On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people
ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain
daft.

B2003

On Aug 2, 9:49*am, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people
ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain
daft.

Well said. The 'breaking any law is serious' argument is a pretty
nerdy one that always seems rather detached from the real world.

On Aug 2, 1:30*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 2, 9:49*am, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people
ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain
daft.

Well said. The 'breaking any law is serious' argument is a pretty
nerdy one that always seems rather detached from the real world.

Well which law can I disregard as nerdy? A bit of thieving could be an
attractive way of getting a bit of cash together so lets disregard the
nerdy Theft Act.
It would be interesting to see how you would choose which laws are
nerdy.

In article ,
d wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights?

If not, what's the difference?

--
Mike Bristow

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:00:49 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights?

If not, what's the difference?

Traffic lights exist to prevent gridlock. Average speed cameras exist to
raise revenue for the treasury.

B2003

In message
d wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:00:49 +0100
Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
d wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common
consent and the majority ignore it.

Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights?

If not, what's the difference?

Traffic lights exist to prevent gridlock.

There's a certain amount of evidence to show that is not necessarily true.
Also traffic lights have been used to create congestion.

But that's not the problem caused by cyclists (and drivers) who jump red
lights.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

wrote

Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury.

So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other
road users off the road more quickly.

A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying
out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why
average speed cameras are used in these circumstances. The alternative may
be to close a motorway completely while it's being widened, but that
wouldn't be popular.

Ob rail. The need for an adjacent track to be closed while one track is
being worked on, so that, for example, if the Up Fast or Down Slow on the
WCML is being worked on it is sometimes effectively necessary to impose a
4-track blockade.

Peter

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:46:31 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other
road users off the road more quickly.

I'm not sure why you think making progress is having little though for other
drivers.

A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying
out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why

No doubt. Except that for the majority of a 24 hour day there generally isn't
any bugger working on most roadworks. They should be renamed
roadcan't-be-arsed-I'm-off-home.

B2003

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:53:26 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:46:31 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other
road users off the road more quickly.

I'm not sure why you think making progress is having little though for other
drivers.

A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying
out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why

No doubt. Except that for the majority of a 24 hour day there generally isn't
any bugger working on most roadworks. They should be renamed
roadcan't-be-arsed-I'm-off-home.

Complaints about "nobody is working there" seem to ignore the
impractibility of setting up and removing the protective measures
every working day or the further danger to the workers doing that.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:36:09 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:53:26 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:46:31 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other
road users off the road more quickly.

I'm not sure why you think making progress is having little though for other
drivers.

A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying
out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why

No doubt. Except that for the majority of a 24 hour day there generally isn't
any bugger working on most roadworks. They should be renamed
roadcan't-be-arsed-I'm-off-home.

Complaints about "nobody is working there" seem to ignore the
impractibility of setting up and removing the protective measures
every working day or the further danger to the workers doing that.

You can't have it both ways. Either the speed restrictions are there to
protect the workers or they're not. If they are and there's no workers then
why are there still speed restrictions? If they're not to protect the workers
then what exactly are they for?

And don't even suggest that switching off the cameras at knocking off time
would be an arduous task to implement.

B2003