In message , Nick Finnigan
writes
You are not allowed to do what the police do.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#36
I therefore accept I was in the wrong. But does this mean that the
fuzz is right? And can I check weather their journey was a blue light
need or no?
--
Clive

In message , Steve Firth
writes

A few years ago I was done for not obeying fixed signals.

Good.

My front wheels were about 18 inches over the white line, when I contested
in court that I hadn't gone through the junction, I was pointedly asked,
"Did my front wheels go over the line", to which I had to answer yes, and
was fined £60 and three penalty points for not obeying fixed signals.

Good.
From this I understand you're neither Human, nor aware of the precise
nature of where your front wheels are|?
--
Clive

"Clive" wrote in message
...

I therefore accept I was in the wrong. But does this mean that the
fuzz is right? And can I check weather their journey was a blue light
need or no?

No, they probably were not in the right, but they don't need blue lights.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:32:36 +0100, "Nick Finnigan"
wrote:

sometimes find it necessary to break them for my own safety. It is safer
for me to be in front of the line at a light-controlled junction than parked
in the gutter alongside a car.

False dichotomy. What about your primary riding position?

There's a car parked in it :-)

Guy
===
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk: Respectable rules for responsible people

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:40:25 +0100, Clive
wrote:

A few years ago I was done for not obeying fixed signals. My front
wheels were about 18 inches over the white line, when I contested in
court that I hadn't gone through the junction, I was pointedly asked,
"Did my front wheels go over the line", to which I had to answer yes,

Sorry, I wouldn't even have bothered contesting it. At least with
speeding you have to be doing significantly over the limit before you
get done - with traffic lights there's a line in the sand.

Guy
===
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk: Respectable rules for responsible people

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:58:22 +0100, "PeterE"
wrote:

Yes, I pass stop lines against red lights on occasion, though I never
enter the junction itself.

But you are admitting adopting a "contingent" approach to the rules in the
HC rather than the absolute one you urge on others.

Sure. I freely admit it. I have also given reasons, and the limits
which I set myself, and I have said more than once that if I get
caught I won't be bleating about the injustice of it. Advanced stop
lines are common, and where they are used I have never felt the need
to pass the line. I pass the line only when and where it will improve
my safety. I notice rather a lot of motorcyclists doing the same, now
I come to think of it. Sometimes the best place to be is right in the
following driver's line of sight.

If you think it may, in some circumstances, be OK to exceed the posted speed
limit by 10% provided it increases danger only slightly, then fair enough, a
refreshing outbreak of common sense on your part.

To be honest it's hard to have a rational discussion about speeding
because there is a certain faction out there who resent anything put
in place to enforce the limits, and that really gets my goat. The
whole business about "straying" over the limit is quite reasonable,
but you don't "stray" 10% + 10mph over the limit, or even 20% over the
limit (36 in a 30, the slowest I've heard of being prosecuted).

As far as I'm concerned,driving at the speed limit means aiming to
drive at or below the limit, which might mean occasionally finding
yourself a bit over and easing off, occasionally finding yourself a
bit under and applying the loud pedal. Which is not really right -
one should ensure that the needle never edges above the magic number -
but given that speedometers routinely over-read by a few percent and
there is a degree of error allowed for in enforcement policy it's
debatable whether someone who drives like that will ever commit a
chargeable speeding offence. If everyone drove like that speeding
would be a non-issue. I do agree that there should be more repeaters,
and I think they should have put repeaters on the backs of the cameras
instead of the yellow Diamond Grade.

If, however, you repeatedly drive fast enough to make the cameras go
off, that indicates a different approach: rather than driving within
the law, given a reasonable balance of attention to the road and
attention to instruments, that is driving as fast as you think you can
get away with - not so much respect for the law as grudgng
acknowledgement that some people want you to obey it. Which is how I
used to drive, and how many people say they drive now. Including,
presumably, the ones who have attacked me with their cars for daring
to obey the limit.

Straying a couple of mph over the limit is a small thing, and I quite
agree that it would be harsh to describe one who drives like that as a
scofflaw. The Latter situation, Gatso-baiting, is more akin to
cyclists who routinely pass through light-controlled junctions against
the lights. It is dangerous and undesirable behaviour.

And yes, you rightly point out that I have made some very absolutist
statements in the past. When an argument runs on in Usenet it is
inclined to become increasingly polarised - I plead guilty to being
human. In reality I have never considered going a couple of mph over
the limit when the road starts running downhill to be speeding.
Speeding to me is going fast enough to be nicked, which in every
instance I've ever come across involves a significant margin over the
limit.

Guy
===
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk: Respectable rules for responsible people

"Clive" wrote in message
...

I live in Copeland a district of Cumbria. We've just hat the free
Cumbrian gazette delivered which points out that the local councils are
expected to make up their money by Parking, legal or otherwise schemes.

I resent paying to park - just one more reason I use a vehicle which I can
park free of charge :-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

"W K" wrote in message
...

[PeterE's statement] ...It means that its possible that going 10%
over the speed limit could increase danger.

According to the U-shaped curve, it probably does increase danger, but not
by very much. But aiming for 10% over and therefore repeatedly hitting 20%
over - that starts to move you into the zone where danger is measurably
increased. And aiming for just below the flash threshold will undoubtedly
put you in that zone.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:58:22 +0100, "PeterE"
wrote:

Yes, I pass stop lines against red lights on occasion, though I
never enter the junction itself.

But you are admitting adopting a "contingent" approach to the rules
in the HC rather than the absolute one you urge on others.

Sure. I freely admit it. I have also given reasons, and the limits
which I set myself, and I have said more than once that if I get
caught I won't be bleating about the injustice of it. Advanced stop
lines are common, and where they are used I have never felt the need
to pass the line. I pass the line only when and where it will improve
my safety. I notice rather a lot of motorcyclists doing the same, now
I come to think of it. Sometimes the best place to be is right in the
following driver's line of sight.

[snip]

And yes, you rightly point out that I have made some very absolutist
statements in the past. When an argument runs on in Usenet it is
inclined to become increasingly polarised - I plead guilty to being
human. In reality I have never considered going a couple of mph over
the limit when the road starts running downhill to be speeding.
Speeding to me is going fast enough to be nicked, which in every
instance I've ever come across involves a significant margin over the
limit.

Indeed the nature of the medium does tend to encourage polarised and
absolutist statements, and those who make them need to be careful they're
not living in glass houses.

Common sense suggests that road traffic law must be enforced on a contingent
basis - all the laws can't be enforced all the time, so the authorities have
to decide which laws to enforce, and where, and should take into account the
benefit to be derived from enforcing the law rather than simply doing so for
the sake of it.

If it is widely believed that the law *is* being enforced for the sake of it
(e.g. the guy stopped 18 inches over a stop line) then trust in the
authorities is eroded and ultimately destroyed.

Is it possible to gain a substantially greater degree of genuine speed limit
compliance (rather than prosecution avoidance) mainly through persuasion? I
would suggest to a large degree it's a somewhat Quixotic quest, and in fact
over the last ten or fifteen years policy trends have actually militated
against it - both in the way speed cameras have been deployed and the way
wholesale and inconsistent speed limit reductions have made it clear that
speed limits, on a road-by-road basis, were not a constant but subject to
political caprice.

Speed cameras in the past have been deliberately concealed, giving the
impression that deterrence is not the first priority. Even where not
concealed, they are normally found on the widest, straightest, most open
stretches of roads and rarely on shopping streets or outside schools.

And, while the trend has not been uniform across the country, anyone who
does much driving will be aware of at least one or two roads where the
reaction is "why the hell is *this* a 30?"

Also much of the pressure for lower limits and tougher enforcement has come
from organisations that are interested as much in curbing car use as in
improving safety, which in turn makes people more likely to doubt the
argument.

So it's hardly surprising that the majority of drivers play "dodge the
Gatso", and will continue to do so until there's a camera every quarter of a
mile along every classified road in Britain. So the challenge must be for
those who wish to promote adherence to speed limits (on the terms you
defined), how this can be done by persuasion, or indeed with any element of
persuasion whatsoever. Because at the moment, on that score, we're going
backwards - speed limits are far less respected, and speeding offences
considered far less reprehensible, than they were when I learned to drive.

We do, of course, have the technology to compel people to adhere to speed
limits, but the risks of that are well summed up by the comments of a
contributor to another forum who said something along the lines of "Great! I
won't have to worry about cameras ever again, I'll be able to drive like a
total tosser, and they won't be able to do anything about it!"

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect."

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:42:01 +0100, "PeterE"
wrote:

[snip moderate and reasonable words]

The thing is, I mostly agree with you /except/ that there is
compelling evidence that speeding, at least speeding sufficient to
cause a Gatso to trigger, is in and of itself dangerous. I would
suggest that the Gatsos are a reflection of an increasing
determination to speed, rather than the other way around.

I first noticed seriously aggressive overtaking and extremes of
speeding in the mid 1980s, at a time when selfishness was being
promoted as socially desirable and arrogance was admired in the press.
The Gatso didn't start arriving until about 1991, and even now most
cameras I see are in locations where there is a clear and obvious
reason, outside schools and playing fields. I know that not al are,
and I know that many speed limits are arbitrary - but the old
objective criteria were just as bad. You couldn't get a speed limit
in a village with narrow roads and no footways until enough people had
been killed.

Is it possible to gain a substantially greater degree of genuine speed limit
compliance (rather than prosecution avoidance) mainly through persuasion? I
would suggest to a large degree it's a somewhat Quixotic quest

Maybe, maybe not. My Mum has now stopped speeding, since the "if he'd
been doing 30 he would have stopped here" campaign.

Speed cameras in the past have been deliberately concealed, giving the
impression that deterrence is not the first priority.

I don't know about you, but if I were inclined to speed the knowledge
that any tree could conceal a camera would be a much stronger
deterrent than knowing that all cameras are brightly coloured and
visible a mile off. Enforcement activity usually works best when it's
not widely advertised in advance.

they are normally found on the widest, straightest, most open
stretches of roads and rarely on shopping streets or outside schools.

Not where I live, but maybe where you are.

Also much of the pressure for lower limits and tougher enforcement has come
from organisations that are interested as much in curbing car use as in
improving safety, which in turn makes people more likely to doubt the
argument.

Ah, well, I have a degree of sympathy with their aims. Riding to work
today, first full week of the school holidays, the roads were deserted
and much more pleasant for that :-)

So it's hardly surprising that the majority of drivers play "dodge the
Gatso"

Majority? I'm not sure that most are playing that game, I think most
are simply in the habit of speeding; once the habit is broken they
would probably just drive legally and still be content.

I may be wrong, but it does seem to me as if urban speeding is in
decline at the moment. People then seem to make up for it by driving
at motorway speeds along country lanes, which is a bit hair-raising.

Guy
===
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk: Respectable rules for responsible people