speed camera rant!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I take your points as they appear valid.

 

I am unable to furnish you with the statistics of this particular camera as I do not have them unfortunately. Therefore I'll retain my original view.

 

I am aware of the website you have mentioned.

 

Any website that advertises the 'trick' to get off a speeding fine I take with a pinch of salt.

 

And a site where they argue that 'just 25 deaths' per year is somewhat to be lauded just because the original DfT edit claimed the figure was 100 I view with contempt.

 

Never mind eh?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Oh, and they also claim an 'official' source as wikipedia!

[credit allergy]

Weird Al I am sorry but you are mistaken the highway code does not differianate between self employed and PAYE. in fact it just refers to driving whether commercial or pleasure. Also the only time whether your employment status is relevant is for the working time directive effective for the 48 hour week from april of this year. The transport act 1968 sec 96 relates to driving whatever your employment status. As for checking driving times if a serious colision occured the following investigation would check times through delivery notes etc.

[credit allergy]

Sub contracting is so that the contractor doesnt have to worry about tachos and holiday pay etc. However the subbie still has to comply with the law.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Weird Al I am sorry but you are mistaken the highway code does not differianate between self employed and PAYE.

 

Look, I have explained once before and now I will post up relevent links for you to underrstand, ok?

I have already indicated that any UK driver should have 'adequate rest' which is in the Highway Code. Did I or not?

The Highway Code is for all drivers, of course it is. But driver's hours are legislated by UK law and EU law and it depends upon one's employment status, the hours they work, the vehicles they drive etc etc to how it affects them, or not, as was/is in my case.

 

in fact it just refers to driving whether commercial or pleasure. Also the only time whether your employment status is relevant is for the working time directive effective for the 48 hour week from april of this year.

 

No it isn't.

There is EU law and UK law including Domestic Driver's Rules too for workers to obey.

 

The transport act 1968 sec 96 relates to driving whatever your employment status. As for checking driving times if a serious colision occured the following investigation would check times through delivery notes etc.

 

I was self employed! There was/is no legal requirement to fill out any form regarding my driving hours or what deliveries I made as I was driving a van below 3.5 t!

Right, this can get complicated-

(HAD is the Horizontal Amending Directive for those, like the self employed, not affected by the Working time Directive)

What are the basic HAD rules?

 

The HAD applies all the usual restrictions of the main WTD to non-mobile workers and provides more limited protection to mobile workers in the road transport sector, ensuring in particular that those workers not covered by the RTD will be entitled to:

• An average 48-hour working week over a reference period (usually 17 weeks)
  
• Four weeks’ paid annual holiday
  
• Health assessments for night workers
  
• Provision for adequate rest
  

It also ensures that those subject to the RTD will be entitled to health assessments if night workers and four weeks’ paid annual leave.

Note that under HAD, non-mobile workers are entitled to an uninterrupted period of rest of 11 hours a day while mobile workers who are not subject to EU drivers’ hours rules are entitled simply to ‘adequate rest’. Similarly, non-mobile workers are entitled to a minimum of one day off a week while mobile workers, again, are required to be given ‘adequate rest’.

 

A mobile worker is a driver. Not even employed drivers, driving under 3.5 t, are entitled to a break! Just 'adequate rest' which can be between shifts!

What’s the score for self-employed drivers under the RTD?

 

Self-employed drivers are excluded from the scope of the RTD until March 2009.

 

And I have been talking about the period 2003 to 2006 which is why I have written was/is in a number of posts but, nonetheless, it's still the case until 2009.

The legislation you have quoted didn't even affect me!

This from s95(2)

(2)This Part of this Act applies to—

(a)passenger vehicles, that is to say—

(i)public service vehicles; and

(ii)motor vehicles (other than public service vehicles) constructed or adapted to carry more than twelve passengers;

(b)goods vehicles, that is to say—

(i)heavy locomotives, light locomotives, motor tractors and any motor vehicle so constructed that a trailer may by partial superimposition be attached to the vehicle in such a manner as to cause a substantial part of the weight of the trailer to be borne by the vehicle; and

(ii)motor vehicles (except those mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection) constructed or adapted to carry goods other than the effects of passengers.

It was a Combo with no tow bar fitted, could not carry more than a dozen passengers and not a public service vehicle!

So your s96 is then a waste of time!

Just go to Department for Transport and read up on the subject!

...

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Sub contracting is so that the contractor doesnt have to worry about tachos and holiday pay etc. However the subbie still has to comply with the law.

 

Yes, and it depends on what the law is for that specific individual.

 

Why do you quote a law that didn't even affect me?

[Rob S]

Well, we have seen Weird Al go from a stance of claiming that he didn't break the speed limit and had never had an accident to furnishing us with details of how he regularly managed a round trip of 310 miles in 5 hours at an average speed of 62mph for the whole trip, to saying he had been involved in an accident, but it didn't count because it wasn't his fault. He finally admitted in post 167 that he does break speed limits, despite saying earlier in the same post that "No, I don't speed"

 

I'm sure people can draw their own conclusions as to his credibility:grin:

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Well, we have seen Weird Al go from a stance of claiming that he didn't break the speed limit and had never had an accident to furnishing us with details of how he regularly managed a round trip of 310 miles in 5 hours at an average speed of 62mph for the whole trip, to saying he had been involved in an accident, but it didn't count because it wasn't his fault. He finally admitted in post 167 that he does break speed limits, despite saying earlier in the same post that "No, I don't speed"

 

I'm sure people can draw their own conclusions as to his credibility:grin:

 

Huh?

 

You are only so desperate to discredit me because you were a long time ago. You couldn't even give Tom87 straight answers but talked in riddles.

 

1 I highlighted the word 'regularly.'

 

I gave one example of one journey taking some 5 or so hours to do so and then you twist it to suit you to that it was regularly achieved and it took exactly 5 hours!

 

And yet you also, oddly, point out that to do so I would actually drive 8 miles below the legal limit in any case if we accept your view that 5 or so hours actually means 5 hours full stop! Err, that is equal to a shorter time period!!

 

2 I stated many times that I do not break the speed limit and that is so.

 

Now, you suddenly decide that answering honestly the question, 'Have I ever broken the speed limit?' by 'Yes, most probably' as actually meaning that I do break speed limits.

 

A few points for you-

 

a Probably is not a definite, look it up in the dictionary

 

b I would not be so moralistic as to say 'No.'

Did I drive at 30mph one day in 1988 yet strayed over by a mile?

 

I prefer to be honest and straight rather than how you present yourself.

 

c Did I speed to avoid an accident?

 

d If I ever do speed and get fined then I would accept it and not whinge like you.

 

3 To satisfy Rob S' peculiar mind I now have to report any damage, caused by third party's, to any car I have ever owned to be regarded as accident free. Rather than simply saying I am accident fault free!!

 

I do hope my insurers don't take this view!

 

And if people can draw their own conclusions to my creditibility then why do you feel the need to keep mentioning this same phrase?

 

Need others to put your views across do you?

Edited May 21, 2008 by Weird Al Yankovic

[Rob S]

You don't know about the concept of an average speed for the entire journey then Al??:D

[patdavies]

And yet you also, oddly, point out that to do so I would actually drive 8 miles below the legal limit in any case if we accept your view that 5 or so hours actually means 5 hours full stop! Err, that is equal to a shorter time period!!

 

No, not drive at 8 mph below the limit. Manage to achieve an average speed of 62 mph, allowing for 30/40/50/60 mph limits.stops for rest/toilet/food/fuel, etc.

 

As a point of interest, when road rallying still happened (ie before it was regulated out of existence), the RAC motorsport division, who were the licensing authority would not allow an average speed greater than 50 mph to be set for motorways. It was proven, time and time again that it was impossible to achieve a higher average without exceeding the limit.

 

 

To satisfy Rob S' peculiar mind I now have to report any damage, caused by third party's, to any car I have ever owned to be regarded as accident free. Rather than simply saying I am accident fault free!!

 

I do hope my insurers don't take this view!

Er, yes they do. You are required as a policy condition to report any accident - whether or not it is your fault.

 

At renewal, the question about accidents in the last x years means exactly that - not claims.

[Rob S]

2 I stated many times that I do not break the speed limit and that is so.

 

Now, you suddenly decide that answering honestly the question, 'Have I ever broken the speed limit?' by 'Yes, most probably' as actually meaning that I do break speed limits.

 

A few points for you-

 

a Probably is not a definite, look it up in the dictionary

 

b I would not be so moralistic as to say 'No.'

Did I drive at 30mph one day in 1988 yet strayed over by a mile?

 

I prefer to be honest and straight rather than how you present yourself.

 

c Did I speed to avoid an accident?

 

d If I ever do speed and get fined then I would accept it and not whinge like you.

 

 

 

Al, either you stick to the speed limits religiously or you don't. You can't say on the one hand that you "do not break the speed limit" and then say that you have "most probably" broken them. You are hardly being "honest and straight" here:rolleyes:

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Al, either you stick to the speed limits religiously or you don't. You can't say on the one hand that you "do not break the speed limit" and then say that you have "most probably" broken them. You are hardly being "honest and straight" here:rolleyes:

 

 

Of course one can.

 

In what circumstances did I 'most probably' speed? Point it out please?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

You don't know about the concept of an average speed for the entire journey then Al??:D

 

I do actually.

 

Do you understand the concept of a popular comment such as '5 hours or so' meaning just that and not 5 hours precisely as you twist it?

 

And looking over my previous posts I did not even state at what time of day, what actual day...

 

In any case, 5 or so hours is quite a good estimate for that journey and you actually proved it for me.

[credit allergy]

Al you quite correctly quote sec 95 (2) transport act 1968. As I understand it a vauhall combo was designed or adapted to carry goods so section (ii) of 95 (2) is clear you have answered tyour own question. The transport act in question would have been in force in the period you mention. The working time directive does relate amongst other things to night work. As i previously posted and accepted it does make a difference if you are self employed for the directive to apply. However I will say again you were driving a goods vehicle not subject to eu rules on tachos owing to the vehicles weight. So the transport act 1968 does apply and limits driving to 10 hours a day. The transport act does not require record keeping because the vehicle did not require an operators licence. I suggest it is you who needs to re-read your post in respect of section 95 (2) and slowly read para (ii) because it will then dawn on you that a vauxhall combo is a goods vehicle and subject to the transport act of 1968 whether you are self employed or not. thank you.

[credit allergy]

Weird Al let us know when you are back from the reference library!

[Rob S]

I do actually.

 

Do you understand the concept of a popular comment such as '5 hours or so' meaning just that and not 5 hours precisely as you twist it?

 

And it could just as well mean under the 5 hours.

 

And looking over my previous posts I did not even state at what time of day, what actual day...

 

As if that would make the slightest bit of difference to your claim that you have done the journey in 5 hours.

 

Face it Al, you have tried to present yourself as whiter than white when it comes to your intitial claims of not speeding (which you have now admitted that you have effectively lied about these claims)and having a nil accident record, but you have dug yourself a hole and you are still digging. Your credibility is reducing by the hour.

 

By all means carry on posting. The entertainment value is priceless:grin:

[credit allergy]

I think he must be on his way to the bbc studios for a newsnight interview. Lets see how he fares against Mr Paxman!

[Rob S]

Paxman wouldn't even break a sweat over him:grin::grin:

[Weird Al Yankovic]

No, not drive at 8 mph below the limit. Manage to achieve an average speed of 62 mph, allowing for 30/40/50/60 mph limits.stops for rest/toilet/food/fuel, etc.

 

So now you are, yet again, putting your inaccurate penny worth in?

Let's go back to the original scenario that I used as quite a simple example, simple for you to understand.

Cardiff to London in some 5 hours or so! That was essentially it!

Now you and your buddy have my average mph, whilst factoring the need for a rest/toilet/food and fuel when I may not have needed any, despite not knowing what day or time of day the journey could have been and timing it at exactly 5 hours when most, reasonably intelligent people, will know that 5 hours or so is quite an imprecise time estimate.

Have you any idea how stupid you look?

 

As a point of interest, when road rallying still happened (ie before it was regulated out of existence), the RAC motorsport division, who were the licensing authority would not allow an average speed greater than 50 mph to be set for motorways. It was proven, time and time again that it was impossible to achieve a higher average without exceeding the limit.

 

Are you telling me that it is impossible to drive a stretch of motorway 70 miles long, in approximately 1 hour?

At 3am, anywhere on the motorway between Glasgow and Blackpool for example?

 

Er, yes they do. You are required as a policy condition to report any accident - whether or not it is your fault.

 

At renewal, the question about accidents in the last x years means exactly that - not claims.

 

Why don't you read what is posted rather than diving in head first as you usually do?

This is what I posted=

3 To satisfy Rob S' peculiar mind I now have to report any damage, caused by third party's, to any car I have ever owned to be regarded as accident free. Rather than simply saying I am accident fault free!!

This from post #167

 

Why would I mention some idiot clipping me 15 years ago, to you or anyone, in my claim I have a blemish free accident record?

And just what insurer would want to know about a driver clipping my car 15 years ago at renewal in 2008?

You have surpassed even yourself! Although Rob S is giving you a run!

 

 

 

...

[Weird Al Yankovic]

And it could just as well mean under the 5 hours.

 

Yes, or just over! So why have you precisly calculated to an exact 5 hour window?

 

 

 

As if that would make the slightest bit of difference to your claim that you have done the journey in 5 hours.

 

What? Are you real?

Are you telling me that Friday 3pm from Cardiff to London is no different congestion wise at 3am on a Saturday?

 

Face it Al, you have tried to present yourself as whiter than white when it comes to your intitial claims of not speeding (which you have now admitted that you have effectively lied about these claims)and having a nil accident record, but you have dug yourself a hole and you are still digging. Your credibility is reducing by the hour.

 

And yours is increasing?

 

By all means carry on posting. The entertainment value is priceless:grin:

...

[credit allergy]

Al why havent you responded to my response to your assertion that sec 95 (2) Transport Act doesnt apply to a vauxhall combi. One things for sure I wont be asking chris Tarrant to call you on my behalf

[credit allergy]

Al you have got a bigger audience than ITV has at the moment.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Al you quite correctly quote sec 95 (2) transport act 1968. As I understand it a vauhall combo was designed or adapted to carry goods so section (ii) of 95 (2) is clear you have answered tyour own question.

 

Is this the nutters thread?:o

Right, here we go again, just for you...

 

 

This from s95(2)

 

(2)This Part of this Act applies to—

(a)passenger vehicles, that is to say—

(i)public service vehicles; and

(ii)motor vehicles (other than public service vehicles) constructed or adapted to carry more than twelve passengers;

(b)goods vehicles, that is to say—

(i)heavy locomotives, light locomotives, motor tractors and any motor vehicle so constructed that a trailer may by partial superimposition be attached to the vehicle in such a manner as to cause a substantial part of the weight of the trailer to be borne by the vehicle; and

(ii)motor vehicles (except those mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection) constructed or adapted to carry goods other than the effects of passengers.

Do you know what a Vauxhall Combo is?

It is classed as a 'car derived van' by law thus for insurance purposes.

It has, and is constructed to have, a drivers seat and a passenger seat.

See what I have underlined?

That means the van was not soley constructed to carry goods. It can be used as a private vehicle, with a passenger seat, and never be used for commercial reasons.

The space could well be used for the wheelchair of the driver or the passenger or some other reason.

It can be insured as a car, a transit cannot.

Please tell me you now understand??!!

 

 

The transport act in question would have been in force in the period you mention. The working time directive does relate amongst other things to night work. As i previously posted and accepted it does make a difference if you are self employed for the directive to apply. However I will say again you were driving a goods vehicle not subject to eu rules on tachos owing to the vehicles weight. So the transport act 1968 does apply and limits driving to 10 hours a day. The transport act does not require record keeping because the vehicle did not require an operators licence. I suggest it is you who needs to re-read your post in respect of section 95 (2) and slowly read para (ii) because it will then dawn on you that a vauxhall combo is a goods vehicle and subject to the transport act of 1968 whether you are self employed or not. thank you.

...

[Rob S]

Yes, they must enjoy seeing Al flailing around getting more and more desperate:grin: Maybe one day he'll learn how to use the quote facility correctly!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

One things for sure I wont be asking chris Tarrant to call you on my behalf

 

If you did I would purposely give you the wrong answer buddy.