Nuxx:2455fe22-e7ff-4e11-9003-3cc2fcba09dd@h11g2000yqb.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!h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <2455fe22-e7ff-4e11-9003-3cc2fcba09dd@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:14:24 -0700 (PDT) References: <65cfa66b-5b05-48c7-a971-0747657c7763@n19g2000vba.googlegroups.com>    <7c25e899-c2b9-45ab-bf5c-e769342128cc@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com> <5481b1ca-7dfe-45f2-8e9b-ca5dc1714558@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <20090623140801.76f228c9@bluemoon>  Lines: 48 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1245827664 28433 127.0.0.1 (24 Jun 2009 07:14:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:14:24 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3813 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:711456

On Jun 23, 2:13=A0pm, RudiL  wrote: > On 23 June, 14:08, Rob Morley  wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:56:21 -0700 (PDT) > > "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > > > > On Jun 23, 1:48=A0pm, RudiL  wrote: > > > > > I agree - all speed cameras should be concealed. This would avoid > > > > slowing down suddenly only to avoid being caught speeding, and > > > > hopefully more people would drive within the speed limits much more > > > > of the time. Average speed cameras have a similar affect on > > > > motorways as temporarily slowing down very briefly does not avoid > > > > the penalty for driving too fast. > > > > Yes, this makes perfect sense. =A0It removes the only plausible safet= y > > > objection to cameras. =A0Obviously the problem is bad drivers driving > > > badly and reacting inappropriately to their late perception of > > > something that would not concern anyway if they were driving within > > > the law, but let's remove even that faint possibility. > > > > Drive as if there were a camera behind every tree and lamp-post and i= t > > > soon stops being a problem, at least in a car fitted with a > > > speedometer. > > > Don't be silly, we already know that good drivers are incapable of > > keeping below the [limit plus ten percent plus three miles per hour] or > > whatever it is, because it's too difficult to judge speed without > > spending a dangerous amount of time looking at the speedo. =A0How much > > more dangerous will it be if they're trying to spot concealed cameras a= s > > they drive, when they seem to have problems seeing the bright yellow > > ones at any distance? > > Oh of course - I forgot. Good drivers spend all their time looking for > speed cameras rather than driving within the speed limit since driving > within the limit is dangerous and kills people. Silly me (slaps > forehead) > > Rudi

Who'd have thought it? Simplistic car-haters using blatant straw man tactics because they can't argue against the real anti-camera arguments and they know it damn well? I never thought I'd see the day.