Nuxx:35a49b9c-41b8-44f3-8a25-7ffe5fe4a2a4@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <35a49b9c-41b8-44f3-8a25-7ffe5fe4a2a4@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Chapman: His Agenda Exposed Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 10:23:49 -0700 (PDT) References: <0f3fd3c5-7db2-47aa-bbd5-bbbae629d329@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <6fg1d3FbcseoU1@mid.individual.net> <96o5941n82ql2iacpfcr2p051ck8u3shdl@4ax.com> <6fg9bhFbd4rmU1@mid.individual.net> <6c1e5822-7458-4945-bc56-d1ace894ef0f@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <6ut59410f1um6j7i9g499rrl4uc733dm9q@4ax.com> <1il36wk.1vhdtxm1y9woflN%NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk> Lines: 93 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.129.172 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217784229 1245 127.0.0.1 (3 Aug 2008 17:23:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:23:49 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.129.172; 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: 6300 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660493

On Aug 3, 8:03=A0am, N...@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote: > Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:43:01 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar > >  wrote: > > > >Hallelujah. =A0A urc denizen actually admitting that they were wrong, > > >and even deigning to apologise. =A0Now we just need Crapman to do the > > >same regarding his accusations about me using other people's words. > > >And while we're at it, he can finally admit the bleeding obvious: that > > >his sole reason for supporting cameras is that he wants motorists off > > >the road, and he wants motorists off the road because he HATES THEM. > > > Motor cars pollute, they kill, they intimidate, and they're noisy. > > They're facts with which no-one can argue. =A0Given those facts, it > > would surely be better for society if as many motorists as possible > > changed to other modes of transport. =A0So if speed cameras do encourag= e > > motorists to switch to other modes of transport, I don't think that's > > a bad thing. =A0Even if speed cameras did kill people (which they > > don't), they would have to kill a large number to outweigh the lives > > that they saved by encouraging motorists to use other, less dangerous, > > less selfish modes of transport. > > > Since Nuxx Bar claims that anyone who isn't implacably opposed to > > speed cameras is "anti-motorist", he will no doubt say the same thing > > about me in reply to this. =A0But I'm not anti-motorist, I'm just > > anti-deaths, and if speed cameras make things unpleasant enough for > > motorists that they use other modes of transport instead, that's great > > news. =A0If I do have an agenda against motorists, it's only because I > > recognise that fewer motorists equals fewer deaths. =A0Only a deranged > > mind like Nuxx Bar's could conclude from that that I was a > > "motorist-hater" or a mass murderer. > > > Guy > > na speed camera's are no trouble what so ever. > > speed cameras are: > > large and painted yellow (though a speed limit to the back wouldn't go a > miss)

But as you say below, there are mobile vans as well, which are the main threat to halfway competent motorists. If cameras were indeed all large and painted yellow, they would effectively punish the unobservant, which wouldn't be as unfair on motorists as a whole (although most of the deadly camera side effects would still apply).

> i'm mostly constrained by the weight of traffic than speed camera's

If you're ever awake, try driving during the small hours when it's dry and not foggy. In all likelihood, the only times that you will be forced to go far slower than you need to will be when you're passing cameras. The true ridiculousness of cameras is probably not fully apparent to someone until they've been made to crawl at exactly 30mph, on a straight road, on the way out of a village where there are no other road users for miles in any direction. It is entirely obvious to any motorist that at least 50mph would be safe, but they're not even allowed to go at 35mph.

No-one who wished to be reasonable towards motorists could possibly wish to inflict that on them. Surely only people with the attitude that "It doesn't matter if motorists are inconvenienced, and it doesn't matter if they're made to go much, much slower than they need to, because they're scum who shouldn't be driving anyway" (*ahem* Chapman/Spindrift/their sycophants...they're not even bothering to deny it anymore, it's become so obvious) would think that such measures were a good idea.

> police cars/speed vans are more tricky but even so, with my fairly brisk > driving my licence is clean, and allways has been.

Good luck in keeping it that way, because you will need luck. Since camera sites are specifically chosen to catch people who are speeding where it's safe to do so, the only way you can be sure of not being caught (other than "never speeding", like anyone really does that) is if you only speed in places where it's *not* safe to do so. Since the danger in that way, nor are they prepared to bend over backwards following every single daft speed limit absolutely to the letter 100.000% of the time, no-one can ever be sure that they're not going to be caught speeding tomorrow (unless they don't drive then of course!)
 * vast* majority of motorists are not prepared to put themselves in

All I'm saying is don't get complacent. I've seen many, many forum posts which said something along the lines of "My licence has always been clean but I've just received a NIP for doing 35mph in a speed limit which used to be NSL" (no doubt they're the kind of posts that the motorist-haters wank off over). Yeah, I'm sure they were driving really dangerously.