"I@n" -uk wrote in message
...
Robin May wrote:
(Huge) wrote the following in:


Robin May writes:
http://www.chargenomore.com/index.shtml

Should this be reported to someone?

Not sure it's worth it ... there can only be a couple more years of
numberplate recognition left before all these schemes switch to
transponder-based vehicle recognition systems, which will be much harder
to
fake. Way too many people sticking false or foreign number plates on their
cars, or otherwise obscuring them. The government won't let this continue
for long ...

How will a transponder-based system work for a one-off visitor to London?
Will he need to plan his visit in advance and obtain a transponder before
the day of his visit? Or will there be a no-penalty system (ie congestion
charge but no more than that) for people who do not have a transponder?

Anything which requires a permit to enter to be bought in advance will be a
real pain - like having to buy train tickets in advance to get discounted
rates. What is needed is a system which bills people after the event, not
one that requires them to buy a permit in advance.

In article m, Martin
Underwood writes
areas like radar speed-trap detectors, which are not (as far as I
know) illegal to fit but are illegal if you actually use them to detect
speed traps. I

The law was tested on this point a couple of years ago and the Police
and CPS lost. The radar detector is used to detect the signal is there,
not to listen to the contents of that signal. There was a landmark
ruling on this and the judge rules that is was legal to use one of these
detectors.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...
In article m, Martin
Underwood writes
areas like radar speed-trap detectors, which are not (as far as I
know) illegal to fit but are illegal if you actually use them to detect
speed traps. I

The law was tested on this point a couple of years ago and the Police
and CPS lost. The radar detector is used to detect the signal is there,
not to listen to the contents of that signal. There was a landmark
ruling on this and the judge rules that is was legal to use one of these
detectors.

I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

Colin McKenzie

It has to do with everyone who lives in Greater London: if the CC
makes more money less comes from the rest of us and vice versa.

Yeah, right. Wanna buy a bridge?

Now there's a good money-spinner.

Peter

In article , Colin McKenzie
writes
Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

Colin McKenzie

Oh dear. Colin, are you one of these 'speed kills' and 'speeders are as
bad as child molesters' idiots?
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:59:34 GMT, "Martin Underwood"
wrote:

Anything which requires a permit to enter to be bought in advance will be a
real pain - like having to buy train tickets in advance to get discounted
rates. What is needed is a system which bills people after the event, not
one that requires them to buy a permit in advance.

Or season ticket/subscription rates. However, the CC is *designed* to
be inconvenient, and further put people off driving in the zone.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

eh? surely this is always the case. Lets replace speed with murder.

Do you think that it is drivel to say:

It is better to discourage murder than to simply peanilise the murderer?

I would hope not, now why does the statement become , not just
less reasonable but completely untrue if I change the crime?

tim



Colin McKenzie

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that
speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the
drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

Really? So you'd prefer to let drivers speed and then penalise them
afterwards, rather than give them every incentive and reminder not to speed
in the first place? Yes, I know you shouldn't speed, but there are some 30
mph limits which are so out of proportion with the conditions of the road
and the absence of hazards that you need a constant reminder. When I was
learning to drive, my instructor, an ex police Class 1 driver, said that he
(and certain other police drivers) had a piece of card that they stuck to
the centre of the steering wheel whenever they were in a 30 zone to remind
them of the fact.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:12:56 +0100, Andrew P Smith
wrote:

In article , Colin McKenzie
writes
Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

Colin McKenzie

Oh dear. Colin, are you one of these 'speed kills' and 'speeders are as
bad as child molesters' idiots?

That ruling was made by that idiot minister John Spellar, buckling
under the

"I want to drive my car as fast as possible, wherever possible" lobby.

Speed does kill. You don;t have to be a genius to understand that the
faster the speed of a vehicle, the longer it takes to stop. And the
faster it hits something else the greater the damage.

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk