road tax

A

Anonymous

Guest
#1
it seems to me the government are expecting that the current revenue that is collected by the road fuel tax is about to dry up
that is they expect us to be using somthing other than petrol
think if fuel cells aka water replace petrol just where will the uk government replace the vast sums currently receved?
why bother changing a system with a one that seems to include loads of money / tech / problems with a one thats already paid for.
also iraq makes more sense to have a western precense as the whole middle east would just love the loss of wealth wouldnt it..
 

SoundDust

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 17, 2002
Messages
1,681
Likes
12
Points
69
#2
might be a good idea to encourage people off fossil fuels and onto something less likely to run out in the near future (depending on whose reports you read) :idea:

perhaps cutting fuel duty and introducing a tracking system (and pissing off a load of big-brother type conspiracy theorists in the process) may not be the best way to do this?
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Likes
88
Points
64
#3
perhaps cutting fuel duty and introducing a tracking system (and pissing off a load of big-brother type conspiracy theorists in the process) may not be the best way to do this?

Heres one big brother theorist who would be mightily pissed off to say the least.

You won,t be able to go for a piss soon without being on candid camera :!:

it seems to me the government are expecting that the current revenue that is collected by the road fuel tax is about to dry up
that is they expect us to be using somthing other than petrol
You might have something there Tim
But I think we have fossil fuels on tap for the next 500 years. So why get something like this up and running so quickly 2015.

If you ask me its just a good way to screw money of the public and add more power to the control of the Nanny state we are entering.

Still if people are for this I suppose it must be the favoured choice by the majority of the people.

The government polls all show a positive take up for the Pay by the Mile and ID cards etc etc.

So it must be good for us right ?

Heres a good piece
Darling’s driving our privacy into the crash barrier
Jasper Gerard



If Alistair Darling gets away with spying on 32m drivers with great big speed cameras in the sky, it could revolutionise motoring.



Signs will read Dorking 50 (quid, not miles). Instead of Little Chefs, motorways will boast Little Banks offering second mortgages to complete your journey. Wealthy sorts will drive in business class lanes (roomier; softer concrete).

Arguments about government initiatives can be finely balanced but road charging is a policy so bonkers you fear Darling is drunk in charge of a government; has he swigged too much eyebrow dye? Existing taxes on petrol are fair. We pay in proportion to how much we drive and the Inland Revenue looks to the fuel efficiency of company cars when charging us for the benefit. But Ali D will charge a Smart car as much as a dumb Hummer (or a belching ministerial Jaguar).

If he must punish wicked motorists for driving to work he could bring in tolls on ultra-congested roads such as the M25 and M6. Why waste billions on hardware when ministries are incapable of even operating their own software? That, however, is almost trivial: what should drive motorists really mad is the intrusion. Wherever you are, the government will know. So if you are bunking off work or just heading for a solitary stroll on a salty beach, fear not, your secret is safe with the secretary of state for transport. What with ID cards and police cameras, your every move is tracked.

And then companies will join in the fun. Already they electronically tag workers. They also insert microchips in their products to keep tabs on customers. We are all, it seems, suspects now.

At least sad exhibitionists on Big Brother enjoy being ogled — the rest of us just want our privacy back.

This is the real death of liberal England. How those enemies of freedom, the mad bad mullahs, must be laughing — oops, we won’t be able to say that when the new legislation on religious hatred is passed.

But who is protesting? The often sensible Mark Oaten of the Liberal Democrats struggles to be heard, and aside from one thoughtful leadership contender, David Davis, many Tories are alarmingly authoritarian. The state, bloated on tax but bereft of real ideas, is a juggernaut out of control. And we cowering citizens are being crushed under its wheels.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 02,00.html
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
35,786
Likes
21,846
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
#4
It's a stupid tax, and it won't happen.
They haven't done the sums.
A friend (who knows a lot about the way government works) assured me that it won't happen, because the scheme is proposed for a time after the next election (2010 I think) - so the next government will probably squash it.

As I drive a total of 80 miles a day to go to work and back, and it costs me about £8 in petrol, a road tax like this would force the cost to around £90 a day.
This would make it impossible for me to work, and I'd go bankrupt.
I'm sure that many people are in the same position as me.
As for rail travel - I tried that, and it was far too expensive and unreliable. That's why I'm using the car now.

It took me 5 months of unemployment to find this job, and I haven't been able to find one closer to home. And I can't afford to sell up and buy a house near where I work in London.
I don't do all this driving because I want to - I do it because I have to!

If I'm wrong, and this tax does go ahead, then I shall be among the first in the queue to leave this overtaxed, overcrowded, over-socialised little island. Millions of others will also do this.

Another good reason for leaving this country - so many businesses will go bust as a result of this daft scheme, that there will be mass unemployment on a scale hitherto unseen. Companies based in the UK will become uncompetitive, and those that can move out will do so.

Just a thought: what's to stop us from ripping out the GPS trackers and leaving them in the garage?
 

byroncac

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Apr 14, 2003
Messages
243
Likes
7
Points
49
#5
The conspiracy theory is that:-

The more cars on the road and the more fuel they consume the more revenue for the government - a cheap 4x4 is Alistar Darling's wettest of wet dreams! Of course every now and again they have to placate the rabble by words, spin and half hearted actions on conjestion and the public transport service. (Sorry . . . . . that should read "public transport business").

Currently the government earns around £27billion from car, fuel tax and the like. What scares the treasury is losing this revenue as alternative fuels become better developed and more commercialy viable. A switch over to a pay-by-the-mile tax will negate the effect of this. It is reckoned such a scheme is ten to fifteen years in the future, funny that, as i've also heard theat a viable hydrogen (water) engine is also ten to fifteen years away. BMW (I think) have a prototype hydrogen powered car, British universities have place hydrogen power cells into washing machines and motorbikes and built one that has the capacity to power a family house. - Not much revenue to be had from a bucket of water!

Whilst on the subject of water: It looks like the UK will again have a summer of water shortages, hosepipe bans and shared baths. Is this perhaps the government engineering the water supply for the taxation of those future water guzzling 4x4's?


It's a stupid tax, and it won't happen.
Agree!

This would make it impossible for me to work, and I'd go bankrupt.
Me too!


(edited cos of bod spulling!)
 

Quake42

Warrior Princess
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
9,310
Likes
3,771
Points
219
#6
I can't see any way any government could introduce this tax. The public reaction would make the poll tax riots look like a tea dance.

The thing to do to reduce congestion AND to encourage more economical and green vehicles would be to increase fuel duty by a lot... but after the lorry drivers' rebellion the other year I can't see this happening.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#7
for lorrys this form of taxation is going to be implamented next year iirc
the other option is for the powers that be use this as some kind of big stick,using this as there prefered option when really they want us to reject it onmass so they can poropse an alternative that would other wise have been also hated but seem like the lesser of the two

personally i plum for the water theorie

and as i said cars can be run on hydrogen,the only waste is steam,just as much nucular submarines can produce oxygen on mass from water

the only problem is storing hydrogen gass........massivly exposive lol
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#8
Mythopoeika said:
Just a thought: what's to stop us from ripping out the GPS trackers and leaving them in the garage?
I've wondered that too. I think they will introduce new 'speed cameras', possibly the hand-held roadside ones, that detect, not speed, but for the presence of the GPS trackers. I think not having this will be the next big revenue creator, the excuse being that criminals/terrorists will be ripping the tracker out to prevent the tracking of the their movements and linking them to crimes.
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Likes
88
Points
64
#9
I've wondered that too. I think they will introduce new 'speed cameras', possibly the hand-held roadside ones, that detect, not speed, but for the presence of the GPS trackers. I think not having this will be the next big revenue creator, the excuse being that criminals/terrorists will be ripping the tracker out to prevent the tracking of the their movements and linking them to crimes

welcome to the police state chaps ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#10
Death to the Nanny state - I believe that Buckingham University has won a contract to investigate voice and face recognition software packages (for later government contractors). If money is being splashed around on tech advancements, then at some point they are going to want to introduce it. I however will be keeping tabs on avoiding and learning how to spoil (re: me) every initiate they propose. As a motorist I am hammered with fines, parking permits, petrol costs and the rest - indeed, recently I got clocked doing a poxy 100mph (thankfully I spotted the police car ahead and dropped my speed from the 120/30 or so I had been doing). However, the fuss they made about the speed was incredible - blah blah blah too fast etc; I tried pointing out that yes I would pay the fine, but the speed limits are 40 years old, and do they seriously think a 1960's car is in any way similar re: braking and safety as my mercedes Kompressor....I think Not! So, drive fast and speed up for any idiot with a baby on board sign in the back. :twisted:
The reason I say this is because whether you drive safetly or not, in some way or another the pigging government will find a way to fine you...just might as well have a bit of fun and get there a little faster.
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Likes
88
Points
64
#11
On the point of speed cameras

did you know that since the introduction to the Uk roads of a believe 16,000 speed cameras in accident black spots ( yeah right )
Thats right they are a safety device really they are.

the percentage of accidents on our roads has decreased by ?

anybody care to guess ?

go on have a guess
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,486
Likes
471
Points
164
Location
Left, and to the Back
#12
OK then, where would you put them?

Not where people frequently speed and cause accidents, apparently.

If you think that the police are placing speed cameras specifically to raise revenue, you can do something proactive to foil their plans: Drive at or under the speed limit.

It might be painful, I admit, but to know that their little scheme is coming to no good is its own reward.
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Likes
88
Points
64
#13
Anome said
OK then, where would you put them?

Not where people frequently speed and cause accidents, apparently.

If you think that the police are placing speed cameras specifically to raise revenue, you can do something proactive to foil their plans: Drive at or under the speed limit.

It might be painful, I admit, but to know that their little scheme is coming to no good is its own reward.
Hi Anome

I personally would put em outside schools ans hospitals and known roads where accidents and high speed are always in plain view.

Lets look at a very specific case.

the A534 between Middlewich and Nantwich in Cheshire.

The prime accident black spot road in and around crewe with more fatalities than any other orad in crewe.

how many speed cameras do you think are on the worst road in Crewe ?

last week 3 died in a accident 1 mile away from Leighton hospital on that very same road the car that crashed into the oncomming car was said to be traveling at over 100mph by the police.

This road has no speed restrictions and is a 60 zone all the way from Middelwich to Nantwich

lets take a look at the other side now

Dividy road in Stoke on trent
speed limit for entire 3 mile stretch 30 mph
speed cameras ? have a guess ?
Accidents over last 5 years 2 none fatal there are no hospitals or schools on this road.

For your information I have only had two speeding fines in 24 years.
one for doing 34 in a 30 zone by a mobile cop on a bike
and one by a mobile van 34 in a 30 zone

extreme to say the least.

Their negative response comes as an increasingly angry debate rages about the future of traffic policing and controlling speed.

Last week, the Government acted to calm drivers' nerves by suggesting speeding fines could be tiered according to the seriousness of the offence, but even that attracted criticism (Fleet NewsNet, May 20).

There are fears the Government is expected to award two points to drivers travelling at one or two miles per hour over the limit.

The penalty could increase to four points if drivers go 5mph to 30mph over and six for those exceeding the limit by more than 30mph.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling argued that speeding must be reduced, although he recognised that the 'punishment must fit the crime'.

However, he may have spoken too late, as millions of drivers have already been hit with speeding penalties from fixed and mobile speed cameras.

Since speed cameras started being used in greater numbers, the number of speeding fines issued each year has more than tripled, from about 300,000 to well over one million.

Yet accident statistics showing the number of car drivers killed and injured on Britain's roads do not seem to provide evidence of any significant fall over the past few years.

Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that in 1992, a total of 212,764 were killed or injured in car accidents, but by 2002, this had risen to 217,900.
This is happening because

1. The governement have been decreasing real traffic police instead of increasing them.
2. The have the camera's in "make huge amounts of money areas"
3. only a very low percentage of Camera's are in accident black spots as the government said as the case.

Camera's don't save lives
The police DO
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,486
Likes
471
Points
164
Location
Left, and to the Back
#14
OK, I think I must have misunderstood the following:
Techybloke said:
On the point of speed cameras

did you know that since the introduction to the Uk roads of a believe 16,000 speed cameras in accident black spots ( yeah right )
Thats right they are a safety device really they are.
So you're saying that they don't put them in the accident black spots? If this is the case, then maybe you have a point. (I can't say for sure without knowing more about the situation.)

My reaction was at least partly a response to the most common complaint about speed cameras and the like here. The claim that they put them in areas where they are likely to get the most revenue. The fact that these areas are the ones where speeding is the biggest problem seems to be lost on these idiots.
 

sunsplash1

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
1,316
Likes
8
Points
54
#15
anome said:
OK, I think I must have misunderstood the following:
Techybloke said:
On the point of speed cameras

did you know that since the introduction to the Uk roads of a believe 16,000 speed cameras in accident black spots ( yeah right )
Thats right they are a safety device really they are.
So you're saying that they don't put them in the accident black spots? If this is the case, then maybe you have a point. (I can't say for sure without knowing more about the situation.)

My reaction was at least partly a response to the most common complaint about speed cameras and the like here. The claim that they put them in areas where they are likely to get the most revenue. The fact that these areas are the ones where speeding is the biggest problem seems to be lost on these idiots.
It is quite simple. Don't speed. In fact it is even ok to, on occasion, slow down, as in travel BELOW the speed limit. Like when there are bicyclists, road works, ice on road, accidents, emergency vehicles etc. etc. etc. 8)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#16
What is being said is that speed cameras are used as a stealth tax. Accidents have probably not gone down at all - this is just a guess BTW. However, I am all for speed traps not just outside schools but a few hundred yards before and after (the same goes for hospitals). And yes, we shouldn't speed on residential roads...but motorways? c'mon, the speed limit should be raised to at least 100mph; preferably 120.
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Likes
88
Points
64
#17
Sunsplash wrote
It is quite simple. Don't speed. In fact it is even ok to, on occasion, slow down, as in travel BELOW the speed limit. Like when there are bicyclists, road works, ice on road, accidents, emergency vehicles etc. etc. etc.
What you are saying Sunsplash is it is ok for our government to screw drivers with indirect taxing and we the motorist must learn to drive at twenty miles an hour in built up areas.

What has ahppened to common sense nowadays.

I think speed cameras a good at what they were designed to do.

how many accident black spots do we have on our roads 3000 ish at a guess

so we have 3000 camera's yep

no we 16000 cameras

the revenue from motorist fines has quadrupled over the last 16 years.

Its not about safety its about rich people getting fatter and richer.

Its a tax and thats a fact.

if they get to introduce the 1 mile an hour over the limit fines it will quadruple again.

do you know how long it takes to drive 24 miles at 20 miles an hour ?

do bloody long ;)
 

feen5

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,121
Likes
26
Points
79
#18
Its not about safety its about rich people getting fatter and richer.

Its a tax and thats a fact.
Because it is a tax it means that the money is going back to the relevant countrys exchequer and not into the pockets of rich fat cats as you put it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#19
You are naive if you think that people don't get rich from our taxes. Most of Tony Blair's cronies run various outfits that supply or consult on the use of monies (c.f. the rise of the number of quangos and, on-line national health medical supply services...owned by a friend of Tony, who somehow managed to set up this necessary company before the legislation...oh prescient of him!).
 

feen5

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,121
Likes
26
Points
79
#20
I maybe naive and you maybe paranoid, I never said that people don't get rich from Taxes and despite the fact that Tony Blair's mates maybe running some of these companies just how do you expect taxes to be collected. Someone has to collect them. Some organization has to be in place to carry out the paperwork and actually collect and spend the money or do you think that the roads, hospitals, upkeep of public property etc etc etc gets looked after by the fairy's while everyone is tucked up in bed?
 

Jonfairway

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
1,400
Likes
88
Points
64
#21
I maybe naive and you maybe paranoid, I never said that people don't get rich from Taxes and despite the fact that Tony Blair's mates maybe running some of these companies just how do you expect taxes to be collected. Someone has to collect them. Some organization has to be in place to carry out the paperwork and actually collect and spend the money or do you think that the roads, hospitals, upkeep of public property etc etc etc gets looked after by the fairy's while everyone is tucked up in bed?
Theres a number of losers in the camera increases and a few winners

losers
Car drivers
Policemen

winners
Tony's government
Local councils
and
the people the cameras are now outsourced too

pays out

33% to each of the three


so lets look at the running costs

so far thee have been 12.000.000 fixed speeding tickets issued in the Uk since 1992

thats 700 million in fines paid by motorists

in the first place the police got a third of that money that helped to pay for traffic cops which I feel have been hard done too since the changes

There has now since the change been a cut back in traffic police mush to their disgust.

the THRID PARTY COMPANIES that have now got a say in where cameras go etc etc are the ones pushing for an extra 1600 cameras to be installed next year across the UK
This will raise another huge amount for the pigs in the trough and will no doubt wave good bye to another wave of hard working policemen.


wrong wrong wrong

greed as usual the root cause
 

feen5

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,121
Likes
26
Points
79
#22
So your saying that from the 700 million paid in fines last year a third (234 million approx) was paid to third party companies. Thats an enormous sum of money and if true i'm sure there must be a paper trail somewhere. What i suggest you do if this is true is get the names of these companies, their directors and there annual accounts statements all of which should be available and hand them over to the trading standards committee. I'm sure they would love to know why 33% of taxpapyers money is going to these companies, on the other hand i'm sure if you look into it more thoroughly you'll find that your figures don't add up and that the third party companys are not receiving this much money.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#23
Dear Feen, Ihave run a number of companies over the years and there are many tricks. Before money disbursed there are consultant fees, management fees and various ploughback/in options that can hoover up money faster than a footballer's ex wife. If you check carefully, you will notice that since dear Tone has come to power there are the best part of 70 stealth taxes; yet strangely most services have not got better? I for one don't mind paying a fair share of my earnings to the country, but the current situation is too much by far.
Re: the paper trail, I suggest you start reading private eye - their satire aside, you often get a very good perspective of what is going on! An interesting example is the tax office offloading all its property into an offshore fund to avoid tax on sales - yet strangely, if I do the same thing then it is illegal...the justifications (and no comebacks) were a wonderful thing to behold.
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,486
Likes
471
Points
164
Location
Left, and to the Back
#24
So we get back to the simple expedient of foiling their plans by not speeding. If everyone didn't drive around at speeds that set the cameras off, that would ruin their little game, wouldn't it?

And Gaddaffi-Duck, you do realise that long, monotonous stretches of road with high speed limits are more dangerous than short, winding roads? Because people stop paying attention when the conditions don't change, and lose track of speed, etc. So increasing the speed limit in those conditions to 120mph (nearly 200kmph) is a bad idea. Not to mention the problems with cars that can't travel that fast creating a hazard for cars that can, and the increase in petrol usage, and the increased wear on the road and cars, and the increase in stopping distances...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#25
Clearly, you don't drive as a petrol head. Firstly, for anyone with a real driving ability (and a car to match) 120 is nothing...I regularly cruise at that speed. In my car, I will stop faster at that speed than the highway code suggests a 'normal car' will stop at 70. Why, because the facts and figures are nearly 40 years out of date.
Further, once one gets used to driving on long open stretches (and is aware of the menace of second rate drivers) one can focus attention quite well. Increased petrol usage and wear is currently an immaterial arguement - there are no decent alternatives and some of us must travel. I agree about older and slower cars, but they should be legislated against. Can't afford a newish car - tough luck, don't drive.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#26
Oh, re: spoiling their game by driving at the speed limit...how many people do you actually know that truly and honestly (at all times - whether conscious or not) obey the speed limit. A Skinnerian point of view would be that I am being punished for something that has not happened - namely an accident at speed. Whereas evidence suggests that not everyone speeding crashes QED.
If you want to make roads safer, then make the driving test fiendishly hard in practice and in theory. Anyone showing themselves to be a nervous or hesitant driver doesn't get a licence - 2 strikes at trying and then hard cheese; same goes if you can't do exams or comprehend the manner of the questions.
 

ArthurASCII

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 26, 2002
Messages
1,541
Likes
23
Points
69
#27
Speed Camera Workshop

Sorry, but there's a lot of ill informed bollox being bandied about as fact on this thread.

I was recently caught by a speed camera here in Northampton. Due to Northampton's enlightened attitude to speeding offenders, I was offered the option of attending a half-day speed workshop as an alternative to copping three penalty points on my licence - an offer I eagerly accepted.

The speed workshop was great. It cost me sixty quid (the cost of my fine), but if I'd have gladly paid for the refresher anyway had I known how useful it was going to be.

Here are a few facts relating to speed cameras and their financing:

Only two police officers are employed full time on speeding offences in Northamptonshire.

All monies collected from speeding fines go into a central pot which is then spent on road safety-related projects.

Councils can only get access to the money for projects designed to improve road safety.

The police have NO access to this cash.

Static speed cameras may only be erected on a site where there have been three fatal accidents in the last three years (there are currently 43 in Northamptonshire).

Static speed cameras in Northampton are set only to catch motorists driving towards them (lucky for motorcyclists, but the local authority decided that they wanted to capture the driver's face).

There are only two mobile camera teams in Northampton. Their whereabouts on any day can be ascertained in advance by reading the local newspaper or browsing the council website.

Static speed cameras only use a flash in low light conditions, so you may be caught and not know it.

Over half of the people on my course didn't know the national speed limit on sinlge or dual carriageway roads.

Three quarters of the people on my course thought that the stopping distance chart in the highway code was on the back cover (it hasn't been there for over ten years).

The course I attended was specifically designed to help the motorist to avoid being caught by speed cameras, and gave many useful tips.

If only more Counties provided these courses!

I reckon that the best tip I got was to drop down to third gear in a 30mph zone. It's not hard on the engine of a modern vehicle, and one is much less likely to creep over the limit. Try it, it works!
 

feen5

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,121
Likes
26
Points
79
#28
Anome and Arthur ASCII couldn't agree with you more, speed limits are not there just to make fat cats richer (though i still don't know where some are getting the idea that road taxes are making Tony Blairs mates richer.
As for the comment

From Gadaffi Duck

Clearly, you don't drive as a petrol head. Firstly, for anyone with a real driving ability (and a car to match) 120 is nothing...I regularly cruise at that speed. In my car, I will stop faster at that speed than the highway code suggests a 'normal car' will stop at 70. Why, because the facts and figures are nearly 40 years out of date.
Well that just says it all really, it beggers belief that you think that travelling at 120 mph is safe and the only reason you seem to think its not is because everyone else is a rubbish driver. You know that over 50% of the fatal accidents in the European Union are as a direct result of speeding. Don't know what the figure for GB is but here in Ireland thats about 300 people dead and innumerable peoples lifes ruined because of speeding. I hope you will be more careful in the future Gadaffi because as you say you will stop faster than the highway code suggests but its easy to stop faster when you smash into someone or something else.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#29
Actually, I try to drive faster where possible, and so do most of the people I know. Yes accidents happen. But I would rather live in a world where they do. BTW, nobody was suggesting that Tony Blair per se was getting richer from the taxes (however, as we pay his salary and it could be posited that any pay rise could be attributed to 'enough' tax revenue to cover said rise :D ).
Further, do not the figures suggest that most accidents happen at lower speeds? I truly believe there are many crap drivers and they should be banned. Further, if you think 120mph on a motorway is fast, then perhaps you shouldn't drive...indeed, sometimes at a cosy 110, I find myself being flashed over be even faster drivers. Perhaps a simple demonstration of my point is this: take a drive down any motorway and look at the speed of drivers between cameras...oh my, not many doing 70 are there? So, what cameras do is this...people drive faster, see a camera and brake hard, then speed up again.
PS. Wasn't there a big report earlier this year that was supposed to demonstrate your point of view (possibly located on transport watch or something like that); however, many people showed that the report was statistically and logically flawed...here, have a look at the most sensible riposte I could find: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr126.html
 

feen5

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
1,121
Likes
26
Points
79
#30
I don't drive myself anymore but i used to, iv'e also been involved in 5 accidents, (i was not driving for any of them by btw) and three of the accidents were a direct result of drivers speeding. Not only does speeding cause the majority of accidents it also increases the severity of them as well. In relation to the speed camera site you sent i have no doubt that there are some problems in relation to speed cameras but do you suggest we just forget about them and let everyone drive as fast as they want because if that happens then watch the fatality figures go through the roof.
 
Top