On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:16:30 +0100, "the_constructor"
wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 27/07/2011 18:08, Clive George wrote:
On 27/07/2011 17:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
I am amazed how doctors can prescribe tranquillizers and not inform
DVLA
and yet stop those with controlled diabetes driving some classes of
vehicles.

Are those vehicles ones where the driver has to keep to some schedule
etc?
A diabetic may have to stop and take medication or food etc exactly when
he needs to - not much use if driving a long distance coach.

There's much less of that these days - doses and food can be arranged
when wanted, rather than on a prearranged schedule.

The problem is still hypos. There's a risk of these for any insulin
controlled diabetic, and I think it's just an attempt to reduce the risk
but without being too restrictive. Drivers in the controlled classes are
more likely to spend hours at the wheel, thus increasing the chance of
it happening, and cause a bigger mess if it does go wrong.

I don't know how things are progressing, but I was told last year that one
of the companies that produced microchips for pets is working on one that
will not only allow vets to read off the ID and temperature as many do,
but also blood sugar levels. Now if they can get those working, I can see
diabetics being interested in using such a device with an external monitor
for continuous readings. That would be interesting for all sorts of
restrictions on licences and in work.

SteveW



I think all humans should be micro chipped as well.....

You first.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:35:55 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

Do tell us your better ideas.

(I'm with those who consider fines for uninsured drivers near to
useless: they average less than £200 - probably less than 25% of the
cost of insurance. Crushing's not much better when they can pick up a
car for £500 or £600 pounds - still well below the cost of one year's
insurance.)

The penalty is much too small. However they do have to catch them
first.

I'm not sure what's wrong with the idea to use fuel taxes to provide
third party insurance.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

I'm not sure what's wrong with the idea to use fuel taxes to provide
third party insurance.

I assume you have in mind universal third party insurance paid for by
the government out of taxation (whether general taxation or hypothecated
fuel taxes). If so I can see that would be an option, and one which
might win some votes: the "right to drive" slogan might work.

Against that some (many?) might perceive disbenefits such as:

a. the safe/elderly drivers would have to pay more while the boy (and
increasingly girl) racers and careless would pay less;

b. high mileage drivers (eg in rural areas, driving on business,
freight) would pay more and low mileage drivers (eg drug dealers on the
local estates) less;

c. more young/bad drivers with big, fast cars - after all, they (or
Mummy and Daddy) wd no longer have to pay for insurance so they could
buy an Impreza instead of a Fiesta etc;

d. no incentive to avoid accidents if the "right to drive" is
universal and inalienable;



--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

And don't forget, I would be selling the fuel at somewhere between
the two prices.

Works for me if you throw in free chips
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:35:55 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

Do tell us your better ideas.
(I'm with those who consider fines for uninsured drivers near to
useless: they average less than £200 - probably less than 25% of the
cost of insurance. Crushing's not much better when they can pick up a
car for £500 or £600 pounds - still well below the cost of one year's
insurance.)

The penalty is much too small. However they do have to catch them
first.

I'm not sure what's wrong with the idea to use fuel taxes to provide
third party insurance.

It's too simple. I've recommended it here a few times in the past, and
it works reasonably well in all the countries where it is in force.

On the other hand, most cars without insurance have other dangerous
faults, and removing an excuse for a "random" pull might have
undesirable side effects.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Robin wrote:
d. no incentive to avoid accidents if the "right to drive" is
universal and inalienable;


http://www.metro.co.uk/news/870638-five-supercars-involved-in-40-000-crash-as-hundreds-of-tourists-look-on

--
Adam

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
I'm not sure what's wrong with the idea to use fuel taxes to provide
third party insurance.

It's too simple. I've recommended it here a few times in the past, and
it works reasonably well in all the countries where it is in force.

Most have a limit - pretty low - on claims from a third party.

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
I'm not sure what's wrong with the idea to use fuel taxes to provide
third party insurance.

It's too simple. I've recommended it here a few times in the past, and
it works reasonably well in all the countries where it is in force.

Most have a limit - pretty low - on claims from a third party.

/Mode=Ironic
Which, of course, makes it impossible to even *consider* setting
something similar up in this country.
Mode/

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...
Hence the changes to the law to allow fines to be sent to the
registered keeper with no requirement to identify the driver.
If the keeper can prove it was insured he doesn't have to pay.


How's that going to help with the large motoring underclass[1] who
don't register as the keeper of the car and who don't pay fines?

They should charge twice the price for fuel and offer a discount to
those with insurance.

Do you make all these things up yourself or does nursie give you some
help?

Do tell us your better ideas.

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just mean getting
someone to buy the fuel for you.

That's not an idea let alone a better one.

"Robin" wrote in message
...

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just mean
getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be required
not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue while
insurance is checked (and then checked further when it turns out the
database is out of date); and to lose the ability to pay at the pump. And
it'll all add to costs of course.

anpr.


And buying a foreign registered vehicle wd continue to be another way to
waltz round all such checks. (The number of Romanian registered cars
around here is quite remarkable. In the South East it is increasingly
worth a booze cruise every 6 months to get the paperwork to show the car's
not been here more than 6 months.)
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...
Hence the changes to the law to allow fines to be sent to the
registered keeper with no requirement to identify the driver.
If the keeper can prove it was insured he doesn't have to pay.


How's that going to help with the large motoring underclass[1]
who don't register as the keeper of the car and who don't pay
fines?

They should charge twice the price for fuel and offer a discount
to those with insurance.

Do you make all these things up yourself or does nursie give you
some help?

Do tell us your better ideas.

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just mean
getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

That's not an idea let alone a better one.

Well leaving things as they are is a better idea than the brain dead idea
you came up with.

It took me 3 seconds to work out how to bypass your superb suggestion.

--
Adam

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

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just mean
getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be
required not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue while
insurance is checked (and then checked further when it turns out the
database is out of date); and to lose the ability to pay at the
pump. And it'll all add to costs of course.

anpr.

So tell us how that would stop me buying fuel for someone that is not
insured and pumping the fuel between the cars tanks?

You have not thought this through have you?

--
Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just mean
getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be
required not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue while
insurance is checked (and then checked further when it turns out the
database is out of date); and to lose the ability to pay at the
pump. And it'll all add to costs of course.

anpr.

So tell us how that would stop me buying fuel for someone that is not
insured and pumping the fuel between the cars tanks?

You have not thought this through have you?

Well there is nothing to stop criminals conspiring other than the law now.
The fine and the lose of your license should be enough to discourage you.
Maybe branding you would help too.

dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just mean
getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be
required not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue while
insurance is checked (and then checked further when it turns out
the database is out of date); and to lose the ability to pay at the
pump. And it'll all add to costs of course.

anpr.

So tell us how that would stop me buying fuel for someone that is not
insured and pumping the fuel between the cars tanks?

You have not thought this through have you?

Well there is nothing to stop criminals conspiring other than the law
now.

You are the one that came up with with an idea to make it easier for the
criminal

Maybe branding you would help too.

Why do you wear a pointed cap with a D on it? What does the D stand for?


--
Adam

On Jul 27, 5:46*pm, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:
jgharston wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
Obesity kills more people than cars so why not ban fat people from
eating chips?

Or ban them from eating?

Except salad.

or ryvita...

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just mean
getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be
required not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue while
insurance is checked (and then checked further when it turns out
the database is out of date); and to lose the ability to pay at the
pump. And it'll all add to costs of course.

anpr.

So tell us how that would stop me buying fuel for someone that is not
insured and pumping the fuel between the cars tanks?

You have not thought this through have you?

Well there is nothing to stop criminals conspiring other than the law
now.

You are the one that came up with with an idea to make it easier for the
criminal

Well there you are.. I said nothing about implementation or what
transponders, etc. would be fitted to the car yet you know how to beat them.
You must be far brighter than I give you credit for.

dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just
mean getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be
required not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue
while insurance is checked (and then checked further when it
turns out the database is out of date); and to lose the ability
to pay at the pump. And it'll all add to costs of course.

anpr.

So tell us how that would stop me buying fuel for someone that is
not insured and pumping the fuel between the cars tanks?

You have not thought this through have you?

Well there is nothing to stop criminals conspiring other than the
law now.

You are the one that came up with with an idea to make it easier for
the criminal

Well there you are.. I said nothing about implementation or what
transponders, etc. would be fitted to the car yet you know how to
beat them. You must be far brighter than I give you credit for.

Had a chance to realise that you ****ed up have you? So now you are adding
transponders to the cars?

Don't forget that your idea also make fuel theft more attractive.

--
Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just
mean getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be
required not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue
while insurance is checked (and then checked further when it
turns out the database is out of date); and to lose the ability
to pay at the pump. And it'll all add to costs of course.

anpr.

So tell us how that would stop me buying fuel for someone that is
not insured and pumping the fuel between the cars tanks?

You have not thought this through have you?

Well there is nothing to stop criminals conspiring other than the
law now.

You are the one that came up with with an idea to make it easier for
the criminal

Well there you are.. I said nothing about implementation or what
transponders, etc. would be fitted to the car yet you know how to
beat them. You must be far brighter than I give you credit for.

Had a chance to realise that you ****ed up have you? So now you are adding
transponders to the cars?

I have wanted to put transponders into cars for years.
I would do road pricing with them.. zero for below the posted speed limit
and very expensive above it rising to bankruptcy.
the same for jumping lights.
The technology is there, just needs the will.


Don't forget that your idea also make fuel theft more attractive.

So does inflation.

dennis@home wrote:

I have wanted to put transponders into cars for years.
I would do road pricing with them.. zero for below the posted speed
limit and very expensive above it rising to bankruptcy.
the same for jumping lights.
The technology is there, just needs the will.

So are the little ally hats for the transponders, just to take one quick
and easy way to circumvent them. Safety pin through the aerial co-ax
also works. It's also possible to transplant them from vehicle to vehicle.

Will your transponders also be able to detect tailgating and driving at
the speed limit in bad conditions, and charge for that? And work out how
much to charge for jumping a defective set of lights at two in the
morning, as against jumping a set of school crossing lights in peak hour
traffic? All of which can be done by using the money currently wasted on
cameras which have been proven not to increase safety, and putting
patrols out on the street.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

dennis@home wrote:
Well there you are.. I said nothing about implementation or what
transponders, etc. would be fitted to the car yet you know how to
beat them. You must be far brighter than I give you credit for.

Had a chance to realise that you ****ed up have you? So now you are
adding transponders to the cars?

I have wanted to put transponders into cars for years.
I would do road pricing with them.. zero for below the posted speed
limit and very expensive above it rising to bankruptcy.
the same for jumping lights.
The technology is there, just needs the will.

Or a megalomanic leader.

Your post sugests that you are an insane control freak.

--
Adam

John Williamson wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I have wanted to put transponders into cars for years.
I would do road pricing with them.. zero for below the posted speed
limit and very expensive above it rising to bankruptcy.
the same for jumping lights.
The technology is there, just needs the will.

So are the little ally hats for the transponders, just to take one
quick and easy way to circumvent them. Safety pin through the aerial
co-ax also works. It's also possible to transplant them from vehicle to
vehicle.
Will your transponders also be able to detect tailgating and driving
at the speed limit in bad conditions, and charge for that?

Sod his transponder. How about one that fines ******s who decide to police
the roads by driving at 3mph below the speed limit and then speed up when
you try to overtake eg a dennise tax.


--
Adam

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:16:30 +0100, "the_constructor"
wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 27/07/2011 18:08, Clive George wrote:
On 27/07/2011 17:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
I am amazed how doctors can prescribe tranquillizers and not inform
DVLA
and yet stop those with controlled diabetes driving some classes of
vehicles.

Are those vehicles ones where the driver has to keep to some schedule
etc?
A diabetic may have to stop and take medication or food etc exactly
when
he needs to - not much use if driving a long distance coach.

There's much less of that these days - doses and food can be arranged
when wanted, rather than on a prearranged schedule.

The problem is still hypos. There's a risk of these for any insulin
controlled diabetic, and I think it's just an attempt to reduce the
risk
but without being too restrictive. Drivers in the controlled classes
are
more likely to spend hours at the wheel, thus increasing the chance of
it happening, and cause a bigger mess if it does go wrong.

I don't know how things are progressing, but I was told last year that
one
of the companies that produced microchips for pets is working on one
that
will not only allow vets to read off the ID and temperature as many do,
but also blood sugar levels. Now if they can get those working, I can
see
diabetics being interested in using such a device with an external
monitor
for continuous readings. That would be interesting for all sorts of
restrictions on licences and in work.

SteveW



I think all humans should be micro chipped as well.....

You first.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.


I don't mind going first......

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
I'm not sure what's wrong with the idea to use fuel taxes to provide
third party insurance.

It's too simple. I've recommended it here a few times in the past,
and it works reasonably well in all the countries where it is in
force.

Most have a limit - pretty low - on claims from a third party.

/Mode=Ironic
Which, of course, makes it impossible to even *consider* setting
something similar up in this country.
Mode/

Depends which side of the claim you're on, I suppose. And whether the
insured is then liable for any excess awarded by a court over the maximum.

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

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

On 28/07/2011 08:03, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/07/2011 23:36, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in message

The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force.

Or..
Increase the fines on the cameras, have more of them, fund more police
from the camera revenue.
Hide the cameras so habitual speeders lose their license faster.
Do people who are caught by visible cameras for driving without due care
or being blind.

No point, speeding is a minor cause of road accidents. (inappropriate
speed for the conditions causes far more, and cameras are no use for
detecting that).

The cameras only detect inappropriate speed as far as the law is concerned.

Twaddle.

How would a camera detect you doing 27mph in a 30mph zone? 27mph might
be legal, but depending on the circumstances could be inappropriate.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 28/07/2011 21:54, ARWadsworth wrote:
wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote in message
...

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just
mean getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be
required not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue
while insurance is checked (and then checked further when it
turns out the database is out of date); and to lose the ability
to pay at the pump. And it'll all add to costs of course.

anpr.

So tell us how that would stop me buying fuel for someone that is
not insured and pumping the fuel between the cars tanks?

You have not thought this through have you?

Well there is nothing to stop criminals conspiring other than the
law now.

You are the one that came up with with an idea to make it easier for
the criminal

Well there you are.. I said nothing about implementation or what
transponders, etc. would be fitted to the car yet you know how to
beat them. You must be far brighter than I give you credit for.

Had a chance to realise that you ****ed up have you? So now you are adding
transponders to the cars?

Don't forget that your idea also make fuel theft more attractive.

Could make for a right fiasco when wandering into a petrol station with
a can so you can go back and mow your lawn!

Dennis in his peaked cap - "I am sorry I can't let you buy that... show
me the mot and insurance for that mower!"


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 28/07/2011 22:22, dennis@home wrote:


"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message
...

You mean something that will not encourage fuel theft or just
mean getting someone to buy the fuel for you.

Indeed. Plus:

a. if filling stations could discriminate they could simply be
required not sell; but

b. the rest of us probably wouldn't be too happy to queue
while insurance is checked (and then checked further when it
turns out the database is out of date); and to lose the ability
to pay at the pump. And it'll all add to costs of course.

anpr.

So tell us how that would stop me buying fuel for someone that is
not insured and pumping the fuel between the cars tanks?

You have not thought this through have you?

Well there is nothing to stop criminals conspiring other than the
law now.

You are the one that came up with with an idea to make it easier for
the criminal

Well there you are.. I said nothing about implementation or what
transponders, etc. would be fitted to the car yet you know how to
beat them. You must be far brighter than I give you credit for.

Had a chance to realise that you ****ed up have you? So now you are
adding transponders to the cars?

I have wanted to put transponders into cars for years.
I would do road pricing with them.. zero for below the posted speed
limit and very expensive above it rising to bankruptcy.
the same for jumping lights.
The technology is there, just needs the will.

I suppose if you want to break down the rule of law, that would be a
good way to start. I am sure with some creative thought you could
criminalise everyone.






--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 28/07/2011 10:17, Mark wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 23:00:51 +0100, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 27/07/2011 16:17, ARWadsworth wrote:
wrote:
On 27/07/2011 13:21, ARWadsworth wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article
,
Neil wrote:
I could see the benefit in an "electrical MOT" of some sort to
replace it - requiring a periodic (5 years?) inspection of
electrical installations in domestic property to ensure they are
safe. There are unsafe electrical installations all over the
place, and unless you do some work on it[1] you don't necessarily
find out.

No thank you. I'm happy with the safety of the installation here and
don't see any need to be forced to pay someone else to confirm this.
If you feel the need, you can pay an electrician to do so. It would
also give carte blanch to dishonest testers to rip people off -
exactly like car MOTs.

What's the alternative to the MOT?


A periodic driving test? Far more effective of making roads safer
than any MOT test.

Good in theory. It will never happen though. 10% (according to some surveys)
would instantly fail on the eyesight test.

I'd not like to have to be retested regularly. I have done it once (I
trained to be a driving instructor) and it's very stressful.

I'd not like it but would recognise it as useful. People think as
long as they have passed their test then can drive as badly as they
like. Regular testing would help people realize they need to keep
their driving standard up all the time.

How about abolishing speed limits altogether and compulsory insurance
and seatbelts, but mandating that all vehicles are fitted with an 8"
long sharpened steel spike protruding from the centre of the steering
wheel ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 28/07/2011 10:55, Huge wrote:
On 2011-07-28, wrote:
Steve wrote:
Good in theory. It will never happen though. 10% (according to some
surveys) would instantly fail on the eyesight test.

I'd not like to have to be retested regularly. I have done it once (I
trained to be a driving instructor) and it's very stressful. Most
people would fail on "bad" habits that are not actually of any great
danger or doing things the way they were taught that have changed
over the years.

Our local pub had a driving competition run by the IAM. That is as close to
a retest that I have had.

Seeing the results list was quite funny. The village rentagob that claims to
have driven in every country in the world and in every car ever made and was
never once to blame for having to slam on his brakes (it was always some
other drivers error) was very near the bottom of the list.

They usually are.

As surveys have frequently found, most drivers believe their driving to
be better than average.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
As surveys have frequently found, most drivers believe their driving to
be better than average.

Not me. I *know* mine is. ;-)

--
*When cheese gets it's picture taken, what does it say?

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

anpr.

So you are also going to change the law so that it is the *car* which is
insured, for any driver, rather than the driver? If so that's a minor
little detail you forgot to mention. (As mentioned elsewhere in this
thread that is the approach used in some states - AIUI often but not
always with insurance confined to personal injury and associated with
statutory provision for "no fault" claims.)
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 28/07/2011 08:03, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/07/2011 23:36, dennis@home wrote:


"Steve Walker" wrote in
message

The real way to improve safety would be to get rid of many of the
cameras and get real traffic police out in force.

Or..
Increase the fines on the cameras, have more of them, fund more police
from the camera revenue.
Hide the cameras so habitual speeders lose their license faster.
Do people who are caught by visible cameras for driving without due
care
or being blind.

No point, speeding is a minor cause of road accidents. (inappropriate
speed for the conditions causes far more, and cameras are no use for
detecting that).

The cameras only detect inappropriate speed as far as the law is
concerned.

Twaddle.

How would a camera detect you doing 27mph in a 30mph zone? 27mph might be
legal, but depending on the circumstances could be inappropriate.


Not twaddle.
Where did I say they detected all inappropriate speed?
They only detect inappropriate speed does include exceeding the limit which
is defined as being inappropriate.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 07:33:41 +0100, Robin wrote:

anpr.

So you are also going to change the law so that it is the *car* which is
insured, for any driver, rather than the driver? If so that's a minor
little detail you forgot to mention. (As mentioned elsewhere in this
thread that is the approach used in some states - AIUI often but not
always with insurance confined to personal injury and associated with
statutory provision for "no fault" claims.)

In one country where I had a car, it was the car that was insured - and
depended on number of cylinders. More cylinders = more expensive.

Not sure how they handled rotary engines or gas turbines or nuclear power
plants or batteries...

--
Rod

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Could make for a right fiasco when wandering into a petrol station with a
can so you can go back and mow your lawn!

Dennis in his peaked cap - "I am sorry I can't let you buy that... show me
the mot and insurance for that mower!"

The same is true now when you go and buy untaxed fuel (there is still VAT on
it) for your mower.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

I suppose if you want to break down the rule of law, that would be a good
way to start. I am sure with some creative thought you could criminalise
everyone.

You can only criminalise criminals.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...


How about abolishing speed limits altogether and compulsory insurance and
seatbelts, but mandating that all vehicles are fitted with an 8" long
sharpened steel spike protruding from the centre of the steering wheel ;-)

As long as you have the airbag underneath it that would be OK.
How would you stop criminals fitting a cork?

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
John Williamson wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

I have wanted to put transponders into cars for years.
I would do road pricing with them.. zero for below the posted speed
limit and very expensive above it rising to bankruptcy.
the same for jumping lights.
The technology is there, just needs the will.

So are the little ally hats for the transponders, just to take one
quick and easy way to circumvent them. Safety pin through the aerial
co-ax also works. It's also possible to transplant them from vehicle to
vehicle.
Will your transponders also be able to detect tailgating and driving
at the speed limit in bad conditions, and charge for that?

Sod his transponder. How about one that fines ******s who decide to police
the roads by driving at 3mph below the speed limit and then speed up when
you try to overtake eg a dennise tax.

Guilty!

Admittedly, I was only doing 55 in a 60 limit and encountered a 4/4
radiator grill in my mirror.

Knowing the next 7 miles to be a mix of 30's, 40's and the radiator
grill detail was becoming more apparent at the lower speeds, I waited
for a straight stretch with no oncoming traffic and stopped to let the
idiot by.

Clearly, impatience is not an aid to thought as the driver pulled up
behind me:-)

I am much too old to accelerate when overtaken.

regards



--
Tim Lamb

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

I suppose if you want to break down the rule of law, that would be a
good way to start. I am sure with some creative thought you could
criminalise everyone.

You can only criminalise criminals.

Whooosh.
--
Adam

On 29/07/2011 07:47, dennis@home wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

Could make for a right fiasco when wandering into a petrol station
with a can so you can go back and mow your lawn!

Dennis in his peaked cap - "I am sorry I can't let you buy that...
show me the mot and insurance for that mower!"

The same is true now when you go and buy untaxed fuel (there is still
VAT on it) for your mower.
Can you buy untaxed petrol in the UK? Do you have to go to the
equivalent of a bonded warehouse, and what documentation is needed?
I have a few non road use petrol engines.

John Rumm writes:

Twaddle.
How would a camera detect you doing 27mph in a 30mph zone? 27mph might
be legal, but depending on the circumstances could be inappropriate.

I still remember the car which accelerated hard down a hill in the city
when the road was covered in snow, packed snow, and ice. Towards
another red light not far away at the foot.
He probably never exceeded 30mph (might have been spinning his wheels,
which would explain the noise), and he got away with it that time,
but it was complete idiocy. He might have killed someone in the cars
waiting at the light.

OTOH a year or so back, I was going down a hill on an empty country
road with my foot lightly on the brake, when a radar-controlled warning
sign started to flash, signifying that I was exceeding 30mph.

Twaddle.



--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
@ O n e t e l
. c o m

John Rumm writes:

Had a chance to realise that you ****ed up have you? So now you are adding
transponders to the cars?

Don't forget that your idea also make fuel theft more attractive.
Could make for a right fiasco when wandering into a petrol station with
a can so you can go back and mow your lawn!
Dennis in his peaked cap - "I am sorry I can't let you buy that... show
me the mot and insurance for that mower!"

When you so often see suggestions like this, it's not surprising there
are so many dictators in the world.
Maybe they could attach transponders to everyone's genitals to transmit
indications of rape to police HQ.


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
@ O n e t e l
. c o m