On 26/03/2012 17:49, Huge wrote:
On 2012-03-26, The Medway wrote:
On 26/03/2012 16:20, Huge wrote:
On 2012-03-26, wrote:
On Sunday, March 25, 2012 1:08:02 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote:

He gets his own hi-viz and a clipboard. Oooh the power!


I saw the cops near here out with their speed guns, wearing hi-viz yellow jackets. They were standing in front of a hi-viz road sign that made them almost invisible, the sneaky gits.

(Do you think you could sort your line lengths out?)


No, Dennis, I wasn't.

Even if you were, it's got **** all to do with dennis.


Everything in the world is something to do with Dennis - according to him.

Which is one of the principal reasons (of many) that he's a hateful
sack of ****.


That's a bit unkind.

To the sacks of ****...

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

Huge wrote:
On 2012-03-26, ARWadsworth wrote:
charles wrote:
In Surrey we have to write down number plate, make model &
colour of the 'offending' vehicle. 3 things must agree
before the police take any action.

By 3 things do you mean the person with the speed gun and two
like minded ******s?

No - 3 things about the vehicle

Action = a letter?

Letter first and 2nd times. A knock on the door the third time.

But still no conviction?

Nope. The police can do exactly and precisely nothing on the basis of
you being stitched up by dennis and his nosey, interfering, po-faced
tiresome little friends.

It sort of makes you wonder why they bother to stand out in the cold and
rain.

Our local police often do similar things with school kids using the speed
gun.

And I would love to know who puts the big sign up at Conisbrough on the A630
saying "Speed trap in 2 miles" everytime there is a scamera van parked up 2
miles away. They are not parked up helping a village from speeding traffic,
they are parked up waiting to catch out drivers where the road changes from
60 to 40 mph

--
Adam

On 26/03/2012 18:24, ARWadsworth wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2012-03-26, wrote:
charles wrote:
In Surrey we have to write down number plate, make model&
colour of the 'offending' vehicle. 3 things must agree
before the police take any action.

By 3 things do you mean the person with the speed gun and two
like minded ******s?

No - 3 things about the vehicle

Action = a letter?

Letter first and 2nd times. A knock on the door the third time.

But still no conviction?

Nope. The police can do exactly and precisely nothing on the basis of
you being stitched up by dennis and his nosey, interfering, po-faced
tiresome little friends.

It sort of makes you wonder why they bother to stand out in the cold and
rain.

They get to dress up in a uniform and feel important?

Our local police often do similar things with school kids using the speed
gun.

And I would love to know who puts the big sign up at Conisbrough on the A630
saying "Speed trap in 2 miles" everytime there is a scamera van parked up 2
miles away. They are not parked up helping a village from speeding traffic,
they are parked up waiting to catch out drivers where the road changes from
60 to 40 mph

Improves the "crime" clear up rate a treat, not to mention the revenue
it generates...



--
Cheers,

John.

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

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Huge wrote:
On 2012-03-26, ARWadsworth wrote:
charles wrote:
In Surrey we have to write down number plate, make model &
colour of the 'offending' vehicle. 3 things must agree
before the police take any action.

By 3 things do you mean the person with the speed gun and two
like minded ******s?

No - 3 things about the vehicle

Action = a letter?

Letter first and 2nd times. A knock on the door the third time.

But still no conviction?

Nope. The police can do exactly and precisely nothing on the basis of
you being stitched up by dennis and his nosey, interfering, po-faced
tiresome little friends.

It sort of makes you wonder why they bother to stand out in the cold and
rain.

Cos he's important.

In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
charles wrote:
In Surrey we have to write down number plate, make model & colour
of the 'offending' vehicle. 3 things must agree before the
police take any action.

By 3 things do you mean the person with the speed gun and two like
minded ******s?

No - 3 things about the vehicle

Action = a letter?

Letter first and 2nd times. A knock on the door the third time.

But still no conviction?

no. But, the registration number of the vehicle involved is circulated to
all police forces. They will be on the look out for you.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

John Rumm wrote:
On 26/03/2012 18:24, ARWadsworth wrote:
Huge wrote:
On 2012-03-26, wrote:
charles wrote:
In Surrey we have to write down number plate, make model&
colour of the 'offending' vehicle. 3 things must agree
before the police take any action.

By 3 things do you mean the person with the speed gun and
two like minded ******s?

No - 3 things about the vehicle

Action = a letter?

Letter first and 2nd times. A knock on the door the third
time.

But still no conviction?

Nope. The police can do exactly and precisely nothing on the
basis of you being stitched up by dennis and his nosey,
interfering, po-faced tiresome little friends.

It sort of makes you wonder why they bother to stand out in the
cold and rain.

They get to dress up in a uniform and feel important?

Our local police often do similar things with school kids using the
speed gun.

And I would love to know who puts the big sign up at Conisbrough on
the A630 saying "Speed trap in 2 miles" everytime there is a
scamera van parked up 2 miles away. They are not parked up helping
a village from speeding traffic, they are parked up waiting to
catch out drivers where the road changes from 60 to 40 mph

Improves the "crime" clear up rate a treat, not to mention the revenue
it generates...

Not with a big hand written sign 2 miles down the road:-)

--
Adam

"Onetap" wrote in message
news:11861128.1527.1332772724782.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhv6...

No, Dennis, I wasn't.

Good lad, do you want a star?

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


And I would love to know who puts the big sign up at Conisbrough on the
A630
saying "Speed trap in 2 miles" everytime there is a scamera van parked up
2
miles away. They are not parked up helping a village from speeding
traffic,
they are parked up waiting to catch out drivers where the road changes
from
60 to 40 mph

Improves the "crime" clear up rate a treat, not to mention the revenue it
generates...

It also catches inattentive drivers, much like Gatsos do.
Attentive drivers don't get caught by either.

The police use hidden cameras if they just want to catch speeders.

I have no sympathy at all for anyone stupid enough to get caught by a
visible speed trap.
I don't have much for the ones caught by hidden ones either but at least
they may actually be paying attention unlike the others.

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are caught by a
visible speed trap.

charles wrote:
In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
charles wrote:
In Surrey we have to write down number plate, make model &
colour of the 'offending' vehicle. 3 things must agree
before the police take any action.

By 3 things do you mean the person with the speed gun and two
like minded ******s?

No - 3 things about the vehicle

Action = a letter?

Letter first and 2nd times. A knock on the door the third time.

But still no conviction?

no. But, the registration number of the vehicle involved is
circulated to all police forces. They will be on the look out for
you.

What a load of ****e.

--
Adam

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


And I would love to know who puts the big sign up at Conisbrough
on the A630
saying "Speed trap in 2 miles" everytime there is a scamera van
parked up 2
miles away. They are not parked up helping a village from speeding
traffic,
they are parked up waiting to catch out drivers where the road
changes from
60 to 40 mph

Improves the "crime" clear up rate a treat, not to mention the
revenue it generates...

It also catches inattentive drivers, much like Gatsos do.
Attentive drivers don't get caught by either.

The police use hidden cameras if they just want to catch speeders.

I have no sympathy at all for anyone stupid enough to get caught by a
visible speed trap.
I don't have much for the ones caught by hidden ones either but at
least they may actually be paying attention unlike the others.

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20 drivers
cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the driving exam. And to
be fair that eyesight test is not much of a test.

But then it is not the speed limit that is the problem. The ones that would
fail the eyesight test are a danger when doing under the speed limit.

--
Adam

brass monkey wrote:

It sort of makes you wonder why they bother to stand out in the cold and
rain.

Cos he's important.

You seem to be having problems spelling "impotent".

wrote:

In a village near here they have one of those scarecrow festivals that
seem to be getting more popular. One that on first glance looked like
a speed gun wielding Policeman probably slowed more people down in the
week it was there than any speeding campaign.

Hmm, do you live near me? One of the local villages here did that and
every third scarecrow in the village was a plodcrow. Most of them were
set up with a cheap tripod and a broken video camera. Astonishing to see
the rubber marks on the tarmac, some people must drive around eyes
closed.

Steve Firth wrote:
brass monkey wrote:

It sort of makes you wonder why they bother to stand out in the
cold and rain.

Cos he's important.

You seem to be having problems spelling "impotent".

My spell checker also suggested "incompetent":-)

--
Adam

"ARWadsworth" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
brass monkey wrote:

It sort of makes you wonder why they bother to stand out in the
cold and rain.

Cos he's important.

You seem to be having problems spelling "impotent".

My spell checker also suggested "incompetent":-)

snork

Steve Firth wrote:
"ARWadsworth" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
brass monkey wrote:

It sort of makes you wonder why they bother to stand out in
the cold and rain.

Cos he's important.

You seem to be having problems spelling "impotent".

My spell checker also suggested "incompetent":-)

snork

Good words to describe dennis though.

--
Adam

"Hugh Jampton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:40:32 +0100, Gazz wrote:

Every so often i get a letter from the police saying my car has been
spotted
by a community speed watch scheme doing a few mph over the limit, and not
to
be a naughty boy again.

I have had them from the areas of Birmingham, Norwich, Brighton and
somewhere in wales,

So all these people in those places have mistakenly reported *your* car to
the police ?? They've *all* mistakenly written down *your* number plate
out of millions in this country ?

VERY strange !! I'd say impossible !!


why not?? they are over the space of a couple of years,

I imagine the kind of ******* who volunteer for it don't actually drive,
having failed the eyesight test many years ago and having to give up train
spotting because they can't handle being thought of as terrorists (instead
of nonce's like they used to) hence they cant tell the difference between a
6 and a G, B and an 8, S and 5, prolly cant tell an E from an F either.

My camper was always having it's reg number written down wrong by the people
booking me into their campsites, but that was just the last 3 letters, which
i guess were such a combination to easily get them jumbled up,

With the car, it's because the plate could be seen as quite a few different
numbers if you mix up numbers for letters,
which is what i and the police rekon happens.... the ****s in the day glow
'special needs' yellow vests get so exited at 'catching another criminal'
they don't have the ability to multitask,

Hence they need 3 of them, one to operate the gun, one to read the speed out
from it, and the other to write the reg number down... but the last person
(if they can be called that) has the hardest job of all, requiring them to
look at the vehicle in question, read the number plate, then write it down
along side the speed read out by the other 'person', oh and probably wank
them selves silly when ever the speed read out is more than 4 mph over the
limit.

Gazz wrote:

"Hugh Jampton" wrote:

Gazz wrote:

Every so often i get a letter from the police saying my car has
been spotted by a community speed watch scheme doing a few mph
over the limit, and not to be a naughty boy again.
I have had them from the areas of Birmingham, Norwich, Brighton and
somewhere in wales,

So all these people in those places have mistakenly reported
*your* car to the police ?? They've *all* mistakenly written down
*your* number plate out of millions in this country ?
VERY strange !! I'd say impossible !!

why not?? they are over the space of a couple of years,

I'd be worried your car was a ringer, or there was a ringer of it out
there, but if that was the case, I'd also expect your letterbox to be
bulging with speeding/parking tickets.

In article , Gazz wrote:

"Hugh Jampton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:40:32 +0100, Gazz wrote:

Every so often i get a letter from the police saying my car has been
spotted by a community speed watch scheme doing a few mph over the
limit, and not to be a naughty boy again.

I have had them from the areas of Birmingham, Norwich, Brighton and
somewhere in wales,

So all these people in those places have mistakenly reported *your* car
to the police ?? They've *all* mistakenly written down *your* number
plate out of millions in this country ?

VERY strange !! I'd say impossible !!


why not?? they are over the space of a couple of years,

I imagine the kind of ******* who volunteer for it don't actually drive,
having failed the eyesight test many years ago and having to give up
train spotting because they can't handle being thought of as terrorists
(instead of nonce's like they used to) hence they cant tell the
difference between a 6 and a G, B and an 8, S and 5, prolly cant tell
an E from an F either.

My camper was always having it's reg number written down wrong by the
people booking me into their campsites, but that was just the last 3
letters, which i guess were such a combination to easily get them
jumbled up,

With the car, it's because the plate could be seen as quite a few
different numbers if you mix up numbers for letters, which is what i and
the police rekon happens.... the ****s in the day glow 'special needs'
yellow vests get so exited at 'catching another criminal' they don't
have the ability to multitask,

Hence they need 3 of them, one to operate the gun, one to read the speed
out from it, and the other to write the reg number down... but the last
person (if they can be called that) has the hardest job of all,
requiring them to look at the vehicle in question, read the number
plate, then write it down along side the speed read out by the other
'person', oh and probably wank them selves silly when ever the speed
read out is more than 4 mph over the limit.

This tirade shows how little you actually know about the subject.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

This tirade shows how little you actually know about the subject.

And i don't care, it's not something i will ever volunteer to do, i'd rather
have the job of unblocking public bogs with my bare hands than stand at the
side of the road with a speed gun causing hassle for others, at least the
first job i'd be doing a job that benefits the general public.

You see, what is the use of a letter or ticket a few days after the event,
you didnt hurt anyone at the time, and probably didn't realise you were over
the limit,
it's like having a fuel gauge that only tells you you've run out of fuel 3
days after you've come to a stop at the side of the road,

Yes i know your supposed to keep track of the ever changing speed limits, as
well as your actual speed, navigate around a strange area, avoid the **** on
his phone who's late and his journey is obviously more important than anyone
else's, watch what other vehicles are doing and anticipate their moves,
watch out for bikers hiding in your blind spots, shout at the brats to stop
arguing,
But sometimes you creep over the limit, or miss a speed change sign when on
a road that 'should' have the national limit on it, everyone has done it,
and 9 times out of ten we are just keeping up with the other traffic.

Which is why those signs that flash up your speed are a hell of a lot better
i think, they alert you to the limit and if your over it, in real time,
there and then, so you can take action,

i'd even go as far as saying i'd support a set up where there is one of
those speed indicator signs followed say half a mile or so later by a hidden
speed camera,
at least you can't say you didn't know you were over the limit then, and the
only reason you get a ticket is because you deliberately ignored the limit.

And as for the 'reason' for the community speed watch crap being to see if
the road has a speeding problem or not, what a load of twaddle,
surely it's cheaper to put one of those speed recorder strips on the road
for a few weeks, you know, the 3 rubber hoses clipped to the road, and
attached to a metal box chained to a lamp post,
that will tell them how many vehicles use the road, in which direction and
their speeds... 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for as long as it's in place,
and it will all be reliably recorded with no human input to screw up the
results.

No need to 'train' anyone, lend them expensive equipment, do H&S
assessments, fanny about getting people to volunteer to stand by the road
for hours at a time doing the modern equivalent of train spotting,

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:06:19 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Letter first and 2nd times. A knock on the door the third time.

But still no conviction?

no.

Couldn't be the evidence from the hairdryer would not be admissable.

But, the registration number of the vehicle involved is circulated
to
all police forces. They will be on the look out for you.

What a load of ****e.

****e that plods will be told the number and be watching for it. Not
so the ANPR system...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:20:05 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

wrote:

In a village near here they have one of those scarecrow festivals that
seem to be getting more popular. One that on first glance looked like
a speed gun wielding Policeman
Hmm, do you live near me? One of the local villages here did that and
every third scarecrow in the village was a plodcrow.
No,though I used to pass close to where you are at least a couple of
times a week and have bought pond plants nearby and once saw a Ford
Explorer towing some harrows in a paddock and wondered if it was
you,but that was almost next to the a pub in the next village.
Live in same county but opposite end,a good rifle would get into
Dorset and a really good one probably Wiltshire.
These scarecrow festivals must feed off each for ideas to an
extent.
set up with a cheap tripod and a broken video camera.

This one was holding what looked an old hot air gun.

G.Harman

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20 drivers
cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to
do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self
assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are
allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out
regular checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

Smoking?


--
geoff

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20 drivers
cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to
do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self
assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are
allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out
regular checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required
if you are caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to
do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are
allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out
regular checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

Nope, most obviously with 'life' which kills far more every single day.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote:
[snip]

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents".

No, the number killed per day is 5.

If virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

Doctors kill more people than drivers do. There are 72,000 preventable
deaths in hospital each year. I don't hear much of an outcry about that.
Approximately 1,800 people die on the roads annually so doctors kill 40
times more people than die in accidents. Where is your outrage over this
carnage?

The number of people killed on the roads in the UK has halved in a decade,
I don't hear much praise for that.

In article , Gazz wrote:

This tirade shows how little you actually know about the subject.

And i don't care, it's not something i will ever volunteer to do, i'd
rather have the job of unblocking public bogs with my bare hands than
stand at the side of the road with a speed gun causing hassle for
others, at least the first job i'd be doing a job that benefits the
general public.

Stopping, or at least detering, motorists driving at excessive speeds
though villages does benefit the public in that village.

You see, what is the use of a letter or ticket a few days after the
event, you didnt hurt anyone at the time, and probably didn't realise
you were over the limit, it's like having a fuel gauge that only tells
you you've run out of fuel 3 days after you've come to a stop at the
side of the road,

That is one arguement, another is that it doesn't do any harm to point out
to the motorist that they were well above the speed limit and should pay
more attention. Wheni say "well above" - I mean it. When we started the
car had to be doing 40mph in a 30mph limit before we reported it.


Yes i know your supposed to keep track of the ever changing speed limits,
as well as your actual speed, navigate around a strange area, avoid the
**** on his phone who's late and his journey is obviously more important
than anyone else's, watch what other vehicles are doing and anticipate
their moves, watch out for bikers hiding in your blind spots, shout at
the brats to stop arguing, But sometimes you creep over the limit, or
miss a speed change sign when on a road that 'should' have the national
limit on it, everyone has done it, and 9 times out of ten we are just
keeping up with the other traffic.

and, in those circumstances, Speedwatch can't even take note of your speed.



Which is why those signs that flash up your speed are a hell of a lot
better i think, they alert you to the limit and if your over it, in real
time, there and then, so you can take action,

many don't bother - or as I have seen, try and get the posted speed as high
as they can!


i'd even go as far as saying i'd support a set up where there is one of
those speed indicator signs followed say half a mile or so later by a
hidden speed camera, at least you can't say you didn't know you were
over the limit then, and the only reason you get a ticket is because you
deliberately ignored the limit.

Sometimes Speedwatch works with a police patrol round the next corner.
There has been the driver who speeds by, waving two finger at the
Speedwatch group, to find he is stopped for real.



And as for the 'reason' for the community speed watch crap being to see
if the road has a speeding problem or not, what a load of twaddle,
surely it's cheaper to put one of those speed recorder strips on the road
for a few weeks, you know, the 3 rubber hoses clipped to the road, and
attached to a metal box chained to a lamp post, that will tell them how
many vehicles use the road, in which direction and their speeds... 24
hours a day, 7 days a week for as long as it's in place, and it will all
be reliably recorded with no human input to screw up the results.

I've never heard of Speedwatch being used for that reason. In our case it
was only after such a device showed excessive speed that Speedwatch was set
up/


No need to 'train' anyone, lend them expensive equipment, do H&S
assessments, fanny about getting people to volunteer to stand by the road
for hours at a time doing the modern equivalent of train spotting,

AFAIK, train spotters record every engine, Speedwatch only pick out the
ones who offend. Sorry, but 60+mph in a built up area with children &
pedestrians about is NOT reasonalable behaviour. And I suppose I should
say that I was once (over 40 years ago) caught driving at an excessive
speed. (£7 fine)

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Gazz" wrote in message ...



You see, what is the use of a letter or ticket a few days after the event,
you didnt hurt anyone at the time, and probably didn't realise you were
over the limit,

It tells you that you didn't realise you were over the limit..
this should tell you that you aren't as good a driver as you think you are.

it's like having a fuel gauge that only tells you you've run out of fuel 3
days after you've come to a stop at the side of the road,

That should tell you that you didn't pay attention to the other fuel gauge
that shows in real time.


Yes i know your supposed to keep track of the ever changing speed limits,
as well as your actual speed, navigate around a strange area, avoid the
**** on his phone who's late and his journey is obviously more important
than anyone else's, watch what other vehicles are doing and anticipate
their moves, watch out for bikers hiding in your blind spots, shout at the
brats to stop arguing,
But sometimes you creep over the limit, or miss a speed change sign when
on a road that 'should' have the national limit on it, everyone has done
it, and 9 times out of ten we are just keeping up with the other traffic.

If you can't take in all the data you are driving too fast for *your*
abilities and you are one of those drivers that are unsafe at the speed you
drive at.


Which is why those signs that flash up your speed are a hell of a lot
better i think, they alert you to the limit and if your over it, in real
time, there and then, so you can take action,

Yes.
But only for sensible drivers.


i'd even go as far as saying i'd support a set up where there is one of
those speed indicator signs followed say half a mile or so later by a
hidden speed camera,
at least you can't say you didn't know you were over the limit then, and
the only reason you get a ticket is because you deliberately ignored the
limit.

And as for the 'reason' for the community speed watch crap being to see if
the road has a speeding problem or not, what a load of twaddle,
surely it's cheaper to put one of those speed recorder strips on the road
for a few weeks, you know, the 3 rubber hoses clipped to the road, and
attached to a metal box chained to a lamp post,
that will tell them how many vehicles use the road, in which direction and
their speeds... 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for as long as it's in
place, and it will all be reliably recorded with no human input to screw
up the results.

No need to 'train' anyone, lend them expensive equipment, do H&S
assessments, fanny about getting people to volunteer to stand by the road
for hours at a time doing the modern equivalent of train spotting,


You don't think that most people seeing that people do care about them
driving too fast past their houses will make them think twice? I do but I
also know there will be some dickheads that don't care that will just ignore
them. Then at least the police have a list of who the dickheads are so they
can give them an extra going over at other opportunities.

On 26/03/2012 23:58, geoff wrote:
In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20 drivers
cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to
do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self
assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are
allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out
regular checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

Smoking?


Drinking?

Don't say you weren't warned. First they demonised the smoker, now it's
going to be the drinker.


First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out - because I was
not a smoker;

Then they came for the drinkers, and I did not speak out - because I was
not a drinker;

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.



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

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/03/2012 23:58, geoff wrote:
In message o.uk,
Dave Liquorice writes
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to
do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose
clean, until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much
"self assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are
allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out
regular checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents".
If virtually anything else under the control of people killed that
many there would be an out cry.

Smoking?


Drinking?

Don't say you weren't warned. First they demonised the smoker, now it's going to be the drinker.

Nope. Not with those who drink in moderation.

First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out - because I
was not a smoker;

It would be stupid to speak out about that.

Then they came for the drinkers, and I did not speak out - because I
was not a drinker;

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Mindlessly silly.

While they will certainly demonise the obscenely obese, they
wont be demonising all those who eat anything, stupid.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 26/03/2012 23:58, geoff wrote:
In message o.uk,
Dave Liquorice writes
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to
do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose
clean, until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much
"self assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are
allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out
regular checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents".
If virtually anything else under the control of people killed that
many there would be an out cry.

Smoking?


Drinking?

Don't say you weren't warned. First they demonised the smoker, now it's
going to be the drinker.

Nope. Not with those who drink in moderation.

First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out - because I
was not a smoker;

It would be stupid to speak out about that.

No one has stopped smokers from smoking.
They have only controlled the effects they have on others.
Some smokers realise this, others think they have the right to inflict their
habit on others.


Then they came for the drinkers, and I did not speak out - because I
was not a drinker;

The same with drinking, they want to control excessive drinking.
It is not right that some people just drink to get drunk.
They cause trouble for others.


Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Mindlessly silly.

While they will certainly demonise the obscenely obese, they
wont be demonising all those who eat anything, stupid.

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
The Medway Handyman wrote
geoff wrote
Dave Liquorice wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have
to do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose
clean, until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much
"self assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are
allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out
regular checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents".
If virtually anything else under the control of people killed that
many there would be an out cry.

Smoking?

Drinking?

Don't say you weren't warned. First they demonised the smoker, now it's going to be the drinker.

Nope. Not with those who drink in moderation.

Least not in places with a clue like Europe and Britain they havent.

First they came for the smokers, and I did not speak out - because I was not a smoker;

It would be stupid to speak out about that.

No one has stopped smokers from smoking.

They have tried with kids.

They have only controlled the effects they have on others.

They have done a lot more than that with kids.

Some smokers realise this, others think they have the right to inflict their habit on others.

Their addiction.

Then they came for the drinkers, and I did not speak out - because I was not a drinker;

The same with drinking, they want to control excessive drinking.

Thats not right with prohibition. Hardly anyone has been that stupid tho.

It is not right that some people just drink to get drunk.

Its their choice.

They cause trouble for others.

Some of them dont.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Mindlessly silly.

While they will certainly demonise the obscenely obese, they wont be demonising all those who eat anything, stupid.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote

8

It is not right that some people just drink to get drunk.

Its their choice.

They cause trouble for others.

Some of them dont.

Enough of them do for there to be a problem to react to.

dennis@home wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dennis@home wrote

It is not right that some people just drink to get drunk.

Its their choice.

They cause trouble for others.

Some of them dont.

Enough of them do for there to be a problem to react to.

Thats true of everything, including basic food.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to
do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self
assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are
allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out
regular checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

Having never lived in a village with a big speeding problem I really cannot
comment on how bad it could be. But IMHO the problems are not the speeders
doing 7 mph above the legal speed limit (often the limit is too low for the
circumstances) but those that are driving under or at the legal speed limit
when the safe limit due to the road conditions at the time is 15MPH or less.


--
Adam

In article , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to do
anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self
assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are allowed
to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out regular
checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his bike.
I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my bike.

Having never lived in a village with a big speeding problem I really
cannot comment on how bad it could be. But IMHO the problems are not the
speeders doing 7 mph above the legal speed limit (often the limit is too
low for the circumstances) but those that are driving under or at the
legal speed limit when the safe limit due to the road conditions at the
time is 15MPH or less.

I agree with this second part.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:06:19 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Letter first and 2nd times. A knock on the door the third
time.

But still no conviction?

no.

Couldn't be the evidence from the hairdryer would not be admissable.

But, the registration number of the vehicle involved is
circulated to all police forces. They will be on the look out
for you.

What a load of ****e.

****e that plods will be told the number and be watching for it. Not
so the ANPR system...

I wonder how that would work.

The ANPR camera reports to the police that is has spotted a car that has
been reported 3 times for speeding in a quiet village. It's now driving in a
town centre doing 10MPH like ever other car in the traffic jam that has just
passed the ANPR camera.

Anyway the answer is simple. The volunteer speed camera operatives should be
given the address of the speeder and then made to speed past his house 3
times in their cars.

I cannot see many people getting caught 3 times by the volunteers and still
not managing to lose their license by being caught speeding elsewhere by the
police (unless they live local)

--
Adam

In article , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:06:19 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

Letter first and 2nd times. A knock on the door the third time.

But still no conviction?

no.

Couldn't be the evidence from the hairdryer would not be admissable.

But, the registration number of the vehicle involved is circulated
to all police forces. They will be on the look out for you.

What a load of ****e.

****e that plods will be told the number and be watching for it. Not so
the ANPR system...

I wonder how that would work.

The ANPR camera reports to the police that is has spotted a car that has
been reported 3 times for speeding in a quiet village. It's now driving
in a town centre doing 10MPH like ever other car in the traffic jam that
has just passed the ANPR camera.

Anyway the answer is simple. The volunteer speed camera operatives should
be given the address of the speeder and then made to speed past his
house 3 times in their cars.

I cannot see many people getting caught 3 times by the volunteers and
still not managing to lose their license by being caught speeding
elsewhere by the police (unless they live local)

i understand the the registration numbers passed to the police have help in
solving other crimes, by knowing when & where as particular vehicle has
been.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

charles wrote:
In article , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his bike.
I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my bike.

Were the motorists speeding as your post implies? And if so, were they
prosecuted for it as well as dangerous driving?

Forty years ago, a friend of mine was killed while he was cycling to
school. The car hit him from behind at *below the speed limit*, and he
was hit so hard that his skull came through his face.

/Irony As the car wasn't speeding, the driver must have been driving
safely, yes? Irony/

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 27/03/2012 18:12, charles wrote:
In , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to do
anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self
assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are allowed
to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out regular
checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his bike.
I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my bike.

That's more to do with a bike being a bloody silly form of transport surely?

Hides



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

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 27/03/2012 18:12, charles wrote:
In , ARWadsworth
wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:13:14 +0100, ARWadsworth wrote:

I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are
caught by a visible speed trap.

I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20
drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the
driving exam.

I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to do
anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean,
until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self
assesment".

Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are allowed
to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out regular
checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.

(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If
virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many
there would be an out cry.

How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?

I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his bike.
I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my bike.

That's more to do with a bike being a bloody silly form of transport
surely?

Hides

Grins I'll happily ride a bike anywhere on mainland Europe, except
maybe Italy. I won't willingly ride a bike in *any* large British town
or city. It's (IMHO) the bad standard of driving in the UK that makes
bikes more dangerous than necessary.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.