NotApathetic is closed to new submissions. The site is available as an archive for you to browse. Find out more...

Not Apathetic

Tell the world why you're not voting - don't let your silence go unheard

They're not voting because...

I will vote for the first party to abolish...

I will vote for the first party to abolish speed cameras on open roads, hidden in trees, behind signs etc.

And those bloody vans on motorway bridges! How any one can call these safety cameras I have no idea.

Money cameras may be a better description.

I am all for cameras in towns and newar schools, shops whatever but the ones out there operating as a flashing cash register drives me bananas.

And please please please don't blurt out with the old crap "Don't speed and you wont get caught". That arguement is very tiring.

I'm not advocating speeding simply that cameras that are strategically placed to make money should be removed.

Remember the governemt said. "OK,OK it's not fair we'll remove the dodgy ones" . And then a few months down the line, i assume after doing some sums, they changed their mind?

And I know what they say that the money goes into road safety campaigns or back into the roads etc.

One word: Bollocks!

written 15th Apr 2005

Responses

Jodie replies: Then you should vote UKIP or Tory.

Both of those parties advocate this policy.

written 15th Apr 2005

Kirsten replies: Don't you actually have any real, important views on what to base your decision to vote or not?! You'll be thankful you're not behind bars when you avoid hitting a child near a place where there is a speed camera, where under your preferred government you would have hit and killed the child whilst travelling over the speed limit.

written 15th Apr 2005

piersh replies: Hmmm...Iraq war; global warming; home security v civil liberties; economic management; speed cameras levying occasional annoying fines...actually, please don't vote.

written 15th Apr 2005

Tim replies: >And please please please don't blurt out with the old crap
> "Don't speed and you wont get caught". That arguement is very tiring.

Just because you're tired of hearing the argument doesn't make
it a wrong argument.

written 15th Apr 2005

Bc replies: I was only trying to bring another bit of a debate to this site other than the same old stuff. Seems to have worked.

Don't get too excited I'm just sounding off.

written 15th Apr 2005

Philip Wright replies: I agree! I live in Warwickshire and I reckon that around 75% of the speed cameras, whether fixed or mobile, are placed in positions which could in no way be described as danger spots. In addition as a driver with over 30 years driving experience I am appalled at the standard of driving you see on the roads daily. Speed cameras have done nothing to improve driving standards at all. Improvement in road saftey is more related to improved safety measures in more modern vehicles. The cameras are at best a cynical money generating exercise with only minimal effect on raod safety.

written 15th Apr 2005

PetrolHead replies: If everybody drove with consideration for all other road users, pedestrian and drivers, then you would need no speed restrictions at all, as everybody would be driving to the conditions around them at the time. Therefore as the majority of road users are selfish inconsiderate idiots then total kaos is what we all deserve and get.

written 15th Apr 2005

JM replies: Sounds like road rage to me.
Still, if that's what it takes to keep you away from the ballot (bullet) box, who am I to argue?

written 16th Apr 2005

Noo replies: speed cameras encourage drivers to look at their speedo not at the road/hazards/conditions.

Personallly I would prefer not to be run over at all than to be run over at 30 mph by someone doing the speed limit and therfore perfectly 'safe'.

I am not sure if I will vote/who for. The bit that pickles me is that ideally, living in Wales, I would like my local councillor to be Plaid Cymru- he has been great the last couple of years; however Plaid are clearly never going to win for London, so do I get the choice to vote for e.g. conservative in London but Plaid for local?

written 16th Apr 2005

heather replies: It's not so much the money making aspect that gets me, it's all the near accidents caused by people who are driving at the correct speed but insist on jamming their brakes on anyway when they see a camera. Emergency breaking should be for emergencies as it's not a safe thing to do and cameras expose other road user to this risk every day.

written 17th Apr 2005

Jax replies: I agree, speed cameras on motorways is such a joke.

written 18th Apr 2005

Gavin replies: There is no evidence that speed cameras save lives. In fact, it seems possible they increase the chance of an accident:

Clicky: www.SafeSpeed.org.uk

written 18th Apr 2005

steve palmer replies: There is of course plenty of evidence that driving too fast leads to more accidents and as I'm sure anyone can work out the faster you're driving, the more damage you cause if you do have an accident.

But is this really a reason not to vote anyway?

written 18th Apr 2005

About Not Apathetic

NotApathetic was built so that people who are planning not to vote in the UK General Election on May 5th can tell the world why. We won't try to persuade you that voting is a good or a bad idea - we're just here to record and share your explanations. Whether ideological, practical or other, any reason will do.

A lot of users would like us to mention that if you spoil your ballot paper, it will be counted. So if you want to record a vote for "none of the above", you can.

Search