I just know I’ll get corrected, but I think it was Rene Dupre that said “…at times, the only political power is at the end of a gun.”
So; the balanced view of an upright solid citizen of some years standing?
Stop bloody moralizing you holier than thou freaks. These thing are cash cows, not safety cameras*, and are fair game to take out as far as I’m concerned.
(*There are rules for the placement of these “safety cameras”. Why are they so frequently ignored by the safety partnerships? Why are they left in place long after the last accident that might well not have been speed related?)
To show fair political balance, you have the right to censure me. I retain the right to ignore you.
And I believe it was Atticus Finch that said ““Before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.””
Let 'em burn. They dont work as a strategy to reduce collisions. And as for it costing money to replace a burnt one, shame on the officials who spent all the money to put them there in the first place, without a good reason. Start the cuts!!
"And I believe it was Atticus Finch that said "“Before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”
Alex Gold O.K. if I put that in the same “things I don’t understand” file as wife, children, Haiku poetry, hamsters,…?
In 30mph zones, built up areas and School areas then fine…have as many speed cameras as you want. I know a lot of people in Villages whose kids are put at risk by commuters doing 50mph+, overtaking etc just to get through the village…places like that should have them. Motorways…no need. Open country roads, should be 50-60mph with no cameras. Places like that have accidents because people make stupid mistakes…speed isn’t the main factor. I’m not saying it doesn’t contribute, but it certainly isn’t the main reason and probably only accounts for about 20-30% of accidents…as mentioned, the other 70-80% is caused by silly mistakes and other contributing factors. As for burning cameras…its the tax payer that gets penalised no matter what happens, so we may as well watch the soddin things go up in smoke!
Personally I don’t have a problem with people destroying specific speed cameras. I think most of the ones that are damaged aren’t located in built up areas outside schools but are located on major A roads, motorways etc. As for the cost of replacing them, if you start from the premise that the ones on major roads are revenue raisers only, then it comes down to a cost benefit decision and if it costs more to replace them than they generate revenue then they wont be replaced.
Also, it seems unnecessary to me to burn them when all you have to do is cover the lenses with paint from say a paint ball gun to put them out of action albeit temporarily.
Im all for getting rid… but wouldnt we taxpaying public just end up footing the bill for it being put back up?
Be great if there was a way they could be made in-operational without them looking broken so dont necessarily get repaired…
I.e. a little mirror glass stuck by the lens so it captures an image on the pavement etc… you know a bit like a periscope works… instead of the road… but still flashes etc and looks like its working…
