Question For Everyone

[Ben C]

On 2008-04-16, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> Simon Mason said the following on 16/04/2008 17:27:
>
>> Yes, it is amazing how so many drivers find this skill so difficult to
>> master. I'm certainly not "staring constantly" at my speedo like many
>> drivers claim.
>
> Of course not - that's what cruise control is for ;-) It does always
> surprise me though when anti-camera people claim that driving is made
> more dangerous because of the constant need to stare at the speedo. For
> me, the clues are subtle things like engine and road noise, and how fast
> the outside world is moving relative to the car. Oh well!

I go by the children bouncing off the windscreen. If they get up again
it means I'm doing 30, if not it's probably more like 40 and I should
lift off a bit.

 

[Ben C]

On 2008-04-16, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 3:16 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>> I cycle regularly and never go through correctly functioning red
>> traffic lights or the wrong way down one-way streets.  Are you also
>> going to call me a liar?
>
> No, because that's completely different to "never speeding". You
> don't need to almost go through red lights or almost go the wrong way
> down one-way streets the whole time that you're moving.

You must be referring to Ken's new 0mph speed limits.

They're fairly comparable things actually. I run red lights on the bike
(but not in the car) and speed in the car (and would if I could on the
bike although hopefully the new 20mph limits may bring that within
reach).

Stopping at red lights pointlessly on a bike I would say is actually
more annoying and pointless than not speeding.

Neither is difficult to do. You can perfectly well cycle and drive 100%
within the law if you want to, and if you can't then you aren't
competent to be riding or driving. I say "can't" not "won't".

 

[Colin Reed]

"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:46d4ff45-dd7a-48af-bf74-5157f3a5c114@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>I have six legs. You have no evidence to justify disbelieving me, but
>the fact that no-one has six legs should give the game away as to
>whether I'm telling the truth.

Why should we disbelieve you? Most insects do have 6 legs.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:50:02 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>> Do you have cruise control?
>
> Oooh! Me! I do!

Not until Saturday, but even without it I can manage to remain at a
near-constant velocity, under the speed limit. I can also check my mirrors,
light a cigarette or extract a piece of chewing gum without suddenly
accelerating to R17, so I'm rather non-plussed as to why the acolytes of
Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith find it so bloody taxing.

Meanwhile, here is a picture of a kitten:

http://www.royalcanin.co.uk/images/walking kitten RC Germany.jpg

Note how, even at this early stage in its development, it demonstrates
superior skills in the art of presenting a logical argument than Nuxxy-Wuxxy
will if it lives to be 103.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I thought I saw his name on a jar of marmalade the other day,
but when I looked more closely, I saw it read 'thick cut'.

 

[spindrift]

On Apr 17, 8:53 am, "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Innews:[email protected],
> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:50:02 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> > <[email protected]> said in
> > <[email protected]>:
>
> >> Do you have cruise control?
>
> > Oooh! Me!  I do!
>
> Not until Saturday, but even without it I can manage to remain at a
> near-constant velocity, under the speed limit.  I can also check my mirrors,
> light a cigarette or extract a piece of chewing gum without suddenly
> accelerating to R17, so I'm rather non-plussed as to why the acolytes of
> Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith find it so bloody taxing.
>
> Meanwhile, here is a picture of a kitten:
>
> http://www.royalcanin.co.uk/images/walking kitten RC Germany.jpg
>
> Note how, even at this early stage in its development, it demonstrates
> superior skills in the art of presenting a logical argument than Nuxxy-Wuxxy
> will if it lives to be 103.
>
> --
> Dave Larrington
> <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
> I thought I saw his name on a jar of marmalade the other day,
> but when I looked more closely, I saw it read 'thick cut'.

That's a rubbish kitten:


http://icanhascheezburger.com/

I have Cruise Control on my bike when I get an ear worm. This week it
has been The Rockford Files theme, a Bert Kaempfert classic and The
London Marathon theme by the same bloke who did the music for Where
Eagles Dare. When these ear worms are playing in my head I can cycle 7
miles and not notice it.

Throat mic on:


"Broadsword calling Danny Boy"

 

[Jon]

On 16 Apr, 15:37, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Just to be clear about what "never speeding" actually means, since
> you're clearly having trouble.  Never speeding means, err, *never*
> going above the speed limit by *any* amount.  It doesn't mean "only
> drifting over occasionally".  It doesn't mean "going over the limit
> but not meaning to".  It doesn't mean "going over the limit but at
> less than the prosecution threshold".  It doesn't mean "never getting
> caught" (which you seem to think it does from your "clean licence"
> comment).  It means, surprisingly enough, never speeding.
>
> So just to confirm that you're saying that you never exceed the speed
> limit, by any amount, for any amount of time?

In my case, it would be quite difficult. I mainly drive either on
motorways where the 62mph limiter makes speeding quite hard or on
congested urban roads where it is not often possible to let the 'bus
reach 20 mph let alone exceed 30.

Don't you think that the case you are making above is rather like
asking someone if they are a thief and when they say they are not
asking them if they are sure they have never come home from work,
found a paper clip in their pocket which probably belonged to their
employer, and not carefully taken it back next day ?

 

[DavidR]

"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote

> Oh look, another liar.

> Just to be clear about what "never speeding" actually means, since
> you're clearly having trouble. Never speeding means, err, *never*
> going above the speed limit by *any* amount.

Does 30.01mph count as speeding? But how is it possible to tell? The
speedometer isn't required to, and doesn't indicate exact speed which is why
there is a (very) generous margin in the enforcement threshold.

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to DavidR
> > Just to be clear about what "never speeding" actually means, since
> > you're clearly having trouble. Never speeding means, err, *never*
> > going above the speed limit by *any* amount.
>
> Does 30.01mph count as speeding? But how is it possible to tell? The
> speedometer isn't required to, and doesn't indicate exact speed which is why
> there is a (very) generous margin in the enforcement threshold.

There's no necessity for accurate measurement by the putative offender
to determine if an offence has been committed; drink driving is the
example usually put forward here.


The "29.999999mph=legal, 30.000001mph=offence" point occasionally put
forward by e.g. TrollB is the fallacy of the heap, much loved by
speedophiles.


--
Mark, UK
"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he
was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by
examining his wives' mouths."

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, DavidR
[email protected] says...

> Does 30.01mph count as speeding? But how is it possible to tell? The
> speedometer isn't required to, and doesn't indicate exact speed which is why
> there is a (very) generous margin in the enforcement threshold.
>
Technically I suspect you'd have to be doing 30.50 or above, as I doubt
that the relevant legislation/traffic order specifies more precisely
than 30mph, or that speed measuring devices are certified to that sort
of accuracy. I know that at an indicated 33mph I'm actually doing
30mph, so if I keep the speedo /around/ 30mph I'm fine and legal, and to
risk prosecution I'd really need to have over 38mph on the speedo.
(I know it's discretionary, but on the whole I drive legally and
considerately so I'm unlikely to attract unwanted attention.)

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:46:42 +0100, DavidR <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Oh look, another liar.
>
> > Just to be clear about what "never speeding" actually means, since
> > you're clearly having trouble. Never speeding means, err, *never*
> > going above the speed limit by *any* amount.
>
> Does 30.01mph count as speeding? But how is it possible to tell?
> The speedometer isn't required to, and doesn't indicate exact speed
> which is why there is a (very) generous margin in the enforcement
> threshold.

I think your argument is unfounded. The speedometer is not required
to accurately inform you that your speed is 30.01mph, but it _is_
required to not tell you that your speed is less than or equal to
30mph if your actual speed is 30.01mph.

So the answer to your question is yes - 30.01mph is speeding (in
places where the limit is 30mph).

The fact that you might not know that you are doing 30.01mph is a red
herring.

The generous margin is not for the reasons you claim. The generous
margin is because the motoring majority have managed to convince
themselves (and the powers that be) that it is not really a crime to
break this particular law, or at very worst a victimless crime. There
is no real rational reason (beyond the fact that so many people embark
on this lawlessness that if the law was properly enforced there'd be
no time for the police to do anything else). Fortunately, this is a
law that is amenable to automated enforcement, hence the general
welcome of speed cameras by the communities in which they are
located. Along with most people, I look forward to increased
deployment, freeing police to do more complex tasks than explaining to
motorists what that funny dial thing with numbers in the middle of
the dashboard is.

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

 

[[email protected]]

On 20 Apr 2008 09:49:46 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:


>The generous margin is not for the reasons you claim. The generous
>margin is because the motoring majority have managed to convince
>themselves (and the powers that be) that it is not really a crime to
>break this particular law, or at very worst a victimless crime. There
>is no real rational reason (beyond the fact that so many people embark
>on this lawlessness that if the law was properly enforced there'd be
>no time for the police to do anything else). Fortunately, this is a
>law that is amenable to automated enforcement, hence the general
>welcome of speed cameras by the communities in which they are
>located. Along with most people, I look forward to increased
>deployment, freeing police to do more complex tasks than explaining to
>motorists what that funny dial thing with numbers in the middle of
>the dashboard is.
>
>regards, Ian SMith

One problem with the current technology for enforcing speed limits is
that other, more dangerous, offences don't get spotted. A camera is
not very good at spotting dangerous overtaking for instance.
One other problem with the current technology is that it is only
targetted at cars. Heavy goods vehicles on single carriageway NSL
A-roads are only permitted to do 40mph and the speed cameras will be
set to catch vehicles doing over 60mph (plus whatever margin). I must
admit that I don't understand why HGVs should be limited on motorway
standard dual carriageways to 50mph when they are limited to 60mph if
it were a motorway.

Mike

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> One other problem with the current technology is that it is only
> targetted at cars. Heavy goods vehicles on single carriageway NSL
> A-roads are only permitted to do 40mph and the speed cameras will be
> set to catch vehicles doing over 60mph (plus whatever margin).

I suspect it's only a matter of time before they acquire ANPR to check
each vehicle as it passes, so they'll be able to tell if it's an HGV.