The Speed Trap - BBC1 Scotland



S

Sandy Morton

Guest
Paul Smith has just been on the Scottish news talking about speed
cameras - it is possible that he will be on the above programme.

Having seen him live on TV I was less than impressed by his
performance and attitude.

--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.millport.net
 
Sandy Morton wrote:
> Paul Smith has just been on the Scottish news talking about speed
> cameras - it is possible that he will be on the above programme.
>
> Having seen him live on TV I was less than impressed by his
> performance and attitude.


Saw it too. Unfortunately I have to pop out to collect son (by tandem
of course) so will miss the first half.

...d
 
In article <[email protected]>, Sandy Morton
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Smith has just been on the Scottish news talking about speed
> cameras - it is possible that he will be on the above programme.



Should have said that it's on at 7.00pm tonight.

--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.millport.net
 
Sandy Morton wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Sandy Morton
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Paul Smith has just been on the Scottish news talking about speed
> > cameras - it is possible that he will be on the above programme.


So, what happened? I saw about 30 seconds before I had to go out.

...d
 
David Martin wrote:
> Sandy Morton wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Sandy Morton
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Paul Smith has just been on the Scottish news talking about speed
> > > cameras - it is possible that he will be on the above programme.

>
> So, what happened? I saw about 30 seconds before I had to go out.


Found the web pages for 'Frontline Scotland' but it isn't up yet. From
teh blurb it looks like it could be a PS benefit gig ;-(

...d
 
On 9 Nov 2005 12:56:13 -0800, "David Martin"
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>Found the web pages for 'Frontline Scotland' but it isn't up yet. From
>teh blurb it looks like it could be a PS benefit gig ;-(


Hardly a surprise. If you were to set up the ResponsibleAvoid website
telling people how it's not only perfectly responsible to avoid paying
tax but that it makes you a better person, I bet you'd get even more
support. The public loves to be told lies which support their
prejudices.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2005 12:56:13 -0800, "David Martin"
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >Found the web pages for 'Frontline Scotland' but it isn't up yet. From
> >teh blurb it looks like it could be a PS benefit gig ;-(

>
> Hardly a surprise. If you were to set up the ResponsibleAvoid website
> telling people how it's not only perfectly responsible to avoid paying
> tax but that it makes you a better person, I bet you'd get even more
> support. The public loves to be told lies which support their
> prejudices.
>
> Guy


It's perfectly legal to avoid paying tax, it's evading it that'll get
you in trouble.
 
On 9 Nov 2005 13:50:01 -0800, "LSMike" <[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>It's perfectly legal to avoid paying tax, it's evading it that'll get
>you in trouble.


Never said it wasn't. It is, on the other hand, not the most socially
responsible action in the world.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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


> > So, what happened? I saw about 30 seconds before I had to go out.


It was the usual stuff from Paul Smith. One interesting point the
program brought out was that in recent years depite more cameras being
installed and the number of tickets being issued increasing vastly,
the number of drivers getting banned through totting up has remained
constant at about 14,000 per year. . The program suggested this might
be because most drivers with points moderate their behavior to avoid
getting more points and the cameras may be having the desired affect..
I did find myself shouting at the tv that it doesn't matter how many
cameras there are if you don't speed.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Martin wrote:
>
>> > So, what happened? I saw about 30 seconds before I had to go out.

>
> It was the usual stuff from Paul Smith. One interesting point the
> program brought out was that in recent years depite more cameras being
> installed and the number of tickets being issued increasing vastly,
> the number of drivers getting banned through totting up has remained
> constant at about 14,000 per year. . The program suggested this might
> be because most drivers with points moderate their behavior to avoid
> getting more points and the cameras may be having the desired affect..
> I did find myself shouting at the tv that it doesn't matter how many
> cameras there are if you don't speed.


Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions at all
times?

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:

> Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions at all
> times?


Of course they are not. What a silly question.
Very often they are far too high and a good driver will take conditions
into account.

I'm surprised you didn't know that [1]

[1] no, I'm not.

John B
 
Matt B wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> David Martin wrote:
>>
>>>> So, what happened? I saw about 30 seconds before I had to go out.

>>
>> It was the usual stuff from Paul Smith. One interesting point the
>> program brought out was that in recent years depite more cameras
>> being installed and the number of tickets being issued increasing
>> vastly, the number of drivers getting banned through totting up has
>> remained constant at about 14,000 per year. . The program suggested this
>> might be because most drivers with points moderate their
>> behavior to avoid getting more points and the cameras may be having
>> the desired affect.. I did find myself shouting at the tv that it
>> doesn't matter how many cameras there are if you don't speed.

>
> Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions
> at all times?


I can't think of a time when a speed limit will be so unacceptably low as to
be in need of breaking.

That's for my definition of unacceptable, which is unlikely to tally with
the definition of unacceptable for those who use these post-rationalised
excuses to justify their desire for freedom from responsibility for their
actions and to deny the risk imposed on others in return for an
unsatisfiable feeling of freedom.

--
Ambrose
 
"John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions at
>> all
>> times?

>
> Of course they are not. What a silly question.


Elaborate.

> Very often they are far too high and a good driver will take conditions
> into account.


What can we deduce from the fact that you only got 50% of the correct
answer?

> I'm surprised you didn't know that [1]


What makes you think I didn't?

> [1] no, I'm not.


Are you serious?

--
Matt B
 
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> David Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So, what happened? I saw about 30 seconds before I had to go out.
>>>
>>> It was the usual stuff from Paul Smith. One interesting point the
>>> program brought out was that in recent years depite more cameras
>>> being installed and the number of tickets being issued increasing
>>> vastly, the number of drivers getting banned through totting up has
>>> remained constant at about 14,000 per year. . The program suggested this
>>> might be because most drivers with points moderate their
>>> behavior to avoid getting more points and the cameras may be having
>>> the desired affect.. I did find myself shouting at the tv that it
>>> doesn't matter how many cameras there are if you don't speed.

>>
>> Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions
>> at all times?

>
> I can't think of a time when a speed limit will be so unacceptably low as
> to be in need of breaking.


Can you think of a time when one might be unacceptably high?

--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all
>>> conditions at all times?

>>
>> I can't think of a time when a speed limit will be so unacceptably
>> low as to be in need of breaking.

>
> Can you think of a time when one might be unacceptably high?


Yes. For example the 70mph limit on the road that runs past where I work.

--
Ambrose
 
"Matt B" <[email protected]>typed

> >
> > I can't think of a time when a speed limit will be so unacceptably low as
> > to be in need of breaking.


> Can you think of a time when one might be unacceptably high?


If you can't, I worry...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:54:29 -0000,
Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> Can you think of a time when one might be unacceptably high?

>
> Yes. For example the 70mph limit on the road that runs past where I work.
>

But it's only unacceptably high because drivers are incapable of picking
an appropriate speed on their own. Thereby justifying the use of speed
limits to keep them under control. And because they are a crude
instrument with only one setting they have to be set at an approprate
level for bad conditions

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
 
LSMike <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's perfectly legal to avoid paying tax, it's evading it that'll get
> you in trouble.


As in the Old Joak:

Did you learn the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion from:

a. your father
b. your accountant
c. your cell-mate

?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Whatever it is, I'd like it in mango & passion fruit, please.
 
Matt B wrote:
> Do you think that all speed limits are appropriate for all conditions at all
> times?


No, most of them are way too high.

In any case, even if it were potentially "safe" to drive faster than the
speed limit on certain roads in certain conditions at certain times of
the day, it remains the case that motorists do not have the god-given
right to determine for themselves how fast they are "allowed" to drive.

After all, what's the hurry?

The truth is that it is extremely rare that there is any good excuse for
driving faster than the speed limit - fast, aggressive driving doesn't
reduce journey times by a significant margin due to other factors, such
as traffic (and even if you can get to your destination two minutes
sooner, so what? how often are those two minutes going to make an
important difference to your life?), so really it just comes down to
drivers going faster because it is more enjoyable/less boring, and since
most journeys are made for utility purposes rather than leisure (ie
driving for the sake of it), enjoyment should not be a factor in
deciding driving style. If you want to get enjoyment out of your
driving, get yourself on to a race track, where speed is both
appropriate and [relatively] safe.

d.
 

Similar threads