Turn on thread page Beta

Destroying speed cameras watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Would you destroy a speed camera?
    Yes, and I have already done so.
    1
    0.65%
    Yes, if I were not going to get caught.
    41
    26.80%
    No, but I would support anyone who chooses to do so.
    29
    18.95%
    No, but I wouldn't call the police if I saw someone doing it.
    52
    33.99%
    No, and I would call the police if I saw someone doing it.
    30
    19.61%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maxfire)
    :rofl: owned.
    Explain...?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mahaneap)
    Explain...?
    :sigh: nvm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kat2pult)
    Thanks for the petty, sexist neg saying 'Typical female - wrong.', it's guys like you who make this country awful.

    I hope you get caught. And banned from driving.
    Ouch - that's some pretty lame rep. Sexism, yay! :rolleyes:

    on topic, I don't like speeding, and don't see the need for it. The cameras will only cause you the slightest bit of trouble if you break the law by driving above the speed limit; for the rest of us, it helps keep the roads safer. Destroying them is obviously wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    Ouch - that's some pretty lame rep. Sexism, yay! :rolleyes:

    on topic, I don't like speeding, and don't see the need for it. The cameras will only cause you the slightest bit of trouble if you break the law by driving above the speed limit; for the rest of us, it helps keep the roads safer. Destroying them is obviously wrong.
    Perhaps to you, but it's clearly a controversial issue. So far, 18 people are in favour of destruction, 16 aren't hugely bothered and 14 are against.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    whats the point, so you dont get caught again?
    they dont use film anymore, its sent off across the internets as the photos are taken.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boristhethird)
    whats the point, so you dont get caught again?
    they dont use film anymore, its sent off across the internets as the photos are taken.
    I would imagine some people do it out of anger, or sometimes as a statement opposing their use, even if they haven't personally been caught.

    Some cameras do send pictures straight away, but some (maybe ever the majority) still use film.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mahaneap)
    Perhaps to you, but it's clearly a controversial issue. So far, 18 people are in favour of destruction, 16 aren't hugely bothered and 14 are against.
    Well actually, to look at the facts properly, only one person out of 63 (1.59%) even claims to have done it. If anyone from the 18 who you claim are "in favour" really supported it, they would have done it too.

    Why do you think destroying the cameras is a good idea? It is actually completely illogical; by destroying the cameras you cost the companies more money, and they will seek to recover that money by increasing the fines, more cameras, etc etc...

    Destroying cameras is not going to make the cameras go away, and certainly doesn't make the "MAD" group look good. It's just stupid.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Indeed. The portion of my driving in which I am least focussed on the road ahead is the portion where I'm going through a speed camera area and have my eye constantly on the speedo.

    If somebody runs out in front of me when I'm going over the limit, I have more chance of avoiding an accident than if they run out in front of me while I'm going through a speed camera zone below the speed limit. Fact.

    I tend to agree, when i go through a speed camera zone im that busy paying attention to the speedometer and where the camera is compared to my surroundings, i know it sounds bad in terms of road safety, but i just do it subconciously without thinking
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    Well actually, to look at the facts properly, only one person out of 63 (1.59%) even claims to have done it. If anyone from the 18 who you claim are "in favour" really supported it, they would have done it too.

    Why do you think destroying the cameras is a good idea? It is actually completely illogical; by destroying the cameras you cost the companies more money, and they will seek to recover that money by increasing the fines, more cameras, etc etc...

    Destroying cameras is not going to make the cameras go away, and certainly doesn't make the "MAD" group look good. It's just stupid.
    I disagree. You can be "in favour" of something, but there can be any number of reasons not to do it. In this case, I would think that people would be worried about getting caught, or that they may inadvertently hurt themselves in the process.

    I have yet to share my opinion on the subject. I have simply asked others for their opinion.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    No government has the right to tell me how fast I can drive my car, I fully endorse any and all destruction of the governments public survellance equipment.
    Well seeing as you drive on roads owned by the - you guessed it - Government, I think they can set all the rules they like. Don't like it? Drive on private roads.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    Well seeing as you drive on roads owned by the - you guessed it - Government, I think they can set all the rules they like. Don't like it? Drive on private roads.
    We pay tax.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Its mainly the boy racers who want to destroy speed cameras. I hope speed cameras live a long healthy life and keep on collecting cash from the idiots of this world.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mahaneap)
    We pay tax.
    So? That tax doesn't entitle you to drive as fast as you like. It lets you use your car on the governments roads providing you obey by their rules (such as your car having an MOT, driving license, etc etc). Paying for something doesn't mean you can do whatever you like.

    (Original post by mahaneap)
    I have yet to share my opinion on the subject. I have simply asked others for their opinion.
    Great - well now I'm asking you for yours. Go on...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mahaneap)
    We pay tax.
    So that excludes you from having to drive at a safe limit? When you rent a car you can't **** in it, or you'll get fined. The government owns the road, and therefore can set the limits it wants.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    Well seeing as you drive on roads owned by the - you guessed it - Government, I think they can set all the rules they like. Don't like it? Drive on private roads.
    I didn't vote for him, I don't accept that he owns it, and he doesn't have the right to tell me how fast I can drive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    No government has the right to tell me how fast I can drive my car, I fully endorse any and all destruction of the governments public survellance equipment.
    Ok, knowing that speed cameras prevent speeding and knowing speeding increases road deaths...

    you anachrists are so free spirited why can't you conform like the rest of us schlo's

    freaking idiot
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    I didn't vote for him, I don't accept that he owns it, and he doesn't have the right to tell me how fast I can drive.
    Sadly, that's not how a democracy works :rofl:. I hope you get caught, and in time you will. People like you pay for better roads for people like me, so thank you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    So that excludes you from having to drive at a safe limit? When you rent a car you can't **** in it, or you'll get fined. The government owns the road, and therefore can set the limits it wants.
    No. It gives us a right to have some say in matters such as this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    Well seeing as you drive on roads owned by the - you guessed it - Government, I think they can set all the rules they like. Don't like it? Drive on private roads.
    Disregard the speeding argument for one second.

    The government owns the roads? They can set all the rules they like? How incredibly depressing. With an attitude like that, is it any wonder we're becoming an ever more authoritarian state with fewer and fewer civil liberties? Government owning the roads indeed...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    I didn't vote for him, I don't accept that he owns it, and he doesn't have the right to tell me how fast I can drive.
    and tbh, you're on student rooms, a site geared towards government endorsed academia. You're hardly the Joker; you'll probably never even steal a traffic cone you menace to society behind your computer screen whilst revising for your exams.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.