Why do people bother moaning about it they are not a problem if you dont speed are they?
you should keep off the pavement and stick to the road in that case.Got back to the UK and within 45 minutes I had passed over 50 cameras.
Why do people bother moaning about it they are not a problem if you dont speed are they?
No its not a problem, its just annoying when the council turn decent rural roads previously at nat speed limits/50mph's limits into 40's and 30's for no apparent reason and slap cameras on them.
last weekend I did 1500 miles from the UK through France, Belgium, Netherlands and into Germany and passed 3 speed cameras.
Got back to the UK and within 45 minutes I had passed over 50 cameras.
That's nothing. I once did the 3000 miles from Montreal to London in only 6 hours, and didn't pass a single camera.last weekend I did 1500 miles from the UK through France, Belgium, Netherlands and into Germany and passed 3 speed cameras.
50 cameras in 45 minutes? surely an exageration.
We are already taxed to the hilt on fuel as it is and why tax 4x4 owners further, when they are already paying more by virtue of getting less mpg (no I don't have one)....raising duty on fuel or 4x4s would raise far more...
I don't think we are, because car usage is still increasing.We are already taxed to the hilt on fuel as it is...raising duty on fuel or 4x4s would raise far more...
I would.By that logic, would you also be increasing council tax, say, for people who choose to live in older, less thermally efficient houses, than modern, featureless, badly-built boxes?
You have the freedom to pay for what you can afford, not to expect other people to foot the bill.What happened to personal freedom?
Because it is one action with dual benefits:Why is tax and then more tax always seen as the universal panacea?
There are types of non-conformist behaviour that affects other people detrimentally, and other types that don't.Yes, there is a yob culture, but not everyone who doesn't want to conform or wants at least some freedom of choice other than to be brow-beaten to comply with some poxy self-indulgent, weasely, hand-wringing set of standards is one by definition.
And here in the sticks there is no viable alternative to car useage. Or are we all to decant to the bright lights and leave the country to the wild life?I don't think we are, because car usage is still increasing.
Why? Is the proximity to "1984" life standards not close enough for you as it is?I would.By that logic, would you also be increasing council tax, say, for people who choose to live in older, less thermally efficient houses, than modern, featureless, badly-built boxes?
So just throw by me again just how mega-taxing 4x4 owners and anyone else who's chosen lifestyle does not accord with your vision of Valhalla fits into the scheme of things?You have the freedom to pay for what you can afford, not to expect other people to foot the bill.
Yep, just like road tax gets used for the purpose for which it was intended..and who's to decide just what excess is? It's entirely subjective. And it would be fine to curb it, if it was replaced with something viable and workable, which it never is, never will be.Because it is one action with dual benefits:
(1) It raises revenue with which to pay for the effects of car usage.
(2) It curbs excess.
That is true: not everyone lives to whatever common standards of decency are judged to be the norm by the majority. But equally, those self-same chavs, benefit scroungers, pikies and so forth are never dealt with in the manner in which the majority of people would wish to see them so dealt.The truly weak people are those who are incapable of conforming even when it's for the common good, not those who want to make rules for the benefit of everyone.
What racks me off is the lie that speed enforcement is done in the name of safety - if the state were bothered about safety, you'd see a shedload more coppers out there, nicking tailgaters, 'phone users, fag smokers, map readers; the list goes on.
Reality is they've got a much easier time taking cash off speeders, than trying to prove than so-and-so was driving dangerously by being a bit too close to the car in front.