Times article 09 Feb

  • Thread starter Dirtylitterboxo
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
In article <[email protected]>,
Eugenio Mastroviti <[email protected]> writes:

>> A colleague had some trouble over this when his car was stolen and damaged someone's wall. Harsh,
>> but a good incentive to take responsibility.
>
> Uh, that's surprising. AFAIR, you stop being responsible for your car the moment you report it's
> been stolen, at least in Italy.

Makes sense. I just got the story from the colleague in question, who was understandably unhappy
about it. And it may be that the damage was done before the theft was detected/reported.

> Still, yes, that's usually the case.

And makes much more sense than our law.

--
Nick Kew
 
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:52:28 -0000, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>> > I am simply pressing the "Reply Group" button in Outlook Express and
>typing
>> > my reply. Am I doing something wrong then?

>> Yes.

>Gee thanks for your helpful response.

I think she meant that the bit you were doing wrong is this bit:

>> > I am simply pressing the "Reply Group" button in Outlook Express and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HTH

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ian G Batten" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:c0qr0d$sht$1@news-
> out.ftel.co.uk...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > For example, what the hell were BR doing building several hundred 2-10-0 9F locomotives between
> > 1950 and 1960 (culminating with 92220 Evening Star) when they were all out of service by 1968?
>
> What the hell were they doing scrapping all those perfectly good steam engines with years of
> useful life in pursuit of an ideological commitment to diesels? God knows. Put it down to the
> "white heat of technology."

As I said, and you snipped: ``Had they stuck [to] [the] original plan of a phased switch to diesel
traction as steam locomotives reached the end of their service lives, things would have been very
different. As things stood, between 1950 and 1970 BR built and scrapped effectively two complete
generations of motive power.''

> I think the short servioce life of the 9F was scandalous. It was for my money one of the the
> finest locomotives ever produced, and I reckon that properly maintained they could have lasted
> well into the 90s. So what if it

Quite. All the Standard Class locomotives were masterpieces, in my view --- if you want to know
more, ES Cox's ``Locomotive Panorama, Vol 2'' is the book to read. It's long out of print but
readily available secondhand. Cox wrote the original spec for the Standard locomotives and was one
of the prime movers behind them.

Although (and uk.railway is over there --->) even within the 9F class there was evidence of BR's
tendency to **** money down the drain, as a batch were built with Franco Crosti boilers, based on
essentially no previous testing, and then had to be rebuilt as standard locomotives. But there are
photographs of them being used as express passenger locomotives, which is neat.

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

> But not by 20%. That's not creeping over the limit. The problem is
people
> who drive to the ACPO guidelines - creep over the ACPO guidelines and you can certainly get
> flashed. The solution is to stop pretending that 30mph really means 35-ish, or "less than 40."
>
But it's only 20% in a 30 zone. In a 60 zone it would be 68mph and yes, I do think it's easy to
creep that much over the limit in a modern, quiet car.

> > >At least the cameras allow the Real Plod to get out and enforce other
> > traffic
> > > laws, leaving absolute offences like speeding, red light jumping and bus lane infringement to
> > > mechanical systems.
>
> > You're kidding, right? I work in Birmingham and virtually never see a police patrol car on my
> > drive to work any more.
>
> Which is why cameras are so important. The police performance measures
have
> de-prioritised traffic policing. Instead of celebrating this liberation from the tyrannical boot
> of compliance with the law, speedophiles appear
to
> want to have this lack of enforcement extended to all motoring offences. Luckily cameras remove at
> least some of the drudgery, leaving the few remaining traffic plod to concentrate on offences
> whose detection requires judgement. Cameras are also self-funding so do not come out of force
> budgets.
>
I'd possibly agree with you on this point if that's what is happening in reality, but it isn't.
Anyone who drinks and drives, has no insurance or drives with a mobile phone stuck to their ear can
virtually guarantee they won't be stopped. This is not a step forward IMO. The ONLY focus is on
catching those exceeding the speed limit and I take issue with that.

The point about funding is interesting. What would happen if cameras caught no-one speeding? Would
they fall into a state of disrepair? So presumably the government needs people to keep speeding so
that they can continue to maintain the cameras! This doesn't seem an especially good plan if the
stated aim is to actually reduce the speed people are driving.

> > You'll no doubt be pleased to hear that it is my intention to leave the
UK
> > to live in Spain :)
>
> That may possibly give an indication of your commitment to safe roads: Spain's are much more
> dangerous than ours...
>
Granted, although that's not the reason I want to move. IMO the quality of life there is vastly
better than the UK, even if the roads are more dangerous (and I don't doubt they are). And
cycling along the Med every morning in the sunshine sure beats riding around the streets of Brum
in February!
> --
> Guy
> ===
>
> WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
"burt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > You'll no doubt be pleased to hear that it is my intention to leave the
UK
> > to live in Spain :)
> >
> would you like a contribution to the fare. One way only, obviously.

Thanks Burt that would be nice.

Then my place on UK roads (I'm a 40 year old driver with a 21 years unblemished driving record, in a
new car, fully insured, but I admit to sometimes exceeding the speed limit) can be taken by one of
the new breed of driver on our roads - a lawless, drugged up, uninsured thug, who would speed away
from the scene of an accident. And of course they won't care two hoots about speed cameras as
they're untraceable anyway. I hope that'll make you feel much safer.
 
mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:

> Anyone who drinks and drives, has no insurance or drives with a mobile phone stuck to their ear
> can virtually guarantee they won't be stopped. This is not a step forward IMO. The ONLY focus is
> on catching those exceeding the speed limit and I take issue with that.

I've seen the claim that the police are reducing human patrols as the number of cameras expands
repeated many times, but *not once* have I seen any figures advanced to back this claim up. I this
just another example of the speed lobby repeating their unsubstantiable suppositions over and again
in the hope that they will become accepted as fact?

> The point about funding is interesting. What would happen if cameras caught no-one speeding? Would
> they fall into a state of disrepair? So presumably the government needs people to keep speeding so
> that they can continue to maintain the cameras! This doesn't seem an especially good plan if the
> stated aim is to actually reduce the speed people are driving.

Huh? If no-one (or very few) people habitually broke the speed limit (i.e. if it became the kind of
social taboo that drink-driving became some years ago) there wouldn't be a need for cameras, would
there? They are *only* there because it is currently socially acceptable to drive at 10-15mph above
the speed limit.

> that's not the reason I want to move. IMO the quality of life there is vastly better than the UK,
> even if the roads are more dangerous (and I don't doubt they are). And cycling along the Med every
> morning in the sunshine sure beats riding around the streets of Brum in February!

Ugh. Give me the sweet air and clean, cool rain of mid Wales any time ;-)

--
Rob
 
"Robert Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
>
> I've seen the claim that the police are reducing human patrols as the
number
> of cameras expands repeated many times, but *not once* have I seen any figures advanced to back
> this claim up. I this just another example of the speed lobby repeating their unsubstantiable
> suppositions over and again in the hope that they will become accepted as fact?
>

You're right - I don't have any hard evidence other than the fact that I virtually never see police
patrols on my drive to Birmingham every day.

>
> Huh? If no-one (or very few) people habitually broke the speed limit (i.e. if it became the
> kind of social taboo that drink-driving became some years ago) there wouldn't be a need for
> cameras, would there? They are *only* there because it is currently socially acceptable to
> drive at 10-15mph
above
> the speed limit.
>

Fair point, but I don't see this happening in the near future as long as there is massive cynicism
from the motoring public about the real purpose behind speed cameras.

As I posted elsewhere, when the head of transport at a Midlands council states they may have to
revise their plans to install additional cameras as the first one only caught three speeders, you'd
have thought this reaction should be one of joy as the camera had therefore done it's job (I am
searching for the link to this story which was on the BBC news website).

> > that's not the reason I want to move. IMO the quality of life there is vastly better than the
> > UK, even if the roads are more dangerous (and I don't doubt they are). And cycling along the Med
> > every morning in the sunshine sure beats riding around the streets of Brum in February!
>
> Ugh. Give me the sweet air and clean, cool rain of mid Wales any time ;-)
>

Too hilly for me round there!

> --
> Rob
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> The ACPO guidelines are the speed limit plus 10% plus 2 mph. They are however just guidelines and
>> individual forces can choose to follow them or not.
>
>
> Now provide a single documented instance of someone actually being prosecuted after being caught
> on camera doing less than 36mph in a 30 limit.

I work with someone who got a camera NIP for 35 in a 30 a couple of years ago. There has been one
fairly public case of a Detective Superintendent wriggling out of a NIP for doing 35mph, by 'not
remembering' who was driving.
 
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:55:55 -0000, Simian
<Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I work with someone who got a camera NIP for 35 in a 30 a couple of years ago.

35? Not 36 (as in "about 35)?

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:29:41 -0000, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>But it's only 20% in a 30 zone. In a 60 zone it would be 68mph and yes, I do think it's easy to
>creep that much over the limit in a modern, quiet car.

Really? You genuinely can't tell the difference between 60 and almost 70? How quiet is your car?
Quieter than a Carlton? a Senator? a V70? I've never experienced any such difficulties myself in any
car from Minis to Mercedes S-class. Apart from the feel through the pedal (even in the straight-six
Senator) there are obvious visual clues.

>> Luckily cameras remove at least some of the drudgery, leaving the few remaining traffic plod to
>> concentrate on offences whose detection requires judgement. Cameras are also self-funding so do
>> not come out of force budgets.

>I'd possibly agree with you on this point if that's what is happening in reality, but it isn't.
>Anyone who drinks and drives, has no insurance or drives with a mobile phone stuck to their ear can
>virtually guarantee they won't be stopped.

The existence of other offences is a poor reason for not using automatic enforcement where it is
available. What do you suppose the traffic plod are doing who are no longer manning speed traps?
Sitting in the station house drinking tea?

>This is not a step forward IMO. The ONLY focus is on catching those exceeding the speed limit and I
>take issue with that.

It's not the *only* focus - it's just the one the press won't let go of. Possibly because they all
start off by bemoaning the latest ticket....

I conducted a straw poll of my friends and colleagues. Only one has had a ticket in the last three
years. A journo recently wrote a piece saying they appeared to be the only person they knew who had
/not/ had a ticket. Either speeding tickets are under-represented in my peer group or they are massively-
over-represented among the journos who spend their lives bleating about them. They bleat about the
congestion charge as well. Guess what? New data shows that cycling has increased by 20%, cyclist
crashes are down by 7%, car journeys down by 30%, car crashes down by 28%, pedestrian casualties
down by 6%, 60% improvement in bus punctuality - and according to the Standard this charge has
"ruiined" the city! Please! Come and ruin my town the same way!

>The point about funding is interesting. What would happen if cameras caught no-one speeding? Would
>they fall into a state of disrepair?

Try it and see :)

>cycling along the Med every morning in the sunshine sure beats riding around the streets of Brum in
>February!

Are you /sure/ of that? ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Nick Kew wrote:
>
> Rather than a metoo, perhaps I should throw in an observation of how this works elsewhere (Italy).
> There the registered keeper of a car is responsible for whatever is done with it unless *they* can
> establish that someone else was responsible for a particular event. It means *someone* has to be
> responsible for this deadly weapon and stops all this "wasn't me guv" nonsense.
>

Yes, Italy, that well known mecca of safe, responsible, car use!
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:55:55 -0000, Simian <Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>I work with someone who got a camera NIP for 35 in a 30 a couple of years ago.
>
> 35? Not 36 (as in "about 35)?
>

Said 35 on the bit of paper. Now I think about it, I know someone who was done for 34 / 30 by the
mobile camera van that's sometimes on the A4 near Cemetary Junction in Reading.
 
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:20:32 -0000, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>I don't see this happening in the near future as long as there is massive cynicism from the
>motoring public about the real purpose behind speed cameras.

So write to the editor of your newspaper of choice, point out that according to MORI cameras enjoy a
75% approval rating, tell him he is out of tune with the mood of the country and should not be
misled by a small but vocal minority, and ask for better balance in the reporting of the issue.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:40:23 GMT someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> However I drive on the same roads (dual carriageways and motorways) every day and have done for
>> ten years. In these circumstances I'd say I am competent to assess my speed as safe.
>
>Just because you 'know' a road, do not assume you know what's on it. You don't and only a dangerous
>fool assumes anything he can't see is safe.

Yes. Every day the police deal with the consequences of motorists who thought they were competent to
assess their speed as safe.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:20:32 -0000 someone who may be "Nick"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>You're right - I don't have any hard evidence other than the fact that I virtually never see police
>patrols on my drive to Birmingham every day.

I see police traffic patrols just about every day.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:25:40 -0000 someone who may be "Ambrose
Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>For emails, top-posting is normal

Only amongst the incompetent and/or uneducated.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:52:28 -0000 someone who may be "Nick"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>> I am simply pressing the "Reply Group" button in Outlook Express and typing my reply. Am I doing
>>> something wrong then?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Gee thanks for your helpful response.

It was fairly helpful, given that this is something that comes up regularly and is covered in the
appropriate guides. Even Microshit point out the correct way of doing things in the information that
they provide.

Lookout Express is a thoroughly stupid bit of software. It can be improved by changing most of the
defaults from the ones Microshit send it out with, but it can never be turned into something useful.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
Sunday Times article on cycling safety.
Replies
26
Views
936
UK and Europe
Roger Merriman
R
F
Times article 2
Replies
5
Views
373
UK and Europe
Helen Deborah Vecht
H
T
Times article
Replies
187
Views
4K
UK and Europe
Alan Braggins
A
T
That Times article
Replies
7
Views
586
UK and Europe
Ian Jackson
I
B
Times Diabolical article
Replies
17
Views
522
UK and Europe
Ian Smith
I
Top Bottom Back