Dave Liquorice wrote:

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?

Just to be "on the safe side" no doubt...

(followed one who did the same in a 30 limit the other day... problem
was he would only do 25mph normally and still slowed down to 15-20 for
the camera!)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 01:10:16 +0000, John Rumm wrote:

... 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?

Just to be "on the safe side" no doubt...

So why didn't he do it for the next camera a few miles further on?

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

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.

Now that is interesting. The road our estate connects to has a speed
camera. I've lived here for 23 years and never seen any kind of accident on
that road, let alone a fatack.

BTW. You can't have an RTA (Road Traffic Accident) anymore according to my
paramedic daughter. You have to have a RTC (Road Traffic Collision)
instead.

Apparently the insurance companies SPIT have influenced the Govmint to
change the terminology. An 'accident' is someone's fault and someone is to
blame, so they have to pay out.


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:
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.


Now that is interesting. The road our estate connects to has a speed
camera. I've lived here for 23 years and never seen any kind of accident on
that road, let alone a fatack.

BTW. You can't have an RTA (Road Traffic Accident) anymore according to my
paramedic daughter. You have to have a RTC (Road Traffic Collision)
instead.

Apparently the insurance companies SPIT have influenced the Govmint to
change the terminology. An 'accident' is someone's fault and someone is to
blame, so they have to pay out.



I have always objected to people saying, after their vehicle had
collided with another, that they had been involved in a 'car accident'
on the basis that they use the word 'accident' to divorce themselves
from any responsibility. It is miniscule-ly (sp?) rare for one to have
not contributed in any way to the events that lead to a crash.

rant mode off

Richard