"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
. 1...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:00:12 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

There should be a "camera ahead" sign a few hundred yards before
it...

er, all cameras (even temporay ones) do have signs a few hundred yards
before them. They have to.

that shows the speed limit,

At that point or at the camera? Could be rather confusing, showing 30
on a bit of road where the limit is 60... Anyway all drivers should be
able to deduce the speed limit from the type of road and the
precensense or not of street lighting. Roads that do not follow the
general rules have small speed limit signs every 400yds or so.

and importantly, includes the reason the camera is there. So for
example you get things like "30, Concealed Junction", or "20, School
Crossing".

Thats is not to bad an idea, but without the speed limit as that is
already clearly signed and can be deduced anyway. However it does
produces some funnies though, round here we would have "Straight Road"
and "Bends"

Also you would be carrying out a subconscious process of education -
alerting drivers to the sorts of situations and road conditions that
should require close attention to speed.

I doubt that such "education" would work in practice. It's much to
nanny state for my likeing, why can't people take any responsibilty
for themselves and others anymore?

An audible receiver should be in the car warning of the "blackspot", which
has a camera to enforce the limit, ahead.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
. 1...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:00:12 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

There should be a "camera ahead" sign a few hundred yards before
it...

er, all cameras (even temporay ones) do have signs a few hundred yards
before them. They have to.

[snip]

The bad bit is that those signs are there all the time. There are quite a
few camera signs on the a59 between the A1 and the York Outer Ring, but
there are no fixed cameras, no road markings anywhere on that stretch, and
I've never seen a mobile camera either.

Thought the use of signs without cameras had been outlawed?


--
Woody

Dave Liquorice wrote:

There should be a "camera ahead" sign a few hundred yards before
it...


er, all cameras (even temporay ones) do have signs a few hundred yards
before them. They have to.

Not in these parts they don't - they will have a sign as you enter an
area with cameras - but it may be miles from the actual camera - and
there might not even be a camera on the road that has the sign.

At that point or at the camera? Could be rather confusing, showing 30
on a bit of road where the limit is 60... Anyway all drivers should be

perhaps I did not explain well enough.... The suggestion is there should
be a specific sign for each and every camera - a standard design at a
standard distance from the camera - say 150 yards. The sign re-states
the speed limit in effect, with the reason that tells you why a camera
is there.

able to deduce the speed limit from the type of road and the
precensense or not of street lighting. Roads that do not follow the
general rules have small speed limit signs every 400yds or so.

you are right - most of them do. No harm in the 400 yard sign being
combined with the camera warning one if appropriate.

and importantly, includes the reason the camera is there. So for
example you get things like "30, Concealed Junction", or "20, School
Crossing".


Thats is not to bad an idea, but without the speed limit as that is
already clearly signed and can be deduced anyway. However it does
produces some funnies though, round here we would have "Straight Road"
and "Bends"

Warnings like "straight road" would only help illustrate that the camera
is a fund raiser and not covering a real black spot - hence should be
removed.

I doubt that such "education" would work in practice. It's much to
nanny state for my likeing, why can't people take any responsibilty
for themselves and others anymore?

Granted I would rather not robots issuing black and white judgement with
no ability to accept inputs of common sense in the first place. If you
must have them, them at least some form of explanation as to why they
are there, may help lower public hostility and reduce the siege
mentality they induce.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 18 Aug 2003 01:53:19 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

Deaths due to electrical installation faults in the home runs at
around 5 per year, and falling. Deaths due to other accidental
incidents in the home runs at around 2350 per year, most of which
are from slips trips and falls, and although I have no figures,
I'll but many more than 5 of these are already caused by tripping
over extension leads.

Do you have a source for these figures please?

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

Would I be correct to assume that all those that post opposing "Speed
Cameras" for whatever reason are those that break the speed limit?

I assume those of us that do observe the posted speed limits do not
have problems with speed cameras and the like. It seems to me that a
good 50% of road users (drivers) act like hooligans when driving and
anything to discourage their behavior is to be applauded, at least by
me.


On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:47:30 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:

There should be a "camera ahead" sign a few hundred yards before
it...


er, all cameras (even temporay ones) do have signs a few hundred yards
before them. They have to.

Not in these parts they don't - they will have a sign as you enter an
area with cameras - but it may be miles from the actual camera - and
there might not even be a camera on the road that has the sign.

At that point or at the camera? Could be rather confusing, showing 30
on a bit of road where the limit is 60... Anyway all drivers should be

perhaps I did not explain well enough.... The suggestion is there should
be a specific sign for each and every camera - a standard design at a
standard distance from the camera - say 150 yards. The sign re-states
the speed limit in effect, with the reason that tells you why a camera
is there.

able to deduce the speed limit from the type of road and the
precensense or not of street lighting. Roads that do not follow the
general rules have small speed limit signs every 400yds or so.

you are right - most of them do. No harm in the 400 yard sign being
combined with the camera warning one if appropriate.

and importantly, includes the reason the camera is there. So for
example you get things like "30, Concealed Junction", or "20, School
Crossing".


Thats is not to bad an idea, but without the speed limit as that is
already clearly signed and can be deduced anyway. However it does
produces some funnies though, round here we would have "Straight Road"
and "Bends"

Warnings like "straight road" would only help illustrate that the camera
is a fund raiser and not covering a real black spot - hence should be
removed.

I doubt that such "education" would work in practice. It's much to
nanny state for my likeing, why can't people take any responsibilty
for themselves and others anymore?

Granted I would rather not robots issuing black and white judgement with
no ability to accept inputs of common sense in the first place. If you
must have them, them at least some form of explanation as to why they
are there, may help lower public hostility and reduce the siege
mentality they induce.

"Edward W. Thompson" wrote in message
...
Would I be correct to assume that all those that post opposing "Speed
Cameras" for whatever reason are those that break the speed limit?

Please read what people wrote. They have low speed limits on roads which
could handle 60mph and then put cameras there, and all the rest. There is
no consistency on road design type of road will mean a certain limit as
in intelligent countries. E.g., a dual carriageway would always be 40mph.
In this country many of them are 30mph and have 3 lanes and slip roads too.

People also agreed that speed was not the primary cause of the majority of
accidents, yet primary causes receive little attention.

No one proposes breaking the limit and driving recklessly.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

In article , Edward
W. Thompson wrote:
It seems to me that a good 50% of road users (drivers) act
like hooligans when driving and anything to discourage their
behavior is to be applauded, at least by me.

The real hooligans probably haven't got their names and
addresses recorded at DVLC so couldn't care less about cameras.
Another group will have detectors of one sort or another. Net
result: speed cameras do next to nothing to stop the worst
offenders.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

In message ,
Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Would I be correct to assume that all those that post opposing "Speed
Cameras" for whatever reason are those that break the speed limit?

I assume those of us that do observe the posted speed limits do not
have problems with speed cameras and the like. It seems to me that a
good 50% of road users (drivers) act like hooligans when driving and
anything to discourage their behavior is to be applauded, at least by
me.



Oh good. I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought this
way!

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Don't fight technology, live with it: http://www.livtech.co.uk/
.... Do unto others JUST BEFORE they do unto you!

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew McKay
wrote:
Do you have a source for these figures please?

http://www.dti.gov.uk/homesafetynetwork/ may help but at a quick
glance I couldn't see electrocution mentioned.

When you look at the figures for deaths from falls then you would
probably ban all DIY work to staircases!

Or allow people proper access to land and build bungalows.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew McKay
wrote:
Do you have a source for these figures please?

http://www.dti.gov.uk/homesafetynetwork/ may help but at a quick
glance I couldn't see electrocution mentioned.

When you look at the figures for deaths from falls then you would
probably ban all DIY work to staircases!

Or allow people proper access to land and build bungalows.


Aaaaaaagh.

I think I now understand why people take hard drugs to escape from
reality.....



--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Not normally one to rise to personal abuse, but...

In message ,
derek wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:53:49 +0100, Martin Angove
wrote:



Speed may not be a major cause of accidents, but it sure as heck makes
what might be a close shave or a minor bump into something much much
worse. Poor junctions, poor signage, poor lighting and so on all
contribute, but breaking the speed limit is a pretty reliable sign of a
selfish attitude to sharing the road which can cause a lot of problems.

And your evidence is...

16 years of driving. The drivers I have most problems with are not those
who obey traffic rules, it is those who don't, and in my personal
experience, someone who passes me at 20mph over the speed limit is quite
likely to get in the wrong lane at the next roundabout and exit the
darned thing without signalling (just an example, but you get the idea).


"Speeding is a victimless crime so why are the police hounding people
for it?" Grow up.

An example. There is a road near here which is absolutely straight for
nearly a mile. On a good day you can see from one end to the other.
People who don't know the road like to race down it.

Why? How? Who does the starters flag bit? Who does the timekeeping?


Now you're being facetious :-)


People who do know the road know that not only is there a hidden dip,
quite big enough to conceal a small car, but that there is a golf course
on both sides of the road and three or four places where golfers
regularly cross, there are also houses. To be honest, even 60mph can be
dangerous on this road. As it happens, there is no camera on the road,
though there are signs.

So there should be. That's it then.


As this road nears our house the speed limit reduces to 40mph.

Are we still in the hidden dip territory or not?

No. The 40 signs are at the beginning of a straight 1/2 mile or so of
wide single carriageway, a little way from the hidden dip part. Half way
down it there is a light-controlled cross-roads. Houses down one side,
couple of petrol stations on the other.

Very few
people take note of this limit and most of the time they will not have
any problems - but you try crossing it with a toddler or a pram as we
have to (no underpass, no bridge, no crossing, and the lights just up
the road are designed to maximise traffic flow and make crossing the
road at the lights *more* dangerous than crossing nearer our house) and
you will see what I mean by speeding being selfish.


Well then picket your local council for speed cameras, or your local
police, we did and we've got them. Meanwhile don't keep crossing the
road at the most dangerous point, have some sense, use the lights, do
as they told us at primary school 55 years ago cross the road where
it's safe to do so.

Cretin.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There is *no* safe place to cross this
road. Eastwards is the 60mph section and so very few people walk along
that stretch that it'd be silly to try there. Westwards lie the lights.
The lights, as I said, are timed to ensure an almost continuous flow of
traffic along the main road - this is a *very* busy road during the day.
There are no pedestrian crossings *at all*, and certainly not a
red/green man sequence to the lights. There is one island, on the
Western side of the lights, but it doesn't really make things much
easier, being almost directly outside one of the petrol stations.
Getting to it also means we would have to cross a second (though less
busy) road.

As it happens, we believe the safest place to cross is almost directly
outside our house - about equidistant between the 40mph signs and the
lights.




Given the fact that most speeders blithely ignore the limit,

It's not a given fact. How do you know this?


If they were not ignoring the limit they would not be speeding.
I inserted "most" to cover the few occasions where a genuine mistake is
made.

if the
possibility of cameras makes them think, then they can only be a good
thing. As I said before, it is emphatically *not* the cameras which
cause the accidents, it is those stupid drivers who see them and,
suddenly realising that they could get another three points on the
licence, slam out the anchors without thinking.

That's solely an issue for the driver of the car driving too close
behind. He is responsible for the consequences of any accidents. It is
not a concern for pedestrians with/without infants crossing the road
where it dips/doesn't dip, especially where there is a light
controlled crossing nearby.


There isn't a bloomin' crossing, and the crossing isn't relevant anyway
to the paragraph to which you are replying.

Ok, I understand what you are saying about people who drive too close.
I really meant something slightly different but...

[snip. can't be bothered]



But then you're a pratt.


Fair comment :-)

Hwyl!

Latvian? This is an English language newsgroup.

SAES! ai blesi.


If you only knew :-)

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Don't fight technology, live with it: http://www.livtech.co.uk/
.... Death is proven to be 99.9% fatal to all laboratory rats.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
Deaths due to electrical installation faults in the home runs at
around 5 per year, and falling. Deaths due to other accidental
incidents in the home runs at around 2350 per year, most of which
are from slips trips and falls, and although I have no figures,
I'll but many more than 5 of these are already caused by tripping
over extension leads.
--
Andrew Gabriel

Ah-Ha! Now we have a solution. Leave the building / electrical regs alone
and ban people from living in houses. This, along with a proposed ban on all
motor vehicles, tobacco products and alcohol, fat in food, meat,
carbohydrates, and water (both drinking and bathing) will result in us all
living forever and never having an illness or accident - Marvellous!

Richard.

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. ..
[snip]
Conversely, there are A roads and motorways where an alert driver in a
well
maintained modern car can safely travel above a limit that was imposed in
an
age when many cars could not hope to travel safely at that speed (even in
a
straight line in many cases).
[snip]


The most salient comment yet.

The 70mph limit was brought in in the late 60's when:-
Most cars had cross-ply tyres
Few had disc brakes
Even fewer had brake servos
None had crumple zones
Few or none had safety cells
Few had seat belts and their use was voluntary
Few had laminated windscreens
Halogen headlights were only a dream

and as a thought
Heaters in many cars were an optional extra
Heated rear windows were an optional extra on some cars
Many still had semaphore indicators
None had hazard flashers

It does not follow that the modern car requires a higher speed limit, but on
motorways (usually) without pedestrians it begs the question why the maximum
speed limit has not been reviewed.

Some years ago the TRRL did a trial - I think - near Maidenhead. They
monitored the speed of vehicles in a 30mph limit - the average was 43mph.
They then increased the limit to 40mph and the average dropped to 38mph. The
de facto speed limit on UK motorways is 80mph - in line with most of
Europe - so why not have a similar trial now?


--
Woody

In article ,
Andrew McKay writes:
On 18 Aug 2003 01:53:19 GMT, (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

Deaths due to electrical installation faults in the home runs at
around 5 per year, and falling. Deaths due to other accidental
incidents in the home runs at around 2350 per year, most of which
are from slips trips and falls, and although I have no figures,
I'll but many more than 5 of these are already caused by tripping
over extension leads.

Do you have a source for these figures please?

Mostly, they come from the Regulatory Impact Assessment.
However, they are missing accidental deaths in the home due
to non-electrical fires, which I added in as it's quite
significant compared with the other figures. I found those
on one of the government websites (Home Office IIRC). If there
are other causes of accidental deaths in the home which neither
the RIA or I have not thought of, they are missing too.

See my original response to the consultation:
http://www.cucumber.demon.co.uk/buildregs.pdf

--
Andrew Gabriel

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:58:25 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

http://www.dti.gov.uk/homesafetynetwork/ may help but at a quick
glance I couldn't see electrocution mentioned.

I found some figures relating to electricity in the home on the ROSPA
web site:

http://www.rospa.com/CMS/index.asp

"During 2000, there were a total of 44 deaths involving electric
current in the UK".

And from their facts and figures page:

"Every year there are approximately 4000 deaths as a result of a home
accident".

Says it all really. The government are aiming big by trying to solve
1% of the problem, with legislation that won't reduce deaths at all.

When you look at the figures for deaths from falls then you would
probably ban all DIY work to staircases!

I imagine the figures relating to injury and death from ladders would
be far higher than those involving electricity.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:23:38 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I bet that your local pub's quiet in the evenings.....

He's old enough to go in a pub?

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:47:30 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

er, all cameras (even temporay ones) do have signs a few hundred
yards before them. They have to.

Not in these parts they don't - they will have a sign as you enter
an area with cameras - but it may be miles from the actual camera -

If it is literally miles then report it to the relevant roads
department, don't wine in here. I don't know the recommended distance
but it's not 1 mile let alone miles.

perhaps I did not explain well enough.... The suggestion is there
should be a specific sign for each and every camera - a standard
design at a standard distance from the camera - say 150 yards.

No the distance should be random otherwise you just get everyone doing
the limit as they pass it and speed before and after it. (Just like
the locals do...).

The sign re-states the speed limit in effect, with the reason that
tells you why a camera is there.

Having the speed limit (at the camera not at the sign I assume, you
didn't answer that) and the reason is not a bad idea but I have my
doubts about the need to restate the speed limit. It should be obvious
from the road and signage.

able to deduce the speed limit from the type of road and the
precensense or not of street lighting. Roads that do not follow the
general rules have small speed limit signs every 400yds or so.

you are right - most of them do.

Not most, all. If you know of stretches of road that don't conform
then report them as above.

Warnings like "straight road" would only help illustrate that the
camera is a fund raiser and not covering a real black spot - hence
should be removed.

The section I'm thinking of *is* an accident black spot. One death so
far this year

Granted I would rather not robots issuing black and white judgement
with no ability to accept inputs of common sense in the first place.

A speed limit is a speed limit end of story. If you feel a section of
road has to low a speed limit start a campagne to get it raised.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:20:17 +0100, Andrew McKay
wrote:

I found some figures relating to electricity in the home on the ROSPA
web site:

http://www.rospa.com/CMS/index.asp

"During 2000, there were a total of 44 deaths involving electric
current in the UK".

It's a fair bet that a good proportion of those will be abraded or loose
flexes, kids poking metal objects into sockets, complete morons working on
live appliances, in short, nothing to do with bodged installations. (More
likely to cause fires I would have thought.)

I fear for this country, I really do.

--
John

Speed may not be a major cause of accidents, but it sure as heck makes
what might be a close shave or a minor bump into something much much
worse.

Absolutely.

And your evidence is...

16 years of driving. The drivers I have most problems with are not those
who obey traffic rules, it is those who don't, and in my personal
experience, someone who passes me at 20mph over the speed limit is quite
likely to get in the wrong lane at the next roundabout and exit the
darned thing without signalling (just an example, but you get the idea).

I've been driving far longer than sixteen years but my experience has been
exactly the same.

Anyone can drive fast. It takes a responsible person to drive safely.

Mary
..

In message , Dave
Liquorice writes
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 13:00:12 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

There should be a "camera ahead" sign a few hundred yards before
it...

er, all cameras (even temporay ones) do have signs a few hundred yards
before them. They have to.

No they don't
--
geoff

In message , John Rumm
writes
Dave Liquorice wrote:

There should be a "camera ahead" sign a few hundred yards before
it...
er, all cameras (even temporay ones) do have signs a few hundred
yards before them. They have to.

Not in these parts they don't - they will have a sign as you enter an
area with cameras -

....Or not.

I'm tempted to put up a secondary sign ... "Lying *******s"
--
geoff

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:00:34 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Anyone can drive fast. It takes a responsible person to drive safely.

I agree in principle with what you say. However driving slowly does
not equate with driving safely.

On a motorway for example, what is the safest speed to be driving at?
70mph? 50mph? Neither - it's the speed of the rest of the traffic. If
you aren't going at the same speed as the rest of the traffic then you
are either (a) going too fast or (b) going too slow. And slow drivers
relative to the rest of the traffic on a motorway are a PITA.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

In message , Richard Caley
writes
In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

a There are reckless drivers who speed. And there are quick assertive
a drivers.

Of course, anyone who considers themselves in class 2 is almost
certainly really in class 1.

That's a rather stupid reply
--
geoff

In message , Martin Angove
writes


But then you're a pratt.


Fair comment :-)

Hwyl!

Latvian? This is an English language newsgroup.

Sounds Welsh to me - and last time I looked, Wales was still in the UK
--
geoff

In message , RichardS
writes
"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew McKay
wrote:
Do you have a source for these figures please?

http://www.dti.gov.uk/homesafetynetwork/ may help but at a quick
glance I couldn't see electrocution mentioned.

When you look at the figures for deaths from falls then you would
probably ban all DIY work to staircases!

Or allow people proper access to land and build bungalows.


Aaaaaaagh.

I think I now understand why people take hard drugs to escape from
reality.....


Reality?
--
geoff

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

Would I be correct to assume that all those that post opposing "Speed
Cameras" for whatever reason are those that break the speed limit?

I have no idea - but I would suspect not, since "all" is a rather
absolute group. People oppose cameras for a range of reasons. I am aware
of some people who oppose them and yet do not drive or own a car!

There are plenty of valid reasons for opposing cameras. Some of which
include the general rise in crime that is associated with them, and the
increased accident rates on side roads as people seek to avoid the
cameras. Some people find the concept of automated "justice" of the
black/white nature administered by a camera abhorrent.

The other thing to consider is they are focussing attention on the wrong
problem. Excessive speed for the conditions is estimated by police
accident stats to be a causal factor in only 7.3% of accidents. The
biggest single cause of accidents is the "failure to judge other persons
path or speed" - something that better junction design, and road marking
might help but speed cameras will have no effect on.

I assume those of us that do observe the posted speed limits do not
have problems with speed cameras and the like. It seems to me that a

as I said above many do - and not always for obvious reasons.

good 50% of road users (drivers) act like hooligans when driving and
anything to discourage their behavior is to be applauded, at least by
me.

I would agree completely. However driving like a hooligan is not the
same as driving fast (the fastest roads in this country - motorways -
are also the safest). In fact the police figures indicate that
careless/thoughtless/reckless driving is a causal factor in nearly 9% of
accidents, if you add "inattention" and the "looked but did not see"
categories, that accounts for a further 15% of accidents.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

harrogate wrote:

but those placed to do nothing but earn money are a disgrace.

Seems that some people are so annoyed with them that they take direct
action.

A couple of months ago I passed a very sick looking camera on the A46
Batheaston bypass (east of Bath). Apparently someone had stacked a load
of tyres around the base, dowsed them in petrol, and torched it :-)

Kind of understandable for that camera as the road is a dual
carriageway, only ~6 years old, with a 50mph speed limit. AIUI it should
have been 70mph (National Speed Limit) but was reduced during the
planning stage to appease objectors who were using the noise argument.
It means that the limit is a political one, not a road safety one which
the Police always cite as the reason for them.

John Rumm wrote:

The other thing to consider is they are focussing attention on the wrong
problem.

I read some figures in a newspaper last week which showed that, over the
last 12 months, the number of speeding prosecutions had rocketed (no
surprise really) but that prosecutions for dangerous driving had fallen
dramatically (double figure %age IIRC), and prosecutions for burglary
had fallen similarly. The point was being made that the Police are
devoting excessive resources to speeding and cameras at the expense of
other, more serious, offences. I think the burglary figures were
included to show that not only non-speeding motoring offences were affected.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:09:22 +0100, "RichardS" noaccess@invalid
wrote:

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:47:30 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


snip


Granted I would rather not robots issuing black and white judgement with
no ability to accept inputs of common sense in the first place. If you
must have them, them at least some form of explanation as to why they
are there, may help lower public hostility and reduce the siege
mentality they induce.


"Edward W. Thompson" wrote in message
.. .
Would I be correct to assume that all those that post opposing "Speed
Cameras" for whatever reason are those that break the speed limit?

snip

Your belief in the effecacy of speed cameras in bringing about safe motoring
habits is simplistic and deeply flawed.

I don't think I suggested that I think that "Speed Cameras" will by
themselves bring about safe motoring. What I do suggest is that they
are one of the "tools" or "means" to that end. Any means to curb
excessive speed will help in saving lives, perhaps your own!

Have I broken a speed limit, of course I have, but inadvertently but I
do not oppose the monitoring of roads using cameras or by any other
means.

Having lived in North America for the past 25 years and not live in
the UK, I am amazed at the irresponsible way people drive in the UK,
and in Europe in general. To say many, perhaps not most, UK drivers
are ignorant and irresponsible would not, in my opinion, be
unreasonable. Driving the motorways is often a nightmare and
observing the speed limit and the speed restrictions on these roads is
apparently for the "nerds".

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:12:26 +0000, parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com
wrote:

A couple of months ago I passed a very sick looking camera on the A46
Batheaston bypass (east of Bath). Apparently someone had stacked a load
of tyres around the base, dowsed them in petrol, and torched it :-)

I have to admit that although I am very law-abiding there is some
satisfaction when I read stories like this.

It comes down to the carrot and stick approach really. The stick is
getting the fine and points on your license after the event. A decent
carrot would be to reward people who drive less powerful motors.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:57:27 +0000, parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com
wrote:

I read some figures in a newspaper last week which showed that, over the
last 12 months, the number of speeding prosecutions had rocketed (no
surprise really) but that prosecutions for dangerous driving had fallen
dramatically (double figure %age IIRC), and prosecutions for burglary
had fallen similarly. The point was being made that the Police are
devoting excessive resources to speeding and cameras at the expense of
other, more serious, offences. I think the burglary figures were
included to show that not only non-speeding motoring offences were affected.

That is hardly surprising given who is currently serving as Home
Secretary. Blunkett is reknowned for getting lots of meaningless
figures on his desk to woo the electorate with.

Andrew

Do you need a handyman service? Check out our
web site at http://www.handymac.co.uk

In article ,
parish parish_AT_ntlworld.com wrote:

I read some figures in a newspaper last week which showed that,
over the last 12 months, the number of speeding prosecutions had
rocketed (no surprise really) but that prosecutions for
dangerous driving had fallen dramatically (double figure %age
IIRC), and prosecutions for burglary had fallen similarly. The
point was being made that the Police are devoting excessive
resources to speeding and cameras at the expense of other, more
serious, offences. I think the burglary figures were included to
show that not only non-speeding motoring offences were affected.

That was the subject of a post I made in another ng a
few weeks ago. It was from a nice piece by the HTV news.

The police had a speeding blitz near a village in the SW,
and at the end of it proudly put up a sign saying something
like "1392 speeding motorists caught in this period".

Then some wag added below it: "and 0 burglars caught".

--
Tony Williams.

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. ..
"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew McKay
wrote:
Do you have a source for these figures please?

http://www.dti.gov.uk/homesafetynetwork/ may help but at a quick
glance I couldn't see electrocution mentioned.

When you look at the figures for deaths from falls then you would
probably ban all DIY work to staircases!

Or allow people proper access to land and build bungalows.


Aaaaaaagh.

I think I now understand why people take hard drugs to escape from
reality.....

Yes all those steps.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:10:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew McKay
wrote:
Do you have a source for these figures please?

http://www.dti.gov.uk/homesafetynetwork/ may help but at a quick
glance I couldn't see electrocution mentioned.

When you look at the figures for deaths from falls then you would
probably ban all DIY work to staircases!

Or allow people proper access to land and build bungalows.


Oh, no....

Do you try to turn every conversation into a tirade about this?

It is the truth. Get real!!!! On crime/juvenile delinquency. It is blamed
on not having a stable home base as the parents are out at work. Only 7% of
households have the mother at home all day. Ever thought why? The parents
are out trying to pay a hefty mortgage because the land amount to 2/3 of the
valve of the tiny roof over their heads. There are amazing detrimental
knock on effects of creating an artificial land shortage. Why don't you
ever think. Lateral thinking has passed most of the population by.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:12:04 +0100, Martin Angove
wrote:

Not normally one to rise to personal abuse, but...

In message ,
derek wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:53:49 +0100, Martin Angove
wrote:



Speed may not be a major cause of accidents, but it sure as heck makes
what might be a close shave or a minor bump into something much much
worse. Poor junctions, poor signage, poor lighting and so on all
contribute, but breaking the speed limit is a pretty reliable sign of a
selfish attitude to sharing the road which can cause a lot of problems.

And your evidence is...

16 years of driving.

A mere bagatelle.

The drivers I have most problems with are not those
who obey traffic rules, it is those who don't, and in my personal
experience, someone who passes me at 20mph over the speed limit is quite
likely to get in the wrong lane at the next roundabout

Firstly I don't break speed limits (within the limits of measurement),
the mileage I do I couldn't afford to pick up the points, Licence
still blemish free, and I don't make any excuses for those who do. I
currently drive 22,000 miles per year (440 miles today) and have been
driving since 1967, odd years it has been up to 40K.

IME people intentionally driving 20 mph over the limit are simply
likely to continue doing just that. It's what they do and they have a
whole range of reason . People in the wrong lane / not indicating
/hesitating/puzzling over their task come into a different category
called "Incompetants", they are incapable of doing any better, I've
seen about 40 instances today. Most of them seem to adopt abnormal
postures sitting at the wheel sitting bolt upright gripping the wheel,
white knuckled, hanging on for dear life, and have facial features
that would be taken as indicating "Low grade intelligence" (Think Mr
Bean) elsewhere. A great many simply don't know where they are, or
where they are going (seriously).

For the PC brigade these terms were taken directly from my Uni. course
in Psychology.

and exit the
darned thing without signalling (just an example, but you get the idea).


"Speeding is a victimless crime so why are the police hounding people
for it?" Grow up.

Do you also laugh at your own jokes?


An example. There is a road near here which is absolutely straight for
nearly a mile. On a good day you can see from one end to the other.
People who don't know the road like to race down it.

Why? How? Who does the starters flag bit? Who does the timekeeping?


Now you're being facetious :-)

No, they aren't racing. There is a definition of racing. They might
well chose to drive fast, you might not like it, it might be over the
limit, but it's not racing, which is a different offence.



People who do know the road know that not only is there a hidden dip,
quite big enough to conceal a small car, but that there is a golf course
on both sides of the road and three or four places where golfers
regularly cross, there are also houses. To be honest, even 60mph can be
dangerous on this road. As it happens, there is no camera on the road,
though there are signs.

So there should be. That's it then.


As this road nears our house the speed limit reduces to 40mph.

Are we still in the hidden dip territory or not?

No. The 40 signs are at the beginning of a straight 1/2 mile or so of
wide single carriageway, a little way from the hidden dip part. Half way
down it there is a light-controlled cross-roads. Houses down one side,
couple of petrol stations on the other.

Very few
people take note of this limit and most of the time they will not have
any problems - but you try crossing it with a toddler or a pram as we
have to (no underpass, no bridge, no crossing, and the lights just up
the road are designed to maximise traffic flow and make crossing the
road at the lights *more* dangerous than crossing nearer our house) and
you will see what I mean by speeding being selfish.


Well then picket your local council for speed cameras, or your local
police, we did and we've got them. Meanwhile don't keep crossing the
road at the most dangerous point, have some sense, use the lights, do
as they told us at primary school 55 years ago cross the road where
it's safe to do so.

Cretin.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There is *no* safe place to cross this
road. Eastwards is the 60mph section and so very few people walk along
that stretch that it'd be silly to try there. Westwards lie the lights.
The lights, as I said, are timed to ensure an almost continuous flow of
traffic along the main road

That is very unusual, but by no means impossible. On the Leeds ring
road near Elland Road, on "Football" days ring road traffic gets a
single green phase lasting *4 seconds* every 2nd iteration and there
4 car phases and an all stop pedestrian phase every iteration.
Football traffic seems to get a couple of minutes of green phase.

Have it changed.

- this is a *very* busy road during the day.
There are no pedestrian crossings *at all*, and certainly not a
red/green man sequence to the lights. There is one island, on the
Western side of the lights, but it doesn't really make things much
easier, being almost directly outside one of the petrol stations.
Getting to it also means we would have to cross a second (though less
busy) road.

As it happens, we believe the safest place to cross is almost directly
outside our house - about equidistant between the 40mph signs and the
lights.




Given the fact that most speeders blithely ignore the limit,

It's not a given fact. How do you know this?


If they were not ignoring the limit they would not be speeding.

Indeed, they would not.

But you said "Blithely" now justify it.


I inserted "most" to cover the few occasions where a genuine mistake is
made.

if the
possibility of cameras makes them think, then they can only be a good
thing. As I said before, it is emphatically *not* the cameras which
cause the accidents, it is those stupid drivers who see them and,
suddenly realising that they could get another three points on the
licence, slam out the anchors without thinking.

That's solely an issue for the driver of the car driving too close
behind. He is responsible for the consequences of any accidents. It is
not a concern for pedestrians with/without infants crossing the road
where it dips/doesn't dip, especially where there is a light
controlled crossing nearby.


There isn't a bloomin' crossing, and the crossing isn't relevant anyway
to the paragraph to which you are replying.


All in all, rather too much detail for a usenet post methinks.


Ok, I understand what you are saying about people who drive too close.
I really meant something slightly different but...

[snip. can't be bothered]


I see you do too. :-)

And, in all honestly I think you should campaign to have the speed
limit over the whole lot reduced to 30 mph, on account of the hidden
dips USW ... And a pedestrian crossing of some sort created somewhere
where it would be safe(st). We have campaigned for, & got a Pelicon
crossing, a school crossing warden, and 2 speed cameras (for this
financial year).

Bear in mind tho that the local police said that when they put a
mobile camera on the A643 outside the school entrance all the speeders
they caught were locals. :-)) What was it Preacher mend thyself?


DG

Also whats to stop someone doing some work in 2005 and if/when asked about
certification saying it was completed in 2003 before the regulations?

The fact that cable colours are changing. It's goodbye to red and black,
hello to brown and blue.

Christian.

"Richard Caley" MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Angove (ma)
writes:

ma someone who passes me at 20mph over the speed limit is quite
ma likely to get in the wrong lane at the next roundabout and exit the
ma darned thing without signalling (just an example, but you get the
ma idea).

Now, there is where they should be making money. Stick cameras on
roundabouts and any car which doesn't follow the protocols as layed
down in the highway code

The highway code is a "guide". If there are no other vehicles, and you
takes the shortest route across the roundabout (not over), like doing a
chicane, and not indicated, then you have not broken any law, as you are not
reckless and driving dangerously. Do it when there are cars all over the
place and you have broken a law.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 04/08/2003

Richard Caley wrote in message ...
Now, there is where they should be making money. Stick cameras on
roundabouts and any car which doesn't follow the protocols as layed
down in the highway code gets impounded, crushed, sold as scrap and
the money donated to the closest A&E.
What, you mean I don't have right of way just because I'm approaching the
roundabout faster than you?

Christian McArdle wrote:
[ someone else wrote ]
Also whats to stop someone doing some work in 2005 and
if/when asked about certification saying it was completed
in 2003 before the regulations?

The fact that cable colours are changing. It's goodbye to
red and black, hello to brown and blue.

Oooh, good! When will I be able to buy brown and blue
wires on great big rolly things? I want some now, I
don't want to wait 'till any new regulations come in!

Oh, yes, and the brown wire is earth, isn't it?! Same
colour, anyway. I'll just trim this end (bzzzzzzzt!).


__________________________________________________ ______________
Sent via the PAXemail system at paxemail.com

In article , abuse-imm (a) writes:

Now, there is where they should be making money. Stick cameras on
roundabouts and any car which doesn't follow the protocols as layed
down in the highway code

a The highway code is a "guide". If there are no other vehicles, and you
a takes the shortest route across the roundabout (not over), like doing a
a chicane, and not indicated, then you have not broken any law, as you are not
a reckless and driving dangerously.

a) Just because it is not illegal, that does not mean it is not
stupid. People who assume there are no other vehicles around are an
accident waiting to happen.

b) Watch the traffic at a roundabout in full daylight in busy
condiftions and count how many vehicles indicate and change lane
properly.

I used to have to cross near a roundabout where for whatever reason
the council hadn't put a controlled crossing, so got a pretty good
idea how many drivers have any clue about things like indicators.

Later they did put in a crossing, which gave me an ideal opportunity
to learn how many drivers pay any attention to traffic lights.

Lifetime bans and car confiscation for the first serious or the second
minor breach of the `guide' would make life better for everyone sane.

--
Mail me as _O_
|