Nuxx:E527c987-5e68-4fe9-b74e-251c589202d4@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: "The Sign Knows Better Than The Driver"...But Which Sign? Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 114 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.170.121 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1219924958 22592 127.0.0.1 (28 Aug 2008 12:02:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:02:38 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.170.121; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 6413 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:665325

I wonder what the camera-supporting motorist-haters will make of this. Is 35mph unacceptably dangerous on the below stretch of Nottingham Road yet? Or will it suddenly become unacceptably dangerous the moment that the last 50mph sign is removed? How can a particular speed possibly be more or less dangerous depending on whether a sign is present or not?

Was the scumbag motorist trying to "wriggle out of it on a technicality", or was it right that he contested the penalty? And if it's the latter, then surely the partnership should be refunding everyone who was caught on that road automatically? Surely anyone who supported cameras for safety-related reasons, and not motorist-hating reasons, would agree.

The most amusing thing is that the presence of the 30mph signs invalidates the 50mph limit as well, so those "the law is the law" types would presumably not mind someone driving at 60mph on that road. Or does "the law is the law" only apply when it can be used me make the "mistake" of thinking that this group is full of motorist- haters, is it?
 * against* motorists? If so, it's hardly surprising that people like

It's incidents like this which expose the true ridiculousness and arbitrary nature of cameras, wholesale speed limit reductions and those who dogmatically and obstinately support such measures. No speed limit is in force on that stretch of road, yet have there been an unusually high number of accidents on it? We all know the answer without even bothering to check, which is oh so telling.

Face it, camera supporters: cameras don't work, and whether you support them for motorist-hating reasons, or because you mistakenly believed that they worked and you now can't bear to admit that you were wrong (I think that's known as "arrogance"), it's time to bite the bullet, accept that cameras and wholesale speed limit reductions have been an unmitigated disaster, have a good cry, and move on. Why keep putting it off when it will only get harder?

Go on, do it today. Just think: you'll have a clearer conscience, you'll no longer keep finding yourself attempting to defend an illogical position, and you can start supporting real road safety measures instead (or, if you're a motorist-hating halfwit, you can work on new anti-motorist ideas instead). Either way, you'll feel a lot better for it, because the "cameras save lives" joke was always a particularly bad and malicious one, and it's now wearing unbelievably thin.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. And well done, as I know it must be difficult for you.

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/news/Nathan-caught-speeding-30mph-zone-50= mph/article-290534-detail/article.html

Nathan was caught 'speeding' in a 30mph zone...or was it 50mph?

A MOTORIST has had his speeding fine overturned because of a road sign blunder =96 but fears many other drivers will face the same fate.

Nathan Alton was caught by a speed camera travelling at 40mph in a 30mph zone in Nottingham Road, Codnor.

But the limit had just been reduced to 30mph from 50mph =96 and signs with both speeds were still being displayed side by side.

He appealed and has had a =A360 fine and three points on his licence withdrawn.

Mr Alton, of Derby Road, Denby, said: "I remember being flashed by the camera and thinking that would mean points on my licence.

"As I am a salesman for a living I need to keep my licence as clean as possible because of the amount of travelling I do.

"As I drove away I thought to myself that I was sure I had seen 50mph signs as I approached the camera so I turned round and drove the route again.

"There were 50mph signs next to 30mph zones so it is no wonder I was confused."

Mr Alton, 29, said he contested his fixed penalty and in a letter to Derbyshire Safety Camera Partnership, which manages the county's network of 117 fixed cameras, he asked how many other drivers had been caught at about the same time.

He cited the Freedom of Information Act, which gives the general public the right to obtain information held by public authorities.

The reply he received said it was unable to give him that information but that any penalty against him had been dropped.

He said: "I was astounded that they would just drop this so quickly.

"The 30mph signs and 50mph signs at Codnor stood side by side on that road for at least two weeks, so I dread to think how many other people were snapped like I was.

"I even remember following a van just after I had been caught.

"It was doing about 40mph and I thought 'slow down mate, you're going to get caught' and sure enough he was.

"I'll bet there are hundreds who were caught wrongly like this."

The Evening Telegraph asked the partnership how many other drivers had been wrongly caught by the same camera and was referred to the police.

But Derbyshire police said it was unable to provide the figures.

A police spokeswoman said: "In this particular incident we are in talks with the county council, which is responsible for road signs in the area."

Brian Lucas, county council cabinet member for environmental services =96 which includes highways and transport =96 declined to comment.