

10:04am Wed 11 Apr 12

Maine Lobster says...

10 Minute Man wrote:
This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.
I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.
[quote][p][bold]10 Minute Man[/bold] wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.[/p][/quote]I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

10:22am Wed 11 Apr 12

cliffwalker says...

Solomon's Boot wrote:
AD1234 wrote:
If somebody burgles your house, you'll think they've broken the law, and should be punished.
Then you'll go out in your car and think it's ok to break a different law (speeding), only to be p*ssed off when you're punished!
Errr, I think you'll find that burglary is a tad different from driving, and it isn't a sneaky method to raise revenue for governments!!!

If they were installed at accident blackspots, I'd be in favour of them, but so many are in the most ridiculous locations, and they're dangerous because drivers take their eyes off the road to slow down, check their speed, then they speed up again! Pointless!!!

Labour introduced them because they were running out of our money. They had NO principles when it came to invading our civil liberties, so introducing cameras to raise revenue was the obvious answer! (IMO)
Is it really your reaction to being a crime victim that you'd go out with the intention of committing a crime yourself?

Regarding the introduction of speed cameras, can you remind me which government was in power when these devices were authorised in the Road Traffic Act 1991?
[quote][p][bold]Solomon's Boot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AD1234[/bold] wrote: If somebody burgles your house, you'll think they've broken the law, and should be punished. Then you'll go out in your car and think it's ok to break a different law (speeding), only to be p*ssed off when you're punished![/p][/quote]Errr, I think you'll find that burglary is a tad different from driving, and it isn't a sneaky method to raise revenue for governments!!! If they were installed at accident blackspots, I'd be in favour of them, but so many are in the most ridiculous locations, and they're dangerous because drivers take their eyes off the road to slow down, check their speed, then they speed up again! Pointless!!! Labour introduced them because they were running out of our money. They had NO principles when it came to invading our civil liberties, so introducing cameras to raise revenue was the obvious answer! (IMO)[/p][/quote]Is it really your reaction to being a crime victim that you'd go out with the intention of committing a crime yourself? Regarding the introduction of speed cameras, can you remind me which government was in power when these devices were authorised in the Road Traffic Act 1991? cliffwalker
  • Score: 0

10:48am Wed 11 Apr 12

George4th says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
10 Minute Man wrote:
This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.
I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.
In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway.
The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit.
(We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]10 Minute Man[/bold] wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.[/p][/quote]I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.[/p][/quote]In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?) George4th
  • Score: 0

10:49am Wed 11 Apr 12

drfunbags says...

I cant understand why people get so het up about camera's tbh.

They're massive yellow, hi-vis coated boxes, clearly visible from the side of the road, I believe it even says in the legislation governing camers that they cannot be overgrown and MUST be clearly visible.

Surely if you get caught by one you're speeding AND not being aware of your surroundings? maybe you deserve the fine, if your silly enough to get caught.

People complain about camers yet we all have the ability to not get caught!! I've been driving for 15 years now and never once had a single point, thats not to say I don't get my foot down, but Im intelligent enough to not do it on stretches of road where there are camera's and warning signs!

The fact is that by damaging this sort of property it's the tax payer who picks up the bill and where's the benefit there?
I cant understand why people get so het up about camera's tbh. They're massive yellow, hi-vis coated boxes, clearly visible from the side of the road, I believe it even says in the legislation governing camers that they cannot be overgrown and MUST be clearly visible. Surely if you get caught by one you're speeding AND not being aware of your surroundings? maybe you deserve the fine, if your silly enough to get caught. People complain about camers yet we all have the ability to not get caught!! I've been driving for 15 years now and never once had a single point, thats not to say I don't get my foot down, but Im intelligent enough to not do it on stretches of road where there are camera's and warning signs! The fact is that by damaging this sort of property it's the tax payer who picks up the bill and where's the benefit there? drfunbags
  • Score: 0

10:56am Wed 11 Apr 12

Solomon's Boot says...

"Regarding the introduction of speed cameras, can you remind me which government was in power when these devices were authorised in the Road Traffic Act 1991?"

Funny how we never saw these big yellow speed cameras popping up until the period way after 1991 when Labour were in office and, as I said, got desperate to raise revenue!

....And can I just remind you, as a Labour apologist, that NO government is EVER 'in power', but are 'in office' and are there to serve their constituents!
"Regarding the introduction of speed cameras, can you remind me which government was in power when these devices were authorised in the Road Traffic Act 1991?" Funny how we never saw these big yellow speed cameras popping up until the period way after 1991 when Labour were in office and, as I said, got desperate to raise revenue! ....And can I just remind you, as a Labour apologist, that NO government is EVER 'in power', but are 'in office' and are there to serve their constituents! Solomon's Boot
  • Score: 0

11:50am Wed 11 Apr 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Whether you like or dislike speed cameras ....... whether you think they are a life saver or a money grabbing tool ......... I cannot believe that many on here actually condone vandalism..... Shameful........
Whether you like or dislike speed cameras ....... whether you think they are a life saver or a money grabbing tool ......... I cannot believe that many on here actually condone vandalism..... Shameful........ Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Wed 11 Apr 12

Maine Lobster says...

George4th wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
10 Minute Man wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.
I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.
In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)
Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]10 Minute Man[/bold] wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.[/p][/quote]I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.[/p][/quote]In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)[/p][/quote]Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Wed 11 Apr 12

10 Minute Man says...

Solomon's Boot wrote:
"Regarding the introduction of speed cameras, can you remind me which government was in power when these devices were authorised in the Road Traffic Act 1991?"

Funny how we never saw these big yellow speed cameras popping up until the period way after 1991 when Labour were in office and, as I said, got desperate to raise revenue!

....And can I just remind you, as a Labour apologist, that NO government is EVER 'in power', but are 'in office' and are there to serve their constituents!
The cameras started appearing before 1995, and of course Blair carried on with them with gusto. The apparent misplacing of them causes controversy but I believe that in Hampshire they require a certain level of complaints or accidents before siting a camera.

Despite having been caught by a mobile camera on Bitterne Road myself, I am fully in favour of them and the police's efforts to enforce speed limits on local roads. In terms of where the money goes, I would like to see it spent locally and not centralised or effectively funneled to private companies and associated friends of ACPO.

As for the roads through Bitterne, they are busy and some look wide enough to be faster, but there are plenty of side roads, houses, bends, blind hill, variations in width, etc which all point to it not being a 40 or 50 mph dual carriage way, but a road still suited to a 30mph limit.
[quote][p][bold]Solomon's Boot[/bold] wrote: "Regarding the introduction of speed cameras, can you remind me which government was in power when these devices were authorised in the Road Traffic Act 1991?" Funny how we never saw these big yellow speed cameras popping up until the period way after 1991 when Labour were in office and, as I said, got desperate to raise revenue! ....And can I just remind you, as a Labour apologist, that NO government is EVER 'in power', but are 'in office' and are there to serve their constituents![/p][/quote]The cameras started appearing before 1995, and of course Blair carried on with them with gusto. The apparent misplacing of them causes controversy but I believe that in Hampshire they require a certain level of complaints or accidents before siting a camera. Despite having been caught by a mobile camera on Bitterne Road myself, I am fully in favour of them and the police's efforts to enforce speed limits on local roads. In terms of where the money goes, I would like to see it spent locally and not centralised or effectively funneled to private companies and associated friends of ACPO. As for the roads through Bitterne, they are busy and some look wide enough to be faster, but there are plenty of side roads, houses, bends, blind hill, variations in width, etc which all point to it not being a 40 or 50 mph dual carriage way, but a road still suited to a 30mph limit. 10 Minute Man
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Wed 11 Apr 12

George4th says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
George4th wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
10 Minute Man wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.
I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.
In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)
Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.
"I know several people who have been caught by this camera doing a modest 30 odd"

What do you mean, "modest 30 odd"?!!

There is no modest about it-they broke the law!

(IMHO 30mph on that road is spot on given the twists and turns in the road and the volume of traffic)
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]10 Minute Man[/bold] wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.[/p][/quote]I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.[/p][/quote]In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)[/p][/quote]Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.[/p][/quote]"I know several people who have been caught by this camera doing a modest 30 odd" What do you mean, "modest 30 odd"?!! There is no modest about it-they broke the law! (IMHO 30mph on that road is spot on given the twists and turns in the road and the volume of traffic) George4th
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Wed 11 Apr 12

George4th says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
George4th wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
10 Minute Man wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.
I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.
In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)
Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.
"I know several people who have been caught by this camera doing a modest 30 odd"

What do you mean, "modest 30 odd"?!!

There is no modest about it-they broke the law!

(IMHO 30mph on that road is spot on given the twists and turns in the road and the volume of traffic)
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]10 Minute Man[/bold] wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.[/p][/quote]I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.[/p][/quote]In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)[/p][/quote]Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.[/p][/quote]"I know several people who have been caught by this camera doing a modest 30 odd" What do you mean, "modest 30 odd"?!! There is no modest about it-they broke the law! (IMHO 30mph on that road is spot on given the twists and turns in the road and the volume of traffic) George4th
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Wed 11 Apr 12

BillyTheKid says...

When the Echo haven't got any real newsworthy stories, they publish vacuous nonsense. When the "forum addicts" here run out of anything worth saying, they do the same.

What a load of inane blather from people who usually "entertain" so well !
When the Echo haven't got any real newsworthy stories, they publish vacuous nonsense. When the "forum addicts" here run out of anything worth saying, they do the same. What a load of inane blather from people who usually "entertain" so well ! BillyTheKid
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Wed 11 Apr 12

10 Minute Man says...

BillyTheKid wrote:
When the Echo haven't got any real newsworthy stories, they publish vacuous nonsense. When the "forum addicts" here run out of anything worth saying, they do the same.

What a load of inane blather from people who usually "entertain" so well !
QED
[quote][p][bold]BillyTheKid[/bold] wrote: When the Echo haven't got any real newsworthy stories, they publish vacuous nonsense. When the "forum addicts" here run out of anything worth saying, they do the same. What a load of inane blather from people who usually "entertain" so well ![/p][/quote]QED 10 Minute Man
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Wed 11 Apr 12

sass says...

BillyTheKid wrote:
When the Echo haven't got any real newsworthy stories, they publish vacuous nonsense. When the "forum addicts" here run out of anything worth saying, they do the same. What a load of inane blather from people who usually "entertain" so well !
Did someone say the word entertain? If not then quotation marks are not required.
[quote][p][bold]BillyTheKid[/bold] wrote: When the Echo haven't got any real newsworthy stories, they publish vacuous nonsense. When the "forum addicts" here run out of anything worth saying, they do the same. What a load of inane blather from people who usually "entertain" so well ![/p][/quote]Did someone say the word entertain? If not then quotation marks are not required. sass
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Wed 11 Apr 12

BillyTheKid says...

sass wrote:
BillyTheKid wrote:
When the Echo haven't got any real newsworthy stories, they publish vacuous nonsense. When the "forum addicts" here run out of anything worth saying, they do the same. What a load of inane blather from people who usually "entertain" so well !
Did someone say the word entertain? If not then quotation marks are not required.
It's all about common usage, and the possibility of being able to justify usage. Virtually all words are listed in a dictionary, so if you are referring to a word extracontextually, you can justify the use of quotation marks, as the word is being quoted from that word collection. Sometimes people use quotation marks when italicisation is not available to indicate that they are using the word in an ironic or unusual sense.

Indeed the word has been used here many times to describe to intended nature of some comments, so I could justify their usage on that score.

I was using it ironically, as many who post here regularly will know that my BillyTheKid character finds the standard of commenting far from entertaining.

And I'll just "mention" poetic licence, artistic freedom. I like to use quotation marks to give emphasis, or otherwise "hi-lite" words. I used them there to draw attention to the horrible modern spelling of "highlight" (quoted from dictionary ! ).

Like art, language evolves. And strict rules are there to be challenged, or even ignored. If it wasn't allowed to do so, we might still be writing like Shakespeare or Chaucer !
[quote][p][bold]sass[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BillyTheKid[/bold] wrote: When the Echo haven't got any real newsworthy stories, they publish vacuous nonsense. When the "forum addicts" here run out of anything worth saying, they do the same. What a load of inane blather from people who usually "entertain" so well ![/p][/quote]Did someone say the word entertain? If not then quotation marks are not required.[/p][/quote]It's all about common usage, and the possibility of being able to justify usage. Virtually all words are listed in a dictionary, so if you are referring to a word extracontextually, you can justify the use of quotation marks, as the word is being quoted from that word collection. Sometimes people use quotation marks when italicisation is not available to indicate that they are using the word in an ironic or unusual sense. Indeed the word has been used here many times to describe to intended nature of some comments, so I could justify their usage on that score. I was using it ironically, as many who post here regularly will know that my BillyTheKid character finds the standard of commenting far from entertaining. And I'll just "mention" poetic licence, artistic freedom. I like to use quotation marks to give emphasis, or otherwise "hi-lite" words. I used them there to draw attention to the horrible modern spelling of "highlight" (quoted from dictionary ! ). Like art, language evolves. And strict rules are there to be challenged, or even ignored. If it wasn't allowed to do so, we might still be writing like Shakespeare or Chaucer ! BillyTheKid
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Wed 11 Apr 12

Maine Lobster says...

George4th wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
George4th wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
10 Minute Man wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.
I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.
In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)
Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.
"I know several people who have been caught by this camera doing a modest 30 odd" What do you mean, "modest 30 odd"?!! There is no modest about it-they broke the law! (IMHO 30mph on that road is spot on given the twists and turns in the road and the volume of traffic)
By "a modest 30 odd" I mean that this road needs a higher limit. If you drive along it, you will see people struggling to keep their speed down to 30, especially on the downhill section, as most people do not expect a dual carriageway to have a 30mph limit. The "twists and turns" you talk about don't exist. There are long gentle curves but mainly lengthy straight sections with clear visibility for hundreds of yards. I don't think you have the correct understanding of this issue.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]10 Minute Man[/bold] wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.[/p][/quote]I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.[/p][/quote]In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)[/p][/quote]Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.[/p][/quote]"I know several people who have been caught by this camera doing a modest 30 odd" What do you mean, "modest 30 odd"?!! There is no modest about it-they broke the law! (IMHO 30mph on that road is spot on given the twists and turns in the road and the volume of traffic)[/p][/quote]By "a modest 30 odd" I mean that this road needs a higher limit. If you drive along it, you will see people struggling to keep their speed down to 30, especially on the downhill section, as most people do not expect a dual carriageway to have a 30mph limit. The "twists and turns" you talk about don't exist. There are long gentle curves but mainly lengthy straight sections with clear visibility for hundreds of yards. I don't think you have the correct understanding of this issue. Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Wed 11 Apr 12

downfader says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
George4th wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
George4th wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
10 Minute Man wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.
I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.
In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)
Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.
"I know several people who have been caught by this camera doing a modest 30 odd" What do you mean, "modest 30 odd"?!! There is no modest about it-they broke the law! (IMHO 30mph on that road is spot on given the twists and turns in the road and the volume of traffic)
By "a modest 30 odd" I mean that this road needs a higher limit. If you drive along it, you will see people struggling to keep their speed down to 30, especially on the downhill section, as most people do not expect a dual carriageway to have a 30mph limit. The "twists and turns" you talk about don't exist. There are long gentle curves but mainly lengthy straight sections with clear visibility for hundreds of yards. I don't think you have the correct understanding of this issue.
30 is absolutely the MAX we should have on Bitterne Road. Two bikers have lost their lives in the past 15 years because they took the bends at 40+ and smashed into a wall or a lamp post.

You have 3 sets of lights - it is impractical and unsafe to drive/ride faster between them.

As others have said, the pavements are too narrow to provide a safety buffer should anyone else go off the road.

My mate used to live down there. It was a PITA to get off his driveway before the cameras and only marginally better after.

Its only a gentle curve at 30 or under
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]10 Minute Man[/bold] wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.[/p][/quote]I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.[/p][/quote]In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)[/p][/quote]Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.[/p][/quote]"I know several people who have been caught by this camera doing a modest 30 odd" What do you mean, "modest 30 odd"?!! There is no modest about it-they broke the law! (IMHO 30mph on that road is spot on given the twists and turns in the road and the volume of traffic)[/p][/quote]By "a modest 30 odd" I mean that this road needs a higher limit. If you drive along it, you will see people struggling to keep their speed down to 30, especially on the downhill section, as most people do not expect a dual carriageway to have a 30mph limit. The "twists and turns" you talk about don't exist. There are long gentle curves but mainly lengthy straight sections with clear visibility for hundreds of yards. I don't think you have the correct understanding of this issue.[/p][/quote]30 is absolutely the MAX we should have on Bitterne Road. Two bikers have lost their lives in the past 15 years because they took the bends at 40+ and smashed into a wall or a lamp post. You have 3 sets of lights - it is impractical and unsafe to drive/ride faster between them. As others have said, the pavements are too narrow to provide a safety buffer should anyone else go off the road. My mate used to live down there. It was a PITA to get off his driveway before the cameras and only marginally better after. Its only a gentle curve at 30 or under downfader
  • Score: 0

8:07pm Wed 11 Apr 12

George4th says...

Maine Lobster wrote:
George4th wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
George4th wrote:
Maine Lobster wrote:
10 Minute Man wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.
I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.
In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)
Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.
"I know several people who have been caught by this camera doing a modest 30 odd" What do you mean, "modest 30 odd"?!! There is no modest about it-they broke the law! (IMHO 30mph on that road is spot on given the twists and turns in the road and the volume of traffic)
By "a modest 30 odd" I mean that this road needs a higher limit. If you drive along it, you will see people struggling to keep their speed down to 30, especially on the downhill section, as most people do not expect a dual carriageway to have a 30mph limit. The "twists and turns" you talk about don't exist. There are long gentle curves but mainly lengthy straight sections with clear visibility for hundreds of yards. I don't think you have the correct understanding of this issue.
I rest my case with the poster who followed after you.
[quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Maine Lobster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]10 Minute Man[/bold] wrote: This "sneaky way to raise revenue" argument is rubbish for fixed cameras. If you find something "sneaky" about a big yellow box on a stick with good visibility and clear signage, you might want to take the bus to the opticians. The cameras on Bitterne Road are necessary in my opinion because the road feels like a dual carriage way of 40 or 50mph but in fact there there are plenty of houses close to the road (=> 30 mph), narrow pavements, adjoining side roads, etc etc.[/p][/quote]I agree that this location on Bitterne Road feels like a 40 or 50 MPH limit and that is exactly why the 30 limit should be altered. It is a dual carriageway which could quite sensibly have a 40 mph limit, as exists on the Bursledon Road. I know several people who have been caught by this camers doing a modest 30 odd because the road and conditions suggest that 30 is too low. Trying to maintain that speed passing that camers feels unnecessarily slow.[/p][/quote]In that case try and maintain 26/7mph and that will give you a bit of leeway. The speed limit is 30mph MAXIMUM. Maximum in any language means the upper limit allowed. There is NO excuse for exceeding the maximum limit. (We have had adverts telling us that speed kills - how do you think a driver feels when they have exceeded the speed limit and have knock someone down in the process?)[/p][/quote]Oh dear George, you do need help. I am not excusing motorists knocking down pedestrians, I am simply stating that this road would be better off with a 40mph limit. It is a main arterial route through the city and as a dual carriageway could easily sustain 40mph.[/p][/quote]"I know several people who have been caught by this camera doing a modest 30 odd" What do you mean, "modest 30 odd"?!! There is no modest about it-they broke the law! (IMHO 30mph on that road is spot on given the twists and turns in the road and the volume of traffic)[/p][/quote]By "a modest 30 odd" I mean that this road needs a higher limit. If you drive along it, you will see people struggling to keep their speed down to 30, especially on the downhill section, as most people do not expect a dual carriageway to have a 30mph limit. The "twists and turns" you talk about don't exist. There are long gentle curves but mainly lengthy straight sections with clear visibility for hundreds of yards. I don't think you have the correct understanding of this issue.[/p][/quote]I rest my case with the poster who followed after you. George4th
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree