The rogue drivers making a mockery of speed cameras

[Ronald Tompkins]

A third are never caught!!
I don't know if there have been any inroads(no pun intended) into
catching these rogues since 2007.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449476/The-rogue-drivers-making-mockery-speed-cameras.html

[Doug]

On Feb 15, 9:05 pm, Ronald Tompkins <bod...@yahooo.com> wrote:
> A third are never caught!!
> I don't know if there have been any inroads(no pun intended) into
> catching these rogues since 2007.
>

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449476/The-rogue-drivers-maki...
>
"...Research for the BBC Radio Four programme The Investigation showed
around half a million drivers are caught speeding in the capital each
year. But a third cannot be traced, because they are not registered or
are foreign vehicles, while some escape because of technical faults or
because they are emergency vehicles.

Of the 350,000 who are sent a "notice of intent to prosecute" only 48
per cent end up getting points on their licence and a fine, the BBC
said..."

This is probably more than cyclists on pavements in London.

-- .
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

[Norman Wells]

Doug wrote:

> Of the 350,000 who are sent a "notice of intent to prosecute" only 48
> per cent end up getting points on their licence and a fine, the BBC
> said..."
>
> This is probably more than cyclists on pavements in London.

It certainly is. Cyclists never seem to be prosecuted for their traffic
offences.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Yup. The ones who pay their way - motorists - are more equal.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[johannes]

Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>
> On 16/02/2012 06:10, Doug wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 9:05 pm, Ronald Tompkins<bod...@yahooo.com> wrote:
> >> A third are never caught!!
> >> I don't know if there have been any inroads(no pun intended) into
> >> catching these rogues since 2007.
> >>
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449476/The-rogue-drivers-maki...
> >>
> > "...Research for the BBC Radio Four programme The Investigation showed
> > around half a million drivers are caught speeding in the capital each
> > year. But a third cannot be traced, because they are not registered or
> > are foreign vehicles, while some escape because of technical faults or
> > because they are emergency vehicles.
> >
> > Of the 350,000 who are sent a "notice of intent to prosecute" only 48
> > per cent end up getting points on their licence and a fine, the BBC
> > said..."
> >
> > This is probably more than cyclists on pavements in London.
> >
> > -- .
> > All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
> Yup. The ones who pay their way - motorists - are more equal.

So what if you are motorist - and pay your way - but also a cyclists at times?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

You are a sponging freeloader when you cycle. Simple.

[JNugent]

On 16/02/2012 06:10, Doug wrote:

You are right, since nothing remotely like 48% of law-breaking London
cyclists are caught and punished.

If we could get it up as high as 48%, that would be progress, as I'm sure
you'll agree.

[JNugent]

On 16/02/2012 19:27, johannes wrote:
>
>

Then you pay your way whilst driving, but not whilst cycling. The payment
whilst driving does not matter.

None of this is novel. You can't be paying your way by paying nowt.

[johannes]

Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>
> On 16/02/2012 19:27, johannes wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16/02/2012 06:10, Doug wrote:
> >>> On Feb 15, 9:05 pm, Ronald Tompkins<bod...@yahooo.com> wrote:
> >>>> A third are never caught!!
> >>>> I don't know if there have been any inroads(no pun intended) into
> >>>> catching these rogues since 2007.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449476/The-rogue-drivers-maki...
> >>>>
> >>> "...Research for the BBC Radio Four programme The Investigation showed
> >>> around half a million drivers are caught speeding in the capital each
> >>> year. But a third cannot be traced, because they are not registered or
> >>> are foreign vehicles, while some escape because of technical faults or
> >>> because they are emergency vehicles.
> >>>
> >>> Of the 350,000 who are sent a "notice of intent to prosecute" only 48
> >>> per cent end up getting points on their licence and a fine, the BBC
> >>> said..."
> >>>
> >>> This is probably more than cyclists on pavements in London.
> >>>
> >>> -- .
> >>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
> >> Yup. The ones who pay their way - motorists - are more equal.
> >
> > So what if you are motorist - and pay your way - but also a cyclists at times?
>
> You are a sponging freeloader when you cycle. Simple.

I disagree with aggressive cyclists, such as e.g. critical mass. But when I was
in Denmark, it was just a natural means of transport. There are many cycle routes,
and dedicated cycle lanes. Not just lanes delimited by lines of paint. Everybody
respect each other and obey the traffic rules.

[johannes]

Ok then, I will drive where ever I go. We need more drive-in cinemas, burger bars,
pubs, post-offices, lavatories, you name it.

[JNugent]

Travel as you wish.

I don't say that you should not cycle.

I merely point out that it does not, by any stretch of the wildest
imagination (and there are few of them around here), involve payment of
anything, least of all your way.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 16/02/2012 19:50, johannes wrote:

> Ok then, I will drive where ever I go. We need more drive-in cinemas, burger bars,
> pubs, post-offices, lavatories, you name it.

You could cycle where ever you go. We need more cycle-in cinemas, burger

bars,
pubs, post-offices, lavatories, you name it.

[JNugent]

On 16/02/2012 21:44, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> On 16/02/2012 19:50, johannes wrote:
>> Ok then, I will drive where ever I go. We need more drive-in cinemas,
>> burger bars,
>> pubs, post-offices, lavatories, you name it.
>
>
> You could cycle where ever you go. We need more cycle-in cinemas, burger bars,

> pubs, post-offices, lavatories, you name it...

...supermarkets... railway platforms...

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:44:51 +0000
johannes <jo...@sizefit44274224242ter.com> wrote:
>I disagree with aggressive cyclists, such as e.g. critical mass. But when I was
>in Denmark, it was just a natural means of transport. There are many cycle
>routes,
>and dedicated cycle lanes. Not just lanes delimited by lines of paint.
>Everybody
>respect each other and obey the traffic rules.

Why when people need to use examples of other places where people cycle a
lot do they always bring up quite little backwaters like holland or denmark?
No offence , but amsterdam or copenhagen are not on the same scale and don't
have anything like the same traffic as London. When cycling becomes big in
paris or berlin or rome then maybe london should take a good look at itself
but in the meantime stop comparing apples with oranges.

B2003

[Andy Leighton]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:39:59 +0000 (UTC),
bolta...@boltar.world <bolta...@boltar.world> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:44:51 +0000
> johannes <jo...@sizefit44274224242ter.com> wrote:
>>I disagree with aggressive cyclists, such as e.g. critical mass. But when I was
>>in Denmark, it was just a natural means of transport. There are many cycle
>>routes,
>>and dedicated cycle lanes. Not just lanes delimited by lines of paint.
>>Everybody
>>respect each other and obey the traffic rules.
>
> Why when people need to use examples of other places where people cycle a
> lot do they always bring up quite little backwaters like holland or denmark?
> No offence , but amsterdam or copenhagen are not on the same scale and don't
> have anything like the same traffic as London.

But equally London (or Paris) isn't representative of anywhere else in
the UK (or France). The towns I have lived and worked in have been much
smaller than Amsterdam or Copenhagen (both quite a bit over 2m people for
the metropolitan area). In fact London is the only UK city/metropolitan
area that does dwarf Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[charles]

In article <slrnjjs9ao...@azaal.plus.com>,

Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:39:59 +0000 (UTC),
> bolta...@boltar.world <bolta...@boltar.world> wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:44:51 +0000
> > johannes <jo...@sizefit44274224242ter.com> wrote:
> >>I disagree with aggressive cyclists, such as e.g. critical mass. But
> >>when I was in Denmark, it was just a natural means of transport. There
> >>are many cycle routes, and dedicated cycle lanes. Not just lanes
> >>delimited by lines of paint. Everybody respect each other and obey the
> >>traffic rules.
> >
> > Why when people need to use examples of other places where people cycle
> > a lot do they always bring up quite little backwaters like holland or
> > denmark? No offence , but amsterdam or copenhagen are not on the same
> > scale and don't have anything like the same traffic as London.

> But equally London (or Paris) isn't representative of anywhere else in
> the UK (or France). The towns I have lived and worked in have been much
> smaller than Amsterdam or Copenhagen (both quite a bit over 2m people for
> the metropolitan area). In fact London is the only UK city/metropolitan
> area that does dwarf Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

according to Wiki, Birmingham is bigger than Amsterdam, and Greater
Manchester is bigger than Copenhagen, too.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

[johannes]

But London is just a collection of little backwater villages that have grown
into each other.

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:18:08 +0000
johannes <jo...@sizefit86856575ter.com> wrote:
>> Why when people need to use examples of other places where people cycle a
>> lot do they always bring up quite little backwaters like holland or denmark?
>> No offence , but amsterdam or copenhagen are not on the same scale and don't
>> have anything like the same traffic as London. When cycling becomes big in
>> paris or berlin or rome then maybe london should take a good look at itself
>> but in the meantime stop comparing apples with oranges.
>>
>> B2003
>
>But London is just a collection of little backwater villages that have grown
>into each other.

By that definition so is New York. So what? What it was 500 years ago isn't
what it is now.

B2003

[Andy Leighton]

You will note, I hope, I used the word dwarf. I used that word for a
reason. A few hundred thousand difference over a metropolitan area
is neither here nor there. Especially when you consider the size of
the metropolitan areas. When people talk about cycling in Amsterdam or
Copenhagen they usually aren't talking about commuting from Coventry to
Tamworth (both part of the Birmingham metropolitan area).

[JNugent]

On 17/02/2012 10:00, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:39:59 +0000 (UTC),
> bolta...@boltar.world<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:44:51 +0000
>> johannes<jo...@sizefit44274224242ter.com> wrote:
>>> I disagree with aggressive cyclists, such as e.g. critical mass. But when I was
>>> in Denmark, it was just a natural means of transport. There are many cycle
>>> routes,
>>> and dedicated cycle lanes. Not just lanes delimited by lines of paint.
>>> Everybody
>>> respect each other and obey the traffic rules.
>>
>> Why when people need to use examples of other places where people cycle a
>> lot do they always bring up quite little backwaters like holland or denmark?
>> No offence , but amsterdam or copenhagen are not on the same scale and don't
>> have anything like the same traffic as London.
>
> But equally London (or Paris) isn't representative of anywhere else in
> the UK (or France). The towns I have lived and worked in have been much
> smaller than Amsterdam or Copenhagen (both quite a bit over 2m people for
> the metropolitan area). In fact London is the only UK city/metropolitan
> area that does dwarf Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

Les than two million people live in the greater Copenhagen area (that's more
than just Copenhagen).

Admittedly, you used the word "dwarfed", which is imprecise enough to allow
some wiggle room, but there are several urban areas in England and Scotland
which are larger than that in population (as well as in land area):
Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham (in particular), Leeds/Bradford and Glasgow.

[JNugent]

Tamworth as part of West Midlands?

Which of the WM Met Boroughs contains it?

[Andy Leighton]

I didn't say it was. The metropolitan area is not co-terminous with the
metropolitan boroughs.

My source was the wikipedia page on Birmingham as the PP was using it.

[JNugent]

Fair enough. Using that basis means that Liverpool reaches well over two
million, of course, since the travel-to-work area extends as far as Preston,
Wigan, Winsford, Chester and Deeside.
>

[Mike Barnes]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>:

The West Midlands is the official region of England that contains
Tamworth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_%28region%29

--
Mike Barnes

[Theodore]

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:21:58 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
<davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 16/02/2012 06:10, Doug wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 9:05 pm, Ronald Tompkins<bod...@yahooo.com> wrote:
>>> A third are never caught!!
>>> I don't know if there have been any inroads(no pun intended) into
>>> catching these rogues since 2007.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449476/The-rogue-drivers-maki...
>>>
>> "...Research for the BBC Radio Four programme The Investigation showed
>> around half a million drivers are caught speeding in the capital each
>> year. But a third cannot be traced, because they are not registered or
>> are foreign vehicles, while some escape because of technical faults or
>> because they are emergency vehicles.
>>
>> Of the 350,000 who are sent a "notice of intent to prosecute" only 48
>> per cent end up getting points on their licence and a fine, the BBC
>> said..."
>>
>> This is probably more than cyclists on pavements in London.
>>
>> -- .
>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
>Yup. The ones who pay their way - motorists - are more equal.

Yes this comes up time and time again. It's about time there was
specific insurance and tax requirements for cycling.

Actually thankfully it's probably only a matter of time.

[JNugent]

It's only "official" if you accept the authority of the EU to sub-divide
England. Otherwise the "boundaries" drawn on the maps at that website are
100% spurious.

The West Midlands, as you well know, was a UK Parliament-defined metropolitan
county which Parliament later decided to abolish, though it left the five
constituent boroughs intact as what are now virtual re-invented county
boroughs (as was also done for the other English metro "counties"). Tamworth
is not in any of the WM neo-county boroughs.

[Doug]

The only problem you have with that is that speeding motorists are
much, much more lethal than cyclists on pavements. It seems right that
punishment and enforcement should be proportionate to the harm caused
and that seems to be the case with pavement cycling when compared to
speeding drivers. Its called 'pragmatism'.

Besides, cycling should be regarded as an extension of walking rather
than the use of a sub-standard, non-motorised vehicle. Unfortunately
though the law does not always agree and treats both the same as if
they were similar, which they are not. I suggest that the only reason
cycling is not allowed on pavements, as an extension of walking, is
because cycling is too fast,

-- .
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[francis]

Driving without a licence
Driving without insurance
Using a car without a valid VED.
Speeding
Parking
MOT regulations
Tyres, brakes, emissions,lights,seat belts, etc regulations

Yes the above all applies to bikes.

> which they are not. I suggest that the only reason
> cycling is not allowed on pavements, as an extension of walking, is
> because cycling is too fast,

And that in itself is a good reason.

[Turk182]

On Feb 15, 9:05 pm, Ronald Tompkins <bod...@yahooo.com> wrote:
> A third are never caught!!
> I don't know if there have been any inroads(no pun intended) into
> catching these rogues since 2007.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449476/The-rogue-drivers-maki...

The common theme of the Daily Mail is always, "'someone is getting
away with something, and we should be angry'. The Dail Mail is
written, designed and published by alchobullies.

Be careful. This is another hate article by a newspaper suspected of
being involved in criminal activity itself and, the article will have
been supplied as part of a pre-emptive propaganda effort to soften us
up, so we become some fuelled with negativity against other people,
and then blindly accept further extensions of existing laws.

The source will be a government initiative to raise more money at any
cost. The government cut-backs are already costing lives; speed in
itself does not. Educated drivers make better decisions on safety,
but the government does not want better educated drivers - they want
drivers who make frequent mistakes - whom they can then fine.

The assortment of cameras and fining tricks in some parts of London,
make driving a car feel like one is in a punitive pinball game - with
the stranger from out of town having little chance of not falling for
one of the elaborate tricks set for them.

Make no mistake. The cheats are the politicians, the councils, the
companies, the bankers AND the press (who are in ollusion with each
other - each for their own power!). Beware of this regular Daily
Mail ploy - it is the 'Littlejohn' mentality; ie: "who can we look
down on today?". The population should see through these attempts to
be split by the merchants of hate. We should be angry at them all -
but they all repeatedly try to direct our anger back on ourselves.

Turk182

[Turk182]

And of course the BBC is pivotal in this process, which is why they
released the information!

Turk182

[Derek Geldard]

On 02/19/2012 07:34, Doug wrote

> The only problem you have with that is that speeding motorists are
> much, much more lethal than cyclists on pavements. It seems right that
> punishment and enforcement should be proportionate to the harm caused

This is already the case, but is not the sole factor. In English law
"Intention" (Especially with Malice a Forethought) is a factor in
culpability.

> and that seems to be the case with pavement cycling when compared to
> speeding drivers. Its called 'pragmatism'.
>

You appear to have misspelled both "Loutishness" and "Malice".

> Besides, cycling should be regarded as an extension of walking.

A cycle is a vehicle. Logic non-U 4-U ?.

> rather
> than the use of a sub-standard, non-motorised vehicle. Unfortunately
> though the law does not always agree and treats both the same as if
> they were similar, which they are not. I suggest that the only reason
> cycling is not allowed on pavements, as an extension of walking, is
> because cycling is too fast,
>

Tell me, who was it said "Speed kills" ?

> -- .
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Are you advocating driving unlicenced ?

You're arse about face. :-)

DerekG