It's letter writing time.

Simon Mason said:

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."

Richard Bates said:

Simon Mason said:

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 said:

Simon Mason said:

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 said:

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 said:

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)

Richard Bates said:

"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 said:

Richard Bates said:

"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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

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.

Indeed. Having the detectors has the effect of slowing him to the speed
limit at the spot where the cameras are, which is what the cameras are there
to do in the first place. Only thing is, people like him will break the
speed limit elsewhere with no care for anyone but themselves.
--
Simon M.

Simon Mason said:

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 [email hidden]

I'm amazed you read that excuse for a paper. Isn't the berk just
telling the readership what they want to hear?

JohnB said:

John_Kane said:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

My understanding is that radar jamming devices are very illegal already
under a load of different legislation. I think the situation with laser
jammers is less clear currently.

Pete

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:51:22 -0000, "Simon Mason"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Having the detectors has the effect of slowing him to the speed
limit at the spot where the cameras are, which is what the cameras are there
to do in the first place. Only thing is, people like him will break the
speed limit elsewhere with no care for anyone but themselves.

Now what any enterprising constabulary would do is set up lots of
little boxes which measure average speeds on sections of road using
the right wavelength radar to trigger the detector. All over the
place. As a data collection exercise, to help prioritise enforcement
activity. After all, nobody says there has to be blood on the streets
before you can *measure* speed, only before you can prosecute the
criminals.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Simon Mason said:

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

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.

Indeed. Having the detectors has the effect of slowing him to the speed
limit at the spot where the cameras are, which is what the cameras are there
to do in the first place. Only thing is, people like him will break the
speed limit elsewhere with no care for anyone but themselves.

Far better to have all cameras hiden, with locations moved around and
for penalties to be increased.
I like the idea of a compulsory re-test after reaching 12 points.

John B

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"JohnB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

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.

Indeed. Having the detectors has the effect of slowing him to the speed
limit at the spot where the cameras are, which is what the cameras are

there

Quoted message said:

to do in the first place. Only thing is, people like him will break the
speed limit elsewhere with no care for anyone but themselves.
--
Simon M.

Interesting!

I'm a believer in lower urban speed limits but a year ago I got my only ever
conviction and it was for doing 38mph in a 30 mph area.
A fair cop and it got me bang to rights. I got three points and a £60 fine.
The camera is near my house, has been there for years and I must have driven
past it over a thousand times.

I try never to speed, at any time, anywhere, but this one time I was on an
empty road and not concentrating as I was fuming over bad service that I had
just received at a local superstore. In modern cars it is very easy to
travel too fast as they are so quiet and powerful.

I accept that it was my own fault and I might have killed someone and I will
be even more careful in future.

My 40 years of holding a clean driving licence was spoiled and I only have
myself to blame.

However, if I had a camera warning (GPS type?) then I would have slowed down
sooner!
It isn't true that with such a device I would break the speed limit
elsewhere with no care for anyone but myself.

With millions of drivers on the road, it is possible for thousands to be
having momentary lapses of concentration. It's then down to statistics for
how many deaths there might be.

With the way technology is going I think we should be able to have a
permanent display in the car informing of the speed limit and thus avoid any
'lapses of concentration'.

Paul.

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

Quoted message said:

Richard Bates said:

"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"

<snip>

Good letter, that man.

I'm really getting tired of these w@nkers crying foul when they're caught
absolutely red-handed, then trying to justify or mitigate their offences.
Not surprised in the slightest that a Mail rag is publishing this - very
much their usual fare. Y'know, "good people unfairly punished by a
draconian Blair-based rule, vote Tory, vote Tory, vote Tory, etc."
<yawn>.

An interesting follow-up piece would be one where TRL or someone sets up
a human-mimicking, sensor-rigged dummy to be hit (under proper,
scientific test conditions) by a car at 30mph, and another one at 39mph.
Compare & contrast, etc. We're talking extent of injuries suffered, how
far the ped was thrown, likelihood of survival, etc. Have those "30 means
30" ads made no impression?

That's a follow-up piece I guarantee the MoS would never print. Off-
message, you see. Can't tell the readers what they don't want to read!

--
Chris Bardell
[Remove favourite mode of transport from email address]

Paulmouk said:

With the way technology is going I think we should be able to have a
permanent display in the car informing of the speed limit and thus
avoid any 'lapses of concentration'.

How about looking out of the window? Plenty of clues there for the clueless.

you know? said:

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:51:22 -0000, "Simon Mason"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Having the detectors has the effect of slowing him to the speed
limit at the spot where the cameras are, which is what the cameras are there
to do in the first place. Only thing is, people like him will break the
speed limit elsewhere with no care for anyone but themselves.

Now what any enterprising constabulary would do is set up lots of
little boxes which measure average speeds on sections of road using
the right wavelength radar to trigger the detector. All over the
place. As a data collection exercise, to help prioritise enforcement
activity. After all, nobody says there has to be blood on the streets
before you can *measure* speed, only before you can prosecute the
criminals.

This was trialled in parts of Norfolk on a small number of roads (including
a stretch of the A47 I believe) a few years ago. I don't know what the
results were. Any of the Norfolk folk know?

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Andy Leighton <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

you know? said:

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:51:22 -0000, "Simon Mason"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now what any enterprising constabulary would do is set up lots of
little boxes which measure average speeds on sections of road using
the right wavelength radar to trigger the detector.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

This was trialled in parts of Norfolk on a small number of roads
(including a stretch of the A47 I believe) a few years ago. I don't
know what the results were. Any of the Norfolk folk know?

This may still be going on, in a different way - rode along the B1354
from Wroxham through Coltishall yesterday, and just as you come into
Coltishall (just where the 30mph limit comes in), I rode over a set of
two thick-rubber-cable-across-road measuring things, attached to a
messily-cabled box at the side of the road.

Anyone know about these things? Cables were about 6 inches apart. I'd
think it were just a traffic-counter if it weren't for the fact there
were two of them. Plus, it's right near the 30-limit signs on the
approach to the village. Interested if anyone knows anything about
these.

--
Chris Bardell
[Remove favourite mode of transport from email address]