"The Sign Knows Better Than The Driver"...But Which Sign?

I wonder what the camera-supporting motorist-haters will make of
this. Is 35mph unacceptably dangerous on the below stretch of
Nottingham Road yet? Or will it suddenly become unacceptably
dangerous the moment that the last 50mph sign is removed? How can a
particular speed possibly be more or less dangerous depending on
whether a sign is present or not?

Was the scumbag motorist trying to "wriggle out of it on a
technicality", or was it right that he contested the penalty? And if
it's the latter, then surely the partnership should be refunding
everyone who was caught on that road automatically? Surely anyone who
supported cameras for safety-related reasons, and not motorist-hating
reasons, would agree.

The most amusing thing is that the presence of the 30mph signs
invalidates the 50mph limit as well, so those "the law is the law"
types would presumably not mind someone driving at 60mph on that
road. Or does "the law is the law" only apply when it can be used
*against* motorists? If so, it's hardly surprising that people like
me make the "mistake" of thinking that this group is full of motorist-
haters, is it?

It's incidents like this which expose the true ridiculousness and
arbitrary nature of cameras, wholesale speed limit reductions and
those who dogmatically and obstinately support such measures. No
speed limit is in force on that stretch of road, yet have there been
an unusually high number of accidents on it? We all know the answer
without even bothering to check, which is oh so telling.

Face it, camera supporters: cameras don't work, and whether you
support them for motorist-hating reasons, or because you mistakenly
believed that they worked and you now can't bear to admit that you
were wrong (I think that's known as "arrogance"), it's time to bite
the bullet, accept that cameras and wholesale speed limit reductions
have been an unmitigated disaster, have a good cry, and move on. Why
keep putting it off when it will only get harder?

Go on, do it today. Just think: you'll have a clearer conscience,
you'll no longer keep finding yourself attempting to defend an
illogical position, and you can start supporting real road safety
measures instead (or, if you're a motorist-hating halfwit, you can
work on new anti-motorist ideas instead). Either way, you'll feel a
lot better for it, because the "cameras save lives" joke was always a
particularly bad and malicious one, and it's now wearing unbelievably
thin.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. And well
done, as I know it must be difficult for you.

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/ne...l/article.html

Nathan was caught 'speeding' in a 30mph zone...or was it 50mph?

A MOTORIST has had his speeding fine overturned because of a road sign
blunder – but fears many other drivers will face the same fate.

Nathan Alton was caught by a speed camera travelling at 40mph in a
30mph zone in Nottingham Road, Codnor.

But the limit had just been reduced to 30mph from 50mph – and signs
with both speeds were still being displayed side by side.

He appealed and has had a £60 fine and three points on his licence
withdrawn.

Mr Alton, of Derby Road, Denby, said: "I remember being flashed by the
camera and thinking that would mean points on my licence.

"As I am a salesman for a living I need to keep my licence as clean as
possible because of the amount of travelling I do.

"As I drove away I thought to myself that I was sure I had seen 50mph
signs as I approached the camera so I turned round and drove the route
again.

"There were 50mph signs next to 30mph zones so it is no wonder I was
confused."

Mr Alton, 29, said he contested his fixed penalty and in a letter to
Derbyshire Safety Camera Partnership, which manages the county's
network of 117 fixed cameras, he asked how many other drivers had been
caught at about the same time.

He cited the Freedom of Information Act, which gives the general
public the right to obtain information held by public authorities.

The reply he received said it was unable to give him that information
but that any penalty against him had been dropped.

He said: "I was astounded that they would just drop this so quickly.

"The 30mph signs and 50mph signs at Codnor stood side by side on that
road for at least two weeks, so I dread to think how many other people
were snapped like I was.

"I even remember following a van just after I had been caught.

"It was doing about 40mph and I thought 'slow down mate, you're going
to get caught' and sure enough he was.

"I'll bet there are hundreds who were caught wrongly like this."

The Evening Telegraph asked the partnership how many other drivers had
been wrongly caught by the same camera and was referred to the police.

But Derbyshire police said it was unable to provide the figures.

A police spokeswoman said: "In this particular incident we are in
talks with the county council, which is responsible for road signs in
the area."

Brian Lucas, county council cabinet member for environmental services
– which includes highways and transport – declined to comment.

Nuxx Bar wrote:
It's incidents like this which expose the true ridiculousness and
arbitrary nature of cameras

The threshold for GBH is hard to define too;
should we stop enforcing that law for the same reason?

BugBear

On

"I'll bet there are hundreds who were caught wrongly like this."

The Evening Telegraph asked the partnership how many other drivers had
been wrongly caught by the same camera and was referred to the police.

Yes, they should get the signs right.I also think that a 'camera' sign
should also display the speed limit.
Some of the householders on that right angle bend gave up rebuilding
their garden walls some years ago , so often did they get a car
through it.
Since the camera appeared there has been no problem.

Nuxxy, you made a series of allegations last time you popped up here.
You claimed I had somehow caused a building to be avacuated by making
threats, presumably.

Says who?

What building?

Where?

When?

On Aug 28, 1:58*pm, spindrift wrote:
Nuxxy, you made a series of allegations last time you popped up here.
You claimed I had somehow caused a building to be avacuated by making
threats, presumably.

Says who?

What building?

Where?

When?

nuxxy, a couple of questions:

1/

Why did smith encourage people to pervert justice? He suggested people
use dead people to duck speeding fines, do you support this please?

2/

Why did he lie about his qualifications and pretend he was a road
safety engineer when he was, in fact, a computer engineer?

3/

Why did Jonksch demand that smith remove all references to him from
his website?

4/

Why did smith deny posting the peversion of justice advice on his
website, then admit posting it?

5/

Why did smith demand all donations to his website be made by cheque,
payable to him?

6/

What was the result of smith's PCC complaint against The Times? He
claimed he won the case, yet The Times have no record of this and deny
any complaint was upheld. The PC concur. No camplaint by smith was
recorded, and certainly not won.

7/

Why did smith lie about the LAS report cited above? He claimed speed
bumps killed 500 people a year. When he was shown that this was utter
bks he refused to remove the claim from his website. Why?

8/

Why did smith misrepresent Linda Mountain's research and pass it off
as his own?

9/

Why did smith claim he alone discovered RTTM, when it's been recorded
since the fities?



Appreciate your feedback,

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:14:49 +0100, bugbear
said in
:

The threshold for GBH is hard to define too;
should we stop enforcing that law for the same reason?

The threshold for nuxxious emissions is easy to define. We should
start enforcing the killfile.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

TerryJ wrote:

"I'll bet there are hundreds who were caught wrongly like this."
The Evening Telegraph asked the partnership how many other drivers had
been wrongly caught by the same camera and was referred to the police.

Yes, they should get the signs right.I also think that a 'camera' sign
should also display the speed limit.
Some of the householders on that right angle bend gave up rebuilding
their garden walls some years ago , so often did they get a car
through it.
Since the camera appeared there has been no problem.

Well, perhaps not for them.

If that were the reason for the reduction in the limit though, it'd be
hard to see why the limit would have to be reduced (say) half a mile
away as well as up close to the hazard.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:29:05 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:14:49 +0100, bugbear
said in
:

The threshold for GBH is hard to define too;
should we stop enforcing that law for the same reason?

The threshold for nuxxious emissions is easy to define. We should
start enforcing the killfile.

Guy

The ****wittery of Chapman is manifest:

I believe the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts of
passengers. (Guy Chapman)

you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman - proven to be an outright lie)

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

hard to see why the limit would have to be reduced (say) half a mile
away as well as up close to the hazard.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you.

TerryJ wrote:

hard to see why the limit would have to be reduced (say) half a mile
away as well as up close to the hazard.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you.

I rather think I do, since I have been driving for nearly 40 years and have
become well aware that it doesn't take half a mile to slow down for a hazard
in a built-up area (maybe for a lorry on a motorway which is being driven at
a speed in excess of the limit).

And actually, it's other people who may not know what we are "talking" about,
since you have snipped all context.

BTW: Questions (including misconceived rhetorical ones) are completed with a
question mark ("?"). You really do give several signs of not knowing how to
post in English on usenet, don't you?