Times article 09 Feb

  • Thread starter Dirtylitterboxo
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:09:12 -0000 someone who may be "Ambrose
Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>> For emails, top-posting is normal
>>
>> Only amongst the incompetent and/or uneducated.
>
>Most of my correspondents are incompetent and/or uneducated, then,

Perhaps you need a new set of correspondents:)

--
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.
 
"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Speed enforcement in this country has virtually nothing to do with road safety.

Whatever the motives - it works.

> It is all about soft targets and revenue raising.

Im all for generating revenue from criminals - the more they pay the less law abiding citizens need
to cough up. However the amount of cash generated from cameras is

> Who says so? Well for starters there's the Chief Constable of the Met,

Go on give us a quote.

>as well as the heads of both the AA and RAC. Ask any police officer (well almost any - there are
>exceptions like the publicity-seeking head of North Wales
Police).
>
> If it was all about safety then why not just have penalty points and no fine?

If it was all about revenue raising why paint the things bright yellow?

> Going faster than an arbitrary speed limit may or may not be dangerous,

The definition of "not dangerous" being presumably not actually hitting someone.

> there are many factors that determine the safe speed to drive. Removing
the
> need for the driver to judge for themselves the safe speed to drive
doesn't,

A speed limit in no way removes the need for drivers to judge for themselves a safe speed to drive.
It merely places an upper limit on that judgement.

> in my opinion, add anything to road safety. It is poor, inattentive, aggressive driving that is
> dangerous but the only infringement that can be caught by machinery rather than policemen is
> speeding.

It is poor, inattentive, aggressive drivers that drive to fast. Drivers caught speeding are also
much more likely to have been involved in a crash.

> The real danger is that soon there will be no police at all on our roads
and
> the real road thugs will then have a free rein to do what they like
knowing
> they'll almost certainly not be stopped by a police patrol.

Automating speed enforcement frees up police manpower for just such activities.

> As someone who drives a high performance car I admit to ignoring the
posted
> speed limit regularly.

Hopefuly for the safety of the rest of us you will be caught enough times to either deter you from
your criminal behaviour or have your licence removed.

>However, here's what I don't do:]

> 1. Drive fast in residential areas/near schools/anywhere where I'd
encounter
> cyclists etc.

Then anywhere other than a motorway then.

> 2. Drive fast in poor weather
> 3. Drink and drive
> 4. Drive without my glasses
> 5. Drive when I'm too tired

Rather like a mugger who whould never shoplift then.

> As a cyclist I'd much rather share the roads with drivers who are
attentive
> to what they're doing, not looking out for speed cameras.

If they were attentive to what they were doing they would have no need to be looking out for speed
cameras in the first place.

Anyone who fails to notice a large yellow box should really be done for driving without due care and
attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.