dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...


Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents.

That is why they need the speed traps, because you and others don't
comprehend.

Sorry, I cannot agree with you on this point. It is inappropriate speed that
kills. Without the recent 20 mph zones around schools, I would reduce my
speed quite often to much less due to the risk to all in the locality.
Interestingly, many of these new limits are time dependent - at long last a
recognition of inappropriate speed.

Of course it is if inappropriate.

Like when the speed limit is set lower than you want to drive?

Not at all, please see above.


When the rain is thundering down whilst travelling on the motorway,
I have had to reduce my speed to 20 mph and less for all's safety
sake, ( crumbles, I recall having to drop to less than 11mph on the
M11 circa 15 years ago due to the conditions) .

You are lucky I was forced to stop as it was impossible to see five
feet the rain was so heavy.
Of course I choose a good spot under a bridge some of the others just
stopped where they were.

I frequently used to commute on a motorway in the Midlands, whilst a
lady in her 50's ( I'm just still in my 50's) used to drive at circa
45 mph causing HGVs to overtake and cause risks to all. Why she was
not pulled over and banned escapes me.

Because she is allowed to drive at 45 mph on a motorway.
You lack of understanding of the law appears to be a problem.

Ah, I think I see the problem. Is there not a saying that the law is for the
guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools? This truly is the point.
Unthinking folk have accidents in speed restricted zones due to driving at
inappropriate speed for the conditions. "But I was only doing 30."

If you or your vehicle is unfit to drive on a motorway under good conditions
at 56 mph (the limit I think for HGVs), one should be done for obstruction
and causing danger to others.


I have to confess to having being done for doing 36 mph ( I think it
was without checking, it might have been 39), a few years ago just
inside a recently moved limit, where it was 40 mph for many years.
The Income Crew sited their camera so that all could be seen to
exceed the new 30 mph at the transition point and were clobbered
with no regard to safety issues. I did not pursue the case but I am
sure that my rear bumper was still in the 40mph zone when I was done!

That isn't speeding, its driving without due care and attention!
You were allowed to be done for speeding as a let off.

Thanks for that! You're quite right, I was watching road conditions and had
abided by the 40mph zone for the last mile. I should have been on the
lookout for the revenue chasers instead!

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:30 -0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:



"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
.. .

As in taking it is theft?

As in have you ever known anyone in charge of a skip to say 'No' when
you ask if you can remove something from it?
The usual response is "Blimey guv, sure - take the bleedin' lot".

I have known several places say no.
My local staples said no when I wanted some bits of desk.

In such cases you have to find out who's responsible for the skip -
asking a 'minion' is likely to result in a 'No' simply because they
don't know whether they have the authority to say 'Yes'.
Either that or it's your approach - though I suspect Staples would far
rather you bought a new desk.

I expect that less people will say no now that it costs money to dump stuff.

It always cost money to hire a skip - and the more room there is in
it, the more rubbish you can get rid of for the hire fee. T'was ever
thus.
I doubt fewer people will say no because of an increase in cost - it's
about how much room there is left in the skip.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard
Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Clot" wrote in message
...


Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents.

That is why they need the speed traps, because you and others don't
comprehend.

Of course it is if inappropriate.

Like when the speed limit is set lower than you want to drive?


When the rain is thundering down whilst travelling on the motorway, I
have had to reduce my speed to 20 mph and less for all's safety sake,
( crumbles, I recall having to drop to less than 11mph on the M11
circa 15 years ago due to the conditions) .

You are lucky I was forced to stop as it was impossible to see five
feet the rain was so heavy.
Of course I choose a good spot under a bridge some of the others just
stopped where they were.

I frequently used to commute on a motorway in the Midlands, whilst a
lady in her 50's ( I'm just still in my 50's) used to drive at circa
45 mph causing HGVs to overtake and cause risks to all. Why she was
not pulled over and banned escapes me.

Because she is allowed to drive at 45 mph on a motorway.
You lack of understanding of the law appears to be a problem.

C'mon own up dennis, this is you, isn't it

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...ng-pictures-of
-pensioner-on-mobility-scooter-115875-21157529/


--
geoff

On Feb 28, 10:36*pm, Stephen Howard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:30 -0000, "dennis@home"

wrote:

I have known several places say no.
My local staples said no when I wanted some bits of desk.

I suspect Staples would far rather you bought a new desk.

I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're better
off getting one from a skip.

On Feb 28, 11:05*pm, geoff wrote:

C'mon own up dennis, this is you, isn't it

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...ng-pictures-of
-pensioner-on-mobility-scooter-115875-21157529/

geoff

Doubt it. That old geezer was going in the same direction as the
traffic flow.


Lucky there was such a good photographer handy though, eh?

dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...


Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents.

That is why they need the speed traps, because you and others don't
comprehend.

Of course it is if inappropriate.

Like when the speed limit is set lower than you want to drive?


When the rain is thundering down whilst travelling on the motorway,
I have had to reduce my speed to 20 mph and less for all's safety
sake, ( crumbles, I recall having to drop to less than 11mph on the
M11 circa 15 years ago due to the conditions) .

You are lucky I was forced to stop as it was impossible to see five
feet the rain was so heavy.
Of course I choose a good spot under a bridge some of the others just
stopped where they were.

Of course you would Dennis, you are the urban spaceman.

I frequently used to commute on a motorway in the Midlands, whilst a
lady in her 50's ( I'm just still in my 50's) used to drive at circa
45 mph causing HGVs to overtake and cause risks to all. Why she was
not pulled over and banned escapes me.

Because she is allowed to drive at 45 mph on a motorway.
You lack of understanding of the law appears to be a problem.

No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put down.
Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody dangerous.


I have to confess to having being done for doing 36 mph ( I think it
was without checking, it might have been 39), a few years ago just
inside a recently moved limit, where it was 40 mph for many years.
The Income Crew sited their camera so that all could be seen to
exceed the new 30 mph at the transition point and were clobbered
with no regard to safety issues. I did not pursue the case but I am
sure that my rear bumper was still in the 40mph zone when I was done!

That isn't speeding, its driving without due care and attention!
You were allowed to be done for speeding as a let off.

No Dennis, its the desire to use speed cameras as revenue producers.

You really are anal retentive.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Clot" wrote in message
...


Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents.

That is why they need the speed traps, because you and others don't
comprehend.

Of course it is if inappropriate.

Like when the speed limit is set lower than you want to drive?


When the rain is thundering down whilst travelling on the motorway,
I have had to reduce my speed to 20 mph and less for all's safety
sake, ( crumbles, I recall having to drop to less than 11mph on
the M11 circa 15 years ago due to the conditions) .

You are lucky I was forced to stop as it was impossible to see five
feet the rain was so heavy.
Of course I choose a good spot under a bridge some of the others just
stopped where they were.

I frequently used to commute on a motorway in the Midlands, whilst a
lady in her 50's ( I'm just still in my 50's) used to drive at
circa 45 mph causing HGVs to overtake and cause risks to all. Why
she was not pulled over and banned escapes me.

Because she is allowed to drive at 45 mph on a motorway.
You lack of understanding of the law appears to be a problem.

C'mon own up dennis, this is you, isn't it

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...ng-pictures-of
-pensioner-on-mobility-scooter-115875-21157529/

He has all the symptoms of Alzheimer's , so it prolly is him.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Clot" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...


Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents.

That is why they need the speed traps, because you and others don't
comprehend.

Sorry, I cannot agree with you on this point. It is inappropriate speed
that kills. Without the recent 20 mph zones around schools, I would reduce
my speed quite often to much less due to the risk to all in the locality.

So they don't create a problem for you then.
Its nice to see someone who actually wont be breaking the speed limits as
you obviously drove as slow as they have been set before they were set.

Interestingly, many of these new limits are time dependent - at long last
a recognition of inappropriate speed.

Of course it is if inappropriate.

Like when the speed limit is set lower than you want to drive?

Not at all, please see above.


When the rain is thundering down whilst travelling on the motorway,
I have had to reduce my speed to 20 mph and less for all's safety
sake, ( crumbles, I recall having to drop to less than 11mph on the
M11 circa 15 years ago due to the conditions) .

You are lucky I was forced to stop as it was impossible to see five
feet the rain was so heavy.
Of course I choose a good spot under a bridge some of the others just
stopped where they were.

I frequently used to commute on a motorway in the Midlands, whilst a
lady in her 50's ( I'm just still in my 50's) used to drive at circa
45 mph causing HGVs to overtake and cause risks to all. Why she was
not pulled over and banned escapes me.

Because she is allowed to drive at 45 mph on a motorway.
You lack of understanding of the law appears to be a problem.

Ah, I think I see the problem. Is there not a saying that the law is for
the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools? This truly is the
point. Unthinking folk have accidents in speed restricted zones due to
driving at inappropriate speed for the conditions. "But I was only doing
30."

An appropriate speed would be the speed limit or slower.
I don't see the problem.


If you or your vehicle is unfit to drive on a motorway under good
conditions at 56 mph (the limit I think for HGVs), one should be done for
obstruction and causing danger to others.

So now you think people should drive at the speed limit and not one mph
less.

The appropriate speed for that woman may have been 45 mph.

I have to confess to having being done for doing 36 mph ( I think it
was without checking, it might have been 39), a few years ago just
inside a recently moved limit, where it was 40 mph for many years.
The Income Crew sited their camera so that all could be seen to
exceed the new 30 mph at the transition point and were clobbered
with no regard to safety issues. I did not pursue the case but I am
sure that my rear bumper was still in the 40mph zone when I was done!

That isn't speeding, its driving without due care and attention!
You were allowed to be done for speeding as a let off.

Thanks for that! You're quite right, I was watching road conditions and
had abided by the 40mph zone for the last mile. I should have been on the
lookout for the revenue chasers instead!

You should know the speed limit at all times, it is signed.
If you don't then you are driving without due care and attention.
I would suggest that 40 mph is too fast for you as you obviously can't see
the signs when driving at that speed.
What other hazards do you miss if you can't see the signs?
Probably just little things like kids, cyclists, etc.

"geoff" wrote in message
...

C'mon own up dennis, this is you, isn't it

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...ng-pictures-of
-pensioner-on-mobility-scooter-115875-21157529/

I wonder if they treat cyclists the same?

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put down.
Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody dangerous.

No it isn't.

"mike" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 10:36 pm, Stephen Howard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:30 -0000, "dennis@home"

wrote:

I have known several places say no.
My local staples said no when I wanted some bits of desk.

I suspect Staples would far rather you bought a new desk.

I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're better
off getting one from a skip.

That supplier went bust in Dec IIRC.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Clot" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...


Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents.

That is why they need the speed traps, because you and others don't
comprehend.

Sorry, I cannot agree with you on this point. It is inappropriate
speed that kills. Without the recent 20 mph zones around schools, I
would reduce my speed quite often to much less due to the risk to all
in the locality.

So they don't create a problem for you then.
Its nice to see someone who actually wont be breaking the speed limits
as you obviously drove as slow as they have been set before they were
set.

Dennis - do you have a man walks in front of your horseless carriage
with a red flag?

Tomorrow, I will hit 140-150mph, just for you

Of course, that's 30-40 mph slower than I could, but ...

best to keep to a safe speed, eh ?

--
geoff

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
...

C'mon own up dennis, this is you, isn't it

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...ng-pictures-of
-pensioner-on-mobility-scooter-115875-21157529/

I wonder if they treat cyclists the same?

the same as what ?

senile old farts?

You should know


--
geoff

dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody dangerous.

No it isn't.

Not quite sure of the history of this, but if I recollect, when
motorways were born in this country (M6 Preston Bypass being the first
one) there was a minimum speed of 40 MPH on it.

Apart from which, I regularly see drivers in the middle lane of a 3 lane
motorway doing less than 55 MPH. Did they never pass all of their
driving test, but failed the mirror, signal maneuver part of it? And
what happened to the first rule of the road?

Drive on the left in GB.

Dave

geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Clot" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...


Thank you, I belong to your church. I cannot comprehend this idiot
use of speed cameras and that speed is the cause of accidents.

That is why they need the speed traps, because you and others don't
comprehend.

Sorry, I cannot agree with you on this point. It is inappropriate
speed that kills. Without the recent 20 mph zones around schools, I
would reduce my speed quite often to much less due to the risk to
all in the locality.

So they don't create a problem for you then.
Its nice to see someone who actually wont be breaking the speed
limits as you obviously drove as slow as they have been set before
they were set.

Dennis - do you have a man walks in front of your horseless carriage
with a red flag?

Tomorrow, I will hit 140-150mph, just for you

Of course, that's 30-40 mph slower than I could, but ...

best to keep to a safe speed, eh ?

Thanks, a sane response that I smiled to.

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

I frequently used to commute on a motorway in the Midlands, whilst a
lady in her 50's ( I'm just still in my 50's) used to drive at circa
45 mph causing HGVs to overtake and cause risks to all. Why she was
not pulled over and banned escapes me.

Because she is allowed to drive at 45 mph on a motorway. You lack of
understanding of the law appears to be a problem.

Ah, I think I see the problem. Is there not a saying that the law is
for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools? This truly is
the point. Unthinking folk have accidents in speed restricted zones due
to driving at inappropriate speed for the conditions. "But I was only
doing 30."

An appropriate speed would be the speed limit or slower. I don't see the
problem.

You probably think this is a terrible miscarriage of justice, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm

On Mar 1, 9:26*am, Adrian wrote:

You probably think this is a terrible miscarriage of justice, too.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm

"She had been travelling from her home to a Staples stationery store
when she was arrested by police..."

wrote: My local staples said no when
I wanted some bits of desk.

Dennis = Stephanie...?

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


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody
dangerous.

No it isn't.

The offence is 'driving without due consideration' and you can be
fined/banned for doing so. Driving too slowly will also cause a failure
during a driving test.

A vehicle driving too slowly is a hazard to other road users as it will
cause them 'to change direction or speed' unecessarily.

So yes it is. Ner ner ne ner ner.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 10:36 pm, Stephen Howard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:30 -0000, "dennis@home"

wrote:

I have known several places say no.
My local staples said no when I wanted some bits of desk.

I suspect Staples would far rather you bought a new desk.

I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're
better off getting one from a skip.

That supplier went bust in Dec IIRC.

What are you on?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:


The appropriate speed for that woman may have been 45 mph.

You miss the point again you idiot. What about the appropriate speed for
the rest of the road users?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 1 Mar 2009 09:26:18 GMT, Adrian wrote:

You probably think this is a terrible miscarriage of justice, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm

No she should have her licence removed. Treated for 3 years for "fear of
driving", she is not safe to be driving. Having a driving licence is a
privelidge given to those in society who have demonstrated that they can
operate a road vehicle in a safe manner and with due consideration to
other highway users. A driving licence is not a right.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message
,
mike writes
On Mar 1, 9:26*am, Adrian wrote:

You probably think this is a terrible miscarriage of justice,
too.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm

"She had been travelling from her home to a Staples stationery store
when she was arrested by police..."

wrote: My local staples said no when
I wanted some bits of desk.

Dennis = Stephanie...?

vbg


--
geoff

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 00:53:10 -0000, dennis@home wrote:

You should know the speed limit at all times, it is signed.

Not always signed but you should still know what the speed limit is by the
type of road (single/dual carriage way, lit/unlit, etc) and your vehicle.

If the limit for a particular stretch of road is not what the type of road
indicates there should be small repeator signs every few hundred yards
with the limit that applies (to cars).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:15:59 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put down.
Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody dangerous.

Please cite the relevant legislation that makes driving at 45mph on a
motor way "an offence". It might be offensive but that isn't the same.

Assuming the motorway is not chock a block it is dangerous though as
traffic doing the legal limit is closing at 25mph and that will catch out
half the day dreamers that populate our motorways (see comment about the
lane 2 hogs).

The other thing that annoys me are the number of people who think they
have right of way when joing a motorway from a slip road, combined with
those that blindly pull out into lane 2 at junctions. The traffic on the
motorway has right of way and those joining should match their speed to
that traffic and fit safely into the traffic flow. It's not difficult,
Highway Code Rule 259.

--
Cheers
Dave.

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


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody
dangerous.
No it isn't.

The offence is 'driving without due consideration' and you can be
fined/banned for doing so. Driving too slowly will also cause a failure
during a driving test.

A vehicle driving too slowly is a hazard to other road users as it will
cause them 'to change direction or speed' unecessarily.

So yes it is. Ner ner ne ner ner.



I've driven on a motorway, towing two cars on a trailer, at less than
30mph. Got overtaken by a tank on a tank transporter.

Combination of hill, too much weight, underpowered transporter and some
dodgy diesel.

It WAS dangerous, but fortunately most of the traffic understood we were
doing the best we could.

"Dave Liquorice" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

Please cite the relevant legislation that makes driving at 45mph on a
motor way "an offence".

RTA, Driving without due consideration for other road users.

The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I've driven on a motorway, towing two cars on a trailer, at less than
30mph. Got overtaken by a tank on a tank transporter.

Combination of hill, too much weight, underpowered transporter and some
dodgy diesel.

It WAS dangerous, but fortunately most of the traffic understood we were
doing the best we could.

Was it within the towing weight limit for the tow vehicle? If not, you'd
have got hit with a damn sight more than DWDC&A if you'd been tugged.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:15:59 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody
dangerous.

Please cite the relevant legislation that makes driving at 45mph on a
motor way "an offence". It might be offensive but that isn't the same.

The offence is 'driving without reasonable consideration'. Same penalties
as driving without due care and attention.


Assuming the motorway is not chock a block it is dangerous though as
traffic doing the legal limit is closing at 25mph and that will catch
out half the day dreamers that populate our motorways (see comment
about the lane 2 hogs).

The other thing that annoys me are the number of people who think they
have right of way when joing a motorway from a slip road, combined
with those that blindly pull out into lane 2 at junctions. The
traffic on the motorway has right of way and those joining should
match their speed to that traffic and fit safely into the traffic
flow. It's not difficult, Highway Code Rule 259.

That drives me nuts as well. I've had drivers hoot & wave fists.

Applies to A roads as well around here. Entrance to the Medway tunnel is
especially bad. Have to say its mainly young females.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

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



No Dennis, its the desire to use speed cameras as revenue producers.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk


In Stalybridge some speed cameras are painted green to help them blend in
with the trees.

Tameside council website says

"Camera sites have to be clearly visible from a distance of at least 60
metres"

"The purpose of safety cameras is to improve the safety of roads for all
road users. Speed limits are in place for a very good reason - to inform
motorists of the safest maximum speed for a stretch of road. Motorists who
break the speed limit are putting themselves and other road users at risk"

A camouflaged camera is not helping people remember the speed limit and is
not clearly visible from 60 metres. It is a revenue producer.

Adam

"ARWadsworth" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Tameside council website says

Speed limits are in place for a very good reason - to inform
motorists of the safest maximum speed for a stretch of road.

What a load of ********.

Most of my commute is on roads where a fraction of the limit is too fast
- even in ideal road and traffic conditions. On some stretches, barely a
quarter of the limit is as fast as is appropriate.

Equally, on other stretches of road, the limit is far lower than an
otherwise safe and appropriate speed would be.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"ARWadsworth" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Tameside council website says

Speed limits are in place for a very good reason - to inform
motorists of the safest maximum speed for a stretch of road.

What a load of ********.

Most of my commute is on roads where a fraction of the limit is too fast
- even in ideal road and traffic conditions. On some stretches, barely a
quarter of the limit is as fast as is appropriate.

Equally, on other stretches of road, the limit is far lower than an
otherwise safe and appropriate speed would be.

As the 3rd most dangerous stretch of road in the country (I cannot find a
reference at the moment) is half a mile from my home I find it odd that the
only speed camera on it is located at the safest place on the road (ie just
before it becomes a 30mph limit and where there are traffic lights). All the
accidents and deaths are 1 mile further up from this camera where the non
traffic light controlled crossroads are.

So it is not just Tameside that takes the **** with speed camera locations.

Adam

Adam

"Dave" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put down.
Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody dangerous.

No it isn't.

Not quite sure of the history of this, but if I recollect, when motorways
were born in this country (M6 Preston Bypass being the first one) there
was a minimum speed of 40 MPH on it.

There are a few Motorways with minimum speed limits.
There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they can
use the motorway.


Apart from which, I regularly see drivers in the middle lane of a 3 lane
motorway doing less than 55 MPH. Did they never pass all of their driving
test, but failed the mirror, signal maneuver part of it? And what happened
to the first rule of the road?

Drive on the left in GB.

That is a very common driving error.
It is also illegal but hard to prove.
I expect geoff and clot do that all the time as they appear to be those
superior drivers who are better than everyone else.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

I frequently used to commute on a motorway in the Midlands, whilst a
lady in her 50's ( I'm just still in my 50's) used to drive at circa
45 mph causing HGVs to overtake and cause risks to all. Why she was
not pulled over and banned escapes me.

Because she is allowed to drive at 45 mph on a motorway. You lack of
understanding of the law appears to be a problem.

Ah, I think I see the problem. Is there not a saying that the law is
for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools? This truly is
the point. Unthinking folk have accidents in speed restricted zones due
to driving at inappropriate speed for the conditions. "But I was only
doing 30."

An appropriate speed would be the speed limit or slower. I don't see the
problem.

You probably think this is a terrible miscarriage of justice, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7171154.stm

She shouldn't be driving on the hard shoulder.

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


No Dennis, the problem is that she is a ****wit who should be put
down. Driving at 45mph on a motorway is an offence and bloody
dangerous.

No it isn't.

The offence is 'driving without due consideration' and you can be
fined/banned for doing so. Driving too slowly will also cause a failure
during a driving test.

A vehicle driving too slowly is a hazard to other road users as it will
cause them 'to change direction or speed' unecessarily.

So yes it is. Ner ner ne ner ner.

No it is not.

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


The appropriate speed for that woman may have been 45 mph.

You miss the point again you idiot. What about the appropriate speed for
the rest of the road users?

Less than the speed limit.

In article ,
Adrian writes:
"ARWadsworth" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Tameside council website says

Speed limits are in place for a very good reason - to inform
motorists of the safest maximum speed for a stretch of road.

What a load of ********.

Most of my commute is on roads where a fraction of the limit is too fast
- even in ideal road and traffic conditions. On some stretches, barely a
quarter of the limit is as fast as is appropriate.

Equally, on other stretches of road, the limit is far lower than an
otherwise safe and appropriate speed would be.

Up to around 1990, I would say speed limits were generally all
quite reasonable - there were very few cases where I found myself
disagreeing with them. Some time around then, local councils were
given powers to impose speed limits without referring to the
DoT. This was the point where speed limits started becoming
political rather than technical/safety issues, and we saw all the
silly 30 MPH limits spring up for 100 yards either side of a
councillors house. Since then, speed limits have become more and
more political, and nowadays bear no relation to technical/safety
issues. We have politians declaring stretches of road as dangerous
(with no understanding of how to actually make any such judgement
from the data they might have) and reducing the speed limit is the
only knob they know how to turn, even though it mostly isn't the
issue. (I suspect a larger number of drivers around who actually
can't drive very well is a factor for which we all end up paying.)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they
can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...

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



No Dennis, its the desire to use speed cameras as revenue producers.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk


In Stalybridge some speed cameras are painted green to help them blend in
with the trees.

Tameside council website says

"Camera sites have to be clearly visible from a distance of at least 60
metres"

"The purpose of safety cameras is to improve the safety of roads for all
road users. Speed limits are in place for a very good reason - to inform
motorists of the safest maximum speed for a stretch of road. Motorists who
break the speed limit are putting themselves and other road users at risk"

A camouflaged camera is not helping people remember the speed limit and is
not clearly visible from 60 metres. It is a revenue producer.

How can it be?
A camera has to be part of the safety camera scheme before the local
authority gets any of the revenue.
It can't be part of the safety camera scheme if its hidden.
Its there to catch the idiots and costs the local authority money to
operate.

They should hide them all and that will get the idiots disqualified quicker.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

There is a minimum speed that vehicles must be able to do before they
can use the motorway.

Which is...?

(With authoritative reference, of course)

Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4,
MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11,
MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3,
RTRA sects 17(2) & (3),
MT(S)R reg 10

On Mar 1, 10:40*am, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
....
On Feb 28, 10:36 pm, Stephen Howard wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:54:30 -0000, "dennis@home"

wrote:

I have known several places say no.
My local staples said no when I wanted some bits of desk.

I suspect Staples would far rather you bought a new desk.

I've bought a desk from Staples before and I can confirm you're
better off getting one from a skip.

That supplier went bust in Dec IIRC.

What are you on?

I was going to ask that too, but then I thought would we really
understand the answer?