Words fail me..

[Dirtylitterboxo]

.. and it's not often that happens :-(

See

http://tinyurl.com/r4h0

"Norfolk firm insures against speed cams

STEVE COX

October 16, 2003 07:35

Flash drivers, who lose their licences after getting snapped by speed cameras, will get their taxi,
bus and train fares paid under a policy launched by a Norfolk insurance firm.

The Flashguard policy pays up to £6000 for alternative transport costs, but has prompted words of
caution from Norfolk Police and the Automobile Association.

Adrian Flux Insurance, of East Winch Hall, near King's Lynn, which employs 230 people, has created
the policy in response to the increasing number of automatic speed cameras which mean even careful
drivers can get caught out.

But a word of caution was sounded by Ian Crowder, of AA personal finance, who said: "Policies
of this sort could encourage people owning such a policy to be less careful than they
otherwise would be.

"It has been introduced as a response to the growing plethora of speed cameras – these cameras are
in place to help control excessive speed and reduce the likelihood of accidents."

That view was echoed by a Norfolk Police spokesman, who said: "Norfolk Constabulary would take the
opportunity to remind drivers that speed limits are in place to make our roads safer and must be
complied with at all times."

Gerry Bucke, of Adrian Flux Insurance, said: "Flashguard does not condone stupidity or dangerous
driving, but we can all make mistakes. This policy means careful drivers who are convicted of
speeding can carry on with their lives, albeit more slowly."

The premium for the policy is £50 a year, or £40 if taken out before Christmas.

In order to qualify for the scheme, drivers must have no more than six points current or pending and
they must not have been disqualified for any offence during the previous 12 months. Drink and
drugs-related convictions are not covered, nor are those directly associated with dangerous or
reckless driving convictions.

The firm's quoteline is on 08700 777888."

Apparently all those poor drivers who break the law speeding and are caught out by those nasty speed
cameras are really careful, law-abing citizens, and if it wasn't for those nasty cameras...

AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Cheers, helen s This is an invalid email adress to thwart spammers To get my correct email remove
the dependency on fame & fortune from
h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

Any speeling mistakes are as a result of cats on the keybrrrdd

 

[Anonymous]

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .. and it's not often that happens :-(
>
> See
>
> http://tinyurl.com/r4h0
>
> "Norfolk firm insures against speed cams

Not a new idea. I think I remember the main dealer in this sort of thing a few years ago introducing
the exclusion clause for drunk driving bans - which they previously used to cover.

cheers, clive

 

[Tony Hogarty]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:

> Gerry Bucke, of Adrian Flux Insurance, said: "Flashguard does not condone stupidity or dangerous
> driving, but we can all make mistakes. This policy means careful drivers who are convicted of
> speeding can carry on with their lives, albeit more slowly."

I like the careful drivers bit here - surely if they are careful drivers then they won't be speeding
and hence won't get caught by the camera? And four mistakes in a three year period to get them
banned doesn't sound like careful either.
--
Regards Tony Hogarty (take out garbage to reply, any mail to this account over 3k in size is deleted
at the server)

 

[Peter B]

Re Speeding ban insurance.

Look on the bright side Helen. It means persistant speeders will be less bothered about a ban and
therefore may get banned all the sooner and will be effectively removed from the roads. I bet they
can only do this a few times before being refused cover and their normal insurance premiums may rise
astronomically.

Pete

 

[Andy Koppe]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:

> Apparently all those poor drivers who break the law speeding and are caught out by those nasty
> speed cameras are really careful, law-abing citizens, and if it wasn't for those nasty cameras...
>
> AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Don't get too upset about it. Surely the insurance company doesn't intend to make a loss on this, so
gullible drivers will end up paying even more.

Andy

 

[Rg]

"Andy Koppe" <a n d y @ d c s . e d . a c . u k> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
> > Apparently all those poor drivers who break the law speeding and are caught out by those nasty
> > speed cameras are really careful, law-abing citizens, and if it wasn't for those nasty
> > cameras...
> >
> > AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
>
> Don't get too upset about it. Surely the insurance company doesn't intend
to
> make a loss on this, so gullible drivers will end up paying even more.
>
> Andy
>

If my memory serves me correctly this policy is rather like the St Christopher and Chaufeurplan
policies that were around in the 1970s - the cover was for a driver to be provided for you in the
event of a drink driving ban ..... pretty clever, eh? BUT I think that they were outlawed by the
government and/or the insurance regulatory bodies, i.e. made illegal to sell.

Perhaps this latest aberration will go the same way - it certainly seems a bit rich to insure
oneself against committing a crime....

..... so watch your mailboxes for the "Murder your wife and get away with it policy" - at a dodgy
broker near you, real soon!

Rob

 

[Mseries]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:

> ..... even careful drivers can get caught out.

This is making me seeth, I usually try to avoid commenting on things not relating to cycling but
this is nagging me. Warning signs must be provided when speed cameras are in use, there have been
two cases around here where convictions by camera have been quoshed because 1) the signs were the
wrong design/colour or 2) Mobile equipement was bening used and no signs were in place. Drivers who
do not see signs, for speed limits, for speed cameras, then fail to look at their speedos and fail
to drive in a manner appropriate to the conditions are not careful drivers.

--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely.

 

[Helen Deborah V]

> "dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > .. and it's not often that happens :-(
> >
> > See
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/r4h0
> >
> > "Norfolk firm insures against speed cams

> Not a new idea. I think I remember the main dealer in this sort of thing a few years ago
> introducing the exclusion clause for drunk driving bans - which they previously used to cover.

> cheers, clive

St Christopher's, wasn't it? ISTR such schemes were eventually outlawed.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.

 

[Tony Raven]

MSeries wrote:
>
> This is making me seeth, I usually try to avoid commenting on things not relating to cycling but
> this is nagging me. Warning signs must be provided when speed cameras are in use, there have been
> two cases around here where convictions by camera have been quoshed because 1) the signs were the
> wrong design/colour or 2) Mobile equipement was bening used and no signs were in place. Drivers
> who do not see signs, for speed limits, for speed cameras, then fail to look at their speedos and
> fail to drive in a manner appropriate to the conditions are not careful drivers.

If I can put the other side these days there is a plethora of speed limits and I often find myself
trying to remember what the actual speed limit is. One stretch of road that I travel on frequently
goes from 50 down to 30 then back up to 40 then down to 30 again then back up to 50 before a 40 and
then derestricted! Since I'm reaching that age where, as a friend describes it, you find yourself
standing in the loo wondering what you went in there for, I also find myself wondering which the
current speed limit is on that stretch of road. I always try to respect the speed limit but
sometimes I do make a mistake with this confusion over what the current speed limit is.

On the warning signs I have twice recently passed mobile speed cameras where no signs were up and we
have a sign near here which is hidden by the branches of a tree in summer. I have no problem with
any of them because I'm within the speed limit but it would be wrong to assume that not seeing signs
for speed cameras is always a driver problem.

Tony

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:47:21 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
> MSeries wrote:
>>
>> This is making me seeth, I usually try to avoid commenting on things not relating to cycling but
>> this is nagging me. Warning signs must be provided when speed cameras are in use, there have been
>> two cases around here where convictions by camera have been quoshed because 1) the signs were the
>> wrong design/colour or 2) Mobile equipement was bening used and no signs were in place. Drivers
>> who do not see signs, for speed limits, for speed cameras, then fail to look at their speedos and
>> fail to drive in a manner appropriate to the conditions are not careful drivers.
>
> If I can put the other side these days there is a plethora of speed limits and I often find myself
> trying to remember what the actual speed limit is. One stretch of road that I travel on frequently
> goes from 50 down to 30 then back up to 40 then down to 30 again then back up to 50 before a 40
> and then derestricted! Since I'm reaching that age where, as a friend describes it, you find
> yourself standing in the loo wondering what you went in there for,

LOL. If you're actually *in* the loo, you've something to worry about, because most of us stand in
*front* of it!

> I also find myself wondering which the current speed limit is on that stretch of road. I always
> try to respect the speed limit but sometimes I do make a mistake with this confusion over what the
> current speed limit is.
>
> On the warning signs I have twice recently passed mobile speed cameras where no signs were up and
> we have a sign near here which is hidden by the branches of a tree in summer. I have no problem
> with any of them because I'm within the speed limit but it would be wrong to assume that not
> seeing signs for speed cameras is always a driver problem.

But having said that, a sign advertising that there is a speed camera does not neccessarily tell you
what speed you're supposed to be doing.

There are also rules that are supposed to be followed in the absence of signs (IIRC 30mph where
there's street lighting and unrestricted otherwise), and there are always the small repeater signs
where that rule is altered. I principle, you don't have to have seen a speed sign to know the
maximum speed limit you are able to assume you are able to travel at, and the actual limit is either
that limit or higher.

Having said that, I agree that it's not always easy to figure out what speed you are allowed to
travel at. However, travelling at that speed is primarilly *your* responsibility. If you can
reasonably argue that the speed limit on a piece of road was *not* clear (because, for example there
was no street lights and the signs were obscured) then you are entitled to argue your case (in court
I guess) and may get away with it, which is also fair.

However, that is not an argument for advertising speed cameras. Doing that is like saying "We want
you to travel at 30mph here. But *here* we *really* want you to travel at 30mph. So in that other
place, do what you like."

--
Trevor Barton

 

[Dirtylitterboxo]

>I like the careful drivers bit here - surely if they are careful drivers then they won't be
>speeding and hence won't get caught by the camera? And four mistakes in a three year period to get
>them banned doesn't sound like careful either.

Quite. I distinctly remember that when being taught to drive, the intructor pointed out this thing
on the dashboard called a speedometer. He told me that the the number the needle was pointing to
told me how fast I was driving. He also stressed the importance of speed limits and how it was
(perhaps it really is past tense...) important not to break the speed limit on any given road. This
also formed part of the driving test which I managed to pass, so it can't be that difficult. The
way I look at it, if one of those new-fangled speed camera thinggies catches me speeding then I
have no-one to blame but myself as I won't have been driving carefully or paying attention as I
break the law!

Cheers, helen s

This is an invalid email adress to thwart spammers To get my correct email remove the dependency on
fame & fortune from h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

Any speeling mistakes are as a result of cats on the keybrrrdd

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> writes:

> On the warning signs I have twice recently passed mobile speed cameras where no signs were up and
> we have a sign near here which is hidden by the branches of a tree in summer. I have no problem
> with any of them because I'm within the speed limit but it would be wrong to assume that not
> seeing signs for speed cameras is always a driver problem.

There shouldn't be signs for cameras IMHO. As a driver, you _should_ be obeying the speed limit and
you _know_ you should be. If you aren't and you get caught that's a fair cop.

Simon, has been caught speeding twice in twenty five years driving.

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

;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

 

[David Nutter]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> said:
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On the warning signs I have twice recently passed mobile speed cameras where no signs were up and
>> we have a sign near here which is hidden by the branches of a tree in summer. I have no problem
>> with any of them because I'm within the speed limit but it would be wrong to assume that not
>> seeing signs for speed cameras is always a driver problem.
>
> There shouldn't be signs for cameras IMHO. As a driver, you _should_ be obeying the speed limit
> and you _know_ you should be. If you aren't and you get caught that's a fair cop.

According to my personal moral compass, I agree and the lack of such signs certainly shouldn't be
a defense when someone is snapped. However, if signs saying "We are watching you!" can be proven
to slow people down better than enforcement alone, then as many as possible should be erected.
Also, speed limit signs should be made more prominent, if only to ensure that speeders don't have
an excuse.

Duty vs. utilitarianism yet again

Regards,

-david

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> There shouldn't be signs for cameras IMHO. As a driver, you _should_ be obeying the speed limit
> and you _know_ you should be. If you aren't and you get caught that's a fair cop.
>

I would rather have regular reminder signs of the speed limit. They have them some places but not
others. In the old days it was easy to remember because it was either 30 or unlimited so you just
needed to remember you were in a speed limit. These days you have to remember what speed limit you
are in and repeaters would help

> Simon, has been caught speeding twice in twenty five years driving.

Never caught speeding in 30 years driving. Must get some string back driving gloves and a
tweed cap ;-)

Tony

 

[Adrian Boliston]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> There shouldn't be signs for cameras IMHO. As a driver, you _should_ be obeying the speed limit
> and you _know_ you should be. If you aren't and you get caught that's a fair cop.

I always wonder why people want warning signs when most cameras are either painted dayglo yellow, or
are big ugly grey gatso boxes, which are pretty obvious to anyone who is half awake.

 

[Zog The Undenia]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:

> Flash drivers, who lose their licences after getting snapped by speed cameras, will get their
> taxi, bus and train fares paid under a policy launched by a Norfolk insurance firm.

I thought that was actually illegal.

 

[Nick Kew]

In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard
of [email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

> Flash drivers, who lose their licences after getting snapped by speed cameras, will get their
> taxi, bus and train fares paid under a policy launched by a Norfolk insurance firm.

Yo!

Time to get banned, and get free transport. Yes please!!! Almost makes me think I could benefit by
having a car.

I wonder if they could get done for something like corporate manslaughter when one of their careful,
law-abiding customers kills someone?

--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)

 

[Graham]

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> .. and it's not often that happens :-(
>
> See
>
> http://tinyurl.com/r4h0
>
> "Norfolk firm insures against speed cams
>
> STEVE COX
>
> October 16, 2003 07:35
>
> Flash drivers, who lose their licences after getting snapped by speed
cameras,
> will get their taxi, bus and train fares paid under a policy launched by a Norfolk insurance firm.
>
> The Flashguard policy pays up to £6000 for alternative transport costs,
but
> has prompted words of caution from Norfolk Police and the Automobile Association.
>
> Adrian Flux Insurance, of East Winch Hall, near King's Lynn, which employs
230
> people, has created the policy in response to the increasing number of automatic speed cameras
> which mean even careful drivers can get caught
out.
>
> But a word of caution was sounded by Ian Crowder, of AA personal finance,
who
> said: "Policies of this sort could encourage people owning such a policy
to be
> less careful than they otherwise would be.
>
> "It has been introduced as a response to the growing plethora of speed
cameras
> - these cameras are in place to help control excessive speed and reduce
the
> likelihood of accidents."
>
> That view was echoed by a Norfolk Police spokesman, who said: "Norfolk Constabulary would take the
> opportunity to remind drivers that speed
limits are
> in place to make our roads safer and must be complied with at all times."
>
> Gerry Bucke, of Adrian Flux Insurance, said: "Flashguard does not condone stupidity or dangerous
> driving, but we can all make mistakes. This policy
means
> careful drivers who are convicted of speeding can carry on with their
lives,
> albeit more slowly."
>
> The premium for the policy is £50 a year, or £40 if taken out before Christmas.
>
> In order to qualify for the scheme, drivers must have no more than six
points
> current or pending and they must not have been disqualified for any
offence
> during the previous 12 months. Drink and drugs-related convictions are not covered, nor are those
> directly associated with dangerous or reckless
driving
> convictions.
>
> The firm's quoteline is on 08700 777888."
>
> Apparently all those poor drivers who break the law speeding and are
caught out
> by those nasty speed cameras are really careful, law-abing citizens, and
if it
> wasn't for those nasty cameras...
>
> AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
>
> Cheers, helen s This is an invalid email adress to thwart spammers To get my correct email remove
> the dependency on fame & fortune from
> h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
>
> Any speeling mistakes are as a result of cats on the keybrrrdd
>

"which mean even careful drivers can get caught out." Is this not a contradiction ?

Graham

 

[Tony Raven]

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>
> I agree - regardless of if you're speeding or not, if you don't/can't react to a speed camera (and
> it's not like the camera and calibration lines aren't rather visible) by slowing down to the limit
> gradually and in good time then you were going to fast.

Still depends on knowing what the speed limit is at that point

Tony

 

[Helen Deborah V]

Trevor Barton <[email protected]>typed

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:47:21 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
> > MSeries wrote:
> >>
> >> This is making me seeth, I usually try to avoid commenting on things not relating to cycling
> >> but this is nagging me. Warning signs must be provided when speed cameras are in use, there
> >> have been two cases around here where convictions by camera have been quoshed because 1) the
> >> signs were the wrong design/colour or 2) Mobile equipement was bening used and no signs were in
> >> place. Drivers who do not see signs, for speed limits, for speed cameras, then fail to look at
> >> their speedos and fail to drive in a manner appropriate to the conditions are not careful
> >> drivers.
> >
> > If I can put the other side these days there is a plethora of speed limits and I often find
> > myself trying to remember what the actual speed limit is. One stretch of road that I travel on
> > frequently goes from 50 down to 30 then back up to 40 then down to 30 again then back up to 50
> > before a 40 and then derestricted! Since I'm reaching that age where, as a friend describes it,
> > you find yourself standing in the loo wondering what you went in there for,

> LOL. If you're actually *in* the loo, you've something to worry about, because most of us stand in
> *front* of it!

Actually, most of us sit *on* loos and us gals are the majority...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.