How the disabled are ripped off

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:17:27 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:08:06 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 27/09/2015 22:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

It's speed limit +10mph.
Not everywhere. There are some speed cameras that register an offence
if you are doing 34mph or more in a 30mph limit. Some were in north
Wales.

North Wales has an arsehole (more than police usually are) of a
****stable. In fact he'd do you for 31. In more civilised areas, they
use +10mph. And higher if there are many speeders, so they get "the
cream of the crop".

That was certainly the attitude with regard to the settings used on the
M25 speed cameras back in the days of photographic film technology when
the trip point was set at speed limit plus 20mph after they discovered
that the film would be all used up by 9:30 or so due to the Monday
morning rush hour volume of traffic when they'd been set to the usual
speed limit plus 10% plus 2mph. They realised very swiftly that it was
better to save film in order to catch the worst offenders who were
otherwise escaping prosecution.

I doubt any modern digital speed cameras are set with such a generous
allowance any more. Provided the police force can afford the costs of
maintaining the tighter (provable in a court) +/- 1mph tolerance error
limit, you do risk prosecution if you include the +2mph allowance in your
calculated 'speedometer' target speed which is why I suggested it might
be best to exclude this final +2mph from your calculations and be content
with doing 10% more than the calibrated speed of the posted/implied limit.

For example, if you've ascertained that your true speed of 30mph on a
level road in windless conditions[1] shows as 33mph on the speedo (a
fairly typical error[2]), your target indicated speed would be 36mph
(implying a 0.3mph shortfall on the limit).

[1] The manufacturers (car makers or speedometer suppliers depending on
who is actually liable for providing/fitting defective speedometers) are
allowed a calibration error of +/- 10%. No manufacturer wants to risk
prosecution for being outside of that tolerance range so they tend to
play it safe by aiming for a +10/ -0% reading calibration tolerance since
they're only likely to face prosecution as a result of a speeding ticket
being issued to someone wealthy enough to buy an 'on the ball' barrister
who *will* unearth such out of tolerance speed indicating equipment.

There's also the pressure on the car makers to prefer over-reading
speedometers on the basis that their customers' testing of the car's
speed performance claims will be more easily met (and even exceeded)
without the need to place undue stress on engine and transmission
components. I don't believe there has ever been a case of prosecution for
supplying a speedometer that over-reads the true speed in excess of the
+/-10% tolerance allowed in law.

[2] Even with the best will in the world, it's practically impossible to
calibrate the classic gearbox output shaft driven speedometer to better
than +/-2% due to the variables introduced by slippage between the tyre's
contact patch with the road surface which varies not only with the road
surface quality itself but also on the design of the tyre and the amount
of driving/breaking torque required to maintain speed both uphill and
downhill, factors that are also speed dependent.

The legislation might seem to provide a rather generous tolerance but it
has to encompass not only manufacturing tolerances but also a whole bunch
of operational/environmental tolerances (changes in calibration due to
speed and the extremes of travelling uphill against a galeforce headwind
and travelling downhill with a galeforce tailwind for examples) and then
err on the side of the motorist to make any such speeding prosecutions as
'safe' (and unquestionable) as possible.

The give or take 10% is also a nice round figure, easily digestible by
the most technology averse magistrates and judges you might ever find in
charge of a court of law. In courts of law, it's always best to keep any
mathematics as simple as possible in order to expedite the proceedings
with minimal ambiguity over the end result - there'll be enough
recriminations afterwards no matter the outcome.

--
Johnny B Good

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 20:52:58 +0100, Johnny B Good wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:17:27 +0100, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:08:06 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 27/09/2015 22:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

It's speed limit +10mph.
Not everywhere. There are some speed cameras that register an offence
if you are doing 34mph or more in a 30mph limit. Some were in north
Wales.

North Wales has an arsehole (more than police usually are) of a
****stable. In fact he'd do you for 31. In more civilised areas, they
use +10mph. And higher if there are many speeders, so they get "the
cream of the crop".

That was certainly the attitude with regard to the settings used on the
M25 speed cameras back in the days of photographic film technology when
the trip point was set at speed limit plus 20mph after they discovered
that the film would be all used up by 9:30 or so due to the Monday
morning rush hour volume of traffic when they'd been set to the usual
speed limit plus 10% plus 2mph. They realised very swiftly that it was
better to save film in order to catch the worst offenders who were
otherwise escaping prosecution.

I doubt any modern digital speed cameras are set with such a generous
allowance any more. Provided the police force can afford the costs of
maintaining the tighter (provable in a court) +/- 1mph tolerance error
limit, you do risk prosecution if you include the +2mph allowance in your
calculated 'speedometer' target speed which is why I suggested it might
be best to exclude this final +2mph from your calculations and be content
with doing 10% more than the calibrated speed of the posted/implied limit.

For example, if you've ascertained that your true speed of 30mph on a
level road in windless conditions[1] shows as 33mph on the speedo (a
fairly typical error[2]), your target indicated speed would be 36mph
(implying a 0.3mph shortfall on the limit).

[1] The manufacturers (car makers or speedometer suppliers depending on
who is actually liable for providing/fitting defective speedometers) are
allowed a calibration error of +/- 10%. No manufacturer wants to risk
prosecution for being outside of that tolerance range so they tend to
play it safe by aiming for a +10/ -0% reading calibration tolerance since
they're only likely to face prosecution as a result of a speeding ticket
being issued to someone wealthy enough to buy an 'on the ball' barrister
who *will* unearth such out of tolerance speed indicating equipment.

There's also the pressure on the car makers to prefer over-reading
speedometers on the basis that their customers' testing of the car's
speed performance claims will be more easily met (and even exceeded)
without the need to place undue stress on engine and transmission
components. I don't believe there has ever been a case of prosecution for
supplying a speedometer that over-reads the true speed in excess of the
+/-10% tolerance allowed in law.

[2] Even with the best will in the world, it's practically impossible to
calibrate the classic gearbox output shaft driven speedometer to better
than +/-2% due to the variables introduced by slippage between the tyre's
contact patch with the road surface which varies not only with the road
surface quality itself but also on the design of the tyre and the amount
of driving/breaking torque required to maintain speed both uphill and
downhill, factors that are also speed dependent.

The legislation might seem to provide a rather generous tolerance but it
has to encompass not only manufacturing tolerances but also a whole bunch
of operational/environmental tolerances (changes in calibration due to
speed and the extremes of travelling uphill against a galeforce headwind
and travelling downhill with a galeforce tailwind for examples) and then
err on the side of the motorist to make any such speeding prosecutions as
'safe' (and unquestionable) as possible.

The give or take 10% is also a nice round figure, easily digestible by
the most technology averse magistrates and judges you might ever find in
charge of a court of law. In courts of law, it's always best to keep any
mathematics as simple as possible in order to expedite the proceedings
with minimal ambiguity over the end result - there'll be enough
recriminations afterwards no matter the outcome.

The best thing to do is to speed as fast as possible right up to the camera, then jam your brakes on hard, causing the person behind you to shunt you. Then they get into ****, and it increases the number of accidents near cameras. Preferably use the handbrake and gears so they don't see your brakelights.

--
What do you call 4 sheep tied to a post in Wales?
A leisure centre!

On 28/09/2015 20:52, Johnny B Good wrote:

I doubt any modern digital speed cameras are set with such a generous
allowance any more. Provided the police force can afford the costs of
maintaining the tighter (provable in a court) +/- 1mph tolerance error
limit,

Speedos are -10% +0%

If it reads 32 you *are* speeding.

"[email protected]" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 28/09/2015 20:52, Johnny B Good wrote:

I doubt any modern digital speed cameras are set with such a generous
allowance any more. Provided the police force can afford the costs of
maintaining the tighter (provable in a court) +/- 1mph tolerance error
limit,

Speedos are -10% +0%

If it reads 32 you *are* speeding.


Knobhead


--
Adam

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 17:22:49 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

On 27/09/2015 23:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 27/09/2015 22:18, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:

It's speed limit +10mph.
Not everywhere. There are some speed cameras that register an offence
if you are doing 34mph or more in a 30mph limit. Some were in north
Wales.

Jim

They can do you for 31 in a 30 limit if they want to.
The evidence needs a bit more effort with calibration, etc.

The allowance is just to ease the job of the police.

As I've already explained, the +/-10% allowance isn't for the benefit of
the police, it's for the benefit of the equipment makers (and the hapless
motorist dependant upon an instrument he is forced to place his trust
in). It's the +/-2mph that's for the benefit of the police, provided they
can prove the calibration worthiness of their measuring devices along
with their correct usage.

That **** of a North Wales Chief Police Constable, determined to drive
the more wealthy tourist away by the stupidity of "A zero tolerance"
speeding ticket mentality" was not doing his fellow North Welsh citizens
any favours let alone the visiting tourists he felt obliged to attack
when they came up against a confusing plethora of seemingly random and
arbitrary speed limits along largely open country non-urban roads[1].

What's worse is that the magistrates colluded in this 'zero tolerance'
nonsense when they failed to demonstrate good common sense when presented
with a case involving a speeding offence where the recorded speed was a
mere 35mph in a 30mph zone (right on the +10% +2mph allowance limit).

In the days before the curse of speed cameras (yes, I've been riding and
driving the roads for *that* long!), any motorist who managed to get
caught speeding only had themselves to blame for not paying enough
attention to the task of driving safely let alone for failing to spot the
police car in their wake in ample time to make sure they were driving
within the speed limit of the section of road they were on. I think I've
only had to blame my own self negligence twice in almost half a century
of riding/driving the nation's roads. :-)

[1] The tone of this missive quite clearly indicates that I've suffered
from this victimization campaign. I'm not one to hang around but neither
am I one to drive recklessly (as a rule) and take heed of the speed
limits, particularly when travelling on the highways and byways of North
Wales, so I was particularly surprised to receive a NIP for exceeding the
30 limit on a trip back home from North Wales, a journey I remember
taking particular care to avoid breaking the random collection of speed
limits placed along my homeward route.

Since they'd only managed to clock me as doing 35mph (probably in the
first ten yard stretch after the 30mph limit sign by means of a a hidden
mobile speed camera), I was given the option of doing a speed awareness
course in lieu of a fine and 3 points. Just coincidentally, the cost of
the course happened to be the same as the fine (£60) but it was a no-
brainer to take this option since it saved me accumulating 3 points on my
licence.

--
Johnny B Good

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:37:53 +0100, dennis @ home
wrote:

On 28/09/2015 20:52, Johnny B Good wrote:

I doubt any modern digital speed cameras are set with such a generous
allowance any more. Provided the police force can afford the costs of
maintaining the tighter (provable in a court) +/- 1mph tolerance error
limit,

Speedos are -10% +0%

If it reads 32 you *are* speeding.

Bull****. Mine reads 32 when I'm doing 30 as all those bloody signs
which tell you how fast you're going keep reminding you.
I've also checked distance/time and that agrees.

Silly billy, dennis.

On 28/09/2015 10:47, NY wrote:

Ah, like the infamous linked lights on the A4 in Slough that were set to
keep traffic moving at about 30 mph; if you drove at 20 or 40 you hit every
light at red, whereas if you drove at 30 then once you got through the first
light, all the rest would be at green for you. I heard that someone worked
out that if you drove at 80 you also hit green on every light - and I bet
the ton-up boys on their motorbikes took advantage of that late at night :-)

The irritating thing about the Slough linked lights was that most of
them were on a derestricted road, so it was legal to drive at any speed
but the lights and signs tried to keep you to just under 30mph. If you
drove at exactly 30mph, eventually you found a light on red which
changed to green just as you stopped.

At the time I tried it, I had a car that could only get to 80mph
downhill with the wind behind, but I did find that at 70mph I got five
greens and then a red. Good enough, I thought.

Jim

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

Oh, and since 2011, the net migration total is 176k

Net migration is a an irrelevance to one of the main problems, which is
the cultural effects of large numbers of extremely alien people coming
here.

My own personal preference is that I like to be surrounded by those of my
own ilk.

You're in a minority on that tho. Even you lot are into currys
now and that wouldn’t have happened without immigrants.

On 27/09/2015 21:31, Rod Speed wrote:

The real reason small businesses go bankrupt easily is because
there are more trying to make a go of it than the market can
support. So the worst of them go bust.

A business vacates a shop and another takes it over. The first thing
they do is take out all the fixtures and fittings and put new ones in,
and some perfectly serviceable stuff gets smashed up and put in a skip
outside.

That cost money. And while it is going on the shop sells nothing and
gets no income, so the shop refitting is done with loans. Small wonder
that some fail. And then somebody else comes along and removed the
previous fixtures and fittings that might be only 6 months old, to put
in new ones.

Why don't they reuse what is there?

Jim

Indy Jess John wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The real reason small businesses go bankrupt easily is
because there are more trying to make a go of it than
the market can support. So the worst of them go bust.

A business vacates a shop and another takes it over. The first thing
they do is take out all the fixtures and fittings and put new ones in,

Not necessarily, most obviously with petrol
stations and smaller independent supermarkets.

and some perfectly serviceable stuff gets
smashed up and put in a skip outside.

The ones that have gone bust that I know of
have sold all that stuff as part of going bust.

That cost money.

But isn't the reason the first one went bust.

And while it is going on the shop sells nothing and gets
no income, so the shop refitting is done with loans.

Not necessarily. Quite a few fund that with the wad of money
they get when they leave their job as a salaried employee.

Small wonder that some fail. And then somebody else
comes along and removed the previous fixtures and fittings
that might be only 6 months old, to put in new ones.

There aren't all that many that only last that long.

Why don't they reuse what is there?

Sometimes that is because they are franchise operations
that enforce a standard look across all their franchisees.

The small independent retailers often do reuse what is there.

Operations like pubs and restaurants often don't
because they want to make it obvious that there
has been a change of management. And they don't
last long anyway, for the reason I listed originally.