have they gone off the deep end?

[slngsht]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article900459.ece

 

[stevet]

Ah yes, the 'super, soar-away Sun' - Britain's best selling newspaper - never one to let the facts get in the way of a good story. Owned by one Rupert Murdoch and still with a topless woman on page 3 every day...

 

Steady on boys.

 

[slngsht]

so no truth to the story? I hope that's the case.

 

 

[stevet]

Unfortunately the story is probably true :banghead:

 

The current UK government is increasingly referred to as the 'nanny state'. And they are very anti car right now - speed cameras continue to spread like wildfire, and the latest development is to link the cameras so they can monitor your average speed :ack:

[Sean]

We in the US know all about the tendency of the British government to push things a bit too much...

(see Second Amendment thread)

[slngsht]

Unfortunately the story is probably true :banghead:

 

The current UK government is increasingly referred to as the 'nanny state'. And they are very anti car right now - speed cameras continue to spread like wildfire, and the latest development is to link the cameras so they can monitor your average speed :ack:

 

 

 

:ack: :ack:

[powderbrake]

I used to attribute the government harrassment in the UK to the difference between being a subject and being a citizen, but now the cameras are proliferating here.

 

Interestingly, the city of St.Louis has a few traffic cameras, and it's $100 a pop. However someone just realized there is no ordinance requiring you to pay the fine. Perfect example of government at work. All they want is the money. Thank Goodness that I don't actually live in the city of St.Louis, the government there is a real circle jerk.

[slngsht]

The local cops here don't pay speed camera fines.

 

[getting on soap box]Where is the due process in these "fines", or should I say fees? In alot of instances, the equipment is owned and operated by a private company who gets a cut, and they can't even tell you who is driving [getting off soap box]

[Mondo]

Things might be looking up

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970/?GT1=43001

[Mandurath]

A few Christmas's I got my pic taken, $185 dollars (kinda ran a red light, changed on me, but I did do it). The Fee/fine went to a private company that runs the camera. They also send you a HD video of you doing it. So, I probably deserved it, however, I dislike the private company part. It was a small town in Ohio, not where I would expect a camera.

[powderbrake]

Interesting thing about red light cameras, they are touted to increase safety, but ( in my area) they are NOT put up at the most dangerous intersections. They are just there for the $$$$$$.

A state politician is pushing a bill that would give all fines to the schools. He claims "if it's really about safety, and not about $ then give the income to the schools."

 

Of course, the officials of the various communities with red light cameras are shouting him down. It probably wouldn't work anyway. When we brought Riverboat gambling into Missouri, the gaming revenues were earmarkedfor the schools, and so, it passed. Guess what...... the state decreased the old funding to the schools to the tune of the gambling revenues, so not net increase to the schools.

 

Also, they can now build the "riverboat" in a lagoon that is 1000 feet from the river, and connect to the river with an underground pipe. The casino is built on a barge that floats in the "lagoon". If you go into one ( and we have 3 in St.Louis area) you cannot tell when you are in the casino or in the attached hotels and restaurants, it all looks and feels like a regular building.

 

I don't think the Casinos add much to the area, I only visit them about once or twice a year. I take my $ and see how long it lasts, and consider it monet spent on a form of entertainment, not an opportunity to increase my $.