OT: Today's Darwin award.



N

naked_draughtsman

Guest
Simon Mason wrote:
> Almost as bad as the guy who dug up a speed limit sign and planted it
> somewhere else so he wouldn't get done for speeding.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5320092.stm


"However, the device was a Watchman camera which provides the local
authority with traffic information.
The authority uses the information to write to offenders but does not
carry out prosecutions."

Does that mean after all the fuss and the damage caused, he never got
done for speeding and never lost his licence?

peter
 
T

Tony B

Guest
Simon Mason wrote:
> Almost as bad as the guy who dug up a speed limit sign and planted it
> somewhere else so he wouldn't get done for speeding.


Just up the road from me, that camera is. After my experience in Thorne
this year, I reckon they should lock up every driver in town ;-)

A bit of a bugger though, the cops using his tracker to finger him. I
thought they (trackers) were supposed to help get your car back in the
event of a theft, not help put the owner in gaol. Ho Ho Ho. The twunt.

Tony B
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"Tony B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Simon Mason wrote:
>> Almost as bad as the guy who dug up a speed limit sign and planted it
>> somewhere else so he wouldn't get done for speeding.

>
> Just up the road from me, that camera is. After my experience in Thorne
> this year, I reckon they should lock up every driver in town ;-)
>
> A bit of a bugger though, the cops using his tracker to finger him. I
> thought they (trackers) were supposed to help get your car back in the
> event of a theft, not help put the owner in gaol. Ho Ho Ho. The twunt.


He wasn't the owner - it was a works van.

cheers,
clive
 
T

Tony B

Guest
Clive George wrote:

> He wasn't the owner - it was a works van.


the spy in the cab eh? Oops.... silly him. I wonder if he knew it had
one fitted? Then again, that only places the van at the scene. I suppose
he could have denied all involvement and got off, unless he cracked and
came clean. Still a twunt though ;-)

Tony B
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
naked_draughtsman wrote on 06/09/2006 17:51 +0100:
> Simon Mason wrote:
>> Almost as bad as the guy who dug up a speed limit sign and planted it
>> somewhere else so he wouldn't get done for speeding.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5320092.stm

>
> "However, the device was a Watchman camera which provides the local
> authority with traffic information.
> The authority uses the information to write to offenders but does not
> carry out prosecutions."
>
> Does that mean after all the fuss and the damage caused, he never got
> done for speeding and never lost his licence?
>


More worrying was his partner's comment:
"Craig never hurt anybody. He only stopped the government from making
a bit more money on speeding fines - shame!"

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
P

Pyromancer

Guest
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tony Raven
<[email protected]> gently breathed:
>naked_draughtsman wrote on 06/09/2006 17:51 +0100:
>> Simon Mason wrote:


>>> Almost as bad as the guy who dug up a speed limit sign and planted it
>>> somewhere else so he wouldn't get done for speeding.


>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5320092.stm


>> "However, the device was a Watchman camera which provides the local
>> authority with traffic information.
>> The authority uses the information to write to offenders but does not
>> carry out prosecutions."
>> Does that mean after all the fuss and the damage caused, he never
>>got
>> done for speeding and never lost his licence?


>More worrying was his partner's comment:
> "Craig never hurt anybody. He only stopped the government from making
>a bit more money on speeding fines - shame!"


Fact is, that is how the general public view speed cameras. It doesn't
matter how many times people try and call them "safety cameras" or how
many adverts are aired about them only being sited in genuine danger
areas - to the vast majority of people, speed cameras are evil
contraptions designed to persecute innocent motorists who aren't doing
any harm while the police laze about collecting fines instead of chasing
"real criminals". Sad, but true.

The only place people seem to want speed cameras is directly outside
schools, where the chances of anyone speeding, given the road clogged by
huge MPVs and 4x4s delivering unhealthy sprogs to said establishment, is
just about nill.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>
 
B

BigRab

Guest
>- to the vast majority of people, speed cameras are evil
>contraptions designed to persecute innocent motorists who aren't doing
>any harm while the police laze about collecting fines instead of chasing
>"real criminals". Sad, but true.


Not at all true IME

I have just asked 10 people what their views were and 9 approved
wholeheartedly and another was noncommital ("just slow down as you pass
then, no problem"

Robert
 
S

spindrift

Guest
BigRab wrote:
> >- to the vast majority of people, speed cameras are evil
> >contraptions designed to persecute innocent motorists who aren't doing
> >any harm while the police laze about collecting fines instead of chasing
> >"real criminals". Sad, but true.



A poll of polls, released today by Transport 2000, demonstrates ongoing
popular support for speed cameras. The environmental transport
group's work, based on six different surveys, shows that support for
the use of speed cameras averages 74 per cent. The latest poll included
in the calculation was carried out by ICM for the BBC in October this
year and showed support for speed cameras running at 75 per cent with
only 19 per cent against.

Demonstrating their concern about speeding issues, local communities
will be taking part in the National Day of Action on Traffic Speeds
being organised by Transport 2000 on Wednesday 10 December 2003.
Communities will be calling for more police action to tackle fast and
speeding drivers illustrating how they are dangerous and represent a
blight on the quality of life of local communities.

Vicky Cann, Assistant Director of Transport 2000, said: "Since speed
cameras started to be more widely used in 2000, opinion polling has
consistently shown strong support for their use. We must not allow a
very vocal minority of motorists to distort this issue. Speed cameras
are actually the motorist's friend because they make the roads safer
for everyone.

"The public support the use of speed cameras because they understand
two very simple things: the faster you go, the more likely you are to
be involved in a crash and the more severe the impact of the crash.
These points have been proved time and again by research carried out by
reputable independent bodies like Transport Research Laboratory."

Notes to Editors

The ICM Research Ltd poll carried out for the BBC in October 2003
asked: "Taking all things into account, on balance, would you say you
are in favour of speed cameras or against speed cameras."
Seventy-five per cent responded to say they were in favour; with only
19 per cent were against.

MORI in August 2001 showed that 70 per cent of respondents to a poll
supported the use of speed cameras.

An NOP/Evening Standard poll in summer 2002 found that 84 per cent of
motorists in London and the southern region viewed the use of speed
cameras as a good thing, even though more than half had been
'flashed', or flashed and fined, by one.

A November 2002 You Gov poll by Transport 2000 showed that 75 per cent
of respondents in London thought that cameras should be used more
widely on dangerous roads.

A 2003 study for the Scottish Executive carried out by researchers at
Napier University said that 75 per cent of drivers thought speed
cameras to be a good thing.

The 2003 Used Car Market Report recorded a 62 per cent satisfaction
rating for speed cameras amongst motorists.

Government evidence shows that speed cameras reduce the number of
people killed or seriously injured at camera sites by 35 per cent. The
number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured at camera sites has
fallen by 56 per cent.

According to work done by the independent Transport Research
Laboratory, speed is a contributory factor in around one-third of fatal
crashes.

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/news/maintainNewsArticles.asp?NewsArticleID=143
 
D

Dave Larrington

Guest
dkahn400 wrote:

> I know you can't always judge from outward appearances, but from the
> look of young Craig if I had to challenge him to a contest at
> something, and my life depended on the outcome, I think I would opt
> for a game of chess rather than a head butting match.


C|N>K

You git, Dave!

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I am the Disgruntled Employee; I am the New Face of Labour
Relations.
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Simon Mason wrote:
>"Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:N0VM$wqbt2
>
>> speed cameras are evil
>> contraptions designed to persecute innocent motorists who aren't doing
>> any harm

>
>How on earth can they persecute "innocent" motorists?


By photographing guilty motorists who have fake plates with a number
registered to an innocent one? Rare, but apparently not unknown, at
least in the case of congestion zone charging.
 
S

Simon Mason

Guest
"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, Simon Mason
> wrote:
>>"Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:N0VM$wqbt2
>>
>>> speed cameras are evil
>>> contraptions designed to persecute innocent motorists who aren't doing
>>> any harm

>>
>>How on earth can they persecute "innocent" motorists?

>
> By photographing guilty motorists who have fake plates with a number
> registered to an innocent one? Rare, but apparently not unknown, at
> least in the case of congestion zone charging.


I don't think he meant that. They are easy to challenge by seeing if the
driver bears any resemblance to the registered owner on the photo. Or other
alibis like being 700 miles away at the time, or at work.

He meant people "only" doing 36 in a 30 etc. Which is "not really speeding"
according to some people, much in the way as nicking one pencil from WH
Smiths is "not really stealing" I suppose.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
 
P

Pyromancer

Guest
Simon Mason wrote:
> "Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:N0VM$wqbt2


> speed cameras are evil
> > contraptions designed to persecute innocent motorists who aren't doing
> > any harm


[ Note - the selective quote above does *NOT* accurately reflect my
original article - for the record I wish to state that I do not hold
these views, rather I am repeating what is a common view from the
general public ]

> How on earth can they persecute "innocent" motorists? If you are not guilty
> of speeding you don't get done, simple.


You know that and I know that. Most genuine car enthusiasts know that
too. But it doesn't stop people from whinging.

> My wife has 2 speeding convictions,
> I have none- why? Because I don't exceed the speed limit.


Likewise (as in I have no speeding convictions - I don't have a wife!).
And it has to be said that the advent of speed cameras did alter my
driving behaviour, so I'd say the do acchieve the effect of making the
generally law-abiding more law-abiding.

> As for not doing any harm, well the hospitals are full of real innocent
> people who have been done real and lasting damage by speeding motor
> vehicles


Indeed. But at the same time it has to be realised that for every
speeding motorist who is involved in an incident, there are thousands
who "get away with it". That's why people are so hard to convince that
speeding is a bad thing, while a high proportion of drunk drivers came
to grief, a far lower proportion of speeders do, and even then there
are often other factors (such as generally bad standards of driving)
involved.

The 19y/o boy or girl racer who decides to go haring round a blind
corner at 55mph on a wet country road in a car with dodgy tyres,
messed-with (i.e. not working as the manufacturer intended) suspension,
and little real driving experience is far more likely to cause an
accident than a 45+ mature driver doing 70 on a 60mph dual carriageway
in a well maintained company car, but it's the latter who's more likely
to be caught by speed cameras.

> - this poor sod for one:
>
> http://www.injurywatch.co.uk/news-a...own-as-prince-naseem-freed-from-prison-496949


>From what I remember of the case, wasn't it claimed that the driver who

caused that crash was racing at the time? Motor racing on the public
roads is dangerous at any speed, as by definition it means a style of
aggressive driving that isn't going to put the safety of others first.
Which backs up my point above about "other factors".

Don't get me wrong, I approve of speed cameras, especially the SPECS
average speed ones. But I'd like to see far more effort put into
dealing with aggressive and dangerous driving in general. The most
danger I've been in recently was caused by a taxi doing about 15 mph
forcing his way past me where the road was too narrow.
 
S

Simon Mason

Guest
"Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Don't get me wrong, I approve of speed cameras, especially the SPECS
> average speed ones. But I'd like to see far more effort put into
> dealing with aggressive and dangerous driving in general. The most
> danger I've been in recently was caused by a taxi doing about 15 mph
> forcing his way past me where the road was too narrow.


Fair comment, I understand now :)

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
 
S

Simon Brooke

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

> The 19y/o boy or girl racer who decides to go haring round a blind
> corner at 55mph on a wet country road in a car with dodgy tyres,
> messed-with (i.e. not working as the manufacturer intended) suspension,
> and little real driving experience is far more likely to cause an
> accident than a 45+ mature driver doing 70 on a 60mph dual carriageway
> in a well maintained company car, but it's the latter who's more likely
> to be caught by speed cameras.


But your 45+ mature driver knows perfectly well he's breaking the law and
has absolutely no excuse. Speaking as someone who has in thirty years of
driving amassed two speeding fines, I'm all in favour of a one strike
and you're out speeding policy - caught speeding once, never drive
legally again; caught driving illegally, eat porrage for three years.

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

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605
 
P

Peter Amey

Guest
Pyromancer wrote:
[snip]
>
> Fact is, that is how the general public view speed cameras. It doesn't
> matter how many times people try and call them "safety cameras" or how
> many adverts are aired about them only being sited in genuine danger
> areas - to the vast majority of people, speed cameras are evil
> contraptions designed to persecute innocent motorists who aren't doing
> any harm while the police laze about collecting fines instead of chasing
> "real criminals". Sad, but true.


If the "vast majority" think that then how come no opinion poll or
survey ever returns that result? In fact most people are in favour of
them, it's just that those who are not make a lot of noise and often
work in places (like the meeja) that help them make a lot of noise.

[snip]

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk
 
C

Chris Hills

Guest
Simon Mason wrote:
> Almost as bad as the guy who dug up a speed limit sign and planted it
> somewhere else so he wouldn't get done for speeding.


You do not seem to know what "Darwin award" really means. "Darwin award"
is a term given to one who causes their own death through stupidity.
According to the story, the offender did not even cause himself any
physical harm.
 
S

Simon Mason

Guest
"Chris Hills" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:r%%[email protected]
> Simon Mason wrote:
>> Almost as bad as the guy who dug up a speed limit sign and planted it
>> somewhere else so he wouldn't get done for speeding.

>
> You do not seem to know what "Darwin award" really means. "Darwin award"
> is a term given to one who causes their own death through stupidity.
> According to the story, the offender did not even cause himself any
> physical harm.


He's been locked away and therefore (hopefully) cannot pass his genes on
for, oh a few months at least.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
 
A

Adam Lea

Guest
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> in message <[email protected]>,
> Pyromancer ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> The 19y/o boy or girl racer who decides to go haring round a blind
>> corner at 55mph on a wet country road in a car with dodgy tyres,
>> messed-with (i.e. not working as the manufacturer intended) suspension,
>> and little real driving experience is far more likely to cause an
>> accident than a 45+ mature driver doing 70 on a 60mph dual carriageway
>> in a well maintained company car, but it's the latter who's more likely
>> to be caught by speed cameras.

>
> But your 45+ mature driver knows perfectly well he's breaking the law and
> has absolutely no excuse. Speaking as someone who has in thirty years of
> driving amassed two speeding fines, I'm all in favour of a one strike
> and you're out speeding policy - caught speeding once, never drive
> legally again; caught driving illegally, eat porrage for three years.
>


That strikes me as rather draconian. Breaking the speed limit isn't
necessarily dangerous at any particular time, certainly not to the point
where a year long ban would be appropriate. We need to focus on dangerous
driving, which includes innapropriate speed - this is what is killing
people. If you are going to ban people for life for speeding, regardless of
the circumstances then you may as well ban cycling for life for anyone who
rides on a pavement, jumps a red light or cycles without lights at night.