New GATSO cameras (A45)
Adrian Jones
New GATSO cameras have been installed on the A45 in both directions
between the Hatchford Brook Golf Course (next to Birmingham
International Airport) and the Yardley underpass (Junction of the
A45 and A4040). No camera signs or white markings on the road yet.
Heading into town sited Sheldon / Yardley:
outside the Texaco Petrol Station, Sheldon (50m past Wells Road),
20m just past Wagon Lane on the footpath,
100m before the MacDonalds Drivethru & Harry Ramsdems Restaurant
(near to Steyning Road) - this one is hidden by a tree.
Heading out of town sited Yardley / Sheldon:
50m past the junction of Yew Tree Lane on the footpath,
on the central reservation (partially hidden) just before the
entrance to the Mobil(or was it BP) petrol station.
Adrian,
GPx600R
E-mail = adr...@our-pad.demon.co.uk
Packet = g1kea@gb7sol.#29.gbr.eu
John Plant
Why are GATSO cameras so ugly? and why do they seem to be 'looking' over
their own post?
Chris Ward
Adrian Jones of
posted this to uk.transport on Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:23:10 +0100
' New GATSO cameras have been installed on the A45 in both directions
' between the Hatchford Brook Golf Course (next to Birmingham
' International Airport) and the Yardley underpass (Junction of the
' A45 and A4040). No camera signs or white markings on the road yet.
Birmingham City Council are to spend £575,000 pounds installing
speed cameras on major routes into the city this year.
First route is to be the A38 from Longridge into the city.
There will be ten sites, but only 3 active cameras.
Locals will of course soon learn where they are and treat them with
the contempt they deserve.
Visitors to the city will be the ones who get caught.
Welcome to Birmingham.
Chris Ward
Paul Baker
In article <3542f285...@nemesis.waverider.co.uk>, Chris Ward
<ch...@waverider.co.uk> writes
>First route is to be the A38 from Longridge into the city.
>There will be ten sites, but only 3 active cameras.
...is to be the A38...?
the A45's already been done (at least from the Swan to beyond
Stonebridge)
--
Paul Baker
Birmingham, UK
Falcon
The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
who deserve our contempt.
--
Email to: falcon
Staffordshire, England
'Clip the Falcons wing to reply'
Chris Ward wrote in message <3542f285...@nemesis.waverider.co.uk>...
:Locals will of course soon learn where they are and treat them with
:
:
:
Adrian Vickers
"Falcon" <fal...@wingmcmail.com> babbled:
> :Locals will of course soon learn where they are and treat them with
> :the contempt they deserve.
> :Visitors to the city will be the ones who get caught.
> :Welcome to Birmingham.
>
> The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
> who deserve our contempt.
>
WRT Gatsos, the problem wouldn't be a problem if some of the speed limits were
sensible. 30mph on open dual-carriageway is /not/ sensible IM*H*O.
As for racing between cameras... I /do/ speed up between cameras, but (say) if
I'm in a 50 limit I won't go above 60-65. In a 30 limit I tend to go 33 or
thereabouts, after a nearly-nasty incident in a little village somewhere near
Stafford (main road turned 90degrees right; I went straight on!!). That said,
I will go faster on dual-carriageways unless my forward vision is severely
impared.
As for m/way cameras - has anyone in this NG recieved a ticket after being
photoed on the M25 in the variable-limit section? I remember travelling
anti-clockwise one day and seeing literally hundreds of camera-flashes on
the opposite carriageway!
--
Ade.
Please send mail you wish to have read to avickers@, not disregard@
All mail sent to disregard@ will be junked.
***
Richard Tibbetts
disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk (Adrian Vickers) wrote:
>"Falcon" <fal...@wingmcmail.com> babbled:
>
>> :Locals will of course soon learn where they are and treat them with
>> :the contempt they deserve.
>> :Visitors to the city will be the ones who get caught.
>> :Welcome to Birmingham.
>>
>> The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
>> who deserve our contempt.
>>
>WRT Gatsos, the problem wouldn't be a problem if some of the speed limits were
>sensible. 30mph on open dual-carriageway is /not/ sensible IM*H*O.
True - but there are also places and conditions where the 30mph limit
is too high.
--
Richard Tibbetts
http://www.ppeace.demon.co.uk/
Rob
Chris Ward wrote:
>
> Adrian Jones of
> posted this to uk.transport on Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:23:10 +0100
>
> ' New GATSO cameras have been installed on the A45 in both directions
> ' between the Hatchford Brook Golf Course (next to Birmingham
> ' International Airport) and the Yardley underpass (Junction of the
> ' A45 and A4040). No camera signs or white markings on the road yet.
>
> Birmingham City Council are to spend £575,000 pounds installing
> speed cameras on major routes into the city this year.
>
> There will be ten sites, but only 3 active cameras.
>
> the contempt they deserve.
> Visitors to the city will be the ones who get caught.
> Welcome to Birmingham.
>
Birmingham aren't the only ones spending heavily on GATSOs.
The A5 between Cannock and the M42 Junction near Tamworth has sprouted
them all over the place!
The ones to watch are in Hints, about 1 mile before the Tamworth by-pass
starts (travelling east). This is a much ignored 40mph limit, and
there's a camera at the beginning of the restricted area in each
direction. It looked like they were wiring them up last Tuesday, so
they'll probably be in operation by now!
Let's be careful out there,
Rob
--
Rob Rait,
Broseley, Shropshire, UK
rob...@clara.net or rob...@bigfoot.com
ICQ 11128670
http://www.bigfoot.com/~robrait/
Adrian Vickers
ric...@ppeace.demon.co.uk (Richard Tibbetts) babbled:
>>WRT Gatsos, the problem wouldn't be a problem if some of the speed limits were
>>sensible. 30mph on open dual-carriageway is /not/ sensible IM*H*O.
>
> True - but there are also places and conditions where the 30mph limit
> is too high.
That's true; I would say most back-streets around cities (particularly those
long-long-long rows of terraces) are particularly suitable for a
lower-than-30 speed limit. When you have two rows of parked cars all the way
down the road (with children/dogs/cats lurking behind each and every one),
going 30 is suicidal (or should that be murderous?). A lot of these streets
seem to be sprouting humps these days, which is fine /except/ that you feel
a speed hump less the faster you go over it... Mind you, the *!*BANG!!*!*
it makes gets worse :-)
One street in the suburbs of Chester (Upton IIRC) has "temporary" chicanes
built in to it; you have to stop at alternative chicanes if traffic is coming
the other way (which seems fair enough), and that actually seems to work. It
is very irritating to drive through, but it does keep your speed down.
Chris Betteley
>>WRT Gatsos, the problem wouldn't be a problem if some of the speed limits were
>>sensible. 30mph on open dual-carriageway is /not/ sensible IM*H*O.
>
>True - but there are also places and conditions where the 30mph limit
>is too high.
Town centres and high streets should be 30. Main roads into towns,
unless narrow or particularly high on pedestrian traffic should be 35/40
and housing estates should be 20/25.
On a main road, 30 just seems so slow to me. It really does. Most people
drive at 35/40 anyway. Mind you I suppose that if you upped the limit to
40 most people would travel at 45/50 then! So I dont know!!
My personal hate are speed ramps. Well some of them. I dont mind the
ones that are reasonably low and make you reduce to about 20 going over
them, but I *hate* the ones which are so effing high, causing you to
slow down to 2mph, and even then you scrape yer feckin exhaust. I bet
the buggers who put these thing down dont bloody drive over them in
their own cars when they are off work do they??
Grr!
Chris
--
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Visit the Kainam Homepage and hear our new album!
http://www.kainam.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Bringing you music all the way from sunny Stoke-on-Trent.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Chris Ward
Falcon of
posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:35:29 +0100
' The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
' who deserve our contempt.
They are not necessarily 'idiots'.
They are not necessarily 'racing'.
They are not necessarily putting lives at risk.
They may well be travelling at a higher speed than the speed limit because
they can see that it is safe to do so.
The safe speed on any road varies continously according to road conditions,
weather, other road users. It is not always the speed which some bureaucrat
as put on the speed limit signs.
Sometimes it is higher, sometimes it is lower.
Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they wouldn't
be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
They are intended to extort yet more money from drivers who don't know where
they are.
Chris Ward
Keith L.
Adrian Vickers wrote:
>
> One street in the suburbs of Chester (Upton IIRC) has "temporary" chicanes
> built in to it; you have to stop at alternative chicanes if traffic is coming
> the other way (which seems fair enough), and that actually seems to work. It
> is very irritating to drive through, but it does keep your speed down.
>
I think they've tried something similar here in Valley Road Solihull,
combined with shallow 'humps'. It runs parallel to the A45 by the Arden
Oak. Needless to say, some young 'boy-racers' see it as an opportunity
to pretend they are at Silverstone and race through the chicanes, flying
over the humps and nearly decapitiating poor unsuspecting pedestrians
that thought it was suddenly safe to now cross their road in safety!
I also recall that Castle lane (Solihull) has a similar chicane-type
system, which does seem to work.
FWIW, I got 'Gatsoed' on the road that leads from J10 of the M6 into
Wolverhampton only last week. I'm waiting for the summons...I was doing
approximately 50mph. I went back to check the *real* limit and it said
30mph. Oh sh*t. :o(
Cheers
Keith
Andy Mabbett
In article <35442848...@nemesis.waverider.co.uk>, Chris Ward
<ch...@waverider.co.uk> writes
>Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they wouldn't
>be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
All of the speed cameras I have so far seen in Birmingham have been very
conspicuous, signposted and with the associated road markings clearly
visible. As indeed are the speed- limit signs.
--
Andy Mabbett: Personal view only - *not* my employers!
Info on uk.* newsgroups: http://www.usenet.org.uk/
Rob Davis
Remove MAPSON if replying via email
> As for m/way cameras - has anyone in this NG recieved a ticket after being
> photoed on the M25 in the variable-limit section? I remember travelling
I've been double flashed on three occasions (Ashington in
Northumberland, M5 northbound near Bristol, and by the MOOG
factory near Gloucester) and heard nothing.
Rob Davis MSc MIAP
Anstey, Leicester UK. 0976 379489
abuse@localhost, postmaster@localhost
Edwin Robson
I heard that the cameras aren't always loaded with film, and when they are it's
only one camera in so many.
--
Edwin Robson.
E-mail: E.Ro...@ftel.co.uk (Work)
ed...@pandemonium.demon.co.uk (Home)
WWW: http://www.pandemonium.demon.co.uk/
Gavin Hall
Adrian Vickers wrote:
>
> "Falcon" <fal...@wingmcmail.com> babbled:
<SNIP>
> As for m/way cameras - has anyone in this NG recieved a ticket after being
> photoed on the M25 in the variable-limit section? I remember travelling
> the opposite carriageway!
>
Have you seen how many of the GATSO's are live? Not many! I counted them
from J10 round to Junction 11 anti-clockwise (I was travelling slowly
clockwise!) only a single GATSO on one lane was actually live, the rest
were all dummies! Apparently this is true for all of the variable-limit
section.
Ian G Batten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <3JKJSJAo...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>,
Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> All of the speed cameras I have so far seen in Birmingham have been very
> conspicuous, signposted and with the associated road markings clearly
> visible. As indeed are the speed- limit signs.
There's a hidden-behind-sign one just on the Coventry side of the
Stonebridge Island, on the towards-Birmingham side. I don't know if
it's still Birmingham there.
ian
--
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQB1AwUBNURUKsoy0yij3IvtAQHW0QMA2y7ldBDdREf1bE/6zYuVbamVR4VxUHps
EuPKt9URzPc2iPy/jGarLgDbeAowU9juvIyirdn13v38AiRCW4WpNu5sSqx9OLO2
himXZBw3Cs43SiN2IIrm172lFaU1aiTc
=yVI2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Andy Mabbett
In article <6i1no2$jg5$1...@ftel.ftel.co.uk>, Ian G Batten
<I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes
>There's a hidden-behind-sign one just on the Coventry side of the
>Stonebridge Island, on the towards-Birmingham side. I don't know if
>it's still Birmingham there.
Birmingham ends by the golf course, on the Birmingham side of the
airport. So no, it isn't.
--
Andy Mabbett, Development Manager, Birmingham ASSIST
Birmingham City Council - www.birmingham.gov.uk
Phone: (+) 44 121 303 3640 - Fax: (+) 44 121 212 1930
Post: 3rd Floor, Central Library, Birmingham B3 3HQ
J W B Greenwood
> Falcon of
> posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:35:29 +0100
>
> ' The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
> ' who deserve our contempt.
>
> They are not necessarily 'idiots'.
> They are not necessarily 'racing'.
> They are not necessarily putting lives at risk.
> They may well be travelling at a higher speed than the speed limit because
> they can see that it is safe to do so.
> The safe speed on any road varies continously according to road conditions,
> weather, other road users. It is not always the speed which some bureaucrat
> as put on the speed limit signs.
> Sometimes it is higher, sometimes it is lower.
> be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
> they are.
>
It makes one wonder why so much money is spent on traffic control
methods when 99.9% of road users are so very, very sensible: evidence
? obviously this newsgroup.
--
Floyd
Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>'s contribution to the
thread at this point was
>In article <6i1no2$jg5$1...@ftel.ftel.co.uk>, Ian G Batten
><I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes
>>There's a hidden-behind-sign one just on the Coventry side of the
>>Stonebridge Island, on the towards-Birmingham side. I don't know if
>>it's still Birmingham there.
>
>Birmingham ends by the golf course, on the Birmingham side of the
>airport. So no, it isn't.
Yeah, and Coventry *IS NOT* part of it!!!
--
FLOYD & RF900R, Remove NOSPAM to e-mail
Coventry,
England, PADI-OWD 9702U12258
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/8738/ - just moved in!
Neil Murray
Chris Ward <ch...@waverider.co.uk> wrote:
> Falcon of
> posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:35:29 +0100
>
> ' The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
> ' who deserve our contempt.
>
> They are not necessarily 'idiots'.
> They are not necessarily 'racing'.
> They are not necessarily putting lives at risk.
> They may well be travelling at a higher speed than the speed limit because
> they can see that it is safe to do so.
Exactly.
> The safe speed on any road varies continously according to road conditions,
> weather, other road users. It is not always the speed which some bureaucrat
> as put on the speed limit signs.
Yup.
> Sometimes it is higher, sometimes it is lower.
True.
> Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they wouldn't
> be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
> They are intended to extort yet more money from drivers who don't know where
> they are.
>
> Chris Ward
Thank you Chris. In a nutshell.
--
Neil
Please delete nospam to email
Adrian Vickers
Gavin Hall <Gavin...@dial.pipex.com> went on and on like this:
Interesting... Of course everyone might have been sticking to the speed
limit :-) Do dummy cameras flash (I would have thought not, but...)
Maybe all the active ones are on the clockwise section?
Adrian Vickers
"Keith L." <kl7....@virgin.net> went on and on like this:
> FWIW, I got 'Gatsoed' on the road that leads from J10 of the M6 into
> Wolverhampton only last week. I'm waiting for the summons...I was doing
> approximately 50mph. I went back to check the *real* limit and it said
> 30mph. Oh sh*t. :o(
If you're lucky there will be no film in it. ISTM that although only a
small proportion of cameras are active, only a small proportion of THOSE
actually have film in, which has to make them largely useless as a form
of revenue gathering. [OTOH all the working ones seem to be hidden :-(]
Also, FWIW I just read that a Gatso is actually a still-camera mounted
on a police car, not the sort that lurk on poles around our towns/cities.
That's irrelevant really, I just thought I'd share that with you :-)
Adrian Vickers
Chris Betteley <ch...@kainam.demon.co.uk> went on and on like this:
>
> My personal hate are speed ramps. Well some of them. I dont mind the
> ones that are reasonably low and make you reduce to about 20 going over
> them, but I *hate* the ones which are so effing high, causing you to
> slow down to 2mph, and even then you scrape yer feckin exhaust. I bet
> the buggers who put these thing down dont bloody drive over them in
> their own cars when they are off work do they??
>
> Grr!
Oh how true that is. :-(
Mind you, the people who recommend these things probably drive around
in Range Rovers (and the like), which wouldn't be affected as they're
so high off the ground!
Neil Williams
In article <893701381.16335.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Adrian Vickers <disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Also, FWIW I just read that a Gatso is actually a still-camera mounted
>on a police car, not the sort that lurk on poles around our towns/cities.
>That's irrelevant really, I just thought I'd share that with you :-)
You sure? I thought a Gatso was any form of speed trap made by Gatsometer?
Neil
--
Neil Williams, will...@cs.man.ac.uk, pa...@compsoc.man.ac.uk.
Coming soon - http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~pacer/
Visit ScoutNet UK - http://www.scoutnet.org.uk/
Richard Tibbetts
Ian G Batten <I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>In article <3JKJSJAo...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>,
>Andy Mabbett <amab...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> All of the speed cameras I have so far seen in Birmingham have been very
>> conspicuous, signposted and with the associated road markings clearly
>> visible. As indeed are the speed- limit signs.
>
>There's a hidden-behind-sign one just on the Coventry side of the
>Stonebridge Island, on the towards-Birmingham side. I don't know if
>it's still Birmingham there.
That's why it's a good idea to look for the distance marks on the
road.
Adrian Vickers
will...@cs.man.ac.uk (Neil Williams) went on and on like this:
>>Also, FWIW I just read that a Gatso is actually a still-camera mounted
>>on a police car, not the sort that lurk on poles around our towns/cities.
>>That's irrelevant really, I just thought I'd share that with you :-)
>
> You sure? I thought a Gatso was any form of speed trap made by Gatsometer?
>
The book I got it from ("The Driver's Survival Handbook") deals with "Gatso"
cameras separately to radar cameras and Police Video cameras. Apparently Gatso
is very popular in Europe, but our Plods prefer vcr's. Also, not all cameras
use radar; most of the cameras on Merseyside use a series of wires set in the
road just after the camera - presumably they were too cheapskate to use the
"real thing".
Re-reading the description, it is "specifically a speed detection system", so
the traffic-light cameras wouldn't count. It does, however, work in the same
way as the static system, so I imagine that the plodmobile has to be parked
in order to use it.
eric the brave
In article <35438...@news1.mcmail.com>, Falcon <fal...@wingmcmail.com>
writes
>The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
>who deserve our contempt.
You don't mean the Police etc do you. !
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon - South Wales
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eric the brave
In article <ant27094...@brooke.u-net.com>, J W B Greenwood
<bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> writes
>
>It makes one wonder why so much money is spent on traffic control
>methods when 99.9% of road users are so very, very sensible: evidence
>? obviously this newsgroup.
>
Paul Baker
In article <5JM4$fA+UN...@hmleng.demon.co.uk>, eric the brave
<postm...@hmleng.demon.co.uk> writes
>LOTS of MONEY to be made, stupid........
If there was lots of money to be made, then surely everyone would be
prosecuted. After all most people who are plead guilty (or so I've been
told.) This being the case, they could also afford a few more rolls of
film to hike up the profits a bit more .......
--
Paul Baker
Birmingham, UK
Philip Luke
In article <35444faa.12304357@news>, Rob Davis <r...@MAPSON.elsham.foobar
.co.uk> writes
>I've been double flashed on three occasions (Ashington in
>Northumberland, M5 northbound near Bristol, and by the MOOG
>factory near Gloucester) and heard nothing.
Yet! :-)
--
Phil luke (MAG 97236) Rockape #1 Dorset Old Fart FAB#12 BOF#15 RTMiB#??
Portland Dorset 3rd cave from the left! remove <.NOSPAM> to email me!
Yamaha XJ900S Diversion + TRX850 <http://www.lukep.demon.co.uk/>
'Smoke me a kipper I'll be back for breakfast'!
Mike Fleming
> In article <35442848...@nemesis.waverider.co.uk>, Chris Ward
> <ch...@waverider.co.uk> writes
> >Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they wouldn't
> >be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
>
> All of the speed cameras I have so far seen in Birmingham have been very
> conspicuous, signposted and with the associated road markings clearly
> visible. As indeed are the speed- limit signs.
Most of them are - the ones which aren't so visible are less visible
because they merge into the general urban clutter background - ie.
they're somewhere where there's pedestrians...
One has just appeared over the road from the office, on the A45 in
Sheldon. It is actually a reasonable place for one to control the
speed of traffic. The ones in the 60 limit area are ludicrous, as is
the 60 limit itself.
--
Mike (DF) Fleming MAG #79794 DoD #4446 OT #3 UKMC #9 FAB #10
GAGARPHOF #6 JKLO #004 KotWP7 RotRotRotKotL
SST #69 BFG #024 BFG JHLO #1
Mike Fleming
In article <3543A868...@clara.net>, Rob <rob...@clara.net>
writes:
> Birmingham aren't the only ones spending heavily on GATSOs.
>
> The A5 between Cannock and the M42 Junction near Tamworth has sprouted
> them all over the place!
Hmm, time to check this out...
> The ones to watch are in Hints, about 1 mile before the Tamworth by-pass
> starts (travelling east). This is a much ignored 40mph limit
Er, no it isn't. Or at least, no it wasn't, it was NSL all the way to
the 40 limit at wossname, Newtown is it? Then back to 50, back to NSL,
and down to 30 for Cannock, back up to 50 for the bit up to the M6.
At least, that's how it was a couple of months ago.
Adrian Wontroba
In article <AMDFmFAJ...@levante.demon.co.uk>,
Paul Baker <${9805}$@levante.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>If there was lots of money to be made, then surely everyone would be
Isn't there some daft arrangement whereby the local authority are
responsible for the costs of installation and operation, but the
Treasury ends up with the "profits"?
Chris Ward
J W B Greenwood of J W B Greenwood BINGLEY West Yorkshire
posted this to uk.transport on Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:27:43 +0100
' It makes one wonder why so much money is spent on traffic control
' methods when 99.9% of road users are so very, very sensible: evidence
' ? obviously this newsgroup.
Because the 0.1% who aren't get all the press coverage.
When was the last time the TV news ran with
"99.9% of car journeys made today were completed without incident"
they prefer
"10 killed in multiple pile up"
Chris Ward
Andy Cowan
Andy Mabbett wrote in message <3JKJSJAo...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <35442848...@nemesis.waverider.co.uk>, Chris Ward
><ch...@waverider.co.uk> writes
>>Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they
wouldn't
>>be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
>
>All of the speed cameras I have so far seen in Birmingham have been very
>conspicuous, signposted and with the associated road markings clearly
>visible. As indeed are the speed- limit signs.
At least one of the new ones on the A45 is pretty well hidden (obviously,
there aren't any signposts or road markings yet, they've only just been
installed).
By the BP Garage on the island in the middle of the Coventry Road, heading
out of city, behind a bush... It is possible that they are planning to
remove the bush.
I also feel pretty sorry for the people in South Yardley, who live right on
the Cov Road, and have about six feet of pavement between them and the
road - which is now almost completely occupied by a huge speed camera (one
of the big boxes on an offset arm type). Do the Council need planning
permission to install these?
Andy
--
Andy Cowan
Technical Director
Wave Rider Internet plc
http://www.waverider.co.uk
Malcolm Groom
In article <$5p5jaAp...@hmleng.demon.co.uk>, eric the brave
<postm...@hmleng.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <35438...@news1.mcmail.com>, Falcon <fal...@wingmcmail.com>
>writes
>>The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
>>who deserve our contempt.
>
>You don't mean the Police etc do you. !
Couldn't do. They race everywhere.
--
Malcolm Groom
Douglas Dwyer
In article <5JM4$fA+UN...@hmleng.demon.co.uk>, eric the brave
<postm...@hmleng.demon.co.uk> writes
>>methods when 99.9% of road users are so very, very sensible: evidence
>>? obviously this newsgroup.
>>
70s (known locally as sleeping policemen) the Swiss authorities were
kind enough to send you a nice picture of your speeding car so you could
see where the offence happened. You felt that you got something for you
money!
Recently I was sent a fine etc for somewhere in Exeter, guess it was me
but Ive no idea where the road was and I try very hard to adhere to the
limits. Hence its really not served its full purpose.
Douglas Dwyer
Windy
>
>Mike (DF) Fleming MAG #79794 DoD #4446 OT #3 UKMC #9 FAB #10
> GAGARPHOF #6 JKLO #004 KotWP7 RotRotRotKotL
> SST #69 BFG #024 BFG JHLO #1
HE'S ALIVE!!! ALIVE!!!!
--
~*~*~*~* " W I N D Y" *~*~*~*~
To Love Life You Have To Live It!
NGG #13 - unlucky for some
Tactician & Incendiary Devices
http://www.ziplink.net/~holm/ngg/ngg.html
ANDREW ROUND
Alot of the cameras are dummies(and do flash) ............................
a bit like the people who try to avoid them....*-)
Bryan Mills
Sorry Chris, taking umbrage with you here,
Chris Ward wrote:
>
> Falcon of
> posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:35:29 +0100
>
> ' The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
> ' who deserve our contempt.
>
> They are not necessarily 'idiots'.
But more than likely.
> They are not necessarily 'racing'.
So why are they in a rush?
> They are not necessarily putting lives at risk.
So you can state categorically that you can pull up and stop safely
regardless of what happens 100 metres in front? These are roads with
houses, shops, parked cars and most importantly pedestrians, who don't
always have crossings to use.
> They may well be travelling at a higher speed than the speed limit because
> they can see that it is safe to do so.
Irrelavent because the LAW say's otherwise. Was the road built to take
traffic at such a speed, or are you a civil engineer ?
> The safe speed on any road varies continously according to road conditions,
> weather, other road users. It is not always the speed which some bureaucrat
> as put on the speed limit signs.
> Sometimes it is higher, sometimes it is lower.
That's as good as saying 'The speed limit says 40mph and I don't care if
there is a foot of snow.'
> Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they wouldn't
> be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
If they persuade you to drive slower then they improve road safety.
> They are intended to extort yet more money from drivers who don't know where
> they are.
Don't break the law and you won't get fined.
>
> Chris Ward
I have recently had my front garden smashed to pieces because of some
nutter driving too fast. It was a fairly dry, light morning and the
driver was just going too fast. He will probably argue everything,
nasty bend, road narrows, no warnings but the reality is that hundreds
if not thousands of drivers navigate that bend every day without
spinning round, across the pavement, through my garden and landing in
the side of a bus coming the other way. My wall is fixed. A pedestrian
caught in this would not have survived. It shook me and I was in the
kitchen at the back of the house.
--
Bryan Mills **********O
******,__/__,
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~bryanm
******\/\
*********\_
Falcon
Sorry, am I missing a point here. What gives you the right to travel at 65
in a 50 MPH area?
Speed kills.
--
Email to: falcon
Staffordshire, England
'Clip the Falcons wing to reply'
Adrian Vickers wrote in message
<893620654.11859.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
:"Falcon" <fal...@wingmcmail.com> babbled:
:
:> :Locals will of course soon learn where they are and treat them with
:> :the contempt they deserve.
:> :Visitors to the city will be the ones who get caught.
:> :Welcome to Birmingham.
:>
:> The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the
ones
:> who deserve our contempt.
:>
:WRT Gatsos, the problem wouldn't be a problem if some of the speed limits
were
:sensible. 30mph on open dual-carriageway is /not/ sensible IM*H*O.
:
:As for racing between cameras... I /do/ speed up between cameras, but (say)
if
:I'm in a 50 limit I won't go above 60-65. In a 30 limit I tend to go 33 or
:thereabouts, after a nearly-nasty incident in a little village somewhere
near
:Stafford (main road turned 90degrees right; I went straight on!!). That
said,
:I will go faster on dual-carriageways unless my forward vision is severely
:impared.
Falcon
Remind me to avoid all you 'so called' perfect drivers' in future. I haven't
read so much ego enhanced rubbish in years.
You'll be telling me next that all motorway accidents are caused by the
idiots who insist on sticking to the speed limit.
Are we really supposed to believe that you are infallible at any speed?
--
Email to: falcon
Staffordshire, England
'Clip the Falcons wing to reply'
Chris Ward wrote in message <35442848...@nemesis.waverider.co.uk>...
:Falcon of
: posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:35:29 +0100
:
:' The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the
ones
:' who deserve our contempt.
:
:They are not necessarily 'idiots'.
:They are not necessarily 'racing'.
:They are not necessarily putting lives at risk.
:They may well be travelling at a higher speed than the speed limit because
:they can see that it is safe to do so.
:The safe speed on any road varies continously according to road conditions,
:weather, other road users. It is not always the speed which some bureaucrat
:as put on the speed limit signs.
:Sometimes it is higher, sometimes it is lower.
:Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they
wouldn't
:be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
:They are intended to extort yet more money from drivers who don't know
where
:they are.
:
:Chris Ward
Falcon
They do need planning permission, but guess who considers all planning
applications.
--
Email to: falcon
Staffordshire, England
'Clip the Falcons wing to reply'
Andy Cowan wrote in message <35459...@titan.waverider.net.uk>...
:
:Andy Mabbett wrote in message <3JKJSJAo...@bham-assist.demon.co.uk>...
:>In article <35442848...@nemesis.waverider.co.uk>, Chris Ward
:><ch...@waverider.co.uk> writes
:>>Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they
:wouldn't
:>>be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
:>
:>All of the speed cameras I have so far seen in Birmingham have been very
:
:
:
:
:
Falcon
But surely the full purpose is not to let you know where to avoid the camera
next time. That surely would be defeating the object.
I note that you didn't contest the fine, even though you obviously can't
remember the exact location.
nuff said.
--
Email to: falcon
Staffordshire, England
'Clip the Falcons wing to reply'
Douglas Dwyer wrote in message ...
:In article <5JM4$fA+UN...@hmleng.demon.co.uk>, eric the brave
andy the pugh
Adrian Vickers <disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Also, FWIW I just read that a Gatso is actually a still-camera mounted
> on a police car, not the sort that lurk on poles around our towns/cities.
> That's irrelevant really, I just thought I'd share that with you :-)
So why do the ones on poles by the road say 'Gatso' on them?
--
ap
Rob Davis
Remove MAPSON if replying via email
> New GATSO cameras have been installed on the A45 in both directions
The installation of speed cameras has been more or less forced on
local Constabularies by the Home Office. The local Force has to
pay for them, install and maintain these devices yet all the
resulting fines go to central Government.
Result : the vast majority of cameras are inactive, even though
they appear to operate, giving single and double-flash events.
Even with the active ones, there are so many bookings that only a
token few are ever taken to court, as the manpower to process the
vast majority of potential prosecutions does not exist. Those
which are taken to court tend to be major speed violations.
Conclusion : speed cameras are ineffective. Drivers get to know
where they are, slow down to 10% over the limit past the camera,
and then go back to normal. Even if double-flashed, the chances
of prosecution are extremely small.
Ho, the temptation to mock up a rear plate saying BOLLOCKS, or
obtain the Chief Constable's number, and then go though...
Rob Davis MSc MIAP
Anstey, Leicester UK. 0976 379489
abuse@localhost, postmaster@localhost
eric the brave
>
>told.) This being the case, they could also afford a few more rolls of
>film to hike up the profits a bit more .......
>
the summons off. Local council's will get a share of the bounty, to be
used for installing cameras, plus profit of course. :-<
eric the brave
In article <d+dqCRAQ...@ddwyer.demon.co.uk>, Douglas Dwyer
<ddw...@ddwyer.demon.co.uk> writes
>><bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> writes
>>>
>>>It makes one wonder why so much money is spent on traffic control
>>>methods when 99.9% of road users are so very, very sensible: evidence
>>>? obviously this newsgroup.
>>>
>70s (known locally as sleeping policemen) the Swiss authorities were
>kind enough to send you a nice picture of your speeding car so you could
>see where the offence happened. You felt that you got something for you
>money!
>Recently I was sent a fine etc for somewhere in Exeter, guess it was me
>but Ive no idea where the road was and I try very hard to adhere to the
>limits. Hence its really not served its full purpose.
>Douglas Dwyer
there in his life apparently. I think he still had to pay it though.
Don't know for shure.
moj
Falcon wrote:
>
> Sorry, am I missing a point here. What gives you the right to travel at 65
> in a 50 MPH area?
> Speed kills.
Twat. Fuckin' twat. twat, twat, twat, twat, twat!
Speed DOES NOT kill. Never has.
Not since the British said you couldn't travel in a train with open
carriages and not suffocate at 20 MPH has such a ludicrous statement
been branded about.
Bad driving kills. Lack of concentration kills. Tiredness kills. Myopic,
know-nothing wankers kill, and people with your blinkered and ignorant
attitude kill.
This very attitude can be seen in the total cunt who sits in the outside
lane doing 70 MPH next to another car doing 70 MPH, signaling abuse and
pointing to his speedo when you ask him politely, from a distance, to
kindly pull over.
What fucking right have you got to try and impose/enforce a crap law on
me or anyone else? We have a police force for that, and they don't think
70 is fast enough for a motorway either, or 60 for some other roads - it
ain't your job cunt[1].
So what right have I got to do 65 in a 50? What right has ANYBODY got to
say I can't? And yes, I do include the government in that statement.
They admit that the laws aren't made for the masses as such but for the
reasons of fuel economy and to cater for the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR.
Seeing as I'm not using anything like as much fuel as a car, I'm young,
alert and my reflexes are good, I can see, I have a reasonable level of
competence and my bike is modern, I'd say I'm slightly above the lowest
common denominator, wouldn't you?
As for them giving a shit? Ha! The government couldn't give a flying
fuck! Much too much like hard work to let you use the road with a skill
based "levels" system of rules and regulations. So I should give a fuck?
Bollocks.
[1] Anyone who does this.
[2] DYF
--
X X
~~~~ X X X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Moj X X Yammy Fizzy 6R No Fear? No Hair! MAG "Be of good heart"
~~~~~~ X X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
X http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~moj
Tim Willets
In article <354e0da0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Mike Fleming
<tau...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>One has just appeared over the road from the office, on the A45 in
>Sheldon. It is actually a reasonable place for one to control the
>speed of traffic. The ones in the 60 limit area are ludicrous, as is
>the 60 limit itself.
>
nice fast dual carraigeway that has speed cameras (what is it about
Staffordshire and Gatsos? The things are everywhere, including on
unrestricted rural A roads).
--
Tim Willets
Mick Whittingham
In article <35464...@news1.mcmail.com>, Falcon <fal...@wingmcmail.com>
writes
>Sorry, am I missing a point here. What gives you the right to travel at 65
>in a 50 MPH area?
>Speed kills.
>Email to: falcon
>Staffordshire, England
>'Clip the Falcons wing to reply'
Speed does not kill. That is a slogan put out as an advertising campaign
aimed at dim/thick road users. Bad driving/riding kills.
(If you didn't understand, bad driving includes an inappropriate speed
for the prevailing conditions.)
--
Mick Whittingham
FJ1200 ABS 'BOF #006'
Professional 'Old Fart'
Mick Whittingham
In article <rAusdLA0...@hmleng.demon.co.uk>, eric the brave
<postm...@hmleng.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <d+dqCRAQ...@ddwyer.demon.co.uk>, Douglas Dwyer
><ddw...@ddwyer.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <5JM4$fA+UN...@hmleng.demon.co.uk>, eric the brave
>><postm...@hmleng.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <ant27094...@brooke.u-net.com>, J W B Greenwood
>>><bro...@parkroad.u-net.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>It makes one wonder why so much money is spent on traffic control
>>>>methods when 99.9% of road users are so very, very sensible: evidence
>>>>? obviously this newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>LOTS of MONEY to be made, stupid........
>>Zelveger in Switzerland (where I once worked) made such cameras from the
>>70s (known locally as sleeping policemen) the Swiss authorities were
>>kind enough to send you a nice picture of your speeding car so you could
>>see where the offence happened. You felt that you got something for you
>>money!
>>Recently I was sent a fine etc for somewhere in Exeter, guess it was me
>>but Ive no idea where the road was and I try very hard to adhere to the
>>limits. Hence its really not served its full purpose.
>>Douglas Dwyer
>Some local bloke had a summons from the Manchester area. Never been
>there in his life apparently. I think he still had to pay it though.
>Don't know for shure.
My son got a ticket for doing 50 in a 60 limit. He appealed and went to
court where the police changed the place to half a mile away inside the
city boundary and a 30 limit.
--
Mick Whittingham
'and I will make it a felony to drink small beer.'
William Shakespeare, Henry VI part 2.
Mick Whittingham
In article <35465EC3...@netcomuk.co.uk>, moj <M...@netcomuk.co.uk>
writes
>Falcon wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, am I missing a point here. What gives you the right to travel at 65
>> in a 50 MPH area?
>> Speed kills.
>
>
>Speed DOES NOT kill. Never has.
>
>Not since the British said you couldn't travel in a train with open
>carriages and not suffocate at 20 MPH has such a ludicrous statement
>been branded about.
>
>Bad driving kills. Lack of concentration kills. Tiredness kills. Myopic,
>know-nothing wankers kill, and people with your blinkered and ignorant
>attitude kill.
>
>This very attitude can be seen in the total cunt who sits in the outside
>lane doing 70 MPH next to another car doing 70 MPH, signaling abuse and
>pointing to his speedo when you ask him politely, from a distance, to
>kindly pull over.
>
>What fucking right have you got to try and impose/enforce a crap law on
>me or anyone else? We have a police force for that, and they don't think
>70 is fast enough for a motorway either, or 60 for some other roads - it
>ain't your job cunt[1].
>
>So what right have I got to do 65 in a 50? What right has ANYBODY got to
>say I can't? And yes, I do include the government in that statement.
>
The government brought in the 70 speed limit after Lola to mention one
car company were testing LeMans cars at night on the empty M1 at speeds
in excess of 200mph.
70 mph was suggested by the police as the cars and competence level of
their drivers meant that chases at any higher speed would be beyond the
police. (If you can see their reasoning on that? ie if we can't catch
you you have broken another law.) It's in Hansard if you be bothered to
look.
Mick Whittingham
In article <354644...@netcomuk.co.uk>, Bryan Mills
<bry...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>Sorry Chris, taking umbrage with you here,
>
>Chris Ward wrote:
>>
>> posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:35:29 +0100
>>
>
>> The safe speed on any road varies continously according to road conditions,
>> weather, other road users. It is not always the speed which some bureaucrat
>> as put on the speed limit signs.
>
>> Sometimes it is higher, sometimes it is lower.
>
>there is a foot of snow.'
>
I do believe it is not the same but exactly the opposite. Maybe you have
your plug wired up the wrong way around?
>
>Don't break the law and you won't get fined.
>
If you believe this you are not from this planet (earth). Ever been
stitched up by some one other then Burtons.
>>
>> Chris Ward
>
> I have recently had my front garden smashed to pieces because of some
>nutter driving too fast. It was a fairly dry, light morning and the
>driver was just going too fast. He will probably argue everything,
>nasty bend, road narrows, no warnings but the reality is that hundreds
>if not thousands of drivers navigate that bend every day without
>spinning round, across the pavement, through my garden and landing in
>the side of a bus coming the other way. My wall is fixed. A pedestrian
>caught in this would not have survived. It shook me and I was in the
>kitchen at the back of the house.
>
Hope the nutter got what he deserved.
Mick Whittingham
>read so much ego enhanced rubbish in years.
within the my and my vehicles capability. Because I ride a bike I do
have a higher level of awareness and knowledge of the machine/road
conditions. I do have a higher level of experience having driven/riden
on most contries in Europe and the world in most summer, winter, snow
desert, jungle conditions. I have made mistakes in my learning but by
taking care about what I have done I have recovered unscathed from them.
*Can you say the same.*
>You'll be telling me next that all motorway accidents are caused by the
>idiots who insist on sticking to the speed limit.
According to the research done in Germany artificially low speed limits
on open high speed roads cause bunching or 'Schneller Verkehr-Stau'
which is the major cause of multiple accidents. The Germans believe that
it is worth burning more fuel than putting people in hospital. In our
country because of the way the state is funded it looks better to
restrict speed to reduce the fuel consumption of cars on motorways and
tolerate the high cost of hospitalisation of accident victims.
>Are we really supposed to believe that you are infallible at any speed?
>
>
I have a sneaky suspicion that you believe you are infallible if you
drive at the speed limit.
Gavin Hall
Adrian Vickers wrote:
>
> Gavin Hall <Gavin...@dial.pipex.com> went on and on like this:
>
> >
> > Have you seen how many of the GATSO's are live? Not many! I counted them
> > from J10 round to Junction 11 anti-clockwise (I was travelling slowly
> > clockwise!) only a single GATSO on one lane was actually live, the rest
> > were all dummies! Apparently this is true for all of the variable-limit
> > section.
>
> Interesting... Of course everyone might have been sticking to the speed
> limit :-) Do dummy cameras flash (I would have thought not, but...)
>
> Maybe all the active ones are on the clockwise section?
>
The Dummy boxes don't have a flashed installed! There is simply a black
space. If you look carefully (whilst in the usual traffic jam) the live
box stands out a mile, it's flash unit is very visible.
Of course when I say live, it may not have any film in, but at least it
has a flash to enable the picture to be taken ! :-)
Gavin
Paul M Hounslow
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:57:07 +0100, moj <M...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm young, alert
Bwhahahahahahahaha!
>--
> X X
>~~~~ X X X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Moj X X Yammy Fizzy 6R No Fear? No Hair! MAG "Be of good heart"
>~~~~~~ X X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> X http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~moj
--
Paul Hounslow - phou...@objective.co.uk
DoD #0573 BOOF #18 UKMC #9 UK Village Idiot
The smelling pistakes are all mine; mine I say!
Douglas Dwyer
>remember the exact location.
>nuff said.
discourage exceeding the limit, on the edge of a city there are varying
limits not always obvious which applies, a purpose of the camera must be
to alert you somewhat brutally to the fact that there is a particular
limit applying to a road. I am sure I was guilty but still dont know
where the road was, therefore the system did not achieve its full
purpose.
Douglas Dwyer
Windy
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:01:14 GMT, Si...@raunds.demon.co.uk (Simon
Atkinson) wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:18:28 GMT, in uk.rec.motorcycles,
>s...@windfalls.u-net.com (Windy) scribed article
><35490dbb.2511806@wingate> and said:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 00:04:05 GMT, tau...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Mike
>>Fleming) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Mike (DF) Fleming MAG #79794 DoD #4446 OT #3 UKMC #9 FAB #10
>>> GAGARPHOF #6 JKLO #004 KotWP7 RotRotRotKotL
>>> SST #69 BFG #024 BFG JHLO #1
>>
>>HE'S ALIVE!!! ALIVE!!!!
>
>We have no proof of that. This posting could be the last twitchings of
>the Flemingbot as its drives spin down for the last time.
>
No! I couldn't bear it! That would mean I'd never get the chance to
hear "The Slug Song" sung by its composer:(
Mick Whittingham
In article <6i6mtb$18...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>, John Wright
<j...@isise.rl.ac.uk> writes
>On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:16:52 +0100, in <35464...@news1.mcmail.com>,
>Falcon wrote:
>
>>Speed kills.
>
>Better not travel on a 747 then...
>
There are lots of reasons not to fly on a Boeing 747 and speed isn't one
of them. (Unless the pilot is taking it.)
Chris Ward
Falcon of
posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:16:52 +0100
' Sorry, am I missing a point here. What gives you the right to travel at 65
' in a 50 MPH area?
Intelligence.
The same right that allows me to travel at 20 mph in a 50 mph area.
Ability to judge what is safe and when it is safe.
In other words, a brain.
' Speed kills.
Well they've convinced you haven't they ?
Chris Ward
Chris Ward
Falcon of
posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:25:31 +0100
' Remind me to avoid all you 'so called' perfect drivers' in future. I haven't
' read so much ego enhanced rubbish in years.
I never said I was perfect.
' You'll be telling me next that all motorway accidents are caused by the
' idiots who insist on sticking to the speed limit.
No I won't.
' Are we really supposed to believe that you are infallible at any speed?
I never said I was infallible.
Were we reading the same article ?
Chris Ward
Steve Collins
In article <354644...@netcomuk.co.uk>,
Bryan Mills <bry...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>If they persuade you to drive slower then they improve road safety.
If they persuade you (or ANYONE else, regardless of your opinion of them) to
spend more time looking at the side of road for cameras hidden in bushes
rather than looking at the road ahead, or to brake sharply on a clear road
when a camera is spotted only to resume illegal speed again, do they still
improve road safety?
There are many arguments, some good some bad ,for driving within the speed
limit but do cameras persuade anyone to drive any slower?
"Blame me for anything within - not my employer!"
Neil Murray
John Wright <j...@isise.rl.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:52:16 +0100, in
> <D$xe4nAQh...@mjwc.demon.co.uk>, Mick Whittingham wrote:
> >In article <6i6mtb$18...@newton.cc.rl.ac.uk>, John Wright
> ><j...@isise.rl.ac.uk> writes
> >>On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:16:52 +0100, in <35464...@news1.mcmail.com>,
> >>Falcon wrote:
> >>
> >>>Speed kills.
> >>
> >>Better not travel on a 747 then...
> >>
> >There are lots of reasons not to fly on a Boeing 747 and speed isn't one
> >of them. (Unless the pilot is taking it.)
>
> The 747 is still the second fastest commercial plane...after Concorde of
> course.
Ah, but Concorde is statistically the safest!
And re. Speed Kills - the best sum-up I ever read was in a piece written
by Mike Nicks, called "A quick one at dawn", in Bike mag some time in
the late 1970s.
Quote:
Speed doesn't kill; disrespect for it does.
Amen.
--
Neil
Please delete nospam to email
Richard Tibbetts
Barry O'Neill
In article <3546cc95...@nemesis.waverider.co.uk>,
ch...@waverider.co.uk says...
> Falcon of
>
> ' Sorry, am I missing a point here. What gives you the right to travel at 65
> ' in a 50 MPH area?
>
> Intelligence.
Yeah, right. No doubt you would argue that your alleged "intelligence"
gives you the right to smash into pedestrians too stupid to get out of
your way in time.
> The same right that allows me to travel at 20 mph in a 50 mph area.
> Ability to judge what is safe and when it is safe.
> In other words, a brain.
>
> ' Speed kills.
>
> Well they've convinced you haven't they ?
You've pretty much convinced me that some people are even more stupid out
of their cars than they are whilst driving them.
Barry
--
"Humour is such a subjective thing, don't you think Mollari?" - Emperor
Cartagia, Babylon 5
Ken Knapman
what an amazing response to the original message
Ken Knapman
Matthew Cull
In article <Ld88gYAm...@mjwc.demon.co.uk>, Mick Whittingham
<Mi...@mjwc.demon.co.uk> writes
>I have a sneaky suspicion that you believe you are infallible if you
>drive at the speed limit.
There's worse, my wife drives *everywhere* at 45 until she sees dual
carriageway or motorway then it's 145!
Who says women don't understand logic, she is the original digital
driver and boy is it hard on brake pads, disks and petrol.
--
Matt - Dorset.
OT #4. TSTF2. AWA #3. UKMC #9.
It only takes two-strokes to get me excited.
Ben Smith
My 2 pennyworth:
- I think zero tolerance needs to be introduced for traffic offences
*but* only after existing speed limits are looked at. I drive over 600
miles a week, mostly motorways / trunk roads (ie A14 Brum - Ipswich; no
traffic lights and two roundabouts the whole way) and I drive quickly;
as do most drivers. However, this is where conditions allow for it.
70mph is certainly a joke on a motorway like the M40 which is fairly
empty a lot of the time, which is why so many people ignore the speed
limit. Of course, get into the habit of ignoring one speed limit and you
ignore them all; which is why I'm awaiting to be done for speeding (done
by Mr Plod in person alas - does 4 months without a word from them seem
a long time ?).
If you could do 40 - 60 on roads suitable for the purpose, with
dedicated cycle lanes etc, then restrict all residential areas to 25 mph
and throw the book at people going even 5mph above that speed, maybe
something would happen. As it is, just like with drugs, when enough
people disobey the law then it gets ignored.
Finally on the motorway the other month a police car came past me doing
*at least* 130mph, lights flashing. 1 mile down the road, it turned off,
went round the island, and went back on, lights flashing. Attending an
incident ? not that I'd passed. Just having a burn-up courtesy of the
tax-payer. The "Golf-Lima-Foxtrot" (go like f*ck) mentality of these boy
racers doesn't exactly help either.
TTFN
--
Ben Smith
moj
Paul M Hounslow wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:57:07 +0100, moj <M...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> >I'm young, alert
>
> Bwhahahahahahahaha!
>
andy the pugh
Douglas Dwyer <ddw...@ddwyer.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Other than collecting revenue the other purpose for cameras must be to
> discourage exceeding the limit, on the edge of a city there are varying
> limits not always obvious which applies, a purpose of the camera must be
> to alert you somewhat brutally to the fact that there is a particular
> limit applying to a road.
Which brings upo another point, if you happen to miss the last speed
limit sign (or it has fallen off the pole, like the two going into upper
Bradfield to quote a specific example) you have very litte clue as to
what the prevailing limit is.
I tend to assume that if there are street lights and they don't have
signs on them stating otherwise it is a 30, but I know several places
where this is not actually the case.
--
ap
andy the pugh
andy the pugh
Bryan Mills <bry...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> Sorry Chris, taking umbrage with you here,
> > The safe speed on any road varies continously according to road conditions,
> > weather, other road users. It is not always the speed which some bureaucrat
> > as put on the speed limit signs.
>
> > Sometimes it is higher, sometimes it is lower.
>
> That's as good as saying 'The speed limit says 40mph and I don't care if
> there is a foot of snow.'
No, I think if you try reading the statement again you will find it is
stating precisely the opposite.
>
> > Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they
> > wouldn't be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
>
> If they persuade you to drive slower then they improve road safety.
But how do they persuade you to drive slower if the first you know of
their presence is an envelope on the doorstep? It is a bit late to slow
down then, and you probably won't have a clue where it happened either.
--
ap
Mike Fleming
> Sorry Chris, taking umbrage with you here,
>
> Chris Ward wrote:
> >
> > Falcon of
> > posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Sun, 26 Apr 1998 20:35:29 +0100
> >
> > ' The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
> > ' who deserve our contempt.
> >
> > They are not necessarily 'idiots'.
>
> But more than likely.
Why?
> > They are not necessarily 'racing'.
>
> So why are they in a rush?
Perhaps they enjoy speed...
> > They are not necessarily putting lives at risk.
>
> So you can state categorically that you can pull up and stop safely
> regardless of what happens 100 metres in front? These are roads with
> houses, shops, parked cars and most importantly pedestrians, who don't
> always have crossings to use.
Let's see, the A45 in the 60mph section... in the bit between the
Gatso by the Elf garage, where I'm doing 60mph, and the Gatso at the
top of the next hill, by the car showroom, where I'm doing 60mph, I
enjoy getting up to 130mph if traffic conditions allow. Funnily
enough, there's a singular absence of houses, shops, parked cars, and
pedestrians along there... then I get to the 40mph area, and as I ride
along at 40, all the traffic that I've overtaken in the 60 area passes
me again.
> > They may well be travelling at a higher speed than the speed limit because
> > they can see that it is safe to do so.
>
> Irrelavent because the LAW say's otherwise. Was the road built to take
> traffic at such a speed, or are you a civil engineer ?
I don't seem to have disappeared through the tarmac yet.
> > The safe speed on any road varies continously according to road conditions,
> > weather, other road users. It is not always the speed which some bureaucrat
> > as put on the speed limit signs.
>
> > Sometimes it is higher, sometimes it is lower.
>
> That's as good as saying 'The speed limit says 40mph and I don't care if
> there is a foot of snow.'
You have difficulty either with reading or with logic. As you are an
idiot, presumably you race between Gatsos...
> > Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they wouldn't
> > be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
>
> If they persuade you to drive slower then they improve road safety.
They persuade you to drive slower in the 20 yards that they cover.
More often than not, the said 20 yards doesn't coincide with an area
where there's a traffic hazard which would benefit from reduced speed
- the Gatsos near my house are set so that one will catch drivers
after they've passed the local school, the other will catch them about
1/2 mile before it (but just after the start of the 30 limit). I don't
see that the Gatsos are actually helping in the area where they would
be most beneficial, ie. just outside the school.
> > They are intended to extort yet more money from drivers who don't know where
> > they are.
>
> Don't break the law and you won't get fined.
As the law becomes tighter and tighter, so more people will hold it in
disrespect. As for the idea that the speeder should become a social
pariah like the drink-driver - well, basically, it's bollocks. No
differentiation is made between the stupid bastards who drive at 10mph
over the limit on crowded urban streets and the sensible road users
who travel at 1.5 times the legal limit on empty motorways or dual
carriageways, although a legal one is - you're likely to lose your
licence for the latter, but not for the former.
>
> I have recently had my front garden smashed to pieces because of some
> nutter driving too fast. It was a fairly dry, light morning and the
> driver was just going too fast. He will probably argue everything,
> nasty bend, road narrows, no warnings but the reality is that hundreds
> if not thousands of drivers navigate that bend every day without
> spinning round, across the pavement, through my garden and landing in
> the side of a bus coming the other way. My wall is fixed. A pedestrian
> caught in this would not have survived. It shook me and I was in the
> kitchen at the back of the house.
And your point is?
--
Mike Fleming
Chris Ward
Bryan Mills of None. (via NETCOM Internet Ltd. USENET service).
posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:04:45 +0100
' Sorry Chris, taking umbrage with you here,
No need to apologize, this is still a free country. :-)
'
' > ' The idiots who race between speed cameras putting lives at risk are the ones
' > ' who deserve our contempt.
' >
' > They are not necessarily 'idiots'.
'
' But more than likely.
Not at all. There are of course a few idiots out there as there are in every
field of human endeavour, but the vast majority of drivers who exceed the speed
limit a little are not idiots.
' > They are not necessarily 'racing'.
'
' So why are they in a rush?
Why shouldn't they be in a rush ?
Time is the most precious thing we have.
Never seen anyone running for a bus or train ?
'
' > They are not necessarily putting lives at risk.
'
' So you can state categorically that you can pull up and stop safely
' regardless of what happens 100 metres in front? These are roads with
' houses, shops, parked cars and most importantly pedestrians, who don't
' always have crossings to use.
'
Why do you specify 100m ?
The stopping distance from 40mph quoted in the highway code is 36m.
From 70mph it is 96m. I did not advocate travelling at 70+ in a 40 zone.
As demonstrated by Top Gear recently, the 70mph figure is based on a 1965 Ford
Anglia! Modern cars can stop in much less disance; or in the same distance from
much higher speeds. A Lexus for example can stop from 70mph in just 42m!
Any driver should always drive with regard to the distance in which they can
stop, and the road conditions ahead, but may well still be able to do so whilst
travelling above the official speed limit.
' > They may well be travelling at a higher speed than the speed limit because
' > they can see that it is safe to do so.
'
' Irrelavent because the LAW say's otherwise. Was the road built to take
' traffic at such a speed, or are you a civil engineer ?
Most urban roads were not built for any particular speed, they developed over
time. The speed limit is decided upon by some bureaucrat.
It is not scientifically calculated, otherwise they wouldn't all be in multiples
of ten, nor would it be constant for mile after mile of road as it goes round
bends, past schools, and other hazards.
' > The safe speed on any road varies continously according to road conditions,
' > weather, other road users. It is not always the speed which some bureaucrat
' > as put on the speed limit signs.
'
' > Sometimes it is higher, sometimes it is lower.
'
' That's as good as saying 'The speed limit says 40mph and I don't care if
' there is a foot of snow.'
Rubbish. It is nothing of the sort. It is saying that a driver needs to make a
continuously varying assessment of safe speed as road conditions change,
rather than blindly sticking to the number on the speed limit signs.
'
' > Speed cameras are not intended to improve road safety, otherwise they wouldn't
' > be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
'
' If they persuade you to drive slower then they improve road safety.
Just because the government waste millions of pounds telling us that 'speed
kills' doesn't mean we have to switch off our brains and believe it.
'
' > They are intended to extort yet more money from drivers who don't know where
' > they are.
'
' Don't break the law and you won't get fined.
If the law wasn't reasonable people wouldn't get fined.
Til then, don't get caught and you won't get fined.
'
' I have recently had my front garden smashed to pieces because of some
' nutter driving too fast. It was a fairly dry, light morning and the
' driver was just going too fast. He will probably argue everything,
' nasty bend, road narrows, no warnings but the reality is that hundreds
' if not thousands of drivers navigate that bend every day without
' spinning round, across the pavement, through my garden and landing in
' the side of a bus coming the other way. My wall is fixed. A pedestrian
' caught in this would not have survived. It shook me and I was in the
' kitchen at the back of the house.
Sorry to hear about your garden.
By your own admission this was one of hundreds of thousands of drivers,
which contradicts your claim that drivers who exceed the speed limit are 'more
than likely idiots'. You will find that the majority of drivers do exceed the
speed limit albeit by only a small amount.
Your opinion on this matter has obviously been influenced by this one incident.
Chris Ward
Chris Ward
Barry O'Neill of PSD
posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:52:28 +0100
' In article <3546cc95...@nemesis.waverider.co.uk>,
' ch...@waverider.co.uk says...
' > Falcon of
' > posted this to uk.local.birmingham on Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:16:52 +0100
' >
' > ' Sorry, am I missing a point here. What gives you the right to travel at 65
' > ' in a 50 MPH area?
' >
' > Intelligence.
'
' Yeah, right. No doubt you would argue that your alleged "intelligence"
' gives you the right to smash into pedestrians too stupid to get out of
' your way in time.
No. I'd see them and slow down or stop or avoid hitting them. It's called
observation, and consideration to other road users.
' > The same right that allows me to travel at 20 mph in a 50 mph area.
' > Ability to judge what is safe and when it is safe.
' > In other words, a brain.
' >
' > ' Speed kills.
' >
' > Well they've convinced you haven't they ?
'
' You've pretty much convinced me that some people are even more stupid out
' of their cars than they are whilst driving them.
I take it you don't drive a car then ?
Chris
Blade-Runner
It was Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:26:07 GMT. You remember? Course you do!
disr...@toolsbase.demon.co.uk (Adrian Vickers) wrote some of this :
>Do dummy cameras flash (I would have thought not, but...)
>
Yes, according to a mate who works on the council.
--
Geoff (Blade-Runner)
Put the cat out to reply via e-mail
North Staffs Oatcakes Page http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/2333
Go placidly amid the toys and waste (sign on kids' bedroom door) [me]
Hangman's Joke
andy the pugh wrote in message
<1d89uxr.1tr...@ra201017.shef.ac.uk>...
Should that be deceleration (rapid)? ;-)
Later...
Eric
Steve Walker
>My 2 pennyworth:
>
>- I think zero tolerance needs to be introduced for traffic offences
>*but* only after existing speed limits are looked at.
<snip>
I agree entirely, with the proviso that the limits ought to be
variable. Set limits based on what can be seen from the motorway
cameras, set the limit as high as conditions allow, and then enforce
it strictly.
People break the 70 limit because they can see that under good
conditions it is a nonsense.
As for urban limits, again, I agree. Lower them, and enforce them. Use
cameras with the rubber tube type detectors (I'm told that radar
doesn't work in enclosed spaces), and get rid of all the stupid
'traffic calming' rubbish.
Steve
Andy Mabbett
In article <1d89uxr.1tr...@ra201017.shef.ac.uk>, andy the pugh
<a.c....@shef.ac.uk> writes
>> Speed kills.
>
>No, acceleration kills.
I thought it was rapid deceleration, usually upon impact?
--
Andy Mabbett, Development Manager, Birmingham ASSIST
Birmingham City Council - www.birmingham.gov.uk
Phone: (+) 44 121 303 3640 - Fax: (+) 44 121 212 1930
Post: 3rd Floor, Central Library, Birmingham B3 3HQ
Andy Mabbett
In article <354aaa9f...@news.demon.co.uk>, Mike Fleming
<tau...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>They persuade you to drive slower in the 20 yards that they cover.
I understand (from the press) that the police are now using hand- held
(or other portable) speed guns in between cameras.
Andy Mabbett
In article <354932cd...@news.virgin.net>, Blade-Runner <black-
d...@thecatgeocities.com> writes
>a mate who works on the council.
<pedant>
I think you'll find that, unless he's an elected member, he works *for*
the Council
</p>
(fu set)
Steve Walker
>In article <1d89uxr.1tr...@ra201017.shef.ac.uk>, andy the pugh
><a.c....@shef.ac.uk> writes
>>> Speed kills.
>>
>>No, acceleration kills.
>
>I thought it was rapid deceleration, usually upon impact?
The sign attached to a depends upon which direction you choose to
measure it in....
Steve
Andy Mabbett
In article <3MpNBHAf...@bjsmith.demon.co.uk>, Ben Smith
<B...@bjsmith.demon.co.uk> writes
>on the motorway the other month a police car came past me doing
>*at least* 130mph, lights flashing. 1 mile down the road, it turned off,
>went round the island, and went back on, lights flashing. Attending an
>incident ? not that I'd passed.
You'd know if you'd passed a car load of escaped convicts/ armed bank
robbers/ wanted terrorists, would you?
--
Andy Mabbett: Personal view only - *not* my employers!
Info on uk.* newsgroups: http://www.usenet.org.uk/
Steve Walker
>In article <3MpNBHAf...@bjsmith.demon.co.uk>, Ben Smith
><B...@bjsmith.demon.co.uk> writes
>>on the motorway the other month a police car came past me doing
>>*at least* 130mph, lights flashing. 1 mile down the road, it turned off,
>>went round the island, and went back on, lights flashing. Attending an
>>incident ? not that I'd passed.
>
>You'd know if you'd passed a car load of escaped convicts/ armed bank
>robbers/ wanted terrorists, would you?
Particularly if they were doing something just off the previous
junction....
Steve
Paul M Hounslow
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:18:12 +0100, moj <M...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul M Hounslow wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 23:57:07 +0100, moj <M...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>> >I'm young, alert
>>
>> Bwhahahahahahahaha!
>>
>You're just jealous you old fart! ;0)
And?
--
Paul Hounslow - phou...@objective.co.uk
DoD #0573 BOOF #18 UKMC #9 UK Village Idiot
The smelling pistakes are all mine; mine I say!
eric the brave
In article <mtn3cOAJ...@mjwc.demon.co.uk>, Mick Whittingham
<Mi...@mjwc.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>My son got a ticket for doing 50 in a 60 limit. He appealed and went to
>court where the police changed the place to half a mile away inside the
>city boundary and a 30 limit.
>
Stick a NSL sign up and take a photo, produce it at court. Works a
treat. ? (So they tell me).
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Simon - South Wales
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eric the brave
In article <35462c6b.14708431@news>, Rob Davis <r...@MAPSON.elsham.foobar
.co.uk> writes
>Ho, the temptation to mock up a rear plate saying BOLLOCKS, or
>obtain the Chief Constable's number, and then go though...
>
Actually it was the Chief constables wifes number plates, on a nicked
car of the same colour and type in the 'wrong' area of the city "doing
the gatso's". Never did find out what actually happened in the end.
John
Hhmmm, a Kawka 600 !........Better bet buy a nifty then you won't need to
spend half your life looking for Gatsos.
I think I better pass this advice to my brother with his GSX1100 !
Happy scootering.
Adrian Jones <adr...@our-pad.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<H3azTBAOoiQ1EwP$@our-pad.demon.co.uk>...
> New GATSO cameras have been installed on the A45 in both
directions.....etc, etc (snip).
> Adrian,
> GPx600R
> E-mail = adr...@our-pad.demon.co.uk
> Packet = g1kea@gb7sol.#29.gbr.eu
>
Malcolm Groom
>wouldn't
>> > be hidden behind trees, bushes, and road signs.
>>
>> If they persuade you to drive slower then they improve road safety.
>
>where there's a traffic hazard which would benefit from reduced speed
Whilst agreeing with this I have immense difficulty with the idea that a
speed camera put up due to road works (widening a dual lane into a three
lane) shouldn't be set up with a timer. I can understand limiting the
speed to say fifty through the day whilst people are working on the road
but at night when there is nobody around why should I still be expected
to drive at well under a safe limit?
With regards to camera's the one on the A19 going south prior to the
stockton turnoff is sensibly placed (was this a mistake on the part of
the placers?). Then again it is hidden behind a sign. Hopefully it
will stay there as I know where it is ;)
>be most beneficial, ie. just outside the school.
If only more drivers would realise that speeding through towns is
stupid, doing so on dual/motorways is fine IMO.
>pariah like the drink-driver - well, basically, it's bollocks.
Correct, especially as cars are getting better and better allowing more
control and feedback. If we ban off-road vehicles from being on-road
there is no reason not to increase the maximum speed limit as the rest
of us can stop in much less then 315ft at 70.
--
Malcolm Groom
Falcon
Chris..... well now. (Shakes head in disbelief)
Frankly the whole argument is a little fatuous. It is a fact that excessive
speed is a factor in a large percentage of accidents (and yes I know all
about the other contributory factors), and that accidents happen when people
misjudge either their ability to stop in time or take the necessary evasive
action. Lapses in concentration are severely punished when driving at speed
and no one can guarantee 100% concentration.....
To think that you are a driver who can bend or break the rules to suit you
own egocentric view of you driving abilities, is conceited in the extreme.
PS...no chance of you publicising your registration number I suppose.
Just so that I can get out of the way......
--
Email to: falcon
Staffordshire, England
'Clip the Falcons wing to reply'
Steve Walker
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 14:08:16 +0100, "Falcon" <fal...@wingmcmail.com>
wrote:
>Chris..... well now. (Shakes head in disbelief)
>
>Frankly the whole argument is a little fatuous. It is a fact that excessive
>speed is a factor in a large percentage of accidents (and yes I know all
>about the other contributory factors), and that accidents happen when people
>misjudge either their ability to stop in time or take the necessary evasive
>action. Lapses in concentration are severely punished when driving at speed
>and no one can guarantee 100% concentration.....
Nor can anybody guarantee 100% safety. At any speed. By your logic, we
wouldn't drive at all.
>To think that you are a driver who can bend or break the rules to suit you
>own egocentric view of you driving abilities, is conceited in the extreme.
I think his point is that speed limits are set pretty much
arbitrarily. The reason that they are so widely ignored is that people
know that, and don't respect them. The police know that too, which is
why the de facto speed limit is higher than the posted one. If limits
were set sensibly, and enforced rigorously, then everybody would be
happier.
What he said is that he makes a judgement about what speed is safe,
and travels at that speed. That may seem dangerous to you, but your
attitude implies that you're one of those 70mph on the M6 in freezing
fog types, who thinks that he's invulnerable as long as he doesn't
break the posted limit.
Steve
Mike
In article <6i58sc$qc4$1...@heliodor.xara.net>, ANDREW ROUND <anroundNOSPAM
@globalnet.co.uk> writes
>Alot of the cameras are dummies(and do flash) ............................
>
>a bit like the people who try to avoid them....*-)
>
>
Matthew Cull
Mr Pugh, I really must insist that, that is my line!!
--
Matt - Dorset.
OT #4. TSTF2. AWA #3. UKMC #9.
It only takes two-strokes to get me excited.
Matthew Cull
In article <35488...@news1.mcmail.com>, Falcon <fal...@wingmcmail.com>
writes
>To think that you are a driver who can bend or break the rules to suit you
>own egocentric view of you driving abilities, is conceited in the extreme.
You could be right but you are still an offensive little know all.
>PS...no chance of you publicising your registration number I suppose.
>Just so that I can get out of the way......
HH-FU-2
Falcon
moj wrote in message <35465EC3...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
:Twat. Fuckin' twat. twat, twat, twat, twat, twat!
What on Earth?
(Scolding) - Silly boy, are you allowed to play with daddy's computer like
that?
PS. Is twat a term of endearment? :-) ......got to do this more often.
Alan W. Frame
Hangman's Joke <pos...@the.NG> wrote:
> andy the pugh wrote in message
> <1d89uxr.1tr...@ra201017.shef.ac.uk>...
But acceleration is a vector.
rgds, Alan
--
Bike Security FAQ at <http://www.newtechd.demon.co.uk>
95 Ducati 600SS, 85 Guzzi V35TT, 74 MV Agusta 350 SI # 3.386
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" MAG # 88673 DoD#1910
Mark Davies
Well Today I was BLASTING around Coventry doing ooh 62 miles an hour,
which was OK until I hit that ringroad. I may be the first person to get
cought on film, breaking the spped limit in a Peugeot 106 Electric car
(doh!!)
--
Mark Davies
Mar...@uunix.demon.co.uk