Stitched up by a talivan
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Should I or shouldn't I?
Next: Failed MOT
From: Rob on 21 Sep 2008 09:52 AndrewR wrote: || "Rob" <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message || news:MLGdnW_OZtt0vEjVnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d(a)bt.com... ||| AndrewR wrote: || |||| If you go past a camera van the operator, having determined that |||| you're speeding, can make a note of your reg number and that is, |||| apparently, sufficient evidence to do you. ||| ||| No it isn't. If it *were* true then not only could they save a ||| fortune by replacing their expensive speed recording cameras with a ||| cheapo digital camera, they would also have an unlimited revenue ||| stream from both speeders and the law-abiding. || || Ah, but they have a nice photo of the vehicle speeding, they have the || registration number (albeit not on film), they can show that the || registration number matches the type of bike in the photograph and || they've got the word of the nice, upstanding, man operating the || camera van, so they've got a case. || || For reference here is the case of the biker who was done through || front-facing photo evidence (sorry about the source, for some reason || I couldn't find the story on BBC News) || http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-455259/V-whizz-The-105mph-biker-gave-finger-salutes-speed-cameras.html Sorry, I've misunderstood you. I thought you were claiming that the opinion of one police officer, without any means of checking and recording the speed, would be enough to secure a conviction for speeding - hence my reply. Obviously if they *do* manage to record you, then you can be done later on if identified, as was the case cited. -- Rob
From: AndrewR on 21 Sep 2008 12:23 "Rob" <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1tOdnY2fROYYzEvVnZ2dnUVZ8sDinZ2d(a)bt.com... > Sorry, I've misunderstood you. Now look - I've been using newsgroups since about '96 and this is simply *not* the way things are done. I say A, you say B - which is the opposite of A - and then we argue our corners over a 100+ post sub-thread, getting ever more esoteric, with fewer and fewer other contributors, until we both agree that Y isn't always the same as Z, although we disagree on whether it's ever X. Now do it properly or I'm taking my ball and going home!
From: Rob on 21 Sep 2008 14:17 AndrewR wrote: || "Rob" <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message || news:1tOdnY2fROYYzEvVnZ2dnUVZ8sDinZ2d(a)bt.com... || ||| Sorry, I've misunderstood you. || || Now look - I've been using newsgroups since about '96 and this is || simply *not* the way things are done. || || I say A, you say B - which is the opposite of A - and then we argue || our corners over a 100+ post sub-thread, getting ever more esoteric, || with fewer and fewer other contributors, until we both agree that Y || isn't always the same as Z, although we disagree on whether it's || ever X. || || Now do it properly or I'm taking my ball and going home! Noted :-) -- Rob
From: MrBitsy on 21 Sep 2008 16:58 "Graz" <graz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:48d4fc7a.28178718(a)news.motzarella.org... > On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:51:51 +0100, "Road_Hog" <nospam(a)nospam.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Graz" <graz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:48d3d630.45055640(a)news.motzarella.org... >>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:28:52 +0100, "M............" >>> <mmmmmmtheobvious(a)freedomnames.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>Following up to Adrian >>>> >>>>>> but not if its snowing, pouring, a bus load of kids are unloading, >>>>>> theres a queue to a boot fair in total confusion etc etc, hence its >>>>>> not >>>>>> a target but the maximum. >>>>> >>>>> No, it's a target - but with the caveat that conditions may dictate a >>>>> lower speed. >>>> >>>>given you are not supposed to drive beyond it but are encouraged to >>>>drive >>>>below it, "limit" is clearly the right word. Target would be better >>>>suited >>>>to a figure that you missed by equal amounts on either side. >>>> >>>>i would have thought etc..... >>> >>> See? Didn't I tell you the dickheads such as Adrain referred to >>> "speed targets"? >>> >> >>Go and talk to a traffic officer, one in his forties or older. One that >>was >>taught in the days before political correctness. Ask him to explain the >>meaning of "making progress". It is a term that has a specific meaning not >>just a generic term. Then when you know what you are talking about, come >>back and tell us what he said. > > I already know what making progress means. In a 30 zone it means > going at 40 or more. Try doing that during a driving test. Then, > when you have, come back and tell us what happened. <coughs, spills tea> -- MrBitsy Rover 75 CDTi
From: Ed Chilada on 21 Sep 2008 18:54
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:51:21 +0200 (CEST), Keith <keith(a)mailinator.com> wrote: >On 20 Sep 2008 at 13:38, Graz wrote: >> I already know what making progress means. In a 30 zone it means >> going at 40 or more. Try doing that during a driving test. Then, >> when you have, come back and tell us what happened. > >On *most* 30 roads it's safe to do 45+ at *most* times of the day. How do you know that, unequivocally? |