On Sunday, December 21, 2014 6:20:54 PM UTC, ARW wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 17:45:59 +0000, ARW wrote:

I thought the ACPO 'rule' was that there would be no prosecution
within speed limit + 10% + 2, ie 35mph or less in this instance.

I got a course for 46 in a 40, which is exactly 10% + 2.

The ACPO guideline is a guideline.

When did the guidelines start? According to the guidelines doing =66 in
a 40 zone is summons and I got away with a fixed penatly for doing that
10 years ago.

Many, many moons ago - and probably just semi-formalised what most forces
would have been doing anyway. But they'll have been tickled-about over
the years, and have always been just guidelines.

The only thing that ISN'T a guideline is that 41mph in a 40mph is
illegal, and there's a range of penalties on prosecution, with 3pt/fixed
penalty being the only non-court option.


A course is an alternative to
prosecution, as is a bollocking from a real-live plod.

They can be good fun those real-life plods. I got stopped for using my
mobile phone whilst driving. The officer asked me why I had been stopped and
I said it was because I was using my phone. For answering correctly I was
told that I would not get a ticket (and the usual lecture where I nodded at
the appropiate times) and I could spent the £60 saved on the fixed penaly on
a hands free kit for my phone . He also told me that he had already issued
30 tickets that day to people who denied using a phone whilst driving and
that all of them had the same opportunity as me to admit what they had done.

--
Adam

I have found that with increasing years I tend to get off easier when stopped by the Bill. I always try to pass the first test, the attitude test, and be as pleasant as possible. If you put yourself in a policeman's' shoes when he is stopping someone he really doesn't know what to expect, and I imagine in a lot of cases he gets lots of abuse.

Anyway I think they take one look at me and think "Whats the point lecturing this old bollix, he's not going to take much notice, is he ? "

I got away with a fixed penalty and points for doing 110 on the M1 one day. He did tell me this speed normally required a summons but as I was being nice he let me off.

On 22/12/2014 09:21, Syd Rumpo wrote:
.... snipped

If pulled by the cops here, I'd get out of the car and walk towards them
while reaching round to my back pocket for my licence. There, I stayed
in the car with my hands on the wheel.

Cheers

I got pulled-over one night in Florida - it was surprising how fast they
got the spotlight on me (and one guy covering with a gun behind an open
door) when I walked towards them!! Perhaps fortunately I had my hands
visible, was wearing a suit and probably looked jet-lagged.
The chat was assertive but reasonably friendly (I laid-on my best
English gent accent) and when they saw my very delapidated pink driving
licence, which was in a couple of pieces, they decided that this was all
too much bother and let me proceed with a suggestion that I reduce my
speed in future when going through a work zone.

In message , Huge
writes
On 2014-12-20, Nightjar "cpb"@ "insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/12/2014 00:43, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:03:19 +0000
...
In many places in the US, parking facing the 'wrong' way is illegal,
which really confuses us Brits....

Why? It is illegal in Britain at night.

"... unless in a recognised parking space."

And when was that last enforced? 1872?

Here's another goody that gets enforced so rarely that I don't imagine
anyone knows about it;

Of course we do.
"All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a
lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).
Law RVLR reg 24"




--
bert

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , ARW
writes
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 17:45:59 +0000, ARW wrote:

I thought the ACPO 'rule' was that there would be no prosecution
within speed limit + 10% + 2, ie 35mph or less in this instance.

I got a course for 46 in a 40, which is exactly 10% + 2.

The ACPO guideline is a guideline.

When did the guidelines start? According to the guidelines doing =66
in
a 40 zone is summons and I got away with a fixed penatly for doing that
10 years ago.

Many, many moons ago - and probably just semi-formalised what most
forces
would have been doing anyway. But they'll have been tickled-about over
the years, and have always been just guidelines.

The only thing that ISN'T a guideline is that 41mph in a 40mph is
illegal, and there's a range of penalties on prosecution, with 3pt/fixed
penalty being the only non-court option.


A course is an alternative to
prosecution, as is a bollocking from a real-live plod.

They can be good fun those real-life plods. I got stopped for using my
mobile phone whilst driving. The officer asked me why I had been stopped
and I said it was because I was using my phone. For answering correctly I
was told that I would not get a ticket (and the usual lecture where I
nodded at the appropiate times) and I could spent the £60 saved on the
fixed penaly on a hands free kit for my phone . He also told me that he
had already issued 30 tickets that day to people who denied using a phone
whilst driving and that all of them had the same opportunity as me to
admit what they had done.

So has it persuaded you not to use your phone whilst driving in future?


Yes.

I now use a hands free kit which cost less than the (then) £60 fine. Not
getting the lecture probably and the officers attitude did more to persuade
me to get the hands free kit than not getting the fine.

--
Adam

On 22/12/2014 00:00, bert wrote:

I did an online test recently and surprised myself a bit by scoring
87/88 - the one I got wrong? Where do you find amber cats eyes on a
motorway

That was one of the questions in my actual driving test - an awfully
long time ago.

--
Rod

On 23/12/14 18:58, ARW wrote:

Yes.

I now use a hands free kit which cost less than the (then) £60 fine. Not
getting the lecture probably and the officers attitude did more to
persuade me to get the hands free kit than not getting the fine.


I've always found a bit of pride swallowing works wonders on plod. It's
got me off at least one speeding ticket (38 in a 30).

In article ,
polygonum writes:
On 22/12/2014 00:00, bert wrote:

I did an online test recently and surprised myself a bit by scoring
87/88 - the one I got wrong? Where do you find amber cats eyes on a
motorway

Just under the front tyre...

That was one of the questions in my actual driving test - an awfully
long time ago.

Coloured cats-eyes didn't exist when I did my driving test.

I still remember one question I got slightly wrong. I was shown the
3, 2, 1 stripes on a green background, and asked what they are.
I said 300, 200, and 100 yard countdown markers to a road junction.
He said are just equally spaced, and not necessarily 100 yards apart
(except the blue motorway ones which are always 100 yards apart), but
he accepted my answer and said I got 100% on the highway code questions.

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

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 20:28:54 +0000, Tim Watts wrote:

On 23/12/14 18:58, ARW wrote:

Yes.

I now use a hands free kit which cost less than the (then) £60 fine.
Not getting the lecture probably and the officers attitude did more to
persuade me to get the hands free kit than not getting the fine.


I've always found a bit of pride swallowing works wonders on plod. It's
got me off at least one speeding ticket (38 in a 30).

Same here. Years ago, off to work and really probably not entirely awake!
45 in a 30....I was contrite and just got "don't do it again". And I
haven't. Not there anyway.


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 21:16:24 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
polygonum writes:
On 22/12/2014 00:00, bert wrote:

I did an online test recently and surprised myself a bit by scoring
87/88 - the one I got wrong? Where do you find amber cats eyes on a
motorway

Just under the front tyre...

That was one of the questions in my actual driving test - an awfully
long time ago.

Coloured cats-eyes didn't exist when I did my driving test.

I still remember one question I got slightly wrong. I was shown the 3,
2, 1 stripes on a green background, and asked what they are.
I said 300, 200, and 100 yard countdown markers to a road junction.
He said are just equally spaced, and not necessarily 100 yards apart
(except the blue motorway ones which are always 100 yards apart), but he
accepted my answer and said I got 100% on the highway code questions.

Interesting, that. Just had a look at the official road signs booklet and
it says "about 100 yards" for both the motorway (blue/white) and other
road (green/white) ones. But the white/red ones (for certain railways
crossings) show equal divisions of distance from the first warning sign
to the crossing itself.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 23/12/2014 22:00, Bob Eager wrote:
Interesting, that. Just had a look at the official road signs booklet and
it says "about 100 yards" for both the motorway (blue/white) and other
road (green/white) ones. But the white/red ones (for certain railways
crossings) show equal divisions of distance from the first warning sign
to the crossing itself.

This doesn't make any real difference, the distances aren't that much
different, but...

My memory said that for motorways the distances are metric (i.e.
multiples of 100 metres rather than yards). But they are yards for other
roads.

A rather less than wonderful website offers some possible backing for my
memory - though only a little, if it is right I am still remembering
wrongly. They suggest the distances are measured in yards but display
units of yards.

http://metricviews.org.uk/2008/01/mt...terchangeable/

--
Rod

On 23/12/2014 22:18, polygonum wrote:
They suggest the distances are measured in yards but display units of
yards.

Of course, I meant:

They suggest the distances are measured in metres but display units of
yards.

--
Rod

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 22:37:24 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

A. N. Other wrote
Rod Speed wrote

However, if you take the trouble to check the URL I gave, you'll find
that mobile and variable speed cameras are included in the database.

Not even possible.

Oh, do you mean you can't check the URL? other people find it possible!

On the point of mobile cameras, databases are available and sat navs will
warn of the mobile site - it doesn't mean there will be a camera there.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small vans.

The sat nav warns of variable speed camera
sites even when the national limit applies.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small vans.

How ****ing stupid are you?

--
Is it possible to brush your teeth without wiggling your ass?

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 23:32:00 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
A. N. Other wrote

On the point of mobile cameras, databases are available and sat navs
will
warn of the mobile site - it doesn't mean there will be a camera there.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small vans...

Trivial in those areas where the Police publish maps of the locations at
which they use mobile speed cameras:

http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/camera-map.html

That doesnt tell you where the van actually is tho,
just where it MIGHT BE.

And that is a tiny subset of jurisdictions anyway.

They have fixed places where there are more accidents. I almost never see a van where the satnav hasn't told me about it first.

--
What does a married man say after sex?
Don't tell my wife.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 07:26:29 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:



"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
news
On 19/12/2014 23:32, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
A. N. Other wrote

On the point of mobile cameras, databases are available and sat navs
will
warn of the mobile site - it doesn't mean there will be a camera
there.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small
vans...

Trivial in those areas where the Police publish maps of the locations
at which they use mobile speed cameras:

http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/camera-map.html

That doesnt tell you where the van actually is tho,
just where it MIGHT BE.

Which point has already been made above. It just means you need to be
careful when approaching those spots. If you see a large yellow van,
plastered with camera logos there, make sure your speed is legal.

And that is a tiny subset of jurisdictions anyway.

That was just the first hit on Google. SFAIK, only the Scottish Police
don't think it is a good idea to tell drivers where they might encounter
speed cameras.

Different matter entirely to speed vans and cops in cop cars.

Cop Cars tend to be covered in stripes. Unmarked ones drive suspiciously.

--
Why hasn't there ever been a woman on the moon?
It doesn't need cleaning yet.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 00:26:32 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
A. N. Other wrote

It is in everyone's interest to reduce the
number of serious and fatal traffic accidents

The problem with that is that only 5% of RTCs have exceeding
the speed limit as a contributory factor, while 42% have driver
failed to look properly as a contributory factor. For fatal accidents,
loss of control was the most common factor, at 34%. Speed is
easy to measure, which makes it an easy target, but a serious
attempt to cut accidents should target bad driving.

Easier said than done.

What makes most sense it to make accidents more
survivable and to redesign the road system so that
accidents are minimised and that is what has been done.

Nope. It's wrong to pick on someone speeding who will probably never cause an accident. The ones that drive badly tend to drive slower BECAUSE they're **** drivers.

--
What do Disney World & Viagra have in common?
They both make you wait an hour for a five-minute ride.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:18:05 +0000, polygonum wrote:

On 23/12/2014 22:00, Bob Eager wrote:
Interesting, that. Just had a look at the official road signs booklet
and it says "about 100 yards" for both the motorway (blue/white) and
other road (green/white) ones. But the white/red ones (for certain
railways crossings) show equal divisions of distance from the first
warning sign to the crossing itself.

This doesn't make any real difference, the distances aren't that much
different, but...

My memory said that for motorways the distances are metric (i.e.
multiples of 100 metres rather than yards). But they are yards for other
roads.

A rather less than wonderful website offers some possible backing for my
memory - though only a little, if it is right I am still remembering
wrongly. They suggest the distances are measured in yards but display
units of yards.

http://metricviews.org.uk/2008/01/mt...terchangeable/

I always thought it was metres too. Until a few hours ago. But that *is*
the official booklet! Guess should look at the legislation.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 22:30:54 +0000, polygonum wrote:

On 23/12/2014 22:18, polygonum wrote:
They suggest the distances are measured in yards but display units of
yards.

Of course, I meant:

They suggest the distances are measured in metres but display units of
yards.

Actually, the booklet says 'about 100 yards' so I wonder if it's actually
metres...!



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 23/12/2014 21:16, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
polygonum writes:
On 22/12/2014 00:00, bert wrote:

I did an online test recently and surprised myself a bit by scoring
87/88 - the one I got wrong? Where do you find amber cats eyes on a
motorway

Just under the front tyre...

That was one of the questions in my actual driving test - an awfully
long time ago.

Coloured cats-eyes didn't exist when I did my driving test.

I still remember one question I got slightly wrong. I was shown the
3, 2, 1 stripes on a green background, and asked what they are.
I said 300, 200, and 100 yard countdown markers to a road junction.
He said are just equally spaced, and not necessarily 100 yards apart
(except the blue motorway ones which are always 100 yards apart), but
he accepted my answer and said I got 100% on the highway code questions.


The new ones were 100m, the old ones 100yards so he was correct.
I think they are all 100m now.

On 23/12/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:


Nope. It's wrong to pick on someone speeding who will probably never
cause an accident. The ones that drive badly tend to drive slower
BECAUSE they're **** drivers.


The traffic cars around here drive around with their cameras on record.
If you do something they don't like you will be pulled over and given a
stern talking too or a fine.

A course is an alternative to
prosecution, as is a bollocking from a real-live plod.

They can be good fun those real-life plods. I got stopped for using my
mobile phone whilst driving. The officer asked me why I had been
stopped and I said it was because I was using my phone. For answering
correctly I was told that I would not get a ticket (and the usual
lecture where I nodded at the appropiate times) and I could spent the
£60 saved on the fixed penaly on a hands free kit for my phone . He
also told me that he had already issued 30 tickets that day to people
who denied using a phone whilst driving and that all of them had the
same opportunity as me to admit what they had done.

So has it persuaded you not to use your phone whilst driving in future?

I don't think the hands free kit makes it that much better, its the part
of your brain thats involved with the phone call thats pulling the
"processing power" from the actual driving of the car.

However..

I spend a lot of my driving time alone by myself but when ever I have a
passenger or two the conversation your are obliged to have takes a lot
of the same attention off the driving process too.....

--
Tony Sayer

On 24/12/2014 12:57, tony sayer wrote:
A course is an alternative to
prosecution, as is a bollocking from a real-live plod.

They can be good fun those real-life plods. I got stopped for using my
mobile phone whilst driving. The officer asked me why I had been
stopped and I said it was because I was using my phone. For answering
correctly I was told that I would not get a ticket (and the usual
lecture where I nodded at the appropiate times) and I could spent the
£60 saved on the fixed penaly on a hands free kit for my phone . He
also told me that he had already issued 30 tickets that day to people
who denied using a phone whilst driving and that all of them had the
same opportunity as me to admit what they had done.

So has it persuaded you not to use your phone whilst driving in future?

I don't think the hands free kit makes it that much better, its the part
of your brain thats involved with the phone call thats pulling the
"processing power" from the actual driving of the car.

However..

I spend a lot of my driving time alone by myself but when ever I have a
passenger or two the conversation your are obliged to have takes a lot
of the same attention off the driving process too.....


You have to learn not to allow the others to distract you. If they are
you have to tell them to stop it or walk. Its the same with mobiles, you
just stop taking any notice of the people if the road conditions need
your attention.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:49:42 -0000, Dennis@home wrote:

On 23/12/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:


Nope. It's wrong to pick on someone speeding who will probably never
cause an accident. The ones that drive badly tend to drive slower
BECAUSE they're **** drivers.


The traffic cars around here drive around with their cameras on record.
If you do something they don't like you will be pulled over and given a
stern talking too or a fine.

I tend to behave when I see a traffic car. I've only ever been told off for not wearing a seatbelt and speeding.

--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
A course is an alternative to
prosecution, as is a bollocking from a real-live plod.

They can be good fun those real-life plods. I got stopped for using my
mobile phone whilst driving. The officer asked me why I had been
stopped and I said it was because I was using my phone. For answering
correctly I was told that I would not get a ticket (and the usual
lecture where I nodded at the appropiate times) and I could spent the
£60 saved on the fixed penaly on a hands free kit for my phone . He
also told me that he had already issued 30 tickets that day to people
who denied using a phone whilst driving and that all of them had the
same opportunity as me to admit what they had done.

So has it persuaded you not to use your phone whilst driving in future?

I don't think the hands free kit makes it that much better, its the part
of your brain thats involved with the phone call thats pulling the
"processing power" from the actual driving of the car.

The problem with that line is that its never been illegal
to talk to someone else in the car while driving and in
fact you can argue that doing that can end up with a
better result, particularly with long distance driving.

The contrary argument is that with a conversation
with someone else in the car, they will usually stop
talking when they can see the **** hitting the fan
or something unusual happening outside the car
that needs the driver's attention, but that can't
with a phone call because the other party to the
phone call can't see whats going on outside the car.

However..

I spend a lot of my driving time alone by myself

I do to, but usually do listen to something
interesting if its for any real distance at all.

but when ever I have a passenger or two the
conversation your are obliged to have takes a lot
of the same attention off the driving process too.....

See above.

In message , Uncle Peter writes
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 00:26:32 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
A. N. Other wrote

It is in everyone's interest to reduce the
number of serious and fatal traffic accidents

The problem with that is that only 5% of RTCs have exceeding
the speed limit as a contributory factor, while 42% have driver
failed to look properly as a contributory factor. For fatal accidents,
loss of control was the most common factor, at 34%. Speed is
easy to measure, which makes it an easy target, but a serious
attempt to cut accidents should target bad driving.

Easier said than done.

What makes most sense it to make accidents more
survivable and to redesign the road system so that
accidents are minimised and that is what has been done.

Nope. It's wrong to pick on someone speeding who will probably never
cause an accident. The ones that drive badly tend to drive slower
BECAUSE they're **** drivers.

"Probably" but not "certainly"
The vast majority of drivers - if not all - will think they will never
probably cause an accident.
--
bert

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 21:16:24 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
polygonum writes:
On 22/12/2014 00:00, bert wrote:

I did an online test recently and surprised myself a bit by scoring
87/88 - the one I got wrong? Where do you find amber cats eyes on a
motorway

Just under the front tyre...

That was one of the questions in my actual driving test - an awfully
long time ago.

Coloured cats-eyes didn't exist when I did my driving test.

I still remember one question I got slightly wrong. I was shown the 3,
2, 1 stripes on a green background, and asked what they are.
I said 300, 200, and 100 yard countdown markers to a road junction.
He said are just equally spaced, and not necessarily 100 yards apart
(except the blue motorway ones which are always 100 yards apart), but he
accepted my answer and said I got 100% on the highway code questions.

Interesting, that. Just had a look at the official road signs booklet and
it says "about 100 yards" for both the motorway (blue/white) and other
road (green/white) ones. But the white/red ones (for certain railways
crossings) show equal divisions of distance from the first warning sign
to the crossing itself.



When the first experimental ones were introduced on the A1 many years
ago the spacings reduced as you approached the junction so even if you
slowed down they gave you the impression you were going about the same
speed causing you to slow down even more.
--
bert

In article . com,
Dennis@home scribeth thus
On 24/12/2014 12:57, tony sayer wrote:
A course is an alternative to
prosecution, as is a bollocking from a real-live plod.

They can be good fun those real-life plods. I got stopped for using my
mobile phone whilst driving. The officer asked me why I had been
stopped and I said it was because I was using my phone. For answering
correctly I was told that I would not get a ticket (and the usual
lecture where I nodded at the appropiate times) and I could spent the
£60 saved on the fixed penaly on a hands free kit for my phone . He
also told me that he had already issued 30 tickets that day to people
who denied using a phone whilst driving and that all of them had the
same opportunity as me to admit what they had done.

So has it persuaded you not to use your phone whilst driving in future?

I don't think the hands free kit makes it that much better, its the part
of your brain thats involved with the phone call thats pulling the
"processing power" from the actual driving of the car.

However..

I spend a lot of my driving time alone by myself but when ever I have a
passenger or two the conversation your are obliged to have takes a lot
of the same attention off the driving process too.....


You have to learn not to allow the others to distract you. If they are
you have to tell them to stop it or walk. Its the same with mobiles, you
just stop taking any notice of the people if the road conditions need
your attention.

You married Dennis?, ever tried telling the MIL to shut up or walk;!?...
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 20:01:02 +0000, bert wrote:

In message , Bob Eager
writes
On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 21:16:24 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
polygonum writes:
On 22/12/2014 00:00, bert wrote:

I did an online test recently and surprised myself a bit by scoring
87/88 - the one I got wrong? Where do you find amber cats eyes on a
motorway

Just under the front tyre...

That was one of the questions in my actual driving test - an awfully
long time ago.

Coloured cats-eyes didn't exist when I did my driving test.

I still remember one question I got slightly wrong. I was shown the 3,
2, 1 stripes on a green background, and asked what they are.
I said 300, 200, and 100 yard countdown markers to a road junction.
He said are just equally spaced, and not necessarily 100 yards apart
(except the blue motorway ones which are always 100 yards apart), but
he accepted my answer and said I got 100% on the highway code
questions.

Interesting, that. Just had a look at the official road signs booklet
and it says "about 100 yards" for both the motorway (blue/white) and
other road (green/white) ones. But the white/red ones (for certain
railways crossings) show equal divisions of distance from the first
warning sign to the crossing itself.



When the first experimental ones were introduced on the A1 many years
ago the spacings reduced as you approached the junction so even if you
slowed down they gave you the impression you were going about the same
speed causing you to slow down even more.

We're talking about road signs, not the stripes on the road...



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 19:57:11 -0000, bert ] wrote:

In message , Uncle Peter writes
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 00:26:32 -0000, Rod Speed wrote:

Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
A. N. Other wrote

It is in everyone's interest to reduce the
number of serious and fatal traffic accidents

The problem with that is that only 5% of RTCs have exceeding
the speed limit as a contributory factor, while 42% have driver
failed to look properly as a contributory factor. For fatal accidents,
loss of control was the most common factor, at 34%. Speed is
easy to measure, which makes it an easy target, but a serious
attempt to cut accidents should target bad driving.

Easier said than done.

What makes most sense it to make accidents more
survivable and to redesign the road system so that
accidents are minimised and that is what has been done.

Nope. It's wrong to pick on someone speeding who will probably never
cause an accident. The ones that drive badly tend to drive slower
BECAUSE they're **** drivers.

"Probably" but not "certainly"
The vast majority of drivers - if not all - will think they will never
probably cause an accident.

Innocent until proven guilty. If I saw you looking at a bank vault door, it would be wrong of me to assume you were going to break into it.

--
Mixed emotions are when your mother-in-law drives your new Ferrari off the cliff.

On 24/12/2014 20:40, tony sayer wrote:

You married Dennis?, ever tried telling the MIL to shut up or walk;!?...

She can't hear, its probably the soil stopping her from hearing.

In message , bert ]
writes
Nope. It's wrong to pick on someone speeding who will probably never
cause an accident. The ones that drive badly tend to drive slower
BECAUSE they're **** drivers.

"Probably" but not "certainly"
The vast majority of drivers - if not all - will think they will never
probably cause an accident.

There is a noticeable *tailing off* in driver confidence, opportunism
and determination to get where they are going, outside *rush hours*.

I suppose this is inevitable as us geriatrics, probably driving less
than 3000 miles per year, venture out when the road is less busy.

At the risk of fortune, I can say that there have never been any points
on my licence. However, I am aware of slow responses to fresh driving
situations and difficulty in complying with unexpected traffic signals.
Lights at roundabouts in Aylesbury come to mind!

Distraction from conversation, radio, mobile phones, sat nav. can't
help.

--
Tim Lamb

On Thursday, 25 December 2014 10:04:10 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , bert ]
writes
Nope. It's wrong to pick on someone speeding who will probably never
cause an accident. The ones that drive badly tend to drive slower
BECAUSE they're **** drivers.

"Probably" but not "certainly"
The vast majority of drivers - if not all - will think they will never
probably cause an accident.

There is a noticeable *tailing off* in driver confidence, opportunism
and determination to get where they are going, outside *rush hours*.

I suppose this is inevitable as us geriatrics, probably driving less
than 3000 miles per year, venture out when the road is less busy.

At the risk of fortune, I can say that there have never been any points
on my licence. However, I am aware of slow responses to fresh driving
situations and difficulty in complying with unexpected traffic signals.
Lights at roundabouts in Aylesbury come to mind!

Distraction from conversation, radio, mobile phones, sat nav. can't
help.

--
Tim Lamb

I refuse to believe those tests that repute to show that using a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving.

Either (a) Drunk driving isn't as dangerous as we've been told for years or (b)the tests are spurious. An awful lot of people behind the wheel are using a mobile phone. If we had the same number of them as drunk drivers there would presumably be carnage.

On a simple level using a mobile phone is transitory whereas if I get behind the wheel drunk I'm going to be drunk all through the journey.

I'm not denying that using a mobile is dangerous while driving but these nonsense arguments that are being presented, imho, do more harm than good.

On 25/12/2014 10:24, fred wrote:

snip

I refuse to believe those tests that repute to show that using a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving.

Either (a) Drunk driving isn't as dangerous as we've been told for years or (b)the tests are spurious. An awful lot of people behind the wheel are using a mobile phone. If we had the same number of them as drunk drivers there would presumably be carnage.

On a simple level using a mobile phone is transitory whereas if I get behind the wheel drunk I'm going to be drunk all through the journey.

I think if it weren't both illegal and visible, for many people it
wouldn't be transitory, it would be continuous. The evidence for this
is everywhere.

Cheers
--
Syd

In article . com,
Dennis@home scribeth thus
On 24/12/2014 20:40, tony sayer wrote:

You married Dennis?, ever tried telling the MIL to shut up or walk;!?...

She can't hear, its probably the soil stopping her from hearing.

Very fortunate for you she hasn't read that or else that would be it
trust me U sod;!....
--
Tony Sayer

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article . com,


You have to learn not to allow the others to distract you. If they are
you have to tell them to stop it or walk. Its the same with mobiles, you
just stop taking any notice of the people if the road conditions need
your attention.

You married Dennis?, ever tried telling the MIL to shut up or walk;!?...

I can remember my Dad doing that. My Mum was driving and she had made a
complete ******** of pulling out at a junction and my Dad swore.

My Grandma said "Bob if you swear again I'll get out and catch the bus home"

My Dad's next words were "Lynn, pull up at the ****ing bus stop your Mother
wants to catch the ****ing bus home"


--
Adam

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:49:42 -0000, Dennis@home
wrote:

On 23/12/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:


Nope. It's wrong to pick on someone speeding who will probably never
cause an accident. The ones that drive badly tend to drive slower
BECAUSE they're **** drivers.


The traffic cars around here drive around with their cameras on record.
If you do something they don't like you will be pulled over and given a
stern talking too or a fine.

I tend to behave when I see a traffic car. I've only ever been told off
for not wearing a seatbelt and speeding.


And it gives you time to hide the can of Special Brew.

--
Adam

"fred" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 25 December 2014 10:04:10 UTC, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , bert ]
writes
Nope. It's wrong to pick on someone speeding who will probably never
cause an accident. The ones that drive badly tend to drive slower
BECAUSE they're **** drivers.

"Probably" but not "certainly"
The vast majority of drivers - if not all - will think they will never
probably cause an accident.

There is a noticeable *tailing off* in driver confidence, opportunism
and determination to get where they are going, outside *rush hours*.

I suppose this is inevitable as us geriatrics, probably driving less
than 3000 miles per year, venture out when the road is less busy.

At the risk of fortune, I can say that there have never been any points
on my licence. However, I am aware of slow responses to fresh driving
situations and difficulty in complying with unexpected traffic signals.
Lights at roundabouts in Aylesbury come to mind!

Distraction from conversation, radio, mobile phones, sat nav. can't
help.

--
Tim Lamb

I refuse to believe those tests that repute to show that using a mobile
phone while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving.

Either (a) Drunk driving isn't as dangerous as we've been told for years
or (b)the tests are spurious. An awful lot of people behind the wheel are
using a mobile phone. If we had the same number of them as drunk drivers
there would presumably be carnage.

On a simple level using a mobile phone is transitory whereas if I get
behind the wheel drunk I'm going to be drunk all through the journey.

I'm not denying that using a mobile is dangerous while driving but these
nonsense arguments that are being presented, imho, do more harm than good.


There is driving and there is driving.

Now as I am a bit of a **** I decided to alter the "Home" address on one of
the works satnavs to teach a ****ing know it all I'm the best driver in the
world 3rd year apprentices a lesson, He was working in Erith and I changed
the home address for TMH's home address. He was halfway to Rochester on the
A2 before he realised he was going in the wrong direction.

The daft **** totally missed the Dartford crossing and followed the sat nav.

--
Adam

On Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:01:53 -0000, ARW wrote:

"Uncle Peter" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 11:49:42 -0000, Dennis@home
wrote:

On 23/12/2014 22:42, Uncle Peter wrote:


Nope. It's wrong to pick on someone speeding who will probably never
cause an accident. The ones that drive badly tend to drive slower
BECAUSE they're **** drivers.


The traffic cars around here drive around with their cameras on record.
If you do something they don't like you will be pulled over and given a
stern talking too or a fine.

I tend to behave when I see a traffic car. I've only ever been told off
for not wearing a seatbelt and speeding.


And it gives you time to hide the can of Special Brew.

Me, a Scotsman, enjoy alcohol?

--
Cetus: What were you doing in the flooded sections of the city?
O'Neill: The backstroke
Talus: What are you planning?
O'Neill: I was planning to retire.

There is driving and there is driving.

Now as I am a bit of a **** I decided to alter the "Home" address on one of
the works satnavs to teach a ****ing know it all I'm the best driver in the
world 3rd year apprentices a lesson, He was working in Erith and I changed
the home address for TMH's home address. He was halfway to Rochester on the
A2 before he realised he was going in the wrong direction.

The daft **** totally missed the Dartford crossing and followed the sat nav.


My older daughter was taking the younger one to a rock music fest
somewhere in darkest Dorsetshire a few years ago. They were lost, eldest
followed the sat nav as if it were the truth in all matters.

Youngest told her that they were going the wrong direction as the sun
was in the wrong place after I once gave her a short lecture of finding
your way around sans satnav and map etc!.


If you can see one most all UK sat dishes are pointing just east of due
south FWIW.

But then again ask most teenagers where are the cardinal points of the
compass are and I suppose they'll say well theres an "app" for that...


--
Tony Sayer

In article , ARW
o.uk scribeth thus
"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article . com,


You have to learn not to allow the others to distract you. If they are
you have to tell them to stop it or walk. Its the same with mobiles, you
just stop taking any notice of the people if the road conditions need
your attention.

You married Dennis?, ever tried telling the MIL to shut up or walk;!?...

I can remember my Dad doing that. My Mum was driving and she had made a
complete ******** of pulling out at a junction and my Dad swore.

My Grandma said "Bob if you swear again I'll get out and catch the bus home"

My Dad's next words were "Lynn, pull up at the ****ing bus stop your Mother
wants to catch the ****ing bus home"



And did she;?....
--
Tony Sayer

Going into the next village via dual carriageway recently I spotted a camera van in the distance ahead and tootled past at a sedate thirty. Returning home I passed in the opposite direction at thirty until I saw the fifty limit start sign when I increased my speed gently. Discovered the misbegotten wretch in the van was aiming at cars leaving the thirty limit when I received an unwelcome letter. I asked to see the photographic evidence and it's seriously annoying to have a photo of the back of the car with the fifty limit sign in full view and my speed shown as thirtyfive.
I look forward to finding a camera van on fire in one of the more robust neighbourhoods. For sure I won't stop to help.