Added: 5 years ago
From: Hollandroxmysox
Views: 51,339
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (365)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Burn, motherfucker, burn! :D

  • Haha! good job!

  • hahahhaahahahahahhaahha

  • EXCELLENT!!!  MORE!

  • @MrDarinWarren Agreed, destroying static cameras makes the manufacturer wealthier & the company that imports them. It also means there are increased numbers of mobile teams out in vans using speedscopes that can detect you in 0.3 of a second from as far away as 1km. No warning & no opportunity of avoidance, at least with a Gatso, you knew there was one ahead, painted bright yellow on top of a pole.

    Excellent? Nah, you just have no clue what is currently happening in speed enforcement.

  • @lollygaggle set fire to the mobile vans then, i wouldn't be able to sleep at night if i was a speed camera guy. the government can only shit on their own people for so long, this system will fail one day.

  • @neogastropoda1 The government have nothing to do with mobile enforcement, the funding completely changed in March of this year.

    You really condone murder because you are internally compromised by enforcement operations?

  • Revenge of the people!

  • can you do this TO ALL speed camreas in WA

    thanks

    mezyo

  • paintball guns are so much faster and easier.

  • this is why water towers are effective. high powered rifles and these boxes would prove valuable target practice!

  • That was beautiful

  • suddenly "burn motherfuker" epik

  • @TheMadFleasWife You ignore the countless communities of the population who are desperate for some form of speed enforcement measures.

  • @TheMadFleasWife 'Spy' - to keep a secret watch on someone.

    They are painted bright yellow & stuck on thick metal supports 7' 5" above the ground. There are advance warning signs, threshold gateways & secondary check marks all over the carriageway in front of them.

    So no, not 'spy cameras'.

    I suggest you don't lend your car to anyone who is not prepared to admit it was them driving - what if they hit another car or a pedestrian & simply drove off?

  • 19 people hit the wrong button

  • Comment removed

  • Burn Baby Burn ahhaha some people complaining about it costing you more money because someone burnt this down? your money will get spent on what they want! people should just keep burning away if it makes them happy! its the people versus the government! so lets do what we like!

  • @wl6309 There is no 'complaint' being levelled, the issue is that countless motorists gets points & a fine who otherwise wouldn't & all because camera housings are torched.

    However, in actuality, very few cameras are now deliberately damaged compared to a couple of years ago.

  • @lollygaggle Most cameras are installed in unacceptable locations.

    Certain criteria has to be met to necesitate a speed camera.

    Accidents etc.

    This doe not mean however, that the camera HAS to be installed at the accident site.

    It can near to the site but the scamera is more likely to be in a open area which is likely to catch more people speeding.

    Anyone believing cameras are there for safety only, is a fool.

  • @pornstarjohnny An open area? As opposed to the roads covered in large cut logs & burnt cars?

    You've obviously no clue about detection figures - many static (& mobile sites), produce very low numbers - this is called 'the balance of enforcement'. That said, why would you position a camera where there was no problem? This is where your view simply collapses 'Why put a camera where it catches speeders?' you ask. Doh!

  • @lollygaggle

    An open area, as in long straight roads, where the average motorist should be able to use their own judgement if they can safely travel faster.

    The ONLY reason cameras are in these locations is to generate revenue.

    There are locations where a 60mph single carriage way turns to a dual carriage way, but the speed limit drops to 50 MPH?

    Reasons? NONE.

    I suggest you spend less time on here and more time with your pig husband.

  • @pornstarjohnny This is why high speed collisions take place, because drivers with little driving experience exceed their capabilities, lulled into a false sense of security by the quiet interior. Such locations generate very few detections compared with much higher yield sites in 30mph zones where 150 offences in an hour is easily possible.

  • @lollygaggle yeah right, speed cameras = revenue, period.

  • @260KPH You clearly have no knowledge of the balance of enforcement. There are equally extremely low yield sites that generate virtually no detections. If speed enforcement is about revenue, then why are there such sites & why is the government reducing council funding & allowing partnerships to close?

  • @lollygaggle Cameras are sometimes sited so they are obstructed from view by street furniture when the law states they are to be visible some councils paint them a dark colour either green or blue when the law states they are to have the front and back surface in a reflective hi viz finish.

    i'm all for cameras in built up areas, near schools, dual carriageways etc but there are more cameras on roads that are not in built up areas and they are there to catch people out not to protect pedestrians

  • @gordongate You say that the 'law' states cameras have to be visible - which law? Quote the act & section.

    You say that the 'law' states they have to be painted in reflective hi viz - which law?. Quote the act & section.

    You're for cameras near schools? What data supports the need? Local authorities have got this boxed off with human school crossing patrols.

    Cameras exist to reduce collision speed WHEN a crash takes place, they are not to STOP accidents.

  • @gordongate So there we have your response gordongate, you've signed in, ignored the questions here, via PM & even deleted the same questions on your channel page.

    Having actually now done some research, you realise your faux pas & refuse to comment.

    Advice; next time, check the facts before commenting.

  • @lollygaggle You sir, are a fucking government parasite.

  • @Airgunhunter2010 I am not a 'sir', I am a woman.

    Go on, make some more assumptions.

  • @lollygaggle It makes no difference to me. you are a sad, sad person. how many videos have you watched of speed cameras? is it a hobby, or an obsession or what? Off topic: what do you think of rabbiut hunting?

  • @Airgunhunter2010 73.

    Nothing.

  • @lollygaggle Wow. ok, fair enough, i'll take that into account.

  • @Airgunhunter2010 You tit, are a fucking arse hole. i would encourage them outside schools or busy built up areas, instead they put them on the M1, 50mph maximum, and on roads where they are no pedestrians normally.

  • @neogastropoda1 It has little to do with pedestrians, as the M5 crash has clearly illustrated, too fast, too close.

    What evidence do you have to support the need for mobile enforcement outside schools? Such establishments are already well served by human school crossing patrols.

  • @neogastropoda1 Yes, i have no problem with that, it's common sense. but putting them on a 5 mile straight makes no difference. people speed and get away with it all the time. please explain how this makes me a fucking arsehole, am i not allowed my opinion now, do the government want me to pay tax for that as well, fucking twats.

  • what happened to just painting the lense?

  • quality. that one worked well. nice one lads.

  • die speed camera's you waste of cash

  • EXCELLENT!!!

  • lol at technology. first its smoked sausages and now its smoked cameras. what are they going to think of next? smoked police cruisers?

  • And the People strike back at the Man!

  • @stinkingdog101 There is no 'man', just a clerk at the partnership office who orders another camera and the motorist gets sent the bill.

    1/10 for not thinking things through.

  • @lollygaggle However one would think that after enough trashed cameras pollies would be under pressure to justify the huge expense, that is if it took place en masse. The real question is, do you just lie down and take this crap OR do you do something about it? Apathy Vs Action, its a choice.

  • @SierraKilo9 Points & a fine, or no points & a fine = isn't that the choice?  Painted bright yellow, warning signs, secondary check lines on the carriageway - what is there to justify?

    Are you saying that there should be no enforcement of speed restrictions?

    I assume 'pollies' = police?

  • @lollygaggle Pollies = Politicians. In terms of justification, they are there 'allegedly' to reduce deaths in know blackspots, thats what we're told in Australia, but when you look at where they are and accident data there are few matches. Now the ONLY explanation is that it is a revenue raising exercise. That being the case they can burn those cameras to their hearts content as I for one will NOT be taken advantage of under false pretenses.

  • @SierraKilo9 In the UK, the criteria for camera placement includes locations with a recognised speeding issue, in other words a percentage of passing motorists ignore the posted thresholds. Painted a bright colour, warning signs & lines on the road = no advantage being taken there. Very few cameras are now burnt in the UK as there has been a paradigm shift in understanding, some partnerships here run at a loss, so not revenue based by any stretch of the imagination.

  • awsome love it only another 1,000,000 to go lol lets get craking 

  • If you burned down the police headquarters then that would have been more effective. Not that I condone such as thing, merely fantasy talk of course. Police are all great and we love them dearly for their commitment to public safety and putting people in smelly prisons for smoking plants.

  • Thats Pretty cool Idea Cheap too In the USA we just shoot them HighV .22 Punches through bounces around inside but wont leave the cabinet and there very quite :)

  • @mattmopar440 you deserve a medal.

  • @m4553y What do you mean by 'piggy bank vans'?

  • Hi m4553y - you are misinformed, tax does not pay for speed enbforcement, it is completely self-funding.

    Operationally speaking, when a camera is burnt, mobile enforcement is increased meaning countless motorists who wouldn't have got points & a fine, now do.

    Equally, GATSO makes huge profits & so so do SERCO who import & install them. Mobile enforcers also get unlimited overtime.

    Good? You are kidding right?

  • Agreed, burn more = every time one is burnt the entire industry lets out a 'whoop' of joy.

  • As much as I HATE speed cameras, it is better to just leave them. Bear in mind who will have to pay for a replacement: US. The taxpayers.

  • @MLeyden91 No, you are misinformed - speed enforcement of the static kind is not financed by tax payers.

    It is all self-financing, the partnerships are reimbursed annually with their running costs & replacement equipment is paid for from the same kitty that the fines are plonked into. Nothing to do with taxes - motorists only.

  • Wow! I had no idea! Are you a police officer?

  • @MLeyden91 No.

  • @lollygaggle

    I take it you are pro speed cameras?

    I don't think I know one person who welcomes speed cameras on our streets!

    I would never burn one down, but I do believe they are a there to make money.

    I can understand having speed cameras outside schools, but is there any need for having them on motorways or open country roads? And is there any real reason for fining drivers who are just a few mph over the limit? Sorry, but no - That's not about safety, that's about money making.

  • @MLeyden91 No, I am not 'pro' speed cameras per se - I am a realist & see so much nonsense written about how enforcement 'works'.

    There is no need for speed cameras outside schools - the local authority has this boxed off already with human school crossing patrols. There are no statistics that support high vehicle v pedestrian collisions figures outside schools.

    When you say 'a few mph over the limit' - which constabularies - be specific?

    Are you suggesting 30mph should be 40mph?

  • Of course not, I like the fact that real speeders get cought out - the ones doing over 40 in a 30 for example, and the ones who are actually dangerous. But I know that there are some otherwise law abiding citizens out there who have driven just 5mph over, and Bam: 3 points and a fine.

    I just want to say, I do follow the speed limit, and respect the law. I've never been fined. I know that 30 means 30, and anyone over that is breaking the law. I just don't like speed cameras, that's that.

  • @MLeyden91 You will not be aware of Comunity Concern sites then. There are large numbers of requests received weekly where all kinds of towns & villages are desperate for speed enforcement measures.

    If everyone knows that 30mph isn't 30mph & you will not be prosecuted until much higher, then as I said before, 30 becomes 40.

    You not normally get points for 35mph, assuming you haven't been on one in the last 3 years, most constabularies offer speed awareness courses under 40mph = no points.

  • Come on, face it, speed cameras are money makers and are hated by the vast majority of drivers around the world.

    I'm not saying any more, you obviously know what you are talking about, all I know is that I don't like speed traps.

  • @MLeyden91 You commented on the clip about Community Speedwatch where local residents operate a monitoring system = zero fines. If it were all about money, why are there hundreds of locations that have an obvious speeding issue that don't make a penny yet cost money to implement such schemes? The money making argument simply collapses.

    The emotional attachment placed upon speed enforcement will not alter a thing, so there is nothing to 'face' - the cameras exist.

  • Stick it to the man!

  • In the UK it doesn't work like that, Destroy a static speed camera & the only people that are compromised are working families. Mobile enforcement is stepped up to recoup the replacement costs so motorists who wouldn't have got points & a fine now do. Equally there is no 'man' getting it stuck to, just a safety camera partnership clerk who orders new equipment to be installed. Gatso & SERCO also become much richer & equipment designs move forward.

    Damaging cameras is very shortsighted.

  • Hi lex, thanks for responding.

    You are totally misinformed (being in the colonies would do that), those motorists caught by mobile speed enforcement do 'give a shit', as do their families.

    I acknowledge your lack of pertinent information given your location & educational standard.

  • @lollygaggle shortsighted perhaps but f*%# it would feel good! I will pay for more videos like this! :)

  • @andrewdabbo Motorists are already paying for videos like this, mobile enforcement is ramped up & drivers who wouldn't have got a NIP, now do & all because a camera was torched. If you have words of condolence for families impacted by fines & points due to criminal damage, then type them out now big fella.

  • no more tickets =)

  • @oddha Not so, damaging static cameras dramatically increases the number of prosecutions as mobile enforcement is ramped up to recoup new installation costs - this means many motorists who wouldn't have got points & a fine, now do & all because a camera was torched, It also keeps Gatso & SERCO in good financial shape.

    Damaging cameras is shortsighted as the motorist foots the bill every time.

  • i give a shit !

  • @oddha That's encouraging. For you to assimilate my words & adopt a caring attitude is what it is all about. If only others would be so receptive - good on ya'.

  • i steel give a shit...

  • Hi oddha, thanks for what I can only assume is another endorsement. Unfortunately, your command of the english language falls short of expectation & your meaning has been lost in ambiguity. Perhaps Norwegian education has failed you?

    Thanks again though anyway.

  • haha you cant get enougth do you ? and how can you be so shure im from norway :D haha

  • @oddha Hi again, are you insinuating you are attempting to present a false impression? A Lie?

    På listene nedenfor finner du kontaktinformasjon og linker til nettsteder til distributører i de land du har valgt?

  • i didnt tel im not from norway... but what make you think so... your funny

  • yeah burn that mother fucker to the ground i love speedos on fire

  • Agreed, it keeps both Gatso & SERCO in robust financial health, it gives unlimited overtime to mobile enforcement officers, which dramatically boosts revenue to the government.

    Yes indeedy, burn them all.

  • 'Speedos' are actually male swimming trunks. 

    One can only conclude the obvious.

    'Eroticism' is strictly a perspectively driven thing.

  • Another one with big ideas bites the dust.

    Bye bye Sooty, bye bye.

  • This is great. There is no way to legally fight the cameras. We need freedom fighters like this to take a stand.

  • @RBMtheGreat - Take a stand against measures designed to highlight those who choose to ignore the rules of the road?

  • I used to be annoyed by regular people who support this shake down. Now I just find it funny. Have fun recieving a $100 ticket in the mail for not stopping 3 seconds before you turn right on red.

  • @RBMtheGreat I find the scenario you describe highly unlikely as we don't use dollars as our national currency.

    Did you used to get annoyed by non-regular people too?

  • I drive through lots of cameras everyday. I am very careful. I have never recieved a ticket, but it still drives me crazy to think that I could recieve a bunch of fines in the mail for little wrong moves. My hands shake everytime I open my mailbox. You're a tool.

  • @RBMtheGreat Getting wobbly hands when just handling your mail might just be an American thing, but I guess such excessive nervous behaviour could benefit from some form of therapy or calming supplementation such as 5-HTP or Theanine?

    Life in the colonies must be difficult at times, you have my sympathy.

    I understand that now you know how the UK system will not allow itself to be compromised, you have no real option than to resort to name calling instead of reasoned debate.

  • I'm not weak like you. I don't need drugs or therapy to get through life. You're either a camera company employee, a government agent, or a huge tool. I refuse to do a "reasoned debate" with a pseudo intellectual idiot.

  • @RBMtheGreat Hi RBM, thanks again for responding. Because I offered a possible solution to your nervous issues, does not mean I take anything myself - 5-HTP & Theanine are not 'drugs' but supplementation found in health stores.

    I would point out that you commenced the name calling after I countered your 'This is great', when you condoned criminal damage that culminated in working people being compromised. I understand such things are revelations, but name calling is hardly intellectual.

  • You must have a lot of faith in the system to want to so strictly work within it. You don't like the name calling, you stupid faggot? LOL. I'll name call you all I want you drug addicted mental midget.

  • @RBMtheGreat Work within the system?

    My comment about name calling has zero connection with any 'feelings', I clearly highlighted that I found it detracted from any credence you were attempting to gain as you had no intelligent response to supply.

  • @RBMtheGreat What is the 'drugs' reference?

  • @RBMtheGreat I would also add that I have always seen 'LOL" as really meaning 'Lack Of Language' = I really want my voice heard, but haven't got anything of any weight to add, so, I'll...' I'll....laugh.

  • "Life in the colonies"? Wtf? Something called the American Revolution happened hundreds of years ago. This is what I mean when I say I find this stuff funny. What a great pseudo intellectual you are, LOL!

  • @RBMtheGreat I would add that not being that up on Americanisms, I am assuming that being called a 'tool' is actually derogatory?

    My knowledge of colloquial slang only extends to the odd episode of 'Friends', so I must bow to your expert knowledge of hanging around on street corners with young men called Vinnie who wear hairnets & vests.

  • @RBMtheGreat What you don't realise is that every time you destroy a static speed camera in the UK, mobile enforcement is ramped up to recoup the replacement costs. This means normal working people now get fined & points who otherwise wouldn't have.

    That is 'great'?

  • There should be a hidden stealth camera mounted nearby to monitor the vandals that do this kind of stuff. Then they could be prosecuted and fined enough to put even more cameras up. Did these vandals get a ticket from that camera or or they just punks out to vandalize what ever they can? Maybe these uncontrolled criminals will vandalize your parked car next time.

  • There are a few hidden cameras that monitor a number of high-risk static camera sites. There are mounted in a 'thicker' approach sign about 30ft away. The problem is, they are motion activated & go off all the time due to all kinds of things, hence they are turned off.

    Prosecuting/fining them 'enough' is clearly flawed as such vandals will not have the 30 - 40k in their pockets to replace damaged camera housings.

    The number of static sites torched has actually dropped dramatically.

  • The stealth cameras could be set up to write over the recorded data every 48 hours and if there is a damaged camera the data would be retrieved for prosecution. As far as the fine goes, just garnish their pay until its paid off. Maybe working for the government would help get the point across. I have absolutely no sympathy if they can barely scrape by due to their fine.

  • The high risk sites tend not to be near anything that people walk to. This means that anyone who has rocked up with the intention of criminally damaging a camera housing, will park well out of camera shot & will wear something to cover their face.

    They will have brought a tyre, petrol etc & face a prison term if caught. Combine this with low-light levels & the footage is next to worthless.

    A few herberts chucking a brick barely dent the double-skin.

  • ... Eu não intindi o que ele fez!...

  • According to Arizona police, there was a 480% increase in accidents at one Peoria intersection after they placed a red light camera there. The three other intersections where the cameras were placed also saw an increase in accidents. So much for safety.

    Fuck Redflex - the Australian parasites.

  • That's very odd, for we have redlight cameras in the Uk & the complete reverse is true - no acccident increases, just dramatically lower collisions at such controlled junctions.

    Could you hazard a guess at why the driving of colonists is so fraught with danger when presented by such devices?

  • You say you-- from "we" which I regard as inclusive of-- have red-light cameras in the UK? Is that true?

  • We, meaning UK residents & I am one.  There are numerous red-light cameras at intersections all across the road network.

  • The numbers of damaged static speed cameras has dropped dramatically, people realise that nothing changes, they are simply replaced and often with the much higher digital redspeed versions.

  • The numbers of cameras criminally damaged has been steadily dropping since 2006, so much so, that it was 84% lower in the first half of 2009 than the same period in 2007.

  • Burn all the cameras and let mother nature weed out the stupid people. Get in the way splat. Only the smart and strong survive. "All for one, One for all, and Every man for himself"

  • The internal combustion engine has nothing to do with Mother Nature tesla - they don't naturally appear, they are manufactured by man.

    So if you are sitting stationary at lights & you are rear ended at 60mph & die, this makes you somehow less smart?

  • ALSO... "A review of the Government's speed cameras policy was demanded yesterday after official statistics showed that only five per cent of crashes are caused by drivers breaking the speed limit." ...and in the advert with the car braking the car stopping from 30 clearly has abs, the one from 40 which hits a child doesn't. All arguments for fixed "safety" cameras are based on manipulated statistics.

  • No George, you simply misunderstand the basic premise;

    The "Speeding Kills' campaign is about damage limitation, not accident avoidance.

    The advert doesn't say avoid hitting the child by travelling slower, it accepts that such events will happen regardless, it is about trauma reduction. The child's narration says 'Hit me a 40.....etc', not 'Avoid hitting me....'.

    A common misconception.

  • Nothing like distorting the truth, huh?

  • All govt arguments are.

    There are 3 kinds of "average": mean, median and mode.... govts and advertising bodies like to pick which 1 suits them best as the figures vary massively between them at times

    eg mean average salary = somewhere £22-25k in the uk ... but much less than half of the population actually make that much.

  • I like the way there's scare tactic adverts on tv at the moment with gory dead children haunting people who've "sped" into them, but they've stopped the campaigns aimed at telling children to cross the road carefully. You can't pass parents and pedestrians responsibilities onto drivers.

  • i like speed camras but not the police that stand there with hand held camras at least you get a warning with the big yellow box, cuz you destoy them thats what we will end up with

  • No, you will end up with average speed cameras everywhere - regular police do very little speed detection.

  • average cameras are more sensible .... avoids all that speeding up and braking hard for the camera which is more likely to cause accidents.... but I think they should still be limited to accident black-spots and not just rolled out anywhere

  • Comment removed

  • Average speed cameras are currently & primarily used in areas where there is a carriageway work being carried it, such as motorways.

    They exist to bring speeds way down for set distances & have nothing to do with previous collision history.

    They work on the confusion principle, multi-sets of cameras, many being dummies, mean motorists don't know which are active or which lanes are being monitored.

  • They also are used permanantly for some roads.. can think of a few in sheffield for instance. I totaly agree with cameras on blackspots because the A64 out of leeds centre has 2-3 sets of flowers at diff locations on its railings for dead kids who get mowed down by speeding morons because is a 3lane dual carriageway (but is busy with pedestrians)

  • Not too sure what you mean by '..used permanantly for some roads'.

    A static camera costs anhything up to 40k to erect & power - all static cameras are therefore hardly 'temporary' in any sense. There is a great deal of planning in placing them & I don't know of any that have been put up just for a few months.

  • I actually support the burning of these greed....sorry, speed cameras. The government make £120,000,000 - that's 120 million, a year from charging us speeding fines.

    Bad driving kills, not speed.

  • U r confused, the cause of a collision is not the same as the cause of death. If you hit the rear of the car in front at 2mph because you aren't paying attention - why is no-one killed?

    The speed at the moment of impact determines the level of injury/damage.

    As for burning cameras, this contributes to their evolution & their manufacturers stay in business, plus mobile enforcement is stepped up to foot the replacement costs meaning many more drivers get prosecuted who otherwise wouldn't have.

  • So 'bad driving' goes down on the death certificate? The 'Speeding Kills' campaign relates to hitting pedestrians not other vehicles & the level of trauma is related to impact speed. You can drive badly very slowly, so speed is the key factor in road traffic deaths.

    As for the police & speeders - 98.5% of all speeding prosecutions are detected by civilians working within Safety Camera Partnerships not regular police officers.

  • Ah, I see now why you are confused - the "Speeding Kills' campaign accepts that a percentage of accidents will always happen. Consequently, the premise is about WHEN the unthinkable happens & not IF - so the slower the speed, the better the chances of survival.

    It has nothing to do with 'dodging' children.

    As for 'bleating', what expert knowledge do you have about attending RTC's, or post-mortems, inquests, or asking parents to identify the broken body of a child following an accident?

  • Quote;

    '..but what happens if you're a good driver (speeding admittedly)'.'

    Good drivers don't exceed posted limits.

  • Who determines the definition of 'being able to control a car'?

    Countless motorists believe they are fabulous behind the wheel - 'good' is just a state of mind.

  • They really make money from burning static speed cameras?

  • excellent vid burn em all

  • burn em all - HELL YES

  • stuff like this is hilarious

  • good men well done,burn em all,greedy money boxs someone said lmao..

  • Beautiful.

    But it might be safer, and more effective to just to a drive-by shooting with PAINT BULLETS. These can easily disable a camera for obvious reasons, are not regulated firearms in most countries - an officer pulling a person over would accept an explanation of sport use unless there was reason to suspect otherwise. Also, they take very little time to use, and don't make much noise during the process.

  • This is a great video. I recommend everyone take part in such protests. People are getting tired of being slaves and meals for blood thirsty, money grubbing, rights violating, freedom destroying scum bags who run the countries worldwide.

    The Chinese climb poles right there in Beijing and rip down cameras with their bare hands.

    People in the UK are burning speed cameras and red light cameras left and right.

    People in the USA are protesting camera systems and are fighting tickets in court.

  • Actually, in the UK the number of damaged static cameras has fallen dramatically, people realising that it makes no difference as they are quickly replaced. This is all financed by motorists themselves, for as soon as a camera is destroyed, mobile enforcers are out on overtime, every vehicle detected being over the posted limit only being prosecuted because a camera was damaged. Therefore, destroying a camera simply means countless more drivers get points and a fine. Not a very bright move.

  • I agree with mrjustin, take part in protest...otherwise, those cameras will be everywhere and we are now seeing them in the USA as well...if you don't stop them, you are condoning them...

  • But when a camera is damaged, there is no record of WHY, so no connection to any 'protest', just some frightened motorist who got flashed wishing to avoid points or a ban. The latest ANPR based average speed cameras taking everything to a new level, high gantry cameras out of reach, whilst the video image is already 'in the can'.

    They are here to stay.

  • no, they aren't here to stay