Silk wrote:
Knight Of The Road wrote:
"SteveH" wrote


automated revenue cameras
--





You are at liberty to opt out...



How am I able to opt of having to drive at 30mph past a speed camera
on a road good for 60mph?

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

Jerry wrote:
"Knight Of The Road" wrote in message
...





"Silk" wrote

How am I able to opt of having to drive at 30mph past a speed
camera on a road good for 60mph?



I wouild dispute that 60mph is a safe speed at which to drive in any
built-up area unless there is physical separation between road and
dwellings.

OK - How am I to opt out of driving at 40 on a road good for 60, or
even 70 mph?

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

"Jerry" wrote

OK

- How am I to opt out of driving at 40 on a road good for 60, or even 70
mph?


If the road is good for 60 or 70, then you won't be penalised for driving at
60 or 70.


--
Regards, Vince.

www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk

Silk wrote:

snip

How am I able to opt of having to drive at 30mph past a speed camera on
a road good for 60mph?

Knock it down a gear and floor it. Sounds simple enough to me, whats
your problem?

TripleS wrote:
I don't know about that one way or the other, because I pay little
attention to the figures. This is far from ideal but I so distrust the
statistics (wherever they come from) that I merely base my opinions on
my own observations of how things seem to be working and my own
instincts for what is right.

That's not very scientific, but it's all I can offer.

*not at all scientific*, and probably the worst possible way of
learning about the world, especially things and events that are rare.

If they don't happen to you, you'll decide they never happen.
If they do, you'll think they happen more than they do.

One of the main benefits of civilization is that people can learn from
others' mistakes, and not just their own. The main benefit of
statistics is that they can be used to spot the difference between one
in a million and one in a thousand.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Colin McKenzie wrote:
TripleS wrote:
I don't know about that one way or the other, because I pay little
attention to the figures. This is far from ideal but I so distrust
the statistics (wherever they come from) that I merely base my
opinions on my own observations of how things seem to be working and
my own instincts for what is right.

That's not very scientific, but it's all I can offer.

*not at all scientific*, and probably the worst possible way of learning
about the world, especially things and events that are rare.

Nonsense. Given sufficient experience one can form a reasonable view of
how things are. If that is inadequate for your purposes ignore it by
all means, but it doesn't mean that what I'm saying is totally invalid.

In any case, so far as driving is concerned, what does your experience
amount to?

If they don't happen to you, you'll decide they never happen.

Nonsense. I draw no such conclusion.

If they do, you'll think they happen more than they do.

Nonsense. I draw no such conslusion.

One of the main benefits of civilization is that people can learn from
others' mistakes, and not just their own. The main benefit of statistics
is that they can be used to spot the difference between one in a million
and one in a thousand.

That's more like it, so long as the statistics are reasonably reliable. :-)

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
David from Oz wrote:
There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction
offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences
etc), as following successful trials in London they are now being
rolled out nationally. Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this
group) was interviewed and argued against such measures stating his
view that that they did not *prevent * such offences, merely
*punished* but did not reduce the number of offices.

Hmmm , so an increased chance of being caught doesn't act as a deterrent at
all........

I'd be interested to know what he would propose that could prevent someone
blocking a box junction.

How about one of those electromagnet based wrecking cranes to lift the
offender out of the way so that traffic can move freely again? And
maybe leave them in the air for an hour or two as a warning to others.
I think the claw type grab might be a bit too brutal.

If you think we have a problem there are countries where traffic light
discipline is so bad that without policemen on every junction at rush
hour it all grinds to a complete standstill - think herringbone
pattern of cars in every junction all moving and hooting at random.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:

If you think we have a problem there are countries where traffic light
discipline is so bad that without policemen on every junction at rush
hour it all grinds to a complete standstill - think herringbone
pattern of cars in every junction all moving and hooting at random.

I've been at junctions where it ends up a free-for-all. The light goes
green for one road but access is obstructed, so they go on red. And
then it goes on from there - just go when you can. Many would say that
if the lights don't do their job, that's probably the best option.

Most gridlock (or starvation to be more technical) occurs where there
are two signals in close succession, such that the space between the
signals is filled quickly by one side and then the other side will have
nowhere to go. Actually this is commonly the situation at Henlys Corner
for the A406 Westbound. In the last couple of weeks they have been
resurfacing and there is currently no box junction and the approach has
become a lot emptier as a result.

David from Oz wrote:
..
Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented
on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit
further offences.

Actually that was discussed on uk.legal and it was questioned whether
you had committed an offence at all as you were waiting to turn right
onto the A406 Eastbound and the exit was presumably not blocked at the
time you entered the box. The only question was whether there was one
box or two.

I used to go ahead, U-turn then turn left. Was always a much quicker
way to get through that junction.

If they really wanted to reduce congestion at that junction then the
options a

1. (Preferable). Back to the original plans.
2. Ban all right turns at that junction. Traffic wishing to head for
the A406 Eastbound from there should find an alternative route. This
might be achieved with a U-turning area in Bowes Road.
3. One way system along Telford Road, Bowes Road, Green Lanes and
Bounds Green Road. Not sure how feasible that would be.

The problem with a box junction can be:

- do you really only enter when the exit is clear or when you predict
the exit will be clear? In free-flowing traffic, for example, but the
car in front hasn't got to the other end yet.

- What do you do then if there would be room but the car in front
stopped just after they had cleared the junction, rather than moving
into the space in front? You know what some are like in traffic queues
with their enormous gaps.

In article , TripleS says...

I don't know about that one way or the other, because I pay little
attention to the figures. This is far from ideal but I so distrust the
statistics (wherever they come from) that I merely base my opinions on
my own observations of how things seem to be working and my own
instincts for what is right.

That's not very scientific, but it's all I can offer.

It's probably far more accurate as well.

--
Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm