In message , Mike Bristow
writes
Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.
Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights?
If not, what's the difference?
I agree that laws can only be used by common consent and as for jumping
red lights, I have no problem with this providing, if the person lives
after being thrown violently from their machine by whatever other
vehicle hits them has no complaint.
--
Clive

wrote

Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury.

So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other
road users off the road more quickly.

A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying
out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why
average speed cameras are used in these circumstances. The alternative may
be to close a motorway completely while it's being widened, but that
wouldn't be popular.

Ob rail. The need for an adjacent track to be closed while one track is
being worked on, so that, for example, if the Up Fast or Down Slow on the
WCML is being worked on it is sometimes effectively necessary to impose a
4-track blockade.

Peter

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:46:31 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other
road users off the road more quickly.

I'm not sure why you think making progress is having little though for other
drivers.

A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying
out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why

No doubt. Except that for the majority of a 24 hour day there generally isn't
any bugger working on most roadworks. They should be renamed
roadcan't-be-arsed-I'm-off-home.

B2003

"Peter Masson" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury.

So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for
other road users off the road more quickly.

I'm really not sure that the link between "exceeding the speed limit" and
"drivers who have little thought for others" is anywhere _near_ that kind
of clear-cut correlation...

d wrote:

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up.

I did, and as ever you are talking rubbish.

HMG say that it is not treason, and never has been.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repeal...son-and-stamps

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p14486546.html
(67 014 at Warrington Bank Quay, 21 Apr 2005)

In message , at 16:46:31 on
Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Peter Masson remarked:

wrote

Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury.

So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement,

But even that doesn't work. One of the first average-speed camera
installations in the country (Nottingham ring road) lost money because
people unexpectedly became law-abiding (much to the disgust of the
police and others it appeared!)

A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers
carrying out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding
motorists, that's why average speed cameras are used in these
circumstances. The alternative may be to close a motorway completely
while it's being widened, but that wouldn't be popular.

Another alternative would be to employ more than one man and a dog, with
a bent teaspoon as their only tool, and get on and finish the work in
under typically a year and a half.

--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Jeremy Double wrote:

On 30/07/2010 16:03, Sam Wilson wrote:
In , d
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 07:23:26 +0100
Charles wrote:
Did anyone believe it worked anyway? Why would anyone writing the
software
make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place? It
makes
no sense whatsoever.

Possibly for the sake of simplicity to allow for e.g. the difference
in speed between two vehicles remaining in parallel in lanes 1 and 4
where there is a significant curve between measurement points. If the
usual 10% etc. tolerance is ignored and speed limits applied strictly
then in theory it would be possible for the two vehicles to stay
together with one under and one over the speed limit.

In theory , but it would have to be one hell of a small radius curve to
make
a significant difference. Not something you're likely to find on the sort
of roads these cameras are placed on.

No it wouldn't - the difference in distance only depends on the
difference in heading between the start and end points.

The _absolute_ difference in distance (i.e. measured in metres) only
depends on the difference in heading between the start and end points
_and the radial distance between the midpoints of the two lanes in
question_.

However, the relative difference in distance (i.e. the percentage of the
total distance) depends on the total distance travelled. To get a
significant percentage difference in distance (and hence speed), the
change in heading must be done in a short distance, and this implies a
tight curve.

Good point!

Sam

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:46:31 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other
road users off the road more quickly.


A minor infringement of the speed limit gets 3 points. A more serious
infringement, which usually means exceeding the limit by over 15 mph,
already gets the driver 6 points.

Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for
other road users off the road more quickly.

A minor infringement of the speed limit gets 3 points. A more serious
infringement, which usually means exceeding the limit by over 15 mph,
already gets the driver 6 points.

More accurate to say that it'll see the driver in court, rather than
getting a fixed penalty, where he will get between 3 and 6 points, and a
much more substantial fine.

Chris Tolley wrote:
d wrote:

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up.

I did, and as ever you are talking rubbish.

HMG say that it is not treason, and never has been.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repeal...son-and-stamps



Thanks for that address. Prime Minister's Petitions are reborn
under another name and with a new gimmick!

Charlie