|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera
"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/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Video of Fatal Accident Caused by Speed Camera
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fatal bicycle accident | G.T. | Techniques | 1 | April 11th 06 03:04 AM |
video camera | pete66 | Unicycling | 3 | December 17th 05 03:27 AM |
video camera | musketman | Unicycling | 3 | December 16th 05 02:35 AM |
Bicycle may have caused SUV accident | LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m | Social Issues | 0 | February 8th 05 06:38 AM |
Video-camera:What should I get? | unipsychogirl | Unicycling | 2 | January 8th 04 11:22 AM |