From HelenS:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:
....
| The PSF emailed me via my (hurrah!) now resurrected Feedback-O-Matic
| to say she'd post if she could, so I thought I'd do the decent thing
| and act as intermediary.

Why doesn't the PSF use Google Groups, I wonder? Not as nice as one's
own newsfeed/reader - with the leather elbow patches and the coffee
stain rings next to the thread list - but better than nothing I would
have thought.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

Just zis Guy said:

Apparently P**l Sm*th is on Tonight with Trevor McDoughnut tonight
(per http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=81367).

The PSF emailed me via my (hurrah!) now resurrected Feedback-O-Matic
to say she'd post if she could, so I thought I'd do the decent thing
and act as intermediary.

Guy

Have BT still not sorted her connection? Any ideas how long we can
still discuss bibs for in safety?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

you know? said:

Apparently P**l Sm*th is on Tonight with Trevor McDoughnut tonight (per
http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=81367).

I saw the programme by chance.

Appalled by the person who claimed that because a 40 mph speed limit sign
'didn't exist' because it had a flourescent yellow border. I came in
part-way through the programme, but it was clear he ran a company which
gives advice to people to escape speeding tickets, based on 'the book' he
showed which would be Dept of Transport sign patterns.

And someone else in Doncaster(?) city centre who said a disabled parking
bay was illegal as it was painted with yellow paint rather than white,
and claimed that any parking ticket issued on that bay was invalid,
including disabled people overstaying their time.
Just the same sort of people who if the council made a simple mistake
which was not in their favour, or if the council wasted money repainting
road lines, would be crying blue murder.

John Hearns said:

Appalled by the person who claimed that because a 40 mph speed limit sign
'didn't exist' because it had a flourescent yellow border.

I'd be surprised if that worked. Legally the speed limit applies to the
road irrespective of any signs. In law the signs are there only for the
purposes of informing motorists there is a speed limit on the road at
that point.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

you know? said:

Apparently P**l Sm*th is on Tonight with Trevor McDoughnut tonight (per
http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=81367).

I saw the programme by chance.

Paul Smith has a contribution on the front page of The Times today where its
revealed that the speed camera population will not be significantly
increasing and that the generated revenue will be distributed differently
along with a review of the depolyment criteria for new camers.

Quoted message said:

Have BT still not sorted her connection? Any ideas how long we can
still discuss bibs for in safety?

Having read of Helens's problems with BT and Broadband, I gulped having
committed myself to BT Yahoo Broadband with a connection scheduled to go
live on Nov 2nd.

The hardware arrived earlier than expected and the ADSL was activiated 48
hours earlier than the specified date. Installation was a 10 minute job.

Helen must be unlucky.

Quoted message said:

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Reminds me of

'The best way to win a fight is to hit your opponent back first'
- my dad

vernon said:

Helen must be unlucky.

<Dan Brown>
Most people think that BT stands for British Telecom but it's just a
cover for a secret cycling sect, named after their Bib Tights attire,
whose network has infiltrated virtually every house in the nation.
</Dan Brown>

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Appalled by the person who claimed that because a 40 mph speed limit

sign

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

'didn't exist' because it had a flourescent yellow border.

I'd be surprised if that worked. Legally the speed limit applies to the
road irrespective of any signs. In law the signs are there only for the
purposes of informing motorists there is a speed limit on the road at
that point.

I've seen newspaper reports of people getting of moving traffic offenses
because the signage does not meet the standard specifications. In one
instance a batch of policment got off speeding charges because a helpful
colleague pointed out the loophole to them. I think that if the speed limit
is not announced legally then the motorist can legitimately challenge to
prosecution just as a constable's arrest of a felon caught bang to rights
can get off if (s)he was not arrested using the full protocols of arrest.

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 09:35:13 +0000 (UTC), "vernon" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In one
instance a batch of policment got off speeding charges because a helpful
colleague pointed out the loophole to them.

If that's the case I'm thinking of, what actually happened was that
the speed limit was signed correctly, but the magistrate let them off
because there was no black border on the sign warning of enforcement
cameras. Quite why the magistrate thought that speeding was somehow
not illegal if there was a minor clerical error in the warning to
criminals about enforcement is beyond me.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"vernon" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have BT still not sorted her connection? Any ideas how long we can
still discuss bibs for in safety?

Having read of Helens's problems with BT and Broadband, I gulped having
committed myself to BT Yahoo Broadband with a connection scheduled to go
live on Nov 2nd.

I went live on Sept 29.

Quoted message said:

The hardware arrived earlier than expected and the ADSL was activiated 48
hours earlier than the specified date. Installation was a 10 minute job.

My hardware arrived around lunchtime that day. The ADSL was activated so
late at night that I did not bother attempting installation till the
following day.

I had several glitches with the installation but was able to fall back
to dial-up. Helen S can't do this, which must be maddeningly
frustrating.

It was about a week, with various hard and software tweaks before I had
everything running smoothly.

Quoted message said:

Helen must be unlucky.

She is unlucky, but NOT exceptional, unfortunately.

Let's hope she's back soon.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Once again from the PSF:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858368,00.html
"March of speed cameras halted
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

THE relentless advance of speed cameras across Britain is to be halted
under government plans to restore confidence in traffic policing, The
Times has learnt.

Cameras will no longer be used as revenue-raising devices, and the
system of recycling speeding fines to fund increasing numbers of
cameras is to be abolished.

Camera partnerships, which include police forces and local
authorities, will be ordered to consider every other option for
improving safety and will only be allowed to install a camera as a
last resort.

Ministers believe that the "cash for cameras" scheme, under which
forces keep a proportion of camera fines to pay for more cameras, has
resulted in widespread distrust of the speed enforcement system, The
Times has been told.

The number of camera fines has increased ten-fold in the past decade,
from 200,000 in 1995 to more than two million last year.

The Department for Transport remains convinced that cameras work and
will soon publish its annual report on the scheme, showing that
cameras save more than 100 lives a year. But the department will also
announce reforms to the way inwhich the partnerships are managed and
funded.

Revenue from camera fines will be collected centrally and
redistributed among the partnership areas for use in all aspects of
road safety.

Rather than being restricted to erecting more cameras, the
partnerships will be able to use the money to make junctions safer and
to improve the visibility of signs and road markings.

No partnership will benefit more than any other from increases in
revenue, removing the incentive to focus enforcement where the highest
number of drivers can be caught. Motoring groups believe that the
partnerships have become self-perpetuating bureaucracies that are more
concerned with maintaining financial targets than tackling the least
safe roads.

The department wants them to follow the example of Lincolnshire, which
has managed to reduce road casualties while issuing fewer tickets.

Whereas most partnerships apply to the department each year to erect
more cameras, Lincolnshire has said that it does not need any more
devices.

Ministers also approve of the county’s policy of having camera
officials working alongside police road safety officers and council
highway engineers.

A government source said: "If all partnerships were made to work
together in this way they would think much more carefully about the
alternatives to cameras.

"We need to have a better deal with motorists to convince them that
cameras are not about making money." However, the department is also
planning to give partnerships greater flexibility to use cameras where
there is a speeding problem but no recent history of crashes. Roads
beside schools will be given priority.

Under the existing criteria, fixed cameras can only be installed where
there have been at least four crashes involving death or serious
injury in the previous three years.

Cameras can be used in areas of "community concern" that have not had
the required number of crashes, but only for 15 per cent of the total
time they spend enforcing the limit.

The department is planning either to increase that percentage or give
police greater freedom to choose how they use the allotted time.

Ministers accept that this will result in a few hundred new camera
sites but believe that the removal of existing cameras will mean that
the total will remain about 6,000.

There will also be new guidelines on the enforcement of temporary
speed limits during roadworks. Partnerships will be encouraged to use
digital cameras, which record the average speed between two points.

The department is also preparing to publish independent research
refuting claims that the benefits of speed cameras have been
exaggerated.

Safe Speed, the anti-camera campaign group, argues that casualty
reduction at camera sites is simply the result of the frequency of
crashes returning to normal.

However, academics from the University of Liverpool, who previously
questioned the benefits of cameras, now accept that they are genuine."

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:48:26 +0000,

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 09:35:13 +0000 (UTC), "vernon" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In one
instance a batch of policment got off speeding charges because a helpful
colleague pointed out the loophole to them.

If that's the case I'm thinking of, what actually happened was that
the speed limit was signed correctly, but the magistrate let them off
because there was no black border on the sign warning of enforcement
cameras. Quite why the magistrate thought that speeding was somehow
not illegal if there was a minor clerical error in the warning to
criminals about enforcement is beyond me.

I think that is fair enough. But at the same time, the next person who
comes infront of that magistrate for "accidently" drifting up to 31mph
in a 30mph limit should get done for "driving without due care or
attention". Fair's fair :-)

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 09:35:13 +0000 (UTC), "vernon" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

In one
instance a batch of policment got off speeding charges because a helpful
colleague pointed out the loophole to them.

If that's the case I'm thinking of, what actually happened was that
the speed limit was signed correctly, but the magistrate let them off
because there was no black border on the sign warning of enforcement
cameras. Quite why the magistrate thought that speeding was somehow
not illegal if there was a minor clerical error in the warning to
criminals about enforcement is beyond me.

I think that was because it rendered the evidence of the speed camera
ineligible just as evidence gained through unauthorised phone taps or
house searches would not be admitted in Court. While I can see your
point, there do have to be rules about how evidence is collected and if
those rules are broken, the evidence cannot be used.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

John Hearns said:

Appalled by the person who claimed that because a 40 mph speed limit sign
'didn't exist' because it had a flourescent yellow border.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

And someone else in Doncaster(?) city centre who said a disabled parking
bay was illegal as it was painted with yellow paint rather than white,
and claimed that any parking ticket issued on that bay was invalid,
including disabled people overstaying their time.

There was a case round here a couple of years ago where people who had
been fined for driving alone in a 2+ lane during its hours of operation
were to have their fines refunded because a line on the sign was at the
wrong angle.

The sign was similar to this one:
<URL:http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/sign176.htm>

But with a picture of a car and the string "2+" instead of the bus and
the bike, IIRC. The problem was that the dotted line was at 30 degrees
to horizontal instead of 45 degrees - the meaning was still perfectly
clear, but that tiny mistake was enough to allow motorists to claim that
the lane wasn't properly signposted.

--
Danny Colyer (my reply address is valid but checked infrequently)
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 09:59:20 GMT someone who may be Helen Deborah
Vecht <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

My hardware arrived around lunchtime that day. The ADSL was activated so
late at night that I did not bother attempting installation till the
following day.

I had several glitches with the installation but was able to fall back
to dial-up. Helen S can't do this, which must be maddeningly
frustrating.

It was about a week, with various hard and software tweaks before I had
everything running smoothly.

That's ridiculous. I bought my own hardware and plugged it in and
programmed it several days before the stated date for the line being
converted. Full marks to British Telecom locally, a couple of days
before the stated date I noticed the appropriate light was lit on
the router. That was it.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 10:01:19 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858368,00.html

Quoted message said:

Cameras will no longer be used as revenue-raising devices,

An example of the Campbell approach by the journalist, repeat a lie
often enough and some will believe it. Crime detection cameras are
not used as revenue-raising devices.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

The department wants them to follow the example of Lincolnshire, which
has managed to reduce road casualties while issuing fewer tickets.

Whereas most partnerships apply to the department each year to erect
more cameras, Lincolnshire has said that it does not need any more
devices.

Ministers also approve of the county's policy of having camera
officials working alongside police road safety officers and council
highway engineers.

A government source said: "If all partnerships were made to work
together in this way they would think much more carefully about the
alternatives to cameras.

Above is for me the key point - the objective is not fining motorists for
breaking the law, it is safer roads.

I certainly find that the radar controlled flashing speed limit reminders
very effective - there is one for the 20mph limit in Hampton that certainly
seem to slow traffic.

pk

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Apparently P**l Sm*th is on Tonight with Trevor McDoughnut tonight
(per http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=81367).

Send your kids to bed early and put the pets in another room until it's all
over ;-)

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 10:23:31 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If that's the case I'm thinking of, what actually happened was that
the speed limit was signed correctly, but the magistrate let them off
because there was no black border on the sign warning of enforcement
cameras. Quite why the magistrate thought that speeding was somehow
not illegal if there was a minor clerical error in the warning to
criminals about enforcement is beyond me.

Quoted message said:

I think that was because it rendered the evidence of the speed camera
ineligible just as evidence gained through unauthorised phone taps or
house searches would not be admitted in Court. While I can see your
point, there do have to be rules about how evidence is collected and if
those rules are broken, the evidence cannot be used.

So, if the signs in a town about the CCTV cameras are the wrong
colour, it's fine for rapists to be let off, yes?

There is no suggestion that the evidence-collection device was faulty.
Or that they were unaware of both the speed limit and the presence of
the camera.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken