Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:29:09 +0100, chris French
wrote:

In message
,
writes
On 25 Apr, 16:42, Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 25 Apr, 16:34, wrote:

"A spokesman for the Cleveland Safety Camera Partnership said: “It is
the responsibility of the contractors and the Highways Agency for
signage during road works. All we can do is check that the signs are
in the right place when police officers are present at the scene.”

What is a "safety camera"?

--
Simon Mason

ask your Mrs

She got caught by a mobile police unit outside a school, hiding in a
big van with red stripes on it and "safety camera partnership"
plastered all over it parked next to a sign on a lampost stating that
cameras were operating in that area.


Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
him/her.

think I need to add 'Motorist' in the subject line to it as well


Hello sunshine

Have you been added to the approved moderator list?

We've not been informed.

WTF does it matter to you who anyone chooses to respond to ?


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

In message
,
writes
Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
him/her.

think I need to add 'Motorist' in the subject line to it as well

You can add me to your killfile as well and solve that problem.


Well, yes I could, though that would leave others.

But I've no wish to KF you Simon
--
Chris French

On 25 Apr, 20:52, chris French
wrote:
In message
,
writes

Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
him/her.

think I need to add 'Motorist' in the subject line to it as well

You can add me to your killfile as well and solve that problem.

Well, yes I could, though that would leave others.

But I've no wish to KF you Simon
--
Chris French

Thanks. In that case, I am in a dilemma, as neither Judith nor Nuxxy
has verbally abused me and as long as they are polite and reasonable I
see no reason to stop my dialog with them.

--
Simon Mason

wrote:
On 25 Apr, 19:30, "alan.holmes" wrote:
wrote in message



Was she silly enough to pay the fine, or did she ask to see the
'evidence'?


She admitted she was doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone outside of a school
and since she had no money *I* was silly enough to pay the fine!

I hope she took you out to a meal (or something similar) as compensation.

On 25 Apr, 21:59, "Adam Lea" wrote:
wrote:
On 25 Apr, 19:30, "alan.holmes" wrote:
wrote in message

Was she silly enough to pay the fine, or did she ask to see the
'evidence'?

She admitted she was doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone outside of a school
and since she had no money *I* was silly enough to pay the fine!

I hope she took you out to a meal (or something similar) as compensation.

She couldn't pay her speeding fine, so where was she going to find the
money to buy a meal from? I'm sure it kept plod on their toes though,
there must be many men who have points on their licence who try and
make out their wives were driving. The late Paul Smith comments here.

The Times, May 14, 2005
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

MORE than half a million drivers have avoided getting points on their
licences by getting a partner to admit to a speeding offence, a survey
has found.

The growing practice of points-swapping is believed to be saving
thousands of motorists each year from being banned from driving for
accumulating 12 penalty points.

A survey of 2,000 drivers by Churchill Insurance found that 2.2 per
cent admitted to taking points on behalf of their partner. With 33
million licence-holders, this is the equivalent of 726,000 drivers. A
third said that they would consider asking their partners to admit to
their speeding offence if it prevented them from losing their licence.
The overwhelming majority of those who had taken points on behalf of a
partner were women.

The survey follows extensive anecdotal evidence of wives accepting
penalties in order to allow their husbands to keep their jobs. One in
seven motorists in the survey said that they would be unable to work
if they lost their licences.

Police chiefs have been puzzled why the number of people being
disqualified for gaining a fourth three-point penalty has fallen while
the number of speeding tickets has multiplied.

In 2003, 1.8 million offences were detected by speed cameras, up from
500,000 in 1999. Yet the number of people disqualified for acquiring
12 points fell from 34,000 to 33,000.

The RAC Foundation said that the rise in points-swapping helped to
explain the discrepancy. Edmund King, the foundation's director, said
that the survey supported widespread anecdotal evidence of points
fraud.

He said: “The temptations are great for those who would lose their
livelihoods. The wife may be faced with a choice between the family
being plunged into poverty or accepting the points which her husband
had incurred.”

The survey also undermines claims that the low number of
disqualifications proves that speed cameras are working. The AA
Motoring Trust has argued that drivers must be learning their lesson
after gaining three speeding penalties because so few went on to pick
up four.

Paul Smith, founder of the anti-camera campaign SafeSpeed, said that
it was more likely that a large proportion of those drivers on the
brink of a ban asked a relative or friend to take the points for any
further offences.

He said that points-swapping was a product of a camera-based system in
which no police officer was involved in stopping the driver.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said that points-
swapping was very difficult to detect and usually came to light only
when a couple got divorced and the wife accused the husband of passing
his points on to her. Ian Bell, Acpo's speed camera liaison officer,
said that there were no routine checks on whether the person admitting
to an offence was the person who had committed it: “While Gatsos
photograph the rear of the vehicle, others, like Truvelos and mobile
cameras, take a picture of the front and may show who was driving. But
if we have got an admission by a driver, there would be no reason to
check.”

In January, a father was jailed for four months for perverting the
course of justice after claiming that a French friend had been
responsible for a speeding offence committed by his daughter. David
Simmonite, 60, of Bradford, West Yorkshire, had hoped to spare his
daughter, Stephanie, from receiving three points after she was flashed
at 87mph on the A1 in Grantham, Lincolnshire.

Police checked with the Frenchman and found that he was at home being
treated for a kidney complaint at the time.

The Home Office said a person who accepted points on behalf of someone
else would be charged with perjury, which carries a maximum penalty of
seven years imprisonment.



--
Simon Mason

Phil W Lee wrote:
"alan.holmes" considered Sat, 25 Apr
2009 19:28:44 +0100 the perfect time to write:

wrote in message
...
"A spokesman for the Cleveland Safety Camera Partnership said: “It is
the responsibility of the contractors and the Highways Agency for
signage during road works. All we can do is check that the signs are
in the right place when police officers are present at the scene.”

What is a "safety camera"?
It is a device used to falsly accuse motorists of exceeding the speed limit
and thus raise money for the government.

Alan

If you're that convinced you weren't speeding, maybe you should check
that your speedometer is legal.

Odds are _vanishingly_ small that it isn't legal, though. They can
_over-read_ by up to 10%, but _under-read_ by 0.

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:29:09 +0100, chris French
wrote:

Doesn't much help Killfiling Nuxy and co if people keep responding to
him/her.

As long as the nuxxious emissions are appropriately trimmed I don't
care overmuch if people respond, but I do find it wearing when people
quote all of one of his rants just to tell him he's a loathsome
brainless trolling ****tard, as if we didn't already know that.

think I need to add 'Motorist' in the subject line to it as well

That's a good idea, I must try that.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:23:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Thanks. In that case, I am in a dilemma, as neither Judith nor Nuxxy
has verbally abused me and as long as they are polite and reasonable I
see no reason to stop my dialog with them.

Well, polite, anyway. There is certainly no intersection between
nuxxy's maunderings and anything which could be called "reason".

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

Phil W Lee wrote:
thaksin considered Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:41:34
+0100 the perfect time to write:

Phil W Lee wrote:
"alan.holmes" considered Sat, 25 Apr
2009 19:28:44 +0100 the perfect time to write:

wrote in message
...
"A spokesman for the Cleveland Safety Camera Partnership said: “It is
the responsibility of the contractors and the Highways Agency for
signage during road works. All we can do is check that the signs are
in the right place when police officers are present at the scene.”

What is a "safety camera"?
It is a device used to falsly accuse motorists of exceeding the speed limit
and thus raise money for the government.

Alan
If you're that convinced you weren't speeding, maybe you should check
that your speedometer is legal.
Odds are _vanishingly_ small that it isn't legal, though. They can
_over-read_ by up to 10%, but _under-read_ by 0.

If, of course, you're still using the exact same dimension of tyre
that the car came with as standard.

Granted, but I'd bet that 99% of cars are thus shod.

thaksin writes:

Phil W Lee wrote:
thaksin considered Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:41:34
+0100 the perfect time to write:
Odds are _vanishingly_ small that it isn't legal, though. They can
_over-read_ by up to 10%, but _under-read_ by 0.

If, of course, you're still using the exact same dimension of tyre
that the car came with as standard.

Granted, but I'd bet that 99% of cars are thus shod.

A brief check of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations
1986 doesn't say anything about an exemption for cars with unusual tyre
sizes. I conclude therefore that the legal requirement for speedometer
accuracy holds nevertheless, and if you modify your car in this way it's
your responsibility to finish the job properly


-dan