You are welcome as a guest, and as long as you do not abuse that hospitality, your views and comments will be respected.

............ [Associaton of British Drivers] ...... [Transaction 2007 - Working for the UK Transport Industry] ...... [Associaton of British Drivers] ...... [Transaction 2007 - Working for the UK Transport Industry] ...... [Associaton of British Drivers] ...... [Transaction 2007 - Working for the UK Transport Industry] ............

   

..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.............

 


  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum Index  

Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 4 2008 at 11:54 PM
bogush  (Login bogush)
Forum Owner
from IP address 91.105.148.228

 

£1.5 million Speed Camera Blunder

Tuesday 4th March

For more than 10 years a speed camera in Dorset snapped drivers going over the speed limit - except, it turns out, they weren't.

Just a Cash Machine?
Just a Cash Machine?
Now the safety camera partnership concerned is facing up to paying back the £1.5million in fines it collected.

A paperwork blunder led to 25,000 motorists being given points and ordered to pay £60 fines.

But now the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership has been forced to admit a legal error which was spotted by a judge during a case involving lorry driver Alan Dawe last year.

She noticed that paperwork for the camera indicated a road used to mark out the 30mph zone on the A35 at Chideock, Dorset, didn't actually exist.

Instead of using the correct name Duck Street, it used Seatown Road.

It means every conviction issued by the camera towards Exeter since 1997 is void. The partnership admits other drivers might want to be reimbursed.

From:

£1.5 MILLION SPEED CAMERA BLUNDER

 


 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 5 2008, 12:07 AM 

Outrageous how criminals weasel their way out of paying for their crime on the flimsiest of technicalities. After all, what difference does it make if the road name recorded was incorrect?

I am sure that if this were any other crime then you would be the first to howl at the ridiculousness of letting obviously-guilty criminals get away with it on such a minor technicality.

But then logical consistency never was very high on your agends.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.148.228

Errrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 5 2008, 12:41 AM 

My views, and those of the majority, are perfectly consistent.

 

If someone kills me, they have committed a very serious infringement of my rights, and done me very serious harm, and I and the majority expect them to be very severly punished.

 

If someone injures me, they have committed a serious infringement of my rights, and done me serious harm, and I and the majority expect them to be very severely punished.

 

If someone burgles me, they have committed an infringement of my rights, and done me ver harm, and I and the majority expect them to be very severely punished.

 

However, if If someone drives past a sign that says 30 on it when their speedo accurately says 31 on it, they have infringed no one's rights, and done no one any harm, and I and the sensible majority don't expect them to be punished at all.

 

Oh, and if you think they should be punished for dividing communities, making a noise, putting pedestrians at possible potential risk and the lioke, fine, punish the motorist pro rata the punishment dished out to train drivers for doing far, far, worse.

 

 

However, we, the people, employ public and civil servants not only to serve the public, but to do so with civility.

We do not employ them to make up arbitrary, artificial laws criminalising perfectly reasonable behaviour.

 

And we certainly don't employ them to lie about having made up an arbitrary, artificial laws criminalising perfectly reasonable behaviour, and then proceed to punish people for breaking a law that not only hadn't they broken, but that didn't even exist.

 

That is what the sCammers are doing.

 

THey are committing the worst crime in a democracy:

Undermining the Rule of Law, and corrupting the law to use, without justification or proper authority, against the people.

 

But I wouldn't expect a F*ck-W!t like you to understand any of that.

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.148.228

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm

March 5 2008, 12:47 AM 

But let me help you out here.

 

If you lived at No 29, and you went home one day, and let yourself in:

 

Would you be happy for the police to arrest you for breaking into No 29.

Or for unlawfully entering No 31?

 

Or would you refuse to try to weasel your way out of paying for your "crime" on the flimsiest of technicalities. After all, what difference does it make if the house number recorded was incorrect?

I am sure that if this were any other crime then you would be the first to howl at the ridiculousness of letting obviously-guilty criminals get away with it on such a minor technicality.

But then logical consistency never was very high on your agenda.

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.42

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 5 2008, 12:17 PM 

So, your argument is that speeding is as trivial as letting yourself into your own home? What a plonker.

 
 
George Painter
(no login)
194.216.125.5

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 5 2008, 4:12 PM 

So let's get this right.

If a transport planner broke into your house Bogush, doing £5,000 worth of damage on the way in, tied you up then used your computer to spam 50 discussion groups with 20,000 words of complete nonsense in your name bringing complete discredit to the motorist's lobby, stole the keys to your motor car, drove it around the Ring Road at 70mph through as many cameras as he could find before smashing it into the side of a tram and being arrested. You would be happy for all charges to be dropped if the police officer accidently filled in your address on the statement as Vally Drive and not Valley Road. You would gladly pay all the fines and repair the car, tram and house at your expense in the interests of "not being party to a scam".

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
212.140.169.7

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 8:00 AM 

Sadly it is about following process. If you are going to fine/tax/imprison someone, then the evidence has to be correct. Some of the speeding fines will be minor technical offences. Some will be downright dangerous driving. The second lot need to be held to account. It is up to the camera numpties to do their work properly rather than blame others.

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.22

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 9:51 AM 

"Just" speeding is not a minor technical offence. Even if one were to accept that a driver travelling carefully at 40MPH is no more likely to have an accident than a driver travelling carefully at 30MPH (which is, of course, a dubious assumption given that the greater speed will always reduce the reaction time), the bottom line is that accidents can always happen, and when that accident does happen then an impact with a pedestrian at 40MPH will probably kill him, while an accident at 30MPH probably won't. So, by speeding you are setting yourself up to kill if an accident does happen. Doesn't sound quite so "technical" in those terms, does it?

(Now wait for BJ to make some lengthy errrmmmm-prefixed unsupported drivel about how he drives so much more attentively at 40MPH than at 30MPH, strangely not realizing that this simply underlines what an incompetent driver he is if he only believes that he is a safe driver at the single speed where he feels "comfortable."

Or maybe his fine argument that cars travelling at 40MPH are less likely to collide with a pedestrian at 40MPH than cars travelling at 30MPH because motorists who drive at 30MPH tend to panic and jam their foot on the accelerator when confronted with a pedestrian in the road. Really. I can dig out the exact quote if you like!)

 
 
Me again
(no login)
212.140.169.7

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 1:10 PM 

The issue is whether or not exceeding the speed limit is dangerous. If it is, then the fine is justified. If not, then it is a technical offence.

Sometimes a speed limit is set low because of a hazard, such as a school entrance. During the school holidays when the school is closed, the reason for the lowered limit does not apply. So speeding past the entrance would be an offence, but not per se dangerous. Now I would recommend abiding by the limit because I would not know the reason for the limit and it MIGHT be justified. And of course it is often dangerous to drive at the speed limit, and yet you could not be fined by a camera for doing so. In fact it might be hard to even prosecute you for dangerous driving. I could go on and give further examples, but it shows that your simplistic attitudes are just that: too simplistic.

The idea that exceeding the posted limit is always dangerous (which is your position) is false. What happens when a limit is reduced? Are speeds between the old and new limits suddenly dangerous when before they weren't?

And sadly so many speed limits have been set by complete idiots. I can think of roads where the straight bit with good visibility has a limit of 30mph. Then just before the dangerous twisted bit the limit increases to ... 60mph. madness. And I know more than a few examples of that.

And to my shame I have on several occasions found myself going much too fast because I was concentrating on driving within the speed limit, rather than at a safe speed for the road ahead. That IMO is one real danger of simplistic attitudes to road safety. The real issue is driver education.

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.42

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 3:53 PM 

No, the idea that exceeding the posted speed limit is always dangerous is true.

First and foremost because, frankly, I don't trust you. Well, not you personally, but I mean some other road users. My father-in-law, for example. He is under the delusion that speed limits are for sissies, and that his judgement should be the ultimate arbiter on appropriate speed. Unfortunately, his judgement is nowhere near as good as he thinks it is. The only way to deal with people like him is to strictly enforce speed limits, and since there is no way of distinguishing between people like him and people who aren't like him, that means that speed limits must be strictly enforced on all. I agree that this doesn't deal with those cases where the speed limit has not been set appropriately, but that is an argument for revising the speed limits rather than ignoring them.

Second, because you are not the only road user, and the safety of other road users depends to a significant extent on the predictability of their fellow motorists. It is necessary for their safety to be able to assume that a car will not come screaming along at 70MPH on a 50MPH road when they are about to pull out from a side road. I am sure that the highly-competent speeding motorist would argue that he was driving entirely safely at 70MPH, and since the other driver should be yielding then any accident is entirely his fault, but that is not a reasonable argument: other road users have a right to expect that you will obey the rules of the road.

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.42

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 3:58 PM 

> During the school holidays when the school is closed, the reason for the lowered
> limit does not apply. So speeding past the entrance would be an offence, but not
> per se dangerous

You don't think that relying on motorists to exercise their judgement and knowledge of school term dates and detailed local information as to whether the school is being used for a summer programme in order to decide whether to bother to obey the speed limit is dangerous? Of course it is, so that's why speeding past the entrance is always dangerous.

It's like messing around with a gun because you know it isn't loaded -- the consequences of being wrong can be so disasterous that it is dangerous even if you have checked and double checked.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.148.228

Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

March 6 2008, 7:51 PM 

FW says:

So, your argument is that speeding is as trivial as letting yourself into your own home? What a plonker.

 

And George Painter said:


So let's get this right.

If a transport planner broke into your house Bogush, doing £5,000 worth of damage on the way in, tied you up then used your computer to spam 50 discussion groups with 20,000 words of complete nonsense in your name bringing complete discredit to the motorist's lobby, stole the keys to your motor car, drove it around the Ring Road at 70mph through as many cameras as he could find before smashing it into the side of a tram and being arrested. You would be happy for all charges to be dropped if the police officer accidently filled in your address on the statement as Vally Drive and not Valley Road. You would gladly pay all the fines and repair the car, tram and house at your expense in the interests of "not being party to a scam".

 

So, let's get this right, guys, according to you two.

 

If the government decided to metricate speed limits and changed 30mph limits to 50kph (31.0685596118667mph) it would effectively be doing the same thing by legalising driving at 31mph as it would be by legalising:

Breaking into your house, doing £5,000 worth of damage on the way in, tying you up then using your computer to spam 50 discussion groups with 20,000 words of complete nonsense in your name bringing complete discredit to the tram lobby, stealing the keys to your motor car, driving it around the Ring Road at 70mph through as many cameras as he could find before smashing it into the side of a tram!

 

I don't think so, guys!

 

What plonkers!!!!

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.148.228

Errrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 6 2008, 8:10 PM 

Just to clarify for FW, who claimed:

"Just" speeding is not a minor technical offence.

Errrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

Yes, it IS!

 

One day the limit might be 40mph.

 

Then somebody (perhaps with no technical training, perhaps even unable to drive) decides to lower it to 30mph.

 

Then they might metricate the limit to 50mph, making the former offence of driving at 31mph perfectly legal.

 

Then then an alliance of Greens, Brake supporters and Slower Speeds Initiative members and Street Reclaimers might win a local election and make it a totally inappropriate 20mph zone.

 

And that might lead to them being kicked out, and the new council having the speed limit properly reviewed and it being raised back to 40 as a result.

 

The road never changed.

 

But the speed you drove at could change from a slight to a major offence, despite the fact it never exceeded the appropriate speed for the road, purely on the whim of whoever decided to change the number on the stick on the side of the road.

 

And, as a result, you could suffer minor to major punishment because of arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustifiable actions of the bureacrat.

 

That doesn't just make the offence a technicality:

 

It makes the bureacrat's actions on affront to the Rule of Law and Natural Justice!

  

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 6 2008, 10:29 PM 

> despite the fact it never exceeded the appropriate speed for the road

Therein lies the main fallacy in your argument, BJ. There is no intrinsic "appropriate" speed for a road that is independent of the speed limit. The maximum appropriate speed for the road is the slower of the speed limit and the maximum speed at which it is safe to drive given the conditions. So, yes, the appropriate speed for the road can vary from one day to the next if the speed limit is changed.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.168.167

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 7 2008, 10:21 PM 

FW says:

 

There is no intrinsic "appropriate" speed for a road that is independent of the speed limit..........

......the appropriate speed for the road can vary from one day to the next if the speed limit is changed.

 

Proof, if proof were needed, that the speed limit isn't there for a reason.

Unless you count fleecing instead of policing.

 

Proof, if proof were needed, that the speed limit is just an arbitrary figure on a stick!

 

Proof, if proof were needed, that speeding does no harm:

It's just an infringement of an arbitrary bureaucratic edict.

 

FW says so!


 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 8 2008, 12:27 AM 

What are you talking about, BJ? You seem to have lost what little grasp of reality you may ever have had. The fact that there is no intrinsic appropriate speed for a road is exactly the reason that an enforced speed limit is needed: so idiots like you don't burn down it at 80MPH while sensible drivers proceed at 30MPH, creating (can you manage the maths, BJ?) a 50MPH speed differential.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.168.167

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

March 8 2008, 10:47 PM 

I've often wondered if FW stood for F*ck W!t.

 

But clearly you are one, Anonymous.

 

Firstly, the point at issue was that the other FW has posted that:

There is no intrinsic "appropriate" speed for a road that is independent of the speed limit..........

......the appropriate speed for the road can vary from one day to the next if the speed limit is changed.

 

Proof, if proof were needed, that the speed limit isn't there for a reason.

Unless you count fleecing instead of policing.

 

Proving, if proof were needed, that the speed limit is just an arbitrary figure on a stick!

 

Proving, if proof were needed, that speeding does no harm:

It's just an infringement of an arbitrary bureaucratic edict.

 

Which bit of that, exactly, did you struggle with?

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.168.167

Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 8 2008, 10:57 PM 

Secondly:

The fact is that there is an intrinsic appropriate speed for a road:

The safe speed in good conditions for most drivers to drive it.

And the safe speed that most drivers drive it in good conditions.

 

Which is exactly the reason that a speed limit is needed:

To notify those unfamiliar with the road, and the inexperienced, what that maximum safe speed for the majority is.

 

And that is exactly the reason that a strict and draconian enforced speed limit is NOT needed:

Because some people can, and do, drive somewhat faster than the safest speed for the majority, and do it far more safely than the majority drive below the limit (eg police advanced drivers).

 

And that is exactly the reason why the guidelines for speed limit enforcement, as the other FW has pointed out to me, say that speed limits should be used to facilitate the prosecution of those who drive MARKEDLY in excess of the safe speed (note NOT the speed limit!) for the road (and not, as I had erroneously paraphrased a number of times, until the other FW helpfully corrected me, the road and the conditons!).

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.168.167

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 8 2008, 11:01 PM 

And thirdly, feel free to justify your accusation that I am an idiot who burns down 30mph roads at 80MPH a 50MPH speed differential.

 

Especially as I have been driving and riding for three and a half decades, up to 50,000 miles pa, and still have a spotless licence.


 


 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 9 2008, 5:10 PM 

> The fact is that there is an intrinsic appropriate speed for a road:
> The safe speed in good conditions for most drivers to drive it.
> And the safe speed that most drivers drive it in good conditions.

Now why am I not surprised that it doesn't even occur to you that the appropriate speed limit for a road might have nothing at all to do with the speed at which drivers are most comfortable driving it...

How about the speed at which, when an accident does occur, there's a good chance that the accident victim will survive?

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.168.167

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 11 2008, 1:13 AM 

Interesting point, FW.

 

As people can be killed at 5mph, just exactly how slow are you proposing speed limits should be set on motorways?

 

And as trains take miles to stop, and can't steer round acident victims, and make an even worse mess of them than cars:

How much slower still do you propose trains should go.

 

Over to you, the aptly named FW!

 


 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
212.140.169.7

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 11 2008, 4:06 PM 

FW said: "No, the idea that exceeding the posted speed limit is always dangerous is true. "

All I can say is that you are a complete idiot. I recall hearing a Brake rep on R4. She sounded as thick as two short planks, with her childish arguments. She had no understanding of road safety beyond the crass nonsense of some extremists. Even very respected individuals are expressing concern about the current policies on road safety, and that they are more about ahieving self defining targets, reducing costs and generating overtime payments for coppers than proper safety.

Oh, and I don't buy most of Mann's nonsense either (though there are nuggets of truth IMO).

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
212.140.169.7

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 11 2008, 4:09 PM 

Oy, stop impersonating me. I am the true Anonymous, and I am not FW who really is a complete Feck wit. God save us from such dangerous people.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.168.167

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 11 2008, 11:07 PM 

So, which bits don't you buy, then, Anonymous?

 


 
 
The only real Anonymous, not FW
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 12 2008, 12:16 AM 

"So, which bits don't you buy, then, Anonymous?"

No, I'm not getting into an argument with you. I'll leave that to your friend FW. You two seem to be a match made in heaven. Have fun.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 12 2008, 12:58 AM 

> As people can be killed at 5mph, just exactly how slow are you
> proposing speed limits should be set on motorways?

Brilliant argument as ever, BJ. Amazing how many false premises you can fit into such a small space.

As you should know (if you knew anything about road safety), pedestrian fatality rate goes as roughly the fourth power of speed, so indeed there are fatalities at 5MPH. They are just 4000 times less likely than at 40MPH.

And (as you also should know if you knew anything about road safety) these arguments are not relevant to motorways since you are unlikely to encounter a pedestrian there since there shouldn't be any there (kind of like on railways): on motorways, the appropriate speed limit is one that saves motorists' lives.

So, all you have really proved with your brilliant "argument" is that you don't know anything about road safety.

 
 
Not FS, tjhe other Anonymous
(no login)
212.140.169.7

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 14 2008, 9:13 AM 

I agree with most of Mann's recent posts, as they are clearly articulated and sensible. Whatever next.

FW: So, I know, let's introduce a road safety measure that will almost guarantee zero road deaths. We can have a non gender specific person walking in front of a motorised vehicle carrying a red flag. And what's more, it would generate a need for red flag carriers, so we could ask Poland to send even more lovely hard working Poles to do the jobs for us. Sorted. Everyone happy then? Or maybe just maybe we could get back to reality.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 14 2008, 10:40 PM 

Oo, that's clever. A person with a red flag. And the sophisticated wit to have a go at political correctness at the same time. Such sophisticated intellect. How can I hope to compete?

But, just in case you are interested in a rational discussion, how about setting speed limits at the maximum that is unlikely to kill when an accident does occur. Which, as I am sure you know, all the evidence says is 30MPH wherever the accident victim is likely to be a pedestrian. Oo, look: that's what the limit is already.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.166.193

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 15 2008, 3:51 PM 

So I suppose you will agree with me that that is also the maximum speed that should be allowed on the rail-roads wherever the rail-road companies know there is a chance of "vulnerable victim" getting onto the track?

 

No?

 

Now why doesn't that surprise me!

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 15 2008, 6:35 PM 

Why would I agree with such a vacuous suggestion? After all, I didn't suggest that the appropriate speed for a motorway was 30MPH because there was a chance that someone might get onto the carriageway.

 
 
Not FW, but the other Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 15 2008, 8:20 PM 


"Oo, that's clever. A person with a red flag. And the sophisticated wit to have a go at political correctness at the same time. Such sophisticated intellect. How can I hope to compete?"

If you think that was sophisticated wit then there is no hope for you.

"But, just in case you are interested in a rational discussion, how about setting speed limits at the maximum that is unlikely to kill when an accident does occur. Which, as I am sure you know, all the evidence says is 30MPH wherever the accident victim is likely to be a pedestrian. Oo, look: that's what the limit is already."

I prefer rational discussion to contain some sense. Such statements as you make above are much too crass for my taste. How about reducing the number of accidents?

So how come even serious commentators such as the ex-head of the Met Police Traffic Division are voicing disquiet at the current approach to road safety? And bodies such as the AA are expressing concern too. Could it just be that the current obsession is just that, an obsession.

Fortunately some people have been arguing rationally against the current obsession with speed limits and speed cameras. That is why we now get flashing speed limit signs (saying "Reduce your speed"). I saw some today, placed in sensible places. And to my amazement they worked. Whereas with cameras people tend to slow for the camera and then speed up again later. My guess is that reminding people politely to drive at a reasonable speed is more effective than a faceless money generating device.

And do please note that I said "arguing rationally against the current obsession with speed limits and speed cameras" and not "arguing rationally against speed limits and speed cameras". I do not doubt that well placed speed cameras can be very effective. As can mobile units.

And actually the limit already is much lower than 30mph in many areas. We have 20mph limits locally. The conscientious drivers who would be safe anyway observe them, but get frustrated when the conditions would allow faster progress. The dangerous maniacs ignore the limits, and hurtle down the streets. The limits are not enforced. The pedestrians are fooled in to a false sense of security. Totally and utterly pointless. But the policy wonks in the council offices can feel proud to have 'done something'.

Now why don't the police set up mobile speed cameras on the local streets to catch the nutters? And why instead do they routinely catch people on a flyover, where there are no pedestrians, or children playing, or old people crossing?

There is a reason why some people do not like your crass nonsense.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 15 2008, 9:46 PM 

> If you think that was sophisticated wit then there is no hope for
> you.

And if you thought I was being serious, then there is no hope for you.

> Fortunately some people have been arguing rationally against the
> current obsession with speed limits and speed cameras. That is why we
> now get flashing speed limit signs (saying "Reduce your speed"). I
> saw some today, placed in sensible places. And to my amazement they
> worked. Whereas with cameras people tend to slow for the camera and
> then speed up again later. My guess is that reminding people politely
> to drive at a reasonable speed is more effective than a faceless
> money generating device.

Rubbish. Those signs are just the latest inflationary contribution to ever more cluttered roads, with the mass of red paint and rumble strips and warning signs. They may work for a little while out of novelty (though not with the "dangerous maniacs" who exercise you later in your outpouring of nonsense), but then they get factored out, and the road safety folk try and come up with yet another way to try to get incompetent motorists who cannot obey a simple speed limit sign to slow down. The only thing that works is enforcement, so bring on the zone cameras everywhere.

 
 
Not FW, but the other Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 15 2008, 11:15 PM 

So FW, yet more nonsense from you. You did not respond to the part about numerous respected observers making remarks critical of the current speed camera obsession. I would rather listen to such people, than nitwits such as yourself.

You are George aren't you? The person who so enjoys having long tedious arguments with Mann? Although I find him somewhat nutty - so much so that he needs a "may contains nuts" warning - I can understand his anger when faced with extreme knee jerk unthinking idiots like you. What pisses me off is the blatant dishonesty of many 'road safety campaigners'.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 16 2008, 12:24 AM 

Plenty of people saying positive things about speed cameras, too. Personally, I don't like them because they make incompetent idiots slam on their brakes whenever they see yellow. But I don't have a problem with zone cameras, but then I don't expect you to understand that, since you seem to label people who think that speed limits should be obeyed even when you don't like them as "extreme knee-jerk unthinking idiots."

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
212.140.169.7

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 16 2008, 10:31 AM 

"since you seem to label people who think that speed limits should be obeyed even when you don't like them as "extreme knee-jerk unthinking idiots.""

Now where did I say that?

Go ahead and attribute views to me, if it makes you happy.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 16 2008, 12:03 PM 

> Now where did I say that?

Well, because you said "extreme knee jerk unthinking idiots like you," and my only very strong view on speed limits is that they should be obeyed even when you don't like them, so that's where you said it. Forgive me if the small logical step defeated you.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 16 2008, 1:10 PM 


"Well, because you said "extreme knee jerk unthinking idiots like you," and my only very strong view on speed limits is that they should be obeyed even when you don't like them, so that's where you said it. Forgive me if the small logical step defeated you."

This site and this thread are stuffed with your comments and views. Why am I only allowed to judge you on the basis of one of your views selected by you? Sorry mate, but I will base my opinion of you on the totality of the views that you express here. That's how it goes: I judge you by what you say. Or is that too difficult for you to grasp?

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 16 2008, 3:23 PM 

Again, I do understand that you struggle with basic logic, but my view is that motorists should obey the speed limit even when they disagree with it, and should be competent to do so to be allowed on the road. If that view were followed, then all the other stuff about speed cameras, stupid flashing signs, etc, would cease to have any relevance.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 16 2008, 4:41 PM 

FW: You really do live up to your name of fuck wit. Oh let me guess. You write your opinions on this forum. And then you disown them. Or have you changed your mind since you wrote them?

God help us if cretins like you have any power over the rest of us.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 16 2008, 8:25 PM 

> FW: You really do live up to your name of fuck wit.

You just get cleverer and cleverer in your arguments -- right up there with BJ's level now. Congratulations. You must be very proud.

> God help us if cretins like you have any power over the rest of us.

God help me if I am expected to try and get you to display a modicum of sense.

 
 
Not FW, the one and only true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 16 2008, 9:11 PM 

FW, let me refresh your memory regarding your earlier writings:

"What are you talking about, BJ? You seem to have lost what little grasp of reality you may ever have had. The fact that there is no intrinsic appropriate speed for a road is exactly the reason that an enforced speed limit is needed: so idiots like you don't burn down it at 80MPH while sensible drivers proceed at 30MPH, creating (can you manage the maths, BJ?) a 50MPH speed differential."

So, you accuse BJM of an act of dangerous driving. And your evidence is?

And you did not address any of the issues that I raised. That 20mph limits are imposed, and not enforced. That they are worse than useless. That respected figures are criticising the current obsession with speed enforcement. That speed cameras are largely useless except in the immediate vicinity. That the current obsession on speed takes our minds away from the real issue namely safe driving at an appropriate speed which may well be less than the limit.

Oh and here's some more problems: speed cameras can be introduced when a certain number of deaths occur on a stretch of road, regardless of the cause. Hence, a drunk could mount the pavement and crush to death a group of people while driving UNDER the speed limit. And yet a camera would be installed. I take it cameras reduce driver alcohol intake too? And of course cameras require police officers to operate them, and they make nice overtime money from looking after them. But that takes police away from other duties. And then there is regression to the mean, which in a 30mph zone accounts for half the supposed reduction in casualties attributed to speed cameras. (According to government stats.) Oh yes, and the fact that speed is a causal factor in a surprisingly small percentage of accidents, and even then some of those will include speed within the speed limit, but excessive for the conditions.

Instead you waffle on about my not following basic logic. Well, you introduce some logic into your postings, and we will go from there. Oh and don't just waffle on about "people should drive within the speed limit". The issues are a wee bit more complex than that.

And regarding those speed warning signs, I have seen drivers slow for them, AND STAY slow. Whereas with cameras what I usually see is slowing, and then speeding up. Or do you have a problem with a device which encourages some drivers to drive at a more appropriate speed through a village?

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 16 2008, 10:15 PM 

> So, you accuse BJM of an act of dangerous driving. And your evidence
> is?

Not on that occasion, no. However, when he drones on endlessly about how it isn't safe to drive at an emposed speed limit rather than at the "natural speed" at which motorists want to drive, I have certainly pointed out that if that is his view and he really does not feel safe driving within a speed limit simply because it isn't "his" speed limit, then he should not be on the road.

> That 20mph limits are imposed, and not enforced. That they are worse
> than useless. That respected figures are criticising the current
> obsession with speed enforcement.

Make your mind up: should speed limits be enforced or not?

> Oh and here's some more problems: speed cameras can be introduced
> when a certain number of deaths occur on a stretch of road,
> regardless of the cause.

Well, what does it matter? If one is installed somewhere where motorists do not speed, then it won't do any harm.

> Oh and don't just waffle on about "people should drive within the
> speed limit". The issues are a wee bit more complex than that.

It isn't. It is really that simple. If everyone drove within the speed limit, then there would be no need to enforce speed limits. Unfortunately, the only way to make that happen is with a stick: catch enough motorists speeding, and they will slow down.

> And regarding those speed warning signs, I have seen drivers slow for > them, AND STAY slow.

Whoopdedoo. I have seen mnotorists speed up because they like making the pretty signs light up.

 
 
BT
(no login)
77.98.118.42

FW...what are you trying to say?

March 17 2008, 9:37 PM 

FW, I am having trouble understanding what your views are exactly. Are you saying the only safe speed limit, other than on motorways is up to 30mph? or are you saying the only safe speed is anything below the posted speed limit? I would also question how long you have actually been driving and what sort of mileage you cover annually?

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 17 2008, 10:27 PM 

> FW, I am having trouble understanding what your views are exactly.

Happy to clarify.

> Are you saying the only safe speed limit, other than on motorways is > up to 30mph?

No, not at all. In residential areas, you would have to make a strong case for anything higher, but elsewhere I would have thought 30MPH was probably too slow.

> or are you saying the only safe speed is anything below the posted
> speed limit?

That depends what you mean. Depending on the conditions, the posted speed limit can be too high. However, it is never safe to drive in excess of the posted limit, as other road users (motorist or pedestrian) deserve that courtesy to help ensure their safe travel.

> I would also question how long you have actually been driving and
> what sort of mileage you cover annually?

I have held a licence for around 25 years. These days I only cover about 10,000 miles a year, but rather more in the past.

 
 
BT
(no login)
77.98.118.42

re What are you saying?

March 17 2008, 11:01 PM 

So you say that anything over the posted speed limit is not safe?

How do you justify roads that have bee say 60 mph for over thirty years that are dropped to 40 mph over night. If sixty was a safe maximum on those roads for that long , why is 40 mph now the safe maximum?

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 17 2008, 11:51 PM 


> How do you justify roads that have bee say 60 mph for over thirty
> years that are dropped to 40 mph over night. If sixty was a safe
> maximum on those roads for that long , why is 40 mph now the safe
> maximum?

For a start, because the speed limit sign says 40MPH, so other road users have the reasonable expectation that they won't encounter a car going faster than 40MPH.


 
 
BT
(no login)
77.98.118.42

EH?

March 18 2008, 12:01 AM 

I don't think you understood my question so I will give another example that you may be able to answer but I doubt if you can answer it sensibly.

Back in the mid seventies, all the national speed limits, even motorways were reduced to 50 mph to save petrol during the petrol crisis. a year or two later, they were returned to their original limits except single carriage way roads which were returned to their present maximum of sixty. So if a road was safe to travel at 70 mph in 1972, was it unsafe to travel that same road at above 50 mph in 1975 but then only safe to travel it at a maximum of sixty after say 1978?

This clearly shows to anyone with any sense that a speed limit is only a sign with a number on the side of the road which can vary dependent on the goverment of the day or a local highways planner at a local council. It doesn't mean that the road is any less safe just because the number attatched to it has dropped. This goes to show that your argument holds no water FW

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.42

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 10:56 AM 

Sorry you didn't get it. Let me try again. There are many reasons why you should stick to the speed limit, even if that speed limit has recently changed. For example, it could have been set incorrectly previously, or it could be that local circumstances (like the volume of traffic) have changed.

However, even if you absolutely know none of these things to be true (which is, of course, impossible, unless you are the person responsible for changing the speed limit), there is still an over-riding reason why you shoulod stick to the limit. Namely, you are not the only person using the road. Safe driving is not an individual activity. That is why, for example, the highway code requires that you drive on the left: if you had the road to yourself, then it wouldn't matter which side you drove on, but other motorists need the reasonable expectation that they won't be confronted by you charging toward them on the wrong side of the road in order for them to progress safely. Similarly, the highway code requires that you stick to the speed limit, so that other road users can make judgements about what it is safe for them to do, reasonably safe in the knowledge that you will not plough into them at twice the stated speed limit.

 
 

(no login)
77.98.118.42

re; EH?

March 18 2008, 2:29 PM 

You seem to be getting confused between what is SAFE and What is LEGAL, you said earlier that anything over the posted speed limit is not safe even though that limit could chnge over night. That is a very blinkered outlook to have on life FW.

There are many illegal things in life that are perfectly safe and many legal things in life that will kill you so it is very naive of you to state that anything illegal is not safe and anything legal is safe...life just doesn't work that way.

You seem to have a very inexperienced view on driving when you state that road users shouldn't expect people to exceed the posted limit. Any driver who does not expect the unexpected is very inexperienced, naive and likely to suffer from such inexperience. Just because you don't see signs for wild animals or icy roads please don't be suprised to encounter such hazards and as your driving experience increases you will learn to expect anything round the next corner, whether it be a horse running along the road, a patch of diesel or even the worst sin of all a driver going over the speed limit.

If any of these frightens you then you really do have to ask yourself are you up to the job of driving in the first place?

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.21

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 3:17 PM 

> it is very naive of you to state that anything illegal is not safe and anything
> legal is safe

If I had said that, then it would have been very naive. However, I didn't say that.

> You seem to have a very inexperienced view on driving when you state that road users
> shouldn't expect people to exceed the posted limit. Any driver who does not expect
> the unexpected is very inexperienced, naive and likely to suffer from such
> inexperience.

You do seem to like the word naive, but once again you have completely missed the basic point. Or "been very naive" as you might prefer. Of course you have to be ready for the unexpected to be a safe driver. However, you also need to have a set of "priors." For example, I do not even consider the possibility that an elephant might step out into the road in front of me while driving, but I am aware of the possibility of a dog running out at any moment. Although I do not drive down the road at a slow enough speed to allow for the fact that a person waiting at a side road might pull out directly in front of me at the last possible moment, or that some idiot might have forgotten which side of the road to drive on, I am aware that such possibilities exists. So, yes of course I am aware that I might encounter a driver exceeding the speed limit. Nonetheless, I have a perfectly reasonable expectation that they should not be doing so, just as they should not be driving on the wrong side of the road, and I drive accordingly.

 
 

(no login)
77.98.118.42

re re

March 18 2008, 5:14 PM 

You seem to waffle a lot but do not answer the questions asked.

You do actually state that is not safe to drive over the posted limit, why is that? (question 1)

Why is a road safe at 70mph one year then only safe at 50 mph the next year, then safe at 60mph a few years later (question 2)

You have already stated that the safest max speed in a 40 mph limit is 40 mph even if that safest max was 60 mph for over 30 years and the only reason you give is "because that's what the number on a sign says" which to me reads "if the sign says 40 mph that must be the absolute maximum safe limit" or "if I'm legal, I'm safe, if I'm not legal, I'm not safe"

That in itself is naive and the sort of narrow minded thinking that gets people into trouble on the roads. A safe limit varies hourly, not daily or yearly and experience will enable a driver to slow down when the road conditions demand that he does. Unfortunately many inexperienced drivers do not allow for this and have to be guided by signs. You appear very blinkered yourself to believing that if a sign says its safe then it is safe. I question your driving experience and even though you say you have driven 25 years at the average mileage, I would expect you then to say you have 2.4 children and drive a mondeo because that is what you have read somewhere that is what the "average" motorist does.

Unfortunately there are a lot of people like you FW who believe everything is black and white and unfortunately many of them work in offices setting laws for the majority to follow based on their own limited experiences.


At the beginning of this thread you stated that all these criminals have weaseled off because of a technicality but surely that is what the law is all about just as the stated speed limit on a given road is just a piece of legislation and not neccessarily based on common sense.

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.22

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 6:11 PM 

Blimey, you really are as thick as the proverbial BJ.

> You do actually state that is not safe to drive over the posted limit, why is that?
> (question 1)

Because other road users have a right to expect that you are abiding by the law.

> Why is a road safe at 70mph one year then only safe at 50 mph the next year, then
> safe at 60mph a few years later (question 2)

Because other road users have a right to expect that you are abiding by the law.

I really can't make it much simpler, even for you.

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.22

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 6:18 PM 

> I would expect you then to say you have 2.4 children and drive a mondeo because that
> is what you have read somewhere that is what the "average" motorist does.

Well, then you would be as right on both counts as you are on pretty much everything else that you have said, because I do not have 2.4 children, I have never driven a Mondeo, and so I would never say anything so ridiculous.

> At the beginning of this thread you stated that all these criminals have weaseled
> off because of a technicality but surely that is what the law is all about just as
> the stated speed limit on a given road is just a piece of legislation and not
> neccessarily based on common sense.

Well, 30MPH is based on the common sense that it is the highest speed at which you are unlikely to kill a pedestrian when you hit one (and judging from what you say you will hit one sooner or later). Sounds like a fairly common sense choice to me, wouldn't you say? Whereas getting off a speeding ticket because the speed limit was in marginally the wrong font? That is idiocy. And only a narrow-minded idiot could fail to see the distinction.

 
 

(no login)
77.98.118.42

wow

March 18 2008, 6:24 PM 

Unfortunately FW just as you do with the others, when you feel you are losing an argument you resort to insults. I have proven your argument holds no water.

You cannot answer a simple question. You waffle on about Elephants and your lack of maturity and driving experience shows through very strongly. I suggest that you take an advanced driving course. Get a job driving which will get you some proper road knowledge then come back on here in a few years time with another 250,000 miles driving under all conditions under your belt and then you will be able to give a balanced opinion based on experience and not what you read in the sunday papers.

In the meantime people like yourself are best tootling the few miles to the office each day and keeping your opinions to yourselves on subjects that you have very little experience on.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 8:05 PM 

>> So, you accuse BJM of an act of dangerous driving. And your evidence
>> is?

>Not on that occasion, no. However, when he drones on endlessly about how it isn't safe to drive at an emposed speed limit >rather than at the "natural speed" at which motorists want to drive, I have certainly pointed out that if that is his view >and he really does not feel safe driving within a speed limit simply because it isn't "his" speed limit, then he should not >be on the road.


Well actually you did accuse him of dangerous driving. It is there in black and white.


>> That 20mph limits are imposed, and not enforced. That they are worse
>> than useless. That respected figures are criticising the current
>> obsession with speed enforcement.

>Make your mind up: should speed limits be enforced or not?


The point is quite obvious. 20mph limits are not enforced at all, and serve no purpose. I have said that local 30mph limits in residential areas could do with enforcement.


>> Oh and here's some more problems: speed cameras can be introduced
>> when a certain number of deaths occur on a stretch of road,
>> regardless of the cause.

>Well, what does it matter? If one is installed somewhere where motorists do not speed, then it won't do any harm.


There you go showing your true colours. For you it is largely all about control and revenue generation without purpose. And not road safety. And in fact it will do harm. It will require money to install, and maintain. Oh sorry, it will be 'self financing'.

Oh and it assumes that speed limits are sensible, rather than nonsensical as is sometimes the case. Only last night I drove down a local road where the limit had been reduced from 60 to 40. Only a moron would drive the road at 60. Only a moron would drive the road at 40. The truth is that parts are only safe at 20mph, most is safe at 60mph. So some council muppet installed a limit according to some stupid rigid government guidelines.


>> Oh and don't just waffle on about "people should drive within the
>> speed limit". The issues are a wee bit more complex than that.

>It isn't. It is really that simple. If everyone drove within the speed limit, then there would be no need to enforce speed >limits. Unfortunately, the only way to make that happen is with a stick: catch enough motorists speeding, and they will >slow down.

Again you show your true colours. I thought speed limit enforcement was about reducing accidents?

You have also ignored and not answered all of the points I made earlier. That for example speed cameras produce conformance in a narrow zone either side. That speed cameras are not placed in the most dangerous roads i.e. residential areas. But they are placed where they can catch a lot of people. And hence it looks good in the government targets surveys.


>> And regarding those speed warning signs, I have seen drivers slow for > them, AND STAY slow.

>Whoopdedoo. I have seen mnotorists speed up because they like making the pretty signs light up.

Well done Sir. And I routinely see drivers slowing before a camera, and speeding up afterwards. When approaching a village, that concerns me. Flashing warning lights have the advantage that they are clearly a safety measure, whereas camera always carry the suspicion that they are for revenue generation.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 8:13 PM 

FW: "That depends what you mean. Depending on the conditions, the posted speed limit can be too high. However, it is never safe to drive in excess of the posted limit, as other road users (motorist or pedestrian) deserve that courtesy to help ensure their safe travel."

Then according to your argument emergency services drivers should be prosecuted for dangerous driving.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 8:19 PM 

>Blimey, you really are as thick as the proverbial BJ.

>> You do actually state that is not safe to drive over the posted limit, why is that?
>> (question 1)

>Because other road users have a right to expect that you are abiding by the law.

You still have not answered the question.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 8:28 PM 

> Then according to your argument emergency services drivers should be
> prosecuted for dangerous driving.

Brilliant. Except that emergency services drivers have bright flashing blue lights and sirens, and they are trained to a significantly higher standard than passing a basic driving test. So my expectation that other motorists should do me the courtesy of sticking to the speed limit to enable me to drive safely is not in any way confounded by eminently-visible eminently-well-qualified emergency service vehicles. So, no, according to my argument they should not be prosecuted.

 
 
Not FW, the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 8:31 PM 

FW: "Well, 30MPH is based on the common sense that it is the highest speed at which you are unlikely to kill a pedestrian when you hit one (and judging from what you say you will hit one sooner or later). Sounds like a fairly common sense choice to me, wouldn't you say? Whereas getting off a speeding ticket because the speed limit was in marginally the wrong font? That is idiocy. And only a narrow-minded idiot could fail to see the distinction."

That really shows your ignorance of safe driving. And you also accuse the other person of dangerous driving, with no evidence whatsoever. In fact you have never been a passenger in his/her car, and observed his/her driving. The fact that you can make such an accusation based on no evidence shows what a fool you are.

The aim is to avoid hitting someone, not to hit them at a 'safe speed'. In fact 30mph would cause serious injuries, and death is likely in the elderly/infirm. The safe driver would not allow themselves to get into a situation whereby they would hit someone at that speed (ignoring the possibility of a suicidal individual purposefully running into the road for example).

That means slowing at a corner, slowing when there are children playing by the road, slowing if someone is holding a lead to a big dog that could pull them into your path, slowing if there is a bus dropping off passengers who might not see you, positioning the car to give maximum visibility, and so on. It is all about creating a safety zone around the car, and assuming the worst.

The truth is that speed is not a significant causative factor in accidents. Driver error is. Pulling out into the path of a vehicle. Changing lanes and hitting another vehicle. And so on.

Maybe you should take some advanced driving lessons.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 8:33 PM 

>>> You do actually state that is not safe to drive over the posted
>>> limit, why is that?(question 1)

>> Because other road users have a right to expect that you are abiding
>> by the law.

> You still have not answered the question.

Blimey, you really are the proverbial dimbo. You asked why it is not safe to drive over the speed limit. I answered because other drivers proceed under the reasonable expectation that you will not be driving over the speed limit (just as they, for example, proceed under the reasonable expectation that you will be driving on the correct side of the road), and that if you fail to meet that expectation then you make driving unsafe for the motorist who had that reasonable expectation (and for yourself as well, but that is less of an issue as you are the one who chose to drive like an idiot).

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 8:41 PM 

> The truth is that speed is not a significant causative factor in
> accidents. Driver error is. Pulling out into the path of a vehicle.
> Changing lanes and hitting another vehicle. And so on.

Exactly. In fact, all the evidence shows that drivers travelling somewhat slower than the average speed have almost exactly the same number of accidents as those travelling above the average speed (once you take out the obvious bias introduced by the large number of accidents that occur when motorists slow to turn right, which clearly has nothing to do with their "cruising" speed).

But that is exactly the point. You are no more or less likely to have an accident at 35MPH than at 25MPH on a 30MPH road. The difference is what happens when you do have an accident. Since pedestrian fatality rate varies as the fourth power of speed, you are four times as likely to kill the pedestrian at 35MPH than at 25MPH. (And please don't make me laugh with BJ's argument about 25MPH drivers panicing and hitting the accelerator rather than the brake so ending up hitting the pedestrian at higher speed than the 35MPH drive!).

> Maybe you should take some advanced driving lessons.

Maybe you should learn something about accident statistics.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 8:59 PM 


>> Then according to your argument emergency services drivers should be
>> prosecuted for dangerous driving.

>Brilliant. Except that emergency services drivers have bright flashing blue lights and sirens, and they are trained to a >significantly higher standard than passing a basic driving test. So my expectation that other motorists should do me the >courtesy of sticking to the speed limit to enable me to drive safely is not in any way confounded by eminently-visible >eminently-well-qualified emergency service vehicles. So, no, according to my argument they should not be prosecuted.

So now you have changed your mind and state that driving over the speed limit is not inherently dangerous. As you correctly state several factors including driver training/ability enter into the equation.

In fact you are in part wrong about the training of emergency service drivers. Ambulance drivers ARE highly trained. But ordinary police officers who can exceed the speed limit assuming just cause are not "trained to a significantly higher standard than passing a basic driving test". They do have extra training, but not that much.

The truth is that your black and white statement that driving over the limit is dangerous is simply naive. Life is rarely as simplistic as you would have us believe. And that is the problem with a naive application of speed limits.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 9:11 PM 

> The truth is that your black and white statement that driving over
> the limit is dangerous is simply naive. Life is rarely as simplistic
> as you would have us believe.

You do seem to have a bit of a thing about the word "naive," so how about this. If you actually read what I said rather than naively assuming what I meant, you would see that there is absolutely no inconsistency between me stating that driving over the limit is dangerous, and that emergency services driving over the limit is acceptable (note, not "safe" but acceptable, as the number of accidents that occur when the blue lights are on is depressingly high, as I am sure you know).

That is because it is not about the safety of the driver who decides to speed. It is about everyone else's safety. Their safety is predicated on being able to make certain assumptions about other motorists, since driving is fundamentally a collective activity. For example, they reasonably assume that you will not suddenly choose to drive on the wrong side of the road, so that they can progress safely down their own side of the road. They reasonably assume that any emergency vehicle will announce its presence with flashing lights, etc, to give due warning that a vehicle may be approaching in excess of the regular speed limit. And they reasonably assume that you will be obeying the law by staying within the speed limit. If these things do not happen, then their driving is intrinsically less safe. That is why exceeding the speed limit is dangerous.

See. No contradictions at all.
Did you get it this time?

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 9:12 PM 


>>>> You do actually state that is not safe to drive over the posted
>>>> limit, why is that?(question 1)

>>> Because other road users have a right to expect that you are abiding
>>> by the law.

>> You still have not answered the question.

>Blimey, you really are the proverbial dimbo. You asked why it is not safe to drive over the speed limit. I answered because >other drivers proceed under the reasonable expectation that you will not be driving over the speed limit (just as they, for >example, proceed under the reasonable expectation that you will be driving on the correct side of the road), and that if you >fail to meet that expectation then you make driving unsafe for the motorist who had that reasonable expectation (and for >yourself as well, but that is less of an issue as you are the one who chose to drive like an idiot).

You still have not answered the question.

In fact your answer implies that the cause of accidents is the imposition of speed limits. According to you drivers expect other drivers to obey limits, and are taken unawares by speeders, which leads to accidents. So, remove the limits, and drivers no longer expect others to drive within a certain limit, and hence are not taken by surprise. The result is a safer road. Is that what you really believe? It seems very very odd to me.

Isn't the truth due to the fact that it really is dangerous to drive at excess speed because it reduces your safety margins. Thus if you cannot brake and stop before hitting one of the school children playing on the pavement who falls into the road, you are going too fast. Oh I know you would be at ease if you hit him/her at 30mph but I do not agree with that. Most of us are not as callous as you.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 9:19 PM 

> You still have not answered the question.

Yes, I have. Driving is a collective activity. In order for it to work, drivers have the reasonable expectation that other drivers are playing by the rules, by, for example, all driving on the left. When Sweden switched from driving on the left to driving on the right, driving on the left suddenly became very dangerous. Just as when a speed limit gets dropped from 60MPH to 40MPH driving at 60MPH suddenly becomes very unsafe. It isn't anything intrinsic to the road, any more than which side you drive on. It is behaving with collective responsibility by following a common set of rules.

 
 
Not FW but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 9:26 PM 

>> The truth is that your black and white statement that driving over
>> the limit is dangerous is simply naive. Life is rarely as simplistic
>> as you would have us believe.

>You do seem to have a bit of a thing about the word "naive," so how about this. If you actually read what I said rather than naively assuming >what I meant, you would see that there is absolutely no inconsistency between me stating that driving over the limit is dangerous, and that >emergency services driving over the limit is acceptable (note, not "safe" but acceptable, as the number of accidents that occur when the blue >lights are on is depressingly high, as I am sure you know).


As I understand it the vast majority of accidents including deaths 'when the blue lights are on' concern joy riders etc crashing when pursued. Unless I am mistaken ambulance drivers have a low accident rate.


>That is because it is not about the safety of the driver who decides to speed. It is about everyone else's safety. Their safety is predicated >on being able to make certain assumptions about other motorists, since driving is fundamentally a collective activity. For example, they >reasonably assume that you will not suddenly choose to drive on the wrong side of the road, so that they can progress safely down their own >side of the road. They reasonably assume that any emergency vehicle will announce its presence with flashing lights, etc, to give due warning >that a vehicle may be approaching in excess of the regular speed limit. And they reasonably assume that you will be obeying the law by staying >within the speed limit. If these things do not happen, then their driving is intrinsically less safe. That is why exceeding the speed limit is >dangerous.

>See. No contradictions at all.
>Did you get it this time?

The dangers of excess speed are nothing to do with the bullshit you write above. It is all about hazard perception and the ability to stop in time. Going round a corner too fast, and coming face to face with a stationary queue of traffic is an example. It is nothing to do with their assumptions. When their are a lot of hazards about, you slow. When the road is clear, visibility is good, and hazards absent, you can go faster.

Any driver worth their salt automatically assumes others will speed. That is part of the assessment one makes all the time and anyone who does not is a fool. In fact a good driver automatically makes as few assumptions as possible. They only drive at a speed that the conditions will support.

You need to go on an advanced driving course because you do not understand the basics.

 
 
Not FW but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 9:29 PM 


>> You still have not answered the question.

FW: "Yes, I have. Driving is a collective activity. In order for it to work, drivers have the reasonable expectation that other drivers are playing by the rules, by, for example, all driving on the left. When Sweden switched from driving on the left to driving on the right, driving on the left suddenly became very dangerous. Just as when a speed limit gets dropped from 60MPH to 40MPH driving at 60MPH suddenly becomes very unsafe. It isn't anything intrinsic to the road, any more than which side you drive on. It is behaving with collective responsibility by following a common set of rules."

Go back and read my earlier answer.

Your ill thought out responses indicate that you are an ignoramus.

 
 

(no login)
77.98.118.42

w e all think you are naive

March 18 2008, 9:37 PM 

FW, don't get me mixed up with anonymous. The fact that he too believes you to be naive doesn't make him me, it just goes to show that others on here can see that you are a very naive,inexperienced person who believes everything they read about accident statistics but has very little practical experience.
This is MY last posting on the subject and as I said before....go get yourself some real world driving experience instead of the daily commute to the office and until you have enough experience to comment sensibly on the real world then stick to something that you do know about....maybe how a photo copier works or a tea machine?

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 10:25 PM 

> you are a very naive,inexperienced person who believes everything
> they read about accident statistics but has very little practical
> experience.

No, I don't believe everything I read, but at least I do bother to read. And, as you will find by pretty much every study Worldwide, accidents are as frequent at higher speeds as they are at lower speeds, but have much more disasterous consequences, just as I said.

> This is MY last posting on the subject and as I said before....go get
> yourself some real world driving experience instead of the daily
> commute to the office and until you have enough experience to comment
> sensibly on the real world

Actually, I have plenty. In fact everything from a ten ton truck to a Caterham Seven.

> then stick to something that you do know about....maybe how a photo
> copier works or a tea machine?

Fortunately I have staff to deal with such matters. I run the business. But then that's probably not something you would know anything much about.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 18 2008, 10:43 PM 

> In fact a good driver automatically makes as few assumptions as
> possible.

Prove positive, if any were needed, that you know almost nothing about driving well. There are, indeed, drivers who make very few assumptions. My mother-in-law, for example. She will drive 25 miles out of her way to avoid going around a roundabout because she is completely unable to make any assumption about what other drivers are about to do, so she finds them impossible to negotiate. Does that make her a safe driver? Of course not. Safe driving involves not having to figure everything out from first principles every time you put the key in the ignition. It involves having an effective set of priors that inform ones driving. And the more confidence one can have in those priors, the safer it is to drive. So the more people meet other motorists' reasonable expectation that they will obey the highway code, the safer driving is for everyone.

 
 

(no login)
77.98.118.42

who is having a go at who?

March 18 2008, 11:29 PM 


Anonymous, the following wasn't directed at you but to that inexperienced fool who calls himself FW




> you are a very naive,inexperienced person who believes everything
> they read about accident statistics but has very little practical
> experienchis is MY last posting on the subject and as I said before....go get
> yourself some real world driving experience instead of the daily
> commute to the office and until you have enough experience to comment
> sensibly on the real world e.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 19 2008, 12:00 AM 

Just to clarify, the last post as Anonymous was not my me, but I assume by FW.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 19 2008, 12:16 AM 

>> In fact a good driver automatically makes as few assumptions as
>> possible.

>Prove positive, if any were needed, that you know almost nothing about driving well. There are, indeed, drivers who make >very few assumptions. My mother-in-law, for example. She will drive 25 miles out of her way to avoid going around a >roundabout because she is completely unable to make any assumption about what other drivers are about to do, so she finds >them impossible to negotiate. Does that make her a safe driver? Of course not. Safe driving involves not having to figure >everything out from first principles every time you put the key in the ignition. It involves having an effective set of >priors that inform ones driving. And the more confidence one can have in those priors, the safer it is to drive. So the >more people meet other motorists' reasonable expectation that they will obey the highway code, the safer driving is for >everyone.

FW: You are a fool. And I think you have issues with reading comprehension. Your MiL does not have problems making assumptions. She has problems assessing a situation, and taking decisions.

A safe driver does not make assumptions about other drivers behaviour. To do so is to put your safety into other people's hands. That would be foolish and risky.

A safe driver observes the situation and then makes a decision based on the worst case scenario of what the other driver could do. So if you are waiting to pull out from a side road, and an oncoming vehicle to the left signals left, you do not pull out on the assumption that they will turn left. If they slow significantly, then you can feel fairly sure they are turning, and that their indicator has not been left on accidentally, or that they won't change their mind on seeing the road names.

FW: "Prove positive, if any were needed, that you know almost nothing about driving well."

An advanced driving instructor thought my driving was fine although not perfect. I learnt a lot from him, and numerous safe driving books. I prefer to accept his judgement, rather than the opinion of an idiot i.e. you.


When I look at the occasions when I have nearly had an accident, it has almost always been due to some other person not looking e.g. pulling out from a side road into my path, or large objects falling from the roof of a vehicle into the road. I had one or two near misses many years ago when newly qualified due to inexperience, and nothing to do with speeding. Good judgement takes time to learn. Tackling accidents involving new drivers is a serious issue. Maybe you would due well to address such issues, rather than your silly knee jerk speed limit obsession.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 19 2008, 12:17 AM 

Oops. that last Anonymous was me too.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 19 2008, 1:18 AM 

> FW: You are a fool.
>
> A safe driver does not make assumptions about other drivers
> behaviour. To do so is to put your safety into other people's hands.
> That would be foolish and risky.
>
> A safe driver observes the situation and then makes a decision based
> on the worst case scenario of what the other driver could do.

The worst kind of fool is a deluded one, and if you really think you don't make a hundred assumptions about other drivers every time you get behind the wheel, then you are deeply deluded.

Let's just take a very simple case (since anything more seems to be beyond you). Suppose you are driving along a main road at 30MPH, and there is a car waiting at a side road to pull onto your road. The "worse case scenario" is that he will pull out onto the road in front of you. That's OK when you are some distance away, as you would have time to stop. But what happens when you get closer? He still might pull out. So you'd better slow down. Then you get closer still. And he still might pull out. So to stay within your stopping distance you had better slow down some more. By the time you are only ten yards from the junction, you had better be doing no more than 5 miles an hour to be sure and be able to stop in that worse case scenario when he pulls out.

But of course in practice you don't do any of that. You continue at 30MPH in the expectation that he has enough understanding of the highway code not to randomly pull out right in front of you.

As I pointed out before, driving is not an individual activity, it is a collective one, so of course you "put your safety into other people's hands" every time you drive, regardless of whether it is "foolish" or "risky." The only reason it works is because everyone is playing by the same rules. And that included obeying speed limits even where, outrageously, the speed limit on the same stretch of road was higher last year.

 
 

(no login)
77.98.118.42

idiot

March 19 2008, 1:50 PM 

You really are a total idiot FW, you do not read what anyone says but just come out with your own ridiculous assumptions based on your own delusional "perfect world " and not based on real life. You really are the text book schoolboy. If you had any real driving experience at all you would realise that what "Anonymous" just told you is spot on. You could learn a lot from him and of course some further lessons.Just keep drifting on in your little dream world where everyone is perfect and see where it gets you. The basis of Advanced driving courses and police drivng courses always used to be based on the fact that you always looked on the other road users as raving suicidal idiots who were all out to get you and you observed their actions with that in mind...you seem to take the opposite approach where the highway code is strictly obeyed and everyone else is an angel......what out for the big OUCH!

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 19 2008, 2:09 PM 

FW: What I said just flew over the top of your head didn't it? You totally miss the point, and do not have a clue. It is apparent that you know little other than standard driving as taught for the driving test. Do yourself a favour. Buy the Roadcraft book, which is the police driver's handbook. And any other similar book you can find. You might learn something. And become safer. Not that I am suggesting for one minute that you are a dangerous driver (I have no idea how you drive), but it would help you cope with the nutters out there, rather than crashing, and then wagging your finger at them for not obeying the Highway Code. Assuming the bit attached to the finger is still in one piece.

What I do not understand is why BJM bothers to respond to your nonsense, and not just ignore you as a loony, though you do seem to persecute him. You are George aren't you? And the other people who seem to persecute him?

I heard rumours that BJM had suffered attacks. Is that true? Anything to do with you? (Not that I have any evidence either way.)

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.41

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 19 2008, 3:09 PM 

So how about addressing the point instead of attacking me?

You stated that

> A safe driver does not make assumptions about other drivers
> behaviour. To do so is to put your safety into other people's hands.
> That would be foolish and risky.
>
> A safe driver observes the situation and then makes a decision based
> on the worst case scenario of what the other driver could do.

I demonstrated that even in the most simple of situations (another car waiting to pull out from a side road as you pass) you are dependent on assumptions about the behaviour of other motorists, and that you cannot function as a motorist if you based your decisions on the worst case scenario (in that case, the other driver randomly pulling out from the die road right in front of you).

Do you have any refutation of this argument, or do you now concede that driving is, indeed, a collective activity that only works if everyone is following the same set of rules?

 
 
Not FW, the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 19 2008, 6:54 PM 

FW: As the other poster says, you are a total idiot. You can't see the wood for the trees. Your silly little argument is totally crass.

Actually I do assume the worst, but within reason. It's called common sense, something you clearly lack. Someone pulling out of a side road is not something I can control. Just as I cannot control someone who decides to cross into my lane for a head on impact to commit suicide. Similarly when I walk on the pavement, I assume a vehicle will not mount the pavement and crush me against a wall. Considering such things is not productive. Or do you live life worrying about the meteorite that might crush you, or the solar flare that might wipe out Nottingham?

I have seen someone drive on the wrong side of the road and go the wrong way round a roundabout into oncoming traffic. According to the police a car matching the description I gave them was later involved in a collision. All you can do is pray to your God that you do not meet such people. Fortunately such people are VERY rare. Most accidents are caused by mundane driver faults.

But only a fool (and you are a good example) would drive ASSUMING other drivers are obeying the Highway Code. If you overtake someone, you must assume distant oncoming vehicles might be speeding, and factor that into your decision whether or not to overtake. On the motorway you cannot assume cars will not undertake. Some loonies weave in and out of traffic, leaving no room for safety. You can protect yourself by using mirrors, and looking over your shoulder if need be. Often if you overtake a car in lane 2, then move left from lane 3 to lane 2, an idiot in lane 1 will move into lane 2 AFTER you indicated, and started your manouevre. So it is usually best to wait until you have passed the car in lane 1 before moving from lane 3 to lane 2.

I have given you some thoughts that are probably new to you. There are lots more 'tricks' which I and others could learn to improve safety. These are taught to class 1 police drivers, though they are trained to a very high standard. I suspect your driving - if any - consists of pottering around a town, to and from the shops. Still, even you could learn. Do everyone a favour and read Roadcraft.

Anyway, I suggest you buy yourself a hard hat in case of a meteorite. It makes sense. In your world.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 19 2008, 8:47 PM 

> Actually I do assume the worst, but within reason. It's called
> common sense, something you clearly lack.

Ah, I see. So at least you have moved away from your ridiculous "I assume the rorst case scenario" nonsense to something a little more defensible. The trouble is that your new position is not actually much more reasonable, since it depends on this notion of "common sense." Unfortunately, everyone thinks they have it, but everyone remarkably frequently disagrees as to what the "common sense" answer to any question might be. That is why driving is not left to common sense. Nowhere in the Highway Code will you find that it says "unless your common sense tells you to do otherwise." If the Highway Code said "drive on the left unless common sense dictates otherwise," then some idiot's common sense would tell him to drive on the right. The law on speed limits does not allow as a defence that common sense dictated that you should drive faster. It tells you the maximum speed at which it is legal to drive. End of.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 20 2008, 10:32 AM 

FW: You really are a complete idiot. I only hope that an idiot like you is not in a position of power.

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.41

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 20 2008, 11:01 AM 

> FW: You really are a complete idiot. I only hope that an idiot like you is not in a position of
> power.

Thank you for that reasoned and detailed critique. It is at least good to see that you have ultimately realized that your view is essentially indefensible, and that having to repeatedly retrench from "I assume the worst" to "I assume the worst within reason" to who knows what next just underlines how inconsistent your view is, so I suppose that moving to try to distract with little playground diversions like this is progress of a kind.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 20 2008, 11:24 AM 

FW: It isn't worth arguing with a fool such as yourself.

And you are a hypocrite, given that you accused BJM of dangerous driving without a shred of evidence.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 20 2008, 10:54 PM 

No, I said that drivers who can only drive at their preferred speed rather than that externally imposed by, for example, a speed limit, are dangerous. If Mr Mann is such a driver, as he has from time to time claimed to be, then it would be reasonable to conclude from my statement that he is a dangerous driver.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 20 2008, 11:26 PM 

Me: "And you are a hypocrite, given that you accused BJM of dangerous driving without a shred of evidence."

FW: "No, I said that drivers who can only drive at their preferred speed rather than that externally imposed by, for example, a speed limit, are dangerous. If Mr Mann is such a driver, as he has from time to time claimed to be, then it would be reasonable to conclude from my statement that he is a dangerous driver."

The following is quoted from your earlier post:

"What are you talking about, BJ? You seem to have lost what little grasp of reality you may ever have had. The fact that there is no intrinsic appropriate speed for a road is exactly the reason that an enforced speed limit is needed: so idiots like you don't burn down it at 80MPH while sensible drivers proceed at 30MPH, creating (can you manage the maths, BJ?) a 50MPH speed differential."

It seems that you are fool and a liar.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 21 2008, 1:00 AM 

In the words of the great Zorst, if you don't get it, just forget it. Pfffft.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 21 2008, 1:05 AM 

But, for what it's worth, I did enjoy the progression from "I assume the worst case scenario when dealing with other drivers" to "I assume that other drivers will use common sense" to "it isn't about what I think, it's about you being mean to BJ, you hypocrite." Very funny, thanks.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
207.67.151.64

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 21 2008, 1:12 AM 

why bother fw? you make yourself look almost as stupid as them by responding and apparently wasting lots of time coming up with clever arguments when they are clearly too thick to get it. give it up!

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 21 2008, 11:29 AM 

FW: You say to use 'spastic' as a term of abuse is wrong, but you repeatedly abuse BJM with the term. You say you did not say that BJM drives dangerously, and yet I quoted a post where you clearly did.

You seriously need to take some advanced driving lessons. Have you ever read Roadcraft? Or Paul Ripley's book? Or the IAM manual? You will find that safe driving is not about childish word games of the sort you play. In none of your posts do I see any evidence that you have ever taken any instruction/advice on safe driving. Unfortunately some of the things I have said require the reader to think, which is no doubt why they are taxing your abilities. The phrase "Expect the worst from other drivers" is just such a phrase. If you meet an advanced driving instructor, you may well hear that phrase. It would be quite amusing to hear their response when you try to put them down with your trite pedantry.

Oh and well done for posting to the thread as someone else.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 21 2008, 11:43 AM 

"Oh and well done for posting to the thread as someone else."

do you mind? i am not fw. in fact, i think he is a bit of an idiot. just not quite as much of an idiot as you.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 21 2008, 11:54 AM 

"do you mind? i am not fw. in fact, i think he is a bit of an idiot. just not quite as much of an idiot as you."

Do feel free to add some evidence for that statement.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
198.172.202.96

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 21 2008, 1:16 PM 

"Do feel free to add some evidence for that statement."

which bit would you like me to prove? that i am not fw is a bit tricky. that i think he is a bit of an idiot you probably don't need proof of. that you are a lot of an idiot would be a fairly pointless exercise since you clearly aren't going to be convinced of it. personally, i think the fairly endless way that you keep arguing with each other when there is clearly nothing to be gained by anyone is evidence enough. and before i sink to a similar level of idiocy by engaging with y'all's nonsense, goodbye.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 21 2008, 1:21 PM 

Anonymous: "i think the fairly endless way that you keep arguing with each other when there is clearly nothing to be gained by anyone is evidence enough. and before i sink to a similar level of idiocy by engaging with y'all's nonsense, goodbye."

You have some reason there. Since they do say "Never argue with a fool" I had better stop responding to FW.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.178.49

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmm

March 23 2008, 3:26 AM 

>> So I suppose you will agree with me that that is also the maximum speed that should be allowed on the rail-roads wherever the rail-road companies know there is a chance of "vulnerable victim" getting onto the track?

> Why would I agree with such a vacuous suggestion? After all, I didn't suggest that the appropriate speed for a motorway was 30MPH because there was a chance that someone might get onto the carriageway.

But motorways don't have stations, platforms, level crossings, unfenced stretches.......

Through which trains hurtle through at over the ton!

 

My point was specifically:

>> So I suppose you will agree with me that that is also the maximum speed that should be allowed on the rail-roads wherever the rail-road companies know there is a chance of "vulnerable victim" getting onto the track?

Which is more akin to a shopping centre than a motorway.

So, I ask you again:

So I suppose you will agree with me that that (30mph) is also the maximum speed that should be allowed on the rail-roads wherever the rail-road companies know there is a chance of "vulnerable victim" getting onto the track?

 

Yes, or No, FW?!

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.178.49

Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm

March 23 2008, 3:29 AM 

Rubbish. Those signs are just the latest inflationary contribution to ever more cluttered roads

And you try to make out you've been driving for how long?

I saw my first one in Lancashire in the mid 70's and one somewhere in the East Anglia region probably not long after.

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.178.49

Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

March 23 2008, 3:31 AM 

Not on that occasion, no. However, when he drones on endlessly about how it isn't safe to drive at an emposed speed limit rather than at the "natural speed" at which motorists want to drive, I have certainly pointed out that if that is his view and he really does not feel safe driving within a speed limit simply because it isn't "his" speed limit, then he should not be on the road.

I keep asking you to try this and report back, but I'm still waiting:

Drive around empty roads at 5mph and see how long you, as a self-styled "safe" driver, can keep it up.

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.178.49

Ermmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 23 2008, 3:37 AM 

Blimey, you really are as thick as the proverbial BJ.

> You do actually state that is not safe to drive over the posted limit, why is that? (question 1)

Because other road users have a right to expect that you are abiding by the law.

> Why is a road safe at 70mph one year then only safe at 50 mph the next year, then safe at 60mph a few years later (question 2)

Because other road users have a right to expect that you are abiding by the law.

I really can't make it much simpler, even for you.

 

Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

So how many pedestrians know what the speed limit is?

How many drivers can be expected to when they keep on chopping and changing the limit.

And then hiding it?

 

Surely, by your argument, the safest thing to do is to return all the limits to what they originally were and leave them.

 

Get rid of all the 20's.

And most of the 50's.

 

And put all those urban 30's back to 40's.

And those rural 30's back to 60's.

 

By YOUR argument.

 

Don't you agree?!

 

WELL?!

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.178.49

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 23 2008, 3:43 AM 

Exactly. In fact, all the evidence shows that drivers travelling somewhat slower than the average speed have almost exactly the same number of accidents as those travelling above the average speed (once you take out the obvious bias introduced by the large number of accidents that occur when motorists slow to turn right, which clearly has nothing to do with their "cruising" speed).

Yes, in fact, the graph you liked to link to, of accidents v speed, after turners, in fact, junctions, were taken out of the equation, looked like this:

\__/

With the top of the sloping arms 6x, yes, SIX TIMES, the level of accident involvement as the flat part of the graph.

Or, rather, flattish part.

As the higher speed end had slightly less accident involvement than the lower speed end.

 

So much for slow being safe.

 

Oh, and wasn't the graph of cruising speed, not impact speed?!

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.178.49

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

March 23 2008, 3:48 AM 

No, I said that drivers who can only drive at their preferred speed rather than that externally imposed by, for example, a speed limit, are dangerous. If Mr Mann is such a driver, as he has from time to time claimed to be, then it would be reasonable to conclude from my statement that he is a dangerous driver.

So if a drivers preferred speed in a safe 30 was 28 you would call that a dangerous driver?

 

So, you are saying that if they imposed 5mph limits on motorways you would drive them just as safely at 5mph as you would at 70, rather than getting bored, distracted, and even sleepy.

 

If Mr FW is such a driver, as he has from time to time claimed to be, then it would be reasonable to conclude from his statement that he is a dangerous lying idiot.

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.178.49

Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 23 2008, 3:52 AM 

Do you have any refutation of this argument, or do you now concede that driving is, indeed, a collective activity that only works if everyone is following the same set of rules?

Which rules are these then, FW?

The ones that say that when you decide to take the new segregated motorway standard bypass instead of the old STILL 40mph residential road the new road will have a faster limit appropriate to its standard?

And NOT a sCam "policed" 30!

 


Or are you talking about the rule, that you yourself clarified for me, that the limit should be used as a tool to facilitate the prosecution of those driving MARKEDLY in excess of, not the speed limit, but the safe speed for the road (but not, as I misquoted to you, the conditions)?

 

Or the associated rule that the limit should be set at the speed most drivers will drive a road at or below?

 


Or are you talking about some other rules that you have made up as you went along, and which no one else can then be expected to follow?

So do you now concede that driving is, indeed, a collective activity that only works if everyone is following the same set of rules?

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 23 2008, 2:40 PM 

The answer is almost certainly "No."

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.184.86

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 24 2008, 1:40 PM 

I asked:

So do you now concede that driving is, indeed, a collective activity that only works if everyone is following the same set of rules?

 

F.W. answered:

The answer is almost certainly "No."

 

You just argue for the sake of it, don't you?

You're just a troll, aren't you!

 

I'm glad we've got that settled at last!

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 24 2008, 6:44 PM 

Actually, you made 7 tedious rambling posts to which I suggested that the answer was "no," so I am not quite sure why you picked on that particular tedious point as the one to which the answer was directed. Unless you are being somewhat creative in the data that you select that "proves" you are right? Surely not...

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.185.244

Errrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 28 2008, 11:21 PM 

Selective?

 

So now you're saying you've completely changed your mind only on that point?!

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 29 2008, 1:39 AM 

changed y mind? No, I still know that you are ridiculously selective whenever you decide to quote "facts." In fact, sometimes more than selective. Sometimes you just lie. What fraction of lung cancers was it that you said could be attributed to a single non-smoking-related cancer? And what fraction did it turn out could really be attributed to this cancer?

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.185.244

Errrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 29 2008, 2:17 AM 

Was that the "debate" where you provided a link to an article with figures that "disproved" mine.

 

You know, the one where if you had bothered to read the next article that google threw up you would have seen that the writers of that one referred to your early and out of date article and noted that the figures must be wrong in the light of other research, and it simply highlighted the fact that more research was needed?!!?!?!?!

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

March 29 2008, 9:13 PM 

Remind me: what was the fraction you claimed? And what was the actual fraction according to all the scientific literature? Or have you conveniently rewritten history to believe that you never made such a ridiculous claim?

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.185.244

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

March 31 2008, 7:09 PM 

Remind me:

 

What did the more up to date studies say?

 

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 1 2008, 10:21 PM 

Well, pretty much the same. That you claimed it was a single non-smoking-related cancer responsible for 25% of cases of lung cancer. Whereas every authoritative source (that means people who know what they are talking about BJ) put the figure at 5%.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.129.29

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm

April 11 2008, 7:11 PM 

One of us appears to be confused here.

 

Let me rephrase that.

 

I was referring to the time when you referred to out of date studies when you could have referred to a current study which referred to the out of date studies as being out of date as current studies were showing that they must be wildly inaccurate and new studies were needed to establish just how wildly out they were.

 

Clearly there were no newer studies at the tim.

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 11 2008, 9:09 PM 

Actually, I was talking about your rather pathetic attempt to "prove" that smoking wasn't so bad for you by inventing the statistic that one single non-smoking-related cause of lung cancer was responsible for 25% of all cases, when actually it is only 5%. Or have you blotted this inconvenient demonstration of your general level of comfort with lying from your memory?

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.129.29

Errrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

April 11 2008, 9:57 PM 

No, it's just that you come out with so much crap.

And spend so much time shooting yourself in the foot.

That it's hard to keep track of which bit of bollocks you are boring us with.

 

But you do also often have your moments.

Like the time when you proved that I was wrong about the official guidelines for the policing of speed limits being that they should be used as a tool to facilitiate the prosecution of those driving markedly in excess of the safe speed for the road and the conditions.

That, in fact, the official guidelines for the policing of speed limits were that they should be used as a tool to facilitiate the prosecution of those driving markedly in excess of the safe speed for the road, and not the conditions.

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 12 2008, 10:39 AM 

Oh dear. At it again, BJ. Policing of speed limits is no different from policing of any other law. If you break the speeding law, then you are liable for prosecution. And the law is remarkably simple on the subject. Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states very clearly and simply that

> A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit
> imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be
> guilty of an offence.

So, no mention of "driving markedly in excess of the safe speed." And not surprising, given what a completely meaningless concept that is. It would be completely impossible to prosecute someone on that basis, since it would be a recipe for endless "expert witnesses" getting rich by arguing over what constitutes a safe speed, whether the safe speed for one motorist was the same as the safe speed for anotheer, etc, etc. The law therefore goes for a much simpler enforceable approach: exceed the speed limit and you are breaking the law. And the police uphold the law.

Oh, and please don't trot out all that tired nonsense about archery practice: I would have thought even you were intelligent enough to realise how ridiculous it makes you look.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 12 2008, 5:44 PM 

FW said: "So, no mention of "driving markedly in excess of the safe speed." And not surprising, given what a completely meaningless concept that is. It would be completely impossible to prosecute someone on that basis, since it would be a recipe for endless "expert witnesses" getting rich by arguing over what constitutes a safe speed, whether the safe speed for one motorist was the same as the safe speed for anotheer, etc, etc. The law therefore goes for a much simpler enforceable approach: exceed the speed limit and you are breaking the law. And the police uphold the law. "

It is called dangerous driving, and can be prosecuted quite easily. And in fact dangerous driving IS prosecuted on a routine basis. Driving too fast in bad conditions but within the speed limit is easy enough to prosecute. It has never been a recipe for expert witnesses getting rich.

Oh, except that idiots in government are moving more and more to enforcement by speed camera along, which has no concept of driving conditions.

You really are an ignorant fool FW.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 12 2008, 9:38 PM 

I think you will find the law on breaking the speed limit is very clear. It is a crime. Surely not so difficult to comprehend even for someone of your strictly limited means.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 12 2008, 10:40 PM 

FW: You really are a fool. Why not try READING THE BLOODY POST BEFORE YOU REPLY. Then your posting might make some sense. But I doubt it.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 13 2008, 12:29 AM 

Try reading the post that I was responding to, which claimed that policing of speeding was predicated on whether the speed was "markedly in excess of ths safe speed for the road," which, of course, it isn't, except in as much as the speed limit in some way reflects that speed. Policing of speeding is predicated on catching isiots who are incapable of even following the simple injunction set by a speed limit sign.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 13 2008, 8:42 AM 

FW: TRY QUOTING THE POST TO WHICH YOU REPLY. Then others might have a clue what you are on about. But then again, why bother since you are an ignorant fool. Freda isn't it?

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 13 2008, 1:58 PM 

Was relying on the intelligence of any reader to figure out what I was responding to, rather than just getting as far as realizing it wasn't in response to their post and throwing their toys out of the pram. My mistake. I will be more explicit in future for the benefit of the... intellectually challenged.

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 13 2008, 7:00 PM 

FW: Screw you you obnoxious jerk. It is normal to quote text to which you are replying if it is not the previous post. And as for intelligence, you demonstrate regularly that you know precious little about the subjects that you post about.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 13 2008, 7:36 PM 

> FW: Screw you you obnoxious jerk
>
Guaranteed to win the argument, while simultaneously demonstrating your sophistication and rapier-like wit. I would not dream of trying to compete (though I hope you appreciate the quotation to make it all that little bit simpler for you).

 
 
Not FW, but the true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 13 2008, 8:34 PM 

FW: What a hypocrite you are. You insulted me earlier. If you can't take abuse, don't give it. And don't abuse me, then pretend to be all pure as the driven snow like the sanctimonious fool that you are.

 
 
Anonymous
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 13 2008, 10:32 PM 

I have never made any claim at purity. I was merely pouring scorn upon a sophisticated put-down like

> FW: Screw you you obnoxious jerk

Wow. I really am getting the hang of this quoting thing. Whatever did I do before you suggested it?

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 13 2008, 10:33 PM 

Sorry. That was me, by the way. I realize you struggle when things aren't all completely spelled out for you.

 
 
Not FW, the one and only true Anonymous
(no login)
87.80.236.128

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 13 2008, 10:46 PM 

I can see how sad you are by the fact that you stalk Bogush in internet-land. Goodness knows why he bothers with you as you are so ill-informed. I bet you have little in the way of qualifications, little in the way of achievements (apart from a First in internet-stalking), and you clearly know very little from the childish simplistic arguments you use. It is as if you are some sort of local council dweeb out to push someones political nonsense.

Come on Bogush, get stuck into FW, cos I'm bored with the little girl.

 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 14 2008, 12:26 AM 

> clearly know very little from the childish simplistic arguments you use
> [...]
> Come on Bogush, get stuck into FW, cos I'm bored with the little girl.
>
I see you share BJ's highly-tuned sense of irony and self-deprecation.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.171.166

Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

April 18 2008, 2:23 AM 

Oh dear. At it again, BJ. Policing of speed limits is no different from policing of any other law. If you break the speeding law, then you are liable for prosecution. And the law is remarkably simple on the subject......

Oh, and please don't trot out all that tired nonsense about archery practice: I would have thought even you were intelligent enough to realise how ridiculous it makes you look.

Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm, why?

Oh, I know, because, until very recently, If you broke the archery law, then you were liable for prosecution. And the law was remarkably simple on the subject

Except that they hadn't prosecuted for centuries.

Because they chose not to enforce it.

And so people like you didn't bother to obey it.

Despite the fact that the law is the law.

But if I bring that up it makes YOU look ridiculous.

And you know just how ridiculous.

So you try to discourage me from bringing it up.

 

So, basically,

Policing of speed limits is very different from policing of many other laws.

Eg the policing of cannabis use.

Or the policing of people who damage property, threaten assault and rape, and eventually drive normally law abiding people to wave an air rifle over their heads or "discharge" an empty air pistol into the ground.

 

Oh dear. At it again, BJ. Policing of speed limits is no different from policing of any other law. If you break the speeding law, then you are liable for prosecution. And the law is remarkably simple on the subject. Section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states very clearly and simply that

> A person who drives a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a limit
> imposed by or under any enactment to which this section applies shall be
> guilty of an offence.

So, no mention of "driving markedly in excess of the safe speed." And not surprising, given

That that is the law which was brought in as a simple tool for the prosecution of those driving markedly over the limit.

Whereas the guidelines (which you, yourself, found for me) are the guidelines.

 

.....what a completely meaningless concept that is. It would be completely impossible to prosecute someone on that basis, since it would be a recipe for endless "expert witnesses" getting rich by arguing over what constitutes a safe speed, whether the safe speed for one motorist was the same as the safe speed for anotheer, etc, etc. The law therefore goes for a much simpler enforceable approach: exceed the speed limit and you are breaking the law. And the police uphold the law.

You really are an idiot.

Prosecuting someone for driving markedly in excess of the safe speed would, indeed, be a recipe for endless "expert witnesses" getting rich by arguing over what constitutes a safe speed, whether the safe speed for one motorist was the same as the safe speed for anotheer, etc, etc. The law therefore goes for a much simpler enforceable approach: exceed the speed limit and you are breaking the law. And the police uphold the law.

Or should uphold the law, by working to the guidelines and using the limits as a tool to facilitate thew prosecution of those not driving so dangerously that they could easily prosecute form dangerous driving.

 

And as you continually trot out:

Oh, and please don't trot out all that tired nonsense about archery practice: I would have thought even you were intelligent enough to realise how ridiculous it makes you look.

YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY FEELING REALLY GUILTY ABOUT BEING SUCH A HYPOCRITE ABOUT THE LAW BEING THE LAW BEING THERE TO BE OBEYED BY ALL ALL OF THE TIME.

Clearly you are aptly named, F*ck-W!t!

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.171.166

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

April 18 2008, 2:29 AM 

So, to summarise:

I think you will find the law on not doing your archery practice was very clear. It was a crime. Surely not so difficult to comprehend even for someone of your strictly limited means.

FW

So, FW, can you confirm whether you obeyed it every Sunday until it was taken off the statute books at the end of the 90's?

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.171.166

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

April 18 2008, 2:31 AM 

Or are you the biggest hypocrite ever?!?!?

FW

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.42

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 18 2008, 3:18 PM 

Am I the biggest hypocrite ever for believing that people who break the law have no cause for complaint when they are prosecuted and convicted for their crimes? I wouldn't have thought so, no. You are free to disagree, and even resort to swearing and giant letters followed by assorted punctuation, but that doesn't actually change the fact that driving in excess of the speed limit (not "markedly in excess of the speed limit") is a crime, which makes those who do it criminals. If you choose to attempt to trivialize their infraction by likening it to archery practice on a Sunday afternoon, then that is of course also your right, and at least serves the useful purpose of highlighting how seriously any of your "arguments" should be taken.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.105.171.166

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

April 21 2008, 12:02 AM 

You ask:

"Am I the biggest hypocrite ever for believing that people who break the law have no cause for complaint when they are prosecuted and convicted for their crimes? I wouldn't have thought so, no. You are free to disagree, and even resort to swearing and giant letters followed by assorted punctuation, but that doesn't actually change the fact that driving in excess of the speed limit (not "markedly in excess of the speed limit") is a crime, which makes those who do it criminals."

So, you say that it is a crime, and those that do it are criminals.

Am I with you so far?

 

You then go on to argue:

" If you choose to attempt to trivialize their infraction by likening it to archery practice on a Sunday afternoon, then that is of course also your right, and at least serves the useful purpose of highlighting how seriously any of your "arguments" should be taken."

Actually, it just "serves the useful purpose of highlighting how seriously any of YOUR "arguments" should be taken".

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

But until it was taken off the statute books at the end of the 1990's. or possibly beginning of the 2000's, it was illegal not to practice your archery every Sunday.

Or, to use your language, it was:

"a crime, which makes those who do it criminals".

 

Now, did you practice your archery every Sunday until the point at which it was legalised?

If not:

You are free to disagree, and even resort to swearing and giant letters followed by assorted punctuation, but that doesn't actually change the fact that it was a crime, which makes those who didn't do it criminals.

 

Do you admit you are a criminal, FW?

If not you are:

the biggest hypocrite ever

 

And you:

choose to attempt to trivialize your infraction

that is of course also your right, and at least serves the useful purpose of highlighting how seriously any of your "arguments" should be taken.


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 24 2008, 7:33 PM 

If the law required me to do archery every Sunday (and I have never seen any evidence that this is any more than an urban myth), then, yes, I would have been a criminal, and I would have had no objection to the CPS demanding whatever retribution this heinous crime required (2 duckets and twenty minutes in the stocks, perhaps).

Fortunately, the CPS had more sense (assuming this law ever existed), but sadly you don't.

 
 
FW
(no login)
128.243.220.42

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

April 25 2008, 5:27 PM 

> Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
>
> But until it was taken off the statute books at the end of the 1990's. or
> possibly beginning of the 2000's, it was illegal not to practice your
> archery every Sunday.

Well, you know me -- always happy to correct you when you have made up some "facts" to "prove" your argument. For the umpteenth time.

I'd recommend http://www.archery.mysaga.net/archlaws.html, which concludes:

F The law requires all Englishmen to practice archery. T It did so once
upon a time. Tb It stopped doing so in 1863. T It definitely stopped doing
so in 1960.

So, you are off by somewhere between 30 and 140 years. Not bad by your usual standards, I suppose.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.107.192.201

Errrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm

May 18 2008, 1:02 AM 

Apologies.

I'd overlooked these two "replies" of yours, FW!

 

If the law required me to do archery every Sunday (and I have never seen any evidence that this is any more than an urban myth), then, yes, I would have been a criminal, and I would have had no objection to the CPS demanding whatever retribution this heinous crime required (2 duckets and twenty minutes in the stocks, perhaps).

Fortunately, the CPS had more sense (assuming this law ever existed), but sadly you don't.

The CPS has more sense than to prosecute people for not practising a skill that could save their lives in a war, especially if food were scare.

A skill that could be vital if we were invaded, supply lines cut, and relying on people living off the land and using stealth guerrilla tactics.

More sense than to prosecute what is effectively treason.

 

Preferring to direct their time and energy to getting people off the roads for being snapped three times doing 35 on a former 70 dual carriageway.

Or by a mis set sCamera.

 

Etc, etc, etc......................

 


 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.107.192.201

Errrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

May 18 2008, 1:08 AM 

Well, you know me -- always happy to correct you when you have made up some "facts" to "prove" your argument. For the umpteenth time.

I'd recommend http://www.archery.mysaga.net/archlaws.html, which concludes:

F The law requires all Englishmen to practice archery. T It did so once
upon a time. Tb It stopped doing so in 1863. T It definitely stopped doing
so in 1960.

So, you are off by somewhere between 30 and 140 years. Not bad by your usual standards, I suppose.

 

Funny, I could have sworn that when I followed your link it said something like the last time a law mentioned people having to do archery practice: it was an anti-gambling law that banned certain pastimes to ensure they didn't distract people from doing their archery practice.

And then said when THAT law was rescinded by another gambling act.

 

That's not the same as saying that the law that made archery practice compulsory was rescinded then.

Is it?!


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

May 18 2008, 7:46 PM 

I know that any line of reasoning that requires basic comprehension and logic is beyond you, BJ, but yes it does mean that your oft-quoted statement about compulsory archery practice only being taken off the statute books at the end of the 1990s is in line with almost all of your "authoritative" pronouncements: it is made up twaddle.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.107.200.104

Errrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

May 24 2008, 12:10 PM 

So a gambling law that repeals a gambling law that had a provision for banning certain games to prevent them from distracting from people from their duty under another act repeals that act itself.

In the logic of your world, FW.

 

How, exactly, even on your planet.

 

That's like saying a law rescinding wartime licensing laws brought in to stop people drinking when they should be manufacturing munitions automatically rescinded any laws to so with making munitions.

 

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

May 24 2008, 2:35 PM 

Actually it was just your blethering about some ancient legal requirement to do archery practice only being repealed at the end of the 1990s, where it transpires that someone who actually bothered to check found that what you repeated endlessly wasn't true at all.

But it isn't so much the specific example, more your philosophy for life: never let the facts stand in the way of what you know to be true.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.107.200.104

Errrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

May 26 2008, 4:00 PM 

Actually, as I'd demonstrated, they merely proved that a gambling law had been rescinded, not the archery law.

 

But as you insist on arguing the toss here's a simpler one for you:

Did you never buy any prohibited goods from a corner shop on a Sunday?

 

And you know you did!

 


 
 
FW
(no login)
81.100.81.248

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

May 26 2008, 8:09 PM 

Indeed, he showed that the law into which the archery law had been subsumed was repealed decades ago. So, unlike you, he actually bothered to find out what had happened to the archery law, and checked his facts rather than just parroting what he wanted to be true.

 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.107.219.46

Errmmmmmmmm

June 2 2008, 9:38 PM 

Subsumed?

Show me where?

 

Or, alternatively, consider why he himself doubts!

 


 
 
bogush
(Login bogush)
Forum Owner
91.107.219.46

Errrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm

June 2 2008, 9:57 PM 

But, in the meantime, this is the topic of this thread:

 

£1.5 million Speed Camera Blunder

Tuesday 4th March

For more than 10 years a speed camera in Dorset snapped drivers going over the speed limit - except, it turns out, they weren't.

Just a Cash Machine?
Just a Cash Machine?
Now the safety camera partnership concerned is facing up to paying back the £1.5million in fines it collected.

A paperwork blunder led to 25,000 motorists being given points and ordered to pay £60 fines.

But now the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership has been forced to admit a legal error which was spotted by a judge during a case involving lorry driver Alan Dawe last year.

She noticed that paperwork for the camera indicated a road used to mark out the 30mph zone on the A35 at Chideock, Dorset, didn't actually exist.

Instead of using the correct name Duck Street, it used Seatown Road.

It means every conviction issued by the camera towards Exeter since 1997 is void. The partnership admits other drivers might want to be reimbursed.

From:

£1.5 MILLION SPEED CAMERA BLUNDER

 


 
 

(Login tpg)
62.49.7.172

Re: Another Illegal Cam sCam!

June 2 2008, 10:00 PM 

So what?

The point remains that these people were speeding. They deserve everything they got. It just shows how pathetic and selfish you lot are that you'd try and squirm out of your just and right punishment on a typing error.

Shame on you. Shame on you all.


TPG - FIGHTING FOR FUEL TAX - FIGHTING FOR YOU!

 
 
Current Topic - Another Illegal Cam sCam!  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum Index  
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
   

..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page ..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page.....The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Ecology Truth or Myth Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Resources Page..... The Its YOUR Duty! Motorists Protest News Page............................. !!gg* .......................... !! * .....................


Visitors are requested to keep their posts "legal, decent and honest" and comply with the normal rules of society and web netiquette. Visitors are fully responsible for their own posts and any consequences thereof. However, whilst accepting no responsibility for same, I reserve the right to remove any posts I happen to come across that I feel might be "dubious". The contents of any posts, or websites linked from any posts or any pages on this or related websites do not neccesarily reflect the views or opinions of the forum owner. All copyrights, trademarks, etc, acknowledged