storing drivers movements
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: JNugent on 6 Apr 2010 11:59 Brimstone wrote: > > > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message > news:fbydnRHQCL0yyCbWnZ2dnUVZ7rOdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> Brimstone wrote: >> >>> "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> Ret. wrote: >> >>>>> I'm not sure that it is wise to look to America for examples of >>>>> excellence in policing... >>>>> There are significant drawbacks to the system of course. If a >>>>> police chief wants to be re-elected, then he will have to give the >>>>> public what they want in terms of policing. Having attended many >>>>> police/public forums over the years, and listened to the demands of >>>>> the public, you can expect big campaigns against speeders, >>>>> litterers, pavement cyclists, and dog owners who allow their pets >>>>> to foul the footpaths... >> >>>> What's wrong with that (assuming you mean speeding in residential >>>> side streets and other heavily-used pedestrian routes)? >>>> Is it beneath the dignity of the police force to serve the public? >> >>> People tend to concentrate on matters which affect them, so things >>> like burglary, fraud and other crimes which apparently only affect >>> other people or companies and organisations are not considered. >> I don't think so. I'm sure that burglary would be on the list that Kev >> mentioned. > I can't see it. I'm sure it was not meant to be an exhaustive list. >> Not so sure whether fraud would be - but then, the police don't do >> much to combat fraud in any case. That is left to other agencies for >> the most part. > > Never heard of the Fraud Squad? (Although I think it enjoys a different > title these days.) That's the "not much". I didn't say the police do nothing to combat fraud. >> Wanting the police to pay attention to the things which cause daily >> loss of quality of life (and which can cause misery if left unchecked) >> seems very reasonable to me. That woman who burned herself and her >> disabled teenage daugfhter to death in a car might have taken a >> similar view. > I think we might be at slightly cross purposes. I wasn't suggesting that > such matter should not be dealt with, I'm all in favour of dealing with > the yobs in a manner befitting their crimes, ASBOs are not high on my > list of suitable punishments, in fact they don't even feature. If they > want to make life unpleasant for everyone else then life should be made > very unpleasant for them. > However, if only the crimes that affect most people were dealt with then > other matters would not get the attention needed. No-one said "only". The word was "priority".
From: Adrian on 7 Apr 2010 05:18 boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Well unfortunately the restriction wasn't clearly posted - i assumed it > was for the main carraigeway ahead, not the slip road So it WAS clearly posted - and you saw it - you just didn't think that the speed limit sign actually meant it... > and I was slowing down from 70 so its not like I floored it as soon as > I got onto it Uh-huh. So, where a limit goes from NSL to 30, it's OK so long as you're slowing from 60 or 70 once you're inside the 30?
From: boltar2003 on 7 Apr 2010 05:33 On 7 Apr 2010 09:18:30 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: Oh here we go again, its Mr I-Can't-Drive trying to lecture someone on how to drive. >So it WAS clearly posted - and you saw it - you just didn't think that >the speed limit sign actually meant it... When a sign is right at the start of the slip road what would you think it applied to? The slip road or the motorway? >So, where a limit goes from NSL to 30, it's OK so long as you're slowing >from 60 or 70 once you're inside the 30? Actually Mr I've-Failed-My-Test (and no bloody wonder) the speed limit on sliproads is the same as the motorway. B2003
From: Adrian on 7 Apr 2010 05:45 boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Oh here we go again, its Mr I-Can't-Drive trying to lecture someone on > how to drive. Riiiight. So because I don't agree with you, I "can't drive". Gotcha. >>So it WAS clearly posted - and you saw it - you just didn't think that >>the speed limit sign actually meant it... > When a sign is right at the start of the slip road what would you think > it applied to? The slip road or the motorway? I'd think it applied FROM THE SIGN. Just like EVERY OTHER speed limit sign. >>So, where a limit goes from NSL to 30, it's OK so long as you're slowing >>from 60 or 70 once you're inside the 30? > Actually Mr I've-Failed-My-Test (and no bloody wonder) the speed limit > on sliproads is the same as the motorway. Yes, dear. It is. That's kinda the point you missed.
From: Adrian on 7 Apr 2010 09:21
boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > The police's job (which they seem to fail to do) is to be out catching > criminals. Define "criminals". Most people would suggest that "people who break the law" was a reasonable definition of "criminals". > Not potentially threatening peoples jobs and livelyhoods by catching > them doing a few mph over the limit by mistake. It's "by mistake" now, is it? A minute ago it was because you didn't think it applied until you got to the m'way itself. B'sides, are you really admitting to DWDC&A? Oh - and if they were in a van, they almost certainly weren't police, but from the local "Safety Partnership". They were out "catching proper criminals". Admit it - you knew you were breaking the limit, and you got nicked because you were complacent. Cough up, pay the ticket, and smile internally at all the times you've got away with it (and far more than 8mph over). |