BUILDING ON THE SUCCESS OF M4 SPEED CAM PROTEST
02 May 2005, 10:39 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUILDING ON THE SUCCESS OF M4 SPEED CAM PROTEST
What an absolute success and achievement the day was with over 400 attending, despite it being a bank holiday; great to see quite a few Scoobynetters there too.
The event was covered by all national and many regional TV & Radio and has gained massive publicity for the cause, the counter-argument and for the website. It also reinforced for me how much support there is for the campaign from the general ‘non petrol head’ public – not a single negative response whilst out leafleting in the car parks - apart from one Mrs ‘slightly late for lunch’
.
It was great to see that the crowd attending were definitely not there because they immaturely wanted some carte blanche to speed, or had some grudge against the roads being policed properly. They were there because they refute the simplistic ‘safety’ argument [particularly the one centred on quango’s ‘profit or die’ principle] and also refute the huge big authoritarian ‘one size fits all’ stick that continually bashes us over the head whilst real road issues and tangible dangers are ignored. Most like me welcomed GATSO’s in villages/towns when sensibly applied as visible deterrents but remain very concerned that the escalation to mass covert camera devices is actually causing road deaths to go up. This is the first time in British road history that this has happened and flies in the face of the policy of unnecessarily persecuting all motorists at all times in all conditions.
As just one individual I feel rewarded with what I achieved – this included tentatively leafleting the constabulary that were preparing to police us and receiving a quiet nod of understanding from one or two of them (as many of us do ‘off camera’ – they were also totally cool on the day btw)
. I also pre-arranged to contribute to two radio programmes and added other soundbites on the day. Hearing back my line about “the governments response to a massive 560 deaths due to drunk drivers [in 2003] being a doubling of speed camera sites - despite the tiny fraction of accidents caused due to excess speed alone” WAS FABULOUS!!! Tens of thousands must have heard that as well as others’ remarks and importantly the airtime given to Paul Smith’s calm credible and extremely well researched comments.
By now we have all the ammunition we need to discredit these scameraships via http://www.safespeed.org.uk and I suggest no-one wastes ANY further time here giving logical argument and facts to counter the blinkered stirrers present who equate 80mph on a motorway akin to ‘murdering innocents’
Value your time far more and get more constructive writing elsewhere.
E.g I have drafted a letter to sergeant Nick Blencowe [cc’ing newspapers and TV/Radio newsdesks] quoted by the BBC saying that 12% of all KSI accidents in Wiltshire happen on that stretch of M4 – hence the need for cameras. I need him to supply his sources of data and methodology for this strange statistic. It seems to me that this is BY FAR the road with THE highest volume of traffic Wiltshire HAS, so, on a miles per vehicle per accident basis it is may actually be THE SAFEST road they have; ohh and he cunningly fails to mention if these accidents were CAUSED by speed alone… That fatal lorry crash last week http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/4463667.stm clearly wasn’t as trucks are limited to a perfectly ‘safe’ 56mph. Pick holes in their self serving spin and flawed inaccurate claims and flash it straight back at them!
D
The event was covered by all national and many regional TV & Radio and has gained massive publicity for the cause, the counter-argument and for the website. It also reinforced for me how much support there is for the campaign from the general ‘non petrol head’ public – not a single negative response whilst out leafleting in the car parks - apart from one Mrs ‘slightly late for lunch’
.It was great to see that the crowd attending were definitely not there because they immaturely wanted some carte blanche to speed, or had some grudge against the roads being policed properly. They were there because they refute the simplistic ‘safety’ argument [particularly the one centred on quango’s ‘profit or die’ principle] and also refute the huge big authoritarian ‘one size fits all’ stick that continually bashes us over the head whilst real road issues and tangible dangers are ignored. Most like me welcomed GATSO’s in villages/towns when sensibly applied as visible deterrents but remain very concerned that the escalation to mass covert camera devices is actually causing road deaths to go up. This is the first time in British road history that this has happened and flies in the face of the policy of unnecessarily persecuting all motorists at all times in all conditions.
As just one individual I feel rewarded with what I achieved – this included tentatively leafleting the constabulary that were preparing to police us and receiving a quiet nod of understanding from one or two of them (as many of us do ‘off camera’ – they were also totally cool on the day btw)
. I also pre-arranged to contribute to two radio programmes and added other soundbites on the day. Hearing back my line about “the governments response to a massive 560 deaths due to drunk drivers [in 2003] being a doubling of speed camera sites - despite the tiny fraction of accidents caused due to excess speed alone” WAS FABULOUS!!! Tens of thousands must have heard that as well as others’ remarks and importantly the airtime given to Paul Smith’s calm credible and extremely well researched comments.By now we have all the ammunition we need to discredit these scameraships via http://www.safespeed.org.uk and I suggest no-one wastes ANY further time here giving logical argument and facts to counter the blinkered stirrers present who equate 80mph on a motorway akin to ‘murdering innocents’
Value your time far more and get more constructive writing elsewhere. E.g I have drafted a letter to sergeant Nick Blencowe [cc’ing newspapers and TV/Radio newsdesks] quoted by the BBC saying that 12% of all KSI accidents in Wiltshire happen on that stretch of M4 – hence the need for cameras. I need him to supply his sources of data and methodology for this strange statistic. It seems to me that this is BY FAR the road with THE highest volume of traffic Wiltshire HAS, so, on a miles per vehicle per accident basis it is may actually be THE SAFEST road they have; ohh and he cunningly fails to mention if these accidents were CAUSED by speed alone… That fatal lorry crash last week http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/4463667.stm clearly wasn’t as trucks are limited to a perfectly ‘safe’ 56mph. Pick holes in their self serving spin and flawed inaccurate claims and flash it straight back at them!
D
02 May 2005, 11:06 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will be interested to note that the ABD have been trying to get the accident figures for that motorway since the cameras were announced.
Initially they were told that there were no statistics available. When they pushed a little they were then told that there are a very many search categories and that they could start a search but would have to pay £111 for each and every positive hit! This made the potential cost of getting the statistics (that didn't exist to start with) beyond the reach of anyone with finite resources.
I suspect we will hear more about this soon.
I believe that 4 of the more recent fatalities on this motorway were pedestrians who were drunk and who, in seperate incidents, tried to cross the motorway. Of course that is all the fault of the motorist. It will not be long before we have some green nutter, and their friends in Transport 2000, on telling us that motorways should be more pedestrian friendly. More persecution for us, more control for the administration.
Initially they were told that there were no statistics available. When they pushed a little they were then told that there are a very many search categories and that they could start a search but would have to pay £111 for each and every positive hit! This made the potential cost of getting the statistics (that didn't exist to start with) beyond the reach of anyone with finite resources.
I suspect we will hear more about this soon.
I believe that 4 of the more recent fatalities on this motorway were pedestrians who were drunk and who, in seperate incidents, tried to cross the motorway. Of course that is all the fault of the motorist. It will not be long before we have some green nutter, and their friends in Transport 2000, on telling us that motorways should be more pedestrian friendly. More persecution for us, more control for the administration.
02 May 2005, 11:12 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
The law says 70MPH
The law needs to be upheld
Cameras are a way of detecting crime AND those responsible
If you don't want the fine - don't do the crime
Do you support the removal of shoplifting cameras, thus allowing Chavs to steal goods? After all they believe that the Cameras do NOT stop the store stem the stock loss ...... its the SAME thing!
Just REALLY interested in your answer, as you CANNOT support one without also supporting the other!
Pete
The law needs to be upheld
Cameras are a way of detecting crime AND those responsible
If you don't want the fine - don't do the crime
Do you support the removal of shoplifting cameras, thus allowing Chavs to steal goods? After all they believe that the Cameras do NOT stop the store stem the stock loss ...... its the SAME thing!
Just REALLY interested in your answer, as you CANNOT support one without also supporting the other!
Pete
02 May 2005, 11:41 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Swindon, Wiltshire Xbox Gamertag: Gutgouger
Posts: 6,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not. I totally agree with Pete on this one.
Cameras are a deterrent to try and stop people breaking the law. Plain and simple. Whether the limits should be different / higher is another question, but even with higher limits I think we should still have the cameras to enforce them.
We need more police on the roads as well however, to try and enforce improvement in driving standards as well.
Cameras are a deterrent to try and stop people breaking the law. Plain and simple. Whether the limits should be different / higher is another question, but even with higher limits I think we should still have the cameras to enforce them.
We need more police on the roads as well however, to try and enforce improvement in driving standards as well.
02 May 2005, 11:46 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Iain Young
Why not.
02 May 2005, 12:04 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
The law says 70MPH
The law needs to be upheld
Cameras are a way of detecting crime AND those responsible
If you don't want the fine - don't do the crime
Do you support the removal of shoplifting cameras, thus allowing Chavs to steal goods? After all they believe that the Cameras do NOT stop the store stem the stock loss ...... its the SAME thing!
Just REALLY interested in your answer, as you CANNOT support one without also supporting the other!
Pete
The law needs to be upheld
Cameras are a way of detecting crime AND those responsible
If you don't want the fine - don't do the crime
Do you support the removal of shoplifting cameras, thus allowing Chavs to steal goods? After all they believe that the Cameras do NOT stop the store stem the stock loss ...... its the SAME thing!
Just REALLY interested in your answer, as you CANNOT support one without also supporting the other!
Pete
.. she argues about everything aswell. No doubt you speed in your Scoob... if not buy a micra you big blouse.The traffic speed limits date back to the 50's with cars with crap handling and crap brakes. If we didn't have to crawl everywhere all the time when we actually came across a low speed limit we might adhere as we know its genuinely needed.
Speed doesn't kill. Driving at an inappropriate speed in an inappropriate place combined usually with an immovable object does it.
PJ
Trending Topics
02 May 2005, 12:07 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by unclebuck
Because lewis doesn't give a damn about the issue. He is simply trying to wind up other users who are trying to have a sensible discussion.
Posting something that you don't agree with doesn't mean it's a troll post either, you complete moron!
Thats the pleasantries over ...... the question, AGAIN! :-
"Do you support the removal of shoplifting cameras, thus allowing Chavs to steal goods?"
Simple question requiring a simple answer!
Pete
02 May 2005, 12:30 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Home
Posts: 3,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
"Do you support the removal of shoplifting cameras, thus allowing Chavs to steal goods?"
Pete
Btw i'm not a chav or shop lifter.
02 May 2005, 01:14 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: google "SMACS" We're # 1!
Posts: 8,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mr lewis wrote:
To use your analogy Pete: What are the crime figures for shopkeepers who use cctv, against those that don't? Has there been a decrease in crime in shops that use cctv and an increase in shops that don't?
In other words, since the introduction of speed cameras, deaths on roads has risen, that is a fact! So, have speed cameras contributed to the rise in deaths as has been argued recently?
Going back to your analogy: Would it be better to put more police on the streets, thereby having a bigger deterent to would be criminals?
Likewise, would it be better to improve the basic driving test, educate the public to be more aware of speed and its consequences in certain conditions, make available more resources for the policing of our roads by proper trained traffic police and make the laws tougher on people who drive under the influence of drink or drugs?
Or, is it cheaper and far less hassle to bang a speed camera in an area where the powers that be know there is limit abuse going on, and watch the money come rolling in, all the while, making criminals out of normal people, you included?
chris.
"Do you support the removal of shoplifting cameras, thus allowing Chavs to steal goods?"
Simple question requiring a simple answer!
Simple question requiring a simple answer!
In other words, since the introduction of speed cameras, deaths on roads has risen, that is a fact! So, have speed cameras contributed to the rise in deaths as has been argued recently?
Going back to your analogy: Would it be better to put more police on the streets, thereby having a bigger deterent to would be criminals?
Likewise, would it be better to improve the basic driving test, educate the public to be more aware of speed and its consequences in certain conditions, make available more resources for the policing of our roads by proper trained traffic police and make the laws tougher on people who drive under the influence of drink or drugs?
Or, is it cheaper and far less hassle to bang a speed camera in an area where the powers that be know there is limit abuse going on, and watch the money come rolling in, all the while, making criminals out of normal people, you included?
chris.
02 May 2005, 01:30 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm very pleased that the protest went nice and smoothly. I for one have been following the national coverage you managed to get. Up here in the North East we even heard about it, so you must be doing something right.
I also listened with care about the 400 deaths. It is very easy for these people to come out with a little quip like that, but they very rarely offer any kind of proof. This needs to be made into a larger issue. We need to know how these deaths occured, when, etc etc.
The problem that we face is that our current goverment is anti-car. It is not just about the money, it is also to make motoring less pleasurable. We need a very co-ordinated and determined fight back if we are to overturn things like this.
There is so much more to this issue than speed alone. I for one do not want to loose a loved one in a road crash. We need to act now to save the lives of motorists, not to line the pockets of people running cameras. It is clear that the current policy does not work, something has to change. However hard and unpleasant that change may be, it has to be done. We managed it in the past, we used to have safer roads, we can get there again.
I also listened with care about the 400 deaths. It is very easy for these people to come out with a little quip like that, but they very rarely offer any kind of proof. This needs to be made into a larger issue. We need to know how these deaths occured, when, etc etc.
The problem that we face is that our current goverment is anti-car. It is not just about the money, it is also to make motoring less pleasurable. We need a very co-ordinated and determined fight back if we are to overturn things like this.
There is so much more to this issue than speed alone. I for one do not want to loose a loved one in a road crash. We need to act now to save the lives of motorists, not to line the pockets of people running cameras. It is clear that the current policy does not work, something has to change. However hard and unpleasant that change may be, it has to be done. We managed it in the past, we used to have safer roads, we can get there again.
02 May 2005, 02:03 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad it was so successful Diesel.
I don't particularly want to do blistering high speeds on public roads and will stay close to the limits anyway.
I do really object to being spied on when I drive around the country.
PSL just cannot grasp that is what we are really objecting to. Like NL he typically feels that we have to be controlled at every turn of our lives. It is only those who suffer lack of confidence who feel they have to control the electorate both by spying and through fear.
Any real leader would realise that it is far better to trust people than to watch their every move. When that happens people will always object and tend to disobey all those footling regulations.
The real British way of life is a lot different to what we are seeing now and I for one very much regret that.
Les
I don't particularly want to do blistering high speeds on public roads and will stay close to the limits anyway.
I do really object to being spied on when I drive around the country.
PSL just cannot grasp that is what we are really objecting to. Like NL he typically feels that we have to be controlled at every turn of our lives. It is only those who suffer lack of confidence who feel they have to control the electorate both by spying and through fear.
Any real leader would realise that it is far better to trust people than to watch their every move. When that happens people will always object and tend to disobey all those footling regulations.
The real British way of life is a lot different to what we are seeing now and I for one very much regret that.
Les
02 May 2005, 02:37 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone else think that more than one person may be posting from Petes account? His posts vary in style, though with the same aim of diverting the discussion from the initial point. In fact this post is an example of his success in doing this once more thereby removing intelligent and sensible discussion of valid and interesting points which, in general, can accommodate all points of view in a sensible and reasoned discussion.
I believe there is a method by which all posts from a given user can be filtered so that you need never see them. If those, regardless of the actual point of view they hold, wishing to engage in a constructive and interesting discussion were to filter all the posts from pete then reasoned argument and expression of opinion could take place without diversion. Pete, whoever he or they may be, could go on his way and we could have interesting differences of opinion rather than lowering ourselves to distributing personal abuse and drifting from the point.
It occurs to me that the "safety" features of cameras are a similar diversion which have taken our eye off the ball. Deaths on the roads have increased since the cameras went in but because the partnerships employ similar diversionary tactics to those we see coming from petes account there hasn't been a thorough discussion and examination of all the issues.
It is certainly interesting to observe.
I believe there is a method by which all posts from a given user can be filtered so that you need never see them. If those, regardless of the actual point of view they hold, wishing to engage in a constructive and interesting discussion were to filter all the posts from pete then reasoned argument and expression of opinion could take place without diversion. Pete, whoever he or they may be, could go on his way and we could have interesting differences of opinion rather than lowering ourselves to distributing personal abuse and drifting from the point.
It occurs to me that the "safety" features of cameras are a similar diversion which have taken our eye off the ball. Deaths on the roads have increased since the cameras went in but because the partnerships employ similar diversionary tactics to those we see coming from petes account there hasn't been a thorough discussion and examination of all the issues.
It is certainly interesting to observe.
02 May 2005, 02:55 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: google "SMACS" We're # 1!
Posts: 8,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think in general, people have become more than used to mr lewiss' posts of nonsense. He is a wind up merchant, par excellence, and seems quite proud of the fact. The fact that in a real life group discussion he would probably end up getting thrown out of the room says everthing about his manner and style of argument.
I've not added him to my ignore list, as I feel people like him make us better people in the long run, it's always good to hear the looneys.
He'll be along in a mo' to call us all names and denouce speeding once again
chris.
I've not added him to my ignore list, as I feel people like him make us better people in the long run, it's always good to hear the looneys.
He'll be along in a mo' to call us all names and denouce speeding once again
chris.
02 May 2005, 05:54 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nobody knows how to tie the simple knots that I know
Posts: 8,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed doesn't kill. It may be a contributory factor but after 'driving' the M25 for a year, I'd say it was tail-gaters, lack of indication/mirror use and all round crap driving rather than speed seeing as traffic rarely got to 50 mph!!!!
02 May 2005, 06:49 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mansfield Area
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that it is correct to say that Shoplifting hits everyone in the pockets, everyday people including pslewis, unclebuck and others. The cost of items walking out of the shops are passed on to the genuine customer, who like most honest people pay their way. I pay a fortune for the privilege to drive on our roads, no one else contributes to my pastime. So lets all be honest a Law is a Law and motorists are nothing but cash cows. It is so easy to say you are wrong and I'm right. Its easy to criminalize a honest law abiding tax paying person, not so easy if you not law abiding. Get of your high horse pslewis, it must be so hard to be PERFECT
02 May 2005, 07:26 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hedgehog
It will not be long before we have some green nutter, and their friends in Transport 2000, on telling us that motorways should be more pedestrian friendly
!!! However he had the M4protest.org sticker in his Saab's window as well as an IAM badge. TOP MAN!!!Please no talk of shoplifting here - cant you SEE its just a childish distraction?
[Memo: must get his name and a quote - anyone know who he was?
]
02 May 2005, 09:02 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by ajm
...except exceeding a speed limit that is too low should not be a crime, which is why no one respects it.
And until IT ISNT you are a criminal and the full weight of the law will be brought to bear upon your criminal act.
I have just driven along the M4 at about 90MPH ..... 70MPH is too low - and I would protest against that, as I have said!!
What should NOT be protested against is any device that is successful in catching criminals in the act of commiting a crime!!
What you would like, of course, is to be able to drive at 100MPH, 90MPH, 120MPH ... without fear of getting caught ....... and thats just plain WRONG!!
Pete
02 May 2005, 09:09 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: "I like a man who grins when he fights."
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
'Should be' ain't got nothing to do with it. IT IS!
And until IT ISNT you are a criminal and the full weight of the law will be brought to bear upon your criminal act.
I have just driven along the M4 at about 90MPH ..... 70MPH is too low - and I would protest against that, as I have said!!
What should NOT be protested against is any device that is successful in catching criminals in the act of commiting a crime!!
What you would like, of course, is to be able to drive at 100MPH, 90MPH, 120MPH ... without fear of getting caught ....... and thats just plain WRONG!!
Pete
And until IT ISNT you are a criminal and the full weight of the law will be brought to bear upon your criminal act.
I have just driven along the M4 at about 90MPH ..... 70MPH is too low - and I would protest against that, as I have said!!
What should NOT be protested against is any device that is successful in catching criminals in the act of commiting a crime!!
What you would like, of course, is to be able to drive at 100MPH, 90MPH, 120MPH ... without fear of getting caught ....... and thats just plain WRONG!!
Pete
02 May 2005, 09:14 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And back on topic again....
I would be very interested to know who the Green Party member was that was there. I thought that they were firmly in favour of speed cameras and a reduction in the national speed limit. Would seem to be very strange that they had someone there.
I would be very interested to know who the Green Party member was that was there. I thought that they were firmly in favour of speed cameras and a reduction in the national speed limit. Would seem to be very strange that they had someone there.
02 May 2005, 09:17 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh btw Winston. Please do not copy and paste what Pete says. I have him on ignore, its a shame for you to pollute the thread again with what he is wittering on about.
02 May 2005, 09:23 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Location: "I like a man who grins when he fights."
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Luminous
Oh btw Winston. Please do not copy and paste what Pete says. I have him on ignore, its a shame for you to pollute the thread again with what he is wittering on about.
I AM SURPRISED THAT THIS ONCE GREAT EMPIRE IS NOW INFESTED WITH SUCH SPINELESS UNWORTHYS.
PAH!, IN MY DAY THEY WOULD FACE DEPORTATION TO THE COLONIES OR WORSE!!
02 May 2005, 09:27 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: google "SMACS" We're # 1!
Posts: 8,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mm, Mr. Lewis tying himself up in contradictions again!
Posted at 11.12am
and then, posted at 9:02pm
and
Where have you said that Mr. Lewis? Not on this thread!
And finally, Mr. Lewis nearly sees the light!
That is the whole point of the naivety of the “SPEED KILLS” argument, speed doesn’t kill, INNAPROPRIATE SPEED KILLS.
What training have you had to be able to judge for yourself that 90mph on the m4 today was a “safe speed”? Are you a police advanced driver? Maybe registered with the IAM? Even if you are any of those, the training given always leans towards observing the speed limits, not your own judgment.
So, Mr Lewis, once again you’ve broken the law of the land eh? How do you feel you dirty criminal?
Just imagine if you’d be shop lifting and the CCTV cameras weren’t working that day, looks like you got away with it again you hypocrite.
Posted at 11.12am
The law says 70MPH
The law needs to be upheld
Cameras are a way of detecting crime AND those responsible
If you don't want the fine - don't do the crime
The law needs to be upheld
Cameras are a way of detecting crime AND those responsible
If you don't want the fine - don't do the crime
I have just driven along the M4 at about 90MPH
70MPH is too low - and I would protest against that, as I have said!!
And finally, Mr. Lewis nearly sees the light!
What you would like, of course, is to be able to drive at 100MPH, 90MPH, 120MPH ... without fear of getting caught ....... and that’s just plain WRONG!!
What training have you had to be able to judge for yourself that 90mph on the m4 today was a “safe speed”? Are you a police advanced driver? Maybe registered with the IAM? Even if you are any of those, the training given always leans towards observing the speed limits, not your own judgment.
So, Mr Lewis, once again you’ve broken the law of the land eh? How do you feel you dirty criminal?
Just imagine if you’d be shop lifting and the CCTV cameras weren’t working that day, looks like you got away with it again you hypocrite.
02 May 2005, 09:31 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: google "SMACS" We're # 1!
Posts: 8,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oops! sorry luminous, I copied that stuff in between winstons posts and yours
I've said my piece, think maybe it's time to put mr.lewis on ignore myself
chris.
I've said my piece, think maybe it's time to put mr.lewis on ignore myself
chris.
02 May 2005, 09:33 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Fooook off you bunch of imbeciles .... who couldn't understand a constructive debate if it bit yer bum
Yes, I committed a criminal act today and was speeding along the M4 .....
BUT, and this is the gulf in sheer class between you and me ..... I did NOT drive along a motorway to protest about speed cameras!!
Had I got caught today at 90 (probably only 82 taking into account speedo error!) then I would have taken the penalty without crying and blubbing like a bloody spoilt brat!!
Pete
Yes, I committed a criminal act today and was speeding along the M4 .....
BUT, and this is the gulf in sheer class between you and me ..... I did NOT drive along a motorway to protest about speed cameras!!
Had I got caught today at 90 (probably only 82 taking into account speedo error!) then I would have taken the penalty without crying and blubbing like a bloody spoilt brat!!
Pete
02 May 2005, 09:38 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by Winston_Churchill
I AM SURPRISED THAT THIS ONCE GREAT EMPIRE IS NOW INFESTED WITH SUCH SPINELESS UNWORTHYS.
Pete
02 May 2005, 09:47 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cw42
oops! sorry luminous, I copied that stuff in between winstons posts and yours
I've said my piece, think maybe it's time to put mr.lewis on ignore myself
chris.
I've said my piece, think maybe it's time to put mr.lewis on ignore myself
chris.
What you said is right, but that is no surprise. I'm sure he just sits there trying to wind people up. Each time someone bites he succeeds. I'm going for the ignorance is bliss approach
It would be nice to see the speed limit raised on the motorways. Problem is that the government cannot do this atm. They have banged on about speed kills for too long, to increase the limit. The best we can hope for is a "blind eye" to reasonable speeds like in the old days.
Traffic police are what we need. I would love out motorways to be like those in Germany, but that is not going to happen. The next best thing is to have good policing to get rid of the dangerous drivers, and lane hogs.