Random Breath Testing

[Owens88]

>In one test, a brick wall was shown to be travelling at 18mph!

Isn't that the speed the earth rotates at ? (Fact dimly remembered from an answer given by Superman explaining why he was wearing protective clothes that woudn't burn but the people he was 'carrying' weren't but yet were still safe.)

John

[Alcazar]

What gets up my nose about speed cameras is the lie about them being for road safety. In places where the number of accidents DIDN'T fall, or actually ROSE, the cameras weren't removed. Why not? Because they were making money.

New cameras are going in on the M42, specifically tied into variable limits. Why? The enforcers KNOW that they will generate loads of money, which will be used to place cameras elsewhere. They have admitted it.

Forward facing cameras are now the preferred norm. Why? It stops drivers from "getting away with it" by not knowing who the driver is/was.

But forward-facing cameras CAN'T catch speeding motorcyclists, a group who make up only 1% of the vehicles on the road, but who are involved in 22% of the serious accidents and who are 44% more likely to be killed if involved in such an accident. If cameras were REALLY about safety, wouldn't thescamera partnerships be TARGETTING that group, not ignoring them? And if they were about revenue, they'd ignore motorcyclists, after all, what's losing 1% of the fines?

Alcazar

All statistics from DfT site.

[Jc]

Thats why in many places,there are now two cameras,one for the front,one for the back!!

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Alcazar"]

What gets up my nose about speed cameras is

the lie about them being for road safety. In places where the number of

accidents DIDN'T fall, or actually ROSE, the cameras weren't removed.

Why not? Because they were making money.

New cameras are going in on the M42, specifically tied into variable

limits. Why? The enforcers KNOW that they will generate loads of money,

which will be used to place cameras elsewhere. They have admitted it.

Forward facing cameras are now the preferred norm. Why? It stops

drivers from "getting away with it" by not knowing who the driver

is/was.

But forward-facing cameras CAN'T catch speeding motorcyclists, a

group who make up only 1% of the vehicles on the road, but who are

involved in 22% of the serious accidents and who are 44% more likely to

be killed if involved in such an accident. If cameras were REALLY about

safety, wouldn't thescamera partnerships be TARGETTING that group,

not ignoring them? And if they were about revenue, they'd ignore

motorcyclists, after all, what's losing 1% of the fines?

Alcazar

All statistics from DfT site.

[/quote]

You'll be pleased to here that the new GPS satallite system being put

in place by the European nations (the first one went up a couple of

weeks ago) should make speed cameras a thing of a past in a few years

time. Aside from being able to pinpoint your position to within a

couple of centimeters (as opposed to a few meters currently) thus

making automatic piloting of cars a real posibility, this system will

allow highly accurate monitoring of the vehicles speed relative to the

limit in place and do it automatically without the need for a camera.

Then the computer can just send you a ticket. I wonder if GPS based sat

nav will continue to be such a desirable extra when this happens?[8-)]

[Clarkkent]

In one test, a brick wall was shown to be travelling at 18mph!

Isn't that the speed the earth rotates at ? (Fact dimly remembered from an answer given by Superman explaining why he was wearing protective clothes that woudn't burn but the people he was 'carrying' weren't but yet were still safe.)

If the Earth rotated at 18mph a day would be about 1,330 hours long. The actual speed at the Equator is about 1,000mph. My Earth made clothes are protected from destruction by a force field emanating from my Krypton physiology which is stimulated by the presence of a yellow sun.

[;)]

As far as speeding cameras are concerned, I find this a matter I cannot bother with. The injustice is not that cameras are "unfair" but that drivers ignore speed limits. People who get steamed up about them would be better employed sticking to the speed limit. Then they wouldn't get caught. What speed other people drive, and the consequences to those people, is none of their concern.

Driving a motor vehicle is not a right but a permitted activity subject to specific conditions - one of which is not exceeding stated speed limits.

[:|]

[Deimos]

[quote

user="Clarkkent"]

The injustice is not that cameras are "unfair" but that drivers

ignore speed limits. People who get steamed up about them would be better

employed sticking to the speed limit. Then they wouldn't get caught.

[:|][/quote]

Thing is (the point I made above) that it seems with the new “cutting

corners” procedures in the UK this is not the case.  You can be done whilst driving within the speed limits.  You then need to be very confidant and

pretty determined (and have the time) to force the 2^nd picture to be

checked to prove your innocence.

Ian

[trevoraki]

I think that all police all over the world can

come up with an excuse to stop you at any time. It's not as if you can start

arguing when stopped. Unless your French is extremely fluent.[:(]

I don't have a problem with being stopped as

long as I'm not held up for too long. I always make sure I don't have any

alcohol in my system and I do TRY to stick to speed limits although it's very

difficult sometimes with drivers having the habit of tailgating or rather waiting for

an opportunity to overtake at the most inopportune moment.