The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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.
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.
Page:
The law is really picky on it though.
You can use a hands free kit, but you’re not aloud to operate any part of the phone with your hands while driving.
If you need to operate the phone with your hands, you have to pull over AND switch off the engine of the vehicle.
You can use a hands free kit, but you’re not aloud to operate any part of the phone with your hands while driving.
If you need to operate the phone with your hands, you have to pull over AND switch off the engine of the vehicle.
English_Bloke wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Yep, up to a 1000 quid fine.
>
> That will be more trouble then it's worth. This involves reporting
> for summons so a court can decide on the punishment.
>
> It will be worth it for REALLY serious offences of speeding, but for
> your average speeder, the courts would just impose a tiny fine and
> turn its nose up at the police for wasting its time.
Aye, just got some info from our credit control director.
"Drivers who use hand-held phones while driving - or employers who require or permit their workers to do so - will be subject to penalties ranging from a fixed penalty notice of £30 up to a fine of £1000, or £2500 for drivers of goods vehicles or vehicles that carry eight or more people"
In the vast majity of cases, I think you will be correct.
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Yep, up to a 1000 quid fine.
>
> That will be more trouble then it's worth. This involves reporting
> for summons so a court can decide on the punishment.
>
> It will be worth it for REALLY serious offences of speeding, but for
> your average speeder, the courts would just impose a tiny fine and
> turn its nose up at the police for wasting its time.
Aye, just got some info from our credit control director.
"Drivers who use hand-held phones while driving - or employers who require or permit their workers to do so - will be subject to penalties ranging from a fixed penalty notice of £30 up to a fine of £1000, or £2500 for drivers of goods vehicles or vehicles that carry eight or more people"
In the vast majity of cases, I think you will be correct.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Yep, up to a 1000 quid fine.
That will be more trouble then it's worth. This involves reporting for summons so a court can decide on the punishment.
It will be worth it for REALLY serious offences of speeding, but for your average speeder, the courts would just impose a tiny fine and turn its nose up at the police for wasting its time.
> Yep, up to a 1000 quid fine.
That will be more trouble then it's worth. This involves reporting for summons so a court can decide on the punishment.
It will be worth it for REALLY serious offences of speeding, but for your average speeder, the courts would just impose a tiny fine and turn its nose up at the police for wasting its time.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Its Hindu.
>
> That's funny. I'm sure Chakotay claims it's a native American
> saying.
>
> Anyway...
Aye, like Chakotay is a native American ;) ;) ;)
As you say, Anyway....
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Its Hindu.
>
> That's funny. I'm sure Chakotay claims it's a native American
> saying.
>
> Anyway...
Aye, like Chakotay is a native American ;) ;) ;)
As you say, Anyway....
Nope, currently we can give a fixed penalty for, “Driving without full control of the vehicle”, or something to that effect, which involves £30 penalty. All the new legislation will do is give us a new little sentence to write on the ticket. It will still just be a £30 fine.
Cheers for that, giving us the power to do something we could already do.
I was also hoping it would become £60 and 3 points. That’s life I guess.
Cheers for that, giving us the power to do something we could already do.
I was also hoping it would become £60 and 3 points. That’s life I guess.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> English_Bloke wrote:
> However, you talk on your mobile phone
> while you drive, something which is now recognised to be extremely
> dangerous, because not only does it effect your concentration, but
> it
> also means that you don’t have full control of the car while doing
> it. Um, ok, £30 please – and don’t do it again…
>
> Isn't that due to change on 1st December?
Yep, up to a 1000 quid fine.
> English_Bloke wrote:
> However, you talk on your mobile phone
> while you drive, something which is now recognised to be extremely
> dangerous, because not only does it effect your concentration, but
> it
> also means that you don’t have full control of the car while doing
> it. Um, ok, £30 please – and don’t do it again…
>
> Isn't that due to change on 1st December?
Yep, up to a 1000 quid fine.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Its Hindu.
That's funny. I'm sure Chakotay claims it's a native American saying.
Anyway...
> Its Hindu.
That's funny. I'm sure Chakotay claims it's a native American saying.
Anyway...
English_Bloke wrote:
> However, you talk on your mobile phone
> while you drive, something which is now recognised to be extremely
> dangerous, because not only does it effect your concentration, but it
> also means that you don’t have full control of the car while doing
> it. Um, ok, £30 please – and don’t do it again…
Isn't that due to change on 1st December?
> However, you talk on your mobile phone
> while you drive, something which is now recognised to be extremely
> dangerous, because not only does it effect your concentration, but it
> also means that you don’t have full control of the car while doing
> it. Um, ok, £30 please – and don’t do it again…
Isn't that due to change on 1st December?
Insane Bartender wrote:
> speed cameras are there for a
> purpose, and that purpose is to punish drivers who are BREAKING THE
> LAW.
Well, I like the sentiment, and I suppose it is true in a round about way. However, the more cynical side of me does believe it is more important to the government that it is just a very effective way to milk more money from the public, and you know what I say? Good, if you’re going to milk money from anyone, why not from the idiots?
> Let's be clear here. Speeding is dangerous, it costs lives, which is
> to say it can kill people,
Again, I agree, but I find the problem in the law is the inconsistency. Speeding can kill, no doubt, but it is usually just one of many factors. Speeding itself is not ALLWAYS dangerous; bad driving is dangerous.
You are caught speeding, thank you very much, that’s 3 points on your licence and £60 please. However, you talk on your mobile phone while you drive, something which is now recognised to be extremely dangerous, because not only does it effect your concentration, but it also means that you don’t have full control of the car while doing it. Um, ok, £30 please – and don’t do it again…
Also, going the legal limit on the motorway, look in your rear-view-mirror only to see someone so close to your bumper that you can smell what he or she had for breakfast.
Anyway, I also could sit here for ages, typing and venting my anger, but I also will just wind myself up.
So yeah, speeding is stupid, and those of you who do it, I look forward to working with you.
> speed cameras are there for a
> purpose, and that purpose is to punish drivers who are BREAKING THE
> LAW.
Well, I like the sentiment, and I suppose it is true in a round about way. However, the more cynical side of me does believe it is more important to the government that it is just a very effective way to milk more money from the public, and you know what I say? Good, if you’re going to milk money from anyone, why not from the idiots?
> Let's be clear here. Speeding is dangerous, it costs lives, which is
> to say it can kill people,
Again, I agree, but I find the problem in the law is the inconsistency. Speeding can kill, no doubt, but it is usually just one of many factors. Speeding itself is not ALLWAYS dangerous; bad driving is dangerous.
You are caught speeding, thank you very much, that’s 3 points on your licence and £60 please. However, you talk on your mobile phone while you drive, something which is now recognised to be extremely dangerous, because not only does it effect your concentration, but it also means that you don’t have full control of the car while doing it. Um, ok, £30 please – and don’t do it again…
Also, going the legal limit on the motorway, look in your rear-view-mirror only to see someone so close to your bumper that you can smell what he or she had for breakfast.
Anyway, I also could sit here for ages, typing and venting my anger, but I also will just wind myself up.
So yeah, speeding is stupid, and those of you who do it, I look forward to working with you.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Reminds me of the silly fox/scorpion proverb quoted in Star Trek a
> while back, whereby the scorpion dooms itself and the fox, simply
> because it can;t help itself.
This one?
"A scorpion was walking along the bank of a river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river. The fox said, "No, if I do that you'll sting me and I'll drown."
The scorpion assured him, "If I did that we'd both drown."
So the fox thought about it, finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed up on his back and the fox began to swim. But halfway across the river the scorpion stung him. As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion, said "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too."
"I couldn't help it," said the scorpion, "it's my nature.""
Its Hindu.
> Reminds me of the silly fox/scorpion proverb quoted in Star Trek a
> while back, whereby the scorpion dooms itself and the fox, simply
> because it can;t help itself.
This one?
"A scorpion was walking along the bank of a river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river. The fox said, "No, if I do that you'll sting me and I'll drown."
The scorpion assured him, "If I did that we'd both drown."
So the fox thought about it, finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed up on his back and the fox began to swim. But halfway across the river the scorpion stung him. As the poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion, said "Why did you do that? Now you'll drown too."
"I couldn't help it," said the scorpion, "it's my nature.""
Its Hindu.
Page: