Speed Camera officer caught speeding by the public.
digital...@aol.com
the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
have engaged brain before opening mouth. Unlike his own laser cameras,
the non-stop video journey of his driving is very hard to disprove.
In an operation by members of the public, the "safety camera" cheat,
was observed and recorded over a 4 mile journey repeatedly breaking the
law. He drove at 50mph in a 40 limit, 40mph in a 30 limit and 20 mph
in a 10 limit minutes after just catching numerous drivers himself for
speeding, as lay in the back of his small camera van at 8pm in
Sevenoaks, Kent.
The secret group of angry motorists are turning the tables on the
camera men by filming them. This is the latest incident where the Kent
Camera Partrnership vans have been caught either speeding or performing
other dangerous acts. The group of private law enforcers are believed
to be led by radio presenter Adrian John, a keen road safety supporter
who as an advanced driver has campaigned on many road safety issues.
He say's "if the camera brigade genuinely believe that speed is so
critically important, then the very least they should do, is observe
those laws they have chosen to enforce so vigorously."
However, while the Kent & Medway driver will probably get away with his
crimes, the following lady is paying heavily for her dishonesty:
Nurse jailed for driving fine lie:
A Devon nurse who lied about not being the driver of a speeding car has
been sent to jail for six months.
Joy Rees, 39, from Plymouth, was caught travelling at 51mph in a 40mph
zone while driving a friend's car.
She responded to a fixed penalty notice saying an American resident had
been at the wheel. Photographic evidence later identified Ms Rees as
the driver.
She was given a six-month driving ban and sentenced to six months in
jail at Plymouth Crown Court on Thursday.
The Older Gentleman
> Joy Rees, 39, from Plymouth, was caught travelling at 51mph in a 40mph
> zone while driving a friend's car.
> She responded to a fixed penalty notice saying an American resident had
> been at the wheel. Photographic evidence later identified Ms Rees as
> the driver.
>
> She was given a six-month driving ban and sentenced to six months in
> jail at Plymouth Crown Court on Thursday.
She was jailed because of the perjury issue, not the speeding offence,
you thick cunt.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
digital...@aol.com
>> Joy Rees, 39, from Plymouth, was caught travelling at 51mph in a 40mph
>> zone while driving a friend's car.
>> She responded to a fixed penalty notice saying an American resident had
>> been at the wheel. Photographic evidence later identified Ms Rees as
>> the driver.
>> She was given a six-month driving ban and sentenced to six months in
>> jail at Plymouth Crown Court on Thursday.
>She was jailed because of the perjury issue, not the speeding offence,
you thick cunt.
>Trophy
Hey Trophy Face your dribbling again. The girl in the story was a
twit. But the Speed van driver is the utter low-life. (Don't take that
persoanlly) :-) PS Can you drive?
Turk182
--
Stuart Gray
news:1hf8t3n.58v5sd4d6yb6N%chateau.mur...@dsl.pipex.com:
> <digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Joy Rees, 39, from Plymouth, was caught travelling at 51mph in a
40mph
>> zone while driving a friend's car.
>> She responded to a fixed penalty notice saying an American resident
had
>> been at the wheel. Photographic evidence later identified Ms Rees as
>> the driver.
>>
>> She was given a six-month driving ban and sentenced to six months in
>> jail at Plymouth Crown Court on Thursday.
>
> She was jailed because of the perjury issue, not the speeding offence,
> you thick cunt.
>
>
>
True, but it's the first part of this posting that is more fun. I'm off
to dust off my video camera and lie in wait for my local speed awareness
van to fuck it up. I do have 4 days off a week [1] and far too much
spare time.
[1] I work an 8 day week.
--
Stuart
"end user" v. A command regrettably not implemented in most systems.
Scraggy
Can you drive?
>
*snort
--
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as
members. Groucho Marx
frank
"Stuart Gray" <stuartggr...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97C1DA73D24FDst...@216.196.109.145...
Just film your local police instead. I have! 45mph in 30 limits, 80mph in
50limit, undertaking and not displaying blue lights when speeding or jumping
traffic lights. Probably because they are class 3 drivers. The police
constantly seem to do it.
Westy
Yes they are as hypocritical as is can get.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember digital...@aol.com saying
something like:
>In an operation by members of the public, the "safety camera" cheat,
>was observed and recorded over a 4 mile journey repeatedly breaking the
>law. He drove at 50mph in a 40 limit, 40mph in a 30 limit and 20 mph
>in a 10 limit minutes after just catching numerous drivers himself for
>speeding, as lay in the back of his small camera van at 8pm in
>Sevenoaks, Kent.
So what? All that proves is that he's a hypocritical cunt, same as
yourself, I've no doubt. It's hardly dangerous driving or 'putting the
public at risk', you sad twat.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
Every post contains Nutri-Ceramide-R and Pre-Biotics
for your reading pleasure.
Folding@Home Team UKRM
http://vspx27.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=47957
digital...@aol.com
>yourself, I've no doubt. It's hardly dangerous driving or 'putting the
>public at risk', you sad twat.
>--
>Dave
No Dave ...... it's the CAMERA people who say that speeding puts the
public at risk. Entirely there own judgement.
Good to hear from you again. Are you back on solids?
Turk182
Alan
Stuart Gray <stuartggr...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote
>True, but it's the first part of this posting that is more fun. I'm off
>to dust off my video camera and lie in wait for my local speed awareness
>van to fuck it up.
Just video most Police cars and you will see dangerous driving on a
regular basis.
--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com
YTC#1
> A Kent & Medway Speed Camera Van Man endangering the public has accused
> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
While he may have been a hypocrite, he is not guilty of the misery, that
is the speeders issue. Why are people unable to accept responsability for
their own failings ?
If you don;t want to be caught speeding, don't do it !
--
XJR1300SP, XJ900F, GS550, GSX250, 750SS
POTM#1(KoTL), WUSS#1 , YTC#1(bar), OSOS#2(KoTL) , DS#3 , IbW#18 ,Apostle#8
*(Emails to the posted address will be ignored)*
"The internet is a huge and diverse community and not every one is friendly"
http://www.ytc1.co.uk There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/
Get the Software http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris
platypus
> In message <Xns97C1DA73D24FDst...@216.196.109.145>,
> Stuart Gray <stuartggr...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote
>
>> True, but it's the first part of this posting that is more fun. I'm
>> off to dust off my video camera and lie in wait for my local speed
>> awareness van to fuck it up.
>
> Just video most Police cars and you will see dangerous driving on a
> regular basis.
Police cars? Oh please. Try driving around after me sometime, sunshine.
--
platypus
we can do all the bad things
YTC#1
> digital...@aol.com wrote:
> Can you drive?
>>
>
>
> *snort
White powder ?
YTC#1
>>So what? All that proves is that he's a hypocritical cunt, same as
>>yourself, I've no doubt. It's hardly dangerous driving or 'putting the
>>public at risk', you sad twat.
>>--
>>Dave
>
> No Dave ...... it's the CAMERA people who say that speeding puts the
Most CAMERA people I know are too pissed to drive.
> public at risk. Entirely there own judgement.
Where ?
I can't see the judgement.
ib
"YTC#1" <b...@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.05.12....@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk...
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:55:33 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>
>> A Kent & Medway Speed Camera Van Man endangering the public has accused
>> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
>> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
>
> While he may have been a hypocrite, he is not guilty of the misery, that
> is the speeders issue. Why are people unable to accept responsability for
> their own failings ?
>
> If you don;t want to be caught speeding, don't do it !
>
>
they do catch you
Tim S Kemp
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:03:38 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>
>>> So what? All that proves is that he's a hypocritical cunt, same as
>>> yourself, I've no doubt. It's hardly dangerous driving or 'putting
>>> the public at risk', you sad twat.
>>> --
>>> Dave
>>
>> No Dave ...... it's the CAMERA people who say that speeding puts the
>
> Most CAMERA people I know are too pissed to drive.
ITYM CAMRA people.
--
Aggressive sweeping momentarily melts the ice, which lessens friction,
thereby lessening the deceleration of the rock, while straightening the
trajectory of the rock.
Dan L
His drive is shite, but he's a mean putter.
--
Dan L (Oldbloke)
dan.y...@gmail.com
My bike 1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr
Space in shed where NSR125 used to be
Spare Bike 1990 Suzuki TS50X (Patio Ornament)
BOTAFOT #140 (KotL 2005/6), X-FOT#000, DIAABTCOD #26, BOMB#18 (slow), OMF#11
Ian
<digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
>A Kent & Medway Speed Camera Van Man endangering the public has accused
> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
> have engaged brain before opening mouth. Unlike his own laser cameras,
> the non-stop video journey of his driving is very hard to disprove.
>
> In an operation by members of the public, the "safety camera" cheat,
> was observed and recorded over a 4 mile journey repeatedly breaking the
> law. He drove at 50mph in a 40 limit, 40mph in a 30 limit and 20 mph
> in a 10 limit minutes after just catching numerous drivers himself for
> speeding, as lay in the back of his small camera van at 8pm in
> Sevenoaks, Kent.
>
The only way that film could have been taken was for the person following
the camera van to have been doing exactly the same speeds. I wonder if they
will be prosecuted by their own evidence?
Ian
Alan
<ne...@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote
>YTC#1 <b...@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:03:38 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>>
>>>> So what? All that proves is that he's a hypocritical cunt, same as
>>>> yourself, I've no doubt. It's hardly dangerous driving or 'putting
>>>> the public at risk', you sad twat.
>>>> --
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> No Dave ...... it's the CAMERA people who say that speeding puts the
>>
>> Most CAMERA people I know are too pissed to drive.
>
>ITYM CAMRA people.
>
It's not that they are drunk, it's because they can't drive properly
wearing sandals.
Alan
<if.pt...@nospamtesco.net> wrote
>
>The only way that film could have been taken was for the person following
>the camera van to have been doing exactly the same speeds. I wonder if they
>will be prosecuted by their own evidence?
>
It's very much like those Police Action programmes. The commentary will
drone on about overtaking on a blind bend etc. while the Police are
filming while performing the same manoeuvre.
The only difference is that the Police are trained and can stop their
cars in quarter of the normal stopping distance when a child runs out
into the road.
The Older Gentleman
> the Police are trained and can stop their
> cars in quarter of the normal stopping distance when a child runs out
> into the road.
Like fuck they can.
Tim S Kemp
> The only difference is that the Police are trained and can stop their
> cars in quarter of the normal stopping distance when a child runs out
> into the road.
You're being sarcastic I hope - My Volvo, or my A class, will stop from 60
somewhat shorter than the usual Transit or Berlingo.
scott
>> their cars in quarter of the normal stopping distance when a child
>> runs out into the road.
>
>
> What a load of fucking shit you talk.
YOur sarcasm detector must be seriously screwed, I'd get it fixed if I were
you.
PC Paul
It's the extra thickness of the fluffy socks that does it...
Bryan.W...@dsl.pipex.com
Alan wrote:
> It's very much like those Police Action programmes. The commentary will
> drone on about overtaking on a blind bend etc. while the Police are
> filming while performing the same manoeuvre.
Never fails to make me laugh - esp the american ones. On a large
highway..
"The perp reaces over 90 MPH!"
We should show these people the M1 on a Friday afternoon :)
There's a car doing less than 90 - of wait - it's a lorry.
>
> The only difference is that the Police are trained and can stop their
> cars in quarter of the normal stopping distance when a child runs out
> into the road.
V. good.
Eiron
> The M1 on a friday afternoon is like a car park. 90? not in my
> lifetime, well not below watford gap anyway.
What about that straight bit north of junction 12 where everyone speeds up?
The one with all the skid marks where everyone slows down again.
--
Eiron
No good deed ever goes unpunished.
Jim Ford
> There's a car doing less than 90 - of wait - it's a lorry.
My next vehicle is going to be a white van. I've got six points on my
licence and you're allowed to do 90-100 in one without getting caught!
Jim Ford
Conor
says...
> A Kent & Medway Speed Camera Van Man endangering the public has accused
> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
> have engaged brain before opening mouth. Unlike his own laser cameras,
> the non-stop video journey of his driving is very hard to disprove.
>
> In an operation by members of the public, the "safety camera" cheat,
> was observed and recorded over a 4 mile journey repeatedly breaking the
> law. He drove at 50mph in a 40 limit, 40mph in a 30 limit and 20 mph
> in a 10 limit minutes after just catching numerous drivers himself for
> speeding, as lay in the back of his small camera van at 8pm in
> Sevenoaks, Kent.
>
> camera men by filming them.
Heh-heh..I've recently taken up photographing illegally parked plod
cars and traffic wardens not ticketing illegally parked taxis which are
currently causing a real problem in Driffield.
> However, while the Kent & Medway driver will probably get away with his
> crimes, the following lady is paying heavily for her dishonesty:
>
She was jailed for perverting the course of justice, not for speeding.
--
Conor,
Same shit, different day.
Conor
says...
> Hey Trophy Face your dribbling again. The girl in the story was a
> twit. But the Speed van driver is the utter low-life.
Why? Because he did what millions of others do?
> PS Can you drive?
Yes thanks. Well in excess of 1.5 million miles both points and
accident free. You?
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "PC Paul" <m...@home.com> saying
something like:
I only drunk drove the once; kept spilling my pint.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
Every post contains Nutri-Ceramide-R and Pre-Biotics
for your reading pleasure.
Folding@Home Team UKRM
http://vspx27.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=47957
YTC#1
> On 13 May 2006 03:49:36 -0700, Bryan.W...@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Alan wrote:
>>> It's very much like those Police Action programmes. The commentary will
>>> drone on about overtaking on a blind bend etc. while the Police are
>>> filming while performing the same manoeuvre.
>>
>>Never fails to make me laugh - esp the american ones. On a large
>>highway..
>>
>>"The perp reaces over 90 MPH!"
>>
>>We should show these people the M1 on a Friday afternoon :)
>>
>>There's a car doing less than 90 - of wait - it's a lorry.
>
> The M1 on a friday afternoon is like a car park. 90? not in my
> lifetime, well not below watford gap anyway.
Same all the way to Newcastle
YTC#1
> YTC#1 <b...@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:03:38 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>>
>>>> So what? All that proves is that he's a hypocritical cunt, same as
>>>> yourself, I've no doubt. It's hardly dangerous driving or 'putting
>>>> the public at risk', you sad twat.
>>>> --
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> No Dave ...... it's the CAMERA people who say that speeding puts the
>>
>> Most CAMERA people I know are too pissed to drive.
>
> ITYM CAMRA people.
Yer, but he satared it with shouty letters when they wern't needed :-)
Beav
"Conor" <conor....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ecfdf7be...@news.individual.net...
Did that last week.
--
Neil Armstrong
Beav
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:44:29 +0100, Tim S Kemp wrote:
>
>> YTC#1 <b...@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:03:38 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So what? All that proves is that he's a hypocritical cunt, same as
>>>>> yourself, I've no doubt. It's hardly dangerous driving or 'putting
>>>>> the public at risk', you sad twat.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> No Dave ...... it's the CAMERA people who say that speeding puts the
>>>
>>> Most CAMERA people I know are too pissed to drive.
>>
>> ITYM CAMRA people.
>
> Yer, but he satared it with shouty letters when they wern't needed :-)
Spicy eh?
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
Beav
If she'd not opened her gob so quickly, she'd not have got done, so it was
speeding after all.
Tim S Kemp
>>>> No Dave ...... it's the CAMERA people who say that speeding puts
>>>> the
>>>
>>> Most CAMERA people I know are too pissed to drive.
>>
>> ITYM CAMRA people.
>
> Yer, but he satared it with shouty letters when they wern't needed :-)
shouty letters? Reminds me of this:
http://www.b3ta.com/board/5913230
PC Paul
> YTC#1 <b...@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> No Dave ...... it's the CAMERA people who say that speeding puts
>>>>> the
>>>>
>>>> Most CAMERA people I know are too pissed to drive.
>>>
>>> ITYM CAMRA people.
>>
>> Yer, but he satared it with shouty letters when they wern't needed
>> :-)
>
> shouty letters? Reminds me of this:
>
> http://www.b3ta.com/board/5913230
Cruel, but funny.
Classic B3ta!
Bill
<conor....@gmail.com> writes
>
>Heh-heh..I've recently taken up photographing illegally parked plod
>cars and traffic wardens not ticketing illegally parked taxis which are
>currently causing a real problem in Driffield.
I was threatened by a warden a while back for suggesting I might take a
photo of him photographing the ticket he had just put on a car. He
thought I was contravening his civil rights or some such twaddle.
--
Bill
YTC#1
You probably where, unlesss you made sure the picture did not contain his
face
Alan Holmes
> On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:55:33 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>
>> A Kent & Medway Speed Camera Van Man endangering the public has accused
>> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
>> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
>
> is the speeders issue. Why are people unable to accept responsability for
> their own failings ?
>
> If you don;t want to be caught speeding, don't do it !
I don't speed, but I do sometimes exceed the speed limit by accident!
The word 'speeding' implies to me dangerous driving!
Alan
Brimstone
YTC#1 said:
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:19:20 +0000, Bill wrote:
>
>> In message <MPG.1ecfdf434...@news.individual.net>, Conor
>> <conor....@gmail.com> writes
>>>
>>> Heh-heh..I've recently taken up photographing illegally parked plod
>>> cars and traffic wardens not ticketing illegally parked taxis which
>>> are currently causing a real problem in Driffield.
>>
>> I was threatened by a warden a while back for suggesting I might
>> take a photo of him photographing the ticket he had just put on a
>> car. He thought I was contravening his civil rights or some such
>> twaddle.
>
> You probably where, unlesss you made sure the picture did not contain
> his face
Nope, anyone can take anyone's photo.
Alan Holmes
"ib" <i...@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dI89g.186$e85...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>
> "YTC#1" <b...@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.05.12....@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk...
>> On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:55:33 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>>
>>> A Kent & Medway Speed Camera Van Man endangering the public has accused
>>> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
>>> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
>>
>> While he may have been a hypocrite, he is not guilty of the misery, that
>> is the speeders issue. Why are people unable to accept responsability for
>> their own failings ?
>>
>> If you don;t want to be caught speeding, don't do it !
>>
>>
> if they do catch you
And the simplest way is to always ask to see the 'evidence' before making
any any decision, unkess you are deliberately driving over the limit.
Then, if they do send you that, make sure you have it all, I asked on one
occassion and was sent just one photo of a stationary car, even though they
were well aware that the device took two pictures so you could check it.
Next ask when and how the device was calibrated.
If everyone asked these questions, the extra work would make sure they only
persued those who were well over the limit and could be proved without
doubt, it might also persuade them to make sure the equipment was accurate,
and not callibrated by guesswork and more than once a year.
Alan
>
>
Alan Holmes
"Whinging Courier" <markonusene...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ecf87d06...@news.individual.net...
> In uk.rec.motorcycles, ib belched forth and ejected the following:
>
>>
>> "YTC#1" <b...@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.05.12....@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk...
>> > On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:55:33 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>> >
>> >> A Kent & Medway Speed Camera Van Man endangering the public has
>> >> accused
>> >> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
>> >> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
>> >
>> > While he may have been a hypocrite, he is not guilty of the misery,
>> > that
>> > is the speeders issue. Why are people unable to accept responsability
>> > for
>> > their own failings ?
>> >
>> > If you don;t want to be caught speeding, don't do it !
>> >
>> I agree, don't get caught, and give the bastards as much grief as you can
>> if
>> they do catch you
>
>
> I once fought a parking ticket for two years. I knew there wasn't a hope
> in hell I'd get away with it but while there was a slight glimmer they'd
> get bored and go away, I just couldn't let it go.
Good for you, it's time these buggers were made to account for their
actions.
Alan
>
> --
> CBR1000 GS450 YZF-R1
> BOMB#14 ibW#40 LotR#0 BOTAFOT#157 BotM#3
Alan Holmes
"Ian" <if.pt...@nospamtesco.net> wrote in message
news:3cg9g.6354$BD4....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>A Kent & Medway Speed Camera Van Man endangering the public has accused
>> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
>> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
>> the non-stop video journey of his driving is very hard to disprove.
>>
>> In an operation by members of the public, the "safety camera" cheat,
>> was observed and recorded over a 4 mile journey repeatedly breaking the
>> law. He drove at 50mph in a 40 limit, 40mph in a 30 limit and 20 mph
>> in a 10 limit minutes after just catching numerous drivers himself for
>> speeding, as lay in the back of his small camera van at 8pm in
>> Sevenoaks, Kent.
>>
>
> the camera van to have been doing exactly the same speeds. I wonder if
> they will be prosecuted by their own evidence?
Surely you are not suggestng that a police car following you at an excesive
speed could be prosecuted?
Whatever next!
I've seen police cars get flashed by gatsos, and I have asked if they were
prosecuted.
Alan
Alan Holmes
"Alan" <junk_...@amac.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:S6ZUyFQQ...@amac.f2s.com...
> In message <3cg9g.6354$BD4....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, Ian
> <if.pt...@nospamtesco.net> wrote
>
>>
>>The only way that film could have been taken was for the person following
>>the camera van to have been doing exactly the same speeds. I wonder if
>>they
>>will be prosecuted by their own evidence?
>>
>
> drone on about overtaking on a blind bend etc. while the Police are
> filming while performing the same manoeuvre.
>
> in quarter of the normal stopping distance when a child runs out into the
> road.
Only if they are concentrating on the road and not continualy looking at
their speedometer!
Another Alan!
>
> --
> Alan
> news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com
Beav
"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h2pdtXdA...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article <9bm9g.9692$ez2....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, Beav
> <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> writes
I do a trip every now and again, just to keep my hand in. I use GPS now too,
as it's makes plotting the route easier than it used to be and it helps me
avoid all the traffic and obstacles.
--
Neil
Beav
"Whinging Courier" <markonusene...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ecf87d06...@news.individual.net...
> In uk.rec.motorcycles, ib belched forth and ejected the following:
>
>>
>> "YTC#1" <b...@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.05.12....@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk...
>> > On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:55:33 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>> >
>> >> accused
>> >> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
>> >> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
>> >
>> > that
>> > is the speeders issue. Why are people unable to accept responsability
>> > for
>> > their own failings ?
>> >
>> > If you don;t want to be caught speeding, don't do it !
>> >
>> >
>> I agree, don't get caught, and give the bastards as much grief as you can
>> if
>> they do catch you
>
> Halleluyah!
>
> I once fought a parking ticket for two years. I knew there wasn't a hope
> in hell I'd get away with it but while there was a slight glimmer they'd
> get bored and go away, I just couldn't let it go.
A traffic plod tapped on the window of the sarnie shop and asked me "Is this
your car"? I said it was and he said "Better shift it quick then, there's a
traffic plod knocking about handing out tickets".
I thought it was piss funny when he continued with "I'll keep him occupied
while you wait for your dinner". No ticket and no arguments. Mind ewe, it
WAS sunny and that's enough to fuck anyone's head up in Manc:)
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
>
Simon Dobson
> "YTC#1" <b...@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.05.12....@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk...
>> On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:55:33 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>>
>>> A Kent & Medway Speed Camera Van Man endangering the public has accused
>>> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
>>> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
>> While he may have been a hypocrite, he is not guilty of the misery, that
>> is the speeders issue. Why are people unable to accept responsability for
>> their own failings ?
>>
>> If you don;t want to be caught speeding, don't do it !
>
> I don't speed, but I do sometimes exceed the speed limit by accident!
>
> The word 'speeding' implies to me dangerous driving!
Then you were speeding.
If you speed, tell the world you speed. Don't try and dress it up with
"I sometimes exceed the speed limit" and "I wasn't speeding because my
driving wasn't dangerous".
I don't class my driving as dangerous, but I confess to speeding on a
very regular basis. Until there's a better metric for unsafe driving, I
suppose I will always be classed as someone who speeds.
As has been mentioned on here umpteen times, to the point of it being
boring, there are umpteen roads with 30/40 limits etc where it's
perfectly safe to go higher than this at particular times of day.
Speed.. And be proud!
Beav
"Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mbedncoDEdl...@bt.com...
Even mine? There's some fucking nutters about.
digital...@aol.com
>>Alan wrote:
>> In message <Xns97C1DA73D24FDstuartggraydslpip...@216.196.109.145>,
>> Stuart Gray <stuartggray-nos...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote
>>> True, but it's the first part of this posting that is more fun. I'm
>>> off to dust off my video camera and lie in wait for my local speed
>>> awareness van to fuck it up.
>> Just video most Police cars and you will see dangerous driving on a
>> regular basis.
>Police cars? Oh please. Try driving around after me sometime, sunshine.
platypus
Law enforver are increibly vulnerable, because their arrogance prevents
them from thinking anyone could possible do it. Camera technology is
increidble now, and even with the slighest bit of imagination a camera
can be very difficult to see in a car.
No. I'm sorry to say, the time is long overdue. The cameras need now
to be turned on the individuals who operate with such massive double
standards.
Turk182
we can do all the bad things
SP
Any vehicle (Police/Fire/Ambulance) that is gatso-ed have to prove
that, on that occasion, they were responding to an emergency. [1] If
not, the driver does receive points on their licence.
[1] Obviously, in the case of the Police, they would need to provide
evidence that they had called through for other reasons when it comes
to following vehicles that are, as yet, un-reported.
--
Lesley
CBR600FW
SBS#11 (with oak-leaf cluster)
BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12
BONY#54P BOB#18
Real burds don't take hormones, they rage naturally
Simon Gates
> platypus
>
> Law enforver are increibly vulnerable, because their arrogance
> prevents them from thinking anyone could possible do it. Camera
> technology is increidble now, and even with the slighest bit of
> imagination a camera can be very difficult to see in a car.
> No. I'm sorry to say, the time is long overdue. The cameras need
> now to be turned on the individuals who operate with such massive
> double standards.
Where I'm from, we hang people like you.
By their heels.
With meat hooks.
--
ZX7RR - for sale.
GSXR750 - for sale.
GSX1100 - on bricks, but still for sale, bricks included!
GSXR750 - running in.
Brimstone
I was excluding any reason that they might have a cavalier attitde towards
their equipment.
Brimstone
Malcolm said:
> In article <mbedncoDEdl...@bt.com>, Brimstone
> <brim...@hotmail.com> writes
> by your intrusion. And taking the photograph does not entitle you to
> use it in ways which could cause them embarrassment or distress,
> unless, and this is the tabloids defence, you can claim it was in the
> public interest.
Whilst true, they are side issues to the legality of actually taking
someone's photo.
Cab
> The word 'speeding' implies to me dangerous driving!
That really is a load of bollox. There's no implication at all.
--
Cab :^) - argue's like a girl
GSX 1400
UKRMMA#10 (KOTL), IbW#015, BoB#4, POTM#3, SKA#1
email addy : ukrm_dot_cab_at_rosbif_dot_org
http://www.rosbif.org
ib
"Cab" <my_email_addre...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:xn0em6xs...@rosbif.org...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>> The word 'speeding' implies to me dangerous driving!
>
> That really is a load of bollox. There's no implication at all.
>
> --
....but there certainly should be. Driving above the speed limit, the safety
partnerships tell us, is unsafe, therefore dangerous. In many circumstances,
particularly the ones they seem to target, this really is the real "bollox"
There are many places where driving above the limit is dangerous. But these
are not the favourite targets of the partnerships, as presumably the
proceeds would be rather low, as many drivers drive at a sensible speed,
which may mean driving above or below the speed limit, depending on the real
circumstances.
Driving at a reasonable speed, even if slightly above the limit, should not
be targeted, if the road type and conditions at the time mean it is
actually not unsafe to drive at that speed, particularly if there are other
places where driving above the limit is significantly more dangerous.
If the technology was aimed at the lunatics (which would be so easy), it
would get total support from the vast majority of motorists, no matter how
underhand it was, and would actually result in a real improvement in road
safety.
Prosecuting sensible driving at 35 in a 30 limit on a non-residential,
non-pedestrian, wide, straight dual carriageway is just a total own-goal for
the partnerships who have totally destroyed their own credibility.
Alan Holmes
>
>> The word 'speeding' implies to me dangerous driving!
>
> That really is a load of bollox. There's no implication at all.
So, is travelling at 31 mph in a 30 mph area, speeding?
And, is travelling at 60 mph in a 30 mph area speeding or dangerous driving?
Alan
Alan Holmes
"Simon Gates" <simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wrote in message
news:126cjt7...@news.supernews.com...
> digital...@aol.com wrote:
>> platypus
>>
>> Law enforver are increibly vulnerable, because their arrogance
>> prevents them from thinking anyone could possible do it. Camera
>> technology is increidble now, and even with the slighest bit of
>> imagination a camera can be very difficult to see in a car.
>> No. I'm sorry to say, the time is long overdue. The cameras need
>> now to be turned on the individuals who operate with such massive
>> double standards.
>
> Where I'm from, we hang people like you.
>
>
> By their heels.
>
>
> With meat hooks.
So you are a policeman?
Alan
Tony Morgan
digital...@aol.com writes
--
Tony Morgan
Chris Cowley
<beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote:
>I do a trip every now and again, just to keep my hand in. I use GPS now too,
>as it's makes plotting the route easier than it used to be and it helps me
>avoid all the traffic and obstacles.
Even if you had a GPS receiver with modified software to provide a
reference in relation to a geoid around the moon, it would be woefully
inaccurate due to the fact that all of the satellites are clustered
together in the same general direction about 239,000 miles away.
It also wouldn't work at all on the far side of the moon, due to the
moon being between you and the satellites (and neither would your
mobile, so phoning up a mate to ask for directions would be right out
too.)
I'd stick with the optical navigation if I was you, Neil. Even if that
didn't go totally according to plan in 1969.
--
Chris Cowley
Beav
"SP" <Les...@scorbydax.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e7s9g.68799$wl.5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Tell that to the thousands of plod vewhicles photgraphed in Merseyside and
other parts of the country. Out of literally thousands, there were about 11
prosecutions.
>
> [1] Obviously, in the case of the Police, they would need to provide
> evidence that they had called through for other reasons when it comes
> to following vehicles that are, as yet, un-reported.
They just get away with it.
Tony Morgan
<alan....@virgin.net> writes
>
>"YTC#1" <b...@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:pan.2006.05.12....@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk...
>> On Fri, 12 May 2006 12:55:33 -0700, digitalradiou wrote:
>>
>>> A Kent & Medway Speed Camera Van Man endangering the public has accused
>>> the member of the public who caught him of lying. Unfortunatley for
>>> the hypocrite misery maker, he was caught on video film. He should
>>
>> While he may have been a hypocrite, he is not guilty of the misery, that
>> is the speeders issue. Why are people unable to accept responsability for
>> their own failings ?
>>
>> If you don;t want to be caught speeding, don't do it !
>
>I don't speed, but I do sometimes exceed the speed limit by accident!
>
>The word 'speeding' implies to me dangerous driving!
>
the legal speed limit will claim (and actually believe) that they're
good drivers, and that anyone who habitually drives within the legal
speed limit is a bad driver.
Then there's those people who will insist that they drove from (say)
London to Liverpool in two hours. The sad thing is that they believe
that everyone should believe them - and if anyone should dare to
challenge them it's as though it were their manhood that was being
disparaged.
What sad lives they must lead when they feel that they have to tell such
obvious porkies to boost their self-esteem.
--
Tony Morgan
Pooh Bear
Tony Morgan wrote:
> The sad thing is that many (most) who habitually and consistently exceed
> the legal speed limit will claim (and actually believe) that they're
> good drivers, and that anyone who habitually drives within the legal
> speed limit is a bad driver.
I don't know *anyone* who always keeps inside the speed limit, including the
nice lady next door who took early retirement from the Library Service, is no
danger to anyone, yet got done for 'speeding' twice a couple of years back.
It's certainly a great way to alienate the motorist whilst apparently acheiving
nothing about road safety.
Graham
King Amdo
sort of proper speed gun measurement.
Tony Morgan
<replyt...@nospam.domain.invalid> writes
>As has been mentioned on here umpteen times, to the point of it being
>boring, there are umpteen roads with 30/40 limits etc where it's
>perfectly safe to go higher than this at particular times of day.
>
>Speed.. And be proud!
Another numpty who believes that speeding on a regular and consistent
basis makes him a good driver? Either that or it's a substitute for
testosterone.
Anyone notice the justification that these numpties trot out? That
because *they* think that they can (and do) exceed the legal speed limit
on a regular basis, justify it by claiming that most enforced speed
limits are too slow. "Too slow for who" they're asked. "Too slow for
good drivers like me" they respond.
--
Tony Morgan
Simon Dobson
> In message <y9p9g.434$qt4...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, Alan Holmes
> <alan....@virgin.net> writes
>>
> the legal speed limit will claim (and actually believe) that they're
> good drivers, and that anyone who habitually drives within the legal
> speed limit is a bad driver.
I know a few people that speed regularly, myself included, but have
never heard any of them claim they're better drivers than anyone else.
All though see a flaw with using speed as the only indicator for
dangerous driving. Not far from here is a school with a GATSO on each
side of the 30mph carriageway. These cameras will issue a ticket to
someone travelling at 35mph at 11pm in dry conditions; but won't bat an
eyelid if someone does 30mph in rain/snow when kids are around.
Brilliant.
Tony Morgan
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
>Tony Morgan wrote:
>
>> The sad thing is that many (most) who habitually and consistently exceed
>> the legal speed limit will claim (and actually believe) that they're
>> good drivers, and that anyone who habitually drives within the legal
>> speed limit is a bad driver.
>
>I don't know *anyone* who always keeps inside the speed limit, including the
>nice lady next door who took early retirement from the Library Service, is no
>danger to anyone, yet got done for 'speeding' twice a couple of years back.
>
"consistently".
The really sad thing is that you're using your "nice lady next door" to
reach the conclusion that speeding "is no danger to anyone".
I also find it curious that you choose to use the expression "nice lady
next door who took early retirement from the Library Service" in a
derogatory way.
Folk don't have to be boy-racers with go-fast decals, alloys and
ghetto-blaster audio to be consistent and regular speeders. I'm sure
that there are a proportion of Library Service workers (retired or not)
who consistently speed - and convince themselves that they're good
drivers for doing so.
--
Tony Morgan
Tony Morgan
<replyt...@nospam.domain.invalid> writes
account for the degree of rain or snow?
You might also revisit the official word about speeding - and note the
"up to the legal speed limit, subject to road and weather conditions".
If everyone drove at a speed appropriate to road and weather conditions,
there would be no need for GATSOs - indeed you could argue that there
would be no need for any legal speed limits.
--
Tony Morgan
SP
> In message <4cnadeF...@individual.net>, Simon Dobson
> <replyt...@nospam.domain.invalid> writes
> > Tony Morgan wrote:
> > > In message <y9p9g.434$qt4...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, Alan Holmes
> >><alan....@virgin.net> writes
> > > >
> > > The sad thing is that many (most) who habitually and consistently
> > > exceed the legal speed limit will claim (and actually believe)
> > > that they're good drivers, and that anyone who habitually drives
> > > within the legal speed limit is a bad driver.
> >
> > I know a few people that speed regularly, myself included, but have
> > never heard any of them claim they're better drivers than anyone
> > else.
> >
> > All though see a flaw with using speed as the only indicator for
> > dangerous driving. Not far from here is a school with a GATSO on
> > each side of the 30mph carriageway. These cameras will issue a
> > ticket to someone travelling at 35mph at 11pm in dry conditions;
> > but won't bat an eyelid if someone does 30mph in rain/snow when
> > kids are around.
> >
> So? Are you suggesting that GATSOs should adjust their trigger to
> account for the degree of rain or snow?
No, but a traffic cop with e degree of sense would be a good idea,
>
> You might also revisit the official word about speeding - and note
> the "up to the legal speed limit, subject to road and weather
> conditions".
>
> If everyone drove at a speed appropriate to road and weather
> conditions, there would be no need for GATSOs - indeed you could
> argue that there would be no need for any legal speed limits.
I'm getting pissed off with the 'I can see it's a 60mph, but I'll stick
to 40 cos it's a bit bendy, then when I get to 30 I'll increase my
speed' brigade.
Better driver (and rider) educaion is needed, not more flipping cameras.
Pooh Bear
Tony Morgan wrote:
> I also find it curious that you choose to use the expression "nice lady
> next door who took early retirement from the Library Service" in a
> derogatory way.
Hardly derogatory. Simply sensible and not a hot-head.
Graham
Conor
> In message <4cmrtpF...@individual.net>, Simon Dobson
> <replyt...@nospam.domain.invalid> writes
> >As has been mentioned on here umpteen times, to the point of it being
> >boring, there are umpteen roads with 30/40 limits etc where it's
> >perfectly safe to go higher than this at particular times of day.
> >
> >Speed.. And be proud!
>
> Another numpty who believes that speeding on a regular and consistent
> basis makes him a good driver? Either that or it's a substitute for
> testosterone.
>
far better than yours even if you only ever have one accident or get 3
points in your entire life.
> Anyone notice the justification that these numpties trot out? That
> because *they* think that they can (and do) exceed the legal speed limit
> on a regular basis, justify it by claiming that most enforced speed
> limits are too slow. "Too slow for who" they're asked. "Too slow for
> good drivers like me" they respond.
>
Explain to me why driving at 60 on a road which was previously a NSL
but has been redesignated as a 40 limit is dangerous? Especially when
it is a fairlry straight wide main A road and there's only open fields
to either side with no side roads?
--
Conor,
Same shit, different day.
Conor
> The sad thing is that many (most) who habitually and consistently exceed
> the legal speed limit will claim (and actually believe) that they're
> good drivers, and that anyone who habitually drives within the legal
> speed limit is a bad driver.
>
A great swathe of East Yorkshires A roads are now 40 and 50 limits
despite being NSL for many decades with extremely low accident rates.
Explain to me why doing 60 is dangerous all of a sudden?
Conor
> Folk don't have to be boy-racers with go-fast decals, alloys and
> ghetto-blaster audio to be consistent and regular speeders. I'm sure
> that there are a proportion of Library Service workers (retired or not)
> who consistently speed - and convince themselves that they're good
> drivers for doing so.
>
Tony, answer me the following if you will:
1) What is your annual mileage you drive?
2) How many accidents have you had?
3) How many points have you had?
Chris Cowley
wrote:
>In article <rqhpbxEO$mZEFwk$@zen54488.zen.co.uk>, Tony Morgan says...
>> In message <4cmrtpF...@individual.net>, Simon Dobson
>> <replyt...@nospam.domain.invalid> writes
>> >As has been mentioned on here umpteen times, to the point of it being
>> >boring, there are umpteen roads with 30/40 limits etc where it's
>> >perfectly safe to go higher than this at particular times of day.
>> >
>> >Speed.. And be proud!
>>
>> Another numpty who believes that speeding on a regular and consistent
>> basis makes him a good driver? Either that or it's a substitute for
>> testosterone.
>>
>I speed alot. I can guarantee you my accident and conviction record is
>far better than yours even if you only ever have one accident or get 3
>points in your entire life.
Personally, I don't care whether speeding makes me a good driver/rider
or not. It's a fucking right laugh and, as we're all going to be dead
and long forgotten in 70+ years time, having a right laugh is, I think
quite important. You can all stuff you accident statistics and road
safety bollocks right up your ridiculously tight arseholes for all I
care.
Lozzo
> Personally, I don't care whether speeding makes me a good driver/rider
> or not. It's a fucking right laugh and, as we're all going to be dead
> and long forgotten in 70+ years time, having a right laugh is, I think
> quite important. You can all stuff you accident statistics and road
> safety bollocks right up your ridiculously tight arseholes for all I
> care.
Well fucking said.
--
Lozzo
GSX-R1000 K1
GSF600SW
Brimstone
Malcolm said:
> In article <nOydnZWoq7QvzfvZ...@bt.com>, Brimstone
> the case of the traffic warden, and you then persist and take the
> photo that could amount to harassment. Had the poster just taken the
> photograph without asking permission, then I don't think the warden
> would have had any comeback.
Quite. That highlights quite nicely the danger of asking such a question.
Eiron
#Well, she's gonna get a ticket now sooner or later
#'Cause she can't keep her foot off the accelerator.
--
Eiron
No good deed ever goes unpunished.
The Older Gentleman
> The sad thing is that many (most) who habitually and consistently exceed
> the legal speed limit will claim (and actually believe) that they're
> good drivers, and that anyone who habitually drives within the legal
> speed limit is a bad driver.
Am I the only one who has seen the fabulous illogic in your argument?
Someone who is used to driving at (say) 50mph and no more in a 50 limit,
by your lights, is a good driver.
Someone who is used to driving at 65mph in a 50 limit, by your lights,
is a bad driver.
The faster driver has exercised and improved his skills over a wider
speed band.
And on the simple speed thing, which you're harping on about, the
reductio ad absurdum is:
Racing drivers are dangerous.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Morini 500 Sport
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
The Older Gentleman
> The word 'speeding' implies to me dangerous driving!
>
> Alan
The name 'Alan' implies to me a fuckwit.
The Older Gentleman
The Older Gentleman
> That
> because *they* think that they can (and do) exceed the legal speed limit
> on a regular basis, justify it by claiming that most enforced speed
> limits are too slow. "Too slow for who" they're asked. "Too slow for
> good drivers like me" they respond.
Yes, absolutely.
Alan
> Alan Holmes <alan....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The word 'speeding' implies to me dangerous driving!
>>
>>Alan
>
>
>
> The name 'Alan' implies to me a fuckwit.
>
>
--
Alan ZX9R E2 (Green of course) '03 Tiger 955i (A pleasant shade of green)
Timo Geusch
> Tony Morgan <tonym...@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote:
>
> > The sad thing is that many (most) who habitually and consistently
> > exceed the legal speed limit will claim (and actually believe) that
> > they're good drivers, and that anyone who habitually drives within
> > the legal speed limit is a bad driver.
>
>
> Am I the only one who has seen the fabulous illogic in your argument?
>
> Someone who is used to driving at (say) 50mph and no more in a 50
> limit, by your lights, is a good driver.
>
> Someone who is used to driving at 65mph in a 50 limit, by your lights,
> is a bad driver.
>
> The faster driver has exercised and improved his skills over a wider
> speed band.
Nononono, the faster driver is clearly unsafe on account of pushing it
too far. The limits were set such that you can safely travel them in a
Moggie Minor so anybody in anything a tad more modern, with better
brakes and handling, clearly has a death wish.
The problem is two-fold IMHO - going fast without the improved skills
is likely to end up in car/hedge interfaces (the Nova crowd, for
example, but they have to learn somehow) and going fast without
recognising your limits is equally bad (I am a lot faster in a car than
on a bike as I've got a lot more experience in cars than on bikes; the
difference is that I recognise this and thus back off a lot earlier on
a bike than in a car).
And of course the Nanny State is hell-bent on ensuring that we can't
pick up the relevant skills in the first place as it tries to ensure
that we're all safe and mollycoddled.
> And on the simple speed thing, which you're harping on about, the
> reductio ad absurdum is:
>
> Racing drivers are dangerous.
Percentage-wise, I'd be tempted to suggest that more of them get
injured and die than your average bespectacled granny going everywhere
at 20mph.
Right, I feel like going out now and endangering a couple of country
lanes in my vastly overpowered cage that isn't equipped with any safety
features like ABS and ESP...
--
Morini Corsaro 125 | CB450K4 | R1150GSA | XL250 Motosport x2 | 900SSD
BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html
"Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar
Cab
> > The sad thing is that many (most) who habitually and consistently
> > exceed the legal speed limit will claim (and actually believe) that
> > they're good drivers, and that anyone who habitually drives within
> > the legal speed limit is a bad driver.
>
>
> Am I the only one who has seen the fabulous illogic in your argument?
>
> Someone who is used to driving at (say) 50mph and no more in a 50
> limit, by your lights, is a good driver.
>
> Someone who is used to driving at 65mph in a 50 limit, by your lights,
> is a bad driver.
>
> The faster driver has exercised and improved his skills over a wider
> speed band.
>
> And on the simple speed thing, which you're harping on about, the
> reductio ad absurdum is:
>
> Racing drivers are dangerous.
No, you're not the only one who sees that as being bollox.
--
Cab :^) - argue's like a girl
GSX 1400
UKRMMA#10 (KOTL), IbW#015, BoB#4, POTM#3, SKA#1
email addy : ukrm_dot_cab_at_rosbif_dot_org
http://www.rosbif.org
Sean
>
> "Cab" <my_email_addre...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:xn0em6xs...@rosbif.org...
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> The word 'speeding' implies to me dangerous driving!
>>
>> That really is a load of bollox. There's no implication at all.
>
> So, is travelling at 31 mph in a 30 mph area, speeding?
>
> And, is travelling at 60 mph in a 30 mph area speeding or dangerous
> driving?
>
Both are speeding. Either of them could be considered dangerous driving,
depending on the conditions. Likewise, both of them could be considered
safe driving, again depending on the conditions. I know roads where both
scenarios are dangerous, and where both are safe.
Sean
The Older Gentleman
> The Older Gentleman wrote:
> > Alan Holmes <alan....@virgin.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The word 'speeding' implies to me dangerous driving!
> >>
> >>Alan
> >
> >
> >
> > The name 'Alan' implies to me a fuckwit.
> >
> >
> Oy! FOYRNB
Ballcocks. I knew there'd be a few more out there ;-)
Simon Dobson
>>
>> I know a few people that speed regularly, myself included, but have
>> never heard any of them claim they're better drivers than anyone else.
>>
>> All though see a flaw with using speed as the only indicator for
>> dangerous driving. Not far from here is a school with a GATSO on each
>> side of the 30mph carriageway. These cameras will issue a ticket to
>> someone travelling at 35mph at 11pm in dry conditions; but won't bat an
>> eyelid if someone does 30mph in rain/snow when kids are around.
>>
> So? Are you suggesting that GATSOs should adjust their trigger to
> account for the degree of rain or snow?
I'm saying that speed isn't the only thing needs taking into account to
decide if someone is driving safely. Weather conditions are one of the
many other things, so yes.
Which is the unsafe situation from what I described above?
a) 30mph, rain/snow, kids around.
b) 35mph, dry conditions, empty roads and pavements.
You'd be an idiot to say (b), yet the driver in this instance would
receive 3 points and a £60 fine.
> You might also revisit the official word about speeding - and note the
> "up to the legal speed limit, subject to road and weather conditions".
Okay, so imagine both drivers from (a) and (b) are doing 30mph now.
Neither set off the camera. (a)'s behaviour is far worse and *very*
unsafe, yet (a) will NEVER receive points or a ticket.
Simon Dobson
>
> Personally, I don't care whether speeding makes me a good driver/rider
> or not. It's a fucking right laugh and, as we're all going to be dead
> and long forgotten in 70+ years time, having a right laugh is, I think
> quite important. You can all stuff you accident statistics and road
> safety bollocks right up your ridiculously tight arseholes for all I
> care.
Well, quite. If some of the posters on here could get past the sweaty
palms from when they hit 75mph, they might realise that 100mph and
beyond can be a lot of fun.
Gizmo
"Simon Gates" <simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wrote in message
news:126cjt7...@news.supernews.com...
> digital...@aol.com wrote:
>> platypus
>>
>> Law enforver are increibly vulnerable, because their arrogance
>> prevents them from thinking anyone could possible do it. Camera
>> technology is increidble now, and even with the slighest bit of
>> imagination a camera can be very difficult to see in a car.
>> No. I'm sorry to say, the time is long overdue. The cameras need
>> now to be turned on the individuals who operate with such massive
>> double standards.
>
> Where I'm from, we hang people like you.
We're far more forgiving in these parts. We just give them a job ... village
idiot.
YTC#1
> In news:pan.2006.05.13....@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk,
> YTC#1 said:
>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:19:20 +0000, Bill wrote:
>>
>>> In message <MPG.1ecfdf434...@news.individual.net>, Conor
>>> <conor....@gmail.com> writes
>>>>
>>>> Heh-heh..I've recently taken up photographing illegally parked plod
>>>> cars and traffic wardens not ticketing illegally parked taxis which
>>>> are currently causing a real problem in Driffield.
>>>
>>> I was threatened by a warden a while back for suggesting I might
>>> take a photo of him photographing the ticket he had just put on a
>>> car. He thought I was contravening his civil rights or some such
>>> twaddle.
>>
>> You probably where, unlesss you made sure the picture did not contain
>> his face
>
> Nope, anyone can take anyone's photo.
And anyone can refuse to have their photgraph taken by someone.
And it is polite to ask, there may be religeous beliefs that cause them
not to want to have their image taken.
--
XJR1300SP, XJ900F, GS550, GSX250, 750SS
POTM#1(KoTL), WUSS#1 , YTC#1(bar), OSOS#2(KoTL) , DS#3 , IbW#18 ,Apostle#8
*(Emails to the posted address will be ignored)*
"The internet is a huge and diverse community and not every one is friendly"
http://www.ytc1.co.uk There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/
Get the Software http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris
YTC#1
>
> In article <nOydnZWoq7QvzfvZ...@bt.com>, Brimstone
> <brim...@hotmail.com> writes
>>In news:NNsmzKiX...@indaal.demon.co.uk,
>>Malcolm said:
>>> In article <mbedncoDEdl...@bt.com>, Brimstone
>>> <brim...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>> In news:pan.2006.05.13....@ytc1NOARGYBEEF.co.uk,
>>>> YTC#1 said:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 17:19:20 +0000, Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <MPG.1ecfdf434...@news.individual.net>, Conor
>>>>>> <conor....@gmail.com> writes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Heh-heh..I've recently taken up photographing illegally parked
>>>>>>> plod cars and traffic wardens not ticketing illegally parked
>>>>>>> taxis which are currently causing a real problem in Driffield.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was threatened by a warden a while back for suggesting I might
>>>>>> take a photo of him photographing the ticket he had just put on a
>>>>>> car. He thought I was contravening his civil rights or some such
>>>>>> twaddle.
>>>>>
>>>>> You probably where, unlesss you made sure the picture did not
>>>>> contain his face
>>>>
>>>> Nope, anyone can take anyone's photo.
>>>>
>>> Not necessarily true. For example, you must not cause them "distress"
>>> by your intrusion. And taking the photograph does not entitle you to
>>> use it in ways which could cause them embarrassment or distress,
>>> unless, and this is the tabloids defence, you can claim it was in the
>>> public interest.
>>
>>Whilst true, they are side issues to the legality of actually taking
>>someone's photo.
>>
> If you ask if you can take someone's photograph and they say no, as in
> the case of the traffic warden, and you then persist and take the photo
> that could amount to harassment. Had the poster just taken the
> photograph without asking permission, then I don't think the warden
> would have had any comeback.
As the warden would most likely have been standing next to the OP, then he
probably verbally refused. Therefore the OP would have been wrong to take
the photo.