Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera

On 20 June, 21:53, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Jun 20, 2:51*pm, robert hancy wrote:



So, if the driver had braked and lost control when he saw a police
car, that would prove that police cars kill people?

If the driver braked solely because they didn't want to get done for
sensibly speeding, then it would show that overzealous speed
enforcement killed people, certainly. *If a speeding driver is causing
no danger, and everything is fine, until they see speed enforcement
taking place, then the speed enforcement is the problem. *(Why not
just reply to me initial post instead of quoting the troll?)

So, you want to ban police cars from the road?

How old are you?

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 Jun 21, 1:57*pm, robert hancy wrote:

So, you want to ban police cars from the road?

No, I just want people not to be made to believe that they're going to
get the book thrown at them (with possible loss of livelihood etc) for
going at a reasonable speed. If, as should be the case, drivers could
be confident that they'd only be done for speeding if they were
*really* going too fast for the conditions, and/or their driving was
dangerous in other ways, and speed limits were set at reasonable
levels (i.e. above the 85th percentile), we would no longer get the
situation where a driver was driving perfectly safely (if possibly
above the Holy Speed Limit) until the moment that they saw the
imminent threat of being heavily punished for that safe driving,
whereby all hell broke loose.

Who does that help, except car-haters who don't care how many
accidents are being caused as long as drivers are being bullied off
the roads (literally in this case)?

I'm all for increased traffic police (together with scrapping the
cameras), but they should be focussing on things other than numerical
speed, which is pretty unimportant, in stark contrast to the way that
it's currently being treated by the authorities. And the authorities
are only treating it that way because it's easy to measure (and
therefore "enforce"), and it's a great way of making things unpleasant
for motorists, given that all drivers speed (much as some people don't
like to admit that, since it puts a huge dent in their arguments).

How old are you?

Old enough, not that it's really any of your business. If you really
care that much, you can work out my minimum age from recent posts of
mine. It makes no difference to the matter at hand though. Either
you can refute my arguments or, as it appears, you can't.

robert hancy wrote:
On 20 June, 21:53, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Jun 20, 2:51*pm, robert hancy wrote:



So, if the driver had braked and lost control when he saw a police
car, that would prove that police cars kill people?

If the driver braked solely because they didn't want to get done for
sensibly speeding, then it would show that overzealous speed
enforcement killed people, certainly. *If a speeding driver is causing
no danger, and everything is fine, until they see speed enforcement
taking place, then the speed enforcement is the problem. *(Why not
just reply to me initial post instead of quoting the troll?)

So, you want to ban police cars from the road?

How old are you?

Not very.

Nobby

On Jun 21, 11:41*pm, Nobby Anderson wrote:
robert hancy wrote:
On 20 June, 21:53, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Jun 20, 2:51*pm, robert hancy wrote:

So, if the driver had braked and lost control when he saw a police
car, that would prove that police cars kill people?

If the driver braked solely because they didn't want to get done for
sensibly speeding, then it would show that overzealous speed
enforcement killed people, certainly. *If a speeding driver is causing
no danger, and everything is fine, until they see speed enforcement
taking place, then the speed enforcement is the problem. *(Why not
just reply to me initial post instead of quoting the troll?)

So, you want to ban police cars from the road?

How old are you?

Not very.

I'm flattered. And there I was worrying about the big 3-0.

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
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.

I don't see how the camera caused it.
They seemed to have lost control before they would
have been aware of the speed camera.
Hard to see a camera from that distance anad how would they
know it was a speed camera.

They would not have lsted lon drivinig like that anyway,
no driving skills whatsoever.

On 20 June, 09:09, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug 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.

I say that loss of driver control caused the crash

I think that is stating the bloody obvious, if he kept control he would
not have crashed.

and it was not a
euphemistic 'accident'.


Ah, you mean he intended to crash.


No I mean that by deliberately driving dangerously he intended to put
himself and others at risk and consequently crashed.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Jun 23, 1:53*am, "Colin Trunt" wrote:
"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message

...

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.

I don't see how the camera caused it.
They seemed to have lost control before they would
have been aware of the *speed camera.
Hard to see a camera from that distance anad how would they
know it was a speed camera.

They would not have lsted lon drivinig like that anyway,
no driving skills whatsoever.

You can make that argument with the Saudi one, but the Norfolk one is
quite another matter, as you can clearly see. This is backed up by
the fact that the Norfolk "Safety" Camera Partnership (aided and
abetted by the car-hating BBC) desperately tried to stop the public
getting hold of that video once they realised what it contained (it
was taken down from the BBC website, and only got on Youtube once
someone who had taped the news programme in question came forward).

Typical of the authorities' attitude towards road safety these days:
they are perfectly happy to withhold information from the public if
they think doing so will make their cameras look less bad, no matter
what the truth of the matter is. The dishonesty and the disregard for
people's lives is astonishing.

Nuxx Bar wrote:

You can make that argument with the Saudi one, but the Norfolk one is
quite another matter, as you can clearly see. This is backed up by
the fact that the Norfolk "Safety" Camera Partnership (aided and
abetted by the car-hating BBC) desperately tried to stop the public
getting hold of that video once they realised what it contained (it
was taken down from the BBC website, and only got on Youtube once
someone who had taped the news programme in question came forward).

Typical of the authorities' attitude towards road safety these days:
they are perfectly happy to withhold information from the public if
they think doing so will make their cameras look less bad, no matter
what the truth of the matter is. The dishonesty and the disregard for
people's lives is astonishing.

An excellent demonstration of one reason why speed cameras (and
detection vans) should be concealed. Would that make you happier?


--
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

On Jun 23, 8:22*am, Nuxx Bar wrote:
the car-hating BBC

And there you have it: clinching proof that Nuxx's definition of "car-
hating" is meaningless.

Even the company that pays Jeremy Clarkson and produces Top Gear (TV
and magazine) is included in his definition of "car-hating".

I tried to think of a simile but could not come up with any that did
not violate Godwin's Law.
--
Guy