Nuxx:139fc05e-fa7d-4e8f-a002-dc304f3d583e@r3g2000vbp.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!r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <139fc05e-fa7d-4e8f-a002-dc304f3d583e@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: How to get speeding drivers to slow down. Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT) References:  <58d5e2d1-71b0-4de0-ba4d-409d864e5a79@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 55 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.145.66.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1242167902 14565 127.0.0.1 (12 May 2009 22:38:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.145.66.20; 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: 3940 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:701052

On May 12, 5:36=A0pm, "Simon Mason"  wrote: > "Light of Aria"  wrote in message > > > > > > One of my ideas: > > > All cars to have a series of lights on the front, adding one light per = 5 > > MPH. > > > Therefore 6 lights =3D 30, 7 =3D 35, 8 =3D 40, 14 =3D 70 MPH etc. > > > This would warn road users of their velocity, simplify "enfarcement", m= ake > > it easier to judge crossings and junctions, and cause > > excessive-speed-dickheads to stick out from more normalised users. > > Or how about making it impossible to exceed the speed limit? > > http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/car-tech/london-transport...

More simplistic, anti-motorist, totalitarian, numerical speed-obsessed rubbish which is *still* basing road "safety" on the idea that all motorists are selfish, irresponsible nutters who constantly need even the basics of driving to be done for them because they can't be trusted an inch (if that's really true, we should stop people driving altogether, which of course the car-haters would love...until it finally got through their incredibly thick skulls the hard way that that would have all sorts of other far-reaching consequences for society).

Like the current obsession with digital speed limit enforcement, it simply wouldn't work in terms of making things safer: in fact, it would be an even bigger disaster. It's *so* wrong in so many different ways. As someone who genuinely cares about road safety, I'm sure you'd have a nasty surprise if "I"SA started to be used in every vehicle. Not like the car-haters such as Chapman, who know perfectly well that it would compromise safety...but that's "OK", because motorists would be getting given a hard time, and so it would apparently be "worth it". (Scum or what?)

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

(That whole site is a great read...I agree with almost every word of it. The majority of camera opponents on the Internet are rational, thoughtful, intelligent, decent, nice, non-agenda-driven people who you'd happily leave your kids with, and the author of that site is no exception.  Unfortunately the same cannot be said for most camera supporters.  That in itself should be enough to indicate the probable validity of camera enforcement without even starting to analyse the facts.  It's no coincidence that all of the most universally despised, mentally disturbed, callous, agenda-driven, dishonest people, such as Chapman and Spindrift, support cameras.)