Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera

http://www.driversalliance.org.uk/press/view/281

The car-haters can say "It wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
speeding" as much as they like, but that's just a pathetic excuse,
which shows yet again that the car-haters will *always* defend cameras
no matter what. The speed camera caused the accident, and no amount
of agenda-driven contortion can escape that fact.

On 19 June, 18:51, Nuxx Bar wrote:
http://www.driversalliance.org.uk/press/view/281

The car-haters can say "It wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
speeding" as much as they like, but that's just a pathetic excuse,
which shows yet again that the car-haters will *always* defend cameras
no matter what. *The speed camera caused the accident, and no amount
of agenda-driven contortion can escape that fact.

The BBC video below it was interesting when it stated that speeding
causes 1/3 of serious and fatal accidents and that 20 European
countries are having a crackdown on speeding drivers. It fits in with
what I encounter on my travels, although I was surprised to see Dutch
speed cameras painted in grey as I'm used to them standing out in
bright yellow like they are here. I barely noticed a fair few Dutch
cameras because of this but as I was not speeding, it did not matter.

--
Simon Mason

Hell fire - The "Driver's Alliance" want you to* pay* to read their
claptrap, at least the ABD site is a free laugh.

--

Simon Mason

On Jun 19, 9:22*pm, Simon Mason wrote:
Hell fire - The "Driver's Alliance" want you to* pay* to read their
claptrap, at least the ABD site is a free laugh.

Actually you can sign up for free. They ask for donations, yes, but I
don't see a problem with that since they're providing a useful service
in campaigning on behalf of the beleaguered motorist.

Interesting the way that you automatically assume that a pro-motoring
organisation's website would be "a laugh" though; I'm starting to
wonder whether you're a car-hater after all (albeit a very rare
example of one who's actually pleasant). The vast majority of the
ABD's site just looks like common sense to me, which no-one without an
axe to grind would have any problem with: do you not agree with *any*
of it?

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
On Jun 19, 9:22 pm, Simon Mason wrote:
Hell fire - The "Driver's Alliance" want you to* pay* to read their
claptrap, at least the ABD site is a free laugh.

Actually you can sign up for free. They ask for donations, yes, but I
don't see a problem with that since they're providing a useful service
in campaigning on behalf of the beleaguered motorist.

Interesting the way that you automatically assume that a pro-motoring
organisation's website would be "a laugh" though;

What *is* a laugh, is the Daily Express "poor beleaguered, hard pressed
motorist" line that these sites are based on. What is so bad? You pay your
taxes, obey the rules of the road and you can drive anywhere you want. I've
just done 3500 miles across Europe which meant I had to deal with grey speed
cameras, speed cops hiding behind bushes, petrol at 1-50 Euros a litres,
motorway tolls, hotel parking charges of 20 Euros a night and all sorts of
bad road conditions.

It's good to get back here with cheaper petrol, good roads and no sneaky
cameras.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On Jun 21, 9:34*am, "Simon Mason"
wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message

...
On Jun 19, 9:22 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

Hell fire - The "Driver's Alliance" want you to* pay* to read their
claptrap, at least the ABD site is a free laugh.
Actually you can sign up for free. *They ask for donations, yes, but I
don't see a problem with that since they're providing a useful service
in campaigning on behalf of the beleaguered motorist.
Interesting the way that you automatically assume that a pro-motoring
organisation's website would be "a laugh" though;

What *is* a laugh, is the Daily Express "poor beleaguered, hard pressed
motorist" line that these sites are based on. What is so bad? You pay your
taxes, obey the rules of the road and you can drive anywhere you want. I've
just done 3500 miles across Europe which meant I had to deal with grey speed
cameras, speed cops hiding behind bushes, petrol at 1-50 Euros a litres,
motorway tolls, hotel parking charges of 20 Euros a night and all sorts of
bad road conditions.

It's good to get back here with cheaper petrol, good roads and no sneaky
cameras.

Our petrol tax is the most expensive in Europe bar The Netherlands, I
believe. It *certainly* isn't "cheaper" most of the time. Good
roads? Not as good as the likes of France: we don't have enough
roads, and many councils have given up maintaining them properly. And
no sneaky cameras? Nonsense (http://www.speedcam.co.uk/game.htm).

Here's a non-exhausive list of all the anti-motorist measures that
we're constantly plagued by in the UK, most of which have been
introduced or made worse in the last 15 years or so, and all of which
Chapman just happens to support:

• Speed cameras (and intimidation/underhandedness/deceit towards
those
who are unfairly prosecuted and/or are entitled to refunds/
compensation)
• Unnecessarily low speed limits
• Unnecessary traffic lights
• Badly-phased traffic lights
• The lack of a legal defence for drivers who are prosecuted for
going
through red lights in order to allow emergency vehicles behind to get
through
• “Congestion” taxes (or are they “green” taxes? Or is it just
any
excuse to take money from motorists?)
• Local and national policy to deliberately cause congestion for
motorists (so that it can be “solved” with “congestion” taxes)
• Lane theft (e.g. unnecessary bus/cycle lanes, pointless
hatching,
other spiteful removal of perfectly good roadspace)
• Unnecessary highway obstructions (e.g. maliciously filled-in bus
stops, central islands where no-one would need to cross, chicanes
which actually increase accidents, pavement build-outs where there is
already quite enough pavement, etc)
• Speed humps
• Council apathy towards repairing potholes etc (and who cares if
cyclists are also put at risk? Irritating motorists, and preferably
busting their suspension etc, is the top priority)
• Closing off the ends of roads, making roads one-way
unnecessarily,
etc
• Unnecessarily long road closures after accidents
• Unnecessarily long and deliberately uncoordinated/inefficient
roadworks, in order to delay/frustrate motorists and inflict
unnecessarily low speed limits on motorways/dual carriageways (even at
times when there are no workmen), almost always backed up by cameras,
despite it having been shown that cameras increase accidents in such
cases
• Huge “green” VED and petrol duty increases
• The “road user hierarchy” (thankfully now consigned to history,
now
that London has a mayor who is not anti-motorist...and doesn’t
Spindrift just hate that?)
• “Decriminalised” parking enforcement (including its blatant
abuse by
councils and their contractors to make profit, abuse of CCTV to issue
PCNs for “contraventions” which often no other road user even sees let
alone is affected by, the fact that there is no disincentive for
councils to issue invalid tickets and hope that the victim just pays
up, the fact that those who are found to have been unfairly ticketed
are not automatically refunded, etc)
• Unnecessary double and single yellow lines
• Often unnecessary “residents’ parking” schemes where residents
are
overcharged/not given sufficient visitors’ permits/generally
inconvenienced as much as possible by the council (if there weren’t so
many unnecessary yellow lines in the first place, many parking
problems would disappear for residents and commuters alike)
• Extremely expensive parking meters and car parks
• Many other pointless and spiteful restrictions on parking
• Requirements for developers to provide insufficient parking
spaces
for new flats etc
• The fact that clamping is still legal in England and Wales
• Toll bridges/crossings, even when the bridge/crossing in
question
has long since been paid for
• Filling in of pedestrian subways so as to deliberately bring
pedestrians and traffic into conflict (thereby causing traffic to stop
for no reason, and putting pedestrians in unnecessary danger...but who
cares as long as the motorist scum are inconvenienced, eh?)
• Continued refusal to consider any safety-related, environmental
or
congestion-solving measures which would make things easier, rather
than harder, for motorists

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:13:07 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

[snippity]

This sort of "blame the camera" ******** always makes me think of
Blame It on the Boogie:

parody style="JacksonFive"
Don't blame it on the speeding
Don't blame it on the mobiles
Don't blame it on the cagers
Blame it on the camera.
/parody

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Blame_It_On_The_Camera

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.

On 19 June, 18:51, Nuxx Bar wrote:
http://www.driversalliance.org.uk/press/view/281

The car-haters can say "It wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
speeding" as much as they like, but that's just a pathetic excuse,
which shows yet again that the car-haters will *always* defend cameras
no matter what. *The speed camera caused the accident, and no amount
of agenda-driven contortion can escape that fact.

All I see is drivers that aren't in control of their vehicle. Sadly
with the emphasis of speed limit == good, rather than driving at an
appropriate speed for the conditions, that isn't going to change.

On 19 June, 18:51, Nuxx Bar wrote:
http://www.driversalliance.org.uk/press/view/281

The car-haters can say "It wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
speeding" as much as they like, but that's just a pathetic excuse,
which shows yet again that the car-haters will *always* defend cameras
no matter what. *The speed camera caused the accident, and no amount
of agenda-driven contortion can escape that fact.

Perhaps what you say is true.

Thing is, this is not relevant to UK.rec.cycling.

The highway code (applicaple to the UK) clearly
states that drivers should be able to stop *within*
the distance that they can see to be clear.
This would include being clear of speed cameras.

Perhaps in Saudi it is different but that is not in the
least bit relevant here.

If you fancy driving otherwise you can now look forward
to a spell in jail after being convicted of causing death
by careless (or dangerous) driving.

If the incident presented here had occurred in the UK
and had resulted in the death of any non-driver and
had the driver survived I see little doubt that a conviction
as described above would result. The *voters* no longer
approve of any and all stupid driving. You should try to
get used to the idea since we will only be getting less
tolerant as time passes.

On Jun 20, 5:06*am, bod43 wrote:
On 19 June, 18:51, Nuxx Bar wrote:

http://www.driversalliance.org.uk/press/view/281

The car-haters can say "It wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been
speeding" as much as they like, but that's just a pathetic excuse,
which shows yet again that the car-haters will *always* defend cameras
no matter what. *The speed camera caused the accident, and no amount
of agenda-driven contortion can escape that fact.

Perhaps what you say is true.

Thing is, this is not relevant to UK.rec.cycling.

Yes it is, because there are plenty on here who claim that cameras
make things safer for cyclists (and some who, more accurately, claim
that they make things *less* safe for them).

The highway code (applicaple to the UK) clearly
states that drivers should be able to stop *within*
the distance that they can see to be clear.
This would include being clear of speed cameras.

But (mobile) cameras are the only hazards which cause an immediate
problem which has to be dealt with straight away from up to a mile
away. Any other hazard isn't a problem until you actually hit (or are
in imminent danger of hitting) it, so if you see it from a distance
away, you have ample time to slow down.

Of course, cameras aren't a real hazard, they're an artificial hazard
that's been introduced to persecute motorists. And anyone who
advocates introducing hazards which adversely affect people's driving
is either misguided or doesn't have safety as their priority.

The *voters* no longer
approve of any and all stupid driving. You should try to
get used to the idea since we will only be getting less
tolerant as time passes.

"Stupid driving" != speeding. People can claim otherwise as much as
they like and it won't make the slightest difference.