Nuxx:25121ab9-a8f1-4fad-a363-9324a900e981@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <25121ab9-a8f1-4fad-a363-9324a900e981@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: A Simple Question Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:05:13 -0800 (PST) References:  <6scuksF54qqjU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 98 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.160.137.186 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231452313 16098 127.0.0.1 (8 Jan 2009 22:05:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:05:13 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.160.137.186; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 6719 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:682562

On Jan 4, 11:22=A0pm, "DavidR"  wrote: > "Nuxx Bar"  wrote > > >A motorist makes a trip from A to B, then back again. =A0An hour or so > > later, he does the same thing. =A0Along the route between A and B is a > > stretch of road which was NSL until a few years ago, but now has a > > 30mph limit, despite nothing else about the road having changed, and > > despite there having never been any accidents on the stretch which > > were caused by anyone driving too fast or speeding. =A0Today, a mobile > > camera is raking it in by sitting, hidden*, on this particular > > stretch. =A0Our motorist friend unsurprisingly doesn't see the hidden > > van, > > Not even after passing it the first time? You think blind drivers should = be > allowed on the road?

Always one isn't there? I specifically said that the van was hidden. Did you click the link at the bottom of my post? Many mobile cameras are *extremely* well-hidden, whether you've passed them or not. After all, as everyone knows by now, the aim is to fine as many motorists as possible.

> > and drives by it each time at speeds between 35mph and 37mph. > > He finds a piece of road he can drive along 4 times in a day without bein= g > in a train of other vehicles ? Where is this? (For inevitably someone in = the > train will slow down to 23mph.)

Well, now you're being a lot more realistic. There *are* such stretches if you know where to look, but I'm not telling you about the one I use! (And those trains of vehicles shouldn't exist, because those who wish to go slower than others should pull over and let the faster ones past, at least on rural roads without lots of traffic lights, so that everyone gets to go at their preferred speed, and everyone wins. Why does this not happen?  Because all too often, the slower ones have a f**kwitted, self-righteous attitude towards the faster ones, even though letting them past wouldn't make *any* difference to them.  Who is to blame for this?  Partly the self- righteous ones, but partly the authorities for encouraging and legitimising their behaviour with this ludicrous, oversimplified "faster is bad, slower is good" rubbish.  Personally, if someone is behind me and wishing to go faster and no-one is in front of me, I pull over as soon as it's safe to let them past.  Hey presto, we're both happy.  If only everyone did that, we'd all be a lot happier, except those tw@ts who are such sanctimonious control freaks that they'd rather keep people behind them in such a situation.)

> > Accordingly, he later receives four speeding tickets, taking him to 12 > > points, and a probable ban. > > The camera is monitoring both directions? It is taking interest in > 35mph, really?

Now you're back to being unrealistic again. The answer is an emphatic "yes" in both cases. Try http://forums.pepipoo.com and see how many people have had tickets for 35mph. 35mph is the minimum speed that scamera partnerships can get away with prosecuting for in 30mph zones, so since they're trying to catch as many drivers as possible, that is invariably the speed that they start prosecuting at. Whether that is remotely reasonable simply doesn't come into it.

As for both directions, the camera operator simply sits there and "zaps" everyone who comes by in either direction. The operator is supposed to form a prior opinion that a vehicle is speeding before zapping it, but since that rule might interfere with revenue-raising, it is simply ignored (and the scamera partnership, and the CPS wankers who couldn't give a monkey's about justice when it comes to the anti- motorist camera conspiracy, fight tooth and nail to stop any videos of zapping sessions getting to any members of the public, since this would show that everyone was indeed being zapped. The whole camera business is *full* of just that kind of underhandedness and deceit).

People (like you apparently) assume that because cameras are run by the authorities, the whole thing must be done in a reasonable, honest and above-board fashion (so no hiding cameras, no systematically breaking enforcement rules and then trying to cover it up, no prosecuting people for unreasonably low speeds, no pretending that cameras are saving lives when they're not because of a wish to save face/punish motorists, etc). Unfortunately, this is most definitely not the case. There are a lot of people doing very well out of the camera business, and they're absolutely determined to keep it that way, no matter how dirty they have to play, and no matter how many road users have to die. Then there are those who hate motorists and like to abuse cameras in order to bully motorists off the road, and such people are similarly determined to keep cameras going. (At least two regular posters in this newsgroup were involved in a vicious and sustained hate campaign against a camera opponent who dared to comment against cameras in the national media, and at least one of those posters has caused a workplace of a camera opponent to be evacuated by making bomb threats or similar. These are not nice people at all, and they're prepared to do some unspeakably awful things to get what they want.  You simply don't get camera opponents who are like that, just camera supporters.  There is something about the fundamental dishonesty of the camera empire which attracts them like flies to shit.)