They are sneaky, but of course everyone here drives so well and is so observant, that they are not really an issue. No?
What I don't understand is the double standard of having some cameras bright yellow hi-viz, and other cameras 'stealth grey'.
|
>>
>> What I don't understand is the double standard of having some cameras bright yellow hi-viz,
>> and other cameras 'stealth grey'.
>>
Also they do not appear to be in a big box but look like standard surveillance cameras.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 16 Jan 15 at 17:33
|
|
Will the 'movie camera' warning sign be shown at start of the section covered?
|
>> Will the 'movie camera' warning sign be shown at start of the section covered?
it is
Mind it will also be shown in areas that are not covered.
|
|
Make them all grey. Yellow is so jarring.
|
>> Make them all grey. Yellow is so jarring.
I KNOW!!
It will SO clash with the suit and carefully unbuttoned shirt that PeterS is wearing??
What CAN he do?
|
Just a thought, but mightn't a lot of flashing blue lights soften the ensemble effect a bit?
Don't take any risks though PeterS. Have a few stories and driving licences handy.
|
Posted more for the photographs of the cameras than the story. :)
tinyurl.com/ogp7s6s
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 19 Jan 15 at 13:17
|
"In two months... the cameras have caught 700 drivers exceeding the 70mph limit"
Last time I drove on the M25 through Essex I passed a HADECS fitment on the opposite carriageway which was flashing like a disco strobe. 700 drivers in two hours more like.
|
>> Don't take any risks though PeterS. Have a few stories and driving licences handy.
PeterS can speak up for himself but there's a subtext here I'm not comfortable with.
|
|
Easy - fit rotating number plate mounts a la James Bond!
|
>> Easy - fit rotating number plate mounts a la James Bond!
Handy in the Aldi car park.
|
PeterS can speak up for himself but there's a subtext here I'm not comfortable with.
I don't think you need to be, Bromp. Admitting to wearing anything more considered than a Milletts three-piece is high risk round here, and Peter did just that last week in the Ties thread. I think you and your aviators are safe, though.
};---)
|
>> PeterS can speak up for himself but there's a subtext here I'm not comfortable with.
I'm sure he can Brompton, but do I understand you correctly on the uncomfortable subtext?
Is the appalling Coussine advocating some sort of, er, dishonesty so to speak? Not really, he's addressing fellow adults who recognize badinage when they see it. But on another level, yes, he is. He is on record as saying that all motorists are criminals by definition. Just ask a traffic rozzer if you don't believe me. They can pull you for nothing, accuse you of anything and make it stick if they really try.
I'm not saying they often do it. Certainly not to me, they're OK with me up to now. But they have been known to. I've heard stories, some believable.
I used to know someone who routinely carried half a dozen licences in various names, and who frankly was a bit of a tearaway although often amusing. He could chat up coppers like you wouldn't believe... of course his father was a policeman. That must have helped.
|
>> but do I understand you correctly on the uncomfortable subtext? <<
I don't think you do AC :)
It has something to do with blue lights, I think!
...and Bromp is showing the classic example of someone showing signs of being offended on another's behalf;)
Pat
|
>> I don't think you do AC :)
>>
>> It has something to do with blue lights, I think!
... and there was me thinking it was something to do with the Blue Oyster club.
|
I think we're mincing words and losing the message. No, Pat, I don't think Bromp was being 'offended on another's behalf'. Rather, he was seeking to keep the chat here free of innuendos and -isms that might make people feel unwelcome, which is a duty we all share.
Peter on Christmas Eve referred to himself with the phrase 'as a gay man...' He also, more recently, joined in the discussion on what we wear to work. I trust - and believe - that Duncan and AC meant their comments in this thread to be taken in the context of clothing and not of sexuality, which would be entirely in keeping with the style (!) of this forum; after all, half of you here consider Humph and me a bit odd for changing our socks (almost) every day. I hope Peter read it that way too.
So I don't think Bromp need have worried, but to the extent he did, he was thinking on behalf of us all.
|
>> So I don't think Bromp need have worried, but to the extent he did, he
>> was thinking on behalf of us all.
>>
I don't see it the same way.
See, the gay men I worked with and the gay man I know socially here, all have senses of humour... they unsurprisingly like to feel included.... so that would include jokes, banter, etc.
Now obviously there are limits and the unpleasant in life use humour or so called humour to have a dig.. but does that mean the rest of us should be po faced about everything and not carry on as we were to the benefit of all...no, it doesn't.
The same applies to any other angle e.g. race/gender/etc.
I don't like people being offended on behalf of others, (no matter how well intentioned) because they often get it wrong and it stifles debate and humour which isn't healthy.
|
>> So I don't think Bromp need have worried, but to the extent he did, he
>> was thinking on behalf of us all.
Thanks for that admirable summary.
When I saw the posts last night I read them as innuendo about Peter's sexuality. With hindsight I accept I was wrong but any comments that were intended in that sort of vein should be challenged unless the subject has made clear he's OK with such bandinage.
|
Please note the smileys in my post WdeB....wish I hadn't bothered now.
Once again my sense of humour gets me misunderstood by all but Peter and WP it seems.
Pat
As an after thought, surely the greatest compliment is to treat everyone the same regardless ??
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 20 Jan 15 at 14:48
|
>> misunderstood by all but Peter and WP it seems.
I don't misunderstand you Pat. I'm hurt not to be included in the list.
|
I know AC, consider yourself included:)
Pat
|
Well I have to say I hadn't expected a post in a thread on work wear to influence a thread on speed cameras :)
And for the avoidance of doubt I certainly didn't take any offence at any of posts referencing, indirectly or otherwise, my sexuality. I've never hidden it, but neither does it define me. I'd fully expect banter among friends to include oblique or direct reference to it, much as I would about the onset of baldness or, God (that's auto capitalised and I can't change it!!) forbid, a dodgy choice of shirt ;-)
Though to be honest I think anyone, gay or straight, out or otherwise, would have to try hard to take offence at the stuff posted in this thread!!
And I think that's true for most of my generation, even more so for those younger than me (I'm 43). I'ts never really occurred to me that I needed to hide, or shout about, my sexuality, though I fully recognise that those who started work in the 80s, rather than the 90s as I did, had it harder. Likewise those who started work in the 00s or later have had a different experience again. That's not to shy away from the fact that some people do still experience discrimination... But on the whole things have moved so far so fast that it does lead me to think that perhaps there is a generational slant to people's perception (where generation ahould be interpreted widely).
There are many older than me who work in 'young' environments who'd struggle, like I do, to see any offence. But likewise some sectors / environments are much more homogenous from an age perspective, leading I think to group-think based on an outdated reality. The increase in PC speak and those offended on behalf of others is, often, a result of people layering their perceptions based on how things used to be onto a world that's moved on. Not everyone of course. But enough. And let's be honest, if we try we can all be offended by something if we choose to. I just hadn't expected quite some many drama queens on Car4Play ;-)
Now, back to to the OP I've been along the SE section of the M25 and through / over the Dartford crossing twice in each direction over the last couple of weeks. Each time some way in excess of the posted limit and, whilst not the fastest car on the road, certainly in the top 10%. I haven't heard anything yet, but will be a bit more circumspect next week. Trouble is, by the time I've decided what to wear I'm running late ;-)
|
|
And just to be clear my post is is no way a dig at or sleight to Bromptanaut. In the real world body language would have made it perfectly clear to him where I stood and that no intervention was necessary. Conversely I have no doubt that if the 'target' had been offended but unwilling to say anything he'd have picked up on the fact and intervened :)
|
>> Peter on Christmas Eve referred to himself with the phrase 'as a gay man...' He
>> also, more recently, joined in the discussion on what we wear to work. I trust
>> - and believe - that Duncan and AC meant their comments in this thread to
>> be taken in the context of clothing and not of sexuality
I must have missed the Christmas Eve post.
I won't pretend, my comment on PeterS' post were a comment on his dress comments and were intended as a tease or a mickey take.
|
Re PeterS.
Whether he has taken umbrage or not, I don't know. He is not a prolific poster - 0.90/day.
If I have offended him, I am sorry.
|
|
That is why some cars on the back of trucks in the UK have tape across their number plates, more so since the ANPR enforcement of insurance and road tax.
|
>> That is why some cars on the back of trucks in the UK have tape
>> across their number plates, more so since the ANPR enforcement of insurance and road tax.
The guy from a nationwide auction outfit who collected my Xantia carefully taped out the plate. I asked him if it was to avoid speed camera mistakes but he said issue was 'our Eastern European friends' and cloning.
|
|
The only explanation that makes sense is ANPR. It makes far more sense to clone a car that isn't on the back of a lorry, which would be far more likely to have current tax and MOT.
|
|
Surely the best clone target number is one belonging to a rental outfit that has high use of vehicles, eg airport based? Much more difficult to trace actual non presence as driver could be foreigh and difficult to contact by the registered owner. Business hirers may just accept any charging.
|
>> The only explanation that makes sense is ANPR. It makes far more sense to clone
>> a car that isn't on the back of a lorry, which would be far more
>> likely to have current tax and MOT.
I'm not sure any explanation makes sense Manatee, more one those things based on an urban myth. Hundreds of newish, presumably ex-fleet, cars are visible on transporters every time I go on the M1. Last one I looked at closely was carrying 63 reg Nissans all with KX registrations.
|
|
Most of the taped plates that I have seen have been on out of use cars on breakers and repair company transporters.
|
How "sneaky" are new stealth speed cameras? - Boxsterboy
