http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-10780574
lucky.
Anyway it depends how much money their speed cameras bring. There are some GASTO's which bring in millions per year.
Printable View
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-10780574
lucky.
Anyway it depends how much money their speed cameras bring. There are some GASTO's which bring in millions per year.
This is fantastic news, its been proven cameras have nothing to do with safety and are just used by the councils to rinse the motorist dry whilst wasting money on a range of useless and futile schemes. I would take all of them down tommorow.
Where I live already has none.
Do you drive?Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
No, do not see the point in driving at my age - would cost a bomb in insurance. The most stupid site I did though see once was nearby my house, 30 police officers were standing around one of those mobile speed cameras (you know attached to the back of the van) trying to catch motorists - what a waste of police time and money when they could be catching real criminals. The fact they are not taking down the cameras which make the most I think just shows they are another stealth tax with no real purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saurav
Good move my this council, let's hope councils across the country follow suit - won't hold my breath though.
*REMOVED*Quote:
Originally Posted by Saurav
Edited by Mr-Trainor (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude towards other members.
Oh no i'd have no problem with driving on a Czech motorway that the British people have paid for. Liberal Democrats don't drive do they? don't want to go hurting the enviroment like that because before we know it London will be underwater. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther
Well they fine people for speeding and therefore breaking the law? I thought you hated those who broke the law? Yes people know where most speed cameras are and therefore just slow down near it but if you are in a new place without a sat nav warning you, you would follow the speed limit most of the time.
Also in places such as Manchester, its harder to just say "I know where the cameras are and therefore I can speed and just slow down near them" as there are so many mobile cameras here now (with maximum two policemen) everywhere, its hard to speed sometimes.
For example, when I drive to work, they hide behind a building and its impossible to see the camera and every time they are there, they caught lots of people. I have noticed not many people speed on that road now.
Secondly, when I used to drive to college, there used to be a hidden camera round the bend, so people don't speed there now either.
Once people get caught, a lot of them are likely to speed less often.
However, I think it would be better to have road bumps in places.
Well I actually use Public transport because of the lesser environmental impact and it is a more healthy thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Well the statistics do not show that they have an effect at all because as I am sure we all know, people slow down near the camera (where the lines on the road start) and speed up again after passing the camera. Some statistics in here (cannot find source, sure there will be more around net) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ull-lucky.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Saurav
The fact they are not scrapping the ones which make the most money surely tells you that the entire point of them is money, not safety as they preach on about.
With a nice flask of nettle tea whilst reading Polly Toynbee I presume?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther