Re: Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test
Mas...@bp.com
the responsibility of the contractors and the Highways Agency for
signage during road works. All we can do is check that the signs are
in the right place when police officers are present at the scene.”
What is a "safety camera"?
--
Simon Mason
Sir Jeremy
ask your Mrs
Mas...@bp.com
She got caught by a mobile police unit outside a school, hiding in a
big van with red stripes on it and "safety camera partnership"
plastered all over it parked next to a sign on a lampost stating that
cameras were operating in that area.
--
Simon Mason
alan.holmes
<Mas...@BP.com> wrote in message
news:321bdc23-ce95-496b...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
It is a device used to falsly accuse motorists of exceeding the speed limit
and thus raise money for the government.
Alan
--
Simon Mason
alan.holmes
<Mas...@BP.com> wrote in message
news:81e8b70d-c7cc-465f...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
But was she really exceeding the speed limit or was it just a con.
Was she silly enough to pay the fine, or did she ask to see the 'evidence'?
Alan
--
Simon Mason
Mas...@bp.com
> <Mas...@BP.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Was she silly enough to pay the fine, or did she ask to see the 'evidence'?
>
She admitted she was doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone outside of a school
and since she had no money *I* was silly enough to pay the fine!
--
Simon Mason
Mas...@bp.com
The stupid thing as far as the law breaking driver is concerned, is
that the funds raised by safety cameras is spent on even more cameras
to catch even more law breakers to give the government even more
money. When will they learn?
--
Simon Mason
chris French
<81e8b70d-c7cc-465f...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Mas...@BP.com writes
Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
him/her.
think I need to add 'Motorist' in the subject line to it as well
--
Chris French
Mas...@bp.com
wrote:
> In message
> <81e8b70d-c7cc-465f-aea2-1865adb2d...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can add me to your killfile as well and solve that problem.
--
Simon Mason
Judith Smith
Hello sunshine
Have you been added to the approved moderator list?
We've not been informed.
WTF does it matter to you who anyone chooses to respond to ?
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
chris French
<f92155f9-a3de-47d6...@q33g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Mas...@BP.com writes
>> Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
>> him/her.
>>
>> think I need to add 'Motorist' in the subject line to it as well
>
>
Well, yes I could, though that would leave others.
But I've no wish to KF you Simon
--
Chris French
Mas...@bp.com
wrote:
> In message
> <f92155f9-a3de-47d6-9961-e0284934e...@q33g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Thanks. In that case, I am in a dilemma, as neither Judith nor Nuxxy
has verbally abused me and as long as they are polite and reasonable I
see no reason to stop my dialog with them.
--
Simon Mason
Adam Lea
I hope she took you out to a meal (or something similar) as compensation.
Mas...@bp.com
She couldn't pay her speeding fine, so where was she going to find the
money to buy a meal from? I'm sure it kept plod on their toes though,
there must be many men who have points on their licence who try and
make out their wives were driving. The late Paul Smith comments here.
The Times, May 14, 2005
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
MORE than half a million drivers have avoided getting points on their
licences by getting a partner to admit to a speeding offence, a survey
has found.
The growing practice of points-swapping is believed to be saving
thousands of motorists each year from being banned from driving for
accumulating 12 penalty points.
A survey of 2,000 drivers by Churchill Insurance found that 2.2 per
cent admitted to taking points on behalf of their partner. With 33
million licence-holders, this is the equivalent of 726,000 drivers. A
third said that they would consider asking their partners to admit to
their speeding offence if it prevented them from losing their licence.
The overwhelming majority of those who had taken points on behalf of a
partner were women.
The survey follows extensive anecdotal evidence of wives accepting
penalties in order to allow their husbands to keep their jobs. One in
seven motorists in the survey said that they would be unable to work
if they lost their licences.
Police chiefs have been puzzled why the number of people being
disqualified for gaining a fourth three-point penalty has fallen while
the number of speeding tickets has multiplied.
In 2003, 1.8 million offences were detected by speed cameras, up from
500,000 in 1999. Yet the number of people disqualified for acquiring
12 points fell from 34,000 to 33,000.
The RAC Foundation said that the rise in points-swapping helped to
explain the discrepancy. Edmund King, the foundation's director, said
that the survey supported widespread anecdotal evidence of points
fraud.
He said: “The temptations are great for those who would lose their
livelihoods. The wife may be faced with a choice between the family
being plunged into poverty or accepting the points which her husband
had incurred.”
The survey also undermines claims that the low number of
disqualifications proves that speed cameras are working. The AA
Motoring Trust has argued that drivers must be learning their lesson
after gaining three speeding penalties because so few went on to pick
up four.
Paul Smith, founder of the anti-camera campaign SafeSpeed, said that
it was more likely that a large proportion of those drivers on the
brink of a ban asked a relative or friend to take the points for any
further offences.
He said that points-swapping was a product of a camera-based system in
which no police officer was involved in stopping the driver.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said that points-
swapping was very difficult to detect and usually came to light only
when a couple got divorced and the wife accused the husband of passing
his points on to her. Ian Bell, Acpo's speed camera liaison officer,
said that there were no routine checks on whether the person admitting
to an offence was the person who had committed it: “While Gatsos
photograph the rear of the vehicle, others, like Truvelos and mobile
cameras, take a picture of the front and may show who was driving. But
if we have got an admission by a driver, there would be no reason to
check.”
In January, a father was jailed for four months for perverting the
course of justice after claiming that a French friend had been
responsible for a speeding offence committed by his daughter. David
Simmonite, 60, of Bradford, West Yorkshire, had hoped to spare his
daughter, Stephanie, from receiving three points after she was flashed
at 87mph on the A1 in Grantham, Lincolnshire.
Police checked with the Frenchman and found that he was at home being
treated for a kidney complaint at the time.
The Home Office said a person who accepted points on behalf of someone
else would be charged with perjury, which carries a maximum penalty of
seven years imprisonment.
--
Simon Mason
thaksin
> "alan.holmes" <alan.h...@somewhere.net> considered Sat, 25 Apr
> that your speedometer is legal.
Odds are _vanishingly_ small that it isn't legal, though. They can
_over-read_ by up to 10%, but _under-read_ by 0.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
>him/her.
As long as the nuxxious emissions are appropriately trimmed I don't
care overmuch if people respond, but I do find it wearing when people
quote all of one of his rants just to tell him he's a loathsome
brainless trolling fucktard, as if we didn't already know that.
>think I need to add 'Motorist' in the subject line to it as well
That's a good idea, I must try that.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>Thanks. In that case, I am in a dilemma, as neither Judith nor Nuxxy
>has verbally abused me and as long as they are polite and reasonable I
>see no reason to stop my dialog with them.
Well, polite, anyway. There is certainly no intersection between
nuxxy's maunderings and anything which could be called "reason".
thaksin
> thaksin <noth...@email.null> considered Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:41:34
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> "alan.holmes" <alan.h...@somewhere.net> considered Sat, 25 Apr
>>> 2009 19:28:44 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>>>
>>>> <Mas...@BP.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:321bdc23-ce95-496b...@u39g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> "A spokesman for the Cleveland Safety Camera Partnership said: “It is
>>>> the responsibility of the contractors and the Highways Agency for
>>>> signage during road works. All we can do is check that the signs are
>>>> in the right place when police officers are present at the scene.”
>>>>
>>>>> What is a "safety camera"?
>>>> It is a device used to falsly accuse motorists of exceeding the speed limit
>>>> and thus raise money for the government.
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>> If you're that convinced you weren't speeding, maybe you should check
>>> that your speedometer is legal.
>> Odds are _vanishingly_ small that it isn't legal, though. They can
>> _over-read_ by up to 10%, but _under-read_ by 0.
>
> that the car came with as standard.
Granted, but I'd bet that 99% of cars are thus shod.
Daniel Barlow
A brief check of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations
1986 doesn't say anything about an exemption for cars with unusual tyre
sizes. I conclude therefore that the legal requirement for speedometer
accuracy holds nevertheless, and if you modify your car in this way it's
your responsibility to finish the job properly
-dan
thaksin
for my 'new' Minor was custom-calibrated). But I don't think there's a
requirement for it. It's not tested at MOT time, anyway. When I moved
the Minor from one restorer to another 150 miles away I phoned the local
plodshop to check whether I could drive it since the speedo was still
away, and they were quite happy that I had a TomTom which I was using
for the job.
Simon Mason
"Daniel Barlow" <d...@telent.net> wrote in message
news:871vrfh...@toy.config...
I'd be more concerned that my insurance would be voided by altering my
wheels from standard. I am on HR tyres and the spec is VR, so I am laying
myself open for an insurance problem.
--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
alan.holmes
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:acv6v4lks3lee28r3...@4ax.com...
> "alan.holmes" <alan.h...@somewhere.net> considered Sat, 25 Apr
> that your speedometer is legal.
Just as a demonstration that what I have written is correct, over the past
few years I have been accused of exceeding the speed limit nine times, the
first one I was stupid enough to pay, the second one was such a farce that
it bought home to me that these devices are not at all accurate, so each one
I asked to see the 'evidence five times I heard no more, of the others it
was not possible to assess the sped as one was a laser gun, which have been
recorded as being completely unreliable, one occasion I was sent a single
picture from a Gatso, clearly to hide the fact that that was not correct,
one went to court which again was a complete farce, it was referred twice,
on the second occasion I was asked what questions I would ask the police,
which I did not do, but asked for it to be referred to a crown court, the
CPS wrote to me saying there was not enough evidence to secure a prosecution
and I was offered compensation, on one occasion I asked how was the thing
calibrated, and the answer was that it was 'serviced' once a year!
My experience show that these devices should be removed until they are set
up correctly.
Alan
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:29:09 +0100, chris French
><newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
>>him/her.
>
>As long as the nuxxious emissions are appropriately trimmed I don't
>care overmuch if people respond, but I do find it wearing when people
>quote all of one of his rants just to tell him he's a loathsome
>brainless trolling fucktard, as if we didn't already know that.
>
>>think I need to add 'Motorist' in the subject line to it as well
>
>That's a good idea, I must try that.
>
>Guy
Hello Guy - keeping things on the boil I see.
Snipper Smith is not going to be best pleased is he?
How's the kids?
Still wearing cycle helmets?
I really can't understand that - how can you let them wear such
dangerous things?
If they came off their bike and the helmet contributed to their death,
then I guess that you would be held to be responsible as you knew they
were dicing with death by wearing them.
What's the missus say about it?
--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.
chris French
you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> writes
>On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:29:09 +0100, chris French
><newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
>>him/her.
>
>As long as the nuxxious emissions are appropriately trimmed I don't
>care overmuch if people respond, but I do find it wearing when people
>quote all of one of his rants just to tell him he's a loathsome
>brainless trolling fucktard, as if we didn't already know that.
Yeah, but replying to them when they start a thread sometimes lures me
into reading it.....
--
Chris French
Adam Lea
> On 25 Apr, 21:59, "Adam Lea" <asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>>> On 25 Apr, 19:30, "alan.holmes" <alan.holme...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>> <Mas...@BP.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Was she silly enough to pay the fine, or did she ask to see the
>>>> 'evidence'?
>>
>>> She admitted she was doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone outside of a
>>> school and since she had no money *I* was silly enough to pay the
>>> fine!
>>
>> I hope she took you out to a meal (or something similar) as
>> compensation.
>
> She couldn't pay her speeding fine, so where was she going to find the
> money to buy a meal from?
Oh, I thought you meant she didn't have any money at that time, so she could
buy you a meal when she did have some money.
If you are bailing her out when she gets a fine where is the incentive for
her to learn from her mistakes?
Judith Smith
<alan.h...@somewhere.net> wrote:
<snip>
>My experience show that these devices should be removed until they are set
>up correctly.
>
>Alan
>
So just to be sure, is that nine accusations, 1 guilty (by choice) and
8 dropped or not guilty?
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."
Simon Mason
"Adam Lea" <asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:EM6dnRpGDc-
>>>
>>> I hope she took you out to a meal (or something similar) as
>>> compensation.
>>
>> She couldn't pay her speeding fine, so where was she going to find the
>> money to buy a meal from?
>
> Oh, I thought you meant she didn't have any money at that time, so she
> could buy you a meal when she did have some money.
She was in between jobs at the time and had no money of her own.
> If you are bailing her out when she gets a fine where is the incentive for
> her to learn from her mistakes?
She now has a job 4 miles away to which she drives. Her incentive is that if
she lost her licence she'd have to to *cycle* there.
Adam Lea
I take it that she is not a cycling enthusiast then :-)
alan.holmes
"Judith Smith" <judit...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ain8v41uqhvt07ggn...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:19:56 +0100, "alan.holmes"
> <alan.h...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>My experience show that these devices should be removed until they are set
>>up correctly.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>
> So just to be sure, is that nine accusations, 1 guilty (by choice) and
> 8 dropped or not guilty?
I assumed, in the first instance, that the devices were reliable, so I took
it that I had exceeded the speed limit, I have no idea whether I was guilty
of exceeding the speed limit on the others, but the fact they were dropped,
makes me feel I was not guilty, as are probably most people trapped by these
things.
> "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary
> position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to
> obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
This is safest, as you will then avoid the potholes and sunken drains which
will throw you of yuor bike onto the road and possibly kill you!
> A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the
> Highway Code.
>
> Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."
But if you let them pass they will invariably push you off the road!
Alan
>
alan.holmes
"Simon Mason" <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:C-idnRMY7pLj82nU...@eclipse.net.uk...
My goodnes, a WHOLE four miles, how on earth can she be expected to cycle
that far!
Alan
JNugent
Any "kept woman" (or kept man) is in the same position. So are any dependant
children convicted in the juvenile courts. It isn't uncommon.
However, I expect that the licence endorsement - as harsh as it is - will not
have been borne by the husband.
Daniel Barlow
>> A brief check of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations
>> 1986 doesn't say anything about an exemption for cars with unusual tyre
>> sizes. I conclude therefore that the legal requirement for speedometer
>> accuracy holds nevertheless, and if you modify your car in this way it's
>> your responsibility to finish the job properly
>>
> That is _almost_ the case (and incidentally the reason why the speedo
> for my 'new' Minor was custom-calibrated). But I don't think there's a
> requirement for it.
Care to clarify that "not a requirement"? I can assure you that the law
is quite explicit: do you mean simply that it's often not enforced?
> It's not tested at MOT time, anyway. When I moved
> the Minor from one restorer to another 150 miles away I phoned the
> local plodshop to check whether I could drive it since the speedo was
> still away, and they were quite happy that I had a TomTom which I was
> using for the job.
If your TomTom is "capable of indicating speed in both miles per hour
and kilometres per hour, either simultaneously or, by the operation of a
switch, separately", and assuming it doesn't underread, it most probably
fulfills the legal requirement anyway. As long as it had a clear view
of the sky for all those 150 miles ...
-dan
thaksin
> thaksin <noth...@email.null> writes:
>
>>> A brief check of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations
>>> 1986 doesn't say anything about an exemption for cars with unusual tyre
>>> sizes. I conclude therefore that the legal requirement for speedometer
>>> accuracy holds nevertheless, and if you modify your car in this way it's
>>> your responsibility to finish the job properly
>>>
>> That is _almost_ the case (and incidentally the reason why the speedo
>> for my 'new' Minor was custom-calibrated). But I don't think there's a
>> requirement for it.
>
> Care to clarify that "not a requirement"? I can assure you that the law
> is quite explicit: do you mean simply that it's often not enforced?
>
Make of that what you will
>> It's not tested at MOT time, anyway. When I moved
>> the Minor from one restorer to another 150 miles away I phoned the
>> local plodshop to check whether I could drive it since the speedo was
>> still away, and they were quite happy that I had a TomTom which I was
>> using for the job.
>
> If your TomTom is "capable of indicating speed in both miles per hour
> and kilometres per hour, either simultaneously or, by the operation of a
> switch, separately", and assuming it doesn't underread, it most probably
> fulfills the legal requirement anyway. As long as it had a clear view
> of the sky for all those 150 miles ...
>
Well I reckon its capable of underreading, at least momentarily.
Simon Mason
"alan.holmes" <alan.h...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:eR0Jl.61768$fe2....@newsfe06.ams2...
>
> I assumed, in the first instance, that the devices were reliable, so I
> took it that I had exceeded the speed limit, I have no idea whether I was
> guilty of exceeding the speed limit on the others, but the fact they were
> dropped, makes me feel I was not guilty, as are probably most people
> trapped by these things.
>
Did you not know if you were exceeding the speed limit? Surely, it is a
prerequisite of driving on a public road to a) be able to know what the
speed limit is for the road you are on and the class of vehicle you are
driving and b) be capable of driving the vehicle at no more than this limit.
Do you just drive around willy-nilly not knowing if you are speeding or not?
In my case, when I got 3 speeding fines through the post addressed to me, I
knew it couldn't possibly be me as I don't speed, why weren't you as sure?
Simon Mason
>
> I assumed, in the first instance, that the devices were reliable, so I
> took it that I had exceeded the speed limit, I have no idea whether I was
> guilty of exceeding the speed limit on the others, but the fact they were
> dropped, makes me feel I was not guilty, as are probably most people
> trapped by these things.
>
Did you not know if you were exceeding the speed limit? Surely, it is a
Peter Clinch
> Did you not know if you were exceeding the speed limit? Surely, it is a
> prerequisite of driving on a public road to a) be able to know what the
> speed limit is for the road you are on and the class of vehicle you are
> driving and b) be capable of driving the vehicle at no more than this
> limit.
My dad was caught by a camera last year. Fair cop, he hadn't been
paying enough attention, guilty as charged. He went on the "awareness
course" offered, and said that he was the only guilty person there.
/Everyone/ else would swear it was all a frightful injustice.
Given the options of lots of people being in denial or the cameras that
caught them being wrong, he seems to think the former option is
considerably more likely.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Mark
wrote:
>Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>> On 25 Apr, 19:30, "alan.holmes" <alan.holme...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>> <Mas...@BP.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Was she silly enough to pay the fine, or did she ask to see the
>>> 'evidence'?
>>>
>>
>> She admitted she was doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone outside of a school
>> and since she had no money *I* was silly enough to pay the fine!
>
>I hope she took you out to a meal (or something similar) as compensation.
I hope she stopped driving completely.
40mph past a school is inexcusable IMHO.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
Brimstone
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:59:18 +0100, "Adam Lea" <asr...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Mas...@BP.com wrote:
>>> On 25 Apr, 19:30, "alan.holmes" <alan.holme...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>> <Mas...@BP.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was she silly enough to pay the fine, or did she ask to see the
>>>> 'evidence'?
>>>>
>>>
>>> She admitted she was doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone outside of a
>>> school and since she had no money *I* was silly enough to pay the
>>> fine!
>>
>> I hope she took you out to a meal (or something similar) as
>> compensation.
>
> I hope she stopped driving completely.
>
> 40mph past a school is inexcusable IMHO.
Surely that depends on the circumstances?
mileburner
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B82dnYn5Bbm7P2jU...@bt.com...
> Mark wrote:
>>
>> 40mph past a school is inexcusable IMHO.
>
> Surely that depends on the circumstances?
>
grass verge, the school side is pavement (standard width) and the speed
limit *is* 40mph. I suppose it would be excusable. Problem is that drivers
being drivers, they think 45 - 50 is OK in a 40 limit.
Mark
To me this shows a lack of care, awareness and consideration. All of
which should be present for someone to be allowed to drive IMHO.
(I am a parent and school governor and have been campaigning, with
only minor successes, for many years for road/pavement safety
improvements to be made near the schools so I am particularly
sensitive to Simon's statement.)
Brimstone
Understood. A confirmed 40 in a 30 limit is completely OTT as the speedo
would have been showing even more.
mileburner
"Mark" <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote in message
news:mbcbv4hqaka90em6b...@4ax.com...
>
> To me this shows a lack of care, awareness and consideration. All of
> which should be present for someone to be allowed to drive IMHO.
>
> (I am a parent and school governor and have been campaigning, with
> only minor successes, for many years for road/pavement safety
> improvements to be made near the schools so I am particularly
> sensitive to Simon's statement.)
I would be interested to know what improvements you would like to see
concerning road/pavement safety.
Rob Morley
Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote:
> I hope she stopped driving completely.
>
> 40mph past a school is inexcusable IMHO.
>
That rather depends on the road layout, conditions, time of day ...
don't you think?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Given the options of lots of people being in denial or the cameras that
>caught them being wrong, he seems to think the former option is
>considerably more likely.
You know, I really think he might be onto something there...
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
alan.holmes
>
> "alan.holmes" <alan.h...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:eR0Jl.61768$fe2....@newsfe06.ams2...
>
>>
>> I assumed, in the first instance, that the devices were reliable, so I
>> took it that I had exceeded the speed limit, I have no idea whether I was
>> guilty of exceeding the speed limit on the others, but the fact they were
>> dropped, makes me feel I was not guilty, as are probably most people
>> trapped by these things.
>>
>
> Did you not know if you were exceeding the speed limit? Surely, it is a
> prerequisite of driving on a public road to a) be able to know what the
> speed limit is for the road you are on and the class of vehicle you are
> driving and b) be capable of driving the vehicle at no more than this
> limit.
Unfortunately I do not have your facility of being able to watch the
speedometer and the road at the same time, I'm more concerned aout not
killing someone than being paranoid about the speed I'm doing, if it is just
right for the conditions then I'm happy, if however I feel I am going too
fast for the conditions then I slow down.
>
> Do you just drive around willy-nilly not knowing if you are speeding or
> not? In my case, when I got 3 speeding fines through the post addressed to
> me, I knew it couldn't possibly be me as I don't speed, why weren't you as
> sure?
I'm curious as to why you got 3 speeding fines when you knew you were not
speeding, did you pay them?
alan.holmes
"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:75ljvsF...@mid.individual.net...
> Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> Did you not know if you were exceeding the speed limit? Surely, it is a
>> prerequisite of driving on a public road to a) be able to know what the
>> speed limit is for the road you are on and the class of vehicle you are
>> driving and b) be capable of driving the vehicle at no more than this
>> limit.
>
> My dad was caught by a camera last year. Fair cop, he hadn't been
> paying enough attention, guilty as charged. He went on the "awareness
> course" offered, and said that he was the only guilty person there.
> /Everyone/ else would swear it was all a frightful injustice.
How did he know he was speeding?
And if he knew why didn't he slow down?
Or did he just take the word of the police who really don't give a damn
whether you really are speeding, just so it increases their fund.
> Given the options of lots of people being in denial or the cameras that
> caught them being wrong, he seems to think the former option is
> considerably more likely.
I assure you he is wrong, the camera are not properly calibrated, and the
people responcible for them do not care just as long as idiots who are
caught by them believe them.
A nice little earner!
There are only two devices I would not chalenge, the hand held RADAR guns
which are checked at the start and end of every shift, and police cars as I
assume they are checked fairly frequently.
Señor Chris
>
> Unfortunately I do not have your facility of being able to watch the
> speedometer and the road at the same time, I'm more concerned aout not
> killing someone than being paranoid about the speed I'm doing, if it is just
> right for the conditions then I'm happy, if however I feel I am going too
> fast for the conditions then I slow down.
Is that the approach you used when you took your test ?
Peter Clinch
> How did he know he was speeding?
He saw the flash, checked the speedo, noted it was > speed limit. So
unless he managed to speed up considerably in the rather short time
between the camera flash and the speedo check it was bang to rights, as
he had the honesty and integrity to admit.
> And if he knew why didn't he slow down?
He subsequently did, but his car being somewhat less adroit at time
travel than the Tardis, it was a bit late by then.
> Or did he just take the word of the police who really don't give a damn
> whether you really are speeding, just so it increases their fund.
As above.
> I assure you he is wrong, the camera are not properly calibrated, and the
> people responcible for them do not care just as long as idiots who are
> caught by them believe them.
Well, proof by assertion, that's jolly convincing, especially in light
of the above where the speedo check happened to coincide with what speed
he was alleged to have been doing.
Roger Merriman
in the town i used to work, the main road into it, was past a college
got a fair bit of speeding along there a fair bit of the haven't slowed
but even so.
i'll admit that at pre 5am i don't used to stick to 30mph though once
past the roundabout i did as not enought sight lines and thats where one
of my collages (who may well still) used to ride in on his bike with no
lights...
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
Roger Merriman
depends on the land i guess but yes not far, what my wife does, it's
downhill on the way their with a steep hill nr the end also known as
Kington bridge.
it's a lovely commute she has and bar wind, is a easy ride.
Roger Merriman
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:29:09 +0100, chris French
> <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
> >him/her.
>
> As long as the nuxxious emissions are appropriately trimmed I don't
> care overmuch if people respond, but I do find it wearing when people
> quote all of one of his rants just to tell him he's a loathsome
> brainless trolling fucktard, as if we didn't already know that.
get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does,
as nuxxy is not as nasty as judit i tend to just put him in a rolling 30
days when he gets too much.
>
> >think I need to add 'Motorist' in the subject line to it as well
>
> That's a good idea, I must try that.
>
> Guy
Rob Morley
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Well, proof by assertion, that's jolly convincing,
Did you expect any better?
Judith Smith
Merriman) wrote:
>Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:29:09 +0100, chris French
>> <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
>> >him/her.
>>
>> As long as the nuxxious emissions are appropriately trimmed I don't
>> care overmuch if people respond, but I do find it wearing when people
>> quote all of one of his rants just to tell him he's a loathsome
>> brainless trolling fucktard, as if we didn't already know that.
>
>get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does
Indeed - you can get one which is share ware and not bother paying the
person who developed it just by not registering.
It's great if you're a cheap skate.
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
alan.holmes
"Se�or Chris" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jzoJl.124015$fx5....@newsfe08.ams2...
It was so long ago I can't remember!
But driving conditins were a lot different then, I drove up the A1 and only
encountered one other vehicle about once an hour.
alan.holmes
"Judith Smith" <judit...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ain8v41uqhvt07ggn...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:19:56 +0100, "alan.holmes"
> <alan.h...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>My experience show that these devices should be removed until they are set
>>up correctly.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>
> So just to be sure, is that nine accusations, 1 guilty (by choice) and
> 8 dropped or not guilty?
1 I assumed I was guilty because I rather stupidly thought the devices were
accurate, 7 were forgotten because I asked silly questions, like can I see
the 'evidence', never heard another word, 1 went to court and that was such
a farce that I asked for it to go to the county court, the CPS wrote to me
telling me there was not enough evidence to secure a conviction and I was
offered compensation, still waiting to see what they decide about the last
one, if they press it I shall insist it goes to the county court as
magistrates courts are absolutely ridiculous.
Alan
Just zis Guy, you know?
> Unfortunately I do not have your facility of being able to watch the
> speedometer and the road at the same time
I wonder how you passed your driving test, then? When I passed mine it was
a requirement that you not exceed the speed limit - my instructor (who was
given an MBE for services to driving tuition) taught me that speeding was an
instant fail.
There is a tolerance in both speedometers and enforcement cameras, so unless
you are insistent on maintaining precisely the limit and not 1mph less,
there really is no major problem keepign within the limits. Assuming you
take the trouble to know what they are.
Martin
> alan.holmes wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I do not have your facility of being able to watch the
>> speedometer and the road at the same time
>
> I wonder how you passed your driving test, then? When I passed mine it
> was a requirement that you not exceed the speed limit - my instructor
> (who was given an MBE for services to driving tuition) taught me that
> speeding was an instant fail.
Speeding is not an instant fail. I do know someone who exceeded the
speed limit on their test, the examiner knew this, but that person still
passed.
Just zis Guy, you know?
Merriman) wrote:
>get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does,
>as nuxxy is not as nasty as judit i tend to just put him in a rolling 30
>days when he gets too much.
For values of "not as nasty" that include phoning in the small hours
to shout "murderer". In terms of malice I don't think there is a lot
to choose between the two. Actually since both of them are fact-blind
agenda-driven nutcases it is not even that interesting to speculate on
what differences there might be, I suspect.
thaksin
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:06:53 +0000, NE...@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
> Merriman) wrote:
>
>> get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does,
>> as nuxxy is not as nasty as judit i tend to just put him in a rolling 30
>> days when he gets too much.
>
> For values of "not as nasty" that include phoning in the small hours
> to shout "murderer". In terms of malice I don't think there is a lot
> to choose between the two. Actually since both of them are fact-blind
> agenda-driven nutcases it is not even that interesting to speculate on
> what differences there might be, I suspect.
>
still feel smug when your scattergun unpleasantness hits a _real_
"nasty" person and they pay you a visit, eh?
Alistair Gunn
> > I wonder how you passed your driving test, then? When I passed mine it
> > was a requirement that you not exceed the speed limit - my instructor
> > (who was given an MBE for services to driving tuition) taught me that
> > speeding was an instant fail.
> Speeding is not an instant fail. I do know someone who exceeded the
> speed limit on their test, the examiner knew this, but that person still
> passed.
<nods> Someone I was at school with did 40mph in a 30mph zone (IIRC,
they missed the sign where the speed limit changed) and still passed.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>alan.holmes wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I do not have your facility of being able to watch the
>> speedometer and the road at the same time
>
>I wonder how you passed your driving test, then? When I passed mine it was
>a requirement that you not exceed the speed limit - my instructor (who was
>given an MBE for services to driving tuition) taught me that speeding was an
>instant fail.
Chapman bragging again.
Just what is the relevance that *your* instructor had an MBE?
Do you think if he hadn't, he'd have told you to put your foot down?
It is irrelevant.
You can't state anything simply without embellishing it can you?
--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:06:53 +0000, NE...@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger
>Merriman) wrote:
>
>>get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does,
>>as nuxxy is not as nasty as judit i tend to just put him in a rolling 30
>>days when he gets too much.
>
>For values of "not as nasty" that include phoning in the small hours
>to shout "murderer". In terms of malice I don't think there is a lot
>to choose between the two. Actually since both of them are fact-blind
>agenda-driven nutcases it is not even that interesting to speculate on
>what differences there might be, I suspect.
>
>Guy
Good old Guy - keep things on the boil.
Whatever will Snipper Smith have to say?
Fact-blinded?
In order to prove Risk Compensation Chapman offers the following:
"For example, in general, children using PE such as helmets report
going faster and more often reported damage to their bike"
What he doesn't say - is that it was actually 4 children who responded
in that way.
Now there's fact-blinded if ever I saw it.
Chapman = despicable.
--
The BMA view of helmets:
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.
The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.
Mark
In this particular case the roads are generally narrow and there are
areas where parking is *not* prohibited. In places the pavements are
very narrow and not continuous. Some of the pavements slope steeply
towards the road. There is a lot of vehicular and pedestrian traffic
due to the 3 large schools nearby and the road is used as a rat run to
avoid traffic lights on the main road (I assume).
The problems we face are:
- Cars/lorries mounting the pavement due to the narrowness of the
road. The fact that the pavement is full of children does not seen
to dissuade them of this.
- Dangerous overtakes of parked vehicles.
- A continuous convoy of parents who drive their child to the door of
the school, turn round and leave. Some of them actually block the
pavement or entrance of one school!
- Many more issues that I haven't time to recount.
There were some changes made a few years ago (one pavement widened & a
ped crossing added) but the increase in traffic levels have negated
these IMHO.
So it's a fairly big problem. I'd like to see the road closed (access
only) during school times but I don't think this will happen.
Other things we'd like to see is the pavements fixed and widened. One
of the local councilors has suggested a one way system or traffic
lights to ensure traffic is only flowing one way at a time but I doubt
they would stump up the money for this.
Alex Potter
> Just as a demonstration that what I have written is correct, over the
> past few years I have been accused of exceeding the speed limit nine
> times, the first one I was stupid enough to pay, the second one was such
> a farce that it bought home to me that these devices are not at all
> accurate, so each one I asked to see the 'evidence five times I heard no
> more, of the others it was not possible to assess the sped as one was a
> laser gun, which have been recorded as being completely unreliable, one
> occasion I was sent a single picture from a Gatso, clearly to hide the
> fact that that was not correct, one went to court which again was a
> complete farce, it was referred twice, on the second occasion I was
> asked what questions I would ask the police, which I did not do, but
> asked for it to be referred to a crown court, the CPS wrote to me saying
> there was not enough evidence to secure a prosecution and I was offered
> compensation, on one occasion I asked how was the thing calibrated, and
> the answer was that it was 'serviced' once a year!
I'm late to the party with this reply, but I think it may be worth
making, so here goes...
In the days before I lost my driving license for 6 months, almost 10
years ago now, I used to exceed the speed limit regularly and
deliberately.
Whenever I was caught, whether by camera, laser or plain-clothes police
car, the speeds with which I was charged corresponded almost exactly with
those indicated by my speedometer.
Oh, and as I seemed to be temperamentally incapable of staying within
speed limits, once out on the "open" road, I never bothered to re-apply
for my driving license. I've had a lot of fun on my bike ever since, and
am much less poor than I would otherwise be.
--
Regards
Alex
mileburner
The issues are complex because solving one problem can lead to another. For
example, if you remove the parked cars, (legal or not), you end up with
increased traffic speeds. The biggest problem (and the one which can most
easily be tackled) is the school eliminating the problem of parents driving
their children right up to the school. What this *will* do is have a major
impact in the volume of traffic itself. Another thing that has worked well
outside my childrens school is they have painted a cycle lane. This has
stopped parents stopping and parking in it and the pedestrians now use it as
additional footway - oh yes, the cyclists just ride out wider into the ever
narrowing road. As a result of the ever narrowing road, the amount of
traffic which now try to use it as a rat-run has decreased sharply.
Alistair Gunn
> The biggest problem (and the one which can most easily be tackled) is
> the school eliminating the problem of parents driving their children
> right up to the school.
Seems some parents aren't at all happy about not being able to pick their
little darlings up from right outside school :-
"Traffic wardens have been told to patrol in pairs outside five schools
after parents became so angry about a parking crackdown that they threw
stones at them."
RudiL
> mileburner twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > The biggest problem (and the one which can most easily be tackled) is
> > the school eliminating the problem of parents driving their children
> > right up to the school.
>
> Seems some parents aren't at all happy about not being able to pick their
> little darlings up from right outside school :-
>
>
> "Traffic wardens have been told to patrol in pairs outside five schools
> after parents became so angry about a parking crackdown that they threw
> stones at them."
> --
> These opinions might not even be mine ...
> Let alone connected with my employer ...
It seems that for some motorists the term cager is entirely
appropriate as they seem unable to park a few blocks away and walk, or
use public transport, or cycle ...
Rudi
Judith Smith
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The biggest problem (and the one which can most
>easily be tackled) is the school eliminating the problem of parents driving
>their children right up to the school.
How do the school stop that?
JNugent
[re the school run "problem":]
> The issues are complex because solving one problem can lead to another. For
> example, if you remove the parked cars, (legal or not), you end up with
> increased traffic speeds. The biggest problem (and the one which can most
> easily be tackled) is the school eliminating the problem of parents driving
> their children right up to the school.
How? The school cannot dictate to parents about what they may or may not do
on the highway. And why is it a problem that parents bring their children to
school?
> What this *will* do is have a major impact in the volume of traffic itself.
It might if it were possible (though it would create other problems). But it
isn't, so it won't.
> Another thing that has worked well
> outside my childrens school is they have painted a cycle lane. This has
> stopped parents stopping and parking in it and the pedestrians now use it as
> additional footway - oh yes, the cyclists just ride out wider into the ever
> narrowing road. As a result of the ever narrowing road, the amount of
> traffic which now try to use it as a rat-run has decreased sharply.
Congestion has that effect. Less reason to want to stop the "school run".
JNugent
> Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> mileburner twisted the electrons to say:
>>> The biggest problem (and the one which can most easily be tackled) is
>>> the school eliminating the problem of parents driving their children
>>> right up to the school.
>> Seems some parents aren't at all happy about not being able to pick their
>> little darlings up from right outside school :-
>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/52445...>
>> "Traffic wardens have been told to patrol in pairs outside five schools
>> after parents became so angry about a parking crackdown that they threw
>> stones at them."
> It seems that for some motorists the term cager is entirely
> appropriate as they seem unable to park a few blocks away and walk, or
> use public transport, or cycle ...
Whilst walking, one is not a motorist, or PT user, or cyclist.
There's a school a few doors from here. It causes delay at the start and the
end of the day. We have to live with that. But unless parents park directly
across driveways (they don't AFAIK), it isn't difficult to live with. Only a
small minority come by car anyway.
What I would not like to see is the parked cars waiting for the afternoon
"burst" spreading themselves out through the village. That really could cause
chaos which could not be avoided, rather than chaos which can.
mileburner
"Alistair Gunn" <palmer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gtchrf$ckc$1...@aioe.org...
> mileburner twisted the electrons to say:
>> The biggest problem (and the one which can most easily be tackled) is
>> the school eliminating the problem of parents driving their children
>> right up to the school.
>
> Seems some parents aren't at all happy about not being able to pick their
> little darlings up from right outside school :-
>
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5244543/Traffic-wardens-stoned-by-parents-outside-school.html>
>
> "Traffic wardens have been told to patrol in pairs outside five schools
> after parents became so angry about a parking crackdown that they threw
> stones at them."
Traffic warden/PSCO ticketing has little effect on its own because the
people being ticketed do not understand why. If the school were to educate
firstly the children, but also the parents as to why it is anti-social to
drive up to and park illegally near the school it might not lead to so much
animosity and any ticketing might be better understood. However, most
teachers are shit scared of communicating with parents and would rather
bleat that it's not our fault/problem/responsibility.
Mark
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
Indeed and more traffic too I would suspect. That's one reason we are
in favour of road closure at school times. The main problem is that
there is too much traffic for the narrow roads to cope with. One road
is single lane at one point and this is always a problem area.
There was a huge delivery lorry parked there this morning completely
blocking the pavement and leaving pedestrians and cars to squeeze
through the same small gap (i.e. the road). This is not an unusual
problem. I did not hang around to see what happened but a few months
ago two lorries met head to head there and brought traffic to a
standstill for miles around and the police took about an hour to sort
out the mess.
>The biggest problem (and the one which can most
>easily be tackled) is the school eliminating the problem of parents driving
>their children right up to the school.
This is an argument I frequently hear as an excuse to do nothing IMHO.
Yes, some parents are part of the problem but we have no special
control over the them. Apart from closing the school I cannot see any
way we can stop parents who are determined to drive their kids right
to the school gate. We frequently send out letters reminding them of
the alternatives, warning about specific problems but it has not
helped.
>What this *will* do is have a major
>impact in the volume of traffic itself. Another thing that has worked well
>outside my childrens school is they have painted a cycle lane. This has
>stopped parents stopping and parking in it and the pedestrians now use it as
>additional footway - oh yes, the cyclists just ride out wider into the ever
>narrowing road. As a result of the ever narrowing road, the amount of
>traffic which now try to use it as a rat-run has decreased sharply.
There would not be room for a cycle lane in the roads nearest the
schools, they are too narrow.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Traffic warden/PSCO ticketing has little effect on its own because the
>people being ticketed do not understand why. If the school were to educate
>firstly the children, but also the parents as to why it is anti-social to
>drive up to and park illegally near the school it might not lead to so much
>animosity and any ticketing might be better understood. However, most
>teachers are shit scared of communicating with parents and would rather
>bleat that it's not our fault/problem/responsibility.
You make a fair point, and it's one that applies to a lot of areas -
for example, if a school teaching safe cycling and not at the same
time reminding the parents that the biggest risk to their children is
them and their friends in their cars, then we are back to the 1970s
era of the Tufty Club and training our kids in car supremacism.
And actually the school itself does not need to talk to the parents
very much. The children, if educated carefully, will do a much better
job of that.
Mr Benn
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:kvglv452d17kd9bob...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 May 2009 06:21:00 +0100, "mileburner"
> <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Traffic warden/PSCO ticketing has little effect on its own because the
>>people being ticketed do not understand why. If the school were to educate
>>firstly the children, but also the parents as to why it is anti-social to
>>drive up to and park illegally near the school it might not lead to so
>>much
>>animosity and any ticketing might be better understood. However, most
>>teachers are shit scared of communicating with parents and would rather
>>bleat that it's not our fault/problem/responsibility.
>
> You make a fair point, and it's one that applies to a lot of areas -
> for example, if a school teaching safe cycling and not at the same
> time reminding the parents that the biggest risk to their children is
> them and their friends in their cars, then we are back to the 1970s
> era of the Tufty Club and training our kids in car supremacism.
Do you mean the Green Cross Code?
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 May 2009 06:21:00 +0100, "mileburner"
><mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Traffic warden/PSCO ticketing has little effect on its own because the
>>people being ticketed do not understand why. If the school were to educate
>>firstly the children, but also the parents as to why it is anti-social to
>>drive up to and park illegally near the school it might not lead to so much
>>animosity and any ticketing might be better understood. However, most
>>teachers are shit scared of communicating with parents and would rather
>>bleat that it's not our fault/problem/responsibility.
>
>You make a fair point, and it's one that applies to a lot of areas -
>for example, if a school teaching safe cycling ..................
Indeed I believe that there are some schools who pretend to teach safe
cycling but if a 5 year old pupil in a group were to ask the teacher:
"Should we wear a helmet when riding our cycles to school?"
- rather than explaining how the pupils' safety would be improved if
they did so - the teacher would offer the advice that they would have
to ask their parents.
I understand Mr Crispin may be in this group.
Some advice.
Some teacher.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>> if a school teaching safe cycling and not at the same
>> time reminding the parents that the biggest risk to their children is
>> them and their friends in their cars, then we are back to the 1970s
>> era of the Tufty Club and training our kids in car supremacism.
>Do you mean the Green Cross Code?
No, I mean the Tufty Club.
Mr Benn
> On Fri, 1 May 2009 10:54:45 +0100, "Mr Benn" <%%%@%.%%> wrote:
>
>>> if a school teaching safe cycling and not at the same
>>> time reminding the parents that the biggest risk to their children is
>>> them and their friends in their cars, then we are back to the 1970s
>>> era of the Tufty Club and training our kids in car supremacism.
>
>>Do you mean the Green Cross Code?
>
> No, I mean the Tufty Club.
I see. Don't you think that educating children in road safety issues is a
good idea?
Roger Thorpe
> On Fri, 1 May 2009 10:54:45 +0100, "Mr Benn" <%%%@%.%%> wrote:
>
>>> if a school teaching safe cycling and not at the same
>>> time reminding the parents that the biggest risk to their children is
>>> them and their friends in their cars, then we are back to the 1970s
>>> era of the Tufty Club and training our kids in car supremacism.
>
>> Do you mean the Green Cross Code?
>
> No, I mean the Tufty Club.
>
Blimey, that's a big dose of nostalgia.
see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4690166.stm
quote
"Tufty is a colossus of public information. Though just a small
squirrel, he was a phenomenon who bestrode childhoods from the early
1960s onwards"
Roger Thorpe
Brimstone
Road safety is one thing, indoctrinating people that the car reigns supreme
is something different.
Mr Benn
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Z6GdndTyWeCqQWfU...@bt.com...
I bet you believe that the Green Cross Man was a satanist
Brimstone
No, but you obviously believe everything you're told.
Clive George
news:pqqdnQ0iF54LfWfU...@pipex.net...
> I bet you believe that the Green Cross Man was a satanist
Well, he was on the Dark Side.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>>>> if a school teaching safe cycling and not at the same
>>>> time reminding the parents that the biggest risk to their children is
>>>> them and their friends in their cars, then we are back to the 1970s
>>>> era of the Tufty Club and training our kids in car supremacism.
>>>Do you mean the Green Cross Code?
>> No, I mean the Tufty Club.
>I see. Don't you think that educating children in road safety issues is a
>good idea?
Whatever gave you that idea?
Do you think teaching children that road safety equates to
unconditional deference to motor traffic is likely to improve the
driving attitude of future generations?
I suggest you read Hillman and Whitelegg's /One False Move/.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> I bet you believe that the Green Cross Man was a satanist
>Well, he was on the Dark Side.
A great Bill Bailey joke, when Prowse auditioned for the voice part:
"The forrce is straang in this one, moi 'andsome".
Just zis Guy, you know?
>I bet you believe that the Green Cross Man was a satanist
Open goal. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Prowse>
Jackbike
> I bet you believe that the Green Cross Man was a satanist
>
Or Darth Vader at the very least.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<initial...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>> No, I mean the Tufty Club.
>Blimey, that's a big dose of nostalgia.
Oh yes. I still have some publicity materials from back then, my dad
was heavily involved in occupational and road safety (member of RoSPA
and the local occupational safety association, cycling proficiency
trainer, RAC/ACU event judge, ran safe driving events and all sorts)
and I was on a thing called the "junior accident prevention
committee", sponsored by RoSPA - we seemed to spend most of our time
playing "spot the pothole". That was a /very/ long time ago.
That's made me a little sad, though, because I remember how much I
miss the lovely John Milne (<http://www.adinjc.org.uk/aims.html>). He
was a really nice guy, a lot like John Franklin - very thoughtful,
calm, and unjudgmental. A thoroughly decent man.
Dave Larrington
Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.c...@spamcop.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:
> On Fri, 1 May 2009 13:35:19 +0100, "Clive George"
> <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I bet you believe that the Green Cross Man was a satanist
>> Well, he was on the Dark Side.
>
> A great Bill Bailey joke, when Prowse auditioned for the voice part:
> "The forrce is straang in this one, moi 'andsome".
And it ame to pass that some place in Mississippi wanted to honour the chap
who /did/ get the voice part, by naming a street after him.
Unfortunately, they skimped a bit on their preparatory research and called
it "James Earl Ray Street".
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once.
I haven't been able to leave the house since.
mileburner
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:19:56 +0100, "mileburner"
> <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>The issues are complex because solving one problem can lead to another.
>>For
>>example, if you remove the parked cars, (legal or not), you end up with
>>increased traffic speeds.
>
> Indeed and more traffic too I would suspect. That's one reason we are
> in favour of road closure at school times. The main problem is that
> there is too much traffic for the narrow roads to cope with. One road
> is single lane at one point and this is always a problem area.
I cannot see that any LA (or whoever would be responsible) would have the
balls to allow a road to be closed to traffic for a limited period for the
safety of pedestians, even if they are schoolchildren. You would need
several fatal accidents before they took the issue *that* seriously.
> There was a huge delivery lorry parked there this morning completely
> blocking the pavement and leaving pedestrians and cars to squeeze
> through the same small gap (i.e. the road). This is not an unusual
> problem.
I have also seen this type of thing occur and it can actually improve safety
by making the traffic standstill. In fact, the school previously was in a no
through road and regularly became so jammed up that the pedestrians would be
clear of the area before the drivers could unblock themselves.
>>The biggest problem (and the one which can most
>>easily be tackled) is the school eliminating the problem of parents
>>driving
>>their children right up to the school.
>
> This is an argument I frequently hear as an excuse to do nothing IMHO.
> Yes, some parents are part of the problem but we have no special
> control over the them. Apart from closing the school I cannot see any
> way we can stop parents who are determined to drive their kids right
> to the school gate. We frequently send out letters reminding them of
> the alternatives, warning about specific problems but it has not
> helped.
The fact is that teaching staff are scared shitless to do anything which
*might* upset parents. They *could* speak to parents about this at
parent/teacher evenings. They *could* speak to prospective parents about
this when they visit the school prior to their children joining and they
*could* raise awareness amongst the children by raising the subject at
school assemblies. But they don't. Instead they bleat that it's not their
responsibility.
>>What this *will* do is have a major
>>impact in the volume of traffic itself. Another thing that has worked well
>>outside my childrens school is they have painted a cycle lane. This has
>>stopped parents stopping and parking in it and the pedestrians now use it
>>as
>>additional footway - oh yes, the cyclists just ride out wider into the
>>ever
>>narrowing road. As a result of the ever narrowing road, the amount of
>>traffic which now try to use it as a rat-run has decreased sharply.
>
> There would not be room for a cycle lane in the roads nearest the
> schools, they are too narrow.
Our former head said exactly the same. But now there is one and the road has
become difficult for traffic to navigate.
My personal feeling is that that the school *should* take responsibility for
the traffic it generates and deal with it accordingly. However, we always
seem to end up with an eternal triangle of blame dodging: The school say it
is a police matter, the police say it is a council matter and the council
say it is a school matter. Wankers - the lot of 'em.
Brimstone
> Our former head said exactly the same. But now there is one and the
> road has become difficult for traffic to navigate.
>
> My personal feeling is that that the school *should* take
> responsibility for the traffic it generates and deal with it
> accordingly. However, we always seem to end up with an eternal
> triangle of blame dodging: The school say it is a police matter, the
> police say it is a council matter and the council say it is a school
> matter. Wankers - the lot of 'em.
And yet if it were a commercial company/s at the centre of such congestion
then the authorities would be down on them like a ton of bricks.
As you say, wankers.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<smert.s...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Unfortunately, they skimped a bit on their preparatory research and called
>it "James Earl Ray Street".
It's OK, I don't think anyone will notice. Apart from that Obama guy,
maybe.
Judith Smith
Crispin who is a teacher and I believe teaches road safety cannot
bring himself to recommend pupils wear cycle helmets.
He would rather tell a child to ask their mum or dad.
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 May 2009 11:39:29 +0100, "Mr Benn" <%%%@%.%%> wrote:
>
>>>>> if a school teaching safe cycling and not at the same
>>>>> time reminding the parents that the biggest risk to their children is
>>>>> them and their friends in their cars, then we are back to the 1970s
>>>>> era of the Tufty Club and training our kids in car supremacism.
>>>>Do you mean the Green Cross Code?
>>> No, I mean the Tufty Club.
>>I see. Don't you think that educating children in road safety issues is a
>>good idea?
>
>Whatever gave you that idea?
So Chapman does not think that educating children in road safety
issues is a good idea.
I must admit I am not surprised.
This is from the guy who cannot tell us why he recommends to his
children that they wear cycle helmets - even though he *knows* they
are such a bad thing.
Mind you he thought that less than half a dozen children saying that
rode faster when wearing a helmet proved Risk Compensation - so he;s
not that bright.
--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
>That's made me a little sad, though, because I remember how much I
>miss the lovely John Milne (<http://www.adinjc.org.uk/aims.html>). He
>was a really nice guy, a lot like John Franklin - very thoughtful,
>calm, and unjudgmental. A thoroughly decent man.
>
>Guy
Was he on your list of famous people you have met?
Is that why you are so sad?
--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.