Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Can I find out the latitude and longitude of any fixed speed camera in UK?

25 views
Skip to first unread message

MM

unread,
May 16, 2013, 3:43:41 AM5/16/13
to
TomTom are asking for the information to correct a wrong speed
warning.

MM

Norman Wells

unread,
May 16, 2013, 3:56:23 AM5/16/13
to
MM wrote:
> TomTom are asking for the information to correct a wrong speed
> warning.

Is Google Earth broken?

Martin Brown

unread,
May 16, 2013, 4:01:52 AM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 08:43, MM wrote:
> TomTom are asking for the information to correct a wrong speed
> warning.

Find its location and read off the coordinates in Google street view?
(ie click the link to this location o-o icon)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Mrcheerful

unread,
May 16, 2013, 3:59:16 AM5/16/13
to
press the appropriate bit on your satnav when at the location (mine you
press the sat. info.icon), or just google it.


James P

unread,
May 16, 2013, 5:21:47 AM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 08:43, MM wrote:
The satnav will give you the coordinates. It's in the settings.

pull...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 16, 2013, 1:22:07 PM5/16/13
to
Will you make a difference anyway, I can't imagine you motoring much, you seem to spend all day here.

MM

unread,
May 16, 2013, 2:30:46 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:01:52 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 16/05/2013 08:43, MM wrote:
>> TomTom are asking for the information to correct a wrong speed
>> warning.
>
>Find its location and read off the coordinates in Google street view?
>(ie click the link to this location o-o icon)

I don't see any coordinates in Google street view.

What does "o-o icon" mean?

I see nothing that I can click on. All I see in the top left of the
screen is the name of the road, plus "Address is approximate".

MM

MM

unread,
May 16, 2013, 2:32:44 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:56:23 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
Dunno. I don't have it installed (it's a download, probably taking up
vast quantities of disk space).

I have Google Maps of course, but I don't see any coords shown on
them.

MM

MM

unread,
May 16, 2013, 2:33:49 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 10:21:47 +0100, James P <jimmy...@ornage.net>
wrote:
On a basic TomTom Start 20?

MM

MM

unread,
May 16, 2013, 2:36:33 PM5/16/13
to
It bugs me that this particular speed camera was changed from 40mph to
30mph in 2011, yet TomTom in all its crapiness has yet to implement
the revised speed limit in its updates. Makes me wonder how many other
speed cameras are wrong across the country.

In any case, one doesn't need to "motor much" to get blitzed. People
do it every day.

MM

Martin Brown

unread,
May 16, 2013, 4:18:39 PM5/16/13
to
On 16/05/2013 19:30, MM wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:01:52 +0100, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 16/05/2013 08:43, MM wrote:
>>> TomTom are asking for the information to correct a wrong speed
>>> warning.
>>
>> Find its location and read off the coordinates in Google street view?
>> (ie click the link to this location o-o icon)
>
> I don't see any coordinates in Google street view.
>
> What does "o-o icon" mean?

The frame at the left hand side of the screen icon that looks like a o-o
to the right of the printer icon and left of a "<|" icon.

Tabs for "Get Directions" and "My Places"
>
> I see nothing that I can click on. All I see in the top left of the
> screen is the name of the road, plus "Address is approximate".
>
> MM
>
The first two numbers in the link that it generates are the location of
the little man stood on the map. I haven't checked how exactly they
match with real GPS data but I expect they are the same.

Even easier and I didn't know this until just now:

Right click on a position on the map and select "Whats here?"

Longitude and Latitude appear in search box.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Alex Heney

unread,
May 16, 2013, 4:48:29 PM5/16/13
to
Click on the "maps labs" link in the left hand area. That gives you a
number of beta options to select, one of which shows the
Latitude/longitude when you right click on the location, and select
"Drop latlng marker"

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
My hat covers my head... Just like hair used to!
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

MM

unread,
May 17, 2013, 1:38:44 AM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:48:29 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:32:44 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:56:23 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>MM wrote:
>>>> TomTom are asking for the information to correct a wrong speed
>>>> warning.
>>>
>>>Is Google Earth broken?
>>
>>Dunno. I don't have it installed (it's a download, probably taking up
>>vast quantities of disk space).
>>
>>I have Google Maps of course, but I don't see any coords shown on
>>them.
>
>Click on the "maps labs" link in the left hand area. That gives you a
>number of beta options to select, one of which shows the
>Latitude/longitude when you right click on the location, and select
>"Drop latlng marker"

Ah, now that is extremely helpful! Thanks.

MM

MM

unread,
May 17, 2013, 1:39:59 AM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 21:18:39 +0100, Martin Brown
Yep. That also works.

MM

Rob

unread,
May 17, 2013, 6:30:19 AM5/17/13
to
Perhaps someone ought to help Tom Tom out until they get around to it by, I
dunno, maybe sticking up some big signs with numbers on.

--
Rob


Cynic

unread,
May 17, 2013, 8:21:42 AM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:36:33 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>It bugs me that this particular speed camera was changed from 40mph to
>30mph in 2011, yet TomTom in all its crapiness has yet to implement
>the revised speed limit in its updates. Makes me wonder how many other
>speed cameras are wrong across the country.

I wonder whether it would be good mitigation if a person caught
speeding were to state that he was misled about the speed limit by his
satnav?

It certainly ought to IMO.

--
Cynic

Mrcheerful

unread,
May 17, 2013, 8:50:34 AM5/17/13
to
Not under the present laws, it would indicate driving without due care and
attention at present.


Mrcheerful

unread,
May 17, 2013, 8:51:27 AM5/17/13
to
What? like speed limit signs? on poles and lamp posts? no, it will never
catch on.


Cynic

unread,
May 17, 2013, 10:17:41 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:50:34 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> I wonder whether it would be good mitigation if a person caught
>> speeding were to state that he was misled about the speed limit by his
>> satnav?

>> It certainly ought to IMO.

>Not under the present laws, it would indicate driving without due care and
>attention at present.

That's if you failed to notice any speed limit at all. But if you
have been presented with *misleading* information it is not quite the
same thing. note I am suggesting it would be mitigation, not that it
would amount to a defence.

--
Cynic

Mrcheerful

unread,
May 17, 2013, 2:16:20 PM5/17/13
to
It would open the floodgates to all sorts of rubbish mitigation efforts.
Observing speed limits is entirely down to the driver observing statutory
traffic signs , not some third party device or person.


MM

unread,
May 18, 2013, 3:59:00 AM5/18/13
to
It's that kind of attitude that has brought us to the brink of a
triple-dip recession.

MM

MM

unread,
May 18, 2013, 4:00:25 AM5/18/13
to
Of course it wouldn't!

>It certainly ought to IMO.

All speed cameras certainly ought to be scrapped IMO. Bring back the
traffic police.

MM

Norman Wells

unread,
May 18, 2013, 4:04:08 AM5/18/13
to
How much extra tax would you be prepared to pay to cover the cost of all
the necessary extra personnel?

AlanG

unread,
May 18, 2013, 4:39:18 AM5/18/13
to
I'm quite relaxed about speed cameras. I'd like them in my road. They
only operate when someone breaks the law.

It's surveillance cameras I'm against and those ANPR systems that log
'all' vehicles.

> Bring back the
>traffic police.
>
Only if they were properly trained to differentiate between dangerous
activity and non dangerous activity

MM

unread,
May 18, 2013, 9:46:49 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:04:08 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
None. I'll leave that up to you, who can afford it. I can't.

MM

Mrcheerful

unread,
May 18, 2013, 1:42:35 PM5/18/13
to
I always found traffic police to be very sensible, giving advice and a
warning rather than auto-prosecute.


Alex Heney

unread,
May 18, 2013, 4:16:47 PM5/18/13
to
Except that according to the latest figures, we didn't even have a
double-dip recession.

Quite apart from what looks like rather a "whoosh!!".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Programmers don't get sniffles, they get a CODE.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 18, 2013, 4:17:58 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:39:18 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
Even the worst trained traffic police are very much better at that
than speed cameras.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
In politics stupidity is not a handicap.

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 3:40:05 AM5/19/13
to
I've found them to be typical of most police. Arrogant arseholes

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 3:42:29 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:17:58 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
But speed cameras catch those breaking the law. Exceeding the speed
limit is not a subjective offence. That is the only offence they
police.

MM

unread,
May 19, 2013, 5:14:01 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:42:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Exactly. Traffic police officers can judge the road, traffic and
weather conditions at the instant the motorist offends. A stupid speed
camera cannot.

MM

Paul Cummins

unread,
May 19, 2013, 5:22:00 AM5/19/13
to
In article <5f0hp89dnr30r3s8j...@4ax.com>,
inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) wrote:

> But speed cameras catch those breaking the law.

No, speed cameras photograph those who are allegedly exceeding the posted
speed limit.

> Exceeding the speed limit is not a subjective offence.

But there are several defences available, not least of which being that
the limit has not been posted.

There have been numerous cases where the Camera has been set at the wrong
speed for the road as well.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

Paul Cummins

unread,
May 19, 2013, 5:22:00 AM5/19/13
to
In article <ebfep8parq08olehe...@4ax.com>,
inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) wrote:

> I'm quite relaxed about speed cameras. I'd like them in my road.
> They only operate when someone breaks the law.

Not true - see my later post.

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 6:19:01 AM5/19/13
to
a stupid speed camera will not penalise you unless you break a
specific law. It is designed to control only one law and does that
quite well. I'm all for more speed cameras and want them disguised so
motorists don't know if they dare risk breaking the law.

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 6:21:07 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:22 +0100 (BST),
Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <5f0hp89dnr30r3s8j...@4ax.com>,
>inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) wrote:
>
>> But speed cameras catch those breaking the law.
>
>No, speed cameras photograph those who are allegedly exceeding the posted
>speed limit.

Just as a police officer in a car would do with the car video camera

>
>> Exceeding the speed limit is not a subjective offence.
>
>But there are several defences available, not least of which being that
>the limit has not been posted.

Just as they can for a police stop
>
>There have been numerous cases where the Camera has been set at the wrong
>speed for the road as well.

Then there are grounds to deny the offence

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 6:22:54 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:22 +0100 (BST),
Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <ebfep8parq08olehe...@4ax.com>,
>inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) wrote:
>
>> I'm quite relaxed about speed cameras. I'd like them in my road.
>> They only operate when someone breaks the law.
>
>Not true - see my later post.

Okay then they only operate when the notorist exceeds the limit they
are set to

Rob

unread,
May 19, 2013, 7:30:36 AM5/19/13
to
Not true - reflections can trigger them.

--
Rob


Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 7:33:05 AM5/19/13
to
There's a road near here with a different sped limit on the road (painted) to the sign!

--
What does a Scotsman wear under his kilt?
Lipstick, if he's lucky.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 7:33:25 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:04:08 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

None, don't have either.

--
If breasts had no nipples, they'd be pointless.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 7:34:23 AM5/19/13
to
Of course it's subjective. Do you really think an 80 year old is as safe at the ame speed as a 40 year old?

--
People who live in glass houses should fuck in the basement.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 7:35:17 AM5/19/13
to
I've got let off with over half my speeding offences by being polite. A friend who is always arrogant to them gets nicked every single time.

--
Found in a fortune cookie:
"You are a poor, pathetic, gullible fool who seeks advice from bakery products."

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 7:35:49 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:19:01 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:14:01 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:42:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:00:25 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:21:42 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it wouldn't!
>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>> All speed cameras certainly ought to be scrapped IMO.
>>>>
>>>> I'm quite relaxed about speed cameras. I'd like them in my road. They
>>>> only operate when someone breaks the law.
>>>>
>>>> It's surveillance cameras I'm against and those ANPR systems that log
>>>> 'all' vehicles.
>>>>
>>>>> Bring back the
>>>>> traffic police.
>>>>>
>>>> Only if they were properly trained to differentiate between dangerous
>>>> activity and non dangerous activity
>>>
>>> I always found traffic police to be very sensible, giving advice and a
>>> warning rather than auto-prosecute.
>>
>> Exactly. Traffic police officers can judge the road, traffic and
>> weather conditions at the instant the motorist offends. A stupid speed
>> camera cannot.
>>
> a stupid speed camera will not penalise you unless you break a
> specific law. It is designed to control only one law and does that
> quite well. I'm all for more speed cameras and want them disguised so
> motorists don't know if they dare risk breaking the law.

The law is wrong. A road is not safe at one set sped. The camera does not monitor conditions.

--
Women are like small children. You bring a new one home and the ones already there resent it.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 7:36:41 AM5/19/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:43:41 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> TomTom are asking for the information to correct a wrong speed
> warning.

Don't bother. Tomtom only have about a quarter of the cameras in their database. Use pocketgpsworld. Only £19 a year and you get a free year if you ever spot one they don't have. Works with any satnav.

--
Yorkshire man takes his cat to the vet.
Yorkshireman: "Ayup, lad, I need to talk to thee about me cat."
Vet: "Is it a tom?"
Yorkshireman: "Nay, I've browt it wi' us."

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:06:57 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:35:17 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:
A good reason for speed cameras. Being polite to one doesn't work

> A friend who is always arrogant to them gets nicked every single time.

Then he should obey the law

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:08:21 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:35:49 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
the law is a compromise

> A road is not safe at one set sped. The camera does not monitor conditions.

Roads are not dangerous. Fuckwits who break speed limits are

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:09:41 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:34:23 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:
They are probably safer given the numbers of accidents 40 yr olds have

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:10:12 AM5/19/13
to
Then you can appeal

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:23:38 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:06:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:35:17 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:40:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:42:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:00:25 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>

>>

>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quite relaxed about speed cameras. I'd like them in my road. They
>>>>> only operate when someone breaks the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's surveillance cameras I'm against and those ANPR systems that log
>>>>> 'all' vehicles.
>>>>>

>>>>> Only if they were properly trained to differentiate between dangerous
>>>>> activity and non dangerous activity
>>>>
>>>> I always found traffic police to be very sensible, giving advice and a
>>>> warning rather than auto-prosecute.
>>>>
>>> I've found them to be typical of most police. Arrogant arseholes
>>
>> I've got let off with over half my speeding offences by being polite.
>
> A good reason for speed cameras. Being polite to one doesn't work

But you can set fire to the stupid things.

>> A friend who is always arrogant to them gets nicked every single time.
>
> Then he should obey the law

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

--
Football is a bunch of millionaires ruining a lawn -- Charlie Brooker

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:24:45 AM5/19/13
to
Between what and what?

>> A road is not safe at one set sped. The camera does not monitor conditions.
>
> Roads are not dangerous. Fuckwits who break speed limits are

Breaking the speed limit does not equal driving dangerously. You can drive dangerously at a slow speed or safely at a fast speed.

Following a numerical limit means you're either: 1) a robot, 2) you have OCD, or 3) you're severely retarded.

--
Hello: A shout to attract attention, first recorded 1588. Popularity as a greeting coincides with use of the telephone, where it won out over Alexander Graham Bell's suggestion, ahoy.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:25:02 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:09:41 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:34:23 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:42:29 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:17:58 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:39:18 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:00:25 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>

>>

>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quite relaxed about speed cameras. I'd like them in my road. They
>>>>> only operate when someone breaks the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's surveillance cameras I'm against and those ANPR systems that log
>>>>> 'all' vehicles.
>>>>>

>>>>> Only if they were properly trained to differentiate between dangerous
>>>>> activity and non dangerous activity
>>>>
>>>> Even the worst trained traffic police are very much better at that
>>>> than speed cameras.
>>>
>>> But speed cameras catch those breaking the law. Exceeding the speed
>>> limit is not a subjective offence. That is the only offence they
>>> police.
>>
>> Of course it's subjective. Do you really think an 80 year old is as safe at the ame speed as a 40 year old?
>
> They are probably safer given the numbers of accidents 40 yr olds have

You're forgetting 80 year olds drive less.

--
| , \
.-"""-. | | ;
/ `.___ |
| O .=-"`| ; |
/ .' |
_.'--._ ( | ; | \
.-" ; ``\ | ; |
.' ; | |
/ .' ; | | | :
/_/ __.' , ; |
.' / / | ; |
.' _..--' _/ |_..- ;
/_.--''` __.-'`\\__ .==="" \ .
/ .--'` \\__.'--))) `; |
/ .' .-'--))) . |
/ .' .' ` _.'
/_.' .` __..--""````""===="" | ;
// / /` | ; .

Paul Cummins

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:25:00 AM5/19/13
to
In article <n8ghp8188brsbe3f6...@4ax.com>,
inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) wrote:

>
> Then you can appeal

Unfortunately, the cameras don't understand English and won't accept
service.

Paul Cummins

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:32:00 AM5/19/13
to
In article <op.wxbzf...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
wrote:

> you have OCD

I don't have OCD - I'm just defragmenting the universe.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:39:21 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:32:00 +0100, Paul Cummins <Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <op.wxbzf...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
> wrote:
>
>> you have OCD
>
> I don't have OCD - I'm just defragmenting the universe.

[adds to sig collection]

--
"I am returning this otherwise good typing paper to you because someone has printed gibberish all over it and put your name at the top." -- English Professor, Ohio University

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:48:08 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:23:38 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:06:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 12:35:17 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:40:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:42:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> AlanG wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:00:25 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm quite relaxed about speed cameras. I'd like them in my road. They
>>>>>> only operate when someone breaks the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's surveillance cameras I'm against and those ANPR systems that log
>>>>>> 'all' vehicles.
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> Only if they were properly trained to differentiate between dangerous
>>>>>> activity and non dangerous activity
>>>>>
>>>>> I always found traffic police to be very sensible, giving advice and a
>>>>> warning rather than auto-prosecute.
>>>>>
>>>> I've found them to be typical of most police. Arrogant arseholes
>>>
>>> I've got let off with over half my speeding offences by being polite.
>>
>> A good reason for speed cameras. Being polite to one doesn't work
>
>But you can set fire to the stupid things.
>
>>> A friend who is always arrogant to them gets nicked every single time.
>>
>> Then he should obey the law
>
>Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

Then you should obey the rules

Paul Cummins

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:46:00 AM5/19/13
to
In article <op.wxbz3...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
wrote:

> > I don't have OCD - I'm just defragmenting the universe.
>
> [adds to sig collection]

Pleased to be of service :-)

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 8:53:49 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:25 +0100 (BST),
Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <n8ghp8188brsbe3f6...@4ax.com>,
>inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) wrote:
>
>>
>> Then you can appeal
>
>Unfortunately, the cameras don't understand English and won't accept
>service.

The cameras don't fine you

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 9:07:27 AM5/19/13
to
Shut up troll.

--
Keith was explaining to his sister how to jump start a car.
"I explained about which cables to hook up where and in what order.
She said, 'ok, I got all that, so now, which car do you start first?'"

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 9:08:13 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:46:00 +0100, Paul Cummins <Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <op.wxbz3...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
> wrote:
>
>> > I don't have OCD - I'm just defragmenting the universe.
>>
>> [adds to sig collection]
>
> Pleased to be of service :-)

I've never noticed a hard disk go faster with defragmentation, and I'm not so sure we want the universe to go faster.

Paul Cummins

unread,
May 19, 2013, 9:41:00 AM5/19/13
to
In article <eqihp814sfmqa12qp...@4ax.com>,
inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) wrote:

>
> The cameras don't fine you

If the camera has been wrongly triggered, there should be no fine.

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 10:06:56 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:41 +0100 (BST),
Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <eqihp814sfmqa12qp...@4ax.com>,
>inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) wrote:
>
>>
>> The cameras don't fine you
>
>If the camera has been wrongly triggered, there should be no fine.

Correct.
If you haven't been speeding when a cop pulls you over there should be
no fine either

pensive hamster

unread,
May 19, 2013, 10:09:20 AM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 1:24 pm, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
[...]
> >>  A road is not safe at one set sped.  The camera does not monitor conditions.
>
> > Roads are not dangerous. Fuckwits who break speed limits are
>
> Breaking the speed limit does not equal driving dangerously.  You can drive dangerously at a slow speed or safely at a fast speed.
>

That's what a recently elected Police Commissioner seem to think too:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313625/Police-commissioner-Stephen-Bett-says-drivers-able-flat-speed-limits-scrapped-motorways.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/bvm5g6k
23 April 2013

Let good drivers go as fast as they can and scrap speed limits on
motorways, says police tsar

PCC Stephen Bett said people should drive to road conditions
He said how fast people should be allowed to drive depended on the
driver
He said: 'If you've got a Formula One racing driver, well you can
go flat out'

A police and crime commissioner has apologised today after saying
speed limits on motorways and main roads should be scrapped and
skilled drivers allowed to drive as fast they like/

Stephen Bett, who is paid a salary of £70,000 as the independent PCC
for Norfolk, was criticised after saying: ‘We ought to drive to road
conditions rather than set limits.

‘The problem is there’s so many signs. You are driving along and you
get mesmerised by them and you get situations where you get a 50
[limit], to 40, to 30 and it goes to 20 and back up again.’

‘If we’re going to do something about speed and villages, we ought to
just take all the signs down and say all villages are 30mph, or
whatever it’s going to be, and you drive on roads – like they do in
Germany and Italy – as road conditions say.’
[...]
When asked at what speed a driver could safely travel on an open road
in the early morning, he said: ‘If you have got someone who’s a
Formula 1 racing driver, well, you can go flat out.

Rob

unread,
May 19, 2013, 10:13:34 AM5/19/13
to
Paul Cummins wrote:
|| In article <eqihp814sfmqa12qp...@4ax.com>,
|| inv...@invalid.co.uk (AlanG) wrote:
||
|||
||| The cameras don't fine you
||
|| If the camera has been wrongly triggered, there should be no fine.

If the photos were properly checked before NIPs were sent out, there
wouldn't be.

--
Rob


Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 10:29:18 AM5/19/13
to
A sensible policeman for once.

As Jeremy Clarkson once said, you should be watching the road, not the speed limit signs.

And due to every road being different - curves, density of traffic flow, rain, visibility, darkness, type of car you're driving, how skilled you are, etc, etc, etc, imposing a precise number on that road is absolutely stupid.

--
A guy says, "I remember the first time I used alcohol as a substitute for women."
"Yeah what happened?" asked the other.
The first guy replies, "Well, I got my penis stuck in the neck of the bottle."

pensive hamster

unread,
May 19, 2013, 10:46:52 AM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 3:29 pm, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
[...]
> As Jeremy Clarkson once said, you should be watching the road, not the speed limit signs.
>
> And due to every road being different - curves, density of traffic flow, rain, visibility, darkness, type of car you're driving, how skilled you are, etc, etc, etc, imposing a precise number on that road is absolutely stupid.
>

And drivers also vary quite a bit, in how skilled they actually are,
and in how realistic they are about their own driving skills, and how
good they are about assessing the road conditions and what might be a
safe speed in the prevailing conditions.

Most people seem to think they are above average drivers.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 19, 2013, 10:54:31 AM5/19/13
to
I don't know where that phrase comes from, as almost everyone I know admits they aren't perfect - and that they don't like (insert a particular type of junction or driving activity).

And all you have to do is look around you to see that half the drivers on the road never bother indicating.

--
A father buys a lie detector robot that slaps you when you lie.
He decides to test it out on his son at supper.
"Where were you last night?"
"I was at the library."
The robot slaps the son.
"Okay, I was at a friend's house," the son admits.
"Doing what?" asked the father.
"Watching a movie: Toy Story."
The robot slaps the son.
"Okay, it was porn!" cried the son.
Father yells "What? When I was your age I didn't know what porn was!"
The robot slaps the father.
The mother laughs and says, "He certainly is your son!"
The robot slaps the mother.

AlanG

unread,
May 19, 2013, 12:57:46 PM5/19/13
to
So not actually a camera fault

Cynic

unread,
May 20, 2013, 8:55:08 AM5/20/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:16:20 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
<g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> That's if you failed to notice any speed limit at all. But if you
>> have been presented with *misleading* information it is not quite the
>> same thing. note I am suggesting it would be mitigation, not that it
>> would amount to a defence.

>It would open the floodgates to all sorts of rubbish mitigation efforts.

Which are already regularly presented - and in many cases accepted by
the courts.

>Observing speed limits is entirely down to the driver observing statutory
>traffic signs , not some third party device or person.

There are several situations in which such observation is either not
possible or is severely hampered. The view of speed limit signs can
be, and very often is blocked by a high vehicle in the adjacent
lane(s), as just one example.

--
Cynic

Mrcheerful

unread,
May 21, 2013, 5:27:56 AM5/21/13
to
Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:16:20 +0100, Mrcheerful
> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Cynic wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:50:34 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I wonder whether it would be good mitigation if a person caught
>>>>> speeding were to state that he was misled about the speed limit by
>>>>> his satnav?
>>>
>>>>> It certainly ought to IMO.
>>>
>>>> Not under the present laws, it would indicate driving without due
>>>> care and attention at present.
>>>
>>> That's if you failed to notice any speed limit at all. But if you
>>> have been presented with *misleading* information it is not quite
>>> the same thing. note I am suggesting it would be mitigation, not
>>> that it would amount to a defence.
>>
>> It would open the floodgates to all sorts of rubbish mitigation
>> efforts. Observing speed limits is entirely down to the driver
>> observing statutory traffic signs , not some third party device or
>> person.
>
> There's a road near here with a different sped limit on the road
> (painted) to the sign!

I am fairly certain that speed limits painted on the road hold no legal
significance.


Mrcheerful

unread,
May 21, 2013, 5:29:00 AM5/21/13
to
AlanG wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:42:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> AlanG wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:00:25 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 12:21:42 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:36:33 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It bugs me that this particular speed camera was changed from
>>>>>> 40mph to 30mph in 2011, yet TomTom in all its crapiness has yet
>>>>>> to implement the revised speed limit in its updates. Makes me
>>>>>> wonder how many other speed cameras are wrong across the country.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder whether it would be good mitigation if a person caught
>>>>> speeding were to state that he was misled about the speed limit by
>>>>> his satnav?
>>>>
>>>> Of course it wouldn't!
>>>>
>>>>> It certainly ought to IMO.
>>>>
>>>> All speed cameras certainly ought to be scrapped IMO.
>>>
>>> I'm quite relaxed about speed cameras. I'd like them in my road.
>>> They only operate when someone breaks the law.
>>>
>>> It's surveillance cameras I'm against and those ANPR systems that
>>> log 'all' vehicles.
>>>
>>>> Bring back the
>>>> traffic police.
>>>>
>>> Only if they were properly trained to differentiate between
>>> dangerous activity and non dangerous activity
>>
>> I always found traffic police to be very sensible, giving advice and
>> a warning rather than auto-prosecute.
>>
> I've found them to be typical of most police. Arrogant arseholes

Perhaps it is your attitude that is the problem.


AlanG

unread,
May 21, 2013, 8:23:23 AM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:29:00 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
onsidering I don't speed. don't park unlawfully and obey all the rules
of use of the highway I believe arrogance of police is instilled in
training.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 21, 2013, 9:23:09 AM5/21/13
to
And I'm certain the sign wouldn't be enforceable with conflicting information.

--
Why do sailors have tattoos on their backs?
So their shipmates will have something to read.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 21, 2013, 4:12:32 PM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:23:09 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:
As quite often when you are "certain", you are simply wrong.

The ONLY signs which have any legal force are the signs with a red
circle and a black number on a white background (painted signs) or a
white number on a black background (signs in lights).

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The irony of life is that no one gets out alive...
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 21, 2013, 4:55:46 PM5/21/13
to
I can believe you must have those to enforce the limit. BUT, if you've been told the limit incorrectly elsewhere (as in the painted ones), I'm sure you'd get let off.

Damnit, they've now repainted them, is a pig reading this?

Does that rule still apply that you have to have 4 serious accidents in 3 years to set up a speed trap?

--
PNEUMONOULTRAMICROSCOPICSILICOVOLCANOCONIOSIS (45 letters, a lung disease caused by breathing in particles of siliceous volcanic dust) is the longest word in the English language, beating TETRAMETHYLDIAMINOBENZHYDRYLPHOSPHINOUS ACID, HEPATICOCHOLANGIOCHOLECYSTENTEROSTOMIES, FORMALDEHYDETETRAMETHYLAMIDOFLUORIMUM, and DIMETHYLAMIDOPHENYLDIMETHYLPYRAZOLONE.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 22, 2013, 4:07:12 PM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:55:46 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:12:32 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:23:09 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:27:56 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 May 2013 19:16:20 +0100, Mrcheerful
>>>>> <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Cynic wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would open the floodgates to all sorts of rubbish mitigation
>>>>>> efforts. Observing speed limits is entirely down to the driver
>>>>>> observing statutory traffic signs , not some third party device or
>>>>>> person.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a road near here with a different sped limit on the road
>>>>> (painted) to the sign!
>>>>
>>>> I am fairly certain that speed limits painted on the road hold no legal
>>>> significance.
>>>
>>> And I'm certain the sign wouldn't be enforceable with conflicting information.
>>
>> As quite often when you are "certain", you are simply wrong.
>>
>> The ONLY signs which have any legal force are the signs with a red
>> circle and a black number on a white background (painted signs) or a
>> white number on a black background (signs in lights).
>
>I can believe you must have those to enforce the limit. BUT, if you've been told the limit incorrectly elsewhere (as in the painted ones), I'm sure you'd get let off.
>

Try it if you like.

You won't.


>Damnit, they've now repainted them, is a pig reading this?
>
>Does that rule still apply that you have to have 4 serious accidents in 3 years to set up a speed trap?

It never did.

Those rules only ever applied when the camera was being set up by one
of the "safety camera partnerships". And even then, it wasn't number
of accidents, but number of people KSI.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Useless Invention: Caffeine-free Diet Coke.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 22, 2013, 4:23:07 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:12 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:55:46 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:12:32 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:23:09 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:27:56 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>>
>>>>> I am fairly certain that speed limits painted on the road hold no legal
>>>>> significance.
>>>>
>>>> And I'm certain the sign wouldn't be enforceable with conflicting information.
>>>
>>> As quite often when you are "certain", you are simply wrong.
>>>
>>> The ONLY signs which have any legal force are the signs with a red
>>> circle and a black number on a white background (painted signs) or a
>>> white number on a black background (signs in lights).
>>
>> I can believe you must have those to enforce the limit. BUT, if you've been told the limit incorrectly elsewhere (as in the painted ones), I'm sure you'd get let off.
>>
>
> Try it if you like.
>
> You won't.

They have given me incorrect information, I cannot be blamed. Are you trying to tell me we should ignore those painted signs? Then why are they there?

>> Damnit, they've now repainted them, is a pig reading this?
>>
>> Does that rule still apply that you have to have 4 serious accidents in 3 years to set up a speed trap?
>
> It never did.
>
> Those rules only ever applied when the camera was being set up by one
> of the "safety camera partnerships".

You misspelt "cash".

> And even then, it wasn't number of accidents, but number of people KSI.

That's why I said "serious".

--
A "Frisbeterian" believes that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it back down.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 23, 2013, 4:10:40 PM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:23:07 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:12 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:55:46 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:12:32 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:23:09 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 10:27:56 +0100, Mrcheerful <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am fairly certain that speed limits painted on the road hold no legal
>>>>>> significance.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm certain the sign wouldn't be enforceable with conflicting information.
>>>>
>>>> As quite often when you are "certain", you are simply wrong.
>>>>
>>>> The ONLY signs which have any legal force are the signs with a red
>>>> circle and a black number on a white background (painted signs) or a
>>>> white number on a black background (signs in lights).
>>>
>>> I can believe you must have those to enforce the limit. BUT, if you've been told the limit incorrectly elsewhere (as in the painted ones), I'm sure you'd get let off.
>>>
>>
>> Try it if you like.
>>
>> You won't.
>
>They have given me incorrect information, I cannot be blamed. Are you trying to tell me we should ignore those painted signs? Then why are they there?

As an additional warning/reminder.

They are of course, only of any use if they are correct, but being
incorrect will not get you off a speeding charge.


>
>>> Damnit, they've now repainted them, is a pig reading this?
>>>
>>> Does that rule still apply that you have to have 4 serious accidents in 3 years to set up a speed trap?
>>
>> It never did.
>>
>> Those rules only ever applied when the camera was being set up by one
>> of the "safety camera partnerships".
>
>You misspelt "cash".
>
>> And even then, it wasn't number of accidents, but number of people KSI.
>
>That's why I said "serious".

You misunderstand.

It could be ONE serious accident, if four people were killed or
seriously injured.

It isn't the number of accidents but number of people.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Murphy's law needs to be repealed.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 23, 2013, 5:05:21 PM5/23/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:10:40 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:23:07 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:12 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:55:46 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:12:32 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:23:09 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>
>>>>> As quite often when you are "certain", you are simply wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ONLY signs which have any legal force are the signs with a red
>>>>> circle and a black number on a white background (painted signs) or a
>>>>> white number on a black background (signs in lights).
>>>>
>>>> I can believe you must have those to enforce the limit. BUT, if you've been told the limit incorrectly elsewhere (as in the painted ones), I'm sure you'd get let off.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try it if you like.
>>>
>>> You won't.
>>
>> They have given me incorrect information, I cannot be blamed. Are you trying to tell me we should ignore those painted signs? Then why are they there?
>
> As an additional warning/reminder.
>
> They are of course, only of any use if they are correct, but being
> incorrect will not get you off a speeding charge.

That is absolutely absurd.

And I don't believe you anyway. There are many rules which must be adhered to so that the speed limit can be enforced - distance between repeater signs etc.

>>>> Damnit, they've now repainted them, is a pig reading this?
>>>>
>>>> Does that rule still apply that you have to have 4 serious accidents in 3 years to set up a speed trap?
>>>
>>> It never did.
>>>
>>> Those rules only ever applied when the camera was being set up by one
>>> of the "safety camera partnerships".
>>
>> You misspelt "cash".
>>
>>> And even then, it wasn't number of accidents, but number of people KSI.
>>
>> That's why I said "serious".
>
> You misunderstand.
>
> It could be ONE serious accident, if four people were killed or
> seriously injured.
>
> It isn't the number of accidents but number of people.

That's a stupid way of measuring it. If 4 accidents kill 1 person each, the road could be deemed dangerous. If one accident kills 4 people, it could well just have been a careless driver!

--
I went to San Francisco. I found someone's heart.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 27, 2013, 5:01:31 PM5/27/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:05:21 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:10:40 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:23:07 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:12 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:55:46 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 21:12:32 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:23:09 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As quite often when you are "certain", you are simply wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ONLY signs which have any legal force are the signs with a red
>>>>>> circle and a black number on a white background (painted signs) or a
>>>>>> white number on a black background (signs in lights).
>>>>>
>>>>> I can believe you must have those to enforce the limit. BUT, if you've been told the limit incorrectly elsewhere (as in the painted ones), I'm sure you'd get let off.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try it if you like.
>>>>
>>>> You won't.
>>>
>>> They have given me incorrect information, I cannot be blamed. Are you trying to tell me we should ignore those painted signs? Then why are they there?
>>
>> As an additional warning/reminder.
>>
>> They are of course, only of any use if they are correct, but being
>> incorrect will not get you off a speeding charge.
>
>That is absolutely absurd.
>
>And I don't believe you anyway.

Frankly, I don't care. I wouldn't expect you to believe anything you
don't want to be the case.


>There are many rules which must be adhered to so that the speed limit can be enforced - distance between repeater signs etc.
>

Wrong again, I'm afraid.

There are a few rules - but distance between repeaters is NOT one of
them.


>>>>> Damnit, they've now repainted them, is a pig reading this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that rule still apply that you have to have 4 serious accidents in 3 years to set up a speed trap?
>>>>
>>>> It never did.
>>>>
>>>> Those rules only ever applied when the camera was being set up by one
>>>> of the "safety camera partnerships".
>>>
>>> You misspelt "cash".
>>>
>>>> And even then, it wasn't number of accidents, but number of people KSI.
>>>
>>> That's why I said "serious".
>>
>> You misunderstand.
>>
>> It could be ONE serious accident, if four people were killed or
>> seriously injured.
>>
>> It isn't the number of accidents but number of people.
>
>That's a stupid way of measuring it. If 4 accidents kill 1 person each, the road could be deemed dangerous. If one accident kills 4 people, it could well just have been a careless driver!

I agree.

But that is the way it is worked - it gives the authorities more
flexibility, but for no good reason. I can see.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Going out of my mind, back in 5 minutes.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 28, 2013, 12:30:06 PM5/28/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:01:31 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:05:21 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:10:40 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:23:07 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:12 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Try it if you like.
>>>>>
>>>>> You won't.
>>>>
>>>> They have given me incorrect information, I cannot be blamed. Are you trying to tell me we should ignore those painted signs? Then why are they there?
>>>
>>> As an additional warning/reminder.
>>>
>>> They are of course, only of any use if they are correct, but being
>>> incorrect will not get you off a speeding charge.
>>
>> That is absolutely absurd.
>>
>> And I don't believe you anyway.
>
> Frankly, I don't care. I wouldn't expect you to believe anything you
> don't want to be the case.

What you';re saying doesn't make sense. An official sign painted on the road was incorrect, it's fair enough if people take it's word that it's right.

>> There are many rules which must be adhered to so that the speed limit can be enforced - distance between repeater signs etc.
>
> Wrong again, I'm afraid.
>
> There are a few rules - but distance between repeaters is NOT one of
> them.

Well a friend who's in the IAM (and is very pedantic and OCD) told me it was, and I don't believe he'd be wrong about something like that. Basically if you're in a speed limit and haven't been told so recently, it's accepted you might have forgotten what that limit is (since we have so many nowadays - whatever happened to 30 in a built up area and 60 in the countryside?)

--
Why do men find it difficult to make eye contact?
Breasts don't have eyes.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 28, 2013, 5:11:22 PM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:30:06 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:01:31 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:05:21 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:10:40 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:23:07 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:07:12 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Try it if you like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You won't.
>>>>>
>>>>> They have given me incorrect information, I cannot be blamed. Are you trying to tell me we should ignore those painted signs? Then why are they there?
>>>>
>>>> As an additional warning/reminder.
>>>>
>>>> They are of course, only of any use if they are correct, but being
>>>> incorrect will not get you off a speeding charge.
>>>
>>> That is absolutely absurd.
>>>
>>> And I don't believe you anyway.
>>
>> Frankly, I don't care. I wouldn't expect you to believe anything you
>> don't want to be the case.
>
>What you';re saying doesn't make sense. An official sign painted on the road was incorrect, it's fair enough if people take it's word that it's right.
>
>>> There are many rules which must be adhered to so that the speed limit can be enforced - distance between repeater signs etc.
>>
>> Wrong again, I'm afraid.
>>
>> There are a few rules - but distance between repeaters is NOT one of
>> them.
>
>Well a friend who's in the IAM (and is very pedantic and OCD) told me it was, and I don't believe he'd be wrong about something like that.

Well he is. Repeaters are required, but the distance between them is
not specified in legislation.

>Basically if you're in a speed limit and haven't been told so recently, it's accepted you might have forgotten what that limit is

This is the reason repeaters are required.

But there is NO specification of what the distance between them should
be. The law just says "at regular intervals".

>(since we have so many nowadays - whatever happened to 30 in a built up area and 60 in the countryside?)

Those are still the defaults.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
...I'm sorry, Reality is not in service at this time.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 28, 2013, 5:57:46 PM5/28/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 22:11:22 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:30:06 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:01:31 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:05:21 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 21:10:40 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2013 21:23:07 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>> As an additional warning/reminder.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are of course, only of any use if they are correct, but being
>>>>> incorrect will not get you off a speeding charge.
>>>>
>>>> That is absolutely absurd.
>>>>
>>>> And I don't believe you anyway.
>>>
>>> Frankly, I don't care. I wouldn't expect you to believe anything you
>>> don't want to be the case.
>>
>> What you';re saying doesn't make sense. An official sign painted on the road was incorrect, it's fair enough if people take it's word that it's right.
>>
>>>> There are many rules which must be adhered to so that the speed limit can be enforced - distance between repeater signs etc.
>>>
>>> Wrong again, I'm afraid.
>>>
>>> There are a few rules - but distance between repeaters is NOT one of
>>> them.
>>
>> Well a friend who's in the IAM (and is very pedantic and OCD) told me it was, and I don't believe he'd be wrong about something like that.
>
> Well he is. Repeaters are required, but the distance between them is
> not specified in legislation.

That contradicts itself. Say the length of the road was short, you wouldn't need a repeater. How long before you do? Well there's the distance.

>> Basically if you're in a speed limit and haven't been told so recently, it's accepted you might have forgotten what that limit is
>
> This is the reason repeaters are required.
>
> But there is NO specification of what the distance between them should
> be. The law just says "at regular intervals".

Unenforceable.

>> (since we have so many nowadays - whatever happened to 30 in a built up area and 60 in the countryside?)
>
> Those are still the defaults.

Which apply in about 20% of situations. Recently I drove past a policeman with a radar gun at 40 because I honestly thought it was a 40, when it was in fact 30. Just as well he was busy concentrating on someone else doing exactly the same thing. In that area there were quite a few villages on the road, randomly 30 and 40 limits.

--
I went to a drive-in movie in a taxi - it cost me 95 quid.

Paul Cummins

unread,
May 29, 2013, 4:42:00 AM5/29/13
to
In article <op.wxsys...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
wrote:

> Well a friend who's in the IAM (and is very pedantic and OCD) told
> me it was, and I don't believe he'd be wrong about something like
> that.

Distance is relevant. Section 85, RTRA 1984 implies that repeaters should
be no less than every 200 yards.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 29, 2013, 12:23:05 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 09:42:00 +0100, Paul Cummins <Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <op.wxsys...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
> wrote:
>
>> Well a friend who's in the IAM (and is very pedantic and OCD) told
>> me it was, and I don't believe he'd be wrong about something like
>> that.
>
> Distance is relevant. Section 85, RTRA 1984 implies that repeaters should
> be no less than every 200 yards.

So I was correct :-)


--
____
/\ \
/ \ \
/ \ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / \ \ \
/ / \ \ \
/ / / \ \ \
/ / / \ \ \
/ / /---------' \
/ / /_______________\
\ / /
\/_____________________/

Alex Heney

unread,
May 29, 2013, 4:11:57 PM5/29/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 22:57:46 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
No it doesn't.

>Say the length of the road was short, you wouldn't need a repeater. How long before you do? Well there's the distance.
>

There is no distance specified. It is left to the common sense of the
relevant authorities as to what the distance should be between signs.


>>> Basically if you're in a speed limit and haven't been told so recently, it's accepted you might have forgotten what that limit is
>>
>> This is the reason repeaters are required.
>>
>> But there is NO specification of what the distance between them should
>> be. The law just says "at regular intervals".
>
>Unenforceable.
>

So the highways agency or the local councils (whichever is responsible
for that road) can't be prosecuted.

OK.

The speed limit is enforceable though.

>>> (since we have so many nowadays - whatever happened to 30 in a built up area and 60 in the countryside?)
>>
>> Those are still the defaults.
>
>Which apply in about 20% of situations.

More like 95%.


> Recently I drove past a policeman with a radar gun at 40 because I honestly thought it was a 40, when it was in fact 30. Just as well he was busy concentrating on someone else doing exactly the same thing. In that area there were quite a few villages on the road, randomly 30 and 40 limits.

There are certainly a lot of variations, but I think you will still
find a *large* majority of rural roads have the default 60 limit.

And a majority, but not as large, of urban roads have the default 30
limit.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Oxymoron: Safe Sex.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 29, 2013, 4:35:08 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:11:57 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2013 22:57:46 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 22:11:22 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:30:06 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 22:01:31 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2013 22:05:21 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>

>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly, I don't care. I wouldn't expect you to believe anything you
>>>>> don't want to be the case.
>>>>
>>>> What you';re saying doesn't make sense. An official sign painted on the road was incorrect, it's fair enough if people take it's word that it's right.
>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again, I'm afraid.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a few rules - but distance between repeaters is NOT one of
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> Well a friend who's in the IAM (and is very pedantic and OCD) told me it was, and I don't believe he'd be wrong about something like that.
>>>
>>> Well he is. Repeaters are required, but the distance between them is
>>> not specified in legislation.
>>
>> That contradicts itself.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
>> Say the length of the road was short, you wouldn't need a repeater. How long before you do? Well there's the distance.
>>
>
> There is no distance specified. It is left to the common sense of the
> relevant authorities as to what the distance should be between signs.

An authority with common sense?!?

>>>> Basically if you're in a speed limit and haven't been told so recently, it's accepted you might have forgotten what that limit is
>>>
>>> This is the reason repeaters are required.
>>>
>>> But there is NO specification of what the distance between them should
>>> be. The law just says "at regular intervals".
>>
>> Unenforceable.
>>
>
> So the highways agency or the local councils (whichever is responsible
> for that road) can't be prosecuted.
>
> OK.
>
> The speed limit is enforceable though.

The defendant would simply argue in court that he wasn't reminded enough.

>>>> (since we have so many nowadays - whatever happened to 30 in a built up area and 60 in the countryside?)
>>>
>>> Those are still the defaults.
>>
>> Which apply in about 20% of situations.
>
> More like 95%.

As below, I'm never sure what bloody limit I'm in. In fact the village next to me has changed THREE times since I moved in in 2000.

>> Recently I drove past a policeman with a radar gun at 40 because I honestly thought it was a 40, when it was in fact 30. Just as well he was busy concentrating on someone else doing exactly the same thing. In that area there were quite a few villages on the road, randomly 30 and 40 limits.
>
> There are certainly a lot of variations, but I think you will still
> find a *large* majority of rural roads have the default 60 limit.
>
> And a majority, but not as large, of urban roads have the default 30
> limit.

If an MP lives there, it goes to 20.

--
You can listen to thunder after lightning to tell how close you came to getting hit. If you don't hear it never mind.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 29, 2013, 4:38:58 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 09:42 +0100 (BST),
Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <op.wxsys...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
>wrote:
>
>> Well a friend who's in the IAM (and is very pedantic and OCD) told
>> me it was, and I don't believe he'd be wrong about something like
>> that.
>
>Distance is relevant. Section 85, RTRA 1984 implies that repeaters should
>be no less than every 200 yards.

No it doesn't.

There is nothing whatsoever in that section which says how far apart
repeaters should be.

The fact they are required on streets which don't have lighting at
200m intervals but have a 30 limit does NOT imply that the signs are
required as often as the lamp posts would be.

And I am pretty sure I have never seen a section of speed limit with
them anywhere *near* that close together.

When there are lamp posts (and the limit is NOT 30), it is common to
have them on every 3rd or 4th lamp post. When there are no lamp posts,
and the limit is not 60, they tend to be further apart than that even,
you quite frequently can't see the next repeater at any given time.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 29, 2013, 4:40:24 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 17:23:05 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 29 May 2013 09:42:00 +0100, Paul Cummins <Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <op.wxsys...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well a friend who's in the IAM (and is very pedantic and OCD) told
>>> me it was, and I don't believe he'd be wrong about something like
>>> that.
>>
>> Distance is relevant. Section 85, RTRA 1984 implies that repeaters should
>> be no less than every 200 yards.
>
>So I was correct :-)

No you weren't.

Paul is making a statement with no basis whatsoever in fact.


There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in that section which states or
implies any specific distance requirement for repeater signs.

In fact repeaters aren't even mentioned, never mind any distances.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If only women came with pulldown menus and online help.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 29, 2013, 4:43:43 PM5/29/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:38:58 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 May 2013 09:42 +0100 (BST),
> Harveste...@gstgroup.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
>> In article <op.wxsys...@red.lan>, n...@spam.com (Gefreiter Krueger)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well a friend who's in the IAM (and is very pedantic and OCD) told
>>> me it was, and I don't believe he'd be wrong about something like
>>> that.
>>
>> Distance is relevant. Section 85, RTRA 1984 implies that repeaters should
>> be no less than every 200 yards.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> There is nothing whatsoever in that section which says how far apart
> repeaters should be.
>
> The fact they are required on streets which don't have lighting at
> 200m intervals but have a 30 limit does NOT imply that the signs are
> required as often as the lamp posts would be.
>
> And I am pretty sure I have never seen a section of speed limit with
> them anywhere *near* that close together.
>
> When there are lamp posts (and the limit is NOT 30), it is common to
> have them on every 3rd or 4th lamp post. When there are no lamp posts,
> and the limit is not 60, they tend to be further apart than that even,
> you quite frequently can't see the next repeater at any given time.

There's a recommendation here. The site suggests if they were much more than listed then the court could let you off.

http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_limit_signs.htm#repeaters

--
Why do tourists go to the top of tall buildings and then put money in telescopes so they can see things on the ground in close-up?

Alex Heney

unread,
May 30, 2013, 4:12:02 PM5/30/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:35:08 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
And he would lose.


--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Interchangeable parts won't.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 30, 2013, 4:21:59 PM5/30/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:43:43 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
As that page says itself, that is guidance. It has no force in law.

It is likely the court might be lenient if the spacing were
*significantly* more than the guidance, but I wouldn't like to rely on
it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Reality seems to be a constant intrusion on my dreams!

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 30, 2013, 7:39:19 PM5/30/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 21:12:02 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:35:08 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:11:57 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 22:57:46 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 22:11:22 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:30:06 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>
>>>>
>>

>>

>>>>>
>>>>> Well he is. Repeaters are required, but the distance between them is
>>>>> not specified in legislation.
>>>>
>>>> That contradicts itself.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.
>>>
>>>> Say the length of the road was short, you wouldn't need a repeater. How long before you do? Well there's the distance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no distance specified. It is left to the common sense of the
>>> relevant authorities as to what the distance should be between signs.
>>
>> An authority with common sense?!?
>>

>>>>>
>>>>> This is the reason repeaters are required.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is NO specification of what the distance between them should
>>>>> be. The law just says "at regular intervals".
>>>>
>>>> Unenforceable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the highways agency or the local councils (whichever is responsible
>>> for that road) can't be prosecuted.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>> The speed limit is enforceable though.
>>
>> The defendant would simply argue in court that he wasn't reminded enough.
>>
>
> And he would lose.

Depends how few reminders there were. I'm pretty sure you'd get away with it if you hadn't been told for a couple of miles.

--
Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 30, 2013, 7:39:52 PM5/30/13
to
I prefer to rely on my GPS. Although I'd try it on if I thought there were inadequate signage.

--
After pleading no contest to burglarizing Britney Spears's home, four men received three years of probation.
All they had to do was sign an agreement not to reveal what they stole from the house or how many batteries it took.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 31, 2013, 3:39:45 PM5/31/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:39:19 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
Yes, if they were *that* far apart, you probably would.

Although there would still be no guarantee of it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
When I was a kid, I was an imaginary playmate.

Gefreiter Krueger

unread,
May 31, 2013, 3:50:34 PM5/31/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 20:39:45 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 31 May 2013 00:39:19 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 21:12:02 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:35:08 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 21:11:57 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2013 22:57:46 +0100, "Gefreiter Krueger" <n...@spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't.
>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>> There is no distance specified. It is left to the common sense of the
>>>>> relevant authorities as to what the distance should be between signs.
>>>>
>>>> An authority with common sense?!?
>>>>
>>

>>>>>
>>>>> So the highways agency or the local councils (whichever is responsible
>>>>> for that road) can't be prosecuted.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> The speed limit is enforceable though.
>>>>
>>>> The defendant would simply argue in court that he wasn't reminded enough.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And he would lose.
>>
>> Depends how few reminders there were. I'm pretty sure you'd get away with it if you hadn't been told for a couple of miles.
>
> Yes, if they were *that* far apart, you probably would.
>
> Although there would still be no guarantee of it.

It all depends on how much of an arsehole the judge is.

--
Seen in a health food store:
Shoplifters will be beaten over the head with an organic carrot.
0 new messages