basingwerk wrote:
Yes, my friend in A&E is always telling me how the number of people who have fallen over their flamethrowers as they come down stairs in the morning holding a bag of kitchen knives is on the increase!
Ask this "friend" to tell you all about the levels of RTA injuries/deaths since the introduction of speed cameras... People DO get injured/killed in accidents at home, flippantly dismissing these risks in an attempt to divert attention away from the point being made just isn't going to work. As r11co said, there's an element of danger in everything we do, driving is just one such activity where risk is present. And using these risks to support a pro-camera argument, whilst appearing to be completely blase about similar risks elsewhere in life, gives the impression that you're obsessed with speed enforcement to the point where you aren't seeing the bigger picture. What good does it do saving 1 life on the roads through oppressive levels of enforcement, if the energies and resources needed to save that one life could have been used elsewhere to save 2, or 10, or 100? How much to install and maintain a single speed camera? How much to provide another nurse for the local A&E department?
And don't give me that tired old "but the speeders pay for the cameras" argument - where did the money come from to install the first cameras, before they started generating any fines? And where would the money come from to relocate the existing cameras or install new ones if, suddenly, everyone stuck to the limits in the vicinity of the cameras and the SCP revenue stream dried up? Despite what the government and SCPs say, I find it difficult to believe that, if everyone stopped speeding, the cameras would no longer be required.
Here's a suggestion to the government - promise to scrap the SCPs and automated enforcement systems, in return for which we'll pay an extra 1p in income tax, the revenue this generates to be used solely to fund extra front-line medical and police personnel. Think how many lives THAT would save each year...
Quote:
It would be miraculous if all countries, with many diverse political systems, cultures and road types and conditions, all set their speed limits the same, wouldn't it? Yet that is what you expect?
Why not? After all, even in this small island of ours there are plenty of examples of the same limit being applied to roads of considerably varying condition and type, and in areas where the local cultures and attitudes are different - driving around the London/SE England area is a noticeably different experience to driving around Northumberland, say.
Quote:
Where did you find the 140 limit, which is not right? It is 130.
True, but even using this lower figure, you're still looking at a legal limit higher than that on UK motorways...
Quote:
I reserve the expression 'thumb in his bum, mind in neutral' for chumps who have failed to see a huge yellow box perched on a great pole at the side of the road surrounded by signs and warnings!
Shame, because it seems SO much more appropriate for people who drive along completely oblivious to every other road user, concentrating on nothing more than sticking to the speed limit, not realising the problems they're causing everyone else as they drift from lane to lane without looking or indicating, pulling out from side roads straight into the path of oncoming traffic, cutting people up on roundabouts because they had no idea what exit they needed until they were almost past it... In comparison, someone failing to spot a medium sized dayglo yellow box which is still tucked away behind a road sign, large tree, bus stop, or which is virtually unnoticeable inamongst the plethora of similarly dayglo yellow road signs and business advertising signs (ever tried spotting a gatso next to a Jet service station???), but who is nevertheless paying very close attention to the behaviour of other road users, really doesn't seem like the kind of driver who deserves to be labelled this way.
Sure, there are some drivers who wouldn't spot a camera even if it slapped them across the face whilst yelling "I'm a speed camera, look at me!", but there are plenty of cameras located in such a way that the only way to spot them is to deliberately go looking for them, and that means spending less time looking for things that, if missed, will cause an accident. Knowing that a camera is there does NOT stop an accident from occurring, knowing that the vehicle in front of you has suddenly slowed/stopped, or that a pedestrian has just walked in front of your vehicle, CAN stop an accident.
So really Basingwerk old bean, are you suggesting that every driver who doesn't notice a camera is driving around thumb in bum, mind in neutral, or could you concede that there are valid reasons why a driver who's mind is clearly engaged in gear and whos thumbs are nowhere near their (or anyone elses) backsides, might still miss seeing a camera? Especially if we're talking about cameras in general, which includes sneakily placed talivans which (at least in my neck of the woods) are ANYTHING but clearly visible...