A good idea from wreck.bikes

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Posted elsewhere by Zippy:

"There was a comic awhile back -- I've long since
forgotten which one -- who had this idea. Everyone would
be issued these little dart-guns. They'd shoot a dart that
had a little flag on it that said "STUPID". They'd shoot
them at any driver they saw doing something, well, stupid.
If any law enforcement officer saw a car with five or more
"stupid" darts on it, he could stop the car and arrest the
driver without further ado."

That has a certain appeal :-)

I like it!!

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Posted elsewhere by Zippy:

"There was a comic awhile back -- I've long since
forgotten which one -- who had this idea. Everyone would
be issued these little dart-guns. They'd shoot a dart that
had a little flag on it that said "STUPID". They'd shoot
them at any driver they saw doing something, well, stupid.
If any law enforcement officer saw a car with five or more
"stupid" darts on it, he could stop the car and arrest the
driver without further ado."

Good idea, but you'd have to have a large trailer to carry
the ammunition!

Quoted message said:

That has a certain appeal :-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle
after posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

burt said:

Good idea, but you'd have to have a large trailer to carry
the ammunition!

We could set up a guard of honour for P**l Sm**h, and pepper
his car whenever he goes out....

Regards,

Pete.

Peter Connolly said:

burt said:

Good idea, but you'd have to have a large trailer to carry
the ammunition!

We could set up a guard of honour for P**l Sm**h, and
pepper his car whenever he goes out....

I don't think he does go out :-)

Peter

"Peter Connolly" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burt said:

Good idea, but you'd have to have a large trailer to
carry the ammunition!

We could set up a guard of honour for P**l Sm**h, and
pepper his car whenever he goes out....

Two problems

a) no-one on the group lives within 150 miles (one hour's
drive?) of him
b) thats one hell of a fast moving target.

Jon Senior said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message

Quoted message said:

-- who had this idea. Everyone would be issued these
little dart-guns. They'd shoot a dart that had a little
flag on it that said "STUPID". They'd shoot them at any
driver they saw doing something, well, stupid. If any law
enforcement officer saw a car with five or more "stupid"
darts on it, he could stop the car and arrest the driver
without further ado."

... Incidentally, Which Online is offering a free digital
camera to all new subscribers (30 day free trial, you can
cancel before it ends and still keep your camera!). It's
not brilliant, but it's small enough to attach easily to
the frame and could be used to provide evidence, or to log
number plates of idiot drivers (There are often too many
on Leith Walk to remember them all!).

I had a similar idea. If two or three unconnected people
report separate incidents of dangerous behaviour by the same
driver, this should be taken as sufficient proof for a
dangerous driving conviction. This would get over the
problem of police ignoring complaints not supported by
witnesses.

Colin Mckenzie
--
Why believe statistics? Ignore them and you can believe the
damned lies instead!

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:43:07 +0100, Colin McKenzie <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I had a similar idea. If two or three unconnected people
report separate incidents of dangerous behaviour by the
same driver, this should be taken as sufficient proof for
a dangerous driving conviction. This would get over the
problem of police ignoring complaints not supported by
witnesses.

Problem is you need several willing people to actually see
the incident. Like the guy I saw yesterday tailgating
another car through an urban area while on the phone. He
drove straight past the fron of the police station while
doing this but I don't think the police look out the windows

Also, if there was a hint that the witnesses had got
together before reporting the incident then the police might
consider some sort of collusion was going on.

Colin
--

Colin Blackburn said:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:43:07 +0100, Colin McKenzie

Quoted message said:

I had a similar idea. If two or three unconnected people
report separate incidents of dangerous behaviour by the
same driver, this should be taken as sufficient proof for
a dangerous driving conviction. This would get over the
problem of police ignoring complaints not supported by
witnesses.

Problem is you need several willing people to actually
see the incident. Like the guy I saw yesterday
tailgating another car through an urban area while on
the phone. He drove straight past the fron of the police
station while doing this but I don't think the police
look out the windows

NO, several people seeing separate (but similar) incidents -
this should carry the same weight as several people seeing
the same incident.

Quoted message said:

Also, if there was a hint that the witnesses had got
together before reporting the incident then the police
might consider some sort of collusion was going on.

A risk - but I think the burden of proof could be on the
driver to prove collusion, as in this case the witnesses
would be innocent (of collusion) until proven guilty.

Colin McKenzie
--
Why believe statistics? Ignore them and you can believe the
damned lies instead!

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:17:17 +0100, Colin McKenzie <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

NO, several people seeing separate (but similar) incidents
- this should carry the same weight as several people
seeing the same incident.

Sorry I misread that but that's either more unlikely to
happen or...

Quoted message said:

A risk - but I think the burden of proof could be on the
driver to prove collusion, as in this case the witnesses
would be innocent (of collusion) until proven guilty.

...or more obvious collusion. The driver would have to prove
nothing, it's what the CPS/police would consider which is
important.

Colin
--

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:00:26 +0100, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon.co.uk said:

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

...or more obvious collusion. The driver would have to
prove nothing, it's what the CPS/police would consider
which is important.

3 cyclists on the same road all witness someone driving
like a [censored]. All three take a photo and report it. This is
not collusion, it is three separate incidents, and someone
who drives like a [censored] at one point will usually continue
to do so down the length of the road.

Indeed, but the original suggestion for this however was
about organised behaviour.

Colin
--

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3 cyclists on the same road all witness someone driving
like a [censored]. All three take a photo and report it. This
is not collusion, it is three separate incidents, and
someone who drives like a [censored] at one point will usually
continue to do so down the length of the road.

Indeed, but the original suggestion for this however was
about organised behaviour.

I thought that the original suggestion for this was mine,
with regard to a small, free, digital camera. I believe the
comments were meant to suggest that if enough people adopted
a practice of reporting bad driving, the same drivers would
ultimately get reported enough times to prompt action from
the police (Naive, but possible!).

Jon

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗). Version: 6.0.661 /
Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:17:17 +0100, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon.co.uk said:

I thought that the original suggestion for this was mine,
with regard to a small, free, digital camera. I believe
the comments were meant to suggest that if enough people
adopted a practice of reporting bad driving, the same
drivers would ultimately get reported enough times to
prompt action from the police (Naive, but possible!).

Yes, sorry, on re-reading the thread I realise I was reading
too much organisation into the plans! I guess your
suggestions and Colin M's follow-up boil down to asking
evryone to report bad driving whenever they see it. Probably
naive :-( and it would involve the police actually recording
and then cross checking complaints. With my mentioned
incident I was yards from the police station but as I didn't
notice the reg plate I don't think they'd have been
interested despite the proximity.

Colin
--

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:17:17 +0100, "Jon Senior"
<jon_AT_restlesslemon.co.uk> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3 cyclists on the same road all witness someone driving
like a [censored]. All three take a photo and report it. This
is not collusion, it is three separate incidents, and
someone who drives like a [censored] at one point will usually
continue to do so down the length of the road.

Indeed, but the original suggestion for this however was
about organised behaviour.

I thought that the original suggestion for this was mine,
with regard to a small, free, digital camera. I believe the
comments were meant to suggest that if enough people
adopted a practice of reporting bad driving, the same
drivers would ultimately get reported enough times to
prompt action from the police (Naive, but possible!).

The problem is that by the time the incident happens, you
get out the camera/get it pointed at the right place, the
incident is over, or the relevant number-plate is out of
camera range.

What ewe need is a camera that, when you hit the button,
then records whatever it has 'seen' during the preceding
30/45/60 seconds.

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

What ewe need is a camera that, when you hit the button,
then records whatever it has 'seen' during the preceding
30/45/60 seconds.

The inside of your pocket?

Gawnsoft said:

The problem is that by the time the incident happens, you
get out the camera/get it pointed at the right place, the
incident is over, or the relevant number-plate is out of
camera range.

What ewe need is a camera that, when you hit the button,
then records whatever it has 'seen' during the preceding
30/45/60 seconds.

The camera equivalent of a Tivo or some mindisc recorders.
These both buffer the default source for some fixed time and
include that buffer in the recording when record is hit.
Great for catching the start of TV or radio programmes as
long as you are tuned to the right channel.

A digital camera working something like this, within the
limitations od CCDs, would probably eat batteries.

Colin
--