🚀 go-pugleaf

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:MPG.1d26503a636cc5d798a0fd@news.individual.net...
> In article <grtro2-vf1.ln1@film.fluffy>, Alistair J Murray says...
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>> [...scamera panic...]
>>
>> > You are mistaken.  This is not a negative effect of speed cameras, it
>> > is a negative effect of bad driving.  If you are driving without
>> > knowing your speed, you shouldn't be driving.
>>
>> Knowing the numerical value of your speed is only necessary due to
>> dangerous, distracting arbitrary speed limits.
>>
> Oh and helping you decide a safe distance.

Not at all related to the numerical speed, unless you also feel the need to 
express a numerical value for the distance. 

"Depresion" <blank@128.0.0.1> wrote in message 
news:UlXue.1823$z61.817@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:MPG.1d265013ebd4834098a0fc@news.individual.net...
>> In article <b79gQybfb0uCFwjE@yewbank.demon.co.uk>, Clive says...
>>> In message <pan.2005.06.23.22.06.56.955498@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk>,
>>> Jules <julesrichardsonuk@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> > they have *very* little awareness as to what's going on around them,
>>> >which is something of a scary thought...
>>> Why?   If you're a safe distance what have you got to fear? Or is your
>>> driving/Riding substandard.
>>>
>> How do you know if it is a safe distance if you don't know your speed?
>
> That depends on how you define knowing your distance and speed. People may 
> have a good idea of where there vehicle would stop if they were required to do 
> so in an emergency but putting that into a numerical term is neither useful 
> nor necessarily easily done. People will also know there relative speeds in a 
> way they feel comfortable with but translating that into a measure of distance 
> and time both of which were conjured up in the imagination of someone many 
> moons ago is of questionable worth apart from the fact some people have felt 
> the need that combining these concepts and making a numerical scale was a good 
> idea.

Do you need a light meter to tell you if it's bright enough for you to put 
sunglasses on? Or are you capable of telling that without a numerical Lux 
readout? 

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:05:30 +0100, Conor wrote:

> In article <pCUB+Ylk6suCFA39@donald.internetpolicynews.co.uk>, Meldrew 
> of Meldreth says...
> 
>> I tend to look quite closely, as this "lamp post spacing issue" is 
>> something that's cropped up many times before. I rarely see such 
>> repeaters, 
> 
> 3,000,000 people missed a big yellow GATSO so I'm not convinced from 
> your statement that they're not there.

Over what time period? And were all of those GATSOs (or other fixed
cameras) - or were some of them due to mobile vehicles (marked or
unmarked) etc.?

ta

Jules

In message <Xns967E9D860994Eadrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170>, 
Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> writes
>Cracking down on incompetents and regular retesting will also shock 
>people out of their complacency, and will put the laughable "but it's 
>my basic human right to have a driving licence" back where it belongs.
Then it should be applied with vigour (and rigor) to all cyclists as 
they believe it's their "right" to be on the road.
-- 
Clive

In message <sNTue.2366$%O1.740@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, A Plagued 
Lighthouse Keeper <user@example.net> writes
> Because everyone is cocky about them being visible and many only 
>reduce their speed when they see a camera. If you don't know where they 
>are you'll have to drive within the limit all the time.
Unfortunately, if the cameras can't be seen, this could be open to abuse 
by a corrupt police.
-- 
Clive

In message <a2lob19depg53ta8r5gvo4jjju0io385it@news.markshouse.net>, 
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
> The trafficmaster system is funded by subscriptions to the services 
>provided by the company. A safety camera scheme of equal complexity 
>would need to be funded by the taxpayer - ie, you and me.
I didn't think "Trafficmaster" pick up registration numbers, just 
counted the volume of cars and speed to predict hold-ups?
-- 
Clive

In message <AvRue.2783$Ar5.609@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, A Plagued 
Lighthouse Keeper <user@example.net> writes
>Well there is a good body of evidence about the risk to stationary 
>pedestrians & cyclists involved in collisions with cars. What is less 
>clear is the affect of speed on risk on motorways (or other main roads 
>with no pedestrians around)
Doesn't this put pedestrians and cyclists firmly in the frame when it 
comes to blame?
-- 
Clive

In message <Xns967EAA8D9DB11raykeattchnowherecom@195.8.68.222>, MrBitsy 
<ray.keattch@nowhere.com> writes
>Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:MPG.1d24d51a38876c398a0cd@news.individual.net:
>
>> In article <Xns967E91E74F7DEraykeattchnowherecom@217.158.240.11>,
>> MrBitsy says...
>>> Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:MPG.1d24a4e24acd6f0498a09c@news.individual.net:
>>>
>>> >> As I do but I am now beginning to see a bigger picture.  It is a
>>> >> revenue raising exercise.
>>> >
>>> > How? You only pay if you speed, aka break the law. I've done 1.5
>>> > million miles without a single contribution.
>>> >
>>>
>>> You were caught speeding once - are you a dangerous driver?
>>>
>> Apart from the point was about something else, no because I knew the
>> speed limit, wasn't caught by a big bright yellow box or a car/van
>> with reflective striping at the side of the road and didn't argue the
>> point. I didn't claim to not know what the speed limit was or I hadn't
>> seen the sign.
>> Most speeders not caught by GATSO do claim this and those caught by
>> GATSO/Safety Van must be blind so yes, they could be construed as
>> dangerous through lack of observation.
>>
>
>So, your whole dangerous/not dangerous boils down to these simple rules.
>
>1..  Speeding at 135mph on an A road is not dangerous if caught by plod
>jumping out from behind a tree, but 68mph is dangerous when caught by a
>Gatso.
>
>2..  A driver doing 187mph on the M1 is not a dangerous driver, if they
>manage to slow down on observing a van with stripes parked on a bridge.
>A driver doing 85mph on the M1 is a completely dangerous twat, if he
>doesn't spot the van and gets a ticket.
>
>4..  If your caught speeding at 50mph over the limit, but complain you
>didn't know the limit, your a dangerous fuckwit. If your caught at 100mph
>over the limit, but tell the copper he has sexy legs and does he want a
>quickie, your completely safe.
>
>Are these about right, or do they need a little tweaking?
>
>
5.  You're safe at any speed up to about 160mph if you're a policeman.
Sorry for bottom posting, in this case it just made sense M,Lord.
-- 
Clive

"Clive" <clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:J2T0z5SgbLvCFwYS@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
> In message <sNTue.2366$%O1.740@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, A Plagued
> Lighthouse Keeper <user@example.net> writes
> > Because everyone is cocky about them being visible and many only
> >reduce their speed when they see a camera. If you don't know where they
> >are you'll have to drive within the limit all the time.
> Unfortunately, if the cameras can't be seen, this could be open to abuse
> by a corrupt police.

Putting aside the low standards of behaviour engaged in by a small number of
individuals, do you believe the UK police service and the wider law
enforcement and justice system to be fundamentally corrupt? (Alos accepting
that human make genuine errors)

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:00:16 +0100, Clive put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In message <a2lob19depg53ta8r5gvo4jjju0io385it@news.markshouse.net>, 
>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>> The trafficmaster system is funded by subscriptions to the services 
>>provided by the company. A safety camera scheme of equal complexity 
>>would need to be funded by the taxpayer - ie, you and me.
>I didn't think "Trafficmaster" pick up registration numbers, just 
>counted the volume of cars and speed to predict hold-ups?

No; it reads number plates and stores them (or, rather, part of them)
in order to see how long individual cars take to travel from one
camera to the next.

Mark
-- 
http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - RSS feeds and Google Adsense tools
"Come on you target for faraway laughter, come on you stranger, 
you legend, you martyr, and shine!" 

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:03:23 +0100, Clive put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>In message <AvRue.2783$Ar5.609@newsfe5-win.ntli.net>, A Plagued 
>Lighthouse Keeper <user@example.net> writes
>>Well there is a good body of evidence about the risk to stationary 
>>pedestrians & cyclists involved in collisions with cars. What is less 
>>clear is the affect of speed on risk on motorways (or other main roads 
>>with no pedestrians around)
>Doesn't this put pedestrians and cyclists firmly in the frame when it 
>comes to blame?

If a pedestrian is crossing the road without looking, then yes, they
are primarily responsible if struck by a car which had no time to
avoid them. But just because it's their fault doesn't mean it's OK to
hit them harder (ie, faster) - the reason for the speed limit in towns
is because we expect pedestrians (like drivers) to do daft things
every now and then, and the law takes account of that. Where drivers
are likely to encounter pedestrains, they have a duty of care towards
them.

Cyclists, though (unlike pedestrians) have an equal right to be on the
road as motorists, and a large proportion of vehicle/cycle collisions
are the fault of the driver rather than the cyclist. 

Mark
-- 
http://www.OrangeHedgehog.com - RSS feeds and Google Adsense tools
"I believe in the kingdom come, then all the colours will bleed 
into one" 

"J. Chisholm" <jc235@cam.ac.uk> wrote...

[ ... ]

> I dispute that it is possible to drive safely in excess of a posted speed 
> limit.

Consider a stretch of dual carriageway trunk road, with no speed limit 
whatsoever (this was the norm until 1965).

Was it "unsafe" to drive at 75 on it?

Please justify your answer if it is "yes".

When it was limited to 70 (national limit) in 1965, had it become "unsafe" 
(by Parliamentary diktat) to drive at 75 on that road?  Please justify your 
answer if it is "yes".

If the same road was later limited to 50 by the county council, had it 
somehow become "unsafe" to drive on it at 55, when it was apparently safe to 
do 70 on it the day before? Please justify your answer if it is "yes".

If, later still, the same road was limited to 30 by the county council (not 
unknown), had it somehow become "unsafe" to drive on it at 35, when it was 
apparently safe to do 50 on it the day before? Please justify your answer if 
it is "yes".

Can you understand that speed limits are arbitrary and often not justified 
by any scientific analysis beyond "bash the motorist as hard as possible"? 

"Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:d9itsa$egj$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Clive" <clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:J2T0z5SgbLvCFwYS@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <sNTue.2366$%O1.740@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, A Plagued
>> Lighthouse Keeper <user@example.net> writes
>> > Because everyone is cocky about them being visible and many only
>> >reduce their speed when they see a camera. If you don't know where they
>> >are you'll have to drive within the limit all the time.
>> Unfortunately, if the cameras can't be seen, this could be open to abuse
>> by a corrupt police.
>
> Putting aside the low standards of behaviour engaged in by a small number of
> individuals, do you believe the UK police service and the wider law
> enforcement and justice system to be fundamentally corrupt? (Alos accepting
> that human make genuine errors)

That would hinge on your definition of corrupt if you take some of the 
dictionary definitions (Tainted with immorality), combined with the 
"institutionally racism" then yes I do. 

"Depresion" <blank@128.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:L1ave.5609$zM2.454@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d9itsa$egj$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> >
> > "Clive" <clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:J2T0z5SgbLvCFwYS@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
> >> In message <sNTue.2366$%O1.740@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, A Plagued
> >> Lighthouse Keeper <user@example.net> writes
> >> > Because everyone is cocky about them being visible and many only
> >> >reduce their speed when they see a camera. If you don't know where
they
> >> >are you'll have to drive within the limit all the time.
> >> Unfortunately, if the cameras can't be seen, this could be open to
abuse
> >> by a corrupt police.
> >
> > Putting aside the low standards of behaviour engaged in by a small
number of
> > individuals, do you believe the UK police service and the wider law
> > enforcement and justice system to be fundamentally corrupt? (Alos
accepting
> > that human make genuine errors)
>
> That would hinge on your definition of corrupt if you take some of the
> dictionary definitions (Tainted with immorality), combined with the
> "institutionally racism" then yes I do.
>

Do you believe they are any different to the rest of society?

In message <d9itsa$egj$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, 
Brimstone <brimstone@hotmail.com> writes
>Putting aside the low standards of behaviour engaged in by a small 
>number of individuals, do you believe the UK police service and the 
>wider law enforcement and justice system to be fundamentally corrupt? 
>(Alos accepting that human make genuine errors)
Most certainly.   After being falsely accused of jumping red lights by 
plod, a lot of years ago, I was outraged so I went to se my solicitor. 
He said that whilst he would love to relive me of �50 to represent me in 
court, it was his duty to give me the options.   Just plead guilty and 
pay the fine would be cheapest, about �30, being represented and not 
pleading guilt would almost certainly accrue a doubling of fine and I 
would still be found guilty plus I would have to pay his fee.   He went 
on to explain that my chances of being found guilty in the local 
magistrates court runs at 85% but if I decided to chance it and appeal 
to a higher court my chances of being found guilty were 30%.   I took 
his advice about the cheapest option and as far as I am aware appeal to 
a higher court is no longer allowed on such trivial charges.
-- 
Clive

In message <d9jap1$h3q$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, 
Brimstone <brimstone@hotmail.com> writes
>Do you believe they are any different to the rest of society?
This is a different question.
-- 
Clive

"Clive" <clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wcOapGfX9SvCFwNG@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
> In message <d9itsa$egj$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
> Brimstone <brimstone@hotmail.com> writes
> >Putting aside the low standards of behaviour engaged in by a small
> >number of individuals, do you believe the UK police service and the
> >wider law enforcement and justice system to be fundamentally corrupt?
> >(Alos accepting that human make genuine errors)
> Most certainly.   After being falsely accused of jumping red lights by
> plod, a lot of years ago, I was outraged so I went to se my solicitor.
> He said that whilst he would love to relive me of �50 to represent me in
> court, it was his duty to give me the options.   Just plead guilty and
> pay the fine would be cheapest, about �30, being represented and not
> pleading guilt would almost certainly accrue a doubling of fine and I
> would still be found guilty plus I would have to pay his fee.   He went
> on to explain that my chances of being found guilty in the local
> magistrates court runs at 85% but if I decided to chance it and appeal
> to a higher court my chances of being found guilty were 30%.   I took
> his advice about the cheapest option and as far as I am aware appeal to
> a higher court is no longer allowed on such trivial charges.

My sympathies, but that's the system rather than the individuals who operate
it. The solicitor was at least honest about your options..

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:15:31 +0100, Harry the Horse wrote
(in message <msVue.166504$KJ7.92853@fe10.news.easynews.com>):

> Unless you support the abolishing of all speed limits then speed limits 
> should be enforced, otherwise what's the point in having them.  If you are 
> supportive of abolishing speed limits then that will undoubtedly make the 
> roads less safe.

Now, what did the TRRL say about speed limits waaay back ? Wasn't it 
something along the lines of "They should be used for guidance, not as an 
absolute limit" ?

Personally, until not very long ago this is exactly how I treated speed 
limits, as guidance on what some experts considered an appropriate maximum 
speed over a range of conditions. Until a few years ago, you could fairly 
reasonably work on the basis that if there's a speed limit then it's 
indicative of some hazzard that I may or may not have already seen. It was 
also accepted that you may well get pulled over by Mr Plod for a variety of 
reasons - and 'speeding' would be one of those areas where plod would assess 
not just how fast you were going, but other factors - so drive like a f***ing 
lunatic in an areas with lots of vulnerable other users and he'd find an 
excuse to pull you up even below the speed limit, but conversely if he 
determines that you are obviously showing good observation and driving skills 
you'll get allowed (mostly) a fairly wide margin over the limit.

Not only that, but the driver will get instant feedback - so he/she can 
relate why they've been pulled to what they were doing. This is the key thing 
that is totally lost with the current system, brown envelope through door and 
mostly yoou'll be left wondering what/why/where/when and there's punishment 
but absolutely no education.

Question, if you're house training a puppy and it craps on the carpet, do you 
:
A) rub it's node in it there and then and kick it out into the garden
or
B) leave it 3 weeks then give it a kicking and it knows nothing about why 
it's being punished

But back to the thread ...

Now there are so many speed limits, many of them clearly based on political 
decisions* rather than safety, that the guidance value is gone. It's a bit 
like the matrix signs on the motorway - if they were routinely useful then 
people would take notice, but it's so long since I've seen one indicating a 
genuine hazzard that these days I see one showing a limit and my reaction is 
basically "oh, there must have been something in the last few hours and they 
haven't switched them off yet".

The same applies to normal warning signs, they've been so overused that 
people no longer see them - hence the modern trend of having to make them 
ever more garish to stand out from the forest of other warning signs.

Simon

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:07:10 +0100, Conor wrote
(in message <MPG.1d264e17381b22fe98a0fa@news.individual.net>):

>> If speeding is 
>> bad, cameras should be very visible so that people actually slow down*
>> James
>> 
> Err James, they are. Alot have a large yellow reflective rectangle on 
> the back, they're big and on a pole and there's even signs indicating 
> speed cameras are present in an area.

Ahh, THAT one !

My 'local' trunk road (A590) has speed camera signs almost ALL the way along 
it's 40+ mile length - what good does that do ? It's a bit like a fire alarm, 
if loud bells start ringing people evacuate - but what if the bells ring 
continuously just in case there might be a fire sometime, someday ? You then 
need an even more prominent alarm for when there's an actual fire.

Given that most of the parking spots for the white van are on dual 
carriageway with central barrier, AND it's been observed parked almost hidden 
behind a burger van, is it any wonder that people question it's true purpose 
?

I gather that we're due to get some fixed cameras, and guess where one of 
them is ? All I can say is that it isn't where I'd expect to see a camera if 
safety is it's primary purpose. Yes, there's been some accidents, but then a 
speed camera does do anything about the f***wit that cuts from the outside 
lane into the filling station whilst braking hard and leaving a forest of 
weaving brake lights as people in both lanes have to avoid the ensuing pile 
up (successfully the last time I observed this happening).

From my knowledge of serious accidents on this road, leaving out the suicides 
(more than one BTW), I doubt if many (if any) would have been less likely or 
less serious with draconian enforcement of speed limits.

Simon

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:18:38 +0100, Conor wrote
(in message <MPG.1d24d51a38876c398a0cd@news.individual.net>):

> and those caught by 
> GATSO/Safety Van must be blind so yes, they could be construed as 
> dangerous through lack of observation.

Does that include spotting the plain, almost unmarked, van parked so that 
only it camera window and a bit of bodywork is visible from behind the burger 
van ? Tell me, can you, from 300 yards, tell the difference between that and 
a 'white van' parked there while the driver gets his lunch ?

Yes, we've had exactly that up here !

Simon

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:55:34 +0100, Adrian wrote
(in message <Xns967E8DAA4AC3Badrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170>):

>> There are plenty of 50mph single carriageway roads with no streetlights 
>> and very infrequent (if any) repeaters.
> 
> They ain't enforcable, then.
> 
>>> Nothing else is legally enforceable.
> 
>> Huh?
> 
> It's simple. If the signage is incorrect, the "default" limit applies. NSL 
> for non-light roads.

Part of the problem is that whilst a limit may not be legally enforcable, 
most people would not be in a position to challenge it. Firstly, if the 
offense was not local, you might have to travel hundreds of miles to check - 
so impracticality no 1.

Then you have to take into account the current legal system for speeding, 
where contrary to centuries of practice, the motorist is guilty until proven 
innocent. Yes, technically, on paper, the motorist is still innocent until 
proven guilty, but in practical terms it is the other way round.

Look as the defences :

1) The limit was not legally posted. The assumption will be that it is until 
the driver proves otherwise.

2) The driver was not committing the offense. Again, the assumption is that 
what the police say is true and the motorist must prove otherwise - BTW, only 
last night was the news story on TV about a case where the motorist 
successfully persuaded the court that the police officer had forged her 
signature on the official documents.

3) There were overriding needs of human need or safety. Eg the "rushing to 
hospital" or "I could see a maniac coming up behind and wanted to get out of 
the way" defences. Not exactly easy to prove are they ?


Should a motorist dare to question the assumed guilt, then there is the 
prospect of having the penalty automatically increased - so for most people, 
the situation is that it's not practical/cost effective to attempt to defend 
against the presumed guilt. Brings to mind a film where a US businessman is 
framed for a murder in China, and in prison they keep telling him (before the 
trial) "confess now, it will make your execution so much less painful" !

I can see a market before long for in car recording systems, to be used just 
like the police videos but for demonstrating the drivers innocence !

Simon

"Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:d9jap1$h3q$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Depresion" <blank@128.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:L1ave.5609$zM2.454@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d9itsa$egj$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
>> > Putting aside the low standards of behaviour engaged in by a small
> number of
>> > individuals, do you believe the UK police service and the wider law
>> > enforcement and justice system to be fundamentally corrupt? (Alos
> accepting
>> > that human make genuine errors)
>>
>> That would hinge on your definition of corrupt if you take some of the
>> dictionary definitions (Tainted with immorality), combined with the
>> "institutionally racism" then yes I do.
>>
>
> Do you believe they are any different to the rest of society?

Yes, the police aren't chosen at random from a cross section of the population 
they decide to become a police officer for a reason, in my opinion that reason 
is seldom to improve society and more often now as a power trip. 

In message <Lcbve.5782$zM2.23@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Depresion 
<blank@128.0.0.1> writes
>
>"Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d9jap1$h3q$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>> "Depresion" <blank@128.0.0.1> wrote in message
>> news:L1ave.5609$zM2.454@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d9itsa$egj$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>
>>> > Putting aside the low standards of behaviour engaged in by a small
>> number of
>>> > individuals, do you believe the UK police service and the wider law
>>> > enforcement and justice system to be fundamentally corrupt? (Alos
>> accepting
>>> > that human make genuine errors)
>>>
>>> That would hinge on your definition of corrupt if you take some of the
>>> dictionary definitions (Tainted with immorality), combined with the
>>> "institutionally racism" then yes I do.
>>>
>>
>> Do you believe they are any different to the rest of society?
>
>Yes, the police aren't chosen at random from a cross section of the population
>they decide to become a police officer for a reason, in my opinion that reason
>is seldom to improve society and more often now as a power trip.
>
>
It's the only job where the punter (Sorry, customer) is always wrong.
-- 
Clive

In cam.transport Simon Hobson <simonsnews@thehobsons.codotuk> wrote:
> 3) There were overriding needs of human need or safety. Eg the
> "rushing to hospital" or "I could see a maniac coming up behind and
> wanted to get out of the way" defences. Not exactly easy to prove are
> they ?

The former could be verified by checking hospital records.  The latter
is not insurmountable - the GATSO could record a few seconds of
wide-angle video footage (maybe facing both ways along the road) in
addition to the usual stills.

-- 
Robin Stevens  <rejs@cynic.org.uk> 
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----

"Clive" <clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZHVgf0i6IWvCFwpy@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
> In message <Lcbve.5782$zM2.23@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Depresion
> <blank@128.0.0.1> writes
>>
>>"Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:d9jap1$h3q$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>
>>> "Depresion" <blank@128.0.0.1> wrote in message
>>> news:L1ave.5609$zM2.454@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:d9itsa$egj$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>>>
>>>> > Putting aside the low standards of behaviour engaged in by a small
>>> number of
>>>> > individuals, do you believe the UK police service and the wider law
>>>> > enforcement and justice system to be fundamentally corrupt? (Alos
>>> accepting
>>>> > that human make genuine errors)
>>>>
>>>> That would hinge on your definition of corrupt if you take some of the
>>>> dictionary definitions (Tainted with immorality), combined with the
>>>> "institutionally racism" then yes I do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you believe they are any different to the rest of society?
>>
>>Yes, the police aren't chosen at random from a cross section of the population
>>they decide to become a police officer for a reason, in my opinion that reason
>>is seldom to improve society and more often now as a power trip.
>>
>>
> It's the only job where the punter (Sorry, customer) is always wrong.

No, 99.9% [1] of my customers are wrong I'm just far to polite to tell them.

[1] maybe I'm being unusually optimistic about people's abilities there.

In message <vagve.3809$iT1.3022@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Depresion 
<blank@128.0.0.1> writes
>No, 99.9% [1] of my customers are wrong I'm just far to polite to tell 
>them.
>
>[1] maybe I'm being unusually optimistic about people's abilities 
>there.
Maybe you're being unusually optimistic about your own, or your 
equipment's abilities? What do you do about the .1% that aren't wrong 
and what do you do about their outcome?
-- 
Clive

"Clive" <clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:iZiOoZnnoZvCFwe6@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
> In message <vagve.3809$iT1.3022@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Depresion 
> <blank@128.0.0.1> writes
>>No, 99.9% [1] of my customers are wrong I'm just far to polite to tell them.
>>
>>[1] maybe I'm being unusually optimistic about people's abilities there.
> Maybe you're being unusually optimistic about your own, or your equipment's 
> abilities? What do you do about the .1% that aren't wrong and what do you do 
> about their outcome?

That 0.1% is equipment failures not just idiots. 

Adrian wrote:

	[...]

> You have, of course, tested the grip levels of your car and tyres
> recently on a range of surfaces, haven't you?

Yup, this very afternoon.  :)

Stopped for a nice steak on the way home.



A

-- 
Trade Oil in �

In message <mchve.3904$iT1.1211@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Depresion 
<blank@128.0.0.1> writes
>That 0.1% is equipment failures not just idiots.
Can you, will you and are you allowed to affirm that in a court of law?
-- 
Clive

"Clive" <clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xTTq6tqgmgvCFwNO@yewbank.demon.co.uk...
> In message <mchve.3904$iT1.1211@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, Depresion
> <blank@128.0.0.1> writes
>>That 0.1% is equipment failures not just idiots.
> Can you, will you and are you allowed to affirm that in a court of law?

If needs be, I have logs but I can't see that ever being an issue.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005, Simon Hobson wrote:

> Now there are so many speed limits, many of them clearly based on political
> decisions* rather than safety, that the guidance value is gone. It's a bit
> like the matrix signs on the motorway - if they were routinely useful then
> people would take notice, but it's so long since I've seen one indicating a
> genuine hazzard that these days I see one showing a limit and my reaction is
> basically "oh, there must have been something in the last few hours and they
> haven't switched them off yet".

This will get worse because of the new trend for variable speed limits 
enforced by apparently frequent speed cameras - the advisory will become 
the mandatory, ubiquitous and summarily-enforcable.  I don't know where 
else this is happening but it has spread from the M25 to the 
mangled-but-not-widened M42.  (They seem intent upon making the simple, 
safe motorway a visual barrage to impair the brain's ability to read the 
road.)

Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : 

>> > How do you know if it is a safe distance if you don't know your
>> > speed? 

>> How do you know if it's a safe distance, even if you DO know your
>> speed, unless you know the exact distance?

> There are numerous things you can use to ensure a two second gap.

"One Banana, Two Banana"
How do you need to know your speed to the exact numerical value to count to 
two?

Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : 

> Shortly afterwards
> a lorry driver got out of his cab and was hit by an HGV and killed.
> 
> Darwinism at work - it really leaves me dumbfounded when I see them 
> using the drivers side. I use the passenger side to get in/out - much 
> safer.

Maybe he did, and the wagon that hit him was in L1 or on the hard shoulder?

Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : 

> Can't remember. Recently posted in here that one camera in te SE had 
> netted 12,000 convictions in a fortnight.

Thank god it was there. Can you imagine if it hadn't been? 12,000 accidents 
on one bit of road in a fortnight?

No - wait - it didn't actually do anything to STOP people driving 
dangerously, did it?

Clive (clive@yewbank.demon.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they 
were saying :

>>Cracking down on incompetents and regular retesting will also shock 
>>people out of their complacency, and will put the laughable "but it's 
>>my basic human right to have a driving licence" back where it belongs.

> Then it should be applied with vigour (and rigor) to all cyclists as 
> they believe it's their "right" to be on the road.

Legally, it is. That's the difference between a bicycle and a car.

JNugent wrote:
> "J. Chisholm" <jc235@cam.ac.uk> wrote...
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> 
>>I dispute that it is possible to drive safely in excess of a posted speed 
>>limit.
> 
> 
> Consider a stretch of dual carriageway trunk road, with no speed limit 
> whatsoever (this was the norm until 1965).
> 
> Was it "unsafe" to drive at 75 on it?

Safety is not an absolute thing.  It was somewhat unsafe to drive on it 
at 75mph, and in 1965, it was decided that that level of unsafety was 
too great.

> Please justify your answer if it is "yes".
> 
> When it was limited to 70 (national limit) in 1965, had it become "unsafe" 
> (by Parliamentary diktat) to drive at 75 on that road?  Please justify your 
> answer if it is "yes".
 >
> If the same road was later limited to 50 by the county council, had it 
> somehow become "unsafe" to drive on it at 55, when it was apparently safe to 
> do 70 on it the day before? Please justify your answer if it is "yes".

Presumably over the time between the imposition of the 70 limit and the 
50 limit, the conditions on that road had chaged.  When the 70 limit was 
initially set, it was deemed safe enough to drive at 55 on it, but by 
the day before the 50 limit was set, although it was legal, it was not 
felt to be safe (enough).

> If, later still, the same road was limited to 30 by the county council (not 
> unknown), had it somehow become "unsafe" to drive on it at 35, when it was 
> apparently safe to do 50 on it the day before? Please justify your answer if 
> it is "yes".

As before, conditions on the road changed in the interval after the 50 
limit was set, but before the 30 limit was imposed (different driving 
patterns, land use in the surrounding areas, other roads opened or 
closed &c., or perhaps some new development in the process of being 
built will cause these changes to happen in the next few months, and the 
limit is being changed in anticipation of changed circumstances.

> Can you understand that speed limits are arbitrary and often not justified 
> by any scientific analysis beyond "bash the motorist as hard as possible"? 

Speed limits are, by their nature, arbitrary, because the legal system 
requires a binary yes/no set of rules.  Safety is not binary, that's why 
we have government, to whom we/the Queen delegate the responsibility of 
taking the decision as to what should be permitted, and what should not.

Not quite sure what you mean by "bash the motorist as hard as possible". 
  When does somebody become a motorist?  If I drive a car at the 
weekends, but walk to work on weekdays am I a motorist?  If I drive 3 
times a year to see my far flung family for 
Christmas/birthdays/whatever, am I a motorist?  If I drive a taxi for a 
living (and am about as much a "motorist" as you can get), but happen to 
live next to a very busy road, where the high speed limit makes my life 
a misery because of lots of traffic noise and polution, and that road 
has its limit dropped from 50 to 30, which reduces the traffic on it (it 
finds a different, faster route), and it becomes a lot quieter, is that 
bashing the motorist?

Unfortunately, the world does not work in the binary way you seem to 
think it does (safe/unsafe, motorist/rest of population).

Robin

In article <Xns968251E72F624adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170>, 
Adrian says...
> Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying : 
> 
> > Shortly afterwards
> > a lorry driver got out of his cab and was hit by an HGV and killed.
> > 
> > Darwinism at work - it really leaves me dumbfounded when I see them 
> > using the drivers side. I use the passenger side to get in/out - much 
> > safer.
> 
> Maybe he did, and the wagon that hit him was in L1 or on the hard shoulder?
> 
Eh?

-- 
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

In article <Xns9682520D08CC3adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170>, 
Adrian says...
> Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying : 
> 
> > Can't remember. Recently posted in here that one camera in te SE had 
> > netted 12,000 convictions in a fortnight.
> 
> Thank god it was there. Can you imagine if it hadn't been? 12,000 accidents 
> on one bit of road in a fortnight?
> 
> No - wait - it didn't actually do anything to STOP people driving 
> dangerously, did it?
> 
Possibly a few on the totting up. I would imagine it would be easy to 
get 12 points in 2 days commuting to work.

-- 
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

R.C. Payne (rcp@payne-residence.freeserve.co.uk) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying : 

>>> I dispute that it is possible to drive safely in excess of a posted
>>> speed limit.

>> Consider a stretch of dual carriageway trunk road, with no speed
>> limit whatsoever (this was the norm until 1965).
>> 
>> Was it "unsafe" to drive at 75 on it?

> Safety is not an absolute thing.  It was somewhat unsafe to drive on
> it at 75mph, and in 1965, it was decided that that level of unsafety
> was too great.

Right. So the velocity relative to the speed limit is not inherently a 
factor in making a particular speed "safe" or "unsafe", then?

Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : 

>> > Shortly afterwards
>> > a lorry driver got out of his cab and was hit by an HGV and killed.
>> > 
>> > Darwinism at work - it really leaves me dumbfounded when I see them
>> > using the drivers side. I use the passenger side to get in/out -
>> > much safer.

>> Maybe he did, and the wagon that hit him was in L1 or on the hard
>> shoulder? 

> Eh?

Perhaps his wagon was stationary in L2. Since there'd just been a fatal 
accident on the same stretch of motorway, it's not exactly a wild leap of 
the imagination to guess that perhaps things weren't flowing smoothly.

Perhaps he stopped in L2, jumped out the N/S door to see if he could help, 
but in the adrenaline rush he forgot to look...?

Adrian wrote:
> R.C. Payne (rcp@payne-residence.freeserve.co.uk) gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying : 
> 
> 
>>>>I dispute that it is possible to drive safely in excess of a posted
>>>>speed limit.
> 
> 
>>>Consider a stretch of dual carriageway trunk road, with no speed
>>>limit whatsoever (this was the norm until 1965).
>>>
>>>Was it "unsafe" to drive at 75 on it?
> 
> 
>>Safety is not an absolute thing.  It was somewhat unsafe to drive on
>>it at 75mph, and in 1965, it was decided that that level of unsafety
>>was too great.
> 
> 
> Right. So the velocity relative to the speed limit is not inherently a 
> factor in making a particular speed "safe" or "unsafe", then?

Not all speed limits are set purely on saftey.  Some, for example, are 
set in order to prevent congestion in other areas (for example the 
variable limits on the M25), or to provide a better quality of life for 
those living or working in that area, such as in residential 
neighbourhoods or through roadworks.

The trouble with any use of the words "safe" and "unsafe" in this 
discussion is that they imply there is some kind of cut-off where safe 
becomes unsafe.  That 54mph is safe, but 55 is not.  This is, of course, 
a nonsense.  Driving at any speek brings with it risk, the question is, 
at what point does the benefit of permitting faster speeds on a stretch 
of road outweigh the cost (to society) of that higher speed.

The law has been devised to control the ballance of safety and 
efficiency for the good of society.  Some drivers know the road well, 
some drivers have a very well maintained, high performance car.  Other 
drivers have not so good cars, are unfamiliar with any given stretch of 
road, and have a poorer perception of what is safe or not.  The purpose 
of the speed limit is to allow a reasonable driver [1] driving at that 
speed in a well maintained car [2] to be reasonably safe.  On some 
roads, the speed at which a reasonable driver in a reasonable car will 
be safe is 70mph, on others that speed is only 30mph.  As towns are 
built and traffic patterns change, what is safe for a given stretch of 
road will change.

A road with a speed limit of 70mph will be safer to drive on at 60mph 
than a road with a limit of 30mph.  A road with a limit of 70mph will 
also be safer to drive on at 80mph than a road with a limit of 30mph. 
In answer to you question "So the velocity relative to the speed limit 
is not inherently a factor in making a particular speed "safe" or 
"unsafe", then?" I would answer, your speed relative to the speed limit 
is an indicator of how unsafely you are driving.  If you are driving at 
50% above the speed limit, you are driving less dangerously than someone 
driving at twice the limit, and if you are driving at 5% above the 
limit, you are driving more safely than someone at 50% above the limit. 
  None of these speeds is "safe", but nor is driving at 90% of the limit 
(ie 10% below).

The trouble is the concept of a speed limit is one that is designed to 
work within the legal system of the country, which requires that all 
individuals must be treated equally in the eyes of the law.  The law can 
not say that Joe is safe to drive at 50mph while Bob, in the same car, 
on the same stretch of road, under the same conditions is not.  If you 
accept the principle of a speed limit [3], then unless you disagree with 
the rule of Law in this country, I can see no viable alternative to a 
uniform speed limit for all drivers over a particular stretch of road, 
that is enforced.

[1] the driving test system is supposed to ensure that only reasonably 
skilled drivers are allowed unsupervised on the roads

[2] the MOT system is supposed to ensure a minimum performance and 
safety for cars allowed on the roads

[3] while there is a very reasonable arguement that the speed limit is 
totally artificial, and every case should be judged on whether the 
behaviour is actually safe and considerate, the fact of the matter is 
such a system is unenforcable, and as there is a considerable risk of 
injury to third parties as a result of traffic accidents, it is not 
considered reasonable to let Darwin take his course.

Robin

R.C. Payne (rcp@payne-residence.freeserve.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding 
much like they were saying :

> Not all speed limits are set purely on saftey.

> The trouble with any use of the words "safe" and "unsafe" in this 
> discussion is that they imply there is some kind of cut-off where safe 
> becomes unsafe.

Ah, so "Safety Cameras" is an oxymoron, then, and speed camera enforcement 
is *not* purely about safety?

If we accept that, then they are lying to us.

If they are lying to us about that, what else are they lying to us about?

In message <d9oubp$730$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, R.C. Payne 
<rcp@payne-residence.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>The law has been devised to control the ballance of safety and 
>efficiency for the good of society.
Please explain why in west Cumbria the A595 is 60mph, from Lillyhall 
roundabout the road is arrow straight but at a 50mph limit, enters 
Distington on a by-pass, speed limit 40mph, leaves Distington and a very 
winding stretch of road at NSL then enters a mile straight past Parton 
with no direct exit onto the main carriageway at 40mph until Whitehaven 
is entered which should be it's 40mph or even reduced to 30 mph as 
houses abut the main road, leaving Whitehaven the road becomes twisty 
again and resumes at NSL.   Someone needs to drive this route and 
explain why the worst parts of the road are NSL whilst straight sections 
are at 50mph or 40 mph?
-- 
Clive

Adrian wrote:
> R.C. Payne (rcp@payne-residence.freeserve.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding 
> much like they were saying :
> 
> 
>>Not all speed limits are set purely on saftey.
> 
> 
>>The trouble with any use of the words "safe" and "unsafe" in this 
>>discussion is that they imply there is some kind of cut-off where safe 
>>becomes unsafe.
> 
> 
> Ah, so "Safety Cameras" is an oxymoron, then, and speed camera enforcement 
> is *not* purely about safety?

You have not challenged the statement I made (although you snipped it) 
that driving faster is less safe than driving slower.  Therefore any 
measure that makes drivers slow down will improve safety.  The 
guidelines the government sets for the locations of speed cameras are 
such that they are only to go in locations that are demonstrably more 
dangerous than the bulk of the rest of the road system.  Motorists 
generally drive at a higher speed than the government deems safe, if 
they are allowed to get away with it.  Speed cameras therefore act to 
reduce the speed at a given location, making it more safe.  You have not 
challenged any of this reasoning, though all of it was in my previous post.

I accept that there are other effects that come about from the methods 
by which the speed camera system is implimented, particularly the "I see 
a speed camera therefore I reduce my speed without thinking about 
whether it is safe or necessary to do so" effect.  If speed cameras were 
totally invisible, this effect would be reduced because the "I see a 
speed camera" bit wouldn't happen, and the general fear of being caught 
for speeding, and hence the subsequent fine and points would have an 
effect.  Of course locals would learn the locations of cameras, and a 
related effect, "I know there's a speed camera therefore I reduce my 
speed without thinking about whether it is safe or necessary to do so" 
would probably take hold, but arguably if you know the road that well, 
you probably know the particular dangers (hidden driveways, for example) 
better, and are safer than a non-local.

The point is, the *intention* is for speed cameras to improve safety, 
indeed the intention of the laws about speed limits are (usually) all 
about safety.  Of course the intention and the results are not always 
the same thing in government circles.  A useful philosophy I've adopted 
in life is never to attribute to malice what can adequately be explained 
by incompetence.

> If we accept that, then they are lying to us.

Yes, *they* are lying to you.  *They* are all out to get you, with 
*their* taxes to pay for horrid things like schools and hospitals. 
Remember that *they* are the people we vote for every 5 years or so.

> If they are lying to us about that, what else are they lying to us about?

OOooh, they might be lying to us about how useful these ID cards will be 
at fighting terrorism.  They might have lied to us about WMD in Iraq. 
They might be lying to us about all manner of things.  If you are so 
worried about what *they* are doing to you, perhaps you should speak to 
your elected representatives about it.

Robin

R.C. Payne (rcp@payne-residence.freeserve.co.uk) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying : 

> You have not challenged the statement I made (although you snipped it)
> that driving faster is less safe than driving slower.

If everything else is equal, of course it is. I didn't challenge it 
because it's self-evident.

*If* everything else is equal. It isn't. It never has been. It never 
will be.

So let's follow that to it's logical conclusion and drive everywhere at 
walking pace, with a man with a red flag in front of every vehicle. 
Great. We'll all be "safe".

Except that the economy of the world will collapse, as nobody would ever 
get anywhere.

So - back in the real world.

An attentive driver doing 50mph in a 40mph limit will ALWAYS be safer 
than an inattentive one doing 30mph in that same 40mph limit - assuming 
that conditions dictate that 50mph is physically appropriate.

A fine example - Yesterday pm, a minicab came out of a car park onto a 
dual carriageway and promptly meandered across two lanes without 
pausing, indicating or looking. His intended trajectory crossed mine in 
time and space. Because I was paying attention, I took simple and early 
avoiding action. He probably remains completely unaware of the near 
accident he caused.

> Therefore any measure that makes drivers slow down will improve 
> safety.

So will any measure that improves driver skill, driver attentiveness, 
driver observation. In fact - guess what? - they don't even have the 
downside of making people take longer to get places, so there's not even 
an economic or social cost to them. How's THAT for a winner?

> The guidelines the government sets for the locations of speed cameras 
> are such that they are only to go in locations that are demonstrably 
> more dangerous than the bulk of the rest of the road system. 

The guidelines are, yes.
However, those guidelines are cheerfully ignored in favour of the spots 
that'll raise the most money *every* day of the week.

A second fine example - Literally about a minute after the minicab, 
there was a camera van hidden behind shrubbery and a wall on a 40mph 
very low risk dual carriageway - barriers, office buildings, no 
junctions - yesterday pm, a very short distance from a 40mph single 
carriageway with far more hazards - houses, drives, ped x-ings, 
junctions.

> Motorists generally drive at a higher speed than the government deems 
> safe

No, motorists often drive at a higher speed than the government deems 
*legal*.
Motorists also often drive to a far lower standard than the goverment 
deems legal.

There's a very big difference between the two, and denying that is the 
root cause of many of the problems our roads suffer from today.

The government do not legislate "safety".
Messrs Einstein and Newton did a lot of the groundwork on writing those 
particular laws down, but they applied before that.

> You have not challenged any of this reasoning, though all of it was in 
> my previous post. 

But you've AGREED that your basic premise is false.

Let me quote your own words:- 

From Message-ID: <d9oubp$730$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>
>>> Not all speed limits are set purely on saftey.
>>>
>>> The trouble with any use of the words "safe" and "unsafe" in this 
>>> discussion is that they imply there is some kind of cut-off where 
>>> safe becomes unsafe.  That 54mph is safe, but 55 is not. This is, of 
>>> course, a nonsense.

Make your mind up.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:18:49 +0100, R.C. Payne wrote
(in message <d9oubp$730$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>):

> Not all speed limits are set purely on saftey.  Some, for example, are 
> set in order to prevent congestion in other areas (for example the 
> variable limits on the M25), or to provide a better quality of life for 
> those living or working in that area, such as in residential 
> neighbourhoods or through roadworks.
> 
> The trouble with any use of the words "safe" and "unsafe" in this 
> discussion is that they imply there is some kind of cut-off where safe 
> becomes unsafe.  That 54mph is safe, but 55 is not.  This is, of course, 
> a nonsense.  Driving at any speek brings with it risk, the question is, 
> at what point does the benefit of permitting faster speeds on a stretch 
> of road outweigh the cost (to society) of that higher speed.

So, speed limit does NOT equal some magic speed at which safe driving 
suddenly becomes unsafe. Not all speed limits are there for safety.

Therefore, exceeding the speed limit by any margin is considered an offense 
worthy of removal of driving licence irrespective of the degree of 'unsafety' 
involved and this is enforced (by "safety partnerships") to the virtual 
exclusion of other measures which would undoubtedly provide a better 
improvement (instead of what some people are now acknowledging may even be a 
negative improvement).

Given your own statement that very definitely states that exceeding the speed 
limit does not mean a dramatic and sudden change from "safe" to "unsafe", is 
it any wonder that people treat "safety partnerships" and the way they site 
and operate their cameras with the "disrespect" they do ? Perhaps if they 
dropped the "safety" bit of the name and owned up to being "speed camera 
partnerships", and if speed cameras were ONLY used where the actual limit is 
clear(1) AND there is a problem which is actually related to people exceeding 
the speed limit(2), and if the limits actually were based on safety and not 
political dogma(3), and if the enforcement action took account of conditions 
at the time(4) - then, and only then, might people would be (slightly) less 
scathing of them !

1 - I think everyone knows at least one place where the limit is unclear for 
a whole variety of reasons.

2 - Just because there's been a KSI accident, doesn't automatically prove a 
requirement for a speed camera. On one local trunk road to me, I believe two 
fatal accidents were eventually put down to suicide - but I bet they are 
included in the stats to prove how 'unsafe' the road is.

3 - Don't try and tell me that all the local villages, all at the same time, 
all suddenly changed in their character or use so as to justify a change from 
NSL to 20mph ! Anyone that tries to claim that this was not related to the 
politics of central government providing cash on condition of imposing such 
limits is either on cloud 9 or simply lying.

4 - There are many examples (some motorway road works for example) where it 
is patently clear to any competent driver that the speed limit is nonsensical 
at some times - for example when there is no lane closure, and it can be seen 
from miles back that there are actually no workers present at all. To 
rigidaly and inflexibly enforce such limits for no other reason that "it's 
the law" simply devalues the law in the way that we are seeing.

In article <Xns968281DCD8628adrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170>, 
Adrian says...
> Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying : 
> 
> >> > Shortly afterwards
> >> > a lorry driver got out of his cab and was hit by an HGV and killed.
> >> > 
> >> > Darwinism at work - it really leaves me dumbfounded when I see them
> >> > using the drivers side. I use the passenger side to get in/out -
> >> > much safer.
> 
> >> Maybe he did, and the wagon that hit him was in L1 or on the hard
> >> shoulder? 
> 
> > Eh?
> 
> Perhaps his wagon was stationary in L2. Since there'd just been a fatal 
> accident on the same stretch of motorway, it's not exactly a wild leap of 
> the imagination to guess that perhaps things weren't flowing smoothly.
> 
> Perhaps he stopped in L2, jumped out the N/S door to see if he could help, 
> but in the adrenaline rush he forgot to look...?
> 
Perhaps you're grasping at straws.

-- 
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : 

>> >> > Shortly afterwards
>> >> > a lorry driver got out of his cab and was hit by an HGV and
>> >> > killed. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Darwinism at work - it really leaves me dumbfounded when I see
>> >> > them using the drivers side. I use the passenger side to get
>> >> > in/out - much safer.

>> >> Maybe he did, and the wagon that hit him was in L1 or on the hard
>> >> shoulder? 

>> > Eh?

>> Perhaps his wagon was stationary in L2. Since there'd just been a
>> fatal accident on the same stretch of motorway, it's not exactly a
>> wild leap of the imagination to guess that perhaps things weren't
>> flowing smoothly. 
>> 
>> Perhaps he stopped in L2, jumped out the N/S door to see if he could
>> help, but in the adrenaline rush he forgot to look...?

> Perhaps you're grasping at straws.

Ah, sorry. All truck drivers are perfect, aren't they?

In article <Xns9683973A89D0Badrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.244.170>, 
Adrian says...
> Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying : 
> 
> >> >> > Shortly afterwards
> >> >> > a lorry driver got out of his cab and was hit by an HGV and
> >> >> > killed. 
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > Darwinism at work - it really leaves me dumbfounded when I see
> >> >> > them using the drivers side. I use the passenger side to get
> >> >> > in/out - much safer.
> 
> >> >> Maybe he did, and the wagon that hit him was in L1 or on the hard
> >> >> shoulder? 
> 
> >> > Eh?
> 
> >> Perhaps his wagon was stationary in L2. Since there'd just been a
> >> fatal accident on the same stretch of motorway, it's not exactly a
> >> wild leap of the imagination to guess that perhaps things weren't
> >> flowing smoothly. 
> >> 
> >> Perhaps he stopped in L2, jumped out the N/S door to see if he could
> >> help, but in the adrenaline rush he forgot to look...?
> 
> > Perhaps you're grasping at straws.
> 
> Ah, sorry. All truck drivers are perfect, aren't they?
> 
Unless the brakes fail, lorry drivers will get over to the hard 
shoulder. THey certainly wouldn't stop in L2 to help unless to protect 
the fucktard car driver with their vehicle from being rearended by more 
fucktard car drivers.

-- 
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

Conor (conor.turton@gmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they 
were saying :

> Unless the brakes fail, lorry drivers will get over to the hard 
> shoulder.

This was shortly after a fatal between a car and a van. Perhaps it was all 
coming to a stop very suddenly.

> THey certainly wouldn't stop in L2 to help unless to protect 
> the fucktard car driver with their vehicle from being rearended by more 
> fucktard car drivers.

Mmmm. I seem to have used a relatively free moving L1 to get past quite a 
few slow-moving and stationary trucks in L2 on many occasions.

Perhaps not all truck drivers are as perfect as you? Just the same as all 
car drivers are not complete fuckwits?