police win the right to camouflage speed cameras

SB118 · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:13

Firestar_3x said:
Those electronics must be quite susceptible to abnormal voltages, wonder if you could connect a high current device against the metal exterior and cause the electrics inside the unit to fail

The idea of scratching the powder coat off the steel and applying a taser to the metal is disgusting. I don't approve.

Much.

Vanilla · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:15

Glad i've got an Origin B2!

Firestar_3x · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:16

SB118 said:
The idea of scratching the powder coat off the steel and applying a taser to the metal is disgusting. I don't approve.

Much.

So thats the real reason you can't legally own a taser in the UK

Ukadder · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:25

I wondered how they were going to make up for the tax loss for the upcomeing non-smokeing in public places leading people to quit.

Dinomania · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:28

Sin_Chase said:
Recap:

Dont know about them
Dont slow down.

Its that simple.

Until you do the above 3 times and whoops, time to re-take your test...

I speed as much as the next person (well, every now and then) and I've always thought it was daft that we could see the cameras, as all that does is make me brake just before it, trundle through at the correct speed, then zip off afterwards.

You can all argue until your face turns blue about how unfair the law is, but let's face it, you know you're breaking it and (in most cases) getting away with breaking it day in, day out.

If we can't see cameras, or don't know their whereabouts, we will be slower all the time, for fear of losing money/licence. That's the effect cameras should have. Not the panic-braking of the car in front of you who wasn't watching and nearly caused an accident as you just managed to avoid rear-ending him/her.

Teledude · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:30

Ive heard that speeding is connected to the driver?

Could you in theory pass the blame on to some distant relation in the middle east?!

SB118 · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:30

It would be much more sensable (and less nasty when they nick you!) to get a few cans of marking paint (the proper stuff with the reflective flecks in it, more reflective than the sticky back plastic they use!) and spray the column of the camera a nice bright colour (yellow & green stripes would look nice). Not forgetting to mask off the lock holes and hinges, wouldn't want the law to think we were trying to damage public property

Rotty · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:49

Teledude said:
Ive heard that speeding is connected to the driver?

Could you in theory pass the blame on to some distant relation in the middle east?!

yes and you could also get 6 months in the nick if they find out

Neb · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:51

Will they still keep the database of where they are? I'm thinking that it would be a good investment to get a GPS system that tells you where they are hidden. :/

ACPCUP · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:52

Speed cameras are good in that they make people think but they are cropping up like dandy-lions in a weed infested field!! They can hide them if they want. Looks like they will then get some people destrying them!!

Siliconslave · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:56

William said:
edit: That £100 volvo someone has would do.

sorry... thats in a scrap yard near rome atm

still annother silly cheap car will be on its way soon, and then maybe its recking time

Firestar_3x · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:58

Anyone see that worlds wildest police videos with the stolen tank?

We need a tank + Extra fuel and go on a UK mission to knock all speed cameras over!

William · 20 Feb 2006 at 11:59

Firestar_3x said:
Anyone see that worlds wildest police videos with the stolen tank?

We need a tank + Extra fuel and go on a UK mission to knock all speed cameras over!

Ahh yeah I remember they just waited until it ran out of fuel.

Spunj99 · 20 Feb 2006 at 12:16

Around here someone cut some of the yellow tape stuff off the back in the shape of a smiley face and whacked that on the lens.

So now people drive past and there's a big grey box smiling at them.

kitten_caboodle · 20 Feb 2006 at 12:18

sara said:
Until you do the above 3 times and whoops, time to re-take your test...

I speed as much as the next person (well, every now and then) and I've always thought it was daft that we could see the cameras, as all that does is make me brake just before it, trundle through at the correct speed, then zip off afterwards.

You can all argue until your face turns blue about how unfair the law is, but let's face it, you know you're breaking it and (in most cases) getting away with breaking it day in, day out.

If we can't see cameras, or don't know their whereabouts, we will be slower all the time, for fear of losing money/licence. That's the effect cameras should have. Not the panic-braking of the car in front of you who wasn't watching and nearly caused an accident as you just managed to avoid rear-ending him/her.

pretty much my point of view tbh.
though it is annoying that they are supposed to be there as a deterrent, in which case, why hide them?? I'd rather they just said - 'we're out to get as much money as possible from you speeding' and I'd be ok with it. It's the hypocrisy I don't like.

Firestar_3x · 20 Feb 2006 at 12:30

Problem is your going to be concentrating on watching your speed and afraid of getting nicked, all the time your actually concentrating less on the road and what's around you, for example try and drive down a section of motorway with specs and see how oftern you check your speedo......

kitten_caboodle · 20 Feb 2006 at 13:02

Firestar_3x said:
Problem is your going to be concentrating on watching your speed and afraid of getting nicked, all the time your actually concentrating less on the road and what's around you, for example try and drive down a section of motorway with specs and see how oftern you check your speedo......

that's very true. The more people concentrate on surroundings, the less they concentrate on the road and their driving.

Dinomania · 20 Feb 2006 at 13:27

kitten_caboodle said:
pretty much my point of view tbh.
though it is annoying that they are supposed to be there as a deterrent, in which case, why hide them?? I'd rather they just said - 'we're out to get as much money as possible from you speeding' and I'd be ok with it. It's the hypocrisy I don't like.

They're still a deterrent if hidden, as we'll know thery're about, just not *where*. The cynical among you think they're just cash machines, yes I know - but really, they're not supposed to catch you. They're designed to make you slow down and keep to the limit out of fear of getting caught. And if we can see them, they don't do that at all, do they? They just make us slow down in certain spots where someone was once killed or injured.

As for checking speedo all the time - well yes that sucks but anyone with experience can tell when they're going too fast. There's plenty of visual indicators in the vehicles around you and how blurry the surroundings are - and most speedos can be seen in peripheral vision, i.e. I know my car is going 70 when the needle is pointing straight up.

Firestar_3x · 20 Feb 2006 at 13:39

sara said:
As for checking speedo all the time - well yes that sucks but anyone with experience can tell when they're going too fast. There's plenty of visual indicators in the vehicles around you and how blurry the surroundings are - and most speedos can be seen in peripheral vision, i.e. I know my car is going 70 when the needle is pointing straight up.

Thats all good and well, however can you tell your doing 33mph and not 30, thats the diff between getting 3 points or not, also it can also be hard to hold an exact speed for a long period.

lovedaddy · 20 Feb 2006 at 13:40

About time

People are crying on that they nothing more than a revenue exercise - well, if they took away all the fines and just dished out points would you still be apposed to them?

You know the speed limits in an area, and you should be sticking to them, hopefully the threat of being unable to spot the speed cameras will drum that into peoples heads. 30 means 30, not 30 for 100 yards round the camera then back to 45.