View Single Post
  #41   Report Post  
Old July 27th 10, 07:22 PM posted to uk.railway,uk.transport.london
Chris Tolley[_2_] Chris  Tolley[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 175
Default 'Ending' "the war on the motorist"

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

It is still a simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.


I'm not arguing for anything. Cameras are devices to take pictures.
These particular cameras only do so if they detect speeding vehicles.
What more need be said? What questions do you think need be asked?


Did you not read the next para?


Apparently so, given that I responded to it. I didn't see any questions,
only statements. So, again, what questions are you talking about?

The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted the
perception of what is safe. As far as the cameras are concerned an idiot
driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving all over the
road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady 60mph on a road
designed for 70+ but somebody has decided to designated as a 50 limit for
no logical reason is defined as driving dangerously.


Cameras do not pass judgments about what is safe. They are not
intelligent entities.


I never said they were.


You may like to read the first clause of your second sentence, which
looks like a well-constructed set of words that is arguing for the
cameras passing a judgment; if one substituted the word "Johnson" for
the word "camera" it would certainly read as a comment about Johnson's
judgment.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683638.html
(50478 (Class 104) at Southport, 29 Sep 1979)