dennis@home wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...


Some of them are. Sited not near an accident blackspot, but in a place
designed to trap the unwary.



Do you have any evidence of one *safety* camera that does not comply with
the rules?

There was one installed near here that was eventaully removed due to its
placement i.e. large yellow highly visible camera placed directly behind
a large oak tree!



--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:54:42 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
. ..

Some of them are. Sited not near an accident blackspot, but in a place
designed to trap the unwary.

Surely they are placed to *avoid* an accident blackspot. Why wait
until the horse has bolted before you close the stable door?

There are rules for "safety" cameras.
Like they have to be close to somewhere that has had a fatal accident or
several injuries.

That's precisely what I mean.

So there have to have been accidents/injuries/fatalities already?

Surely a "safety" scheme is to prevent accidents etc in the first
place.

There are too many whinging prats that can't drive properly that would cost
Tony votes if he did the job properly.
Also how do you know where the black spot is unless there have been
accidents?

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

I often wondered how many tickets were issued that were faulty.


I would just change the charge to one of dangerous driving then.

Faulty tickets can be, and are issued in their tens of thousands...

Notable recent cases include over 60,000 issued in London due to incorrect
alignment of the SPECS system on the embankment. Eventually a driver
pointed out to them that the signs indicating the reduction in speed to
20mph were placed directly below the SPECS cameras which were looking down
distance down the road. Hence the cameras were sampling vehicle speed
between two fixed points, but half the length monitored was actually a
30mph road.

Another case involved a motorist being "caught" by a fixed temporary
camera on a dual carriageway. He had to go to court to point out that
although the temporary speed reduction was signed on the main road, it was
not indicated on the slip road that he joined via. Hence the last sign he
went through advised NSL on entry to the road.

Another was a motorcyclist accused of doing 40 in a 30 zone. The rider
challenged the prosecution and demanded to see the evidence. After many
many months of refusals, eventually the police produced the photos taken
by the camera. They indicated the maximum speed was only 26mph based on
the distance travelled over the marked section of road. It transpires that
they had simply issued tickets based the the readings taken by the Doppler
sensor in the camera - and not actually checked the photos in more detail
than required to acquire the registration number of the vehicle. (this
case also illustrated beyond any doubt that the cameras do make mistakes)


But all of the above are valid mistakes.
Claiming that the first sign wasn't bigger than the rest is just being a
pratt.
They should be charged with dangerous driving for driving too fast through
the road works and endangering other users.
Speeding is the just the easy option.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...


Some of them are. Sited not near an accident blackspot, but in a place
designed to trap the unwary.



Do you have any evidence of one *safety* camera that does not comply with
the rules?

There was one installed near here that was eventaully removed due to its
placement i.e. large yellow highly visible camera placed directly behind a
large oak tree!


So it didn't comply with the rules and they removed it.
Was it used after the rules changed?

On 2007-01-19 08:11:33 +0000, "dennis@home"
said:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

I often wondered how many tickets were issued that were faulty.


I would just change the charge to one of dangerous driving then.

Faulty tickets can be, and are issued in their tens of thousands...

Notable recent cases include over 60,000 issued in London due to
incorrect alignment of the SPECS system on the embankment. Eventually a
driver pointed out to them that the signs indicating the reduction in
speed to 20mph were placed directly below the SPECS cameras which were
looking down distance down the road. Hence the cameras were sampling
vehicle speed between two fixed points, but half the length monitored
was actually a 30mph road.

Another case involved a motorist being "caught" by a fixed temporary
camera on a dual carriageway. He had to go to court to point out that
although the temporary speed reduction was signed on the main road, it
was not indicated on the slip road that he joined via. Hence the last
sign he went through advised NSL on entry to the road.

Another was a motorcyclist accused of doing 40 in a 30 zone. The rider
challenged the prosecution and demanded to see the evidence. After many
many months of refusals, eventually the police produced the photos
taken by the camera. They indicated the maximum speed was only 26mph
based on the distance travelled over the marked section of road. It
transpires that they had simply issued tickets based the the readings
taken by the Doppler sensor in the camera - and not actually checked
the photos in more detail than required to acquire the registration
number of the vehicle. (this case also illustrated beyond any doubt
that the cameras do make mistakes)


But all of the above are valid mistakes.

No they aren't. Either there are rules for the location and order of
road signs or there aren't.
One can't have it both ways.

Claiming that the first sign wasn't bigger than the rest is just being a pratt.

No it isn't. Either there was a larger first sign or there wasn't.
If it doesn't matter to have a larger first sign, why is it done?


They should be charged with dangerous driving for driving too fast
through the road works and endangering other users.

That's nonsense. The motorist didn't know what the speed restriction
was, or even whether there was one. Presence of road works does not
imply a specific speed restriction and unless you were there and know
the circumstances, it isn't possible to know what the speed was, let
alone whether it constituted dangerous driving.


Speeding is the just the easy option.

That may be true, but if this is going to be used as a means of
measuring whether somebody is driving safely, then those who would seek
to use it must set up the measurement and notification correctly. If
they don't, then they must expect to be challenged on it.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
Dave wrote:

I have since left that job and I would like one that puts me outside
for a couple of days. If it wasn't for my health, I would jump at the
chance to meet the public, even if it meant that I had to put on a
uniform and issue parking tickets.

This always reminds me of the concentration camp guards who claimed 'I was
just obeying orders'.

The point is that local authorities use parking fines as a revenue raising
exercice

If that bothers you, deny them their income by parking legally every time.

Colin Bignell

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
dennis@home wrote:

Safety cameras do not catch speeders they catch people driving
without due care and attention.
The penalties are far to light and they should be increased
especially the points.

What a load of Rollocks.

It is completely true. Anyone who cannot see a large yellow or orange box
and very distinctive road markings is not paying enough attention to their
driving.

Simple question. Why have RTA's and road deaths INCREASED since speed
cameras where introduced?

What would they have been if the cameras had not been introduced?

Like parking fines, I view speeding fines as a voluntary contribution to the
cost of running the country. Speaking from personal experience, dating back
to before there was a national speed limit or parking meters or yellow
lines, both fines are avoidable.

Colin Bignell

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Tres simple mon ami.......

Thumb tip I assume?

On Jan 18, 9:35 pm, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
You only think? And here I was, assuming from your posts that you knew
everything.

Afraid not. More than some though.

I don't feel the ned to look over my shoulder. That way lies paranoia.

The paranoia thing is a red herring.
Paranoia would be delusions of persecution.

Clive & you didn't believe that wardens or council parking contractors
would routinely lie. Clive's interpretation was that I must be deluded.
Since it has been established that they do lie, it seems that I suffer
no such delusions and Clive was just wrong.

Choosing to ignore such predatory scum is just daft. In any civilized
country they would be chained to an oar. Walk backwards and wear a .45.

And bloody well done Dave's niece.


- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

In article .com,
wrote:
I would rather they Mugged Small minded, petty, mean shallow,
inconsiderate idiot drivers,
then increase council tax for the rest of the population that don't
attract speeding and parking fines.

Resident parking, which is simply a ploy to raise revenue as it does
nothing to provide more parking or even to guarantee you get what you're
paying for, is a very inefficient way to raise revenue due to the
'policing' and admin costs. Increasing an existing tax would cost nothing
in administration.

Parking fines raised from illegal parking on main roads etc where the
restrictions are to help traffic flow don't go to the council.

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Jan 19, 8:33 am, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname
here.uk.com wrote:

The point is that local authorities use parking fines as a revenue raising
exercice.

If that bothers you, deny them their income by parking legally every time.

You are making an assumption that there is legal parking. It is a
reasonable assumption, but it is wrong.
Who would supply such legal parking?
The councils? No, they don't, because they want to maximize their
revenue from PCNs. They provide no legal parking or inadequate parking.
They prohibit parking for no good reason.

In one London Borough there were yellow lines everywhere. You needed a
ticket to park. I asked a passing warden (there were many wardens)
where I might buy aticket.

"You go to the 'Parking Shop' at the Town Hall and buy a book of
tickets."
"Can't you buy them in shop?"
"Only at the Parking Shop."
"I'm only here for one visit, I don't want a book of tickets."
"You'd have to go to the Town Hall."

The Town Hall was some miles away through roads I didn't know. I left
and didn't attend my appointment.

I neglected to ask whether you needed a ticket to park at the Town Hall.

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:56:56 GMT The Medway Handyman wrote :
The point is that local authorities use parking fines as a
revenue raising exercice - my local authority recently admitted
this in a local paper

Definitely the case round here. The wardens concentrate on easy
pickings rather than the offenders who actually inconvenience or
endanger other road users. I commented at a residents' meeting on
the anarchy outside one of our schools at finishing time - double
parking and the rest - and was told that the wardens wouldn't go
there because they get so much grief from parents. But they've been
seen issuing tickets at 6.25p.m. in the Tesco Teddington pay &
display. This of course is the Borough where a hearse was ticketed
outside an undertakers!

When I get to run things, Councils will be allowed to keep 10% of
parking fines to cover expenses and will have to send the rest to
HMG. At that point they will suddenly discover what a light touch
is necessary to ensure traffic flow and safety.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

Simple question. Why have RTA's and road deaths INCREASED since speed
cameras where introduced?


What would they have been if the cameras had not been introduced?

They would have carried on falling quite probably. The very marked trend
since the 60s has been for a year on year decrease in fatalities, in
spite of increased road usage and increase in average speeds.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

dennis@home wrote:

There was one installed near here that was eventaully removed due to its
placement i.e. large yellow highly visible camera placed directly behind a
large oak tree!



So it didn't comply with the rules and they removed it.
Was it used after the rules changed?

It was *installed* after the rules changed. It was only when they
recived copious complaints about it they took it out again.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Aidan" wrote in message
oups.com...

I don't feel the ned to look over my shoulder. That way lies paranoia.

The paranoia thing is a red herring.
Paranoia would be delusions of persecution.

Clive & you didn't believe that wardens or council parking contractors
would routinely lie. Clive's interpretation was that I must be deluded.
Since it has been established that they do lie, it seems that I suffer
no such delusions and Clive was just wrong.

Just because you didn't understand what I was saying, no need to start lying
yourself.

Check the posts - I made no such comments. I restricted myself to the stamps
issue. I notice you haven't mentioned the Heinlein/Hanlon thing again - is
that because you now understand you were wrong?

clive

dennis@home wrote:

There are rules for "safety" cameras.
Like they have to be close to somewhere that has had a fatal accident or
several injuries.

This was one of the "rules" in place when the very first cameras were
installed. IIRC, there was some debate at the time and assurances were
sought that this rule would not be diluted or its scope expanded. One of
the key aspects of it was that the camera had to be in proximity to the
accident black spot and on the same road.

Needless to say feature creep has set in and the rule now seems to mean
that it will be within four miles of a fatal road accident - which does
not have to be on the same road, and any accident will do. (i.e.
justification for one camera was given on the grounds of their being a
fatal road accident in the area. Upon investigation is was revealed that
the "accident" was in fact a suicide where someone had jumped from a
bridge over a dual carridgeway). This would seem to be the same logic
that applies when they record a drunk pedestrian falling onto the road
in front of a sober motorist as a "drink driving" statistic.

The local authority can then keep the "revenue" to reinvest in safety
schemes.

Safety of staff pensions perhaps ;-)

The police can put a camera anywhere but the "revenue" goes in the general
tax fund and not to the police.
The police tend to be choosy as it costs them money to run the camera.

Technology will reduce the costs.... is that a good thing?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Jan 19, 2:35 pm, "Clive George" wrote:

I don't feel the ned to look over my shoulder. That way lies paranoia.

The paranoia thing is a red herring.
Paranoia would be delusions of persecution.

Just because you didn't understand what I was saying, no need to start lying
yourself.


You suggested I was paranoid, see your post;

"Giggle. I don't find the need for such paranoia, but never mind.

Check the posts - I made no such comments.

issue. I notice you haven't mentioned the Heinlein/Hanlon thing again - is
that because you now understand you were wrong?

No, Clive. I haven't mentioned it because it's boring, pretentious
********.
You need to get a grip on the fact that because you use it, you ain't
clever. No one uses it unless they're being pretentious.

Heinlein; "Don't ascribe to villainy...."
Hanlon "Don't ascribe to incompetence......"

The missing stamps were nicked = villainy = Heinlein's version. Got
it?

Someone might be impressed if you could get your quotes right.
Boring as feck.

"Aidan" wrote in message
ps.com...

issue. I notice you haven't mentioned the Heinlein/Hanlon thing again -
is
that because you now understand you were wrong?

No, Clive. I haven't mentioned it because it's boring, pretentious
********.
You need to get a grip on the fact that because you use it, you ain't
clever. No one uses it unless they're being pretentious.

Heinlein; "Don't ascribe to villainy...."
Hanlon "Don't ascribe to incompetence......"

The missing stamps were nicked = villainy = Heinlein's version. Got
it?

**** me, you really are stupid aren't you. You pointed to a wikipedia
article with the two quotes in it, yet you're still getting it wrong. Go and
look again.

And even with your preferred version, you're still ascribing to villany what
can be explained by incompetence - you claim you understand what these
people are saying, yet you're repeatedly going against it. Why is that?

Someone might be impressed if you could get your quotes right.

a) I'm not trying to impress, and b) I'm not the one making the basic
mistakes here.

clive

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:44:06 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
Needless to say feature creep has set in and the rule now seems
to mean that it will be within four miles of a fatal road
accident - which does not have to be on the same road, and any
accident will do.

Sixth Cross Road, Twickenham had a number of accidents on the bend,
mainly down to overtakers exceeding the 40mph limit I suspect. The
limit is now 30 and the speed camera is 1/4 mile before the bend on
the straight bit ... so virtually everyone slows down for it, then
speeds up again. But "something has been done" which is what
matters these days.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Jan 19, 3:29 pm, "Clive George" wrote:

**** me, you really are stupid aren't you. You pointed to a wikipedia
article with the two quotes in it, yet you're still getting it wrong. Go and
look again.

clive

No Clive.
You're getting it wrong.

Copied and pasted from Wiki;
Hanlon's razor, is an adage which reads: Never attribute to malice that
which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Copied and pasted from Clive's post above; "..... it's never
ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence."

1) You got the quote wrong and wrote incompetence where it should have
been stupidity. Stupid is not the same as incompetence.

2) It's inappropriate, I had never assumed malice, I have assumed
theft malice is not the same as villainy/theft.

Copied and pasted from Wiki;
A similar quote appears in Robert A. Heinlein's 1941 short story Logic
of Empire "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply
result from stupidity",

More appropriate since; Stamps stolen = villainy = Heinlein's
version.
Got it yet?

Clive wrote;
Do you actually know what Hanlon's Razor is?

Clive wrote;
Since apparently you don't know and don't know how to find out, I'll tell
you : it's never ascribe to malice what can be explained by
incompetence.

Translation ; I'm considerably cleverer than you............

Boring, patronizing cnut.....

..............who hasn't mentioned backwards because he has no clue
and Google can't help. Someone might explain, one day.

"Aidan" wrote in message
ps.com...


On Jan 19, 3:29 pm, "Clive George" wrote:

**** me, you really are stupid aren't you. You pointed to a wikipedia
article with the two quotes in it, yet you're still getting it wrong. Go
and
look again.

clive

No Clive.
You're getting it wrong.

Giggle. We're not getting anywhere here - your failure to understand
similies isn't helping.

Copied and pasted from Wiki;
Hanlon's razor, is an adage which reads: Never attribute to malice that
which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Copied and pasted from Clive's post above; "..... it's never
ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence."

1) You got the quote wrong and wrote incompetence where it should have
been stupidity. Stupid is not the same as incompetence.

In this context, it is. Read further down the wikipedia article.

How do you explain you writing

Hanlon "Don't ascribe to incompetence......"

earlier - do you believe that compares to what you copied/pasted above?

2) It's inappropriate, I had never assumed malice, I have assumed
theft malice is not the same as villainy/theft.

Y'see, I strongly disagree with you here. I believe they apply to the same
thing. But this bit isn't really important.

Copied and pasted from Wiki;
A similar quote appears in Robert A. Heinlein's 1941 short story Logic
of Empire "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply
result from stupidity",

More appropriate since; Stamps stolen = villainy = Heinlein's
version.

Just to keep things simple I'm prepared to run with this for now - I know
you don't understand how the different words can mean similar things
(similie), but it doesn't actually affect my primary argument.

I've asked you more than once now to explain how your belief that Heinlein's
quote supports you. Care to try again? Heinlein supports me - he's saying
that it's far more likely that the stamps are being chucked away with SAE
than they're being systematically stolen.

Translation ; I'm considerably cleverer than you............

Unfortunately it appears that this is the case.

Boring, patronizing cnut.....

It's very easy to patronise somebody who's being as stupid as you are.

clive

"Aidan" wrote in message
ps.com...

.............who hasn't mentioned backwards because he has no clue
and Google can't help. Someone might explain, one day.

Please do.

BTW Is it pretentious to say something and claim it's a classical allusion?

clive

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...

Dave Liquorice wrote:


There is a very easy way not to get caught by a speed camera, don't break
the speed limit. There are signs and the type, location and lighting
should tell you what the speed limit is without signs. If the limit
differs from what it should be for the type, location and lighting then
there must be small repeator boards telling you the speed limit.

I drive from Preston, Lancs. to Porsmouth Hants on a regular basis, to see
our daughter and g daughters.
If you remember, about 2 or so years ago, there were road works in the
Birmingham area, restricting the speed to 50 MPH. over the elevated
section of the M6.

It was several trips down the road before I realised that any driver
accused of speeding South bound had a very good case to have the
conviction thrown out by the court. Though the motorway had repeater signs
for 50 MPH at the correct spacing and a sign to say the the restriction
had ended, there was no starter sign, the one that has to be bigger that
the repeater signs.


Nothing I can see in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
2002 says that the sign marking the start of the speed limit has to be
larger than the repeater signs.

Looking at a web site quoted here a little later, I take you point.
However, what I should have made clear, but didn't, was the fact that
the beginning of a speed limit must have signs at both sides of the
carriageway. Repeaters can be on one side or the other every so many
yards. It was the two signs at the beginning of the limit that were missing.

Dave

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

Simple question. Why have RTA's and road deaths INCREASED since speed
cameras where introduced?


What would they have been if the cameras had not been introduced?

They would have carried on falling quite probably. The very marked trend
since the 60s has been for a year on year decrease in fatalities, in spite
of increased road usage and increase in average speeds.

If that were the case, it should be possible to demonstrate an increase in
accidents around speed camera installations, which offsets the overall
downward trend in other areas. However, studies in the UK and abroad have
shown the reduction in accidents at camera locations varies from 35% to 55%,
when compared to the long-term trends and up to 70%, when compared to the
sites before the installation of the cameras. Therefore, if accidents have
increased since cameras were introduced, they must be happening elsewhere,
which strongly suggests that there are other factors involved. It would, for
example, be interesting to compare the increase in ownership of mobile
phones to the traffic accident figures, or compare them to the use of seat
belts, which increased from the mid 1960s through to about the mid 1990s,
but now is on the decline, or the reducing effectiveness of the drink
driving campaign.

Colin Bignell

"Aidan" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Jan 19, 8:33 am, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname
here.uk.com wrote:

The point is that local authorities use parking fines as a revenue
raising
exercice.

If that bothers you, deny them their income by parking legally every time.

You are making an assumption that there is legal parking. It is a
reasonable assumption, but it is wrong.

I've never failed to find any, not even when needing all-day parking deep
within the Congestion Charge Area. Of course, it has not always been legal,
cheap and convenient parking.

snipped anecdote of resident-friendly parking scheme

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:36:33 -0000 Nightjar wrote :
However, studies in the UK and abroad have shown the reduction in
accidents at camera locations varies from 35% to 55%, when compared
to the long-term trends and up to 70%, when compared to the sites
before the installation of the cameras. Therefore, if accidents have
increased since cameras were introduced, they must be happening
elsewhere, which strongly suggests that there are other factors
involved.

Like slowing down for the camera then accelerating away ...

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:


Simple question. Why have RTA's and road deaths INCREASED since speed
cameras where introduced?


What would they have been if the cameras had not been introduced?

They would have carried on falling quite probably. The very marked trend
since the 60s has been for a year on year decrease in fatalities, in spite
of increased road usage and increase in average speeds.


If that were the case, it should be possible to demonstrate an increase in
accidents around speed camera installations, which offsets the overall
downward trend in other areas. However, studies in the UK and abroad have
shown the reduction in accidents at camera locations varies from 35% to 55%,
when compared to the long-term trends and up to 70%, when compared to the

I have not seen stats for very recent years, so can't comment on the
scale of the rise (if there is one)... the impression I got for figures
I saw a couple of years ago was that cameras have made little if any
impact to the overall accident rate (although I accept they may have
displaced some of the locations). Often it seems the accidents move to
the back streets due to increased traffic deliberately choosing new
routes that avoid cameras.

sites before the installation of the cameras. Therefore, if accidents have
increased since cameras were introduced, they must be happening elsewhere,
which strongly suggests that there are other factors involved. It would, for
example, be interesting to compare the increase in ownership of mobile
phones to the traffic accident figures, or compare them to the use of seat
belts, which increased from the mid 1960s through to about the mid 1990s,
but now is on the decline, or the reducing effectiveness of the drink
driving campaign.

The seat belt one was interesting, since for years it was thought it had
made a big reduction in road deaths. What they forgot to include in the
stats however was that the year of introduction also coincided with the
start of the anti drink driving campaign - so it is actually more
difficult to attribute the actual cause of the reductions. They also
later realised that while seat belts did reduce the death rate among
drivers, there was an increase in the death rates for all other road
users (pedestrians, cyclists etc).


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:23:56 +0000, Frank Erskine wrote:

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:51:12 GMT, wrote:

On 17 Jan,
Tony Bryer wrote:

My Tesco now has one for the use of customers: I haven't tried it
myself but you toss in load of odd coins and it gives you real
money!

We've had one in Asda for a few years. It seems popular, depite it keeping
10% of the proceeds. Quite a high commission!

I suppose it appeals to a certain type of person, sounding as it does
as if it's a fruit machine paying out a "jackpot".

You could make quite a fortune at that rate by simply standing in the
street and asking passers-by for 1uk pound, for which you'd give them
90-odd pence in return.

In fact, aren't fruit machines supposed (in theory) to pay out at
about 90%?

75% IIRC




--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html
Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 01:01:31 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Simple question. Why have RTA's and road deaths INCREASED since speed
cameras where introduced?

Because silly prats batting along above the speed limit spot the camera
at the last moment and slam the anchors on. Taking following motorists
(also speeding or not) behind by surprise who promptly shunt them?

Yes, this does happen. It happens even when the leading motorist *isn't*
speeding. Had some one do that in front of me in lane 3 on the M6 at
70mph when they spotted the markings left over from some road works. I
nearly rammed them and the guy behind nearly rammed me and had very
frightened looked on his very white face.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Tony Bryer wrote:

Definitely the case round here. The wardens concentrate on easy
pickings rather than the offenders who actually inconvenience or
endanger other road users. I commented at a residents' meeting on
the anarchy outside one of our schools at finishing time - double
parking and the rest - and was told that the wardens wouldn't go
there because they get so much grief from parents.

I called our local parking office to inform them that pikeys had invaded a
car park in town. Their reply was that they would inforn the 'traveller
liason officer'.

I complained that the pikeys were breaking every rule in the book, whilst
local residents get tickets at the drop of a hat. I suggested they send
some parking attendants to ticket the transits and was told they couldn't do
that, because the attendants might be subject to abuse or violence.

So I assume that if I am abusive & violent I am immune to parking tickets?


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Colin Bignell wrote;

Like parking fines, I view speeding fines as a voluntary contribution
to the cost of running the country. Speaking from personal
experience, dating back to before there was a national speed limit or
parking meters or yellow lines, both fines are avoidable.

How do you manage to drive? It must be very difficult folding your wings
under the seatbelt and making sure the halo doesn't poke out through the sun
roof?


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Andy Burns wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Tres simple mon ami.......

Thumb tip I assume?

Correct. Don't tell anyone.....

Very badly used at that, terrible technique.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Taking following motorists (also speeding or not) behind by surprise
who promptly shunt them?

Oh err! ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.. .

I complained that the pikeys were breaking every rule in the book, whilst
local residents get tickets at the drop of a hat. I suggested they send
some parking attendants to ticket the transits and was told they couldn't
do that, because the attendants might be subject to abuse or violence.

So I assume that if I am abusive & violent I am immune to parking tickets?

If you've got lots of big mates who look likely to cause grief, and you've
got no house or much of value to lose, yes.

(another way is to have a large nuclear arsenal - well, works for the USians
and the congestion charge...)

cheers,
clive

On Jan 19, 5:00 pm, "Clive George" wrote:

I've asked you more than once now to explain how your belief that Heinlein's
quote supports you. Care to try again? Heinlein supports me - he's saying
that it's far more likely that the stamps are being chucked away with SAE
than they're being systematically stolen.

Ah, now I see the other mistake you are making.

I've asked you more than once now to explain how your belief that Heinlein's
quote supports you.

Not my belief, Hanlon/Heinlein was introducd by you and I disagree,
always have. If you re-read, you won't find that I said that anywhere.
You've misunderstood. I think the stamps were pocketed, the simplest
and most likely explanation.

Translation ; I'm considerably cleverer than you............
Unfortunately it appears that this is the case.

That seems to have gone way over your head, too.

BTW Is it pretentious to say something and claim it's a classical allusion?

If it was, probably.

"Aidan" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Jan 19, 5:00 pm, "Clive George" wrote:

I've asked you more than once now to explain how your belief that
Heinlein's
quote supports you. Care to try again? Heinlein supports me - he's saying
that it's far more likely that the stamps are being chucked away with SAE
than they're being systematically stolen.

Ah, now I see the other mistake you are making.

You mean, reading what you wrote, not what you meant to write?

I've asked you more than once now to explain how your belief that
Heinlein's
quote supports you.

Not my belief, Hanlon/Heinlein was introducd by you and I disagree,
always have. If you re-read, you won't find that I said that anywhere.

Right, so bits where you claimed they were saying opposite things and hence
one supported you were merely my imagination then? Like this bit:

Heinlein; "Don't ascribe to villainy...."
Hanlon "Don't ascribe to incompetence......"

If you now accept they're saying the same thing I'm happy. Of course you're
still choosing the more complex and unlikely cause for your SAE going
missing, but it's a free world and you're entitled to your paranoia.

You've misunderstood. I think the stamps were pocketed, the simplest
and most likely explanation.

Most complex and least likely explanation...

BTW Is it pretentious to say something and claim it's a classical
allusion?

If it was, probably.

So when you wrote

Have you worked out the relevance of walking backwards whilst wearing a
45?
It's a classical reference.

you were being pretentious then?

clive

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:36:33 -0000 Nightjar wrote :
However, studies in the UK and abroad have shown the reduction in
accidents at camera locations varies from 35% to 55%, when compared
to the long-term trends and up to 70%, when compared to the sites
before the installation of the cameras. Therefore, if accidents have
increased since cameras were introduced, they must be happening
elsewhere, which strongly suggests that there are other factors
involved.

Like slowing down for the camera then accelerating away ...

Any accidents resulting from that would still show up as being around the
camera location. One study showed that accident reduction is measurable at
up to 2km from the site of a camera.

Colin Bignell

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
. ..
Colin Bignell wrote;

Like parking fines, I view speeding fines as a voluntary contribution
to the cost of running the country. Speaking from personal
experience, dating back to before there was a national speed limit or
parking meters or yellow lines, both fines are avoidable.

How do you manage to drive?

In accordance with Roadcraft, which was a White Paper in the days when I was
taught to drive to it.

Colin Bignell

On 2007-01-20 12:00:18 +0000, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname
here.uk.com said:


"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:36:33 -0000 Nightjar wrote :
However, studies in the UK and abroad have shown the reduction in
accidents at camera locations varies from 35% to 55%, when compared
to the long-term trends and up to 70%, when compared to the sites
before the installation of the cameras. Therefore, if accidents have
increased since cameras were introduced, they must be happening
elsewhere, which strongly suggests that there are other factors
involved.

Like slowing down for the camera then accelerating away ...

Any accidents resulting from that would still show up as being around
the camera location. One study showed that accident reduction is
measurable at up to 2km from the site of a camera.

Colin Bignell

Which side though?

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:09:15 GMT, wrote:

Obviously not leaving the 2 second gap. It makes motoring much less
stressful if you do leave the gap.

Possibly not but when you are driving along in good weather with no
visible hazards ahead and the perosn in front stands on their brakes and
I mean stands the 2s gap rapidly becomes 2 inches. B-)

Had another one tonight on the A66 near Middlesborugh, dual carriage way,
illumated but with NSL repeater signs. Doing just under 65mph, camera
ahead, car infront brakes down to 55. I was more like the 5s rule behind
but as we passed the camera I'd pulled out to pass him, he then sped back
up to 65 again... er Why?

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail