A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sparrows are a protected species



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 28th 17, 04:45 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,751
Default Sparrows are a protected species

On 28/07/2017 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:


That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.


Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?


What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?


That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised by a
suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what the
local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image, especially in
an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined to do as much
harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.

Try to imagine trying to defend yourself in court when faced by a
po-faced apparatchik who insists that the details within the image
"prove" that your vehicle was doing 29mph (or some simnilar speed), with
the bench (some of whose members may be local councillors) siding with
the bureaucracy as a matter of misplaced principle.

The answer is to adjust the cameras so that they may not "flash" unless
the speed limit had been breached (and by more than the locally-decided
tolerance level at that).

On my planet it is perfectly acceptable (to me at least) to cause no
anxiety to people obeying the law while causing all sorts of negative
emotions in those that are disregarding it.


At a guess, your vehicle has never been "flashed" by a malfunctioning
Gatso whilst you were proceeding lawfully, so you have never had to
spend the next two weeks or so wondering whether the loonies in charge
of the place are going to try to fleece you out of money and get your
licence endorsed.


ERRATUM:

The paragraph which starts "Try to imagine" contains a typo and should
have read:

"...a po-faced apparatchik who insists that the details within the image
"prove" that your vehicle was doing 39mph (or some simnilar speed)...".

Ads
  #22  
Old July 28th 17, 08:31 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,903
Default Sparrows are a protected species

On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:


That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.


Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?


What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?


That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised by a
suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what the
local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image, especially in
an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined to do as much
harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.


You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.
  #23  
Old July 29th 17, 01:28 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,751
Default Sparrows are a protected species

On 28/07/2017 20:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:


That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.


Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?


What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?


That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised by
a suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what the
local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image, especially
in an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined to do as
much harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.


You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.


Please explain what purpose there can possibly be in the Gatso flashing
a vehicle which is not being driven in excess of the speed limit (if you
can, which you can't).
  #24  
Old July 29th 17, 03:33 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,903
Default Sparrows are a protected species

On 29/07/17 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 28/07/2017 20:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:

That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.

Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?

What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?

That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised
by a suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what
the local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image,
especially in an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined
to do as much harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.


You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.


Please explain what purpose there can possibly be in the Gatso flashing
a vehicle which is not being driven in excess of the speed limit (if you
can, which you can't).


Nothing was said about the person(s) involved being below the posted
limit. Trigger (radar) sensitivity and enforcement threshold are not the
same thing just as they are not the same as the posted limit. The matter
at the top was about the possibility of reducing the trigger point when
the camera is taken out of the box. You would do yourself a lot of
favours if you made a better effort with your reading and comprehension
ability.

Even when a camera is active, if the authorities desire to catch on
film, say 95% (*), of drivers exceeding 36mph, it must result in 5% of
drivers doing less than 36mph getting flashed. If the human at the far
end is having a bad day, some of them get a letter. So what? They're
still breaking the law.

(*) 95% is just a suggestion, it could be 99% or 90% but I have no idea
of the true figure. If the spread is too wide and falses too often the
camera will run out of film more quickly.
  #25  
Old July 29th 17, 04:06 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,751
Default Sparrows are a protected species

On 29/07/2017 15:33, TMS320 wrote:

On 29/07/17 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 28/07/2017 20:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:


That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.


Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?


What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?


That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised
by a suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what
the local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image,
especially in an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined
to do as much harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.

You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.


Please explain what purpose there can possibly be in the Gatso
flashing a vehicle which is not being driven in excess of the speed
limit (if you can, which you can't).


Nothing was said about the person(s) involved being below the posted
limit.


Er... yes, it was.

It is the central point.

See the bit above where it says: "...you drive along a road at 29 or
30mph. A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you
are travelling within the 30mph speed limit".

Trigger (radar) sensitivity and enforcement threshold are not the
same thing just as they are not the same as the posted limit. The matter
at the top was about the possibility of reducing the trigger point when
the camera is taken out of the box. You would do yourself a lot of
favours if you made a better effort with your reading and comprehension
ability.


The failure to comprehend is all yours.

Someone wrote:

"I have seen boxes fitted with flash but no camera. No harm if the
threshold is lowered...".

I then explained the harm which is done when a speed camera is triggered
(and flashes) by a vehicle driven at the speed limit or less.

Even when a camera is active, if the authorities desire to catch on
film, say 95% (*), of drivers exceeding 36mph, it must result in 5% of
drivers doing less than 36mph getting flashed. If the human at the far
end is having a bad day, some of them get a letter. So what? They're
still breaking the law.


You seem to have a screw loose about that, even though it is 100% not
the subject under discussion. Both I, and the poster who wrote "I have
seen boxes fitted with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is
lowered...", were talking about vehicles being flashed at less than the
limit. It happens.

(*) 95% is just a suggestion, it could be 99% or 90% but I have no idea
of the true figure. If the spread is too wide and falses too often the
camera will run out of film more quickly.


I think you're probably right to a limited extent, in that you have no idea.

  #26  
Old July 30th 17, 12:14 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,903
Default Sparrows are a protected species

On 29/07/17 16:06, JNugent wrote:
On 29/07/2017 15:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 29/07/17 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 28/07/2017 20:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:


That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.


Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?


What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?


That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised
by a suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know
what the local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image,
especially in an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics
determined to do as much harm to visiting drivers as they can get
away with.

You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.

Please explain what purpose there can possibly be in the Gatso
flashing a vehicle which is not being driven in excess of the speed
limit (if you can, which you can't).


Nothing was said about the person(s) involved being below the posted
limit.


Er... yes, it was.

It is the central point.

See the bit above where it says: "...you drive along a road at 29 or
30mph. A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you
are travelling within the 30mph speed limit".


Your words only. After your failed comprehension of anything that went
before.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Riding a Bicycle Isnąt Protected Expression for First Amendment Purposes John White Techniques 39 August 21st 13 03:35 AM
Off Topic - Protected Bike Lanes JR Namida Techniques 24 January 25th 13 07:55 AM
Cervelo et al. not to be protected by Canada Sandy Techniques 4 August 14th 06 01:11 AM
Eggs protected from breakage by the use of 'polystyrene helmet'. Just zis Guy, you know? UK 60 July 13th 04 01:59 PM
New Sub-species of Stealth Cyclist Mark Thompson UK 64 December 8th 03 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.