http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/09/transport.world

Those caught at 45mph or above in a 30mph limit are likely to receive six fixed penalty points and a £100 fine instead of the present three points and a £60 fine.  Under the proposal, the higher penalty would apply to drivers caught at 57mph or above on a 40mph road and 94mph or above on a 70mph road.

Er.... so the only way to get three points in a 30 is to drive from 40 to 44?  Narrow margins.

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

40,000 Americans are injured by toilets each year.

Er.... sorry.  That article is from last year!  I was misinformed by Morpheous (I used to have a speed camera detecteor from them).  I take it this proposal was rejected?


---- Forwarded Usenet-message ----
From: "Peter Hucker" 
Newsgroups: uk.rec.driving
Subject: For fucks sake, more speeding laws
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:00:57 +0100
URL: news://

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/09/transport.world

Those caught at 45mph or above in a 30mph limit are likely to receive six fixed penalty points and a £100 fine instead of the present three points and a £60 fine.  Under the proposal, the higher penalty would apply to drivers caught at 57mph or above on a 40mph road and 94mph or above on a 70mph road.

Er.... so the only way to get three points in a 30 is to drive from 40 to 44?  Narrow margins.



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

Confuscious say: "War doesn't determine who's right.  War determines who's left."

"Peter Hucker"  wrote in message 
news:op.uf3dmgkw4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
> Er.... sorry.  That article is from last year!  I was misinformed by 
> Morpheous (I used to have a speed camera detecteor from them).  I take it 
> this proposal was rejected?
>
>
> ---- Forwarded Usenet-message ----
> From: "Peter Hucker" 
> Newsgroups: uk.rec.driving
> Subject: For fucks sake, more speeding laws
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:00:57 +0100
> URL: news://
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/09/transport.world
>
> Those caught at 45mph or above in a 30mph limit are likely to receive six 
> fixed penalty points and a £100 fine instead of the present three points 
> and a £60 fine.  Under the proposal, the higher penalty would apply to 
> drivers caught at 57mph or above on a 40mph road and 94mph or above on a 
> 70mph road.
>
> Er.... so the only way to get three points in a 30 is to drive from 40 to 
> 44?  Narrow margins.
>
>
>
>

Looks thats way :)

awaits the group to point and laugh now.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:51:24 +0100, Sarah  wrote:

>
> "Peter Hucker"  wrote in message
> news:op.uf3dmgkw4buhsv@fx62.mshome.net...
>> Er.... sorry.  That article is from last year!  I was misinformed by
>> Morpheous (I used to have a speed camera detecteor from them).  I take it
>> this proposal was rejected?
>>
>>
>> ---- Forwarded Usenet-message ----
>> From: "Peter Hucker" 
>> Newsgroups: uk.rec.driving
>> Subject: For fucks sake, more speeding laws
>> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:00:57 +0100
>> URL: news://
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/09/transport.world
>>
>> Those caught at 45mph or above in a 30mph limit are likely to receive six
>> fixed penalty points and a £100 fine instead of the present three points
>> and a £60 fine.  Under the proposal, the higher penalty would apply to
>> drivers caught at 57mph or above on a 40mph road and 94mph or above on a
>> 70mph road.
>>
>> Er.... so the only way to get three points in a 30 is to drive from 40 to
>> 44?  Narrow margins.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Looks thats way :)
>
> awaits the group to point and laugh now.

I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.


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

A minister parked his car in a no-parking zone in a large city because he was short of time and couldn't find a space with a meter. Then he put a note under the windshield wiper that read: 'I have circled the block 10 times. If I don't park here, I'll miss my appointment Forgive us our trespasses.' When he returned, he found a citation from a police officer along with this note 'I've circled this block for 10 years. If I don't give you a ticket I'll lose my job. Lead us not into temptation.'

In article , Peter Hucker says...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/09/transport.world
> 
> Those caught at 45mph or above in a 30mph limit are likely to receive six fixed penalty points and a £100 fine instead of the present three points and a £60 fine.  Under the proposal, the higher penalty would apply to drivers caught at 57mph or above on a 40mph road and 94mph or above on a 70mph road.
> 
> Er.... so the only way to get three points in a 30 is to drive from 40 to 44?  Narrow margins.
> 
So where's the new speeding law, fuckwit?

Here's a fucking clue: Drive at or below the limit and you won't get 
done will you?


-- 
Conor

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

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:16:30 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Peter Hucker says...
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/09/transport.world
>>
>> Those caught at 45mph or above in a 30mph limit are likely to receive six fixed penalty points and a £100 fine instead of the present three points and a £60 fine.  Under the proposal, the higher penalty would apply to drivers caught at 57mph or above on a 40mph road and 94mph or above on a 70mph road.
>>
>> Er.... so the only way to get three points in a 30 is to drive from 40 to 44?  Narrow margins.
>>
> So where's the new speeding law, fuckwit?
>
> Here's a fucking clue: Drive at or below the limit and you won't get
> done will you?

Don't be stupid.  The limits are way too low.  We'd never get anywhere.

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

A Pakistani arrives in London City all excited. He stops the first person he meets. "Good day, Mr. British, thank you to accept me in Your nice country", but the person interrupts and says: "I am not British, I'm Chinese."
The Pakistani continues on his way and meets another passer-by. "Thank you Mr. British for to let my family and me stay here... " Again, he's interrupted before finishing his sentence. "I no be British, I be Turk!"
He goes a little farther and meets another person and greets him "thank you for letting me come to your beautiful country." ... "I'm not British, I'm Kosavon."
"But," answers the Pakistani distressed, "where are the British??"
The Kosavon looks at his watch and says ..... "Probably at work."

In article , Peter Hucker says...

> Don't be stupid.  The limits are way too low.  We'd never get anywhere.
> 
I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for 
cars on motorways jwell enough.


-- 
Conor

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

Conor wrote:

> I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for 
> cars on motorways jwell enough.
> 
> 

That's a slight exaggeration isn't it?

Bearing in mind you unit is restricted to 56mph so a standard 9 hour 
shift with no checks, no deliveries, no traffic jams, an instant 
0-56mph, no traffic lights & travelling everywhere at 56mph means you 
could only cover 496 miles. But then again 3 days a week given the same 
scenario you could cover 560 on those days. But then again you could 
travel 50 miles too & from work, but I think you have your Miles & 
Kilometres mixed up. :-)

Conor  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for
> cars on motorways jwell enough.

Could that be something to do with the fact you're hard against the 
limiter for most of that time?

Peter Hucker wrote:

> I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.

It's cheaper to just look where you're going.

In article <g8cu03$goq$1@aioe.org>, Alan Smith says...
> Conor wrote:
> 
> > I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for 
> > cars on motorways jwell enough.
> > 
> > 
> 
> That's a slight exaggeration isn't it?
> 
Nope.

> Bearing in mind you unit is restricted to 56mph so a standard 9 hour 
> shift with no checks, no deliveries, no traffic jams, an instant 
> 0-56mph, no traffic lights & travelling everywhere at 56mph means you 
> could only cover 496 miles.

It was 10 hour runs on nights. Started a mile from the motorway and the 
end point was 2 miles from the motorway up a D/C. Add to that 35 miles 
each way getting to and from work in the car.

I can do YO434AN to Tunnocks at Uddingston near Glasgow and back in 9hr 
10 min during the day which is 446 miles or YO434AN to the Cadbury 
factory at Keynsham and back in 8hrs 50m driving although admittedly, 
I'm setting off at 3.30am to miss all the traffic.


-- 
Conor

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

In article , Adrian says...
> Conor  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
> 
> > I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for
> > cars on motorways jwell enough.
> 
> Could that be something to do with the fact you're hard against the 
> limiter for most of that time?
> 
Yep. But it puts pay to his argument that you can't get anywhere in a 
car at 70.

-- 
Conor

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

In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
> Peter Hucker wrote:
> 
> > I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
> 
> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
> 
Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on my 
Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.

-- 
Conor

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

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:31:25 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Peter Hucker says...
>
>> Don't be stupid.  The limits are way too low.  We'd never get anywhere.
>>
> I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for
> cars on motorways jwell enough.

You're jealous cause you're stuck with that speed limiter.

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

Man: "Do you wash your clothes in Windex?"
Woman: "Why do you ask?"
Man: "I can see myself in your pants."

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:06:59 +0100, Conor 
wrote:

>In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> 
>> > I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>> 
>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>> 
>Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on my 
>Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.

If I turn them on on mine and drive out of Leeds up the M621 westwards
it alarms every 4or 5 seconds presumably reacting to the 11 speed
cameras (6 going up 5 going down) on the 1.2 km of the A643 a mile or
so away across the fields. 

Derek

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:03:03 +0100, Silk  wrote:

> Peter Hucker wrote:
>
>> I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>
> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.

Why not let yourself concentrate on the road, and the satnav concentrate on the police?

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

Drugs lead nowhere, but it's the scenic route.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:06:59 퍝, Conor  wrote:

> In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>> > I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>
>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>
> Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on my
> Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.

What false positives?

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

                                                 ,cccc,,cccc,
                                            <$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$c
                                        ,J$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$L
                                      J$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
                                     <$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$h
                                    .$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$L
                                 ,J$?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$C
                                 "  J$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$r
                                    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
                                    $$$$$$$$$$$P"'``.`.J?',J$$$$$$$$.
                                   $$$$$$$$$$"`.`.`.`.`"`,P`.j$$$$$$h
                                   <$$$$$$$$`.`.`.`.`.`.`f`.`.3$$$$$$
                                   <$$$$$$$h`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`$$$$$$h
                                   $$$$$$$$P`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`$$$$$$$
                                  j'$$$$$$$.`,uu`.`.`.```,c$P""$$$$$$$
                                  3 $$$$$$$'"`.`3??h<`.J"IJ$$cc?$$$$$$t
                                  J ?$$$$$$.`$$$i$$r`.`cJ$$$P"'?$$$$$F `                                    ($$$$$$.`.`.`.`.`.`$`.`.`.`(C9$$$
                                    <$$$$$$r`.`.`.`.`.`$`.`.`,;;$$$$$
                                    J$$$$$$$`.`.`.`.`.`?".`.;;;;9$$$$
                                    $??$$$$$r.`.`.`.u.`.JF`.;;;;$$$F$
                                    "  $$$$$h.`.`.`.`"""`.`.;;;;$$$.P
                                       $$$$$$r`.`.`.z$cJcu`;;;;J$$$
                                       <$$$$$$h.`.`?$I?5h$`;;;J$$P'
                                       J$$$$$$'?i.`.;;;;;;;;;$$"$F
                                    ,J5$$$$?$'h'`?,.`.`.`;;J$F  $
                           _,,,cJ$??;;;$P$$'P.`.`.`$iu,uiJ?;9,  P
                      ,r="".`.`.`:;;;;;$'?$u`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;;9,j'
                     ;f.`.`.`.`.`.`:;;;;;,`'`"`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;?L
                    ,f`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`:;;;;;;;;;;;.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;?h.
                   ,f.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`:;;;;;;;;`.,;;;,';;;;;;;;;??h._                   j`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;`.;;;;;;;;;;;;`."?c
                  :f`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.:;;;`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`?L
                  j'`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`h
                  J.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;P
                  $.`.`.`.;;;;`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;9'
                  $.`.`.`.;;;C;.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.,;;;;;`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;I;;;$
                  $.`.`.`.;;;C;.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;;,`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;                  P.`.`.`.;;9C;.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.:;;;;;;;;;,.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;$;;;F
                  F.`.`.`.;;9;;:`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;;;;.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;$;;9'
                 j'.`.`.`.;;$;;:`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;                 3`.`.`.`.;;$;;:`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;.`.`.`.`.`.`.:;$;;P
                 $`.`.`.`.;;$;;:`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;?;J'
                 $`.`.`.`.;;$;t:`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;                 $`.`.`.`;;;$;6.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;f;;;;;.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.                 $`.`.`.`;;;$;6;`.`.`.`,J??c,.`.;;;$;;;;;.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;i;$
                 $`.`.`.`;;;$;?;;.`.`.`$;dL)$.`;;;;C;;;;`;;.`.`.`.`.`;fi?h?h
                 P`.`.`.,;;t$):h;;`.`.`?;?F?J.;;;;;f;;;;`(t.`.`.`.`.`$9h$9:C
                J'`.`.`.;;;9:)`?h;;;;;;;?TT?';;;;;f;;;;.`:?;`.`.`.`.`?hii$3f
               j'.`.`.`.;;;$j'`.;?g;;;;;;;;;;;;;;F;;;;`.`.;?;;,.`.`.`.`;               $`.`.`.`.;;;$j.`.`;;?hjj;;;;;;jjF;;;;'.`.`.`;?;;;;;;;;;;;;P'
              ;?`.`.`.`.`;;$j.`.`.`:;???TTT???;;;'`.`.`.`.`.;??hjjjjjjJP?F
             ,F.`.`.`.`.`;;Fj.`.`.`.`:;;;;;;;;;'`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;"$";;;)f
             $`.`.`.`.`.`;tFj.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;C;;;;9
            ,$`.`.`.`.`.,;J j.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;$;;;;;3)
            j'`.`.`.`.`.;;$ j.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`,;;$;;;;;            $.`.`.`.`.`,;J' j.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.,;;$;;;;;;            $.`.`.`.`.`;;F  J.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`,;;tC;;;;;;            F.`.`.`.`.;;$   $.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;$;;;;;;;;9
           j'.`.`.`.`;;$   $`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;jC;;;;;;;;9
           J`.`.`.`.;;j' .P.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;$;;;;;;;;;9
           $`.`.`.`.;;$  $`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;$;;;;;;;;           $`.`.`.`;;J' J.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.,;;.`.`.,;;;;;;$L;;;;;;;           P`.`.`.,;jF J'.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;.`.`.;;;;;;;$3;;;;;;;          .F`.`.`.;;F j'`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`,;i;.`.`.;;;;;;;$3;;;;;;;          j'`.`.`;;$ j'.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;J$;.`.`;;;;;;;;$`h;;;;;;          $.`.`.;;$.$'`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;$F`.`.`;;;;;;;;$ $;;;;;;          F.`.`,;9,P`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;`.`.`;;;;;;;;9.?;;;;;;         J'.`.,;j'$.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;`.`.`;;;;;;;;?h $;;;;;;9.
         $`.`.;;f$`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;;$ $;;;;;;9)
        .F`.`;;9,F`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;;9 `h;;;;;?h
        j'`.`;;$J.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;;9. h;;;;        $.`.;;j'F.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;;;h $;;;;       .P.`.;J)$`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;;;L ?;;;;;;9.
      $'`.`.;P F`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;,`.;uuuu;`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;;;;$  `C;;     $'.`.`.;F C`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"';;;;;;`.;$   $;;;;;9$.
    J'`.`.`.3F $`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$P.`.;;;;;;`.;$   3;;   J'.`.`.`.$  $`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;;$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?`.`.`;;;;;`.;$   `Ct;;;;;$h
  ,F`.`$`.`j'  ?`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;$$$$$$$$$$$$".`.`.`;;;;.`.;$    $;?i;;;$9
  $F`.`$`.,P   `h.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;$$$$$$$$$P.`.`.`.`.;;;.`.;$    `L;9;;;9?
J$.`;C$`,F     $.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;;;$$$$$$$"`.`.`.`.`.`;`.`.;$     $;;$;;9C
$F.$"$F`$      ?.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;$$$$?;;`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;F     ?I;i$;CC
$'.$F$.`$      `h`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;;;$$?;;;;;`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;F      ?iiJhi$
?`.$.F.J        $`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.;;;;;;;;;$;;;;;;,.`.`.`.`.`.`;9F       $i;;iP
  $i"?F"         `h.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;;;;h;;;;;;,`.`.`.`.`.`;9F        `i;?C
   $$i$           $.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.:;;;;;;;?;;;;;;;,.`.`.`.`.`;9F                        `h`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`:;;;;;;;$;;;;;;;,`.`.`.`.`;J
                   $`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`.`;;;;;;?C;;;;;;;,.`.`.`.`;$

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:09:03 +0100, Derek Geldard  wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:06:59 +0100, Conor 
> wrote:
>
>> In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>
>>> > I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>>
>>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>>
>> Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on my
>> Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>
> If I turn them on on mine and drive out of Leeds up the M621 westwards
> it alarms every 4or 5 seconds presumably reacting to the 11 speed
> cameras (6 going up 5 going down) on the 1.2 km of the A643 a mile or
> so away across the fields.

I've never seen cameras 4 or 5 seconds apart.  Unless you're doing 150.

Mine only alarms if I'm exceeding the limit.

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

People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.

Conor wrote:
|| In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
||| Peter Hucker wrote:
|||
|||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
|||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
|||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
|||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
|||
||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
|||
|| Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
|| my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.

Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you 
couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box and associated warning 
signs?

-- 
Rob

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:11 +0100, Rob  wrote:

> Conor wrote:
> || In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
> ||| Peter Hucker wrote:
> |||
> |||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
> |||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
> |||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
> |||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
> |||
> ||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
> |||
> || Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
> || my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>
> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box

The mobile ones can be hidden.

> and associated warning signs?

Forget the warning signs, they put them up randomly in places where a camera has never been spotted.


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

A very loud, unattractive, mean-acting woman walks into Wal-Mart with her two kids in tow, screaming obscenities at them all the way through the entrance.
The Wal-Mart Greeter says, "Good morning and welcome to Wal-Mart.... Nice children you've got there - are they twins?"
The ugly woman stops screaming long enough to say, "Hell no they ain't, the oldest one, he's 9 and the younger one, she's 7.
Why the hell would you think they're twins?........ Do you really think they look alike?"
"No", replies the greeter, "I just couldn't believe you got laid twice!"

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:19:32 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>
>I've never seen cameras 4 or 5 seconds apart.  Unless you're doing 150.

Usenet !

I said I was on the M621 motorway. I would have been doing 70.
the satnav was responding to the 11 speed cameras on an adjacent road.

>
>Mine only alarms if I'm exceeding the limit.

Mine doesn't it alarms for all of them at all speeds even if they are
on the "wrong" side of the road, or for that matter on either side of
a different road altogether a mile away over a hill

Derek

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:01:47 +0100, Derek Geldard  wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:19:32 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've never seen cameras 4 or 5 seconds apart.  Unless you're doing 150.
>
> Usenet !

Does that mean you won't admit to 150 on usenet? :-)

> I said I was on the M621 motorway. I would have been doing 70.

Of course.

> the satnav was responding to the 11 speed cameras on an adjacent road.

That's a lot of cameras for one road.

>> Mine only alarms if I'm exceeding the limit.
>
> Mine doesn't it alarms for all of them at all speeds even if they are
> on the "wrong" side of the road, or for that matter on either side of
> a different road altogether a mile away over a hill

I have to be approaching it (one to my right doesn't count), and at a speed greater than the camera entry.  Yours may have this option - check the settings when you upload.

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

Typical macho man married typical good-looking lady and after the wedding, laid down the following rules:
"I'll be home when I want, if I want and at what time I want - and I don't expect any hassle from you.
I expect a great dinner to be on the table unless I tell you otherwise.
I'll go hunting, fishing, boozin, and card-playing when I want with my old buddies and don't you give me a hard time about it.
Those are my rules.  Any comments?"
His new bride said, "No, that's fine with me. Just understand that there'll be sex here at seven o'clock every night - whether you're here or not."

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:12:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:


>> the satnav was responding to the 11 speed cameras on an adjacent road.
>
>That's a lot of cameras for one road.

We know, and we can't account for it. There is supposed to be a
history of serious accidents to justify each speed camera site, but
all we have are single vehicle accidents always involving pissants and
usually at 3-30am on Saturday or Sunday morning. Oh and one yoof with
no connection to the area rode his motorcycle 243 miles from Glasgow
turned into our housing estate and ploughed himself into the first
lamp post (within 75 yards) a possible suicide. These sort of
accidents are scarcely likely to be prevented by safety cameras.

You haven't asked what happened to the twelfth. I'll give you a clue
it looks like it involved a big lorry and a stout hawser.

The A643 road with the cameras on and the M621 can be seen here :

<http://www.multimap.com/s/D9F1losR>

The part in question is between the A6110 Leeds ring road and the A650
Wakefield to Bradford road.

>
>>> Mine only alarms if I'm exceeding the limit.
>>
>> Mine doesn't it alarms for all of them at all speeds even if they are
>> on the "wrong" side of the road, or for that matter on either side of
>> a different road altogether a mile away over a hill
>
>I have to be approaching it (one to my right doesn't count),
>and at a speed greater than the camera entry.  Yours may
>have this option - check the settings when you upload.


Nope it's a VIA Michelin and came with the camera locations programmed
in from new. Updates are available FOC, but you have to register and I
CBA. It seems to create a circular zone about a mile or so around each
camera and alerts if you penetrate that zone. No use at all so the
alerts remain turned off along with all the others.   The constant
hectoring about bends, schools and speed cameras made it seem like I
was driving with Margaret Hilda Thatcher in the car (In a small metal
box).

Derek

In article , Peter Hucker says...
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:31:25 +0100, Conor  wrote:
> 
> > In article , Peter Hucker says...
> >
> >> Don't be stupid.  The limits are way too low.  We'd never get anywhere.
> >>
> > I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for
> > cars on motorways jwell enough.
> 
> You're jealous cause you're stuck with that speed limiter.
> 
> 
Not really as I'm paid by the hour.

-- 
Conor

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

In article , Rob says...
> Conor wrote:
> || In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
> ||| Peter Hucker wrote:
> |||
> |||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
> |||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
> |||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
> |||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
> |||
> ||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
> |||
> || Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
> || my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
> 
> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you 
> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box and associated warning 
> signs?
> 
Those I can see quite easily, thankyou. I know where shitloads of them 
are - for example, virtually every single one on the A1 from Doncaster 
to Hatfield.


-- 
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 18:58:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:


>> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
>> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box
>
>The mobile ones can be hidden.
>
>> and associated warning signs?
>
>Forget the warning signs, they put them up randomly in places where a camera
>has never been spotted.

Or (favourite trick) put the camera logo on the side of the van and
then park it with it's rear end facing the oncoming traffic and zap
the cars through darkened windows.

Derek

Conor wrote:
> In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>>> I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>
> Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on my 
> Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
> 

I have them on my satnav but turned them off as it's easier to spot them 
in real life.

I think it's more a case of Peter "Stupid Fucker" Hucker not being able 
to drive.

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:03:03 +0100, Silk  wrote:
> 
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>
>>> I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
> 
> Why not let yourself concentrate on the road, and the satnav concentrate on the police?

You stupid twat.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:58:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:11 +0100, Rob  wrote:
>
>> Conor wrote:
>> || In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>> ||| Peter Hucker wrote:
>> |||
>> |||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
>> |||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
>> |||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
>> |||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>> |||
>> ||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>> |||
>> || Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
>> || my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>
>> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
>> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box
>
>The mobile ones can be hidden.

Sneaky bastards!  The Germans are good at hiding even the fixed ones!

>> and associated warning signs?
>
>Forget the warning signs, they put them up randomly in places where a camera has never been spotted.

Indeed.  There are warning signs anywhere a camera could be as well as
where they actually are.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:04:40 +0100, Derek Geldard  wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:12:19 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>
>>> the satnav was responding to the 11 speed cameras on an adjacent road.
>>
>> That's a lot of cameras for one road.
>
> We know, and we can't account for it.

Maybe you should make a complaint.

> There is supposed to be a1
> history of serious accidents to justify each speed camera site, but
> all we have are single vehicle accidents always involving pissants and
> usually at 3-30am on Saturday or Sunday morning. Oh and one yoof with
> no connection to the area rode his motorcycle 243 miles from Glasgow
> turned into our housing estate and ploughed himself into the first
> lamp post (within 75 yards) a possible suicide. These sort of
> accidents are scarcely likely to be prevented by safety cameras.
>
> You haven't asked what happened to the twelfth. I'll give you a clue
> it looks like it involved a big lorry and a stout hawser.
>
> The A643 road with the cameras on and the M621 can be seen here :
>
> <http://www.multimap.com/s/D9F1losR>
>
> The part in question is between the A6110 Leeds ring road and the A650
> Wakefield to Bradford road.
>
>>>> Mine only alarms if I'm exceeding the limit.
>>>
>>> Mine doesn't it alarms for all of them at all speeds even if they are
>>> on the "wrong" side of the road, or for that matter on either side of
>>> a different road altogether a mile away over a hill
>>
>> I have to be approaching it (one to my right doesn't count),
>> and at a speed greater than the camera entry.  Yours may
>> have this option - check the settings when you upload.
>
> Nope it's a VIA Michelin and came with the camera locations programmed
> in from new. Updates are available FOC, but you have to register and I
> CBA. It seems to create a circular zone about a mile or so around each
> camera and alerts if you penetrate that zone. No use at all so the
> alerts remain turned off along with all the others.   The constant
> hectoring about bends, schools and speed cameras made it seem like I
> was driving with Margaret Hilda Thatcher in the car (In a small metal
> box).

Garmin i3, sell yours and buy one.

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

Connecticut police are investigating a string of shootings where clues are reportedly contained in a rap CD.
They are also questioning Eric Clapton about the shooting of a sheriff.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:31:05 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Peter Hucker says...
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:31:25 +0100, Conor  wrote:
>>
>> > In article , Peter Hucker says...
>> >
>> >> Don't be stupid.  The limits are way too low.  We'd never get anywhere.
>> >>
>> > I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for
>> > cars on motorways jwell enough.
>>
>> You're jealous cause you're stuck with that speed limiter.
>>
>>
> Not really as I'm paid by the hour.

Don't you get bored?

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

During the weekly Lamaze class, the instructor emphasized the importance of exercise, hinting strongly that husbands need to get out and start walking with their wives.
 From the back of the room one expectant father inquired, "Would it be okay if she carries a bag of golf clubs while she walks?"

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:32:15 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Rob says...
>> Conor wrote:
>> || In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>> ||| Peter Hucker wrote:
>> |||
>> |||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
>> |||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
>> |||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
>> |||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>> |||
>> ||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>> |||
>> || Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
>> || my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>
>> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
>> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box and associated warning
>> signs?
>>
> Those I can see quite easily, thankyou. I know where shitloads of them
> are - for example, virtually every single one on the A1 from Doncaster
> to Hatfield.

Exactly, they don't catch anyone who frequents the road, just unsuspecting tourists.

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

A wife is having sex with her husband's best friend one day.
Soon the phone rings, so she answers it.
"Yes, uh, ok, yes, ok, well, bye."
Her husband's best friend says, "Who was it?"
"That was my husband," she replied.
The man jumped out of bed, and tried to put on his clothes in a hurry.
"Relax," said the wife. "He just called to tell me he was out playing golf with you"

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:05:02 +0100, Derek Geldard  wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:58:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
>>> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box
>>
>> The mobile ones can be hidden.
>>
>>> and associated warning signs?
>>
>> Forget the warning signs, they put them up randomly in places where a camera
>> has never been spotted.
>
> Or (favourite trick) put the camera logo on the side of the van and
> then park it with it's rear end facing the oncoming traffic and zap
> the cars through darkened windows.

Only seen one turned that way round, in Wales.  It has logos on the rear doors.

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

A police officer, though scheduled for all night duty at the station, was relieved of duty early and arrived home four hours ahead of schedule, at 2 in the morning.
Not wanting to wake his wife, he undressed in the dark, crept into the bedroom and started to climb into bed. Just then, his wife sleepily sat up and said, "Mike, dearest, would you go down to the all night drug store on the next block and get me some aspirin? I've got a splitting headache."
"Certainly, honey," he said, and feeling his way across the dark room, he got dressed and walked over to the drug store.
As he arrived, the pharmacist looked up in surprise, "Say," said the druggist, "I know you - aren't you a policeman? Officer Fenwick, right?"
"Yeah, so?" said the officer.
"Well what the heck are you doing all dressed up like the Fire Chief?"

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:21:56 +0100, Silk  wrote:

> Conor wrote:
>> In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>>
>> Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on my
>> Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>
>
> I have them on my satnav but turned them off as it's easier to spot them
> in real life.
>
> I think it's more a case of Peter "Stupid Fucker" Hucker not being able
> to drive.

[waits for Silk to crash into someone while looking out for cameras]

I pay attention to the road ahead, not cameras hidden in bushes and speedos.

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

What do you call an Amish man with his arm up a horse's ass?
A mechanic.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:25:07 +0100, Silk  wrote:

> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:03:03 +0100, Silk  wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>
>> Why not let yourself concentrate on the road, and the satnav concentrate on the police?
>
> You stupid twat.

Give reasoning.

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

A female friend of mine was admitted to a private hospital to try to
lose weight.  Naturally I sent her flowers.

I received a "thank-you" note several days later; it said, "Thanks for
the flowers, they were delicious!"

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:34:21 +0100, Graz  wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:58:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:11 +0100, Rob  wrote:
>>
>>> Conor wrote:
>>> || In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>>> ||| Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> |||
>>> |||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
>>> |||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
>>> |||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
>>> |||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>> |||
>>> ||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>> |||
>>> || Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
>>> || my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>>
>>> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
>>> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box
>>
>> The mobile ones can be hidden.
>
> Sneaky bastards!  The Germans are good at hiding even the fixed ones!
>
>>> and associated warning signs?
>>
>> Forget the warning signs, they put them up randomly in places where a camera has never been spotted.
>
> Indeed.  There are warning signs anywhere a camera could be as well as
> where they actually are.

In one area, someone had crossed out the ones that were incorrect.

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

Women, you're in good shape as long as you can still touch your toes.
Just remember, using your boobs doesn't count.

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:31:05 +0100, Conor  wrote:
> 
>> In article , Peter Hucker says...
>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:31:25 +0100, Conor  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article , Peter Hucker says...
>>>>
>>>>> Don't be stupid.  The limits are way too low.  We'd never get anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>> I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for
>>>> cars on motorways jwell enough.
>>> You're jealous cause you're stuck with that speed limiter.
>>>
>>>
>> Not really as I'm paid by the hour.
> 
> Don't you get bored?
> 

No he's probly watching his portable dvd player :-p

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:25:07 +0100, Silk  wrote:
> 
>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:03:03 +0100, Silk  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>> Why not let yourself concentrate on the road, and the satnav concentrate on the police?
>> You stupid twat.
> 
> Give reasoning.

You wouldn't understand.

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:07:17 +0100, Silk  wrote:

> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:25:07 +0100, Silk  wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:03:03 +0100, Silk  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>>>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>>> Why not let yourself concentrate on the road, and the satnav concentrate on the police?
>>> You stupid twat.
>>
>> Give reasoning.
>
> You wouldn't understand.

Admission of no working noted.  Nil points.

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

Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the fuck happened.

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:21:56 +0100, Silk  wrote:
> 
>> Conor wrote:
>>> In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>>>
>>> Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on my
>>> Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>>
>> I have them on my satnav but turned them off as it's easier to spot them
>> in real life.
>>
>> I think it's more a case of Peter "Stupid Fucker" Hucker not being able
>> to drive.
> 
> [waits for Silk to crash into someone while looking out for cameras]
> 
> I pay attention to the road ahead, not cameras hidden in bushes and speedos.
> 

Do you not have any peripheral vision?

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:26:50 +0100, Silk  wrote:

> Peter Hucker wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:21:56 +0100, Silk  wrote:
>>
>>> Conor wrote:
>>>> In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>>>>> Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>>>> It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on my
>>>> Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>>>
>>> I have them on my satnav but turned them off as it's easier to spot them
>>> in real life.
>>>
>>> I think it's more a case of Peter "Stupid Fucker" Hucker not being able
>>> to drive.
>>
>> [waits for Silk to crash into someone while looking out for cameras]
>>
>> I pay attention to the road ahead, not cameras hidden in bushes and speedos.
>>
>
> Do you not have any peripheral vision?

Peripheral vision is not high resolution.

And the point is all concentration should be on the road.

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

A waiter brings the customer the steak he ordered with his thumb over the meat.
"Are you crazy?" yelled the customer, "with your hand on my steak?"
"What" answers the waiter, "You want it to fall on the floor again?"

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:00:29 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:34:21 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:58:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:11 +0100, Rob  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>> || In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>>>> ||| Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>> |||
>>>> |||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
>>>> |||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
>>>> |||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
>>>> |||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>>> |||
>>>> ||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>>> |||
>>>> || Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
>>>> || my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>>>
>>>> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
>>>> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box
>>>
>>> The mobile ones can be hidden.
>>
>> Sneaky bastards!  The Germans are good at hiding even the fixed ones!
>>
>>>> and associated warning signs?
>>>
>>> Forget the warning signs, they put them up randomly in places where a camera has never been spotted.
>>
>> Indeed.  There are warning signs anywhere a camera could be as well as
>> where they actually are.
>
>In one area, someone had crossed out the ones that were incorrect.

Ah, a revolutionary!   Venceremos!

Conor wrote:
> In article <g8cu03$goq$1@aioe.org>, Alan Smith says...
>> Conor wrote:
>>
>>> I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for 
>>> cars on motorways jwell enough.
>>>
>>>
>> That's a slight exaggeration isn't it?
>>
> Nope.
> 
>> Bearing in mind you unit is restricted to 56mph so a standard 9 hour 
>> shift with no checks, no deliveries, no traffic jams, an instant 
>> 0-56mph, no traffic lights & travelling everywhere at 56mph means you 
>> could only cover 496 miles.
> 
> It was 10 hour runs on nights. Started a mile from the motorway and the 
> end point was 2 miles from the motorway up a D/C. Add to that 35 miles 
> each way getting to and from work in the car.
> 
> I can do YO434AN to Tunnocks at Uddingston near Glasgow and back in 9hr 
> 10 min during the day which is 446 miles or YO434AN to the Cadbury 
> factory at Keynsham and back in 8hrs 50m driving although admittedly, 
> I'm setting off at 3.30am to miss all the traffic.
> 
> 

But you can only do that 3 times a week, so not everyday, also I suspect 
you do not adhere to the 40 mile per hour legal limit over the A66

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:10:28 +0100, Graz  wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:00:29 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:34:21 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:58:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:11 +0100, Rob  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>> || In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>>>>> ||| Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>> |||
>>>>> |||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
>>>>> |||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
>>>>> |||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
>>>>> |||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>>>> |||
>>>>> ||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>>>> |||
>>>>> || Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
>>>>> || my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
>>>>> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box
>>>>
>>>> The mobile ones can be hidden.
>>>
>>> Sneaky bastards!  The Germans are good at hiding even the fixed ones!
>>>
>>>>> and associated warning signs?
>>>>
>>>> Forget the warning signs, they put them up randomly in places where a camera has never been spotted.
>>>
>>> Indeed.  There are warning signs anywhere a camera could be as well as
>>> where they actually are.
>>
>> In one area, someone had crossed out the ones that were incorrect.
>
> Ah, a revolutionary!   Venceremos!

Round here, someone has put "go fast!" stickers on them all - from here:
http://www.gofastsports.com/

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

Although born to a Catholic family, Chester had always wanted to be Jewish.  As a senior in college, he decided to take the plunge and go through the formal conversion process.  He studied Judaism all semester. Finally, he felt he was ready to take the test and complete the conversion.
On the appointed day, he arrived at the Rabbi's office, ready to begin.
The Rabbi said, "I'm sorry, but before I give you the test, I must discuss my fee, It's $5000."
"$5000!" exclaimed Chester, "That's a lot of money. How about $500?"
"Congratulations, you pass." said the Rabbi.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:38:11 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:10:28 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:00:29 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:34:21 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:58:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:11 +0100, Rob  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>>> || In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>>>>>> ||| Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>> |||
>>>>>> |||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
>>>>>> |||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
>>>>>> |||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
>>>>>> |||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>>>>> |||
>>>>>> ||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>>>>> |||
>>>>>> || Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
>>>>>> || my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
>>>>>> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box
>>>>>
>>>>> The mobile ones can be hidden.
>>>>
>>>> Sneaky bastards!  The Germans are good at hiding even the fixed ones!
>>>>
>>>>>> and associated warning signs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Forget the warning signs, they put them up randomly in places where a camera has never been spotted.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.  There are warning signs anywhere a camera could be as well as
>>>> where they actually are.
>>>
>>> In one area, someone had crossed out the ones that were incorrect.
>>
>> Ah, a revolutionary!   Venceremos!
>
>Round here, someone has put "go fast!" stickers on them all - from here:
>http://www.gofastsports.com/

Round here the camera lenses usually get sprayed with black paint.
The newer ones are harder to reach.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:30:27 +0100, Graz  wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:38:11 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:10:28 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:00:29 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:34:21 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:58:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:11 +0100, Rob  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>>>> || In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>>>>>>> ||| Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>>> |||
>>>>>>> |||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
>>>>>>> |||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
>>>>>>> |||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
>>>>>>> |||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>>>>>> |||
>>>>>>> ||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>>>>>> |||
>>>>>>> || Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
>>>>>>> || my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
>>>>>>> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mobile ones can be hidden.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sneaky bastards!  The Germans are good at hiding even the fixed ones!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and associated warning signs?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forget the warning signs, they put them up randomly in places where a camera has never been spotted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.  There are warning signs anywhere a camera could be as well as
>>>>> where they actually are.
>>>>
>>>> In one area, someone had crossed out the ones that were incorrect.
>>>
>>> Ah, a revolutionary!   Venceremos!
>>
>> Round here, someone has put "go fast!" stickers on them all - from here:
>> http://www.gofastsports.com/
>
> Round here the camera lenses usually get sprayed with black paint.
> The newer ones are harder to reach.

What about one of them Dulux paint systems?  The roller on a long hadle with a pump?


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

The Official MBA Handbook on business cards:  Avoid overly pretentious job titles such as "Lord of the Realm, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India" or "Director of Corporate Planning."

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:37:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:30:27 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:38:11 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:10:28 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:00:29 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:34:21 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:58:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:43:11 +0100, Rob  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Conor wrote:
>>>>>>>> || In article <g8dunn$qr5$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Silk says...
>>>>>>>> ||| Peter Hucker wrote:
>>>>>>>> |||
>>>>>>>> |||| I was misinformed by a company called Morpheous, whic are still
>>>>>>>> |||| trying to flog their GPS based "detectors", you're better off
>>>>>>>> |||| buying a cheaper satnav and putting the speed traps on it yourself
>>>>>>>> |||| for free or virtually nothing from the internet.
>>>>>>>> |||
>>>>>>>> ||| It's cheaper to just look where you're going.
>>>>>>>> |||
>>>>>>>> || Indeed. Once upon a time I'll admit to putting speed camera POI's on
>>>>>>>> || my Satnav but I got so sick of false positives I took them off again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why did you need an audible warning of speed cameras - was that for when you
>>>>>>>> couldn't see a big fuck off fluorescent yellow box
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mobile ones can be hidden.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sneaky bastards!  The Germans are good at hiding even the fixed ones!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and associated warning signs?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Forget the warning signs, they put them up randomly in places where a camera has never been spotted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed.  There are warning signs anywhere a camera could be as well as
>>>>>> where they actually are.
>>>>>
>>>>> In one area, someone had crossed out the ones that were incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, a revolutionary!   Venceremos!
>>>
>>> Round here, someone has put "go fast!" stickers on them all - from here:
>>> http://www.gofastsports.com/
>>
>> Round here the camera lenses usually get sprayed with black paint.
>> The newer ones are harder to reach.
>
>What about one of them Dulux paint systems?  The roller on a long hadle with a pump?

The new digital cameras are way out of reach.

In article , Peter Hucker says...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:31:05 +0100, Conor  wrote:
> 
> > In article , Peter Hucker says...
> >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:31:25 +0100, Conor  wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article , Peter Hucker says...
> >> >
> >> >> Don't be stupid.  The limits are way too low.  We'd never get anywhere.
> >> >>
> >> > I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for
> >> > cars on motorways jwell enough.
> >>
> >> You're jealous cause you're stuck with that speed limiter.
> >>
> >>
> > Not really as I'm paid by the hour.
> 
> Don't you get bored?
> 
> 
Bored of driving down the road looking at beautiful ever changing 
scenery whilst listening to what I want on the radio, being able to 
choose when I want to stop for a break and getting paid for it?

Nope.

-- 
Conor

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

In article <g8htam$q8v$1@aioe.org>, Alan Smith says...

> 
> But you can only do that 3 times a week, so not everyday, also I suspect 
> you do not adhere to the 40 mile per hour legal limit over the A66
> 
Err, no. I can do the Keynsham runs eleven times a fortnight.

Have you seen how little of the A66 is not DC now? It's been a while 
since you've been down it, isn't it? They DC'd a large part of it 
between Barnard Castle and the A1 and bypassed a couple of the 
villages.

And in one of my Trucknet posts, I describe driving at 40MPH whilst 
another lorry overtook me and got caught by a Camera van.

-- 
Conor

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

"Derek Geldard"  wrote in message 
news:vq1ma4ti2a8a1p916vld5qhugq2pobcps5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:19:32 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I've never seen cameras 4 or 5 seconds apart.  Unless you're doing 150.
>
> Usenet !
>
> I said I was on the M621 motorway. I would have been doing 70.
> the satnav was responding to the 11 speed cameras on an adjacent road.
>
>>
>>Mine only alarms if I'm exceeding the limit.
>
> Mine doesn't it alarms for all of them at all speeds even if they are
> on the "wrong" side of the road, or for that matter on either side of
> a different road altogether a mile away over a hill


Either ...

a..  Learn to use your SatNav properly or
b..  Get a decent unit that allows you to define the alarms.

-- 
MrBitsy
Rover 75 CDTi

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:00:21 +0100, Graz  wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:37:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:30:27 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:38:11 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:10:28 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:00:29 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:34:21 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed.  There are warning signs anywhere a camera could be as well as
>>>>>>> where they actually are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In one area, someone had crossed out the ones that were incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, a revolutionary!   Venceremos!
>>>>
>>>> Round here, someone has put "go fast!" stickers on them all - from here:
>>>> http://www.gofastsports.com/
>>>
>>> Round here the camera lenses usually get sprayed with black paint.
>>> The newer ones are harder to reach.
>>
>> What about one of them Dulux paint systems?  The roller on a long hadle with a pump?
>
> The new digital cameras are way out of reach.

Can you put paint in a Karcher?


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

Women are like small children.  You bring a new one home and the ones already there resent it.

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:13:28 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Peter Hucker says...
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:31:05 +0100, Conor  wrote:
>>
>> > In article , Peter Hucker says...
>> >> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:31:25 +0100, Conor  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article , Peter Hucker says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Don't be stupid.  The limits are way too low.  We'd never get anywhere.
>> >> >>
>> >> > I manage to cover 500-600 miles a day driving well below the limit for
>> >> > cars on motorways jwell enough.
>> >>
>> >> You're jealous cause you're stuck with that speed limiter.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Not really as I'm paid by the hour.
>>
>> Don't you get bored?
>>
>>
> Bored of driving down the road looking at beautiful ever changing
> scenery whilst listening to what I want on the radio, being able to
> choose when I want to stop for a break and getting paid for it?
>
> Nope.

And you never want to floor it?


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

A woman sends her clothing out to the Chinese laundry. When it comes back there are still stains in her panties. The next week she encloses a note to the Chinaman that says, "Use more soap on panties."
This goes on for several weeks, the woman sending the same note to the laundry.
Finally fed up the Chinaman responded with his own note that said, "Use more paper on ass."

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:41:09 +0100, MrBitsy  wrote:

> "Derek Geldard"  wrote in message
> news:vq1ma4ti2a8a1p916vld5qhugq2pobcps5@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:19:32 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've never seen cameras 4 or 5 seconds apart.  Unless you're doing 150.
>>
>> Usenet !
>>
>> I said I was on the M621 motorway. I would have been doing 70.
>> the satnav was responding to the 11 speed cameras on an adjacent road.
>>
>>>
>>> Mine only alarms if I'm exceeding the limit.
>>
>> Mine doesn't it alarms for all of them at all speeds even if they are
>> on the "wrong" side of the road, or for that matter on either side of
>> a different road altogether a mile away over a hill
>
>
> Either ...
>
> a..  Learn to use your SatNav properly or
> b..  Get a decent unit that allows you to define the alarms.

But surely you know nothing about these things, as you never exceed the limit.


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

English > German
Indicators ---- Die Blinkenleiten Tickentocken
Bonnet ---- Pullnob und Knucklechopper
Exhaust ---- Die Spitzenpoppenbangentuben
Speedometer ---- Der Egobooster und Linenshooter
Clutch ---- Die Kuplink mit schlippen und shaken
Puncture ---- Die Phlatt mit Bludyfucken
Learner Driver ---- Die Twatten mit Elplatz
Estate Car ---- Der Bagmooroomfurshagginauto
Parking Meter ---- Der Tennerpinscher und Klockenwerr
Windscreen Wiper ---- Der Flippenflappenmuckenschpredder
Footbrake ---- Der Edbangeronvindschreen Stoppend
Gear Lever ---- Biggen Sticken fur Kangaroochoppen
Breathalyser ---- Die Pu titintem fur Pistenarsen
Seat Belt ---- Der Klunkenklikker Frauleintrapper
Headlights ---- Das Dippendontdazzleyubastad
Exhaust Fumes ---- Der Koffenundschpittpoluter
Highway Code ---- Der Wipan fur Arsen
Fog Warning ---- Die Puttenlegdownen und Fukkit
Traffic Jam ---- Die Bluddifukkink Dammundblast
Rear Seat ---- Der Schpringentester
Backfire ---- Der Lowdenbangenmekkenjumpen
Articulated Lorry ---- Der Fukkengrett Trukken
Accident ---- Der Bleedinmess
Near Accident ---- Der Fukken Near Schittsenselfen
Service Station ---- Der Heiway Robberungen
Cyclist ---- Der Pedallpushink Pilloken
Double White lines ---- Overtakenund Krunchen

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:34:40 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 20:00:21 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:37:48 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:30:27 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:38:11 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:10:28 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:00:29 +0100, "Peter Hucker" 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:34:21 +0100, Graz  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed.  There are warning signs anywhere a camera could be as well as
>>>>>>>> where they actually are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In one area, someone had crossed out the ones that were incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, a revolutionary!   Venceremos!
>>>>>
>>>>> Round here, someone has put "go fast!" stickers on them all - from here:
>>>>> http://www.gofastsports.com/
>>>>
>>>> Round here the camera lenses usually get sprayed with black paint.
>>>> The newer ones are harder to reach.
>>>
>>> What about one of them Dulux paint systems?  The roller on a long hadle with a pump?
>>
>> The new digital cameras are way out of reach.
>
>Can you put paint in a Karcher?

You can try.  It won't be much use as a Karcher afterwards.

In article , Peter Hucker says...

> > Bored of driving down the road looking at beautiful ever changing
> > scenery whilst listening to what I want on the radio, being able to
> > choose when I want to stop for a break and getting paid for it?
> >
> > Nope.
> 
> And you never want to floor it?
> 
It weighs the thick end of 44 tonnes. Just how fast do you think it's 
going to accelerate?



-- 
Conor

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

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:11:23 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Peter Hucker says...
>
>> > Bored of driving down the road looking at beautiful ever changing
>> > scenery whilst listening to what I want on the radio, being able to
>> > choose when I want to stop for a break and getting paid for it?
>> >
>> > Nope.
>>
>> And you never want to floor it?
>>
> It weighs the thick end of 44 tonnes. Just how fast do you think it's
> going to accelerate?

What about when it's empty?

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

"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed." - U.S. Air Force Pilot training manual

In article , Peter Hucker says...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:11:23 +0100, Conor  wrote:
> 
> > In article , Peter Hucker says...
> >
> >> > Bored of driving down the road looking at beautiful ever changing
> >> > scenery whilst listening to what I want on the radio, being able to
> >> > choose when I want to stop for a break and getting paid for it?
> >> >
> >> > Nope.
> >>
> >> And you never want to floor it?
> >>
> > It weighs the thick end of 44 tonnes. Just how fast do you think it's
> > going to accelerate?
> 
> What about when it's empty?
> 
Hardly Ferrari performance - it still weighs 17+ tonnes. Yes, that's 17 
tonnes when empty.


-- 
Conor

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

Peter Hucker wrote:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/09/transport.world
>
> Those caught at 45mph or above in a 30mph limit are likely to receive six fixed penalty points and a £100 fine instead of the present three points and a £60 fine.  Under the proposal, the higher penalty would apply to drivers caught at 57mph or above on a 40mph road and 94mph or above on a 70mph road.

The motorway limit should be at least 80 mph as in most of Europe.

Graham

In article , Eeyore says...
> 
> 
> Peter Hucker wrote:
> 
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/09/transport.world
> >
> > Those caught at 45mph or above in a 30mph limit are likely to receive six fixed penalty points and a £100 fine instead of the present three points and a £60 fine.  Under the proposal, the higher penalty would apply to drivers caught at 57mph or above on a 40mph road and 94mph or above on a 70mph road.
> 
> The motorway limit should be at least 80 mph as in most of Europe.
> 
I wish there were minimum limits as well. Sick as fuck of being sat 
behind tossers pottering along at 35MPH in a NSL this week. They're 
fucking everywhere. One was still even slowing down from that for 
corners and non of them were young people so its not a lack of 
experience.

-- 
Conor

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

Conor  wrote:

> I wish there were minimum limits as well. Sick as fuck of being sat 
> behind tossers pottering along at 35MPH in a NSL this week. They're 
> fucking everywhere. One was still even slowing down from that for 
> corners and non of them were young people so its not a lack of 
> experience.

They'll be the same people who speed up to 50 when they get into a 30
restricted zone. They seem to drive according to some perceived level of
comfort - where the limit is 30 there is street lighting, kerbs and
pavement they seem to find this comforting. NSL rods tend to be grass
verges and have bend which the bimblers find unbelievably challenging.

Apropos of not much, WTF is up with drivers in London? I've been
pottering in and put along the A4/M4/A40 over the past few weeks. Each
of the roads is lined with speed cameras, there's really no point and
definitely no advantage to driving like a twat but each day I see
drivers hitting >70 in a 40 limit then standing on the brakes for every
speed camera. The majority get up to 70 or so then weave frantically
between all three lanes so they don't have to slow down.

And the result of all this? Sometimes by the time we get to central
Smoke some of them are 1 or even two cars ahead of me.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:09:33 +0100, Conor  wrote:

> In article , Peter Hucker says...
>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:11:23 +0100, Conor  wrote:
>>
>> > In article , Peter Hucker says...
>> >
>> >> > Bored of driving down the road looking at beautiful ever changing
>> >> > scenery whilst listening to what I want on the radio, being able to
>> >> > choose when I want to stop for a break and getting paid for it?
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope.
>> >>
>> >> And you never want to floor it?
>> >>
>> > It weighs the thick end of 44 tonnes. Just how fast do you think it's
>> > going to accelerate?
>>
>> What about when it's empty?
>>
> Hardly Ferrari performance - it still weighs 17+ tonnes. Yes, that's 17
> tonnes when empty.

Even just the front bit?

I thought they went like the fucking clappers on their own - they have races.

If it weighs less than half what it's used to.....

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

I used to not get along with my mother-in-law, but over the last few
months, I've developed quite an attachment for her.  It goes over her
head, and a strap comes down under her chin to keep her mouth shut.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:35:58 +0100, Eeyore  wrote:

>
>
> Peter Hucker wrote:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/09/transport.world
>>
>> Those caught at 45mph or above in a 30mph limit are likely to receive six fixed penalty points and a £100 fine instead of the present three points and a £60 fine.  Under the proposal, the higher penalty would apply to drivers caught at 57mph or above on a 40mph road and 94mph or above on a 70mph road.
>
> The motorway limit should be at least 80 mph as in most of Europe.

Agreed.

-- 
http://www.peter