In car distractions

Our current government is one huge lie. Take all the money off the motorist, penalise us for all sorts of ridiculous new legislation then claim it all in the name of 'road safety'. The fact of the matter is that Smiley Bliar wants to get as many cars off the roads as possible and get everyone shoehorned onto the inadequate buses and trains - possibility of working in central London, but perhaps not so applicable in the Scottish highlands? Never thought of that one did he?

As someone pointed out recently in a classic car magazine, why should the owner of more than one car be made to pay out two or three times for tax and insurance? Surely road tax covers our right as individuals to use the public highways, not each car. Also could insurance companies not set in place a scheme where an individual is insured not the car? No, and here is why. 25 million vehicles on the roads of which perhaps 10 million are a second car in a household. 100 quid each lost in tax and there goes a billion pounds for the government. Same for insurance companies. Its all about money.

Nigel wrote: Just a little exercise for those that wish to join in, give me your reasons why you think speed cameras should be removed, and let me play devils advocate with you

Because they are such a big distraction (you pay such close attention to them and your speedo while passing them) that it's the equivalent to driving 10MPH over the speed limit because you're not looking at the world around you.

I know it's wrong for me to do this, but I do it. I can't help myself.

I read of a case in the paper where the coroner said that this had contributed to someone's death in an RTA and that the camera in question should be removed.

Because they are used as an excuse to get rid of traffic police.

None of the above bear credence of any form when compared to the in car distraction I had this morning.

1 mile from the office (approx.) - spot one of the girls from the office stood beside her car at the roadside.  Clearly car problems.

I stop and discover her car has ran out of petrol because she thought she'd make it to the Shell garage.

So, I run her to the petrol station, get the fuel (she was well prepared I'll say that because she had a plastic fuel container with her, shame it was empty!) and we come back and I get her car started.

What is so distracting about that?

Well, she's, 24, 5'9" with the most perfect figure you can imagine, stunning bright blue eyes, natural blonde, and the legs are to die for.

Now that is what I call a distraction.

She's single too.....shame I'm not....lol

spokey wrote:   Because they are such a big distraction (you pay such close attention to them and your speedo while passing them) that it's the equivalent to driving 10MPH over the speed limit because you're not looking at the world around you. I know it's wrong for me to do this, but I do it. I can't help myself. I read of a case in the paper where the coroner said that this had contributed to someone's death in an RTA and that the camera in question should be removed.

Right, here we go, ( I'm playing devils advocate to try and get some ideas, the answers I'm going to try and give are what I get from my local scamera partnership, and I'm running out of ideas )

Good for the coroner but.......this statement plays straight into the hands of the " hide it brigade ", if it wasnt visable, and you were also not allowed to detect it, it couldnt distract you, you'd just drive to the speed limit.  

Nigel wrote: Right, here we go, ( I'm playing devils advocate to try and get some ideas, the answers I'm going to try and give are what I get from my local scamera partnership, and I'm running out of ideas ) Good for the coroner but.......this statement plays straight into the hands of the " hide it brigade ", if it wasnt visable, and you were also not allowed to detect it, it couldnt distract you, you'd just drive to the speed limit.

And in conjunction with all my other comments?

spokey wrote: Because they form part of a campaign to demonise the motorist and make criminals of us all.

Not at all, they are part of a campaign to highlight the dangers of exceeding the posted speed limit, which has been set to give as much safetly as possible to all road users.

spokey wrote: Only where applicable, but many of them are sited for no other reason than to make money.

They can only make money if you drive outside of the law, if people dont break the limit, the camera will generate no revenue.

Nigel wrote: spokey wrote:  Because they de-emphasise every other aspect of safe driving. They do not, they merely enforce the law, and give you a generous margin of 10% + 2 mph, it is illegal to break the posted speed limit.

There is almost no visible policing of any other aspect of safe driving. The overwhelming preponderence of scameras tells everyone "as long as you don't speed, we won't bother you".

spokey wrote: Because they form part of a campaign to demonise the motorist and make criminals of us all.

They do demoralise the motorist, as pointed out by the IAM, but the type of response you get to this is " dont break the speed limit, if you do then you are indeed a criminal".