 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / November 2005This Was Unfair!
I generally don't mind speed cameras, but I've recently seen something that I thought was a little unfair. There was camera van waiting at the side of the road, just as the limit changes from 60mph to 30mph. To make it worse the limit was soon after a bend. I know the road well, and I start to slow down well before the sign is even visible. If somebody doesn't know the road, they would need to brake reasonably heavy, and if they don't react as quick as they should, or they have a tailgater behind there would be problems. It is reasonable to expect people to slow down, but I wouldn't be too upset if somebody passed the sign at say 40mph. The camera van was parked in the 60mph limit, just passed the 30mph sign! So he would have been catching people very soon after the 30mph sign. >I generally don't mind speed cameras, but I've recently seen something > that I thought was a little unfair. There was camera van waiting at [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sign! So he would have been catching people very soon after the 30mph > sign. Sorry: Which part of "Max Speed 30 mph" didn't you understand??? >> I generally don't mind speed cameras, but I've recently seen >> something that I thought was a little unfair. There was camera van [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Sorry: Which part of "Max Speed 30 mph" didn't you understand??? So you are supposed to know the sign is round the corner *before|* you get to it, and lose 30mph before you see it. Hmm. A number of places round here have III-II-I countdowns for speed limit changes. If you get caught there, fair enough. But it is physically impossible for people to even start slowing for the new limit until they have a) seen the sign and b) had the requisite thinking time. Red light cameras aren';t allowed to catch you for something like 3 seconds after the lights change. How come speed cameras don't have to wait say 2 seconds deceleration time after the start of the limit? >>> I generally don't mind speed cameras, but I've recently seen >>> something that I thought was a little unfair. There was camera van [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > So you are supposed to know the sign is round the corner *before|* > you get to it, and lose 30mph before you see it. Hmm. The OP knows the road and will have known about the change, where the signs are etc. If he went through at above 30mph then he did so in full knowledge that he was speeding. If he's bleating on about being unfairly caught speeding then tough.  Signaturewww.pickuptruckracing.com - UK's closest race series Spotter for the PWR truck #9 Watch us here: http://tinyurl.com/79xxg >>>> I generally don't mind speed cameras, but I've recently seen >>>> something that I thought was a little unfair. There was camera van [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > If he's bleating on about being unfairly caught speeding then tough. If you'd bother reading the post you'd find he wasn't - he was saying it was unfair for people who didn't know the road and therefore wouldn't have slowed down beforwe they could possibly have known about the limit and therefore would have been caught by the camera van immediately after the limit change. Which brings me straight back to my point - how come they are allowed to catch you as soon as the limit changes, rather than some fixed time/distance after as it is with traffic light cameras??? PC Paul <me@home.com> wrote on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:03:53 +0100: > > Which brings me straight back to my point - how come they are allowed to > catch you as soon as the limit changes, rather than some fixed > time/distance after as it is with traffic light cameras??? Because the limit changes at the point it changes. It always changes there and is entirely predictable. If you can't slow down to the (new) speed limit in the distance you can see, how can you expect to stop in the distance you can see to be clear if there's a person or car in the middle of the road round the corner? SignatureDavid Taylor >PC Paul <me@home.com> wrote on Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:03:53 +0100: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Because the limit changes at the point it changes. It always changes >there and is entirely predictable. Only if you know it's there. >If you can't slow down to the (new) speed limit in the distance you >can see, how can you expect to stop in the distance you can see to be >clear if there's a person or car in the middle of the road round the >corner? In that case you'd do an emergency stop. If road signs are set up so as to require emergency braking, there's something wrong with their placement. SignatureIan > In that case you'd do an emergency stop. If road signs are set up so > as to require emergency braking, there's something wrong with their > placement. You don;t need to, they aren't. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. > > In that case you'd do an emergency stop. If road signs are set up so > > as to require emergency braking, there's something wrong with their > > placement. > > > You don;t need to, they aren't. Sometimes they are. Some years ago, the 30mph as you entered our village was just over the brow of a hill. Most drivers when they saw it would slow down, but unless they braked quite hard, they'd pass the sign at over the limit. The road being downhill didn't help. For a period the police had field days, setting up their camera in a small layby just after the sign every few days, and catching many drivers. After complaints, including ones by the villagers themselves, who'd no problem in slowing down previously in the short downhill stretch, the sign was moved to the bottom of the hill. After that was done the police lost interest. Obviously the pickings became too lean to make it worth their while. I've no doubt that similar examples to this and Peters can be found all over the country. Mike. >> > In that case you'd do an emergency stop. If road signs are set up >> > so as to require emergency braking, there's something wrong with >> > their placement. >> You don;t need to, they aren't. > Sometimes they are. > Some years ago, the 30mph as you entered our village was just over the > brow of a hill. Most drivers when they saw it would slow down, but > unless they braked quite hard, they'd pass the sign at over the limit. If the brow was so sharp that a 6ft+ tall sign wasn't visibile in enough time to get down to 30mph without braking "quite hard" how would they have coped with a less tall hazard, such as a stationary car? > >> > In that case you'd do an emergency stop. If road signs are set up > >> > so as to require emergency braking, there's something wrong with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > time to get down to 30mph without braking "quite hard" how would they have > coped with a less tall hazard, such as a stationary car? Precisely. Just another example proving quite well that drivers are incapable of judging appropriate speeds thus enforcing the need for limits. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. || Just another example proving quite well that drivers are incapable of || judging appropriate speeds thus enforcing the need for limits. If you can't trust yourself to drive safely without nannying, some might wonder why you choose to do such a dangerous job for a living. SignatureRob > || Just another example proving quite well that drivers are incapable of > || judging appropriate speeds thus enforcing the need for limits. > > If you can't trust yourself to drive safely without nannying, some might > wonder why you choose to do such a dangerous job for a living. Whats so dangerous about it? Hinting at your own inadequacy as a driver? SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. || In article <djthc4$qd2$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Rob || says... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] || Whats so dangerous about it? Hinting at your own inadequacy as a || driver? I'm happy with my standard of driving thanks. You're the one saying you're incapable of judging appropriate speed, not me. SignatureRob >>> In article <djthc4$qd2$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, Rob >>> says... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I'm happy with my standard of driving thanks. That's a very dangerous attitude. || Rob wrote: ||| Conor wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] || || That's a very dangerous attitude. No it isn't. It would be if I said I was perfect and couldn't learn anything more. I am happy enough with my standard that gives me the confidence to choose an appropriate safe speed (usually below the limit btw) without having to rely on speed limit signs. SignatureRob "Rob" wrote in message > > No it isn't. It would be if I said I was perfect and couldn't learn > anything more. I am happy enough with my standard that gives me the > confidence to choose an appropriate safe speed (usually below the limit > btw) without having to rely on speed limit signs. Is that why 59.6% of fatal road accidents in 2004 occurred on rural roads where there is usually no stated speed limit except for the National Limits. Around my part of the countryside I regularly see the result of drivers who were unable to drive at an appropriate speed. They are the ones over turned in a field after not making it around a bend or in a ditch for the same reason. A few more arbitrary speed limits enforced with speed cameras would help reduce the number of those accidents as drivers are quite obviously unable to make decisions about appropriate speed themselves. Ian > > Is that why 59.6% of fatal road accidents in 2004 occurred on rural roads [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in a field after not making it around a bend or in a ditch for the same > reason. That's abviously been caused by speed limits. If there was no limit, these drivers would obviously have, erm, or something. Well, that's the screamifyouwannagofaster argument, anyway. Ian >> >> Is that why 59.6% of fatal road accidents in 2004 occurred on rural roads [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >these drivers would obviously have, erm, or something. Well, that's >the screamifyouwannagofaster argument, anyway. More likely caused, or exacerbated, by drink and/or drugs and/or the bravado of youth - none of which are responsive to "camera control". SignatureJeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K. jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address) and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :) ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea.." Henry James, (1843 - 1916). > "Rob" wrote in message > >> No it isn't. It would be if I said I was perfect and couldn't learn anything [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the number of those accidents as drivers are quite obviously unable to make > decisions about appropriate speed themselves. How would enforcing other limits cut these accidents if they are happening under the limit? "Depresion" wrote in message > "Ian" wrote in message >> "Rob" wrote in message > >>> No it isn't. It would be if I said I was perfect and couldn't learn [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > How would enforcing other limits cut these accidents if they are happening > under the limit? Generally the accidents I see in the countryside only involve one vehicle. A farmers fence might get damaged, but that is about all that happens to third parties. The driver and passengers in the vehicle might be killed or injured too. Similar accidents in crowded urban areas usually involve third parties as there are more of them to hit. Hence the need to enforce speed limits in areas where there are more people. Ian || "Rob" wrote in message > ||| No it isn't. It would be if I said I was perfect and couldn't learn [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] || roads where there is usually no stated speed limit except for the || National Limits. No idea, I wasn't involved in any of those. || Around my part of the countryside I regularly see || the result of drivers who were unable to drive at an appropriate || speed. They are the ones over turned in a field after not making it || around a bend or in a ditch for the same reason. I agree there is plenty of evidence that *some* drivers are too stupid to drive at an appropriate speed, some of them shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a car. || A few more || arbitrary speed limits enforced with speed cameras would help reduce || the number of those accidents as drivers are quite obviously unable || to make decisions about appropriate speed themselves. Are you perhaps under the mistaken impression that I am against speed limits? - I can tell you that I'm not. I'm not even entirely opposed to speed cameras. SignatureRob > >> > In that case you'd do an emergency stop. If road signs are set up > >> > so as to require emergency braking, there's something wrong with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > time to get down to 30mph without braking "quite hard" how would they have > coped with a less tall hazard, such as a stationary car? Most drivers would already be slowing down because of the restricted visibility due to the hill. Seeing the sign meant they had to slow down more, but without undue heavy braking they'd still pass the sign at over 30mph. Maybe not by much, but enough to interest the police. A parked vehicle would just mean they'd have to brake very heavily if they couldn't pass it. In fact the road goes right to the edge of a low embankment. No footpath or access from that side of the road at all. Only a foolish person would walk there, with vehicles driving within inches of the embankment. The whole road was not that wide. Two lorries passing left very space between the embankment one side, and the pavement the other. The only vehicle likely to be stationary would be one that had broken down. Parking would have caused a severe obstruction, and would soon have been cleared. The Police Stn was only about 100 yds away. :-) Mike. >>>> I generally don't mind speed cameras, but I've recently seen >>>> something that I thought was a little unfair. There was camera van [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >are etc. If he went through at above 30mph then he did so in full knowledge >that he was speeding. Can you read? He didn't. >If he's bleating on about being unfairly caught speeding then tough. He isn't. What the f.ck are you bleating on about? SignatureIan >> If he's bleating on about being unfairly caught speeding then tough. > > He isn't. What the f.ck are you bleating on about? Actually he is. Signaturewww.pickuptruckracing.com - UK's closest race series Spotter for the PWR truck #9 Watch us here: http://tinyurl.com/79xxg >>> If he's bleating on about being unfairly caught speeding then tough. >> >> He isn't. What the f.ck are you bleating on about? > > Actually he is. Where? >>>> If he's bleating on about being unfairly caught speeding then >>>> tough. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Where? His whole OP is about how it would be unfair if someone got caught by the camera. Signaturewww.pickuptruckracing.com - UK's closest race series Spotter for the PWR truck #9 Watch us here: http://tinyurl.com/79xxg [...] > If he's bleating on about being unfairly caught speeding then tough. It's pinking Peter and he's neither bleating nor caught. He's just beginning to notice what a bunch of scamming c.nts the scamera partners are. A > He's just beginning to notice what a bunch of scamming c.nts the scamera > partners are. In this case they are not only catching people exceeding a 30mph limit - they are catching people who are driving too fast to se and react to a sped limit sign in time. Since they should be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear they are quite obviously driving at a speed inappropriate to the conditions, and perhaps without due care and attention, and therefore deserve all they get. Ian >> He's just beginning to notice what a bunch of scamming c.nts the >> scamera partners are. > > In this case they are not only catching people exceeding a 30mph > limit - they are catching people who are driving too fast to se and > react to a sped limit sign in time. ...or perhaps those who accelerate on being past the hazard rather than past the sign. > Since they should be able to stop in the distance they can see to be > clear they are quite obviously driving at a speed inappropriate to > the conditions, and perhaps without due care and attention, and > therefore deserve all they get. Being able to stop and coasting down from 60 to 30 are not the same thing. Even an Anglia on crossplies slows more than twice as quickly as a car in top gear on a trailing throttle. A > So you are supposed to know the sign is round the corner *before|* you get > to it, and lose 30mph before you see it. Hmm. Drive at a speed suitable for the distance you can see. And people think drivers are capable of judging a safe speed.... SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. >> So you are supposed to know the sign is round the corner *before|* >> you get to it, and lose 30mph before you see it. Hmm. >> > Drive at a speed suitable for the distance you can see. > > And people think drivers are capable of judging a safe speed.... Signs are not on the road. You can usually see a long way round a corner to know the road is clear without necessarily seeing a speed limit sign on the side of the road, in the bushes. To focus back on the point, are you expected to be below the limit as you pass the sign? And is that always possible for a step change in limit? > Signs are not on the road. You can usually see a long way round a corner to > know the road is clear without necessarily seeing a speed limit sign on the > side of the road, in the bushes. And what about the pedestrian just walking past the sign? "That's OK Sir, you could see that some of the road was clear. We'll just let the ambulance crew finish picking him out of your radiator grille and you can be on your way." Ian >> Signs are not on the road. You can usually see a long way round a corner to >> know the road is clear without necessarily seeing a speed limit sign on the >> side of the road, in the bushes. > > And what about the pedestrian just walking past the sign? (S)He would get what they deserve for crossing when there is oncoming traffic. > >> Signs are not on the road. You can usually see a long way round a corner to > >> know the road is clear without necessarily seeing a speed limit sign on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (S)He would get what they deserve for crossing when there is oncoming traffic. What do you mean "crossing", town boy? Yours on the verge, Ian >> >> Signs are not on the road. You can usually see a long way round a corner >> >> to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yours on the verge, If they aren't on the road what's the problem? > >> >> Signs are not on the road. You can usually see a long way round a corner > >> >> to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > What do you mean "crossing", town boy? > If they aren't on the road what's the problem? And if they are, what's the problem? >> >> >> Signs are not on the road. You can usually see a long way round a >> >> >> corner [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And if they are, what's the problem? Precisly. Pedestrians should know there place. > >> >> >> Signs are not on the road. You can usually see a long way round a > >> >> >> corner [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Precisly. Pedestrians should know there place. Uh huh. Not the sharpest tool in the box, are you? > Uh huh. Not the sharpest tool in the box, are you? From a mallet like you that must be a compliment. > > If they aren't on the road what's the problem? > > And if they are, what's the problem? There is none, as long as drivers behave responsibly. If they demand the right to scoot round any corner as fast as they want, regardless, then there is quite a serious problem... Ian > > > If they aren't on the road what's the problem? > > > > And if they are, what's the problem? > > There is none, as long as drivers behave responsibly. I know what. >> > If they aren't on the road what's the problem? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the right to scoot round any corner as fast as they want, regardless, > then there is quite a serious problem... Where did you get the idea of anything else from? That said it's not just the responsibility of drives to behave all road users need to be accountable for there actions "speed" is simply being used as a scapegoat rather than concentrating on the big picture of safe road use. Presumably because it's a lot easier to say the driver was going too fast than to say the now dead child shouldn't have been allowed to play chicken with cars (we have all seen them do it, hide behind a parked van then jump out) or that the pedestrian should have looked both ways before stepping into the road or indeed that the driver was simply a bad driver who wasn't paying attention. The problem comes from people like mullarkey who can count to there IQ of 6 using the fingers on one hand who are incapable of independent thought so need everything laying out in black and white. > >> > If they aren't on the road what's the problem? > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > looked both ways before stepping into the road or indeed that the driver was > simply a bad driver who wasn't paying attention. A lot of kiddies playing chicken around parked cars on country roads near you? You've completely missed the point. Again. >> >> > If they aren't on the road what's the problem? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > A lot of kiddies playing chicken around parked cars on country roads > near you? Yes, for a time. > To focus back on the point, are you expected to be below the limit as you > pass the sign? At or below, yes. > And is that always possible for a step change in limit? > Sorry, could you rephrase that? SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. >> To focus back on the point, are you expected to be below the limit >> as you pass the sign? > > At or below, yes. Even if the sign is badly sited and you can't see it until you are 10m away? >> And is that always possible for a step change in limit? >> > Sorry, could you rephrase that? Sorry, step' is a long word, isn't it? The limit changes from 60mph to 30mph instantly - a step change. Cars cannot do that. I know your 44 tonner can stop in 1 foot in the wet but us mere mortals take time to decelerate... Assuming you are driving along an unfamiliar road then there is a time delay between seeing the speed limit sign, applying the brakes or otherwise slowing the car, and the final desired speed being reached. How harshly do you think it is reasonable to expect people to slow down at that point? If a badly sited or overgrown speed limit sign means that you have 10m to lose 30mph, are you expected to slam on the brakes? > A number of places round here have III-II-I countdowns for speed limit > changes. If you get caught there, fair enough. Assuming there are valid safety reasons for reducing the speed limit from 60 to 30, it would actually make more sense to stagger the speed reduction with 50 and 40 speed limit signs placed earlier. Bernard >> A number of places round here have III-II-I countdowns for speed limit >> changes. If you get caught there, fair enough. > > Assuming there are valid safety reasons for reducing the speed limit from > 60 to 30, it would actually make more sense to stagger the speed reduction > with 50 and 40 speed limit signs placed earlier. Why? >> A number of places round here have III-II-I countdowns for speed limit >> changes. If you get caught there, fair enough. > > Assuming there are valid safety reasons for reducing the speed limit from 60 > to 30, it would actually make more sense to stagger the speed reduction with > 50 and 40 speed limit signs placed earlier. Or a count down to the limit as some counties use where limit changes can be obscured. >> A number of places round here have III-II-I countdowns for speed >> limit changes. If you get caught there, fair enough. > > Assuming there are valid safety reasons for reducing the speed limit > from 60 to 30, it would actually make more sense to stagger the speed > reduction with 50 and 40 speed limit signs placed earlier. No. There is no need for a limit before the hazard. Warning of the impending limit may be useful though. A > Red light cameras aren';t allowed to catch you for something like 3 seconds > after the lights change. How come speed cameras don't have to wait say 2 > seconds deceleration time after the start of the limit? Lights change, speed limit signs do not! >> Red light cameras aren';t allowed to catch you for something like 3 >> seconds after the lights change. How come speed cameras don't have >> to wait say 2 seconds deceleration time after the start of the limit? > > Lights change, speed limit signs do not! The first time you come across a sign, it doesn't matter if it's been there years or went up ten minutes ago... If all signs were planned carefully so you could see them far enough ahead (using the highway code figures, that's 59m for 60-30 for a roughish deceleration*) then no problem. And if all speed limits were set at a sensible level, no problem. However this may not prove to be the case.... *to try to save another post (fat chance): take the 60mph figures: 18m thinking+55m stopping distance. Then take off the 30mph 14m stopping distance. That leaves 18+(55-14) = 59m. At 'stop for an unexpected hazard' rates of deceleration. > That leaves 18+(55-14) = 59m. At 'stop for an unexpected hazard' > rates of deceleration. In a Ford Anglia with drums on crossplies. Ian >> That leaves 18+(55-14) = 59m. At 'stop for an unexpected hazard' >> rates of deceleration. > > In a Ford Anglia with drums on crossplies. So as modern vehicles can stop in a significantly shorter distance we should all be allowed to drive correspondingly over the speed limit? Why pick when a figure is applicable and when it isn't? > >> That leaves 18+(55-14) = 59m. At 'stop for an unexpected hazard' > >> rates of deceleration. > > > > In a Ford Anglia with drums on crossplies. > So as modern vehicles can stop in a significantly shorter distance we should all > be allowed to drive correspondingly over the speed limit? That's why I have consistently said that I think speed limits are far too low, yes. Doesn't alter the fact that anyone who goes tearing round a blind bend on the assumption that there will not be a lower speed limit / pedestrian / sheep on the road / fallen tree ahead is a git. Ian >> That leaves 18+(55-14) = 59m. At 'stop for an unexpected hazard' >> rates of deceleration. > >In a Ford Anglia with drums on crossplies. Or a 1929 3.0Litre Bentley :-) SignatureJeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K. jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address) and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :) ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea.." Henry James, (1843 - 1916). > >> That leaves 18+(55-14) = 59m. At 'stop for an unexpected hazard' > >> rates of deceleration. > > > >In a Ford Anglia with drums on crossplies. > > Or a 1929 3.0Litre Bentley :-) Would that be blown or unblown? :-) Mike. >> >> That leaves 18+(55-14) = 59m. At 'stop for an unexpected hazard' >> >> rates of deceleration. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Would that be blown or unblown? :-) I think that the "Blower Bentleys" were 4.5Litres... :-) SignatureJeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K. jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address) and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :) ... "There are few hours in life more agreeable than the hour dedicated to the ceremony known as afternoon tea.." Henry James, (1843 - 1916). >> Or a 1929 3.0Litre Bentley :-) > Would that be blown or unblown? :-) Ignoramus. A Blower would be a Four and a Half. > Lights change, speed limit signs do not! You sure about that, Peter? Speed limit signs NEVER change? > > Lights change, speed limit signs do not! > > You sure about that, Peter? Speed limit signs NEVER change? M25? ;-) SignatureMichael Cotton "People will listen to reason, provided you give them reason to listen." Reply email address is a spam trap. >> > Lights change, speed limit signs do not! >> >> You sure about that, Peter? Speed limit signs NEVER change? > >M25? Shhh - We don't mention the M25 to Peter... SignatureIan > So you are supposed to know the sign is round the corner *before|* you get > to it, and lose 30mph before you see it. Hmm. You're supposed to be able to /stop/ in the distance you can see clear, so merely slowing to 30mph shouldn't be a problem. Ian ||| The camera van was parked in the 60mph limit, just passed the 30mph ||| sign! So he would have been catching people very soon after the ||| 30mph sign. || || Sorry: Which part of "Max Speed 30 mph" didn't you understand??? Oh dear..... SignatureRob > I generally don't mind speed cameras, but I've recently seen > something that I thought was a little unfair. There was camera van > waiting at the side of the road, just as the limit changes from 60mph > to 30mph. To make it worse the limit was soon after a bend. What you must realise is that *all* Talivan and everyone involved in their operation are extortionist scum unfit for polite society. Shun them. A > What you must realise is that *all* Talivan and everyone involved in > their operation are extortionist scum unfit for polite society. Nine points on the licence, is it? Ian >> What you must realise is that *all* Talivan and everyone involved >> in their operation are extortionist scum unfit for polite society. > > Nine points on the licence, is it? None. Ever. A >>> What you must realise is that *all* Talivan and everyone involved >>> in their operation are extortionist scum unfit for polite society. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ever. Yet. [...] >>> Nine points on the licence, is it? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yet. True. I am careful not to do anything I'm likely to get points for though. A > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I am careful not to do anything I'm likely to get points for though. Or careful not to get caught? [...] >> I am careful not to do anything I'm likely to get points for >> though. > > Or careful not to get caught? That's something I'd get points for. A > I generally don't mind speed cameras, but I've recently seen something > that I thought was a little unfair. There was camera van waiting at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reasonable to expect people to slow down, but I wouldn't be too upset > if somebody passed the sign at say 40mph. So your saying that drivers come round the bend, and don't have time to brake to 30 because the sign is so close after the bend? They should be driving at such a speed that they can stop in the distance they can see, if they are going so bloody fast that they cannot slow to 30 in the distance they can see, then they should be bloody banned, never mind ticketed! > So your saying that drivers come round the bend, and don't have time to > brake to 30 because the sign is so close after the bend? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mind > ticketed! What an idiot you are. Being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear means being able to do an EMERGENCY STOP, braking far more quickly than you would do under normal circumstances. You should not be expected to carry out an emergency braking manouver just to comply with a speed limit, anybody who does so should be bloody banned, never mind ticketed. The tailvan operators obviously know this all too well which is why they set up where they did. > What an idiot you are. Being able to stop in the distance you can see to be > clear means being able to do an EMERGENCY STOP, braking far more quickly > than you would do under normal circumstances. Err, actually it isn't. It is meant to stop in a safe manner. Emergency stopping is something the incompetent do. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. >> What an idiot you are. Being able to stop in the distance you can see to be >> clear means being able to do an EMERGENCY STOP, braking far more quickly >> than you would do under normal circumstances. > >Err, actually it isn't. It is meant to stop in a safe manner. Emergency >stopping is something the incompetent do. Rubbish. SignatureIan >>> What an idiot you are. Being able to stop in the distance you can >>> see to be clear means being able to do an EMERGENCY STOP, braking [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rubbish. Whatever. You should almost never need to perform an emergency stop. Signaturewww.pickuptruckracing.com - UK's closest race series Spotter for the PWR truck #9 Watch us here: http://tinyurl.com/79xxg >>>> What an idiot you are. Being able to stop in the distance you can >>>> see to be clear means being able to do an EMERGENCY STOP, braking [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Whatever. You should almost never need to perform an emergency stop. True. Some events cannot reasonably be anticipated, though. Driving so as to be able to stop without extreme braking in every possible eventuality would amount to never making reasonable progress. SignatureIan > True. Some events cannot reasonably be anticipated, though. Driving so > as to be able to stop without extreme braking in every possible > eventuality would amount to never making reasonable progress. Huh? SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. || In article <vg44m1tqpqvegaq8tf1n8o1l5ahbrqmse0@4ax.com>, Ian Dalziel || says... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] ||| || Huh? Seems clear to me. SignatureRob Rob formulated on Friday : > || In article <vg44m1tqpqvegaq8tf1n8o1l5ahbrqmse0@4ax.com>, Ian Dalziel > || says... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Seems clear to me. ..and me. You can only drive at a speed which allows for that which can normally be expected to happen with some level of regularity, events which can be anticipated to happen. You cannot allow for the road directly in front of you suddenly collapsing, a tree falling over, or a car coming the opposite way suddenly sliding across into your path. If you were to drive at a speed which did allow for these unlikely incidents, then you would never move. Certain of the listed incidents could be equally disasterous even if you were stationary. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk >Certain of the listed incidents > could be equally disasterous even if you were stationary. Is this supposed to mean something? SignaturePhil Kyle™ http://philkyle2003.reachme.at/ "The truly racist person is one Helene Rudlin, who admits it." - Neil Barker <MPG.1c47999866a4baf798976c@127.0.0.1> "I wonder - is there perhaps some form of cosmetic surgery we can pay for, so that Helene can actually become a coon ?" - Neil Barker <MPG.1c479b87e7a43ce989770@127.0.0.1> > Rob formulated on Friday : > > || In article <vg44m1tqpqvegaq8tf1n8o1l5ahbrqmse0@4ax.com>, Ian Dalziel [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > front of you suddenly collapsing, a tree falling over, or a car coming > the opposite way suddenly sliding across into your path. And how many times have you even witnessed that, let alone have it happen to you? > If you were to drive at a speed which did allow for these unlikely > incidents, then you would never move. Certain of the listed incidents > could be equally disasterous even if you were stationary. If you were so paranoid it'd happen, you'd never get in a car so it's a bit of a stupid argument don't you think? SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. >> Rob formulated on Friday : >> > || In article <vg44m1tqpqvegaq8tf1n8o1l5ahbrqmse0@4ax.com>, Ian Dalziel [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >And how many times have you even witnessed that, let alone have it >happen to you? Never. That's the point. You can only allow for likely developments, leave a comfort margin for them anyway. Something extremely unlikely, when it happens - and they do sometimes - can require maximum, emergency braking *without* there having been a failure of anticipation. >> If you were to drive at a speed which did allow for these unlikely >> incidents, then you would never move. Certain of the listed incidents >> could be equally disasterous even if you were stationary. >> >If you were so paranoid it'd happen, you'd never get in a car so it's a >bit of a stupid argument don't you think? That is exactly the point. No, I do not think it is a stupid argument. I think it might be a bit stupid not to have grasped the argument by this time, though... SignatureIan >> If you were so paranoid it'd happen, you'd never get in a car so >> it's a bit of a stupid argument don't you think? > > That is exactly the point. No, I do not think it is a stupid argument. > I think it might be a bit stupid not to have grasped the argument by > this time, though... Perhaps the reason that it takes some people a long time to grasp such arguments is because they can't understand how someone could propose such a stupid argument? >>> If you were so paranoid it'd happen, you'd never get in a car so >>> it's a bit of a stupid argument don't you think? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >arguments is because they can't understand how someone could propose such a >stupid argument? <sigh> If something which could not reasonably have been anticipated does occur, it is not a sign of incompetence to make an emergency stop. What's stupid about that? SignatureIan >>>> If you were so paranoid it'd happen, you'd never get in a car so >>>> it's a bit of a stupid argument don't you think? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What's stupid about that? Merely the stupid amount of hyperbole that some people think they need to use to try and get their point across. >>>>> If you were so paranoid it'd happen, you'd never get in a car so >>>>> it's a bit of a stupid argument don't you think? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Merely the stupid amount of hyperbole that some people think they need to >use to try and get their point across. "Driving so as to be able to stop without extreme braking in every possible eventuality would amount to never making reasonable progress." Where's the hyperbole, then? SignatureIan >>>>>> If you were so paranoid it'd happen, you'd never get in a car so >>>>>> it's a bit of a stupid argument don't you think? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Where's the hyperbole, then? Between the quote marks. > "Driving so as to be able to stop without extreme braking in every > possible eventuality would amount to never making reasonable > progress." > > Where's the hyperbole, then? "Driving so as to be able to stop without extreme braking in every possible eventuality would amount to never making reasonable progress." SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. Conor explained on 29/10/2005 : > And how many times have you even witnessed that, let alone have it > happen to you? Never, which is why I never take it into consideration and make good progress, but that is not to say it never ever happens. There was a news item a few months ago where the driver of a Jag had a tree fall on him as he progressed down a country lane. >> If you were to drive at a speed which did allow for these unlikely >> incidents, then you would never move. Certain of the listed incidents >> could be equally disasterous even if you were stationary. Exactly. You can only weigh up the probabilities and drive accordingly. > If you were so paranoid it'd happen, you'd never get in a car so it's a > bit of a stupid argument don't you think? SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Conor explained on 29/10/2005 : >> And how many times have you even witnessed that, let alone have it [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> If you were so paranoid it'd happen, you'd never get in a car so it's a >> bit of a stupid argument don't you think? They should be fine. SignaturePhil Kyle™ http://philkyle2003.reachme.at/ "The truly racist person is one Helene Rudlin, who admits it." - Neil Barker <MPG.1c47999866a4baf798976c@127.0.0.1> "I wonder - is there perhaps some form of cosmetic surgery we can pay for, so that Helene can actually become a coon ?" - Neil Barker <MPG.1c479b87e7a43ce989770@127.0.0.1> >> True. Some events cannot reasonably be anticipated, though. Driving so >> as to be able to stop without extreme braking in every possible >> eventuality would amount to never making reasonable progress. >> >Huh? If you drive so that you can stop *comfortably* if, for example, a car stopped at a side road accelerates without warning in front of you - or an oncoming vehicle crosses to your side of the road without rhyme or reason - you will never get out of second gear. SignatureIan > >> True. Some events cannot reasonably be anticipated, though. Driving so > >> as to be able to stop without extreme braking in every possible [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > or an oncoming vehicle crosses to your side of the road without rhyme > or reason - you will never get out of second gear. Wrong. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:06:40 +0100: >> If you drive so that you can stop *comfortably* if, for example, a car >> stopped at a side road accelerates without warning in front of you - >> or an oncoming vehicle crosses to your side of the road without rhyme >> or reason - you will never get out of second gear. >> > Wrong. Bollocks. How fast can you be going to stop in 1 foot? How fast do you drive when an oncoming car is 1 foot from you? SignatureDavid Taylor > Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote on Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:06:40 +0100: > >> If you drive so that you can stop *comfortably* if, for example, a car [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bollocks. How fast can you be going to stop in 1 foot? How fast do > you drive when an oncoming car is 1 foot from you? Thankyou for proving your incompetency. Clue: Escape route. I once had a car pull out of a side road 50ft in front of me when I was in my artic bombing along the A168 quite nicely. Using my obviously superior skills to you, I reckoned she might do this and had planned an escape route which I used. Didn't even need to touch the brakes. 6 P's. You should try using them sometimes. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. Conor submitted this idea : > Thankyou for proving your incompetency. > > Clue: Escape route. An escape route only works when here is time and room to react. > I once had a car pull out of a side road 50ft in front of me when I was > in my artic bombing along the A168 quite nicely. Using my obviously > superior skills to you, I reckoned she might do this and had planned an > escape route which I used. Didn't even need to touch the brakes. You anticipated she might do that and had time to use your escape route. Would you have been able to do the same if she had pulled out with you just a dozen feet away? SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Conor submitted this idea : >> Thankyou for proving your incompetency. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > route. Would you have been able to do the same if she had pulled out > with you just a dozen feet away? Yes. SignaturePhil Kyle™ http://philkyle2003.reachme.at/ "The truly racist person is one Helene Rudlin, who admits it." - Neil Barker <MPG.1c47999866a4baf798976c@127.0.0.1> "I wonder - is there perhaps some form of cosmetic surgery we can pay for, so that Helene can actually become a coon ?" - Neil Barker <MPG.1c479b87e7a43ce989770@127.0.0.1> > Conor submitted this idea : > > Thankyou for proving your incompetency. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > route. Would you have been able to do the same if she had pulled out > with you just a dozen feet away? Hardly likely is it? It would be physically impossible to manouvre in that short a distance anyway so Darwins law would have removed another incompetent off the road. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. Conor submitted this idea : > Hardly likely is it? It would be physically impossible to manouvre in > that short a distance anyway so Darwins law would have removed another > incompetent off the road. Just as likely as her pulling out leaving you room to use your escape route. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Conor submitted this idea : > > Hardly likely is it? It would be physically impossible to manouvre in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just as likely as her pulling out leaving you room to use your escape > route. Depends on whether you look at what is going on or at the end of your bonnet. Obviously with you, it's the latter. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. Conor pretended : > Depends on whether you look at what is going on or at the end of your > bonnet. Obviously with you, it's the latter. Just how do you arrive at that conclusion? You suggest you drive with a preplanned escape route, well good for you - but the escape route is only of value if there is room/time to use it. You should also be aware that most modern vehicles no longer have a bonnet which is visible from the driving position :-) SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Conor pretended : > > Depends on whether you look at what is going on or at the end of your > > bonnet. Obviously with you, it's the latter. > > Just how do you arrive at that conclusion? Your post I replied to. > You suggest you drive with a preplanned escape route, Yup. > well good for you > - but the escape route is only of value if there is room/time to use > it. If there isn't, you didn't plan a good one unless it was the straw grabbing 1ft scenario in which case there's nothing you could have done. There's a limit to how much control you have over a situation. You just have to make sure you have as much as possible. > You should also be aware that most modern vehicles no longer have a > bonnet which is visible from the driving position :-) True. SignatureConor "You're not married, you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart, Extras. Conor laid this down on his screen : > If there isn't, you didn't plan a good one unless it was the straw > grabbing 1ft scenario in which case there's nothing you could have > done. You have grasped the point at last. > There's a limit to how much control you have over a situation. > You just have to make sure you have as much as possible. That is all anyone can do. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message