Arfa Daily wrote:
"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:31:27 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

snip

My friend was clearly not a boy racer, and was clearly not
'speeding'. It
was a totally pointless exercise nicking him. If he was near a
school or actually even in the village, fair enough, but this was
at a place where a
long standing sensible limit, had been arbitrarily moved to
satisfy some traffic calming directive that some university
dropout had come up with to
justify his job, and not for any practical or demonstrable safety
or accident prevention reasons.

The guy was in a new speed limit, where there's obviously an
increased chance of being nicked.

I'm not arguing with your facts but just that I think they should
bring back 'discretion? I guess you mention the "there's obviously
an increased chance of being nicked" because you accept they will be
doing some form of entrapment (that potentially will mostly trap
those who regularly travel that route). I would be much happier to
hear "there's obviously an increased chance of being advised to be
careful as the limit had recently changed ...", in just the same way
I expected (and got) a parking ticked cancelled because they had
recently change the local parking rules and I was caught out by them.
I understand the authorities have no knowledge of our intent but this
'we are always guilty because the computer says no' thing isn't what
it was supposed to be all about (well, not since we were burning
witches because_we_thought_they were witches anyway). ;-(

I would consider myself a reasonably attentive driver (I don't want a
GPS with a camera database because it wouldn't spot the mobile
cameras so I don't want to rely on it doing so etc) but there are
times when I have found myself doing as Arfa's mate did with an
accompanying 'wtf' while I work out what's going on. The point is
that this 'lapse' wouldn't be dangerous as I wouldn't be driving
into something faster than I judged safe in the first place and as
Arfa states, the actual 'limit' on any section of road is generally
an arbitrary one, often with no bearing on the actual 'safe' limit
on that road as such (and as mentioned, often just traffic
management in any case). ie, Take the signs away completely and I
would be no more dangerous as I drive to what I can see in any case.
[1] I feel there really is too much emphasis (and tolerance by us) on
knicking 'drivers' for such things. I mean, how difficult would it be
for them to consider circumstances, check the driver database (to see
(say) the driver had an unblemished 20 year driving record) and let
him go with a 'drive safely sir' and a smile? That wouldn't raise any
cash though would it (not that most people would have an issue with a
small fine, it's the points (when issued in such circumstances) that
most people object to).

Out of interest, would the copper be sat in the same place doing
people for going at 25 mph in the thick fog?

Cheers, T i m

[1] There are many many roads where if you were to drive at the
posted limit you would probably die within minutes. Now I know some
people do just that (Darwin rules Ok g) but there are many more of
us who seem to cope and have been able to cope before much of what we
have now existed.

Thank you for that reasoned and honest reply. At least you are *one*
person on here who understands *exactly* what I am saying ...


As a person that got caught speeding in exactly the same situation, I have a
great deal of sympathy with your mate. In my instance, I had been diligently
keeping to a 40 mph limit (despite a queue of cars up my tail) and was
slowing down as I came into the 30mph zone. They had just been moved (which
I had forgotten). Low and behold there was a camera van parked just within
the 30mph zone. I swear my rear bumper was still in the 40mph when they got
me!