We limit access by GUESTS to protect our members from spam, hacks and trolls. Please register to gain access to all our resources.
Posted by pcarrell
- April 16, 2015, 18:07:40 PMQuote from: John Hopkins on April 15, 2015, 13:05:08 PM....and that is what they call "Hitting the nail on the head".I can only see cameras as a means of raising money.
Posted by greenbarn
- April 15, 2015, 17:50:02 PMQuote from: John Hopkins on April 15, 2015, 13:05:08 PMIt's just an extra tax, like so many others....., I can only see cameras as a means of raising money.
John.
Posted by John Hopkins
- April 15, 2015, 13:05:08 PMThere is no doubt in my mind that cameras are dangerous..
On our bikes you have to take your eyes off the road to see the speedometer, a glance away from the vehicle in front of you can cause you to miss the flash of brake lights, then if you have to keep scanning the area at the side or the road for speed cameras that is even more time you are not watching the road, The newest policy is zero tolerance for anyone that speeds, that means if you are doing 3mph over the posted speed limit you get a ticket, watching for cameras instead of riding at the speed of the traffic flow and the sound of your engine must cause some stress, I can't see how cameras reduce accidents, I can only see cameras as a means of raising money.
John.
Posted by pcarrell
- April 14, 2015, 19:53:36 PMQuote from: Pete on April 14, 2015, 14:02:51 PMSo the government is admitting that their cameras cause accidents? Aree they concerned because they want to pick where the accidents they cause are located at?A few years ago a man living in a small country village in the UK became angry about motorists speeding through his village. He put a bird-box on the edge of his property and painted it to look like a speed camera.
The bureaucrat responsible for speed cameras in the county wrote a letter to him demanding that it was removed on the grounds that it might cause an accident.
Posted by Pete
- April 14, 2015, 14:02:51 PMA Classic Own Goal:
A few years ago a man living in a small country village in the UK became angry about motorists speeding through his village. He put a bird-box on the edge of his property and painted it to look like a speed camera.
The bureaucrat responsible for speed cameras in the county wrote a letter to him demanding that it was removed on the grounds that it might cause an accident.
This was more that a bit of a faux-pas because speed cameras were being sold to the public as a safety measure under the logo "Safety Camera Partnership" (and not a new method of screwing more revenue out of motorists, 'onest Guv).
Posted by nhtrikes
- March 13, 2015, 07:00:39 AMWow. Can you say "Big Brother". For every measure we allow our government to "protect" us or keep us "safe" we give up another freedom. Freedom does not come cheap. Just ask our brothers and sisters who serve. That's why I live in NH, a State many people never heard of, our State motto, "Live Free or Die"
Posted by DC
- March 12, 2015, 22:10:50 PMIn the big city about 40 miles from me, they need even more cameras, due to the crime.
Where I live, not so much so. Most of the crime here is domestic. . . . family members murdering each other. So the general public is not in danger.
Posted by John Hopkins
- March 12, 2015, 15:47:29 PM5.9 million cameras in Britain alone and that was back in 2012, it's probably heading towards double that now.
John.
Posted by chief
- March 12, 2015, 12:28:27 PMIn Tennessee, we have a few. But the numbers are actually declining and the state is looking at banning them altogether. Recent research indicates they create safety issues. Our laws (privacy rights)and national sensibilities curtail their use and prevent revenue from being a reason for their installation. But expense can be a reason for them NOT to be used. We had a couple in our town... they are now gone because of the expense of installation, maintenance and fighting law suits from people "wrongly" ticketed.
The UK, and Europe in general, have millions of cameras watching. Speed cameras are a natural extension of the general law enforcement use of CCTV in the UK and elsewhere.Posted by CDNRatMan
- March 11, 2015, 19:44:43 PMQuotelol have you seen GB drive...that is a act of terror.......But first you might have to prove that you weren't trying to commit an act of terrorism..
Posted by John Hopkins
- March 11, 2015, 19:29:21 PMYeah, that penalty is about $1,500 dollars..
But first you might have to prove that you weren't trying to commit an act of terrorism..
John.
Posted by greenbarn
- March 11, 2015, 17:55:50 PMSo, I'm thinking.... With all of the speed cameras...is it common for people to cover their license plates to evade the cameras? Or are special "covers" sold to somehow mask the license plates from the camera?? Mind you, I'm not suggesting or even condoning this type of action - I'm sure the penalty for getting caught is probably worse than the speeding ticket... But with this much emphasis put on cameras, I would think there would be more people trying to "beat the system".
Posted by greenbarn
- March 11, 2015, 17:52:41 PMWow, somebody spend a boatload of money to catch all of you nasty, terrible, law breaking SPEEDERS, didn't they!!!. Too bad they don't spend more on catching REAL criminals.
Posted by John Hopkins
- March 11, 2015, 16:42:26 PMNo but you can run through four cameras in 10 minutes on the same road and lose your license.
Or one camera at 100mph on a 70mph motorway and lose your license and face a jail sentence.
John.
Posted by DC
- March 11, 2015, 13:49:09 PMYou can lose your driving license just for speeding one time?