Nuxx:57dae874-b588-4ef8-9de4-89ae523c37bb@a13g2000yqc.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!a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <57dae874-b588-4ef8-9de4-89ae523c37bb@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: A Good Day for Proper Road Safety: Swindon Ditches Fixed Speed Cameras Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:47:15 -0700 (PDT) References: <6acaf78b-555d-47c6-b454-2b0bf5529be4@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>    Lines: 45 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.193.13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1249145236 27265 127.0.0.1 (1 Aug 2009 16:47:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:47:16 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.193.13; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.12) Gecko/2009070611 Firefox/3.0.12 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3646 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:721987

On Aug 1, 10:35=A0am, Ben C  wrote: > On 2009-08-01, Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote: > > > On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 04:08:27 -0500, Ben C  wrote: > > >>Gatsos aren't a big problem. Set your satnav to bong for them and slow > >>down as you go past. You shouldn't get caught if your observations are > >>good, and your progress will not be significantly impeded. They're a > >>good political compromise. > > > I don't have a SatNav and still don't find them a problem. > > I agree, you should be all right even without one, especially since they > made them yellow, but it's good to have the first line of defence. > > > One of the more useful things my driving instructor taught me was how > > to spot the speed limit - a lot of drivers do not seem to realise that > > street lights and no repeaters implies a 30 limit > > If there are cameras, they'll always put 30 signs up too, and also > camera signs, even when the limit is 30 anyway as you say.

Yes, they'll always have *terminal* 30 signs where the speed limit changes, but if there are streetlights, they don't need (indeed aren't allowed) *repeater* 30 signs.

> If the proper warning signs aren't there I believe you may even be able > to contest the ticket.

I was thinking about this the other week actually. As you may know, if *any* terminal sign for a particular speed limit zone is missing or otherwise invalid, then the whole speed limit zone in question is unenforceable (no matter which terminal sign the driver came past). Thanks to the large number of anti-motorist speed limit reductions we've had in the last 15-20 years, places like London now have very large continuous 30 zones. So if you get caught speeding in one of them, in theory all you need to do is find a problem with one of the hundreds of terminal 30 signs at the edge of the zone, and you've got a legal defence (although of course it's still best not to get caught in the first place).

Oops - there are people round here who don't want anyone to know that sort of thing (you're only supposed to use "The law is the law" new censored group.
 * against* motorists, you see). At least it won't be allowed in the