Been on holiday - went to New Forest and Cornwall.

Bournmouth and Christchurch are packed with cameras.

Pretty sure I was OK, but had that nagging doubt for a few weeks.

Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and tons 
of cameras, I was half expecting a NIP but I was OK.

Saw a local paper which stated that they had the highest % of camera 
penalties. And the drivng in that area was atrocious.

Already decided to give that area a miss for a while.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:50:56 +0100, "Martin"  wrote:

>Been on holiday - went to New Forest and Cornwall.
>
>Bournmouth and Christchurch are packed with cameras.
>
>Pretty sure I was OK, but had that nagging doubt for a few weeks.
>
>Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and tons 
>of cameras, I was half expecting a NIP but I was OK.
>
>Saw a local paper which stated that they had the highest % of camera 
>penalties. And the drivng in that area was atrocious.
>
>Already decided to give that area a miss for a while. 

Give the whole fucking country a miss - go abroad for holidays.

Martin  wrote:

> Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and tons
> of cameras, 

If you can't rememember what the limit is when it's displayed on a large
sign with a red border then you need to give your licence back because
you're unfit to drive.

On Aug 18, 12:46 pm, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
> Martin  wrote:
> > Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and tons
> > of cameras,
>
> If you can't rememember what the limit is when it's displayed on a large
> sign with a red border then you need to give your licence back because
> you're unfit to drive.

You want to try tellling that to the numpties that one size fits all
speed limit of 40mph is acceptable both in a thirty limit and a
national speed limit area. But to the point, assume always its thirty
until proved otherwise then you'll be safe.

Nkosi

On 2008-08-18, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> Martin  wrote:
>
>> Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and tons
>> of cameras, 
>
> If you can't rememember what the limit is when it's displayed on a large
> sign with a red border then you need to give your licence back because
> you're unfit to drive.

What relevance does the size and type of sign have to do with the
ability to _remember_ the limit (as opposed to seeing it in the first
place)?

-- 
David Taylor

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Nkosi   wrote:

>  But to the point, assume always its thirty
> until proved otherwise then you'll be safe.
>
> Nkosi

Not necessarily! There are some 20 limits these days!
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

On Aug 18, 1:09 pm, "Roger Mills"  wrote:

> Not necessarily! There are some 20 limits these days!

There's a 10 limit less than a mile from my house.

AndrewR  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> Not necessarily! There are some 20 limits these days!

> There's a 10 limit less than a mile from my house.

Private road?

20's the lowest that's on the public road, AFAIK, and even that's got 
some caveats around enforcement.

On Aug 18, 1:38 pm, Adrian  wrote:
> AndrewR  gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
> >> Not necessarily! There are some 20 limits these days!
> > There's a 10 limit less than a mile from my house.
>
> Private road?
>
> 20's the lowest that's on the public road, AFAIK, and even that's got
> some caveats around enforcement.

No, on a public road, with proper "10" speed limit signs put up by the
council and everything.

AndrewR  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> >> Not necessarily! There are some 20 limits these days!

>> > There's a 10 limit less than a mile from my house.

>> Private road?
>>
>> 20's the lowest that's on the public road, AFAIK, and even that's got
>> some caveats around enforcement.

> No, on a public road, with proper "10" speed limit signs put up by the
> council and everything.

<surprised>

Where?

On Aug 18, 1:45 pm, Adrian  wrote:
> AndrewR  gurgled happily, sounding much

> > No, on a public road, with proper "10" speed limit signs put up by the
> > council and everything.
>
> <surprised>
>
> Where?

On an extremely narrow bridge running over the Tyne between Prudhoe,
where I live, and Ovingham in Northumberland.

http://wikimapia.org/4289762/Ovingham_Prudhoe_Road_Bridge

David Taylor  wrote:

> On 2008-08-18, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > Martin  wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and
> >> tons of cameras,
> >
> > If you can't rememember what the limit is when it's displayed on a large
> > sign with a red border then you need to give your licence back because
> > you're unfit to drive.
> 
> What relevance does the size and type of sign have to do with the
> ability to _remember_ the limit (as opposed to seeing it in the first
> place)?

None, but fucknuts seemed to be claiming that frequently changing speed
limits was a problem. It's not because each change is accompanied with a
FoB sign that even the guide dog should be able to see.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:09:22 +0100, "Roger Mills"
 wrote:

>In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>Nkosi   wrote:
>
>>  But to the point, assume always its thirty
>> until proved otherwise then you'll be safe.
>>
>> Nkosi
>
>Not necessarily! There are some 20 limits these days!

With cameras???

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Graz   wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:09:22 +0100, "Roger Mills"
>  wrote:
>
>> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
>> Nkosi   wrote:
>>
>>>  But to the point, assume always its thirty
>>> until proved otherwise then you'll be safe.
>>>
>>> Nkosi
>>
>> Not necessarily! There are some 20 limits these days!
>
> With cameras???


Apparently. There are 16 fixed and 27 mobile camera locations in 20mph limit 
zones listed in the latest version of PocketGPSWorld's speed camera 
database.
-- 
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Martin"  wrote in message 
news:g8bk6k$q0g$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Been on holiday - went to New Forest and Cornwall.
>
> Bournmouth and Christchurch are packed with cameras.
>
> Pretty sure I was OK, but had that nagging doubt for a few weeks.
>
> Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and 
> tons of cameras, I was half expecting a NIP but I was OK.
>
> Saw a local paper which stated that they had the highest % of camera 
> penalties. And the drivng in that area was atrocious.
>
> Already decided to give that area a miss for a while.
>

Why not just drive at the limit so you can enjoy that lovely part of the 
country ?

"Graz"  wrote in message 
news:48a95afe.11136890@news.motzarella.org...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:50:56 +0100, "Martin"  wrote:
>
>>Been on holiday - went to New Forest and Cornwall.
>>
>>Bournmouth and Christchurch are packed with cameras.
>>
>>Pretty sure I was OK, but had that nagging doubt for a few weeks.
>>
>>Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and 
>>tons
>>of cameras, I was half expecting a NIP but I was OK.
>>
>>Saw a local paper which stated that they had the highest % of camera
>>penalties. And the drivng in that area was atrocious.
>>
>>Already decided to give that area a miss for a while.
>
> Give the whole fucking country a miss - go abroad for holidays.
>

Gloomy :)

In article <45448f5e-5b05-499d-bbb0-66f8ab848c69
@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, AndrewR says...
> On Aug 18, 1:38 pm, Adrian  wrote:
> > AndrewR  gurgled happily, sounding much
> > like they were saying:
> >
> > >> Not necessarily! There are some 20 limits these days!
> > > There's a 10 limit less than a mile from my house.
> >
> > Private road?
> >
> > 20's the lowest that's on the public road, AFAIK, and even that's got
> > some caveats around enforcement.
> 
> No, on a public road, with proper "10" speed limit signs put up by the
> council and everything.
> 
Unenforceable.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"Graz"  wrote in message 
news:48a95afe.11136890@news.motzarella.org...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:50:56 +0100, "Martin"  wrote:
>
>>Been on holiday - went to New Forest and Cornwall.
>>
>>Bournmouth and Christchurch are packed with cameras.
>>
>>Pretty sure I was OK, but had that nagging doubt for a few weeks.
>>
>>Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and 
>>tons
>>of cameras, I was half expecting a NIP but I was OK.
>>
>>Saw a local paper which stated that they had the highest % of camera
>>penalties. And the drivng in that area was atrocious.
>>
>>Already decided to give that area a miss for a while.
>
> Give the whole fucking country a miss - go abroad for holidays.
>
>

No fuckin way! Are you mad? Look what this country has to offer (apart from 
lack of sun). Theres so much history and heritage here in the UK to explore. 
Ive been to aus where all I saw was mile after mile of fuckin bush and sand 
.BORING! Go 15 miles in any direction in the UK and you'll find something of 
historical, archiological or geographical significance. You cant do that 
outside Europe.

McK

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:53:21 +0100, "Sarah"  wrote:

>
>"Graz"  wrote in message 
>news:48a95afe.11136890@news.motzarella.org...
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:50:56 +0100, "Martin"  wrote:
>>
>>>Been on holiday - went to New Forest and Cornwall.
>>>
>>>Bournmouth and Christchurch are packed with cameras.
>>>
>>>Pretty sure I was OK, but had that nagging doubt for a few weeks.
>>>
>>>Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and 
>>>tons
>>>of cameras, I was half expecting a NIP but I was OK.
>>>
>>>Saw a local paper which stated that they had the highest % of camera
>>>penalties. And the drivng in that area was atrocious.
>>>
>>>Already decided to give that area a miss for a while.
>>
>> Give the whole fucking country a miss - go abroad for holidays.
>>
>
>Gloomy :) 

Have you ever read the hotel reviews by "Paddy Burt" in the Daily
Telegraph?   For the kind of money these places charge you'd expect 5
star service and you're lucky to get 2 star.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:48:32 +0100, "McKev"
<scotsman_uk<brains>@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Graz"  wrote in message 
>news:48a95afe.11136890@news.motzarella.org...
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:50:56 +0100, "Martin"  wrote:
>>
>>>Been on holiday - went to New Forest and Cornwall.
>>>
>>>Bournmouth and Christchurch are packed with cameras.
>>>
>>>Pretty sure I was OK, but had that nagging doubt for a few weeks.
>>>
>>>Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and 
>>>tons
>>>of cameras, I was half expecting a NIP but I was OK.
>>>
>>>Saw a local paper which stated that they had the highest % of camera
>>>penalties. And the drivng in that area was atrocious.
>>>
>>>Already decided to give that area a miss for a while.
>>
>> Give the whole fucking country a miss - go abroad for holidays.
>>
>>
>
>No fuckin way! Are you mad? Look what this country has to offer (apart from 
>lack of sun). Theres so much history and heritage here in the UK to explore. 
>Ive been to aus where all I saw was mile after mile of fuckin bush and sand 
>.BORING! Go 15 miles in any direction in the UK and you'll find something of 
>historical, archiological or geographical significance. You cant do that 
>outside Europe.

Mile after mile of something of historical, archeological or
geographical significance?  BORING!   The weather sucks, the hotels
suck, the restaurants suck and the people suck.

I'd rather be abroad - even in Scotland.

>>Why not just drive at the limit so you can enjoy that lovely part of the 
>>country ?

Because they vary too much, there are too many cameras and you cannot relax.

When you have been careful but still worry about getting a NIP perhaps it is 
time to try elsewhere?

On Aug 18, 7:14 pm, Conor  wrote:
> In article <45448f5e-5b05-499d-bbb0-66f8ab848c69

> > No, on a public road, with proper "10" speed limit signs put up by the
> > council and everything.
>
> Unenforceable.

Why?

Martin  wrote:

> >>Why not just drive at the limit so you can enjoy that lovely part of the
> >>country ?
> 
> Because they vary too much, there are too many cameras and you cannot relax.

Please, hand your driving licence back.

>>Martin  wrote:
>>
>>> >>Why not just drive at the limit so you can enjoy that lovely part of 
>>> >>the
>>> >>country ?
>>>
>>> Because they vary too much, there are too many cameras and you cannot 
>>> relax.
>>
>>Please, hand your driving licence back.

You enjoy being hated, don't you?

AndrewR  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> > No, on a public road, with proper "10" speed limit signs put up by
>> > the council and everything.

>> Unenforceable.

> Why?

This little detail called "the law".

IIRC, 30mph is the minimum speed enforcable, with the sole exception of 
20 zones which meet certain criteria - including "self-enforcement" 
through traffic management. They've been trying to get that widened to 
include all 20s, but I don't think it's signed/sealed/delivered yet.

On Aug 19, 3:32 pm, Adrian  wrote:
> AndrewR  gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying:
>
> >> > No, on a public road, with proper "10" speed limit signs put up by
> >> > the council and everything.
> >> Unenforceable.
> > Why?
>
> This little detail called "the law".
>
> IIRC, 30mph is the minimum speed enforcable, with the sole exception of
> 20 zones which meet certain criteria - including "self-enforcement"
> through traffic management. They've been trying to get that widened to
> include all 20s, but I don't think it's signed/sealed/delivered yet.

Which SI sets this out - my Google mojo may have deserted me, but I
can't find one.

It may be a mercy that it can't be enforced as the limit is there
because the bridge is only a couple of inches wider than a Transit,
but on the bike that's not a problem and there's a clear line of sight
across the bridge and onto the road thereafter and ... well, does
anybody know the likely penalty for being caught doing 700% of the
speed limit?

AndrewR  gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

>> IIRC, 30mph is the minimum speed enforcable, with the sole exception of
>> 20 zones which meet certain criteria - including "self-enforcement"
>> through traffic management. They've been trying to get that widened to
>> include all 20s, but I don't think it's signed/sealed/delivered yet.

> Which SI sets this out - my Google mojo may have deserted me, but I
> can't find one.

<shrug>
Which bit of "IIRC"...?

Have a look at "Speed controlling measures", half way down 
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/
trafficmanagement/20mphspeedlimitsandzones?page=4

( http://snipurl.com/3hq6s )

> It may be a mercy that it can't be enforced as the limit is there
> because the bridge is only a couple of inches wider than a Transit, but
> on the bike that's not a problem and there's a clear line of sight
> across the bridge and onto the road thereafter and ... well, does
> anybody know the likely penalty for being caught doing 700% of the speed
> limit?

They jump out at you half way across, forcing you to get very wet indeed.

In article <0fa89e9a-5a79-46b5-a83b-b33cb6988b14
@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, AndrewR says...
> On Aug 18, 7:14 pm, Conor  wrote:
> > In article <45448f5e-5b05-499d-bbb0-66f8ab848c69
> 
> > > No, on a public road, with proper "10" speed limit signs put up by the
> > > council and everything.
> >
> > Unenforceable.
> 
> Why?
> 
OTTOMH, I think it's something to do with speedo accuracy or something 
like that below 20MPH. 

I'm probably talking bollox.

-- 
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't 
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:58:15 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article <0fa89e9a-5a79-46b5-a83b-b33cb6988b14
>@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, AndrewR says...
>> On Aug 18, 7:14=A0pm, Conor  wrote:
>> > In article <45448f5e-5b05-499d-bbb0-66f8ab848c69
>>=20
>> > > No, on a public road, with proper "10" speed limit signs put up by th=
>e
>> > > council and everything.
>> >
>> > Unenforceable.
>>=20
>> Why?
>>=20
>OTTOMH, I think it's something to do with speedo accuracy or something=20
>like that below 20MPH.=20
>
>I'm probably talking bollox.

No, for a change!  My speedo goes all over the place at speeds below
20 mph.

"Martin"  wrote
>
> Not sure where you are going, with limits hopping between 30 and 40 and 
> tons of cameras, I was half expecting a NIP but I was OK.

Easy. It's 30 unless there is a sign saying you may do 40.

There are often other clues to be seen if you glance along the sides of the 
road; try to spot lots of big, brick and glass structures, a strange 
extension of the tarmac slightly raised above the road you're driving on and 
lamps on tall sticks.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:10:06 퍝, Graz  wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:58:15 퍝, Conor 
> wrote:
>
>> In article <0fa89e9a-5a79-46b5-a83b-b33cb6988b14
>> @z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, AndrewR says...
>>> On Aug 18, 7:14=A0pm, Conor  wrote:
>>> > In article <45448f5e-5b05-499d-bbb0-66f8ab848c69
>>> =20
>>> > > No, on a public road, with proper "10" speed limit signs put up by th=
>> e
>>> > > council and everything.
>>> >
>>> > Unenforceable.
>>> =20
>>> Why?
>>> =20
>> OTTOMH, I think it's something to do with speedo accuracy or something=20
>> like that below 20MPH.=20
>>
>> I'm probably talking bollox.
>
> No, for a change!  My speedo goes all over the place at speeds below
> 20 mph.

I had a Sierra with a thumper at all speeds.  But I've not known a properly functioning speedo to be inaccurate at low speeds.  They tend to be a certain % out everywhere.

-- http://www.petersparrots.com    http://www.insanevideoclips.com    http://www.petersphotos.com

Only 55% of Americans know that the sun is a star.