Nuxx:F99f74e3-efb4-4005-8f1d-b70ec6b73a5b@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: *Cyclist* Complains about Speed Camera Van Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 21:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 80 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243054069 2180 127.0.0.1 (23 May 2009 04:47:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 04:47:49 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4973 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:703242

More evidence that real cycling advocates (rather than car-haters pretending to be cycling advocates) dislike the killer cameras as much as anyone. They are happy to see cameras for what they are, and accept that the figures show quite clearly that cameras are costing lives. It's only car-haters who see those figures and then desperately try to massage them into saying that cameras don't cost lives, such is their wish to make things harder for motorists whatever the cost.

("Moderators", you'll have to find some other excuse to have a whinge about this post from one of your opponents: it's about a cyclist so it's on-topic by any reasonable interpretation. You may not like speed cameras being discussed, because the more discussion there is, the more people are likely to arrive at the truth about them (which of course you hate), but in this particular case you're just going to have to grin and bear it.)

I see a couple of trolls have already found the article and posted troll-comments there. Whenever there's an article like that, you pretty much always get 80-90% of the comments being sensible, well thought out, interesting ones from camera opponents (that figures since unbiased, unriggable surveys consistently show that at least 80% of people oppose cameras), and the other 10-20% being idiotic, simplistic, self-righteous tosh from camera supporters which adds nothing to the debate (at least one post inevitably contains nothing more than a variant of "If people just stuck to the speed limit then they wouldn't get caught speeding"...never mind about whether cameras improve road safety, as long as people are being punished heavyhandedly and discretionlessly for committing arbitrary technical "offences", eh? Can't have those motorists having it too easy, especially the ones who go faster than me....)

http://www.lep.co.uk/travel/Row-over-39stupid39-speed-camera.5287472.jp

Row over 'stupid' speed camera van

A cyclist has demanded answers from road safety bosses over a "dangerous" speed camera on a busy Lancashire road.

And a retired Lancashire police officer has told the Lancashire Evening Post he thought the positioning of the van in Liverpool Road, Penwortham, near Preston, was "absolutely stupid".

Cyclist David Daniels, 34, from Stargate Drive, Larches, Preston, had to swerve around the van, parked at the end of a cycle lane.

But Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety (LPRS) says the position on a stretch of 30mph limit road, is safe and that the van has been coned off to protect cyclists from traffic.

Mr Daniels, a self-employed cleaner and a keen cyclist, said: "I was on my way to work when I saw it.

"I stopped and asked him about it and he said they had permission from the council and the police.

"He's parked right at the end of a cycle lane and cyclists have to swerve out right into the road and into the traffic."

John Baldwin, 63, from Penwortham, who retired from Lancashire police in 1978 after 14 years with the force, was also outraged.

He said: "It is stupid, absolutely stupid.

"I think it is scandalous. It is blocking the first lane. In reality he is causing an obstruction. He has not got any legitimate reason parking there as a road safety vehicle.

"When they get this job they seem to think they can park where they want and do what they want."

Cones around the vehicle force two lanes of car traffic into one =96 a right turn filter lane.

But Steve Whitehouse, project manager for the LPRS, said: "I am entirely satisfied that the vehicle was not causing an obstruction.

"The site was last assessed in April 2008 by representatives from the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety, local councillors and county councillors and this is the agreed location for the site."