It's letter writing time.

In yesterday's Mail on Sunday - this berk thinks that exceeding the speed
limit by 30% is "not really speeding".

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zmos.htm

E-mail address is

--
Simon M.

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:14:52 -0000, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

In yesterday's Mail on Sunday - this berk thinks that exceeding the speed
limit by 30% is "not really speeding".

"So Mr. Broome thinks that reducing the death rate of a pedestrian
involved in a collision from 50% (30mph) to almost certain death
(40mph) is not really speeding?

His insurance company are generous in only increasing his premium by
such a minimal amount. The difference in compensation they will have
to pay out for breaking a pedestrian's leg compared to killing them is
vastly more than £90."

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:36:43 +0000, Richard Bates
wrote:

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:14:52 -0000, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

In yesterday's Mail on Sunday - this berk thinks that exceeding the speed
limit by 30% is "not really speeding".

"So Mr. Broome thinks that reducing the death rate of a pedestrian
involved in a collision from 50% (30mph) to almost certain death
(40mph) is not really speeding?

Sorry, make that "increasing"

Richard Bates wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:14:52 -0000, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

In yesterday's Mail on Sunday - this berk thinks that exceeding the
speed limit by 30% is "not really speeding".

"So Mr. Broome thinks that reducing the death rate of a pedestrian
involved in a collision from 50% (30mph) to almost certain death
(40mph) is not really speeding?

His insurance company are generous in only increasing his premium by
such a minimal amount. The difference in compensation they will have
to pay out for breaking a pedestrian's leg compared to killing them is
vastly more than £90."

Heh Heh. Mr. Broome lives not too far from me (albeit in a different country
where they don't play Rugby as well as us). I think I'll nip round to his
place and swipe his DVD player. As long as I don't take his TV too, I'm sure
he won't class it as "really" stealing.

--
Rob

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute
and benefit.

Tha thing is... he made the choice to go over the limit - Mr Broom should
live by his choices - if youchoose to speed you pay the fine.

No sympathy - and I hasten to add that I'm a driver who has had speeding
fines but you didn't see me in the paper makins such an a**hole of myself!!

He'll probably have an acident whilst payong too much attention to his
detector... ALL BEWARE!!!!

Richard Bates wrote:
The difference in compensation they will have
to pay out for breaking a pedestrian's leg compared to killing them is
vastly more than £90."


Yes. Probably at least £10 more.

Tony

Robert Bruce wrote:

Heh Heh. Mr. Broome lives not too far from me (albeit in a different
country where they don't play Rugby as well as us). I think I'll nip
round to his place and swipe his DVD player. As long as I don't take
his TV too, I'm sure he won't class it as "really" stealing.

And if you get caught and get off with a fine, you can write an aggrieved
letter to the MoS calling your fine "an unwarranted stealth tax on the
kleptomaniac".

Or something.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:36:43 +0000, Richard Bates
wrote:

"So Mr. Broome thinks that reducing the death rate of a pedestrian
involved in a collision from 50% (30mph) to almost certain death
(40mph) is not really speeding?

And I sent:

"Serial Offender Caught Bang To Rights"

Mr Broome (MoS, 6/2/05) is deluding himself - his 44 year record was
not spoiled by an inanimate object, it was spoiled by his committing
an offence - or rather, multiple offences.

I note that Mr Broome is sufficiently afraid of a ban to buy a
detector, but apparently not sufficiently afraid to actually stop
breaking the law; I suspect that the sympathetic treatment he received
in your pages is substantially at odds with what other unrepentant
offenders might expect!

Careless drivers kill over 3,000 people per year, more than any other
class of criminal. And as for the idea that 39mph is "not really"
speeding - it's a third over the limit! Would you consider a tax rise
of a third to be "not really" a tax rise? Is he not aware that at
39mph a pedestrian faces almost certain death in a crash, while at
30mph, a better than evens chance of survival?

It was a fair cop, they got him bang to rights.

Guy Chapman

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:36:43 +0000, Richard Bates
wrote:

"So Mr. Broome thinks that reducing the death rate of a pedestrian
involved in a collision from 50% (30mph) to almost certain death
(40mph) is not really speeding?

And I sent:

"Serial Offender Caught Bang To Rights"

Mr Broome (MoS, 6/2/05) is deluding himself - his 44 year record was
not spoiled by an inanimate object, it was spoiled by his committing
an offence - or rather, multiple offences.

I note that Mr Broome is sufficiently afraid of a ban to buy a
detector, but apparently not sufficiently afraid to actually stop
breaking the law; I suspect that the sympathetic treatment he
received
in your pages is substantially at odds with what other unrepentant
offenders might expect!

Careless drivers kill over 3,000 people per year, more than any other
class of criminal. And as for the idea that 39mph is "not really"
speeding - it's a third over the limit! Would you consider a tax
rise
of a third to be "not really" a tax rise? Is he not aware that at
39mph a pedestrian faces almost certain death in a crash, while at
30mph, a better than evens chance of survival?

It was a fair cop, they got him bang to rights.

Guy Chapman

Good letter Guy.

Now if the Gov't makes detectors illegal (as they are in my province in
Canada the police could get him for speeding and an illegal device

A policeman friend used to get a great kick out of nailing cars with
such a device even in shopping mall parking lots.

John Kane
Kingston ON

John_Kane wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

It was a fair cop, they got him bang to rights.

Good letter Guy.

Now if the Gov't makes detectors illegal (as they are in my province in
Canada the police could get him for speeding and an illegal device

There has just been a police spokesman on Guy's local radio saying the
detectors actually complemented their own published lists of the
locations of cameras.
Where he did have problems was with jamming devices which could affect
other equipment.

John B