M4 Revenue Camera protest - how did it go?
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M4 Revenue Camera protest - how did it go?
Who went along? Was the turnout good?
Just saw a small piece on the local news about it, but it only showed some guy being interviewed in the carpark.
Hope the revenue camera partnership take some notice!
Thumbs up to anyone who made the effort and took part btw
EDIT: It did mention on the news that the trigger speed for the cams is a mere 76mph
Just saw a small piece on the local news about it, but it only showed some guy being interviewed in the carpark.
Hope the revenue camera partnership take some notice!
Thumbs up to anyone who made the effort and took part btw
EDIT: It did mention on the news that the trigger speed for the cams is a mere 76mph
Last edited by Petem95; 30 April 2005 at 01:07 PM.
#2
i heard it on radio 1.......they mentioned it and had an interview with a cop who said "people speed....if they slowed down we wouldnt bother with cameras"
he made perfect sense and if the rest of the news covered it the same way the "rebelion" has backfired!
he made perfect sense and if the rest of the news covered it the same way the "rebelion" has backfired!
#3
Scooby Regular
Seen it on the news, lots of horn hooting and flashing lights.
100 cars apparently ..
Not given much coverage, about 20 seconds.
No Speeding = No Cameras ....... its so simple it hurts!
The fact remains that some people want to break the law and not face the fact that they may get caught ...... whatever you think about speed and accidents and deaths is a side issue ..... the law is there to be enforced and enforce it the cameras are doing!
Eventually, speeding will be seen in the same light as drink/driving, the sooned the better ............ we need the Roybacers off the streets.
Pete
100 cars apparently ..
Not given much coverage, about 20 seconds.
No Speeding = No Cameras ....... its so simple it hurts!
The fact remains that some people want to break the law and not face the fact that they may get caught ...... whatever you think about speed and accidents and deaths is a side issue ..... the law is there to be enforced and enforce it the cameras are doing!
Eventually, speeding will be seen in the same light as drink/driving, the sooned the better ............ we need the Roybacers off the streets.
Pete
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Yorks, MY03 PPP, now run a Mondeo ST TDCI 06
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
Seen it on the news, lots of horn hooting and flashing lights.
100 cars apparently ..
Not given much coverage, about 20 seconds.
No Speeding = No Cameras ....... its so simple it hurts!
The fact remains that some people want to break the law and not face the fact that they may get caught ...... whatever you think about speed and accidents and deaths is a side issue ..... the law is there to be enforced and enforce it the cameras are doing!
Eventually, speeding will be seen in the same light as drink/driving, the sooned the better ............ we need the Roybacers off the streets.
Pete
100 cars apparently ..
Not given much coverage, about 20 seconds.
No Speeding = No Cameras ....... its so simple it hurts!
The fact remains that some people want to break the law and not face the fact that they may get caught ...... whatever you think about speed and accidents and deaths is a side issue ..... the law is there to be enforced and enforce it the cameras are doing!
Eventually, speeding will be seen in the same light as drink/driving, the sooned the better ............ we need the Roybacers off the streets.
Pete
Drunk drivers are under the influence of alcohol, so not in full control of their vehicle, reduced reaction time etc. Unless the speeding motorist is drunk, they are generally in control of their car and therefore the comparison with a DD is way of the mark.
And on that note with the incresaing use of camera's, the drunken speeding motorist will still only ever get 3 points for the speeding ticket, the fact he's had 10 pints will go completely unoticed.
That is the main issue I have with the use of cameras and the reduction in Police patrols. Only the speed element is targeted, they have no problem with the fact that the standards of driving in this country are decreasing, hence the increase in the number of deaths.
Anyone that is naive enough to think that speed cameras will solve all motoring problems, needs to see a shrink, even Brundstrom has seen the light, wake up Mr Lewis
Waiting patiently for the OAP's "I am right because".....
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 9,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went!!
The person running our side didn't abide to the plan of 56mph and was doing 30 tops. Massive tailbacks and lots of people sticking their thumbs up in support. Lots of people lined the bridges too
The M4 cameras don't really affect me, but it's the greater picture which concerns me - NO reduction in saving lives, all this money they reap could be used for driver awareness and more traffic police to catch dangerous (not speeding) drivers and drunk drivers etc!
BBC is reporting it in a positive light and said 400 attended..
The person running our side didn't abide to the plan of 56mph and was doing 30 tops. Massive tailbacks and lots of people sticking their thumbs up in support. Lots of people lined the bridges too
The M4 cameras don't really affect me, but it's the greater picture which concerns me - NO reduction in saving lives, all this money they reap could be used for driver awareness and more traffic police to catch dangerous (not speeding) drivers and drunk drivers etc!
BBC is reporting it in a positive light and said 400 attended..
#7
70mph on the motorways - dont you think its time this was reviewed????
Whats the point of the sneaky Camera Vans - Surely more traffice police is the the way forward - Sneaky Camera Vans are simply there for revenue generation.
anyway - they are trying to drive us out of our car and onto the substandard, polluted, disgusting, infested, public transport system.
Whats the point of the sneaky Camera Vans - Surely more traffice police is the the way forward - Sneaky Camera Vans are simply there for revenue generation.
anyway - they are trying to drive us out of our car and onto the substandard, polluted, disgusting, infested, public transport system.
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under your bonnet
Posts: 9,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by imi
70mph on the motorways - dont you think its time this was reviewed????
increasing the limit now would only make the speed difference greater between the slow timid and afraid drivers and the reps sat in the outside lane.
the current "I can get away with 80" would be replaced with "I can do a ton" with no thought put toward the slower vehicles or the road conditions..
BAD IDEA IMO
Andy
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by imi
70mph on the motorways - dont you think its time this was reviewed????
Whats the point of the sneaky Camera Vans - Surely more traffice police is the the way forward - Sneaky Camera Vans are simply there for revenue generation.
anyway - they are trying to drive us out of our car and onto the substandard, polluted, disgusting, infested, public transport system.
Whats the point of the sneaky Camera Vans - Surely more traffice police is the the way forward - Sneaky Camera Vans are simply there for revenue generation.
anyway - they are trying to drive us out of our car and onto the substandard, polluted, disgusting, infested, public transport system.
Chip
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under your bonnet
Posts: 9,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
80-90mph would also be ok (IMO ) if people take into account of what's around them and the conditions they are driving in..
Andy
Andy
Last edited by Fuzz; 30 April 2005 at 06:52 PM.
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire Xbox Gamertag: Gutgouger
Posts: 6,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chip
Average M/way speeds now are I woulkd say about 75-80mph which is just OK.
I still believe that these particular cameras have had a positive effect on that stretch of motorway.
#12
A reasonably empty motorway flows at about 85-90 unless cameras are there. I see no problem with this though in Essex they just keep lowing the limits on many roads to justify more cameras
The biggest problem we have is that many speed limits have no credibility and are blatantly there to create congestion or justify a camera and therefore raise more Tax revenue.
The biggest problem we have is that many speed limits have no credibility and are blatantly there to create congestion or justify a camera and therefore raise more Tax revenue.
#13
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Adrian F
A reasonably empty motorway flows at about 85-90 unless cameras are there. I see no problem with this though in Essex they just keep lowing the limits on many roads to justify more cameras
The biggest problem we have is that many speed limits have no credibility and are blatantly there to create congestion or justify a camera and therefore raise more Tax revenue.
The biggest problem we have is that many speed limits have no credibility and are blatantly there to create congestion or justify a camera and therefore raise more Tax revenue.
When I said speeding needs to be seen as socially acceptable as drink driving I meant just that - I did NOT say it was as bad ............ when one person dies because a driver thought he had the 'right' to do what he wanted (wheter drinking or speeding) they should be executed!!
STOP SPEEDING!!
Or face the consequences!
Pete
Last edited by pslewis; 30 April 2005 at 07:51 PM.
#16
Originally Posted by pslewis
Seen it on the news, lots of horn hooting and flashing lights.
100 cars apparently ..
Not given much coverage, about 20 seconds.
No Speeding = No Cameras ....... its so simple it hurts!
The fact remains that some people want to break the law and not face the fact that they may get caught ...... whatever you think about speed and accidents and deaths is a side issue ..... the law is there to be enforced and enforce it the cameras are doing!
Eventually, speeding will be seen in the same light as drink/driving, the sooned the better ............ we need the Roybacers off the streets.
Pete
100 cars apparently ..
Not given much coverage, about 20 seconds.
No Speeding = No Cameras ....... its so simple it hurts!
The fact remains that some people want to break the law and not face the fact that they may get caught ...... whatever you think about speed and accidents and deaths is a side issue ..... the law is there to be enforced and enforce it the cameras are doing!
Eventually, speeding will be seen in the same light as drink/driving, the sooned the better ............ we need the Roybacers off the streets.
Pete
pete your so predictable your boring..
do somthing different for a change , like log off and let us enjoy SN without the provisional wing of the utopian nl chapter ranting on all night.
Mart
#17
Scooby Regular
Mart - you say the SAME thing night after night after night .... that makes you spontaneous does it
SPEEDING KILLS - SLOW DOWN
If I can save one childs life, I don't care how I look to those who wish to break the law and murder innocents!!
Pete
SPEEDING KILLS - SLOW DOWN
If I can save one childs life, I don't care how I look to those who wish to break the law and murder innocents!!
Pete
#18
Originally Posted by pslewis
Mart - you say the SAME thing night after night after night .... that makes you spontaneous does it
SPEEDING KILLS - SLOW DOWN
If I can save one childs life, I don't care how I look to those who wish to break the law and murder innocents!!
Pete
SPEEDING KILLS - SLOW DOWN
If I can save one childs life, I don't care how I look to those who wish to break the law and murder innocents!!
Pete
how manmy more times do we have to spell it out you senile old brainwashed W*nker!!
SPEED DOES NOT KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if speed kills, there would be millions dead everyday,
just shows what a pompous jumped up idiot you are,
and your meant to be the smart arsed nuclear physicist.
If you want irrefutable proof.
i will explain.....
The circumference of the Earth at the equator is 25,000 miles. The Earth rotates in about 24 hours. Therefore, if you were to hang above the surface of the Earth at the equator without moving, you would see 25,000 miles pass by in 24 hours, at a speed of 25000/24 or just over 1000 miles per hour.
Earth is also moving around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour.
And before you start to bleat Pete, the above information came from the NASA web site, extremely qualified scientists Pete!!!!! unlike you !!
have we all died?? NO,
so bang goes you sheep.. speed kills bleat..
now unless you can provide some irrefutable hard facts to totally dispell natural phyisics !!!
so that blows your fukcing speed kills crap out of the water
M
#19
Originally Posted by pslewis
Speeders ARE real criminals!!!
The burglar rarely kills someone - the speeder can wipe out a whole family and destroy those left behind!!
The burglar rarely kills someone - the speeder can wipe out a whole family and destroy those left behind!!
This is a classical logical fallacy, appeal to motives, appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam)
#20
Originally Posted by pslewis
If I can save one childs life, I don't care how I look to those who wish to break the law and murder innocents!!
And how many lives have been saved on public roads since speed cameras were introduced?
According to the road accident fatality figures issued by the government - pretty much none.
This is despite massive improvements in other areas of car safety and only a small increase in road traffic.
#21
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Iain Young
Before the cameras the average speed was well over 80mph (if you did 80 it was like you were standing still, with practically every car shooting past you).
I still believe that these particular cameras have had a positive effect on that stretch of motorway.
I still believe that these particular cameras have had a positive effect on that stretch of motorway.
#22
The RAC Foundation yesterday [24th April] called for an urgent review of the first fixed motorway speed cameras.
Far from improving drivers' behaviour, motorists are now bunching at high speeds between junctions 14-18 on the M4 in Wiltshire, said Edmund King, the foundation's executive director.
"We are getting reports of bunching," Mr King said. "Drivers are saying it is more dangerous, not less. Before the cameras came in drivers were going at 70 to 80 mph, with some going below."
Far from improving drivers' behaviour, motorists are now bunching at high speeds between junctions 14-18 on the M4 in Wiltshire, said Edmund King, the foundation's executive director.
"We are getting reports of bunching," Mr King said. "Drivers are saying it is more dangerous, not less. Before the cameras came in drivers were going at 70 to 80 mph, with some going below."
#23
Originally Posted by Iain Young
You obviously don't drive that stretch of M4 very often. Before the cameras the average speed was well over 80mph (if you did 80 it was like you were standing still, with practically every car shooting past you).
I still believe that these particular cameras have had a positive effect on that stretch of motorway.
I still believe that these particular cameras have had a positive effect on that stretch of motorway.
Swindon West to Chippenham is what I would consider a safe piece of road, Swindon East to Hungerford is not so IMO lots of bunching up and so forth. Why do you think that there are so many accidents there?
#25
Originally Posted by Tiggs
lol.....the earth is spinning fast and we dont die so speeding is safe!
thats like a five year olds theory!
(pretty thick 5 year old)
thats like a five year olds theory!
(pretty thick 5 year old)
i see, so if you cant accept fact use the NL method spin, rubbish, discredit,
if you take your head out of your **** and read the post you (psl) posted..
the comment was speeding kills.
i will again clarify the point
SPEEDING DOES NOT KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
are you really that blinkered you belive such a crap statement??????
when you grow up and understand, then prehaps you may join the party!!!
if speeding kills, provide hard irrefutable evidance.
i have proved speed does not kill... if it did we would all be dead..
so toddle off back to daddy (psl) and try to get some fact
LOL
Mart
#26
Guys, please ignore Mr Lewis. Hopefully he will go away if we do... The man has nothing worth listening too.
I also went and the amount of support was staggering. Miles and miles of tailbacks and there were perhaps 1 or 2 really aggressive people, that was it. It was considered a success by us all and was really quite enjoyable. I do hope there are many more.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/4498551.stm
I also went and the amount of support was staggering. Miles and miles of tailbacks and there were perhaps 1 or 2 really aggressive people, that was it. It was considered a success by us all and was really quite enjoyable. I do hope there are many more.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/4498551.stm
Last edited by scrappydoo; 01 May 2005 at 08:33 AM.
#27
Speed does not kill, impact does.
Say you jump out of a plane and your parachute fails, then you are probably gonna hit the ground at around 120mph terminal velocity. Now imagine your parachute only half opens halfway, this would slow you down to maybe 90-100mph. Either way you are still going to hit the floor with pretty obvious consequences so thus the drop in 20-30mph ist going to make that much of a difference. A pretty crude example but effective none-the-less. lol!!
Say you jump out of a plane and your parachute fails, then you are probably gonna hit the ground at around 120mph terminal velocity. Now imagine your parachute only half opens halfway, this would slow you down to maybe 90-100mph. Either way you are still going to hit the floor with pretty obvious consequences so thus the drop in 20-30mph ist going to make that much of a difference. A pretty crude example but effective none-the-less. lol!!
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire Xbox Gamertag: Gutgouger
Posts: 6,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MattW
Iain - I really don't get it.
Swindon West to Chippenham is what I would consider a safe piece of road, Swindon East to Hungerford is not so IMO lots of bunching up and so forth. Why do you think that there are so many accidents there?
Swindon West to Chippenham is what I would consider a safe piece of road, Swindon East to Hungerford is not so IMO lots of bunching up and so forth. Why do you think that there are so many accidents there?
Since the cameras were introduced, I've not noticed any traffic bunching at all. In fact, there seems to be a lot less traffic generally and it's better spaced (not driving so close together). Maybe I don't drive the road at the same time of day as other people, (which might explain the difference), but I've only seen a positive effect so far....
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire Xbox Gamertag: Gutgouger
Posts: 6,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Petem95
I drive from Bristol to London and back at least once a week,how the hell have these cameras had a "positive" effect? Whereas you used to be able to safely cruise along at 85-90 and traffic flowed freely - now it bunches up through the revenue raising camera section, and often you are only doing 65 in the outside lane, with cars bumper to bumper as a result - cant believe there are naive *******s who think this really is about road safety and not revenue - pity on you.
I have never said that I believe cameras are the only solution to road safety, (police presence on the roads is sadly lacking at the moment), but they do play a part and in certain situations can prove very beneficial.
Can't believe the number of people on here who complain so much all the time about not being able to break the law. Pity on you
#30
But every motorway has a characteristic, and the M4's is people sitting in the outer/middle lane and not moving left when it's clear.
I do so your point however, and I would certainly support raising the limit to 85 even 90, however I believe motorways are the safest roads we have, that the limit was left at 70 on the understanding people do 85 and raising the limit would mean 100+ speeds.
I also don't agree with the way the govt are attempting to reduce speed because that makes an accident less serious. Of course if you drive into a wall at 70mph or 30mph there is going to be a very different outcome(extremes I know), but the reality is the cause of the accident is not being addressed.
There are some misguided people who believe that they should have carte blanche to speed everywhere, and I certainly think that the ABD are viewed as an extreme organisation by many, I'd much prefer to see one of the more repected motorists organisations, AA, RAC, CSMA etc to take up the argument.
I do so your point however, and I would certainly support raising the limit to 85 even 90, however I believe motorways are the safest roads we have, that the limit was left at 70 on the understanding people do 85 and raising the limit would mean 100+ speeds.
I also don't agree with the way the govt are attempting to reduce speed because that makes an accident less serious. Of course if you drive into a wall at 70mph or 30mph there is going to be a very different outcome(extremes I know), but the reality is the cause of the accident is not being addressed.
There are some misguided people who believe that they should have carte blanche to speed everywhere, and I certainly think that the ABD are viewed as an extreme organisation by many, I'd much prefer to see one of the more repected motorists organisations, AA, RAC, CSMA etc to take up the argument.
Last edited by MattW; 01 May 2005 at 11:30 AM.