Prev: Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?
Next: High Way Code omission
From: Mortimer on 9 Jun 2010 08:40
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> 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.
Yes, and I'd rather thave a legal system which put the blame fairly and
squarely on the person who actually *caused* the accident, rather than
blaming the person who was driving too fast to avoid someone else's
accident. If someone pulls out from a side road into my plath, my speed is
irrelevent: the accident is caused 100% by the person who disobeyed the
Drive defensively and try to anticipate other people's cockups, but don't
criminalise someone who nevertheless fails to avoid an accident.
From: Michael Swift on 9 Jun 2010 08:40
In article <hunv7j$7l4$1(a)chaz6.eternal-september.org>, Chris Hills
>>> The aim of the cameras is to make people drive safely.
>> Is it? I thought it was to make people drive at a legal speed. You're not
>> confusing the two, are you?
>The government calls them safety cameras. Staying within the legal speed
>limit is one aspect of safe driving.
So during the recent winter cracking alone at 29 mph in a 30 zone in icy
conditions would be safe. In our town we have arterial dual carriageways
rated at 30 mph and twisty, narrow rural roads rated at the national
I think most drivers wouldn't mind cash cameras if the limits they
enforced were set sensibly.
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
From: Adrian on 9 Jun 2010 08:49
"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?
> No: a single sign at the beginning doesn't serve as sufficient ongoing
> reminder in exceptional cases where the limit is set perversely low.
I think you might have forgotten something... The rule-of-thumb for
default limits in the absence of reminders?
From: Ed Chilada on 9 Jun 2010 09:41
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 13:40:32 +0100, "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> 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.
>Yes, and I'd rather thave a legal system which put the blame fairly and
>squarely on the person who actually *caused* the accident, rather than
>blaming the person who was driving too fast to avoid someone else's
>accident. If someone pulls out from a side road into my plath, my speed is
>irrelevent: the accident is caused 100% by the person who disobeyed the
You're also disobeying the rules if you're above the speed limit. So
do you think it's only the rules you agree with that should be
From: Ret. on 9 Jun 2010 09:50
Nkosi (ama-ecosse) wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
Back in the early 1970's I was serving in the Sussex Police. The speed
measuring equipment in those days was very rudimentary - if I recall
accurately it was referred to as 'PETA' although I cannot recall what the
letters stood for.
The equipment comprised of a huge black letter box shaped device that was
set up on a table at the side of the road, connected to a car battery, and
which put a beam across the road. As a car passed through the beam a needle
on a large analogue display would flick up to the speed, remain there
momentarily and then drop back. Because the car would be passing the officer
reading the meter, the only way to stop a speeding motorist would be by
having a second officer further down the road with a radio.
The officer with the 'PETA' would radio to the second officer: "Green Escort
46 mph". The second officer would then step out into the road, stop the
motorist and book him.
On one occasion, the location we set up meant that I, as the stopping
officer, had no place to park my police car other than half on and half off
One motorist that I stopped was a commercial lawyer working for a private
firm. He pleaded not guilty and came to court carrying several thick legal
tomes. He relied on some ancient piece of legislation which stated that any
evidence gleaned whilst in pursuance of an illegal act was impermissible. He
argued that as I was parked illegally on the pavement, my evidence should
not be allowed.
Sadly for him, the magistrates did not accept his argument and convicted