Viewing Thread:
"Drivers, Speed Cameras and Ignorant Stupidity."

Read something in the news the other day about some people in North Wales tearing down speed cameras, apparently a reaction to the North Wales Police's current policy of targetting speeding drivers in a noble effort to make the roads safer. These people claim to feel 'victimised' and shout about how speed cameras are simply trying to milk yet more money out of the 'driving community'.

They're not the only people to feel that way. A few weeks ago, a hoax e-mail was distributed detailing plans to install a series of digital cameras on the M4 which would automatically read people's licence plates and auto-issue fines to speeding drivers. There was outrage. Not just from random people I know, but from supposed professionals in my office and many others, as a huge e-mail debate raged, citing invasions of civil liberty and other such nonsense.

Can I just ask a question of all the people who feel so infringed by the governments efforts to stop people from speeding: What is your problem?

Now, I don't drive, as I recognise that, for me, it's not an economically or financially viable option for me to do so. I could afford to drive, sure, but why bother given the cost incurred by doing so far outweighs the benefits gained? But anyway, I don't drive, but from my perspective, speed cameras are there for a purpose, and that purpose is to punish drivers who are BREAKING THE LAW. I've put that in big letters for you so it sinks in a little. The drivers punished by speed cameras are punished with good reason, they are driving at excessive speed, and possibly endangering the lives of themselves, and more selfishly (also more importantly), the lives of others. Now, are drivers of the opinion that they should be allowed to break the law and endanger lives with impunity? That's certainly the way their attitude comes across.

The idea that drivers are being 'victimised' for breaking the law is ludicrous. If I had my way, speeding would carry an automatic driving ban and a far more hefty fine than is currenlty in practice. If I had my way, there would cameras on every street of every city and town in the whole country. No, satellite tracking of every vehicle, so that every single infringement is captured, and drivers can gleefully dig their own graves.

Arguing that you should be free to speed at will without cameras to record your indescretion is no different to thugs and rapists demanding the removal of CCTV cameras from street corners so that they can be allowed to hurt, damage and destroy people without having their privacy invaded by police intent on victimising them when they should be cracking down on more serious crimes like... terrorism and such.

Let's be clear here. Speeding is dangerous, it costs lives, which is to say it can kill people, or just take their life away from them. The speed laws are - contrary to popular belief - there for the safety of everyone involved, and not a measure to curb your enjoyment, preventing you from racing down country lanes at 100mph.

And let's be clearer still: Any driver who believes that they are being victimised simply because the police wish to monitor the roads FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY is a complete and irredeemable idiot. I moronic and useless blight on humanity. You people should be hung at dawn with transparent balloon pants so that when the contents of your bowels exit your body,you canbe photographed for the morning papers with all the grace and dignity you deserve. Don't try to tell me "I speed, but safely", because, after all, don't all of you? I doubt many people drive around with the intent of being purposefully dangerous to other motorists/pedestrians. Most accidents due to speeding are exactly that.

Scum. I could write more. I could easily sit here all day venting my rage at you stupid people. But I'm getting too angry to formulate proper sentences.

To the original post, I couldn't agree more. They're breaking the law to get caught, so how can they complain about it? Reminds me of when speed cameras were painted bright colours so people could see them and avoid detection - if you don't want to get caught, don't bloody speed!

More people needing tests will make providing them a growth industry. The waiting list changes only seasonally, it's generally the same, and has been for decades, despite the number of people applying steadily increasing.

Dr Duck wrote:
> Regular re-tests would probably be a good idea, maybe the licence
> should only last for a few years.

I agree that this would be a good idea in theory, but unfortunately it just wouldn’t be practical.

I don’t know about most of you, but when I took my test I had to book it about 6 months in advance. This time period doesn’t seem to get any smaller. A friend of mine who just passed their test also had to wait about 6 months for her spot.

There is always going to be a steady stream of new drivers who are just old enough to drive and desperate for their independence, this is why I think the period of time you have to wait for a test will not go down.

So, if you add to this a re-test for everyone in the country who drives every couple of years…I think you can see where I am going with this.

Of course, it would create extra jobs and such, more instructors and testers needed. But, I just don’t think it would work.

Just forcing people to re-take theory tests every few years would be a good start, and probably comparatively easy to impliment, given that it doesn't take too long and is all computerised.

Still, aside from the initial backlog problems, surely it wouldn't be too difficult (administratively) to have drivers retake every 10 years or so?

This is the point people are getting at though, most drivers who have ben on the road for more than 12 months would fail their test if they had to take it again.

It's down to the fact that people assume that once they've passed, they never have to be tested on that knowledge again, and so the £1000 worth of lessons and tests is thrown aside in exchange for bad habits like not checking mirrors, pulling out in front of people, double parking and, lest we forget, speeding.

I've always thought the idea of re-testing "older drivers" (who got their licenses long-before the introduction of the Theory Test, and all that) would be a good idea.

I hear about people's test they took 30-odd years ago, and they all sound incredibley EASY compared to what we have to put up with today.


But, obviously, it would take a LOT of hassle to get EVERYONE to re-sit their driving tests under the new system. But, I believe it could really work well to keep only the 'safer' drivers on the road (or at least keep the idiots off-the-road for a while as they struggle with their Theory Tests!).

I've spoken to adults about this before, and it's like none of them think they would be able to pass it under the new setup.
I know someone who'll be re-applying for hislicense soon after a 6 month ban, and he really is quite worried about the Theory Test.


Asking 'everyone' to do it would affect too much.
Perhaps only drivers with previous offences and a certain number of points on their license, within a certain age-group, should be re-tested?

But really, waiting 'til 70 before you have to do it all all-over-again is just too long in so-many cases.

Regular re-tests would probably be a good idea, maybe the licence should only last for a few years.

Of course there'd still be people who can drive sensibly if they put their mind to it (on a test), but most of the time are just scrotes.

I think the people just wanted a scapegoat. After drink driving it was the natural thing to choose speeding. When in fact a lot of the people on the road today shouldn't be allowed near a car.

I watched some woman about a month ago, she was in front of me at some traffic lights, a bus was in front of her. She was leaning over the passenger seat to get something out of the glovebox. She neglected to keep the brake on and the car rolled into the bus.

It's scary what goes on.

When I was about 8 years old, my mum was driving us somewhere, we parked at the roundabout waiting for an opening. Some old gipper ploughed into the back of us. It turned out he had a condition where his leg locked, but he still saw himself fit to drive a car.

And they say speeding is the number one problem....

Your reactions are actually faster when you’re travelling faster. Stopping distance is obviously greater though.

I drive, and I agree with IB.

The laws are there for a reason, there is a speed at which it it deemed safe to drive, if you drive faster, you're putting yourself at risk. I don't care if 'you're a good driver', sometimes it won't be your fault, but driving that little bit slower will give you more time to react, and could save your life.

If I speed, and I sometimes do, and if I get caught, I'd put my hands up and pay the fine. Nobody is being victimised, it's a law, like all of those others, and if you break them, there may be consequences.