Civil Disobedience - UK Style

Evidently the only way to get the UK to do anything about their plight is to hit them in the wallet.

Follow the link:

www.speedcam.co.uk...

In the UK, not all drivers, the vast majority, are not majorly against speed cameras, but its where they are placed, and how they are used.

When they were first placed on our roads, they were to save lives, the first being put up near residential areas, and places where speed really does kill. And most motorists would be in favour if they do save lives, but nowadays they do not, they are just another way for this government to squeeze more money out of us.

Cameras are continually being placed in blind spots so you cannot see where they are, and therefore not reducing speed, and isnt that what they were supposed to do? On some stretches of road there are 5 cameras in a mile! Its ridiculous.

But there are places where speed cameras have been placed that do save people from being run over, as they are visible, and there are signs saying so. Cameras that are hidden and out of view are the ones which give the whole system a bad name.

Gone are the times when public safety was put over financial gain.

Well there's WT's usual Britain bashing agenda (our "plight", Jayzus wept ), also, as usual, it is slightly out of date and touch (not surprising as he is apparantly preaching at us from the USA), and then there's the truth of what's going on here now.

Gatso speed cameras were introduced by the last tory government.
They could be hidden, they were all, back then, painted a dull grey to reduce their conspicuousness and were designed (in many people's eyes) to raise as much money for the UK Treasury as anything to do with saving lives and notions of 'safety'.

They then started being attacked by people like 'Captain Gatso' etc etc, hence the photos in this link of all the dull grey ones.

Following the return of a labour government new rules were brought in in relation to the siting of these cameras and their appearance and visibility.

They now have to be painted in high visibility colours (or have large reflective yellow & red stripped decals attached) and are not allowed to be deliberately 'hidden (roadside hedges are supposed to be maintained etc) .

This is complicated by the additional issue of the autonomy given to the local authorities, they now also have the freedom to place these things, but that is a local issue and nothing to do with the central government.
The additional funds raised are now supposed to go towards further safety measures for the local populace (which can include, but does not necessarily mean, more cameras).

The truth is that the vast bulk of these things should be placed in and around the towns and cites (the population centres where most people live and where most accidents happen); which is the emphasis now.

It's a different matter at 4am on a deserted motorway but then everybody knows that 20%+2 (=80mph on the average 'clock') won't make the cops turn a hair.
You'd probably get away with around 90mph before they think about collaring you (although cameras on the motorway do exist they are usually around the interchanges which again is a perfectly sensible tactic).
100mph+ on a motorway (or 30mph over the limit on the road you are stopped on) will usually get you a court appearance and usually a mandatory ban as well as a big fine.
130mph+ on a motorway (or 60mph over the limit on the road you are stopped on) usually carries a short custodial sentence + fine and points as well as the mandatory sentence (3mths IIRC).

I don't think I'm alone in this but frankly I couldn't give tuppence for some arrogant and staggeringly infantile fool's cretinous attitude that his concept of 'personal liberty' and 'freedom' hinges on being able to drive in a populated area at illegal speeds.
They're wrong and hopefully they'll only end up killing just themselves when they find out exactly how dead wrong they are.
People who speed in the places where the people are deserve the book throwing at them.

Speed cameras are an issue we can criticise some aspects of, and no-one likes getting caught by them but on the whole most accept they are here to stay, for good reason.

If you don't want to end up paying fines (and the higher insurance premiums due to the penalty points on your licence) then don't speed, simple as that.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

I believe that things are even worse in Australia, where police pay raises are linked to revenue collection.

Are these Gatso burnings isolated, or is it becoming commonplace.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by Winchester Ranger T]

From what I have heard traffic laws in the US are even more anal than they are here in GB (if that is possible.)

Great Britain should look to Europe for reform of her Road Traffic Code.

I am in favour of no speed limits on our motorways as they have on the autobahnen in Germany.

However I am realistic, and know that this is never going to happen, the government would miss the revenue to much.

A better solution that all parties may be happier with is if we adopted a minimum speed limit as they have in France.

This would generate an alternate source of income for the government and get all the damn Sunday drivers off the road.

After all you cab fail your driving test for driving to slowly, so why not reflect this in the law?

Don't you think no speed limit at all on the motorways will be a bit dangerous?
Half the time i've been in a car speeding with someone somebody or everybody has been doing drugs.
And did you know over one in ten drivers do drugs in their car? (they tested vehicle interior materials from scrap heaps)

I would think very carefully about having no speed limits on motorways. Also how do you regulate a minium speed limit? What if there's a traffic jam, or if someone isn't feeling very well. Should someone who's ill (or dare i say drinking) just go faster so they don't get caught?
How many people (other than fuel protestors) delibretely go slow on the roads without a good reason linked to their driving?

P.S I agree that old people should be more heavily tested for their driving performance-ability.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
P.S I agree that old people should be more heavily tested for their driving performance-ability.

- Why?
On what basis?
Define "old" and back up the idea that they are a 'problem' group.
The fact is that the road statistics quite clearly show that they are not the problem.

The biggest problem group with the worst accident record and most law infringements are young men, every time.
If any group should suffer "more heavily testing" (along side much more extensive training IMO) it is them.
No amount of quibbling about theoretical 'reaction times' or such like can get around the fact that the biggest single problem group are - every time - young men.



[edit on 8-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Liberal1984
P.S I agree that old people should be more heavily tested for their driving performance-ability.

- Why?
On what basis?
Define "old" and back up the idea that they are a 'problem' group.
The fact is that the road statistics quite clearly show that they are not the problem.

The biggest problem group with the worst accident record and most law infringements are young men, every time.
If any group should suffer "more heavily testing" (along side much more extensive training IMO) it is them.
No amount of quibbling about theoretical 'reaction times' or such like can get around the fact that the biggest single problem group are - every time - young men.



[edit on 8-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Perhaps this is because todays elderly persons are from an older and more responsible generation, and have no problems whith voluntarily surrendering their driving liscences, when they feel they are no longer capable of careful and safe driving, as my mother did.

Can you see todays generation of boy racers doing this when they are in their 70s? I can't.

The fact that you can pass you driving test at 17, and still be legally entitled to drive a motor vehicle on the roads in this country when you are 90 is scary.

I for one would be in favour of compulsory testing of drivers from about 70 or so.

Glad to see our friends across the pond are attacking those things! not just because its a sneaky way for the government to fine someone, but because they are down right eye sores! who wants a big grey box or a big yellow one at that sitting in their community?? tear em down and show your government you dont like their ugly boxes taking pictures of you!

The US is much stricter on speeding enforcement, but fortunately, only to a limited extent with cameras - over here they still prefer the cop behind the tree approach, and there are a LOT of cops.

The first Gatsos appeared near here in Arizona about 2 months ago, I fear the start of a trend that is all too familiar to Europeans.

The first Gatsos appeared near here in Arizona about 2 months ago, I fear the start of a trend that is all too familiar to Europeans.

You are refering to British traffic enforcement, I believe not European.

Traffic enforcement in continental Europe is far more car friendly than either the US or the UK and is the model we in Great Britain should follow.

Sadly our leaders disagree, probably because there is too much revenue to be made from GATSOs. As the legislators of Arizona seem to agree from what you say.

Still I reiterate that a minimum speed limit should satisfy these modern day Dick Turpins and make our traffic laws less car owner prohibitive.

Originally posted by Vox Populi
You are refering to British traffic enforcement, I believe not European.

- Whilst I can't show figures comparing usage of gatso & the like between the UK and the rest of Europe they are a Dutch invention and are used to differing degrees in continental European countries (especially in urban areas).

It's also true that many of the boxes in the UK at any one time are either empty or not doing anything but using the radar to just 'flash' errant drivers as a deterrent (ie without taking a picture and subsequently issuing a fine).

Traffic enforcement in continental Europe is far more car friendly than either the US or the UK and is the model we in Great Britain should follow.

Sadly our leaders disagree, probably because there is too much revenue to be made from GATSOs.

- Well that's one narrow take on the subject.

I'd say the more plausible and realistic alternative view might just be that the UK has some of the safest roads in all of Europe, a record of years of improving safety no less - and that didn't just happen by itself or by, er, accident.

The UK's ever more stringent motoring rules/laws have played a large part in this, in fact it is and has been a part of the current government's election manifesto commitments to seek to act to reduce casualties from the roads year on year.

Our elected politicians (of all parties) have for many years reflected the (adult) public's demand (ie public meaning 'all of the public' and not just those in a car, truck, van or on a motorbike) that this be improved upon still further.

The fact is that injured and maimed babies, sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, mothers, wives, sisters, brothers, grandparents, friends etc are a huge incentive nationwide - especially when the so-called 'accident' is so very much avoidable, as many if not most road injuries and fatalities are.

Except for the very young, does anyone not know someone killed on the roads - or at the very least seriously injured?

Anyone who imagines the wider general public don't really care about road safety (and particularly the problem/dangers of ignorant and/or selfish idiot young - usually male - drivers and their urban speeding) is kidding themselves.
Ditto the concerns about a better environment for us all to live in.

For anyone to seriously try and ignore all of that with a smart-arsed quip about 'it all being about raising revenue' is IMO as the height of willfully blinkered ignorance.....or the self-serving whining of the road lobby, clutching at pitiful straws.

The United Kingdom has a very good record for road safety compared with most other EU countries. In 2003 it had one of the lowest road death rates in the EU, at 6.14 per 100,000 population. The UK rate was also lower than the rates for other industrialised nations such as Japan (6.96 per 100,000 population), and substantially lower than that of Australia (8.15) and the United States (14.66).

www.statistics.gov.uk...

make our traffic laws less car owner prohibitive.

- Well if the traffic laws really were so "prohibitive" one might expect to see UK car ownership flatten off or to have peaked and now decline, which is about as far from the true state of affairs right now as can be.
We have been very fortunate to be able to continue to accomodate large growth in the total traffic numbers and yet simultaneously reduce casualties, no easy feat.

Some car owners seem to think that their status as fuel & road duty payers entitles them to the sole consideration on these matters when that is simply not the case and never will be.
Ownership of a vehicle and a licence to drive one does not entitle anyone to just do as they like and nor should it either IMO.

Traffic calming and traffic limits are going to grow and that means speed restrictions (through law enforcement or technology) and growing pedestrianisation.
People want cleaner, quieter, healthier and safer environments for themselves and their children and that means the days of 'the people' tolerating the dangers and excesses of free-wheeling boy-racers are long over.

The number of licensed vehicles in Great Britain has also increased. In 1961 there were fewer than 9 million licensed vehicles. By 1981 there were 19.3 million, and by 2004, 32.3 million. Private cars accounted for an increasing proportion of this total, 59 per cent in 1961, 77 per cent in 1981, and 80 per cent in 2004.

www.statistics.gov.uk...



[edit on 10-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Sorry, double post, mods please remove.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Vox Populi
You are refering to British traffic enforcement, I believe not European.

Traffic enforcement in continental Europe is far more car friendly than either the US or the UK and is the model we in Great Britain should follow.

Maybe in some European nations, but a friend of mine works in Switzerland, and he tells me that the speed cameras are everywhere - admittedly, I never did see many in France though.

I rarely exceed the speed limit over here, enforcement is stringent.

Gatso's are however a plague.

I'm speaking as a lifelong pedestrian of course:p They've installed a number of them at several intersections near where I live. And I must say I get a fair amount of amusement and satisfaction when I'm walking home at night and see the flash of light as a car speeds through the intersection. I can't help but wonder what the drivers reaction is when he sees the light or when he gets his next insurance statement.

P.S. I rather think our laws here in the US are on the margin. In the US the pedestrian has the right of way. I'm not sure if thats true in europe if it is great If not