About five years ago

[libby lou lou]

In the bolton area, drink drive at the mo, +, pulled my daughter two days ago, all legal, asked if she had been drinking,no she says, on yer way then, not even asked the name.

 

[Mickymoody]

What's happening is the council/police fixed cameras cost more to maintain, neither wants the bill, so Camerons BIG idea, get residents to use handheld scanners, if you are caught, you get a warning letter. Far cheaper than a court summons, dvla putting points on your license, etc...so busy body residents are using this technology, that is often proved to be inaccurate anyway, to send you a slap on the wrist.

But if the argument for fixed speed cameras is to prevent injury and death, by withdrawing them, by definition, that means the police are encouraging speed and death?

But the politicians just illegally voted out a law, passed by Brussles, prisoners are allowed to vote, we said no. Maybe the argument for safety cameras is the same? Police say they reduce accidents, and are not a revenue generating thing. Yup and I was born yesterday. If speedcameras are ever switched on again, there is a clear case to answer, as that is clearly the case, so speedcameras wont exist anymore.

Speedcameras invented by a racing driver. Nice one. Not.

 

[RedHerring2]

But if the argument for fixed speed cameras is to prevent injury and death, by withdrawing them, by definition, that means the police are encouraging speed and death?

Not necessarily so. You apply a remedy to a problem. Problem solved or acceptably resolved. Do you still need to apply the remedy?

But the politicians just illegally voted out a law, passed by Brussles, prisoners are allowed to vote, we said no.

Brussels did not originally say all prisoners must be allowed a vote. Within the previous government they said that UK cannot deny all prisoners the vote, i.e. apply a blanket ban on voting.
Not quite the same thing.
A discussion in parliament resulting in an exclusion policy for 'serious' offenders would have been perfectly acceptable. The 'seriousness' of the crime would have been determined by parliament.
The previous government kicked it into the long grass, hoping it would go away. It didn't, because we did nothing, it came back with a ruling that we must allow prisoners the vote.

Maybe the argument for safety cameras is the same? Police say they reduce accidents, and are not a revenue generating thing.

Not at all the same thing.

Yup and I was born yesterday.

Based on some of your ramblings, I believe you. For instance:

If speedcameras are ever switched on again, there is a clear case to answer, as that is clearly the case, so speedcameras wont exist anymore.

Speedcameras invented by a racing driver. Nice one. Not.

Unintelligible ramblings

Sppedcameras were invented by 1950's rally driver, Maurice Gatsonides.
http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/PoliceEnforcementCameras.html

 

[Mickymoody]

The problem Redherring, is that if you quote a comment out of term, and are selective about what you quote, then you can create any anti-argument, which is counter to the quoted post. Probably hence your username? Any fool can take selected words from any text, and manipulate them how they feel, to create a post that isn't what the original person said.

Fact is, that Top Gear, how I loathe the programme, actually made the same statements tonight.

A speed camera is there for safety, not revenue, x number of people have accidents at that spot. Take that camera away, the same number of people have accidents at that spot. SO a camera is for revenue.

And I think I said that the cameras were invented by a racing driver? You concur?

How can what I write be in your words 'Unintelligible ramblings', difficult or impossible to understand, when you have bullet pointed my points?

I have difficulty understanding what a Sppedcameras, as you quote in your badly formed post, actually means? So people in glass houses?