Prev: Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?
Next: High Way Code omission
From: Specs on 9 Jun 2010 08:22
On 9 Jun 2010 12:19:49 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>since only a very tiny
>minority are due to speed in excess of the limit.
but "they" would argue the outcome is better at lower speeds
From: Mortimer on 9 Jun 2010 08:25
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>>> They would have to admit that the cameras are there for revenue
>>>> raising, then, since the van carries no warning about speed or any
>>>> aspect of driving safely.
>> The copper was not exactly trying to encourage a safe road speed, but
>> waiting untill when they go 'over' the legal limit. Whereas, a sign
>> displaying "speed kills", is actively trying to reduce speeding.
>> Debatable about which achieves the best result.
> Depends what you mean by "best results". If the aim is to reduce road
> casualties, then both are pissing in the wind, since only a very tiny
> minority are due to speed in excess of the limit.
> If the aim is merely to reduce the speed of vehicles on that one stretch
> of road, then I rather suspect that the van is more effective than a lone
> loony waving a sheet about.
Better still is a sign that lights up if you are over the limit to remind
you that the limit is lower than you have judged to be a safe speed based on
the road conditions at the time.
There are a few roads near me which carry absurdly low limits for the road
layout etc, and I welcome anything which reminds me (and keeps reminding me)
to keep down to the limit. I find that I say to myself "the limit is 30...
it's still 30... it's still 30" to prevent me subconsciously increasing back
to a sensible speed for those road conditions.
From: Nkosi (ama-ecosse) on 9 Jun 2010 08:25
On 9 June, 13:01, "GT" <ContactGT_rem_o...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Chris Hills" <c...(a)chaz6.com> wrote in message
> > Near where I live a mobile police speed camera van frequently parks on a
> > grass verge, on public property. Would it be legal to protest in the form
> > of holding a sign or banner, perhaps with the words "Speed kills",
> > deliberately behind the van to block the view of the camera?
> In our area, the mobile van parks in two places - one on a double yellow
> line and the other on the verge next to a solid white line on a dual
> carriageway. Both illegally parked and if a 'normal' car was parked there it
> would be towed and the driver fined etc etc.
I was caught by a scanmming van on a flyover over the M80 parked half
on and half off the pavement at Glenbervie on the A9 as you know it
one law for us and none for them.
From: Adrian on 9 Jun 2010 08:26
Specs <spam(a)spam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>since only a very tiny minority are due to speed in excess of the limit.
> but "they" would argue the outcome is better at lower speeds
I'd rather not have a collision in the first place, thanks.
From: Adrian on 9 Jun 2010 08:26
"Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> I find that I say to myself "the limit is 30... it's still 30... it's
> still 30" to prevent me subconsciously increasing back to a sensible
> speed for those road conditions.
Is the signage not sufficient?