In article ,
Robin wrote:
But that's where you're wrong. Members of Speedwatch have the legal
authority to operate a speed "gun". Others haven't.

They also have the police issuing letters that state a car was exceeding
the speed limit - no "alleged", no admission that there might have been
an error. And with no right of appeal - which is justified on the basis
that the driver can take civil action against the police or the speed
gun operators.

Poor diddums, getting a letter from the police. how can you appeal against
a letter, anyway?

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 23/01/15 14:21, charles wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
But that's where you're wrong. Members of Speedwatch have the legal
authority to operate a speed "gun". Others haven't.

They also have the police issuing letters that state a car was exceeding
the speed limit - no "alleged", no admission that there might have been
an error. And with no right of appeal - which is justified on the basis
that the driver can take civil action against the police or the speed
gun operators.

Poor diddums, getting a letter from the police. how can you appeal against
a letter, anyway?


Depends - a letter is one thing.

But do they then add you to a database?

They also have the police issuing letters that state a car was
exceeding the speed limit - no "alleged", no admission that there
might have been an error. And with no right of appeal - which is
justified on the basis that the driver can take civil action against
the police or the speed gun operators.

Poor diddums, getting a letter from the police. how can you appeal
against a letter, anyway?

Poor diddums? How would Speed Watch members like it if they were "named
and shamed" for making malicious accusations of speeding, with their
names kept on file by the police, and told if they disagree they can
just use the civil law?

And an appeal process would be perfectly straightforward. The letter in
question (not to me) stated the vehicle in question was monitored and
found to be exceeding the 30 mph speed limit at a specified place and
time on a specified date. So appeal process could then look at
statements and/or oral evidence from the 2 (at least) members of Speed
Watch. Eg do they also take photographs? Both take contemporaneous
manuscript notes of the registration number? And of the
make/model/colour?

It could then hear evidence from others - eg the driver and his 3
passengers might give eivdence that the car was not at that location
then. And support that with their receipt for a meal 100 miles away?

The outcome could then be eg that if the balance of evidence favoured
the driver then the police in question and the Speed Watch members amend
their records to delete any referebnce to speeding by that car at that
time etc.

And if there were several such succesful appeals involving the same
Speed Watch scheme then perhaps the members might be considered for,
say, further training and words of advice.

But of course none of that is necessary if all the members of Speed
Watch are incapable of error or malice, just like .......

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In article ,
Robin wrote:
They also have the police issuing letters that state a car was
exceeding the speed limit - no "alleged", no admission that there
might have been an error. And with no right of appeal - which is
justified on the basis that the driver can take civil action against
the police or the speed gun operators.

Poor diddums, getting a letter from the police. how can you appeal
against a letter, anyway?

Poor diddums? How would Speed Watch members like it if they were "named
and shamed" for making malicious accusations of speeding, with their
names kept on file by the police, and told if they disagree they can
just use the civil law?

No, they aren't named & shamed. It's a personal letter - no copy goes to
the press.

And an appeal process would be perfectly straightforward. The letter in
question (not to me) stated the vehicle in question was monitored and
found to be exceeding the 30 mph speed limit at a specified place and
time on a specified date. So appeal process could then look at
statements and/or oral evidence from the 2 (at least) members of Speed
Watch. Eg do they also take photographs? Both take contemporaneous
manuscript notes of the registration number? And of the
make/model/colour?

In Surrey, for a report to be made about a vehicle, make model & colour
need to agree with the DVLA details. It is of course possible that the car
spotted was using a cloned nummber plate - it has happened.


It could then hear evidence from others - eg the driver and his 3
passengers might give eivdence that the car was not at that location
then. And support that with their receipt for a meal 100 miles away?

Long before Speedwatch was even dreamed about (1960s), I had a letter from
the police suggesting that I'd been involved in a hit & run accident. I
was at work at the time, but I got a visit from the police to look at my
car.



The outcome could then be eg that if the balance of evidence favoured
the driver then the police in question and the Speed Watch members amend
their records to delete any referebnce to speeding by that car at that
time etc.

Speedwatch record are not kept by Speedwatch - they are handed to the
police.


And if there were several such succesful appeals involving the same
Speed Watch scheme then perhaps the members might be considered for,
say, further training and words of advice.



But of course none of that is necessary if all the members of Speed
Watch are incapable of error or malice, just like .......

everybody else?

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Nick" wrote in message
...
On 18/01/2015 22:43, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 18/01/2015 20:57, charles wrote:
In article , ARW
...
Actually we tend to stand in the freezing cold for at least an hour.
The point of speed watch is to deter people from breaking the legal
limit. It does slow down the traffic in our village to something a bit
safer for pedestrians and those trying to cross the road.

You would probably be better off educating the pedestrians on how to
cross the road. Exceeding the speed limit is a contributory factor in
just 5% of road traffic accidents, including those that don't involve
pedestrians. Errors by pedestrians are a contributory factor in 12% of
road traffic accidents, with 9% being due to pedestrians failing to look
properly.

but, if a car comes round a bend at 60mph in a 30mph limit, how is the
pedestrian going to cope. Basically by not even attempting to cross the
road. The fact that the pedestrian has avoided an accident by jumping
out
of the way does not excuse excessive speed.


When Nightjar says is a contributory factor in just 5% accidents he means
somebody such as the police attribute this as a cause. Only an idiot would
assume that this means that if vehicles did keep to the limit accidents
would be reduced by 5%.

Also as you make the point the damage done to the community by speeding
should be measured not only in accidents but also by the precautionary
actions people have to take to avoid accidents. The classic example would
be people driving kids to school rather than letting them walk.

That isn't because some drive faster than the speed limit.

No, they aren't named & shamed. It's a personal letter - no copy goes
to the press.

Press? No. But in the example I had in mind the registered keeper of
the car was the driver's employer. So fleet manager, HR, line manager
et al were informed. Fortunately they had more sense of natural justice
than some
seem to, so they considered his evidence. The outcome was they passed
to the police their evidence that it was a malicious report (including
evidence that the driver had called upon a resident of the village in
his official capacity in the vehicle in question earlier that day).


--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In article ,
Robin wrote:
No, they aren't named & shamed. It's a personal letter - no copy goes
to the press.

Press? No. But in the example I had in mind the registered keeper of
the car was the driver's employer. So fleet manager, HR, line manager
et al were informed. Fortunately they had more sense of natural justice
than some
seem to, so they considered his evidence. The outcome was they passed
to the police their evidence that it was a malicious report (including
evidence that the driver had called upon a resident of the village in
his official capacity in the vehicle in question earlier that day).

There are, with us, at least 2 people involved in the report. This sounds
like conspiracy.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 23/01/15 19:01, charles wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
No, they aren't named & shamed. It's a personal letter - no copy goes
to the press.

Press? No. But in the example I had in mind the registered keeper of
the car was the driver's employer. So fleet manager, HR, line manager
et al were informed. Fortunately they had more sense of natural justice
than some
seem to, so they considered his evidence. The outcome was they passed
to the police their evidence that it was a malicious report (including
evidence that the driver had called upon a resident of the village in
his official capacity in the vehicle in question earlier that day).

There are, with us, at least 2 people involved in the report. This sounds
like conspiracy.


Or some old duffers being sloppy with recording reg numbers or who
cannot use a speed gun properly.

In message , Nick
writes
On 18/01/2015 22:43, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 18/01/2015 20:57, charles wrote:
In article , ARW
...
Actually we tend to stand in the freezing cold for at least an hour.
The point of speed watch is to deter people from breaking the legal
limit. It does slow down the traffic in our village to something a bit
safer for pedestrians and those trying to cross the road.

You would probably be better off educating the pedestrians on how to
cross the road. Exceeding the speed limit is a contributory factor in
just 5% of road traffic accidents, including those that don't involve
pedestrians. Errors by pedestrians are a contributory factor in 12% of
road traffic accidents, with 9% being due to pedestrians failing to look
properly.

but, if a car comes round a bend at 60mph in a 30mph limit, how is the
pedestrian going to cope. Basically by not even attempting to cross the
road. The fact that the pedestrian has avoided an accident by jumping out
of the way does not excuse excessive speed.


When Nightjar says is a contributory factor in just 5% accidents he
means somebody such as the police attribute this as a cause. Only an
idiot would assume that this means that if vehicles did keep to the
limit accidents would be reduced by 5%.

I would have thought speed was a factor in all RTAs. I've never heard
of an accident between two stationary vehicles.
Also as you make the point the damage done to the community by speeding
should be measured not only in accidents but also by the precautionary
actions people have to take to avoid accidents. The classic example
would be people driving kids to school rather than letting them walk.

--
bert

There are, with us, at least 2 people involved in the report. This
sounds like conspiracy.

Two people drawn from the same community[1] who know there is no
provision for appeals, no audit of their performance, no realistic
prospect of the police investigating them, and nothing to lose in terms
of jobs, promotion etc. Clearly a recipe to make conspiracy really,
really unlikely.

[1] sometimes husband and wife.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In article ,
Robin wrote:
There are, with us, at least 2 people involved in the report. This
sounds like conspiracy.

Two people drawn from the same community[1] who know there is no
provision for appeals, no audit of their performance, no realistic
prospect of the police investigating them, and nothing to lose in terms
of jobs, promotion etc. Clearly a recipe to make conspiracy really,
really unlikely.

[1] sometimes husband and wife.

Forget appeals, etc. That's a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
It needs reporting as a crime. Ignore the traffic division.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

That's a conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice.

Possibly a conspiracy but sadly I think not one where that chaage could
be supported given "the course of justice" means the police's
investigation of a possible crime or proceedings to prosecute one and,
as you pointed out, the police can't use a Speed Watch report to pursue
a prosecution.

Such cases are no doubt rare - possibly very rare indeed. But the
complete absence of procedure to deal with them (other than civil
action) offends my sense of justice - the more so as it seems to me it
would have been easy enough to provide for appeals; and because it fits
the pattern of extra-judicial actions such as Police Information Notices
(a.k.a. Harassment Warning Notices) and powers for non-sworn officers
(where eg I've not the faintest idea what powers civil enforcement
officers have under Community Protection schemes in other places or how
to recognise them.)

But above all I really think the technology needs to be improved so as
to provide more than just a manuscript report alleging speeding. On
which, are *both* Speed Watch members required to read the speed from
the gun or can it just be one person's report of the speed?
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Nick
writes
On 18/01/2015 22:43, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 18/01/2015 20:57, charles wrote:
In article , ARW
...
Actually we tend to stand in the freezing cold for at least an hour.
The point of speed watch is to deter people from breaking the legal
limit. It does slow down the traffic in our village to something a
bit
safer for pedestrians and those trying to cross the road.

You would probably be better off educating the pedestrians on how to
cross the road. Exceeding the speed limit is a contributory factor in
just 5% of road traffic accidents, including those that don't involve
pedestrians. Errors by pedestrians are a contributory factor in 12% of
road traffic accidents, with 9% being due to pedestrians failing to
look
properly.

but, if a car comes round a bend at 60mph in a 30mph limit, how is the
pedestrian going to cope. Basically by not even attempting to cross the
road. The fact that the pedestrian has avoided an accident by jumping
out
of the way does not excuse excessive speed.


When Nightjar says is a contributory factor in just 5% accidents he means
somebody such as the police attribute this as a cause. Only an idiot would
assume that this means that if vehicles did keep to the limit accidents
would be reduced by 5%.

I would have thought speed was a factor in all RTAs.

More fool you.

I've never heard of an accident between two stationary vehicles.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Also as you make the point the damage done to the community by speeding
should be measured not only in accidents but also by the precautionary
actions people have to take to avoid accidents. The classic example would
be people driving kids to school rather than letting them walk.

--
bert

In article ,
Robin wrote:
That's a conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice.

Possibly a conspiracy but sadly I think not one where that chaage could
be supported given "the course of justice" means the police's
investigation of a possible crime or proceedings to prosecute one and,
as you pointed out, the police can't use a Speed Watch report to pursue
a prosecution.

That's why there is an Inderpandent Police Complaints Commission

Such cases are no doubt rare - possibly very rare indeed. But the
complete absence of procedure to deal with them (other than civil
action) offends my sense of justice - the more so as it seems to me it
would have been easy enough to provide for appeals; and because it fits
the pattern of extra-judicial actions such as Police Information Notices
(a.k.a. Harassment Warning Notices) and powers for non-sworn officers
(where eg I've not the faintest idea what powers civil enforcement
officers have under Community Protection schemes in other places or how
to recognise them.)

But above all I really think the technology needs to be improved so as
to provide more than just a manuscript report alleging speeding. On
which, are *both* Speed Watch members required to read the speed from
the gun or can it just be one person's report of the speed?

You'd need new speed guns with displays on the side as well as a 3rd member
of the team. No 2 is busy writing down the reg number, etc. One of our
number thought the saying the number into a recording device and
transcribing later was a good idea - not allowed.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Robin wrote:
But that's where you're wrong. Members of Speedwatch have the legal
authority to operate a speed "gun". Others haven't.

They also have the police issuing letters that state a car was exceeding
the speed limit - no "alleged", no admission that there might have been
an error. And with no right of appeal - which is justified on the basis
that the driver can take civil action against the police or the speed
gun operators.

Poor diddums, getting a letter from the police. how can you appeal
against
a letter, anyway?


It's something to wipe your arse with - along with the satisfaction of
knowing that you have wasted other people's time and money because they
cannot issue you with a speeding ticket.

--
Adam

In message , ARW
writes
"charles" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
Robin wrote:
But that's where you're wrong. Members of Speedwatch have the legal
authority to operate a speed "gun". Others haven't.

They also have the police issuing letters that state a car was exceeding
the speed limit - no "alleged", no admission that there might have been
an error. And with no right of appeal - which is justified on the basis
that the driver can take civil action against the police or the speed
gun operators.

Poor diddums, getting a letter from the police. how can you appeal
against
a letter, anyway?


It's something to wipe your arse with - along with the satisfaction of
knowing that you have wasted other people's time and money because they
cannot issue you with a speeding ticket.

I am surprised at the underlying level of anger engendered by what I see
as an advisory activity.

I suppose living in a *large* village I am more concerned with the
impact of *through traffic* than what the locals get up to.

The set up here is a small group of volunteers armed with high viz
jackets and an easily read display board. How speeds are obtained and
recorded is beyond my knowledge. The location is invariably close to the
exit from a 30 zone or just inside for the other direction.

Speed data gathered may be used to trigger a mobile enforcement set up
(camera van) but not noticed so far.

I see them as a low cost harmless deterrent. Or is the consensus that
posted speed limits are irrelevant and road safety should be left to the
preferences of the driver?


--
Tim Lamb

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , ARW


It's something to wipe your arse with - along with the satisfaction of
knowing that you have wasted other people's time and money because they
cannot issue you with a speeding ticket.

I am surprised at the underlying level of anger engendered by what I see
as an advisory activity.

I suppose living in a *large* village I am more concerned with the impact
of *through traffic* than what the locals get up to.

The set up here is a small group of volunteers armed with high viz jackets
and an easily read display board. How speeds are obtained and recorded is
beyond my knowledge.







The location is invariably close to the exit from a 30 zone or just inside
for the other direction.

I wonder why they are placed there?


--
Adam

In message , ARW
writes
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
.. .
In message , ARW


It's something to wipe your arse with - along with the satisfaction
of knowing that you have wasted other people's time and money because
they cannot issue you with a speeding ticket.

I am surprised at the underlying level of anger engendered by what I
see as an advisory activity.

I suppose living in a *large* village I am more concerned with the
impact of *through traffic* than what the locals get up to.

The set up here is a small group of volunteers armed with high viz
jackets and an easily read display board. How speeds are obtained and
recorded is beyond my knowledge.







The location is invariably close to the exit from a 30 zone or just
inside for the other direction.

I wonder why they are placed there?


IME they are not, and if I may reply to another comment, in a village
near us the main culprits were found to be local residents not the
through traffic.
--
bert

In message , ARW
writes
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
.. .
In message , ARW


It's something to wipe your arse with - along with the satisfaction
of knowing that you have wasted other people's time and money because
they cannot issue you with a speeding ticket.

I am surprised at the underlying level of anger engendered by what I
see as an advisory activity.

I suppose living in a *large* village I am more concerned with the
impact of *through traffic* than what the locals get up to.

The set up here is a small group of volunteers armed with high viz
jackets and an easily read display board. How speeds are obtained and
recorded is beyond my knowledge.

The location is invariably close to the exit from a 30 zone or just
inside for the other direction.

I wonder why they are placed there?

:-) I was being pedantic.

The top of our lane is a *minor crossroad* with the 40 mph signs in
sight. Visibility can be poor if a delivery lorry is parked in front of
the restaurant. Very tempting for through traffic to accelerate.



--
Tim Lamb

In message , Huge
writes
On 2015-01-24, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , ARW
writes
"charles" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
Robin wrote:
But that's where you're wrong. Members of Speedwatch have the legal
authority to operate a speed "gun". Others haven't.

They also have the police issuing letters that state a car was exceeding
the speed limit - no "alleged", no admission that there might have been
an error. And with no right of appeal - which is justified on the basis
that the driver can take civil action against the police or the speed
gun operators.

Poor diddums, getting a letter from the police. how can you appeal
against
a letter, anyway?


It's something to wipe your arse with - along with the satisfaction of
knowing that you have wasted other people's time and money because they
cannot issue you with a speeding ticket.

I am surprised at the underlying level of anger engendered by what I see
as an advisory activity.

I'm not. These people are just another manifestation of the Brit delight
in poking their noses into other people's business. They make me nauseous.

Ah well. Age begets caution.

I suppose living in a *large* village I am more concerned with the
impact of *through traffic* than what the locals get up to.

You do realise that most people caught for speeding in villages *are* locals?

I don't have any evidence for this. If you tell me that they receive the
most warning letters, I'll believe you. The local press publish a court
appearances page which I usually skim through out of curiosity/nosiness.
I have never seen a report of anyone prosecuted for speeding within the
village 30mph zone but occasionally see local addresses linked to fixed
cameras around the district.

The set up here is a small group of volunteers armed with high viz
jackets and an easily read display board. How speeds are obtained and
recorded is beyond my knowledge. The location is invariably close to the
exit from a 30 zone or just inside for the other direction.

Speed data gathered may be used to trigger a mobile enforcement set up
(camera van) but not noticed so far.

I see them as a low cost harmless deterrent.

I see them as a bunch of interfering, po-faced, humourless ****s. I imagine
the police let them do this not as a means to deter speeders but to keep
the aforementioned interfering, po-faced, humourless ****s out of their
hair. If the police were serious, they'd set up a camera.

I guess if they get information indicating a serious problem they will
do as you say. Meanwhile, no one is harmed and it stops them using their
bus passes.


--
Tim Lamb

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , ARW
writes
"charles" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
Robin wrote:
But that's where you're wrong. Members of Speedwatch have the legal
authority to operate a speed "gun". Others haven't.

They also have the police issuing letters that state a car was
exceeding
the speed limit - no "alleged", no admission that there might have been
an error. And with no right of appeal - which is justified on the
basis
that the driver can take civil action against the police or the speed
gun operators.

Poor diddums, getting a letter from the police. how can you appeal
against
a letter, anyway?


It's something to wipe your arse with - along with the satisfaction of
knowing that you have wasted other people's time and money because they
cannot issue you with a speeding ticket.

I am surprised at the underlying level of anger engendered by what I see
as an advisory activity.

I'm not surprised that people like Adam don't like been snooped on.

I suppose living in a *large* village I am more concerned with the impact
of *through traffic* than what the locals get up to.

The set up here is a small group of volunteers armed with high viz jackets
and an easily read display board. How speeds are obtained and recorded is
beyond my knowledge. The location is invariably close to the exit from a
30 zone or just inside for the other direction.

Speed data gathered may be used to trigger a mobile enforcement set up
(camera van) but not noticed so far.

I see them as a low cost harmless deterrent.

People like Adam don't.

Or is the consensus that
posted speed limits are irrelevant and road safety should be left to the
preferences of the driver?

No, that any speed limits have to set for the worst conditions
and that much of the time those conditions are not present
and exceeding the speed limit isn't any less save when its only
exceeded by say 10% so it makes no sense for self important
******* to be mindlessly enforcing speed limits.

And yes, I routinely exceed speed limits when it is safe to do so.

"john james" wrote in message
...


"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , ARW
writes
"charles" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
Robin wrote:
But that's where you're wrong. Members of Speedwatch have the legal
authority to operate a speed "gun". Others haven't.

They also have the police issuing letters that state a car was
exceeding
the speed limit - no "alleged", no admission that there might have
been
an error. And with no right of appeal - which is justified on the
basis
that the driver can take civil action against the police or the speed
gun operators.

Poor diddums, getting a letter from the police. how can you appeal
against
a letter, anyway?


It's something to wipe your arse with - along with the satisfaction of
knowing that you have wasted other people's time and money because they
cannot issue you with a speeding ticket.

I am surprised at the underlying level of anger engendered by what I see
as an advisory activity.

I'm not surprised that people like Adam don't like been snooped on.

I suppose living in a *large* village I am more concerned with the impact
of *through traffic* than what the locals get up to.

The set up here is a small group of volunteers armed with high viz
jackets and an easily read display board. How speeds are obtained and
recorded is beyond my knowledge. The location is invariably close to the
exit from a 30 zone or just inside for the other direction.

Speed data gathered may be used to trigger a mobile enforcement set up
(camera van) but not noticed so far.

I see them as a low cost harmless deterrent.

People like Adam don't.

Or is the consensus that
posted speed limits are irrelevant and road safety should be left to the
preferences of the driver?

No, that any speed limits have to set for the worst conditions
and that much of the time those conditions are not present
and exceeding the speed limit isn't any less save when its only
exceeded by say 10% so it makes no sense for self important
******* to be mindlessly enforcing speed limits.

And yes, I routinely exceed speed limits when it is safe to do so.
Praise the lord, not a 30 stickler.

On 24/01/2015 18:01, john james wrote:


No, that any speed limits have to set for the worst conditions


Where did you get that ridiculous idea from?


and that much of the time those conditions are not present
and exceeding the speed limit isn't any less save when its only
exceeded by say 10% so it makes no sense for self important
******* to be mindlessly enforcing speed limits.

And yes, I routinely exceed speed limits when it is safe to do so.

On 24/01/2015 19:41, Nick wrote:
On 24/01/2015 18:01, john james wrote:


No, that any speed limits have to set for the worst conditions


Where did you get that ridiculous idea from?

I hadn't noticed all speed limits being 3 mph either, maybe he remembers
having a man with a red flag guiding him?

On 22/01/2015 21:34, charles wrote:


Members of Speedwatch have the legal
authority to operate a speed "gun". Others haven't.

Ooer! You do sound important!

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - keep the last remaining Vulcan flying

In article ,
F news@nowhere wrote:
On 22/01/2015 21:34, charles wrote:


Members of Speedwatch have the legal
authority to operate a speed "gun". Others haven't.

Ooer! You do sound important!

you may think so. People have been prosecuted for standing at the roadside
holding a hairdrier.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:30:14 +0000, charles wrote:

Members of Speedwatch have the legal authority to operate a speed
"gun". Others haven't.

Ooer! You do sound important!

you may think so. People have been prosecuted for standing at the
roadside holding a hairdrier.

Have they really...? What for?

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:30:14 +0000, charles wrote:

Members of Speedwatch have the legal authority to operate a speed
"gun". Others haven't.

Ooer! You do sound important!

you may think so. People have been prosecuted for standing at the
roadside holding a hairdrier.

Have they really...? What for?


A bad blow job?

--
Adam

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:30:14 +0000, charles wrote:

Members of Speedwatch have the legal authority to operate a speed
"gun". Others haven't.

Ooer! You do sound important!

you may think so. People have been prosecuted for standing at the
roadside holding a hairdrier.

Have they really...? What for?

Probably recalling pre-legalisation of homosexuality...

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:30:14 +0000, charles wrote:

Members of Speedwatch have the legal authority to operate a speed
"gun". Others haven't.

Ooer! You do sound important!

you may think so. People have been prosecuted for standing at the
roadside holding a hairdrier.

Have they really...? What for?

Impersonating a police officer

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:30:14 +0000, charles wrote:

Members of Speedwatch have the legal authority to operate a speed
"gun". Others haven't.

Ooer! You do sound important!

you may think so. People have been prosecuted for standing at the
roadside holding a hairdrier.

Have they really...? What for?

Impersonating a police officer


******

--
Adam

On 25/01/2015 17:32, charles wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:30:14 +0000, charles wrote:

Members of Speedwatch have the legal authority to operate a speed
"gun". Others haven't.

Ooer! You do sound important!

you may think so. People have been prosecuted for standing at the
roadside holding a hairdrier.

Have they really...? What for?

Impersonating a police officer


How many police officers have you seen standing there with a hair dryer?

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:30:14 +0000, charles wrote:

Members of Speedwatch have the legal authority to operate a speed
"gun". Others haven't.

Ooer! You do sound important!

you may think so. People have been prosecuted for standing at the
roadside holding a hairdrier.

Have they really...? What for?

Impersonating a police officer

Wouldn’t have been JUST the hairdrier, they
must have been dressed like a cop as well.

In message , ARW
writes
"charles" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:30:14 +0000, charles wrote:

Members of Speedwatch have the legal authority to operate a speed
"gun". Others haven't.

Ooer! You do sound important!

you may think so. People have been prosecuted for standing at the
roadside holding a hairdrier.

Have they really...? What for?

Impersonating a police officer


******

OK, impersonating a ******
--
bert

On 25/01/15 17:39, Dennis@home wrote:

How many police officers have you seen standing there with a hair dryer?

What about curling tongs:

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/Blakes-7-431x300.jpg

On 23/01/2015 12:10, Tim Watts wrote:
I think if I received such a letter I'd write back and request the
calibration certificate for the speed device and confirmation that the
operator *at that time* was certified competent to use it.

If I write to Mr Plod, and say I wasn't exceeding the limit by _that_
much - well, shall we say I chose discretion?

Andy

On 23/01/2015 21:17, bert wrote:
I would have thought speed was a factor in all RTAs. I've never heard
of an accident between two stationary vehicles.

Yes, but is the difference between the actual speed and the limit the cause?

We have a road down here that I reckon I could take at a ton (given road
closures - there are side turnings) yet several people seem to have
driven off it and crashed. So they've imposed a 50 limit. I have a
feeling those crashes weren't under 60 either - the most recent
(non-fatal) one was over a ton, and drunk too.

Andy

On 24/01/2015 10:31, Tim Lamb wrote:
I am surprised at the underlying level of anger engendered by what I see
as an advisory activity.

I am angry because they lied.

Andy

On 25/01/15 21:48, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/01/2015 21:17, bert wrote:
I would have thought speed was a factor in all RTAs. I've never heard
of an accident between two stationary vehicles.

Yes, but is the difference between the actual speed and the limit the
cause?

We have a road down here that I reckon I could take at a ton (given road
closures - there are side turnings) yet several people seem to have
driven off it and crashed. So they've imposed a 50 limit. I have a
feeling those crashes weren't under 60 either - the most recent
(non-fatal) one was over a ton, and drunk too.

Andy

There was a massive crash the other day in a nearby town. It happened at
a junction that used to be bad.

The crash was bad enough to need the roof cutting off one of the cars
and 5 ambulances in attendance. Interesting that the junction has had
traffic lights for the last year which should make crashes unlikely.

On 26/01/2015 07:38, Tim Watts wrote:
On 25/01/15 21:48, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 23/01/2015 21:17, bert wrote:
I would have thought speed was a factor in all RTAs. I've never heard
of an accident between two stationary vehicles.

Yes, but is the difference between the actual speed and the limit the
cause?

We have a road down here that I reckon I could take at a ton (given road
closures - there are side turnings) yet several people seem to have
driven off it and crashed. So they've imposed a 50 limit. I have a
feeling those crashes weren't under 60 either - the most recent
(non-fatal) one was over a ton, and drunk too.

Andy

There was a massive crash the other day in a nearby town. It happened at
a junction that used to be bad.

The crash was bad enough to need the roof cutting off one of the cars
and 5 ambulances in attendance. Interesting that the junction has had
traffic lights for the last year which should make crashes unlikely.


There is a growing number of drivers that think they know better than
the people that installed the lights and that they can see its safe to
ignore the lights. Its probably a subset of those that can drive safely
above the speed limits. It may even be a progression.