PDA

View Full Version : I am truly depressed at the direction my country is moving.


Gary
13-04-2005, 08:31:45
I'm sure there'll be loads of backers for this here, but I don't think I'll ever understand why folk approve and support this Big Brother society. When spying on the people was an eastern european thing, it was disaproved of, but apparently it's ok here.

Looks like our authorities are determined to get 60 each weekend out of me, until the points run out. Think they'd have something better to spend taxpayers money on. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4439123.stm)

Anyone who uses that stretch, take it as a warning, at least until someone gives it a rubber necklace.

Cruddy
13-04-2005, 08:36:30
Speed cameras are a good thing. They annoy the hell out of car drivers.

Makes me smile to see the suckers stuck in a jam.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
13-04-2005, 08:44:45
So how dare people infringe on your god given right to exceed the speed limits. Bastards.

protein
13-04-2005, 08:59:54
Only the other day one of these damn state funded police folk stopped me for going through a red light. It's the nanny state that's the problem. I mean, I was only going 60 and the schoolchildren were asian. Would they really have been missed? Why do they have to spend my hard earned money on ordinary British people like me? I mean, I drive really, really fast but I driver better when I'm drunk. Why don't they go and catch real criminals like those damn long haired liberal pot smokers and these dark fellows who hang around listening to rap music. If I had my way I'd bring back caning and good old Victorian family values. In those days you could drive at a reasonable speed. Now excuse me, mistress is waiting with the whip in the dungeon and I've soiled my nappy and need punishment.

mr.G
13-04-2005, 09:09:06
:lol:
before you know it they take away your right to overrun little children.

Gary
13-04-2005, 09:31:02
Yes the piss take inappropriate comparisons are all very amusing.

You wait until they bring in the bottom inspectors to ensure you're complying with the arse wiping legislation. Except of course they won't need to as you will have supported cameras in your bathroom as you've nothing to hide.

The question is what role authorities should be taking, and draconian enforcement of that which just imposes petty legislation making the quality of life fall simply is not what an authority should be up to.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
13-04-2005, 09:34:20
1. Speeding on the highway has slightly different privacy concerns from taking a crap at home.

2. Petty legislation should be enforced. Unenforced but standing laws are the worst enemy of freedom.

Beta1
13-04-2005, 09:35:01
LOL, now if this was in response to ID cards or detention without trial I could understand the anger. But speed cameras :lol:

Just ease off the accelerator mate.

notyoueither
13-04-2005, 09:40:19
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
2. Petty legislation should be enforced. Unenforced but standing laws are the worst enemy of freedom.

Is it true that it is still statute for some English cities that shooting a welshman outside the walls at night is kosher so long as they do it with an bow and arrow?

mr.G
13-04-2005, 09:47:46
only when you are wearing boots of escaping.

Oerdin
13-04-2005, 09:48:04
There was a study in the US which proved red light camera actually cause accidents to increase! Governments love the camera because they raise money from fines and insurance companies love them because they can charge people more for the same coverage (your a bad drive with two tickets! :roll: ) and both attempt to justify their money grabs by claiming the cameras are needed to improve safety on the roadways.

The reality is drivers stomp on their breaks the moment the light goes from green to yellow because they don't want to be in the intersection when the light turns red (1-3 seconds later the exact time varies from light to light) and this causes people to get rear ended. Study after study shows when red light cameras get put in the number of accidents in that intersection go up.

Not that safety ever mattered to the government or insurence people who continue to push roadway cameras. They've also been in it for the money and they lied about safety in order to get that money.

mr.G
13-04-2005, 09:57:34
http://www.fotopunkt.com/public/alpzeit/ALPGFSW/COWSHIT.gif

Drekkus
13-04-2005, 09:58:05
I hate speed cameras because mostly they are set up at places where there's no dangerous situation. A year ago they installed one on a road near me, where in the ten years that I live there, has never been an accident. But it's a 2x2 highway into/out of the centre of town where you may only drive 50. Pure moneymaking.

Gary
13-04-2005, 10:03:12
1. With the emphasis on the word "slightly". The principle is the same.

2. Petty legislation should not be enforced. It's bad enough it's passed, but if it has been, better to put it on the back burner and concentrate on the real important issues.

This is more than just spotting cameras and easing off. It's about unreasonable monitoring and control of people's behaviour. Authority goes too far interfering in individual's lives.

Funko
13-04-2005, 10:17:50
People being punished for breaking laws is wrong?

If the law is wrong change the law, don't complain about enforcement (I think the motorway speed limit should be 80...)

Anyway, this is a safety thing people rocket down that bit of road at well over 100 which is why there's a problem 'cause when there is an accident it's a bloodbath.

Drekkus
13-04-2005, 10:34:13
Maybe the police should focus on places where there are actually are deadly accidents, making turns safer, invest in technology that would detect accidents about to happen.

If there was any money for the police/(local) governments in fighting drugs, I'll bet you the drugproblem would be a lot smaller.

Gary
13-04-2005, 11:09:16
Excessive control used to enforce minor laws is wrong. Few are of the "halo polishing" frame of mind to obey to the letter any little law those in authority choose to pass.

Like any of us really have the chance to change the law, or anything much for that matter. Those at the top of politics do what they want, so long as they can bring their colleagues along with them. All the citizen can do is vote for the next group to enjoy that power.

I've yet to see or read of a bloodbath on that stretch of road. It's a simple case of muscle flexing to keep the public in their place and pick up a cash bonus into the bargain.

protein
13-04-2005, 11:50:16
EDIT - only for people who think they drive fast safely
http://poetry.rotten.com/all-kings-horses/0002/

Drekkus
13-04-2005, 11:52:06
goddamn, that's nasty

mr.G
13-04-2005, 12:01:55
thank you protein

protein
13-04-2005, 12:02:31
Oh yeah, I should warn you but if you're going to fast you don't get much of a warning.

Drekkus
13-04-2005, 12:05:45
So where does it say this guy had an accident while speeding on a straight stretch of road? Or was he killed because a truck took a right turn without looking out? Or driving through a red light?

MDA
13-04-2005, 12:07:50
Originally posted by Oerdin

The reality is drivers stomp on their breaks the moment the light goes from green to yellow because they don't want to be in the intersection when the light turns red (1-3 seconds later the exact time varies from light to light) and this causes people to get rear ended. Study after study shows when red light cameras get put in the number of accidents in that intersection go up.

Link?

Nevermind, they googled right up.

MDA
13-04-2005, 12:16:13
I don't always obey the letter of the traffic laws either, but I'm willing to accept the consequences of my actions if I get caught.

Then again, I've never been caught.

mr.G
13-04-2005, 12:21:30
Then again, you've othe problems.

winterclothes :lol: best thread of the week, makes me laugh just thinking about it.

protein
13-04-2005, 12:22:01
People only seem to think in terms of getting caught or being fined and never in terms of killing people or killing themselves.

You can do a quick test. Slowly walk into a wall and then quickly run into a wall. Strap some wet banana skins to you feet and slowly run from side to side on wet tarmac and then very quickly run from side to side and see the difference. Does either test lead to a fine?

MDA
13-04-2005, 12:24:09
I originally posted about my friend's mother that killed their neighbor's six year old son going 30 in a 25 mph zone, but I didn't want to come across as harsh. :)

I would guess that she doesn't speed at all anymore, if she even drives.

protein
13-04-2005, 12:26:47
I wonder what the statistical difference is. I would imagine that a 6 year old is doomed at practically any speed.

Funko
13-04-2005, 12:34:07
The kinetic energy of an object goes up by the square of it's velocity, small increases make big differences...

On a motorway you shouldn't very often get collisions with pedestrians or head on collisions, it'll almost always be cars going into the back of a car in front of them.

If a car's travelling 100 (let's face it, that's not unusual down that bit of M4) and it hits the back of a car going 70 that's like hitting a stationary car at 30mph... if the car in front has slowed to 50 and you get down to 90, it's like hitting it at 40mph.

It'd be fine if everyone drove safely and left big gaps but they don't they often drive inches from the car in front at 90 or more...

So yes, mostly people going over the speed limit is fine but when there's a problem it can cause some nasty accidents.

I'm not sure this is the solution though.

MDA
13-04-2005, 12:34:29
Probably just as dead if she'd been going 25. But logic and reason go right out the window in those situations.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
13-04-2005, 12:34:49
Thanks for the Sig, protein.

Nills Lagerbaak
13-04-2005, 12:47:58
Originally posted by Funko
The kinetic energy of an object goes up by the square of it's velocity, small increases make big differences...

On a motorway you shouldn't very often get collisions with pedestrians or head on collisions, it'll almost always be cars going into the back of a car in front of them.

If a car's travelling 100 (let's face it, that's not unusual down that bit of M4) and it hits the back of a car going 70 that's like hitting a stationary car at 30mph... if the car in front has slowed to 50 and you get down to 90, it's like hitting it at 40mph.

It'd be fine if everyone drove safely and left big gaps but they don't they often drive inches from the car in front at 90 or more...

So yes, mostly people going over the speed limit is fine but when there's a problem it can cause some nasty accidents.

I'm not sure this is the solution though.

Not only does the kinetic energy of an object increase by the squre of its velocity, but so does the air resistance!

I love it when you talk Physics to me Funko.


I firmly believe there should be some way of fining drivers for driving to close. I mean I feel very comfortable doing 80-90 but then some guy thinks the space I have left in front of me is big enough for 2 cars and moves in. Then I don't feel safe and end up breaking harshly.

mr.G
13-04-2005, 12:56:11
Yep in holland there is a huge fine for driving to close, also there is a fine for driving too long(with limited speed) on the fast lane.

Beta1
13-04-2005, 13:16:03
always thought that they should move the speed limits a bit, 80 on the motorways and 25 (or less in the towns).

Also speeding ,say doing 40, in a built up area 30 zone should be a lot heavier fine than going 80 or 90 on a 70mph motorway. Few pedestrians/cyclists/etc to hit. Also its often safe to do that speed on a motorway as you have long lines of site and good wide roads. On the other hand driving at speed through villages where you cant see the kid about to step out from between the parked cars should be a big fine and 6 points.

Funko
13-04-2005, 13:18:21
They could do the fine on a percentage...

40 in a 30 is 25% over the limit but 80 on a 70 is only 14% over...

Funko
13-04-2005, 13:18:55
If you could automatically measure people driving too close and fine them that'd be great. :beer:

Venom
13-04-2005, 13:38:32
I have the right to drive me car with my dick in my hand and I should have the privacy to do so.

mr.G
13-04-2005, 13:43:06
chaney?

Greg W
13-04-2005, 15:15:10
Lucky I ain't running any countries. I'd introduce mandatory machines on all cars that monitor the speed, and issue fines anytime anyone speeds. Or just speed limit all cars. Cost a friggen fortune, but it'd be worth it to watch all the young hoons cry like babies.

Venom
13-04-2005, 15:31:24
How very dictatorial of you.

protein
13-04-2005, 15:38:19
I don't know why they make road cars capable of going over 100mph.

mr.G
13-04-2005, 15:43:12
that is for speed

paiktis22
13-04-2005, 15:44:22
speed is sweet

mr.G
13-04-2005, 15:48:09
the pedal to the metal.

mr.G
13-04-2005, 15:48:32
I feeeeeeeel the need
the need for

paiktis22
13-04-2005, 15:48:34
Originally posted by mr.G
Yep in holland there is a huge fine for driving to close
:lol:

if that was made law here all the people would go broke (all the people are broke but more broke). in my neighboorhood we are the absolut jedai masters of close encounters. we're talking precision up to the centimeter. car mirrors passing by in the milimeter. and if you forget your mirror open (not bended) when you park you have lost it in one day. that is of course because there is no space. i will not speak about other elements which have come to this neighborhood and don't know squat about "driving"

KrazyHorse@home
13-04-2005, 16:02:13
Originally posted by Oerdin
There was a study in the US which proved red light camera actually cause accidents to increase! Governments love the camera because they raise money from fines and insurance companies love them because they can charge people more for the same coverage (your a bad drive with two tickets! :roll: ) and both attempt to justify their money grabs by claiming the cameras are needed to improve safety on the roadways.

At least in Maryland red light violations caught by cameras don't give you points on your license and cannot be counted against you for insurance purposes.


The reality is drivers stomp on their breaks the moment the light goes from green to yellow because they don't want to be in the intersection when the light turns red (1-3 seconds later the exact time varies from light to light)

Again, in Maryland if you get caught by a red light camera the camera captures the amount of time the light was yellow for. If it was less than 3 seconds you cannot receive a ticket. Also, if you're already in the intersection (your car is past the stop line) when the light turns red you cannot receive a ticket (actually, you can receive a ticket, but will receive an automatic void of the fine if you protest).

and this causes people to get rear ended. Study after study shows when red light cameras get put in the number of accidents in that intersection go up.

The study I've seen published by the MVA claims that fatalities at intersections go down by ~60% within 6 months after the installation of a red-light camera.

I looked them up after I got caught by one. I was slightly pissed off because it had me entering the intersection 0.0 seconds after the light turned red according to the photograph I got. Was still my fault, though. I was trying to figure out where the hell I was going and so wasn't paying attention to the signal (the guy ahead of me had just gone through, so I assumed everything was cool).

Asher
13-04-2005, 16:07:48
CHANGE YOUR FUCKING FONT.

I hate you!

MDA
13-04-2005, 16:10:03
That's good news for me. They just put a pair of them back in the intersection next to our offices (they disappeared for a few months). We generally cheer when we see the flash. Construction vehicles and FedEx trucks blow through there all the time.

KrazyHorse@home
13-04-2005, 16:16:29
Originally posted by Asher
CHANGE YOUR FUCKING FONT.

I hate you!

But I'm typing in the default font.

:cry:

Asher
13-04-2005, 16:25:42
Not you, my dear Matthew!

I refer to the OP!

I love you and your font!

MOBIUS
13-04-2005, 18:25:51
Originally posted by Funko
It'd be fine if everyone drove safely and left big gaps but they don't they often drive inches from the car in front at 90 or more...

I'm not sure this is the solution though.

That's why I have to break the speed limit and drive so fast, so I don't have people tailgating me...:cute:

I don't see why they can't program cameras to record speeds and time intervals between passing cars to guage their relative distances from each other.

It pisses me off when I'm in the fast lane leaving a respectable gap between the car in front of me and some slower moving cock decides to nip in in front of me.:bash:

Provost Harrison
13-04-2005, 18:42:54
Originally posted by Funko
The kinetic energy of an object goes up by the square of it's velocity, small increases make big differences...

On a motorway you shouldn't very often get collisions with pedestrians or head on collisions, it'll almost always be cars going into the back of a car in front of them.

If a car's travelling 100 (let's face it, that's not unusual down that bit of M4) and it hits the back of a car going 70 that's like hitting a stationary car at 30mph... if the car in front has slowed to 50 and you get down to 90, it's like hitting it at 40mph.

It'd be fine if everyone drove safely and left big gaps but they don't they often drive inches from the car in front at 90 or more...

So yes, mostly people going over the speed limit is fine but when there's a problem it can cause some nasty accidents.

I'm not sure this is the solution though.

They should more rigourously enforce tailgating regulations which I consider to be the major cause of accidents on motorways. Speed limits as they stand in urban areas are fine but the motorway speed limit of 70 is pretty arbitrary and outmoded.

The Shaker
13-04-2005, 18:48:41
How do you do that though?
would if just be the old 'copper in a car' thing, the way most traffic restrictions are enforced, or do you reckon we can get onboard computers etc in the future. I'm sure they must be in use somewhere in the same way as those 'parking' devices. Automatically slows the car if an object is too close to it.

My favourite method would be a network of cameras ;)

Provost Harrison
13-04-2005, 18:52:29
Camera that (1) measures the speed of a car and (2) the distance between the cars...let mathematics do the rest ;)

MDA
13-04-2005, 18:54:24
Geologically, what direction and speed is my country moving?

Provost Harrison
13-04-2005, 18:57:01
It's going down mate, going down ;)

MDA
13-04-2005, 19:00:02
If it does, I'm off to either NZ or Inverness. Whichever my wife prefers.

Cruddy
13-04-2005, 21:10:21
Originally posted by notyoueither
Is it true that it is still statute for some English cities that shooting a welshman outside the walls at night is kosher so long as they do it with an bow and arrow?

No. It's inside the city walls. As only Chester still has city walls (I think) that's the only place where it might apply.

Provost Harrison
13-04-2005, 21:15:01
Scots in York too :D Where I used to work my manager was Scottish and a senior analyst was an archer to professional level. He kept trying to convince us all to go to York one day ;)

Cruddy
13-04-2005, 21:25:42
Does York have city walls? If not, it's a bit difficult...

Provost Harrison
13-04-2005, 21:28:23
Yes otherwise I wouldn't have said it...

Cruddy
13-04-2005, 21:28:58
I didn't notice them when I visited. Are they below eyelevel?

Provost Harrison
13-04-2005, 21:54:43
They're big fuck-off walls surrounding the whole damn centre! How the frig could you miss them?!

Cruddy
13-04-2005, 22:42:53
No idea. But I did.

Maybe it was the cute chic I was travelling with?

DevilsH@lo
13-04-2005, 23:14:10
Just thought i should stick something in here.

Firstly the reason that all the speed camera's are being put up is because the government have cut back the traffic police numbers by somewhere in the region 10% of total force. Senior police chiefs believe this has increased the number of accidents on the roads.

Speed Camera's are ineffective at anything other than revenue generation for which they excel, although i can be doing 70 on the M4 blind drunk and weaving all over the road like a cunt, and the camera won't give a toss, however if i am doing 78mph on an empty stretch of the M4 in the correct lane and driving sensibly then it will be 3 points and 60 into government coffers.

YES PROTEIN i know the speed limit is 70mph and we are all ultimately totally law abiding citizens, im sure you have never been anywhere near a joint in your entire life.

These speed limits are indeed based on 1950's vehicle technology if you look at the braking distances on the back of the highway code, they are laughable by today's standard, at 30 mph it apparently takes 75ft to come to a stop, perhaps in a hillman imp with drum brakes all round which haven't been serviced in 25 years and carrying 400 slabs on the back seat, the police in northumberland tried to prove this by driving a performance traffic volvo round an airfield i used to work at, they had to do the brake test 15 times consecutively to get the braking distance as stated in the highway code, and then proceeded to go, "see! the highway code is right!" yeah brake fade will do that.

Many of the motoring organisations have been trying for years to have the speed limit on the motorways increased, these are the safest roads in the country and everytime they have been knocked back by the government and parents groups how have said that little johnny was run over outside school by someone speeding and the speed limits should be reduced not increased.

I totally agree with the sentiment, in built up area's and where children/people are at risk the limits should be reduced, traffic calming measures should be introduced and put as many speed camera's as you like in area's where people are at risk, a motorway is not one of these places.

If the money from these revenue camera's were going to improve the situation in built up area's then i'm sure they would be welcomed slightly more, and if the camera's were placed appropriately then motorists wouldn't be quite so dissillusioned with the whole money making scam.

A particular area in reading is rife for several camera's and yet i haven't seen one, the road past queen street car park needs camera's badly, people fly down that road at well above 30 and on a thursday/fri/sat that area can be packed with pedestrians. The only place i have seen anything resembling sensible placing of camera's is wokingham district, in winnersh and wokingham, and even then the cynic in me suggests that putting them on a speed transition area is to generate revenue.

Speed camera's won't go away, and now that the supposed "camera partnerships" are involved purely as a money making venture it will continue to expand, unfortunately we have to live with it until the government realises that 1 speed camera will never have the same impact on driver safety as 1 traffic officer.

Protein, you may believe that speed camera's are a fantastic idea, and in certain circumstances i can appreciate that, but they are not being utilised in a manner which suggest's they are installed for safety reasons. They are being used to create revenue in the vast majority of cases. Speed camera's are also blind to dangerous driving which causes alot more accidents than speed alone.

The DFT will throw out the old, speed was a contributing factor in 90 odd % of accidents, well dur how many traffic accidents would we have if no one moved anywhere, but the actual proportion of purely speed induced accidents was somewhere in the region of 11% well below things like fatigue, following too closely etc etc.

Provost Harrison
13-04-2005, 23:18:53
Good post DH...

Oerdin
14-04-2005, 01:25:01
Originally posted by Drekkus
So where does it say this guy had an accident while speeding on a straight stretch of road? Or was he killed because a truck took a right turn without looking out? Or driving through a red light?

Yeah, and the guy wasn't wearing a helmet.