Nuxx:B8a5e88f-5648-4850-9f9a-d83c5aa59d42@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Labyrinthine paranoia Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:49:06 -0700 (PDT) References:    <871w1ae288.fsf@toy.config> Lines: 66 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.145.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217540946 16814 127.0.0.1 (31 Jul 2008 21:49:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:49:06 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.145.93; 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: 4361 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660004

On Jul 31, 12:12 pm, Daniel Barlow  wrote: > Nuxx Bar  writes: > > "I like cameras because I don't like motorists" > > I on the other hand like cameras because I don't like incompetence - > more precisely, I don't like it when people are put in charge of fast > heavy machinery with the potential to easily maim and kill people, and > are not competent to operate said machinery. > > If you (a) cannot see the camera warning sign, (b) cannot see the > camera, and (c) don't notice the calibration lines usually painted on > the road, you are incompetent.

I agree that a driver who is observing properly should be able to spot fixed cameras. However, what about sneakily hidden mobile cameras? Would you have noticed every one of the cameras on this page, and if not, does that make you "incompetent"?

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/van.htm

> If you are incompetennt and

Tee hee. Sorry, but it's always amusing when someone gets on their high horse and then misspells a word like "incompetent".

> nevertheless choose not to keep your vehicle speed within posted > limits (which is after all a simple task which anyone who has actually > passed a driving test or can operate a TV remote control should be > capable of) you are not only incompetent but arrogant too.

And if there's no proven benefit to keeping your vehicle within posted limits, and the safe speed for the conditions is far above the speed limit, does that still apply?

> There may be the odd random exception here or there where the limits > are unexpectedly low and not adequately signed

"here or there"?! Well, that's more of an admission than you'll get from any of the motorist-haters here, but it's still a gross understatement. Another couple of pages for you:

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/speedl.htm

http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/gallery_speedreduc.html

> but for the most part > it's just bleating from drivers too thick to follow instructions who > attempt to justify themselves by claiming that the instructions > "aren't fair". Grow up.

It's not a case of being too thick, it's a case of "It's perfectly clear [to a competent, experienced driver] that it's safe to go above the speed limit here, so why should I, and everyone behind me, go much slower than we need to when there is no benefit in doing so?" Some may say "What is the harm in going slower than you need to, just in case?", but if you took that to its "logical" conclusion, everyone would be doing <1mph everywhere (which I'm sure the motorist-haters would love).

If people are going to drive at all, you need to accept that having them slow down in areas of danger is a *much* more effective road safety strategy than forcing them to go at a lower speed than they need to all the time, "just in case something happens". Apart from being ineffective, the latter approach comes with a long list of deadly side effects. There simply isn't any evidence whatsoever that it's the right way of going about things.