Nuxx:C83a2911-9e38-4fc4-b900-1809d1e167fa@h23g2000vbc.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!h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 05:28:21 -0700 (PDT) References: <65cfa66b-5b05-48c7-a971-0747657c7763@n19g2000vba.googlegroups.com> <87620450-05e1-4a4f-b808-3fc5206b991a@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com> Lines: 42 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 1245500901 22801 127.0.0.1 (20 Jun 2009 12:28:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h23g2000vbc.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: 3218 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:710835

On Jun 20, 5:06=A0am, bod43  wrote: > On 19 June, 18:51, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > >http://www.driversalliance.org.uk/press/view/281 > > > The car-haters can say "It wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been > > speeding" as much as they like, but that's just a pathetic excuse, > > which shows yet again that the car-haters will *always* defend cameras > > no matter what. =A0The speed camera caused the accident, and no amount > > of agenda-driven contortion can escape that fact. > > Perhaps what you say is true. > > Thing is, this is not relevant to UK.rec.cycling.

Yes it is, because there are plenty on here who claim that cameras make things safer for cyclists (and some who, more accurately, claim that they make things *less* safe for them).

> The highway code (applicaple to the UK) clearly > states that drivers should be able to stop *within* > the distance that they can see to be clear. > This would include being clear of speed cameras.

But (mobile) cameras are the only hazards which cause an immediate problem which has to be dealt with straight away from up to a mile away. Any other hazard isn't a problem until you actually hit (or are in imminent danger of hitting) it, so if you see it from a distance away, you have ample time to slow down.

Of course, cameras aren't a real hazard, they're an artificial hazard that's been introduced to persecute motorists. And anyone who advocates introducing hazards which adversely affect people's driving is either misguided or doesn't have safety as their priority.

> The *voters* no longer > approve of any and all stupid driving. You should try to > get used to the idea since we will only be getting less > tolerant as time passes.

"Stupid driving" !=3D speeding. People can claim otherwise as much as they like and it won't make the slightest difference.