Britain is to cut the speed limit from 60 mph to 50 mph on most roads to ‘save lives’. Does anyone seriously believe this is not in fact to raise more revenue from speeding tickets?
The solution is obvious. Break the law and smash the cameras. And when they replace them, smash them again. And again. And again. And again.
We are way way way past the point where words are enough. If you actually expect to make a difference, you better get used to the idea that this sort of ‘direct action’ is the only thing that will make any impact at all on the powers-that-be. Don’t believe me? Well do you think radical muslims in the UK and elsewhere could have eroded deeply entrenched ‘givens’ on free speech if their objections to any public criticism of their religion were not backed with explicit or implicit threats of actually real world violence? No, I do not like it either but that is where we now find ourselves, so get use to it. Be willing to pick up that brick and actually throw it or you are irrelevent. Push has come to shove.
To be fair, 60 mph does seem a little hairy on a Dorset lane.
Oh sure but this will not just be for Dorset lanes, it’s going affect a huge part of the country.
30 years ago the US dropped highway speeds from 65mph (and higher) to 55mph. What happened? not much. 10 years ago they lifted the limit for major highways and what happened? not much.
Of course speeds aren’t really limited in the US. We have no speed cameras so traffic travels at 75mph except in the most tightly policed roads. It isn’t unusual to go 85 in a 65 when traffic is light (I do it and it’s been 15 years and 150k miles since I got my last speeding ticket).
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, paintball the bloody lot of them!
It will cost more to clean and repair after a concerted campaign, than they get in stolen fines, without saving one fuckin life.
Because we are all aware that revenue and not safety is the main factor here, dont we?
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, paintball the bloody lot of them!”
The government won’t mind if the police do a Jean Charles on a couple of paint ballers.Do enough of it and they will invoke the Civil Contingencies Act. Needs something more subtle
No, this isn’t the time for subtlety. Let ’em invoke the Civil Contingencies Act, so bloody what? However I think you overestimate their balls. Did they do that when muslims marched down the street threating to cut people’s heads off? No, they didn’t. If you cannot find a way to keep smashing a rural speedcamera without getting caught, we’re probably better off without you 😀
Civil disobedience? Smash the cameras? Paintball them? Apparently the Brits are preparing to teach us Americans a thing or two about revolution. Their revolution begins, ours sinks into sad memory. All we had was a lousy tea party. Of course there is the small matter of Americans still having their guns.
And it remains to be seen if that is still true a few short years from now if Obama gets his way. I suspect the time for talking will be over for you too sooner than you think.
Lowering the speed limit in the US increased traffic fatalities in parts of the country where greater driving distances were the norm. People who spend too much time driving have a tendency to lose concentration or consciousness.
I wonder if there was any testing of stress levels at that time; 55 was a major pain, as are traffic cops nowadays who must be presumed, from a ticket-wary driver’s POV, to focus on fast rather than on dangerous drivers. Are, say, drug companies looking to open up new markets in Britain? I’d hate to think that only opportunists were thinking forward to the lowering of the speed limit; bureaucrats and politicians sure aren’t.
Obama has already sent up trial balloons about gun control. And he has already been shouted down by members of his own party. In our last two election cycles, Democrats who took over formerly Republican seats tended to be more pro-gun than the Republican candidate. And for the first time in the history of the Republic, the Supreme Court has declared unequivocally that private, individual gun ownership is a Constitutional guarantee. Obama will try, and he will fail. And he is only temporarily the resident in the White House.
i’m thinking a piece of glass or plexiglas (perspex?) painted opaquely to appear like the camera port on a Gatso, superglued over said port. Wonder how long it would take for someone to figure it out…
American privately held guns are an irrelevance unless you are prepared to shoot the agents of the state with them.
As 99.999% of Americans, even avid gun lovers, are not, that makes them useful as a symbol, nothing more.
toryboy, there’s a little thing called “defense against your fellow citizens and immigrant hordes” you’re forgetting about. Besides, why use the costly military to put down a revolution when the useful idiots are willing to burn unarmed bitter clingies?
A Department for Transport spokeswoman said: “This is something that is being looked at, but no decisions have yet been taken.”
I’m sure the government loves the idea of a network of average-speed cameras – a great way to not only increase revenue, but also keep a database of every car journey in the country.
However, I doubt there’d be much sympathy for the speed limit cut, expect by the green fringe. I don’t see this one going anywhere.
“No, this isn’t the time for subtlety. Let ’em invoke the Civil Contingencies Act, so bloody what? However I think you overestimate their balls. Did they do that when muslims marched down the street threating to cut people’s heads off? No, they didn’t. If you cannot find a way to keep smashing a rural speedcamera without getting caught, we’re probably better off without you :-D”
You are going to look bloody silly waving your paintball gun at an armed response team with Heckler and Koch submachine guns and body armour.
The Muslim terrorists have already massacred a large number of people on the Tube,they have previous.Smashing speed cameras is chickenfeed in comparison.
The state reacts viciously to those who cost it money,TV license council tax etc. How would they be if the Vehicle Licensing computer crashed?
Mate, I’ve toasted, blown up, angle grinded, painted and sledged more cams than you can imagine and all it takes is a little brains not to end up in The Scrubs. But if some guys with HKs three counties away can scare you off, that’s fine, go find something else to do if you think it’ll help.
Why is allowing a little needle on an instrument in your car to point to a bigger number than is written on a sign beside the road a crime at all?
There is no harm to anyone. Many people break this law by large margins for decades without doing harm to anyone.
The most that can be said is that, ignoring the driver the vehicle and the conditions, it increases the statistical possibility that harm *might* come to person or property.
Based on that thinking, McDonalds should be outlawed also.
Look Ron, I will have my illegal Heckler and Koch, tucked away in my shoulder holster, I just dont need to expend precious bullets on fuckin speed cameras, I will save the bullets for the bodies that if and when need to be hit.
There are numerous and humourous ways to take these things out.
I seem to remember the “Balloon” thread last year.
Let’s face it, they are depending on our co-operation. The roll over Society.
When we stop rolling over in big numbers, they are fucked!
Gatso,Well done,has it made any difference? We need regime change not vandalism as a political statement.
And the regime will change to what Ron?
Cant see NuTorys looking a financial gift horse in the mouth, can you?
Take the fuckin things down, anyway you can (and not get caught)
Can I be in your gang Gatso?
RAB,
Who said anything about shooting speed cameras? That really would rile up the twats in blue.If you are going to risk be held down whilst one of our finest empties the magazine of an automatic in your head,do you really want it to be for a frigging speed camera?
I told you, start waving paintball guns around and someone will get whacked.
Politicians are more frightened of having to get a day job,they don’t give a toss about spending taxpayer’s money on replacing speed cameras.
“Increased revenue” is a red herring, tho I’m sure many believe it. From a longer-term perspective, reducing the speed-limit is yet another way to exert control over the populace and remind them of who’s boss. Aren’t the arguments for and against reducing the speed limit the same as those for and against reducing the blood-alcohol limit in the “drink-driving” debate?
Describing Whig and Tory philosophies, Herbert Spencer wrote in “Man versus the State” (1885),
“And the regime will change to what Ron?
Cant see NuTorys looking a financial gift horse in the mouth, can you?”
Oh shit the typical libertarian response,who mentioned the Tories?
Take them down by all means,but WE will pay for them to be replaced.
Well you did mention “Regime Change” my old cocker!
Who do you think it will be next time Then?
The Lib/Dems? the Greens? BNP???
Fairies at the bottom of the garden?
So what do you suggest Ron?
No overall control,tactical voting to make sure no one has a solid majority,so that relatively small numbers can blackmail larger parties bartering support for change.
The licensing system could crash ,god forbid,but these things have been known to happen.Now that would be a considerable loss of revenue would it not?
No overall control,tactical voting to make sure no one has a solid majority,so that relatively small numbers can blackmail larger parties bartering support for change.
Holy friggin God Ron, the masses are dim enough as it is, if they cant see clear blue water between parties and policies, then the whole gig is blown.
We are only talking speed cameras here. Just think what a system would do to something important, rather than just irritating?
What you appear to be advocating is proportional representation.
I disagree vehamently!
This is what I thought of that over here…
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=1860#comments
Cos I cant be arsed to type it all out again.
A little hairy on dorset lanes?! from someone else who lives in dorset, the first action that I indulged in on after reading about this shite was to take out my Alfa and indulge in lots of + 50mph fun on country roads. I’ve been driving on these same roads happily and harmlesy for nearly 20 years and I resent cock monkey in parliment telling me what is or is not reckless driving, if I manage to send my self screaming through the gates of i in a ball of flame and panic because I thought that 50 mph+ was a safe speed on a empty toad then on my own head be it, I for one will be happily indulging in some smash smash smash.
I apologise for my spelling and grammer, drink has been taken but I think you get the drift.
*grammar
Even better simply to put a bin liner over them. Can’t be done for criminal damage and still puts the damned thing out of action until they can send someone to remove the bin liner.
Repeat ad infinitum.
Note that the proposal is for communications linked pairs of Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras, rather than simple stand alone Gatso radar cameras.
These will log millions of individual vehicle number plate / time / date / location travel patterns, of the vast majority of innocent people, who keep within the speed limit
The police National ANPR Database (created under the auspices of Association of Chief Police Officers Ltd., without any public consultation or Parliamentary debate) has been talked of as the “largest Oracle database in Europe”.
This is a mass surveillance “Database State” snooping project, rather than a road safety or even a tax revenue raising one.
Does anyone seriously believe this is not in fact to raise more revenue from speeding tickets?
Yes. I do. It is irrelevant to the authorities how much it costs and no meaningful financial studies will have been carried out. Nor will the ‘safety’ pretaxt have been evaluated in any meaningfuil way. This is part of the culture of control that sees the monitoring of individual movement and conduct as a good in itself. It is being done because it can be.
Compare:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/id-move/sheep-goats/eid/
“The main benefit is that individual recording of individual animals is quicker, more accurate and easier.” – Except… NO it isn’t. Farmers and livestock markets are put to massive expense on new equipment, have to organise handling to be individualised rather than group (which flock animals resist) and recording individual animals at every stage adds appreciable time to all transactions. Bureaucratic expectations trump mere real life: if inconsistent with the regulations as implemented by the present official, reality is in error.
I live in a rural area in West Sussex. I don’t really ever get to drive at 60mph except on parts of the A272 between Midhurst and Petworth where the road extends to an open, well-maintained dual carriageway, and that only lasts for a couple of miles. Everywhere else is either residential zones where the speed limit is choked to 30mph, and camera-monitored, or small twisting lanes where doing 40mph would be somewhat foolhardy, for example imagine doing 40mph on an obscured bend and coming face-to-face with a combine harvester.
Put it mildly I don’t support lowering the speed limit but I don’t see where maintaining it at its current levels is of benefit to me personally. It does strike me that this is the way that the New Labour regime works in that they seek to use the almost apathetic element of ‘it’s terrible, but it doesn’t really apply to me’ as a method of introducing such legislation. This is why we must fight back.
I doubt there is much support for this, and I fail to see how it would save lives. The current motorway limit of 70mph is not even rigorously enforced now. If one drives up to 80mph the cops leave you alone; it is only if you are doing 90 or more that things get difficult.
It is all about matching speed to road conditions; 40mph in some built-up roads is insanely fast; 60mph on a decent trunk road is fine, etc.
One thing we could do is exclude the agents of the State from polite society: the speeding cameras et. al. only work because of the army of morally autistic sad-cases who work the levers. So, the next time you host a party and someone brings along a guest who turns out to be an employee of the district court’s ‘safety’ camera unit, or a BBC employee, or a smoking enforcement officer, or whatever, inform them firmly that, having taken such a job, they can no longer expect to mix with decent people, and invite to leave at once.
Of course, all this party stuff is hypothetical for me, as I don’t actually have a life.
..and then some people wonder why the morally-autistic sad cases form their own insular and paranoid society and “us-against-them” culture.
I’m not saying, I’m just saying.
It’s very easy to avoid being fined for speeding. Most people never get a speeding fine. Those who do need to ask themselves why they choose to speed and therefore volunteer for the fines.
On some narrow, bendy rural lanes near me I’d say a 40mph limit is needed.
Mr Pearce wrote:
Firstly the regulation is 60mph on single-lane roads and 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways. Police have clear instructions on breaches of the 30mph rule close to schools at start and finish times. I recall Sussex police telling me some time ago that they would not normally look at motorway speeding for anything less than 88mph, and then only where someone is doing that over a long stretch of road. For other areas they just do not see their guidelines as enforceable since the evidence does not usually show if someone just accelerated to overtake another car or was a juvenile joyrider with a deathwish on Wealden lanes.
I rather suspect that the government would prefer to see any infraction whatsoever enforced and should ACPO complain that the law is unenforceable they can then re-introduce the plans for in-car ‘blackboxes ‘ (Link).
Sunfish, being morally-autistic sad cases that they are, they would have formed such societies anyway, as such people tend to be excluded from society regardless of their place of employment. Corsair would do well to keep such things in mind. Also, to his great credit, he didn’t include policemen in his list, and I hope for his sake that it was intentional. And, lastly, “where do you work” and “what do you do” are not always the same question.
Whatever the statistics are, this strikes me as being collective punishment of the worst order. There are times on the motorway (or major roads) with light traffic and good visibility when it is perfectly safe to drive at 90mph; conversely there are times when it would be madness to go faster than 20 mph, this is the sort of thing best left to individual drivers. Those that cause accidents ought to be punished far more severely, is all (Lord Ahmed take note).
The way it’s supposed to work is that you drive at the speed the road allows – up to the speed limit. i.e. if you’re on a dorset road, or conditions are slippery or there’s a bloody great bend in the road ahead you drive slower. If what the government are saying is that drivers are too idiotic to understand that the speed limit is a limit not a recommended speed then they need to look at how their licensing drivers – because obviously lots of them are too fucking stupid to be driving. Round our way it’s the old boys driving along at 35-40 mph which are the problem because other drivers get frustrated and then do something stupid. The ones charging down the lanes seem to know what their doing and to echo a comment above at least their bloody concentrating – you have to if you’re going to drive at pace.
This is just another bloody government ‘we’re looking after you’ policy – as ever done with the usual amount of stupidity. Instead of dropping the speed and enforcing with cameras why not introduce a few traffic police to address all the stupid bloody driving behaviours which aren’t flagged by gatso’s. Not indicating for example, or looking where you’re going, or driving at 25mph in a 60, or not having working front lights, or brake lights or MOT or tax or a license. Revenue? maybe – trying desperately to look like you’re doing something – definitely.
Drivers watching their speed aren’t watching the road. If you can’t moderate your speed to fit the conditions you’re better off not driving.
One article about this stated that a major risk on rural roads is overtaking. Reducing the speed limit will increase the incidence of overtaking.
Rural roads are the more dangerous for a good reason – motorways and dual carriageways have been specifically engineered to be safe.
From the Government’s perspective the most important parts of the plan appear to be recording car movements and reducing emissions.
“Holy friggin God Ron, the masses are dim enough as it is, if they cant see clear blue water between parties and policies, then the whole gig is blown.”
A bit fascist that RAB.
“We are only talking speed cameras here. Just think what a system would do to something important, rather than just irritating?”
No we are talking about a government which thinks that imposing insane ideas, like speed cameras, on the rest of us.This will morph into carbon footprints for sure.
“What you appear to be advocating is proportional representation.”
No. I’m advocating doing as much political damage to the incumbents as possible.If anything is likely to rouse the muddle it is personal infringements like speed cameras.People are very pissed at whole swathes of their lives being eradicated by this government of semi-simians.
I find you idea muddle headed Ron. I dont want tiny minority nutters having any power whatsoever.
But I’ve said my piece, you carry on arguing as long as you like.
RAB,
“I find you idea muddle headed Ron. I dont want tiny minority nutters having any power whatsoever.”
No you are just confused.You would rather have the big majority nutters in power would you?
Re: British speed limit reduction
Where’s Guido Fawkes when you need him most?
So, let’s assum 50mph becomes the norm, what happens next? A few obvious scenarios spring to mind: national ID cards with an IC chip; chip info includes driver’s licence and car number plate (or that info can be easily accessed); speed camera picks up car number-plate; fine is automatically deducted from your bank account thanks to all the info in your national ID card, which is all just for your “security”. Don’t you feel safer already? And remember: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Right? Good gravy, folks, this isn’t about how fast you drive! It’s about who gets to say what you can do, when, where, and what the penalties will be without you ever getting any say about it.
Government has two motives, to get what they want (money) and to ‘do what’s right’ which sometimes means getting money to someone ELSE, but also sometimes means what it says.
If the government is motivated honesty to ‘do what’s right’, well the policy will end up stupid, poorly executed and with a host of unintended bad consequences for which they will take no responsibility.
If their motivation is to get money, they will usually execute clearly and have carefully planned. They care a lot MORE about their policies when they are to get MONEY from them. That’s why there are so many speed cameras in britain, and more popping up all over the states.
The systematic and careful nature of the speed camera program, and its persistence in spite of widespread public opposition, is itself proof that government did it to get money.
I don’t know at which level speed cameras are approved on The Isle. Here in the U.S. it’s typically done at the local level, cities and counties. That’s far enough down the political food chain to be accountable.
There’s also something here called the Freedom of Information Act where public records must be provided to anyone who asks and pays a reasonable fee. Information like accidents and fatalities in particular locations as well as revenue generated by traffic cameras.
Traffic cameras are starting to be removed here because local pissed off people…er, activists armed with hard facts have spoken up at public meetings berating their council folk and beat them over the head (figuratively) with the truth. That has been that there has been no effect on accident rates but a huge revenue increase.
You guys may have to go to the level of your local MP, but if enough people make it clear that if he/she votes to pass that speed limit change they’ll be looking for honest work after the next election cycle it likely could affect whether that law passes. Find someone in their own party to challenge them next election, promising to repeal or never pass such a measure.
Having to earn an honest living is a terrible prospect for a pol.
In California the limits go as high as 70 and the actualy speeds on the freeway go as high as eighty. Result much less traffic congestion because people are actually on the freeway a shorter amount of time.
When the speeds came back up from 55 to something more reasonable, traffic deaths did not rise much if at all.
Maybe the lesser congestion helped.
These oppressive 55 speed limits are about political correctness and revenue enhancement not about safety.
Ed: My understanding is that there is considerably less local autonomy in the UK, mainly due to the lack of a comparable state-federal split of responsibilities.
However, the US seems different by degree more than category. Anything funded by the Feds is pretty much open-season for federal control, c.f. speed limits and the drinking age.
This is the premier reason why I’d be perfectly happy to see tax collection swapped between state and federal (i.e. I pay 5% federal income and 25% Massachusetts state taxes) even if my out-of-pocket is the same. I have no illusions about my congressman (let alone senator) paying any attention to me, but when I write my state representatives I get responses, and when you call the Boston city council, it’s not unusual for the councilor to call you back personally. The state/local pols here can see the voting rolls and will at least go through the motions of kissing the ass of anyone who votes in every election.
Quite a few people have, just not in this comment thread. The biggest danger in shooting a traffic camera is that the bullet can cause damage on the other side of the camera (either through a miss or through over-penetration).
So IF one were going to do something this extreme, one should be sure to check what’s behind the camera, and use only the bare minimum cartridge for the task at hand. (Either a .410 or a 20ga slug would work perfectly at close range, I’m told.)
Also, I note in passing that the new Monitrons, while they do face both ways in the street, have a blind spot on each side (i.e. from the pavement), and of course are vulnerable to a shot from directly underneath.
I’m not suggesting that anyone should actually DO such a dastardly deed as the above, of course — I’m a law-abiding citizen myself — so all comments should be regarded as a simple intellectual exercise.
Random thoughts on the passing scene . . .
There is an IEC standard for electrical equipment enclosures capable of withstanding gunfire. If I get sufficiently interested in this, I’ll look it up.
But, as noted, gunfire (while pleasing in many ways) is an extreme means of disabling such a thing. Why waste a perfectly good bullet when there are so many better, cheaper, safer ways?
Bag it, or tag it. ‘Necklacing’ it with a car tyre has a wonderful effect but there’s always the chance that an innocent passer-by might get hurt.
Someone should build an electronic immobilizer, or something which fries the CCD – easy, cheap, highly-focussed and little to no danger of hurting anyone else. But a 7¢ trash bag has to be the most cost-effective, surely?
The Netherlands is plagued with this sort of hardware, including the more-developed systems which work by license-plate recognition and which can track individual autos over large distances. There have been some very-effective citizen responses to these systems, including coordinated campaigns of destruction which have burned and smashed the accessible hardware into very small pieces.
In my neck of the woods, in the USA, if the desire is to get people to slow down, the local gendarmes tow their speed-control trailer to the spot and park it by the side of the road. It doesn’t take pictures or generate fines – it just tells approaching drivers what the speed limit is and how fast they are driving. This is a positive and cooperative approach to speed-limit policing which – as noted – generally has little to do with traffic safety. It seems to work. As noted, if police officials are locally-accountable, they seem to take a more-realistic approach to speed-limit enforcement.
llater,
llamas
Per mile road pricing via GPS and steady lowering of speed limits and stricter enforcement of other traffic laws.
Purely unrelated, I’m sure.
Here in US many are taking the cameras out as they have not justified the cost. People know where they are and they were not covering the monthly nut.
And yes, wasting ammo on cameras may be a waste, especially if the Zero has his way. Their endrun around the Supremes certifying the Second Amendment right to own a gun is to tax the hell out of ammo. You can’t find ammo in stores anymore, as we have been stocking up. I’ll quit once I get a few more thousand rounds locked away at home.
MarkJ at March 9, 2009 04:19 PM
Oh, here and there.
Sorry.
There’s such a vast body of good research done on the correlation between speed limits, traffic, and safety done in the United States (made possible thanks to the patchwork of different local and state regulations), that you think it would be pretty straightforward to do an honest and hard to refute This Is Not About Safety counter-argument.
Or you could just go around smashing cameras. I’m cool with that too.
So all you really need is to convince some popular imam that speed cameras are prohibited by Islam, and get him to whip up his congregation to go out and necklace a few each weekend.
By their logic, reduce speeds to 40 MPH, to 30, to 25. Ban drivers younger than 32 and older than 50. Little traffic, mature controllable drivers, no deaths. Simple. Saving lives. What could be more benevolent? What could be more important? Living life, or revenue? Well, you know which of those factors they hate. And the one they live off of.
I see this change as a bootstrap.
I suspect that it is going to be used to strengthen the case for nationwide point-to-point speed cameras because you cannot put cameras on ALL rural roads to force down the speed limit, for forcing it down is what they want to do. It will be a convenient excuse to install them.
Oh, what a convenient by-product all those cameras can bring – national car tracking, national road tolls, national DATABASE.
Yes, vehicle numbers have risen, but consider the stopping distance improvements, the headlight improvements in the last 30 years. I mean people were driving at 60 in cars with leaf springs, driven rear live or swing axles, cross-ply tyres, worm-and-roller steering and drum brakes.
Surely the law should just take into account the fact that a driver was travelling at a speed such that they could never have stopped in time for a pedestrian around that blind corner. 50, 60 limit? Some corners should be taken at 20, but we do not need speed cameras everywhere to enforce that.
p.s. James Bond had the right idea
p.p.s. I suspect that the Police will install cameras to watch over the cameras…and then install cameras to watch over the cameras that watch the cameras.
GATSOs steal your soul! They make images of humans, which encourages idolatry. They must all burn!
Fatwa!
“I suspect that the Police will install cameras to watch over the cameras”
Here in Australia they’ve had these for a while now…