Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scotsman)   Rogue drivers threaten to destroy more speed cameras   ( divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

9424 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2003 at 4:26 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

103 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2003-02-05 08:45:21 AM  
It's not about the money, it's about safety. Really.
2003-02-05 09:00:47 AM  
Heh. Good point, JerkStore. What would cities tax/fine/steal if everyone decided not to break laws? Start cracking down on sugar consumption and other unhealthy habits?
2003-02-05 09:23:01 AM  
in the US we wouldnt have to vandelize the cameras. We would just have to involve lawyers. The cameras would never know what hit them.

Sometimes i wish they would use them here. Breaking the speed limit is just a crap shoot and most people are willing to take the chance. If you drive the speed limit you are pretty much gauranteed to have people right on your tail (pick up trucks , SUV's and sports cars in particular.) There should not even be posted speed limits if they are not enforceable. or maybe the sign should say 30MPH +/- 10MPH .. then at least you know where you stand
2003-02-05 09:54:08 AM  
02-05-03 08:45:21 AM JerkStore
It's not about the money, it's about safety. Really.

Not necessarily true. Here in DC the city government has said outright that it is about the money. And i believe that AAA pulled their support for the program because of it.
2003-02-05 10:02:53 AM  
Ha ha, UK government really likes to tax its subjects. Road tax, fuel tax, VAT, speed tax, income tax, and I'm pretty sure they have a breathing and boinking tax (they compliment each other, the more you fark the faster you breathe, the more tax the gov't collects. Brilliant eh?)

Good for MAD. Sure, say what you want about safety, but threatening people with punishment for safety kinda rubs the wrong way across human nature doesn't it?
2003-02-05 10:18:34 AM  
Perhaps my read on this is skewed, but I don't percieve this as a mandate for personal safety - but public safety. They're not trying to mandate you be safe for your sake but for the innocent people that your speeding ass may hit.

Don't be so quick to be defensive - gubbermint isn't trying to keep you down. Sounds like they're just trying to find a more motivating factor than personal safety. Aiming for the wallet is the American way.
2003-02-05 11:00:57 AM  
What else are they recording with these cameras, Bump? I agree that public safety is a good thing. But this just smacks of automating the process. There are certain reasons why inefficient government is a good thing at times.
2003-02-05 02:00:18 PM  
Ash216: I believe you were confused by the lack of sarcasm tags. :)
2003-02-05 02:08:35 PM  
One of the most retarded statements I've ever heard; "Cameras in public places are an invasion of privacy!"
2003-02-05 02:10:49 PM  
Bump: Just like seatbelt laws and helmet laws are about public safety. Face it, if you let someone tell you what to do and think they are going to do it. I speed only when the limit is ridiculously low or I'm really drunk and can't see the signs, otherwise I obey all the traffic laws.
2003-02-05 04:08:53 PM  
Quick1--I am easily confused.
2003-02-05 04:30:50 PM  
More typical totalitarianism from Oceania.
2003-02-05 04:32:43 PM  
Sorry to be off topic, but I am now a part of TotalFark! Mwhaha!

2003-02-05 04:33:15 PM  
"By attacking a speed camera on this road they are really attacking something that is there to save lives."


They're attacking how much money is collected through fines for speeding violations caught on camera.

Big Brother can suck it.
2003-02-05 04:36:17 PM  
But the threat sparked outrage from road safety campaigners who insist speed cameras have helped save lives on the route.

The stretch of the road between Edinburgh and the English Border has claimed 87 lives in the last ten years.

so why not include the number (or lack thereof) of deaths since the speed cameras have been put in place? seems like that would help one side of the discussion. lazy ass reporter.
2003-02-05 04:36:46 PM  
Am I correct in my reading that this busy and dangerous road is about the size of a thru street in the US (2 lanes eacy way?) If so, I think we figured out the problem.
2003-02-05 04:37:02 PM  
You guys are right, gov't's should not be fining people for speeding or any other traffic infractions. In fact, the gov't should also stop taxing its "subjects" altogether.

They just waste all that money anyway.
2003-02-05 04:39:34 PM  
I am the best rogue driver ever.
2003-02-05 04:40:05 PM  

I E S !!!
2003-02-05 04:40:18 PM  
the revolution has begun....
2003-02-05 04:41:13 PM  
in an un-related post...


alright, you may continue
2003-02-05 04:42:40 PM  
Eccehomer...I like how you think.

2003-02-05 04:42:45 PM  
All I can say is "whatever blows up your kilt ..."

Well, I can say more, but I'll be merciful.
2003-02-05 04:43:25 PM  
Not necessarily true. Here in DC the city government has said outright that it is about the money.

same here in california. the company that got the contract for the red light cameras got a portion of each ticket payment so they shortened the amount of time the yellow light stays on, which meant more tickets written because of a quicker red light. Studies show that red light cameras actually cause more accidents because people got so paranoid that as soon as the light turned yellow, and istead of going through the intersection, they would slam on the brakes and get rear ended.
2003-02-05 04:43:30 PM  
So what if its about money. If it keeps some dipshiat from plowing into your car at 120 miles an hour then more cameras on the road please. Now having said that there is a question of "big brother" having cameras everywhere that is threating in its own right.
2003-02-05 04:47:00 PM  
They need an "insane driver camera" that doesn't catch the regular guy doing 10-15 mph over the speed limit, but the loser changing lanes every 5 seconds with no signal going 100 mph.

then again, they also need an "asshole camera" for that guy who goes exactly the speed limit in the left lane and disrupts the whole traffic flow, causing more danger than anything.
2003-02-05 04:48:29 PM  
2003-02-05 04:49:50 PM  
They didn't mention how many of these MFs are drunk off their ass while speeding. Do they have the DWI thing like we have here? Maybe it would be better to get a speeding ticket in the mail rather than get busted for DWI, like MS Ross.
2003-02-05 04:50:52 PM  
Driver cams = bad
Boobie cams = g00d

Power to the people.
2003-02-05 04:51:00 PM  
I was about to say, I thought those were RLCs (and those are illegal in some states). Speed cameras it's kind of hard to prove they're actually for the money, unless they lower limits at the same time.

2003-02-05 04:51:06 PM  
Lets just use this thread to get the attention of the mods, BOOBIES WE WANT BOOBIES, whos with me, if ya are BOOBIES!!!!! THATS WHAT US NEADERTHALS WANT!!!
2003-02-05 04:51:52 PM  
I hope the cameras on the road are X10 cameras. you know those things always films a good amount of Boobies...
2003-02-05 04:53:34 PM  
Speed does not kill.
Momentum kills.

So speeding tickets should be based on the weight of the vehicle, right?

"So what if its about money."

"big brother"
Yeah-- I believe Washington is still networking those cameras with store/bar/parking lot cameras, all accessible by the government.

Where I live, the people in charge of liquor licencenses(es?) coerced all the bars to hook up their cameras to the police station. If they didn't have any, they had to get them. Or no licence. (esess)
2003-02-05 04:56:09 PM  
Bf+ :
Speed does not kill.
Momentum kills.

Neither, the human body hitting something (or being hit) at speed kills.
2003-02-05 04:57:07 PM  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there no difference, outside of degree, in being convicted of speeding due to footage from a camera, and being convicted of murder due to footage from a camera? In both cases you broke the law, and in both cases there is proof that you broke the law. I don't see anyone attacking security cameras because they might catch you murdering someone.
2003-02-05 04:58:17 PM  
Hi all!

I travel one of the worst roads in Scotland every day; the A77 (153 deaths in the last ten years and 800 bad accidents) and they are ALWAYS biatching about putting a speed camera there.....

Personally, I think the high accident rate has more to do with complete fannys driving in the faster lane SLOWLY and not moving out of the way for faster traffic - soon a convoy of cars are all trying to UNDERTAKE one fool. :-(

Also, not indicating, not looking, not paying attention and not driving in a manner befitting the conditions (Snow, Wind, Ice) are the main killers.

A GATSO won't do a THING to stop / help any of this... Just generate cash for the gov.


P:S: Also, for anyone not familiar with the road - there is a major turn off which makes you drive ACCROSS ONCOMING traffic to get to where you are going. Lunacy.

2003-02-05 04:59:04 PM  
Well, if they dont want us to that fast, dont let our cars do it.
2003-02-05 05:01:00 PM  
There is a Red Light Camera outside my apartment a few people who stop at the light but just over the line so all you see for two min is flashess and the film gets used they get no ticket because they did't go thru the red light (this is in San Francisco)
2003-02-05 05:03:30 PM  
Shoulda had the Hero tag
2003-02-05 05:08:48 PM  

Anyplace where they are putting these cameras, you're not going anywhere very fast anyway. The most you will save is probably 60 seconds, tops.
2003-02-05 05:11:03 PM  
Traffic cams = bad.
Murder cams = good!
2003-02-05 05:11:31 PM  
Can't believe no one has done this:

The first rule of project MAD is, you do not talk about project MAD.

The second rule of project MAD is, you do NOT TALK about project MAD.

Third rule of project MAD, MORE BOOBIES!

Forth rule, this is punk, there is no fourth rule.

2003-02-05 05:11:58 PM  
"Driver cams = bad
Boobie cams = g00d"

What if women started flashing their boobies at the driver cams?
2003-02-05 05:12:43 PM  
"Anybody who would deliberately target this camera is not just mad, they are murderously mad."

Maliciously murderously mad even!!

Anyone remember that video "Block Rockin' Beats"? This couple drives up to a camera, stack some crates near it, and then one gets back in the car and drives by real fast so it takes a picture, while the other stands on the crates and flips the camera off. haha. I love that.
2003-02-05 05:14:20 PM  
Be verie verie qwuiet. I'm hunting camwas.
2003-02-05 05:14:59 PM  
If its not about the money then give the fines to a charity of speeders choice. Yeah this will happen.
2003-02-05 05:15:39 PM  
The city of LA put in a couple orders for red light cameras. People actually stopped running the red light at those intersections and LAPD found that they weren't getting many tickets and thus not making much money so they cancelled the second order. So much for public safety being their top concern.
2003-02-05 05:18:24 PM  
02-05-03 04:57:07 PM Slayn666
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there no difference, outside of degree, in being convicted of speeding due to footage from a camera, and being convicted of murder due to footage from a camera? In both cases you broke the law, and in both cases there is proof that you broke the law. I don't see anyone attacking security cameras because they might catch you murdering someone.

Yes, there is a difference. Murder is a crime that is malum in se (wrong in and of itself) whereas speeding is malum prohibitum (wrong because the government says so). There is no moral justification for speed limits, except perhaps in high-risk areas such as school zones. The old adage, "speed kills" has no basis in fact.
2003-02-05 05:19:49 PM  
If its not about the money then give the fines to a charity of speeders choice. Yeah this will happen.

I agree, doesn't it seem like the greatest conflict of interest even to have a city's income depend on how they enforce the law? The fact that they profit from certain laws being enforced but not others doesn't reassure me that the law will be uniformly enforced. Ticket fees should be given to charity or education. And if taxes have to be raised to pay for the police then so be it, I'd rather that than the unfair way crimes are enforced today.
2003-02-05 05:19:54 PM  
We may be talking about two different types of cameras, in Minnesota our cameras are used strictly for traffic management. Enforcement opens a whole different can of worms...check it's snowing now in MInneapolis/St. Paul!
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.