Economy - I'm not at all convinced that the deficit needs to be cut as fast as the government are saying. Some of the spending cuts being rumoured are frightening. I just hope some of it is deliberate scare mongering so that the reality in October won't appear quite so bad. E

 

Civil liberties - mostly good with the scrapping of ID cards, the child database and a more sceptical attitude towards CCTV. The only negative is the reduction in funding for speed cameras. I regard my right not to be hit by a speeding motorist to outweigh a motorist's right to break the law. B+

 

Crime - too soon to say but Ken Clarke's comments on sentencing policy are encouraging. There's a huge amount of evidence to say that short sentences are counter-productive. We need a government willing to stand up to the tabloids and make more use of non-custodial sentences. This could be another Lib Dem win. C

 

Tax/Welfare/Employment - mixed. The increase in Capital Gains tax is good (but not high enough) and the increase in the tax allowance is good (one clear win for the Lib Dems). However, I would have preferred to see the introduction of Vince Cable's "mansion tax" rather than an increase in VAT. C-

 

Health - muddled. The Coalition Agreement said that there would be no major reorganisation so why are they now announcing yet another reorganisation and a further move towards making GPs into accountants? E

 

Education - the academies legislation was passed far too quickly and without proper scrutiny. If this is what Nick Clegg means by "new politics" then that's bad news. D

 

Immigration - no definite moves yet but I think the proposed cap on immigration is wrong E

 

 

Political reform - mixed. The AV referendum is the most the Lib Dems could have hoped for although it falls well short of what the party would like. I've given my views on the constituency boundary review in a separate thread and we don't yet know what they propose to do about the Lords. C-

 

So, overall it's a C/D.

Civil liberties - mostly good with the scrapping of ID cards, the child database and a more sceptical attitude towards CCTV. The only negative is the reduction in funding for speed cameras. I regard my right not to be hit by a speeding motorist to outweigh a motorist's right to break the law. B+

So, overall it's a C/D.

 

There is no evidence at all that speed cameras prevent deaths, cars these days are so strong and have so many safety gadgets whereas the cars of old were lumps of metal with wheels attached, the chances of dying in an accident are much lower because the cars are so much stronger and safer, airbags, side impact protection, traction control, ABS brakes etc are some of the things that reduce the death toll on roads, speed cameras are an irrelevance, just a scam to stealth tax money from motorists, good riddance to them.

 

Safety of cars, increased congestion on roads have all contributed way more to lower death tolls than the speed camera scam

 

There is no evidence at all that speed cameras prevent deaths, cars these days are so strong and have so many safety gadgets whereas the cars of old were lumps of metal with wheels attached, the chances of dying in an accident are much lower because the cars are so much stronger and safer, airbags, side impact protection, traction control, ABS brakes etc are some of the things that reduce the death toll on roads, speed cameras are an irrelevance, just a scam to stealth tax money from motorists, good riddance to them.

 

Safety of cars, increased congestion on roads have all contributed way more to lower death tolls than the speed camera scam

How does an airbag help me as a pedestrian? And speed cameras have nothing to do with "stealth taxes". First, they are far from stealthy. Stick to the law and you won't get fined. It's just about the easiest "tax" to avoid paying. Second, if they make money, why scrap them? They are being scrapped because they cost money thus demonstrating that the tabloids have been lying to their readers for years. No change there then.

How does an airbag help me as a pedestrian? And speed cameras have nothing to do with "stealth taxes". First, they are far from stealthy. Stick to the law and you won't get fined. It's just about the easiest "tax" to avoid paying. Second, if they make money, why scrap them? They are being scrapped because they cost money thus demonstrating that the tabloids have been lying to their readers for years. No change there then.

 

The number of pedestrians that are killed by speeding drivers with no fault to the pedestrian are minimal, could probably count them on 2 hands so the tiny risk of being hit by a speeding driver should not shape government policy and how are speed cameras going to prevent it unless you have a speed camera every 50 yards on every road in Britain ?

 

Speed cameras are all over motorways and dual carriageways, they are not designed to help pedestrians, anyone trying to cross a motorway or dual carriage way deserves to be run over so your argument about pedestrians is flawed

 

Speed HUMPS are a far more effective way of controlling speed in residential areas and near schools

Speed HUMPS are a far more effective way of controlling speed in residential areas and near schools

1) The emergency services hate them for obvious reasons

 

2) In my days as a councillor there were many occasions when people campaigned for speed humps in their road. However, in many cases, when they got them they decided they didn't like them after all. Why? Because even motorists observing the speed limit were forced to slow down to go over the humps and the constant noise of changing gears was annoying.

 

Why do motorists think they have some sort of divine right to break the law?

1) The emergency services hate them for obvious reasons

 

2) In my days as a councillor there were many occasions when people campaigned for speed humps in their road. However, in many cases, when they got them they decided they didn't like them after all. Why? Because even motorists observing the speed limit were forced to slow down to go over the humps and the constant noise of changing gears was annoying.

 

Why do motorists think they have some sort of divine right to break the law?

 

I speed and speed regularly, there is an adreneline rush that can't be beaten that goes with speed but I only really speed excessively on motorways and dual carriageways and then in both cases only in dry weather and light to non existent traffic.

 

There needs to be common sense with regards speed limits, it is ridiculous that you have to go 70 on a motorway in beautiful weather conditions and light traffic or have to do 70 on the M25 at 2am when you have the entire road to yourself, on the motorways at 2am I tend to go 90 to 130 as there is no danger whatsoever and generally in sunny weather on a light M25 in the daytime I cruise at just under 100, 70mph in wet weather is psychopathic but 70 in the early hours or on a clear day with light traffic is just stupid and I do speed in those circumstances

 

I never speed near schools, I never speed in residential areas etc

 

 

I speed and speed regularly, there is an adreneline rush that can't be beaten that goes with speed but I only really speed excessively on motorways and dual carriageways and then in both cases only in dry weather and light to non existent traffic.

 

There needs to be common sense with regards speed limits, it is ridiculous that you have to go 70 on a motorway in beautiful weather conditions and light traffic or have to do 70 on the M25 at 2am when you have the entire road to yourself, on the motorways at 2am I tend to go 90 to 130 as there is no danger whatsoever and generally in sunny weather on a light M25 in the daytime I cruise at just under 100, 70mph in wet weather is psychopathic but 70 in the early hours or on a clear day with light traffic is just stupid and I do speed in those circumstances

 

I never speed near schools, I never speed in residential areas etc

There's certainly a case to be made for increasing the motorway speed limit and for reducing it in some residential areas and near schools. But the law is the law. We have to observe the law as it is, not how we'd like it to be.

There's certainly a case to be made for increasing the motorway speed limit and for reducing it in some residential areas and near schools. But the law is the law. We have to observe the law as it is, not how we'd like it to be.

The law hasn't changed, you still have to keep to the speed limits. It's just that fixed speed cameras are no long the choice to enforcement. Was monitored by a Speed gun earlier this week, so know that is still being used.

There's certainly a case to be made for increasing the motorway speed limit and for reducing it in some residential areas and near schools. But the law is the law. We have to observe the law as it is, not how we'd like it to be.

 

Yeah near schools I drive UNDER the speed limit, I can't think of a single time I have exceeded the speed limit near a school, similarly in housing estates or residential areas, again I drive just under the speed limit as never know if a kid might come charging out or something even though they should have been taught the green cross code

 

I would be in favour of increasing the motorway speed limit to 100mph

There is no evidence at all that speed cameras prevent deaths, cars these days are so strong and have so many safety gadgets whereas the cars of old were lumps of metal with wheels attached, the chances of dying in an accident are much lower because the cars are so much stronger and safer, airbags, side impact protection, traction control, ABS brakes etc are some of the things that reduce the death toll on roads, speed cameras are an irrelevance, just a scam to stealth tax money from motorists, good riddance to them.

 

Safety of cars, increased congestion on roads have all contributed way more to lower death tolls than the speed camera scam

I have showed you countless evidence they do you absolute liar! Unless you're claiming that all of a sudden these safety gadgets have been coincidentally brought in the exact year speed cameras tend to be brought in.

I speed and speed regularly, there is an adreneline rush that can't be beaten that goes with speed but I only really speed excessively on motorways and dual carriageways and then in both cases only in dry weather and light to non existent traffic.

So basically you're campaigning to have speed cameras abolished so you can risk lives for the sake of an adrenaline rush. What judgement would you make if a druggie was risking lives for the same reason, hmm?

tbf Tyron you provided SPECULATION and circumstancial evidence, no concrete evidence as your argument became well and truly unstuck over the Swindon situation where there was no increase in road casualties after cameras were switched off

tbf Tyron you provided SPECULATION and circumstancial evidence, no concrete evidence as your argument became well and truly unstuck over the Swindon situation where there was no increase in road casualties after cameras were switched off

No statistician would come to such a conclusion based on one year alone - it's something that needs time. You may as well say that global warming doesn't exist solely because we had a freezing winter this year - but to do so would ignore the massive general trend upwards in temperature.

 

Solid numbers of deaths before and after over a several year period is not speculation, and can hardly be said to be circumstancial.

I speed and speed regularly, there is an adreneline rush that can't be beaten that goes with speed but I only really speed excessively on motorways and dual carriageways and then in both cases only in dry weather and light to non existent traffic.

 

Have you ever been done for speeding then Craig?

Have you ever been done for speeding then Craig?

 

Several times yes, been busted by a few speed cameras (have 6 points on my licence was 9), worst f***ers are the mobile ones so I will be glad when speed cameras are dumped

 

I have been stopped for speeding many times by the police and have never been fined with them, usually made up some sob story excuses or was just incredibly apologetic or in 2 cases the cop was a Spurs fan :o and been let off each time with a warning or being asked to take my documents down to the station and not having any punishment.

 

That is why I want to see cameras replaced with good old common sense policing

 

So basically you're campaigning to have speed cameras abolished so you can risk lives for the sake of an adrenaline rush. What judgement would you make if a druggie was risking lives for the same reason, hmm?

 

It is not risking lives

 

I never speed in areas where lives are at risk like near schools or on residential roads etc, there has never been a situation where I have put someone at risk with my driving. That is the reason why I have 9 years protected no claims bonus, am also highly trained in both skid pan and defensive driving by a former Mercedes AMG instructor so am safer than the average driver and without being arrogant probably better too.

 

I only speed when the weather conditions and traffic levels (or lack of traffic levels I should say) make it suitable to do so, examples being a dead motorway in the small hours, a quiet motorway in nice weather conditions etc, same goes for dual carriageways.

 

I do not take any stupid risks, I do not endanger anyone, am very low on the risk scale and my insurance company seem to agree with me too :)

 

Am not like a boy racer.

Several times yes, been busted by a few speed cameras (have 6 points on my licence was 9), worst f***ers are the mobile ones so I will be glad when speed cameras are dumped

 

I have been stopped for speeding many times by the police and have never been fined with them, usually made up some sob story excuses or was just incredibly apologetic or in 2 cases the cop was a Spurs fan :o and been let off each time with a warning or being asked to take my documents down to the station and not having any punishment.

 

That is why I want to see cameras replaced with good old common sense policing

Why would you want the mobile ones to be scrapped when the mere threat of them actually shows they're the most effective ways? This is possibly the only case where conservatives would rather have a more unreliable and costly method of 'common sense policing' over cameras. I think the fact you want it because you got let off both times shows that you're ridiculously biased on the issue - you want something because it's more ineffective and you can get away with it. It makes about as much sense as asking the criminal how he thinks burglary should be policed :/ You'd dismiss it for any other crime, you're just being ridiculous about it because it's a crime that YOU engage in frequently, you absolute hypocrite.

It is not risking lives

 

I never speed in areas where lives are at risk like near schools or on residential roads etc, there has never been a situation where I have put someone at risk with my driving. That is the reason why I have 9 years protected no claims bonus, am also highly trained in both skid pan and defensive driving by a former Mercedes AMG instructor so am safer than the average driver and without being arrogant probably better too.

 

I only speed when the weather conditions and traffic levels (or lack of traffic levels I should say) make it suitable to do so, examples being a dead motorway in the small hours, a quiet motorway in nice weather conditions etc, same goes for dual carriageways.

 

I do not take any stupid risks, I do not endanger anyone, am very low on the risk scale and my insurance company seem to agree with me too :)

 

Am not like a boy racer.

You say it's not risking lives, but it just takes one accident on a 'quiet motorway in nice weather conditions' going at 100mph - you even say yourself you hate speed cameras because they catch you out in your silly little pursuits of an adrenaline rush!

Why would you want the mobile ones to be scrapped when the mere threat of them actually shows they're the most effective ways? This is possibly the only case where conservatives would rather have a more unreliable and costly method of 'common sense policing' over cameras. I think the fact you want it because you got let off both times shows that you're ridiculously biased on the issue - you want something because it's more ineffective and you can get away with it. It makes about as much sense as asking the criminal how he thinks burglary should be policed :/ You'd dismiss it for any other crime, you're just being ridiculous about it because it's a crime that YOU engage in frequently, you absolute hypocrite.

 

No I just think that police are best equipped to deal with motoring offences, a speed camera is a one size fits all thing that does not take into account weather conditions, time of day, levels of traffic on the road etc, a police officer can and does

 

A speed cameras has no powers of discretion, no common sense, it is just a machine, a police officer has a brain and can make judgements based on things that a camera can't.

 

There are speed cameras on the M25, don't go at 70 at 3am when you are the only car on the road you are going to get 3 points and a £60 fine :manson: whereas a police officer is far more effective

 

7 times not 2 :o

It is not risking lives

 

I never speed in areas where lives are at risk like near schools or on residential roads etc, there has never been a situation where I have put someone at risk with my driving. That is the reason why I have 9 years protected no claims bonus, am also highly trained in both skid pan and defensive driving by a former Mercedes AMG instructor so am safer than the average driver and without being arrogant probably better too.

 

I only speed when the weather conditions and traffic levels (or lack of traffic levels I should say) make it suitable to do so, examples being a dead motorway in the small hours, a quiet motorway in nice weather conditions etc, same goes for dual carriageways.

 

I do not take any stupid risks, I do not endanger anyone, am very low on the risk scale and my insurance company seem to agree with me too :)

 

Am not like a boy racer.

 

Why is it that, according to you, we should always put the rights of the victims above the rights of the law-breaker, except on this particular issue where you just happen to be the lawbreaker?