Minister for speed cameras admits to having a detector

[mb]

Tony Raven wrote:

> mb wrote:
> >
> > How do you know when they're speeding? Don't tell me, I think I
> > know.
> >
>
> Easy, if they are going faster than me and I am at the speed limit as
> measured by a GPS calibrated speedo, then they are by definition
> speeding.


A what? Please explain to the assembled masses just exactly what a GPS
calibrated speedo is. Well, explain it to me then, I have never heard
of such a device.
Do you always drive exactly at the speed limit, as defined by your GPS
calibrated speedo?


>
> >
> > > I never brake for cameras - I don't need to.
> >
> > You are a model of perfection, or maybe you don't own motorised
> > transportation.
> >
>
> I don't run red lights on my bicycle or in my car either.
>
> >
> > FFS, don't you realise it's possible to own something without using
> > it? Apparently not.
>
> But Mr Ladyman admits he uses it - your point is?

I thought that was obvious. As for Ladyman, well, I think he needs to
have something to keep him awake.

--
Mike

 

[mb]

Tony Raven wrote:

> mb wrote:
> >
> > Try reading my posts again. Reading properly seems to be beyond you.
> >
>
> Hmmmm.....mb.....MattB......I wonder?


And you can FRO. Or you can check the headers.

--
Mike

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:03:45 GMT, Paul <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Only a buffoon would spend money on a device to alert him to speed cameras
> unless he believed that there was some chance that he was going to get caught by
> one.
>
> Ergo, either he knows he is insufficiently competant a driver to be aware of the
> speed limit as he drives, or he intends to break the speed limit.

You missed the alternative - or he's a buffoon. He is a cabinet
minister, you know.

But I agree, it's more likely he's an arrogant hypocrite.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:14:27 -0600, mb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm aware of the argument. It doesn't necessarily follow that having a
> detector means the owner/user is breaking the speed limit.
> I really don't like the assumed guilt thing.

Theres's no need to assume - it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt
in a court of law.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Andy Morris]

mb wrote:
>
> Also, this isn't just specific to wotsisname. It looks like everybody
> who owns such a detector is being called a criminal by a few people
> here.

I'll go along with that.

if I'm found going into town with a coat with hidden pockets and photos of
all the store detectives, I think the police might be interested.


--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[P]

Paul wrote:
> Only someone pedantic to the point of lunacy would argue that the
> minister's actions show him to be a competant, legal, driver.

But the pedantic person doesn't need to argue that point. The prosecution
has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the minister is not a
competent legal driver; the mere presence of a legal device in his car does
not prove that point.

 

[mb]

Ian Smith wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:14:27 -0600, mb <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm aware of the argument. It doesn't necessarily follow that
> > having a detector means the owner/user is breaking the speed limit.
> > I really don't like the assumed guilt thing.
>
> Theres's no need to assume - it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt
> in a court of law.
>
>

Although it (the article) doesn't actually say he got his points for
speeding. It also doesn't specifically mention he has camera detection
software on his GPS - it mentions he has "such a device".

--
Mike

 

[graham]

"mb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> > OK, what about guns?
>>
>> What about guns?
>
> Prolly what I should have asked first.
>
> --
Surely you weren't thinking that trite old piece of shite: "Guns don't kill
people; people kill people" were you?

 

[Tony Raven]

mb wrote:
>
> Although it (the article) doesn't actually say he got his points for
> speeding. It also doesn't specifically mention he has camera detection
> software on his GPS - it mentions he has "such a device".
>

No, he admitted it on Top Gear and it is repeated in the link given in
the article. It doesn't specifically mention it was a camera detector
but it is quite clear from the Hansard record that it is:

Mr Paterson: I should declare that my wife gave me a GPS device which
tells me where cameras are......Can the Minister clarify that devices
that show where cameras are positioned will continue to be allowed?

Dr. Ladyman: Such devices will continue to be perfectly legal. I have
one myself.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[mb]

graham wrote:

>
> "mb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]... >>> OK, what about guns?
> > >
> > > What about guns?
> >
> > Prolly what I should have asked first.
> >
> > --
> Surely you weren't thinking that trite old piece of shite: "Guns
> don't kill people; people kill people" were you?

No.

--
Mike

 

[Alistair Gunn]

Richard twisted the electrons to say:
> i) a speeder who wishes not to get caught, in which case they are
> committing a criminal offence.

> ii) someone who knows that they are so incompetent at driving they don't
> know what the speed limit is, in which case they are, prima facie,
> driving without due care and attention - a criminal offence.

> iii) someone who is neither, but wishes to pretend to be one of the
> above categories - in which case they are a useless ******. That,
> sadly, is not a criminal offence.

iv) Often drives down roads which they are unfamiliar with and wishes to
know in advance the locations where road safety cameras are emplaced so
that they will know to take additional care ...

Nb: I don't really agree with the above argument, but if the government
is going to insist on them being a safety device (even though they seem
strangely unconnected with accident blackspots) then IMHO it's an
argument.

Of course, the worse part to the cameras is that they encourage the idea
that if you're travelling at or below the speed limit you are "safe"
whilst if you are above it you are "dangerous" ... <shrugs>
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

P wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>> Only someone pedantic to the point of lunacy would argue that the
>> minister's actions show him to be a competant, legal, driver.
>
> But the pedantic person doesn't need to argue that point. The
> prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the
> minister is not a competent legal driver; the mere presence of a
> legal device in his car does not prove that point.

Only if they wish to persue a further criminal charge against the known
lawbreaker.

If they wish to say that it seems he condones speeding by purchasing a
device that would make it easier to speed without getting caught, then I
think all they need is his admission that he's bought one. Which no one is
disputing.
--
Ambrose

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

mb wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> mb wrote:
>>> Have you ever noticed how people slow down, or even brake, when they
>>> notice a camera for the first time. I mean even when they're not
>>> speeding anyway?
>>
>> Occasionally yes but mostly when they are speeding.
>
> How do you know when they're speeding? Don't tell me, I think I know.
>
>> I never brake for cameras - I don't need to.
>
> You are a model of perfection, or maybe you don't own motorised
> transportation.

I have never braked for a camera. I do have to confess that I check my
speedometer when I see a camera coming up, and occasionally have to ease off
the throttle very slightly.*

Anyone who needs to brake either failed to see something which is always
visible from a considerable distance, or was driving substantially in excess
of the speed limit.

--
Ambrose
*a 'display your speed' style warning sign on the approach to a village
(i.e. before the limit applied) told me I was driving at 30mph when my
speedometer measured 34ish, so I guess I probably am not speeding on the
occasions when my speedometer needle is the wrong side of the desired speed.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Of course, the worse part to the cameras is that they encourage the
> idea that if you're travelling at or below the speed limit you are
> "safe" whilst if you are above it you are "dangerous" ... <shrugs>

But only to a *complete* numpty.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, mb
('[email protected]') wrote:

>> Try this one: for what other purpose, other than deliberately,
>> consciously evading the law, would anyone use a device to warn them
>> of the presence of speeding detection cameras?
>
> Now, see what I mean. It's only evading the law if you're speeding to
> begin with, or do you not see that with your blinkers on?

When you go out on a bicycle ride, do you take shark repellent with you?
Most people don't. Why not? Because they don't expect to be attacked by
sharks, so it would be redundant.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
has been switched off.

 

[mb]

Simon Brooke wrote:

>
> When you go out on a bicycle ride, do you take shark repellent with
> you? Most people don't.


You never know, I was cycling here today:
51.646082907, 3.71793437525 stick it in Google Earth.

It was very windy and there could be anything swimming round in there...

--
Mike

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Alistair Gunn
('[email protected]') wrote:

> iv) Often drives down roads which they are unfamiliar with and wishes
> to know in advance the locations where road safety cameras are emplaced
> so that they will know to take additional care ...

You don't _need_ to take extra care near cameras. If you're driving with
only normal competence, you will _never_ get 'caught' by one. Having one
may not prove you're a criminal, but it does prove you don't have any
confidence in your own skills as a driver - that, in fact, you _know_
you're incompetent. Which, I suppose, is better than _not_ knowing it.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

 

[Alistair Gunn]

Mark Thompson twisted the electrons to say:
> > Of course, the worse part to the cameras is that they encourage the
> > idea that if you're travelling at or below the speed limit you are
> > "safe" whilst if you are above it you are "dangerous" ... <shrugs>
> But only to a *complete* numpty.

.... there's a lot of them around.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[Nigel Wade]

Ian Smith wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:14:27 -0600, mb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm aware of the argument. It doesn't necessarily follow that having a
>> detector means the owner/user is breaking the speed limit.
>> I really don't like the assumed guilt thing.
>
> Theres's no need to assume - it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt
> in a court of law.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

Has it? In which court of law has possession of a radar detector been accepted
as proof that the owner was breaking the speed limit?

--
Nigel Wade

 

[Nigel Wade]

Tony Raven wrote:

> mb wrote:
>>
>> Although it (the article) doesn't actually say he got his points for
>> speeding. It also doesn't specifically mention he has camera detection
>> software on his GPS - it mentions he has "such a device".
>>
>
> No, he admitted it on Top Gear and it is repeated in the link given in
> the article. It doesn't specifically mention it was a camera detector
> but it is quite clear from the Hansard record that it is:
>
> Mr Paterson: I should declare that my wife gave me a GPS device which
> tells me where cameras are......Can the Minister clarify that devices
> that show where cameras are positioned will continue to be allowed?
>
> Dr. Ladyman: Such devices will continue to be perfectly legal. I have
> one myself.
>

That's not a camera detector (which are to become illegal) but simply a database
of *known* camera locations (which will remain legal).

A GPS receiver cannot detect speed cameras.

--
Nigel Wade