I was reading the BNP manifesto and they want to "stop the persecution of the motorist" by scrapping speed cameras. Surely, a party that wants better punishment for criminals should not let people get away with speeding. Surely, the logical route for them is to increase the speed limits on our roads?
May be I am not at the same intellectual level as the BNP policy writers!
2007-11-28 20:39:52 · 9 answers · asked by Spawnee 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Paul M, I see you point, but I am not sure I have made myself clear.
It shouldn't matter if it is a hand held speed camera or a a fixed speed camera, they serve one main purpose, and that is to catch and fine people breaking the speed limit. If the BNP want to scrap speed cameras because they believe it persecutes the common driver, then surely what they also need to do is increase the speed limit. That would surely make logic in the BNP eyes. May be I need someone from the BNP to explain this for me better?
2007-11-28 20:52:36 · update #1
Marky Mark, homemade fishfingers are the best! Sod Captain Birdshite
2007-11-28 21:04:58 · update #2
Resignedtolife Good answer. Speeding does kill. A child's risk of death increase by 90% if they are hit at 40mph compared to 30mph. So why anyone should worry about speed cameras, I have no idea, they are a good thing.
If members of the public do not agree with laws, get voted into parliament and change them
2007-11-28 21:25:31 · update #3
jacyinbg admittedly, my last comment was poor tabloid at best! But I am sure you understand the point I was making. Yes poor driving, and poor pedestrian street awareness increase risk of fatality, but small children don't always think when their ball goes into the road and they do run out, and if a car was travelling at 30mph (or less) in a built up area, the driver a) might be able to break in time b) failing that the child would have a better life chance compared to 40mph
2007-11-28 22:04:37 · update #4
John A, may be if drivers didn't have so many gizmos in their car, they might be able to actually concentrate better on driving. If they can't do basic checks such as the speed at which they are travelling, then I would prefer them off the road altogether! That way we would be much safer! May be instead of clocking up speeding fines they should put their money towards advanced driving skills courses?
2007-11-28 23:14:30 · update #5
Sounds as if it was written by the Boy Racers Department of the party.
Do they have a policy for public transport? It seems to have slipped my eyes the last time I saw it...
2007-11-28 20:51:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let me give you a very good reason for scrapping the cameras............they are a menace to good driving. You get lots of smug little goody two shoes posting on this site, who say 'I never break the speed limit and you should do the same'. These priggish little morons probably travel 5k a year and never further than the local WI or parish hall from their own front door. If there are speed cameras in the area, their lives have no urgency so they trundle through their miserable existences with pride and security that there is no reason for more than 20MPH.
Now consider the commercial representative who travels 30k+ per year. He will usually be a safe and practiced driver, but he will travel in unfamiliar areas for much of the time and as a result of this unfamiliarity, he will probably pick up an odd speeding fine. Not unreasonable, but being aware that that he could lose his income if he is banned, he buys a satnav with camera warnings. He comes into an unfamiliar area and the satnav warns him of a camera. He is then looking for the camera, at the distance markers in the road and trying to get a peek at his speedo to monitor his speed at the same time. His concentration has been shifted from his driving to the cameras and their whereabouts. This is not safe.
My attitude has nothing to do with the BNP. It has to do with common sense. These devices are not safety cameras, they are dangerous cameras and should be removed from the roads without delay before they endanger more of the population of the country.
You obviously decided to ignore the gibe about goody two shoes !!! What a self-righteous little twerp ! (I am thinking something quite a bit stronger)
2007-11-28 22:55:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I assume you mean a reduction in speed limits, in which case this isn't exactly a deterrant to speeding, it will only make more people seem to be speeding. People who already speed will still speed but will just get caught more often because the speed limit will be lower.
Speed cameras are useful when placed in the right areas such as dangerous parts of the road and areas where there are pedestrians. What we don't want is them to be used as a sheer money making revenue.
2007-11-28 20:45:00 · answer #3 · answered by Paul M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Speed cameras are there for one reason and one reason only and that is to bring in some income to the authorities. The catching people breaking a law is an irrelevance. Surely you have realised by now that he authorities only obey laws when it suits them. I am not advocating anarchy but when the majority of people disobey a law in a democracy it is the law that is wrong not the people. It's representatives should therefore seek to enact a law that the majority of people will obey.
I do not believe any motorist keeps to the speed limits and those who say ythe do are not telling the truth.
2007-11-29 00:18:48 · answer #4 · answered by Scouse 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Speeding kills and it mainly kills children. I don't want an end to speed cameras, I want an end to selfish people, who think they are such wonderful drivers, their speeding should be condoned. I have never had a speeding ticket and probably never will because I observe the speed limits for the sake of pedestrians.
2007-11-28 21:06:19 · answer #5 · answered by resignedtolife 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can't say that I agree with your last comment, i.e. "speed kills".
Speed doesn't kill! It is the impact between a moving vehicle and another object that kills. Speed only increases the possibility of death occurring once a collision has happened.
It is bad driving and stupidity on the part of drivers and pedestrians that causes accidents.
2007-11-28 21:51:28 · answer #6 · answered by jacyinbg 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think they should concentrate on making better, safer drivers rather than making money out of speed cameras. Speeding doesn't bother me when it is done by someone who can safely handle it. Why aren't they catching all these un-taxed, unlicensed and uninsured drivers instead?
2007-11-28 20:51:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Going by the condition of ours roads increasing the speed will not solve congestion of our underfunded transport system.
2007-11-28 20:48:54 · answer #8 · answered by Leo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Correct my good man, you are not on the same intellectual level as the BNP policy writers, although your fish might be!
Talking of which, thanks for the advice re the fish fingers - they were great!!
2007-11-28 20:47:53 · answer #9 · answered by Marky 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋