Completely OT- Legal tender

[Andy Hall]

No they aren't. Either there are rules for the location and order of road signs or there aren't. One can't have it both ways.

No it isn't. Either there was a larger first sign or there wasn't. If it doesn't matter to have a larger first sign, why is it done?

That's nonsense. The motorist didn't know what the speed restriction was, or even whether there was one. Presence of road works does not imply a specific speed restriction and unless you were there and know the circumstances, it isn't possible to know what the speed was, let alone whether it constituted dangerous driving.

That may be true, but if this is going to be used as a means of measuring whether somebody is driving safely, then those who would seek to use it must set up the measurement and notification correctly. If they don't, then they must expect to be challenged on it.

[nightjar]

If that bothers you, deny them their income by parking legally every time.

Colin Bignell

[nightjar]

It is completely true. Anyone who cannot see a large yellow or orange box and very distinctive road markings is not paying enough attention to their driving.

What would they have been if the cameras had not been introduced?

Like parking fines, I view speeding fines as a voluntary contribution to the cost of running the country. Speaking from personal experience, dating back to before there was a national speed limit or parking meters or yellow lines, both fines are avoidable.

Colin Bignell

[Andy Burns]

Thumb tip I assume?

[Aidan]

On Jan 18, 9:35 pm, "Mary Fisher" wrote: You only think? And here I was, assuming from your posts that you knew

Afraid not. More than some though.

The paranoia thing is a red herring. Paranoia would be delusions of persecution.

Clive & you didn't believe that wardens or council parking contractors would routinely lie. Clive's interpretation was that I must be deluded. Since it has been established that they do lie, it seems that I suffer no such delusions and Clive was just wrong.

Choosing to ignore such predatory scum is just daft. In any civilized country they would be chained to an oar. Walk backwards and wear a .45.

And bloody well done Dave's niece.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Resident parking, which is simply a ploy to raise revenue as it does nothing to provide more parking or even to guarantee you get what you're paying for, is a very inefficient way to raise revenue due to the 'policing' and admin costs. Increasing an existing tax would cost nothing in administration.

Parking fines raised from illegal parking on main roads etc where the restrictions are to help traffic flow don't go to the council.

[Aidan]

You are making an assumption that there is legal parking. It is a reasonable assumption, but it is wrong. Who would supply such legal parking? The councils? No, they don't, because they want to maximize their revenue from PCNs. They provide no legal parking or inadequate parking. They prohibit parking for no good reason.

In one London Borough there were yellow lines everywhere. You needed a ticket to park. I asked a passing warden (there were many wardens) where I might buy aticket.

"You go to the 'Parking Shop' at the Town Hall and buy a book of tickets." "Can't you buy them in shop?" "Only at the Parking Shop." "I'm only here for one visit, I don't want a book of tickets." "You'd have to go to the Town Hall."

The Town Hall was some miles away through roads I didn't know. I left and didn't attend my appointment.

I neglected to ask whether you needed a ticket to park at the Town Hall.

[Tony Bryer]

Definitely the case round here. The wardens concentrate on easy pickings rather than the offenders who actually inconvenience or endanger other road users. I commented at a residents' meeting on the anarchy outside one of our schools at finishing time - double parking and the rest - and was told that the wardens wouldn't go there because they get so much grief from parents. But they've been seen issuing tickets at 6.25p.m. in the Tesco Teddington pay & display. This of course is the Borough where a hearse was ticketed outside an undertakers!

When I get to run things, Councils will be allowed to keep 10% of parking fines to cover expenses and will have to send the rest to HMG. At that point they will suddenly discover what a light touch is necessary to ensure traffic flow and safety.

[John Rumm]

nightjar >Simple question. Why have RTA's and road deaths INCREASED since speed

They would have carried on falling quite probably. The very marked trend since the 60s has been for a year on year decrease in fatalities, in spite of increased road usage and increase in average speeds.

[John Rumm]

It was *installed* after the rules changed. It was only when they recived copious complaints about it they took it out again.

[Clive George]

Just because you didn't understand what I was saying, no need to start lying yourself.

Check the posts - I made no such comments. I restricted myself to the stamps issue. I notice you haven't mentioned the Heinlein/Hanlon thing again - is that because you now understand you were wrong?

clive

[John Rumm]

This was one of the "rules" in place when the very first cameras were installed. IIRC, there was some debate at the time and assurances were sought that this rule would not be diluted or its scope expanded. One of the key aspects of it was that the camera had to be in proximity to the accident black spot and on the same road.

Needless to say feature creep has set in and the rule now seems to mean that it will be within four miles of a fatal road accident - which does not have to be on the same road, and any accident will do. (i.e. justification for one camera was given on the grounds of their being a fatal road accident in the area. Upon investigation is was revealed that the "accident" was in fact a suicide where someone had jumped from a bridge over a dual carridgeway). This would seem to be the same logic that applies when they record a drunk pedestrian falling onto the road in front of a sober motorist as a "drink driving" statistic.

Safety of staff pensions perhaps ;-)

Technology will reduce the costs.... is that a good thing?

[Aidan]

You suggested I was paranoid, see your post;

"Giggle. I don't find the need for such paranoia, but never mind.

No, Clive. I haven't mentioned it because it's boring, pretentious bollocks. You need to get a grip on the fact that because you use it, you ain't clever. No one uses it unless they're being pretentious.

Heinlein; "Don't ascribe to villainy...." Hanlon "Don't ascribe to incompetence......"

The missing stamps were nicked = villainy = Heinlein's version. Got it?

Someone might be impressed if you could get your quotes right. Boring as f*ck.

[Clive George]

Fuck me, you really are stupid aren't you. You pointed to a wikipedia article with the two quotes in it, yet you're still getting it wrong. Go and look again.

And even with your preferred version, you're still ascribing to villany what can be explained by incompetence - you claim you understand what these people are saying, yet you're repeatedly going against it. Why is that?

a) I'm not trying to impress, and b) I'm not the one making the basic mistakes here.

clive

[Tony Bryer]

Sixth Cross Road, Twickenham had a number of accidents on the bend, mainly down to overtakers exceeding the 40mph limit I suspect. The limit is now 30 and the speed camera is 1/4 mile before the bend on the straight bit ... so virtually everyone slows down for it, then speeds up again. But "something has been done" which is what matters these days.

[Aidan]

No Clive. You're getting it wrong.

Copied and pasted from Wiki; Hanlon's razor, is an adage which reads: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Copied and pasted from Clive's post above; "..... it's never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence."

1) You got the quote wrong and wrote incompetence where it should have been stupidity. Stupid is not the same as incompetence.

2) It's inappropriate, I had never assumed malice, I have assumed theft malice is not the same as villainy/theft.

Copied and pasted from Wiki; A similar quote appears in Robert A. Heinlein's 1941 short story Logic of Empire "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity",

More appropriate since; Stamps stolen = villainy = Heinlein's version. Got it yet?

Clive wrote;

Clive wrote;

you : it's never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

Translation ; I'm considerably cleverer than you............

Boring, patronizing c*ut.....

.............who hasn't mentioned backwards because he has no clue and Google can't help. Someone might explain, one day.

[Clive George]

Giggle. We're not getting anywhere here - your failure to understand similies isn't helping.

In this context, it is. Read further down the wikipedia article.

How do you explain you writing

earlier - do you believe that compares to what you copied/pasted above?

Y'see, I strongly disagree with you here. I believe they apply to the same thing. But this bit isn't really important.

Just to keep things simple I'm prepared to run with this for now - I know you don't understand how the different words can mean similar things (similie), but it doesn't actually affect my primary argument.

I've asked you more than once now to explain how your belief that Heinlein's quote supports you. Care to try again? Heinlein supports me - he's saying that it's far more likely that the stamps are being chucked away with SAE than they're being systematically stolen.

Unfortunately it appears that this is the case.

It's very easy to patronise somebody who's being as stupid as you are.

clive

[Clive George]

Please do.

BTW Is it pretentious to say something and claim it's a classical allusion?

clive

[Dave]

Looking at a web site quoted here a little later, I take you point. However, what I should have made clear, but didn't, was the fact that the beginning of a speed limit must have signs at both sides of the carriageway. Repeaters can be on one side or the other every so many yards. It was the two signs at the beginning of the limit that were missing.

Dave

[nightjar]

If that were the case, it should be possible to demonstrate an increase in accidents around speed camera installations, which offsets the overall downward trend in other areas. However, studies in the UK and abroad have shown the reduction in accidents at camera locations varies from 35% to 55%, when compared to the long-term trends and up to 70%, when compared to the sites before the installation of the cameras. Therefore, if accidents have increased since cameras were introduced, they must be happening elsewhere, which strongly suggests that there are other factors involved. It would, for example, be interesting to compare the increase in ownership of mobile phones to the traffic accident figures, or compare them to the use of seat belts, which increased from the mid 1960s through to about the mid 1990s, but now is on the decline, or the reducing effectiveness of the drink driving campaign.

Colin Bignell