Sparrows are a protected species

[swldx...@gmail.com]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4674924/Grandfather-erects-bird-box-shape-speed-camera.html

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 21:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4674924/Grandfather-erects-bird-box-shape-speed-camera.html

That's rather nicely done.

[Bret Cahill]

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4674924/Grandfather-erects-bird-box-shape-speed-camera.html

Sometimes you need to _force_ an issue. He's done everything exactly right.


Bret Cahill

[swldx...@gmail.com]

Except the sparrows are NOT actually endangered!

[Kerr Mudd-John]

Here's an earlier version:
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2017-04-06/speed-camera-bird-box-fooling-motorists-in-swansea/


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Christie]

I like this earlier version better. Even if it did confuse you from a
distance surely you wouldn't like to admit that to anyone having got a
little closer to it.

Only a speed merchant could be anything like pissed off by it enough
to complain of its existence.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Get a life, you sad little fuck all.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4674924/Grandfather-erects-bird-box-shape-speed-camera.html

> > Sometimes you need to _force_ an issue. He's done everything exactly right.

> Here's an earlier version:
> http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2017-04-06/speed-camera-bird-box-fooling-motorists-in-swansea/

In many stores esp. in U. S. airports they have life size card board cut outs of guys that look like federal agents. Everyone knows it's a cardboard cutout but just reminding people that someone could be watching reduces theft.

The bird box is at least as transparent and honest in that it's only deceptive to those who are driving too fast. If you are a good alert driver going the speed limit then you can read the sign.

I would not mount a big crusade to keep anyone, even the state, from doing this.


Bret Cahill

[TMS320]

On 10/07/17 06:11, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4674924/Grandfather-erects-bird-box-shape-speed-camera.html
>
>>>>
>>> Sometimes you need to _force_ an issue. He's done everything
>>> exactly right.
>
>> Here's an earlier version:
>> http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2017-04-06/speed-camera-bird-box-fooling-motorists-in-swansea/
>
>>
> In many stores esp. in U. S. airports they have life size card board
> cut outs of guys that look like federal agents. Everyone knows it's
> a cardboard cutout but just reminding people that someone could be
> watching reduces theft.
>
> The bird box is at least as transparent and honest in that it's only
> deceptive to those who are driving too fast. If you are a good alert
> driver going the speed limit then you can read the sign.

It isn't just speed merchants. It is about all the not particularly
alert drivers going "just over" the limit that has caused all the hoo
haa about the "unfairness" of cameras.

Since the typical tolerance is 10% + 2mph and that speedometers over
read it means that when going "just over" a 30mph limit their needle
will be pointing to 40mph or more. That is an example of the level of
alertness required of drivers.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

Get your own life, you great big bigot.

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 20:39:34 +0100
"Kerr Mudd-John" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> Here's an earlier version:
> http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2017-04-06/speed-camera-bird-box-fooling-motorists-in-swansea/
>
>

He said: "You think it's a camera and you naturally put your foot down
on the brakes. But when you get closer you can clearly see it's fake."

Why would you brake? Surely you're not routinely exceeding the speed
limit?

[MrCheerful]

many people, even those travelling significantly below the limit, often
DO put the brakes on at a speed camera, out of some sort of habit. This
has become less frequent since the widespread adoption of spped limit
warnings in GPS navigation units, which are now very mainstream.

[JNugent]

On 11/07/2017 15:54, Rob Morley wrote:

One might well brake in order to be well under the speed limit for peace
of mind.

I remember my car being flashed at about 29mph in a 30mph limit in
Brighton (Preston Park on the A23, heading north out of the town).

Of course, nothing further happened, but it is completely irresponsible
of the relevant authorities to maintain a situation which can cause
unnecessary and even abusive anxiety to people who have done nothing wrong.

What if a notice had come though the door insisting that I was doing
38mph? There may well be ways to fight it, but why get into that sort of
hassle? Much easier to brake.

[JNugent]

You do not need to be doing [(30mph x 1.1) + 2] mph in order for a
camera to flash.

[TMS320]

I am sure I didn't mention a flash. Looking back at my last post... Yep,
nothing about that.

FYI, the camera (hence the flash) is triggered by radar. I understand
that enforcement is done by comparing two photos taken with an
accurately defined interval, not the fact that the radar triggered the
camera.

That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted with
flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered, should they do
that.

[JNugent]

Did you need to?

They do work by flashing.

Have you never seen one go off? It's a regular sight on the M25 in the
controlled areas. And on the A23 at Brighton. I've even seen a
forward-facing Truvelo flash when I was travelling towards it (not that
it did the Swiss authorities any good, since the motorbike that
triggered it on N2 at Lucerne didn't have a forward-facing numbr-plate).

> FYI, the camera (hence the flash) is triggered by radar. I understand
> that enforcement is done by comparing two photos taken with an
> accurately defined interval, not the fact that the radar triggered the
> camera.

Yes... yes... is there anything else, of which we are not all already
aware, by any chance?

> That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted with
> flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered, should they do
> that.

Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable on
your planet, is it?

Well, OK... I wonder what you'd say if more pedestriuans started
carrying sledge hammers and similar implements.

[TMS320]

No. So why did you?

> They do work by flashing.
>
> Have you never seen one go off? It's a regular sight on the M25 in the
> controlled areas. And on the A23 at Brighton. I've even seen a
> forward-facing Truvelo flash when I was travelling towards it (not that
> it did the Swiss authorities any good, since the motorbike that
> triggered it on N2 at Lucerne didn't have a forward-facing numbr-plate).
>
>> FYI, the camera (hence the flash) is triggered by radar. I understand
>> that enforcement is done by comparing two photos taken with an
>> accurately defined interval, not the fact that the radar triggered the
>> camera.
>
> Yes... yes... is there anything else, of which we are not all already
> aware, by any chance?

Replying to my post proves you have no clue about the workings.

>> That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted with
>> flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered, should they
>> do that.
>
> Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable on
> your planet, is it?

Getting people to think about their behaviour on the roads is a very
good idea.

> Well, OK... I wonder what you'd say if more pedestriuans started
> carrying sledge hammers and similar implements.

Eh?

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:03:54 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
[]

>
> Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable on
> your planet, is it?

I prefer to see it as causing people to be careful to obey the law. YMMV.

> Well, OK... I wonder what you'd say if more pedestriuans started
> carrying sledge hammers and similar implements.
>

Non-seq

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:03:54 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?

On my planet it is perfectly acceptable (to me at least) to cause no
anxiety to people obeying the law while causing all sorts of negative
emotions in those that are disregarding it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent]

On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:

>>> That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
>>> with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
>>> should they do that.

>> Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
>> on your planet, is it?

> What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?

That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised by a
suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what the
local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image, especially in
an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined to do as much
harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.

Try to imagine trying to defend yourself in court when faced by a
po-faced apparatchik who insists that the details within the image
"prove" that your vehicle was doing 29mph (or some simnilar speed), with
the bench (some of whose members may be local councillors) siding with
the bureaucracy as a matter of misplaced principle.

The answer is to adjust the cameras so that they may not "flash" unless
the speed limit had been breached (and by more than the locally-decided
tolerance level at that).

> On my planet it is perfectly acceptable (to me at least) to cause no
> anxiety to people obeying the law while causing all sorts of negative
> emotions in those that are disregarding it.

At a guess, your vehicle has never been "flashed" by a malfunctioning
Gatso whilst you were proceeding lawfully, so you have never had to
spend the next two weeks or so wondering whether the loonies in charge
of the place are going to try to fleece you out of money and get your
licence endorsed.

[JNugent]

ERRATUM:

The paragraph which starts "Try to imagine" contains a typo and should
have read:

"...a po-faced apparatchik who insists that the details within the image
"prove" that your vehicle was doing 39mph (or some simnilar speed)...".

[TMS320]

On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
> On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
>> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:
>
>>>> That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
>>>> with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
>>>> should they do that.
>
>>> Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
>>> on your planet, is it?
>
>> What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?
>
> That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.
>
> It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.
>
> A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
> travelling within the 30mph speed limit.
>
> Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised by a
> suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what the
> local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image, especially in
> an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined to do as much
> harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.

You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.

[JNugent]

Please explain what purpose there can possibly be in the Gatso flashing
a vehicle which is not being driven in excess of the speed limit (if you
can, which you can't).

[TMS320]

Nothing was said about the person(s) involved being below the posted
limit. Trigger (radar) sensitivity and enforcement threshold are not the
same thing just as they are not the same as the posted limit. The matter
at the top was about the possibility of reducing the trigger point when
the camera is taken out of the box. You would do yourself a lot of
favours if you made a better effort with your reading and comprehension
ability.

Even when a camera is active, if the authorities desire to catch on
film, say 95% (*), of drivers exceeding 36mph, it must result in 5% of
drivers doing less than 36mph getting flashed. If the human at the far
end is having a bad day, some of them get a letter. So what? They're
still breaking the law.

(*) 95% is just a suggestion, it could be 99% or 90% but I have no idea
of the true figure. If the spread is too wide and falses too often the
camera will run out of film more quickly.

[JNugent]

Er... yes, it was.

It is the central point.

See the bit above where it says: "...you drive along a road at 29 or

30mph. A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you
are travelling within the 30mph speed limit".

> Trigger (radar) sensitivity and enforcement threshold are not the
> same thing just as they are not the same as the posted limit. The matter
> at the top was about the possibility of reducing the trigger point when
> the camera is taken out of the box. You would do yourself a lot of
> favours if you made a better effort with your reading and comprehension
> ability.

The failure to comprehend is all yours.

Someone wrote:

"I have seen boxes fitted with flash but no camera. No harm if the

threshold is lowered...".

I then explained the harm which is done when a speed camera is triggered
(and flashes) by a vehicle driven at the speed limit or less.

> Even when a camera is active, if the authorities desire to catch on
> film, say 95% (*), of drivers exceeding 36mph, it must result in 5% of
> drivers doing less than 36mph getting flashed. If the human at the far
> end is having a bad day, some of them get a letter. So what? They're
> still breaking the law.

You seem to have a screw loose about that, even though it is 100% not
the subject under discussion. Both I, and the poster who wrote "I have

seen boxes fitted with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is

lowered...", were talking about vehicles being flashed at less than the
limit. It happens.

> (*) 95% is just a suggestion, it could be 99% or 90% but I have no idea
> of the true figure. If the spread is too wide and falses too often the
> camera will run out of film more quickly.

I think you're probably right to a limited extent, in that you have no idea.

[TMS320]

Your words only. After your failed comprehension of anything that went
before.