Help
).http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289240,00.html
Et tu, CK?
Page 1 of 1
- You cannot start a new topic
Add Reply
TrOjan
MultiQuote
#2
TrOjAn 
- Big time HA guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 464
- Joined: --
- Location:Essex. UK
- Interests:Life
Posted 14 July 2007 - 04:03 AM
Yep, I suppose they paid for those out of all the money they make on speed camera fines, bastards... grrrrrrrrrr
They now reckon that 80% of UK drivers have points on their licence.
And, heres some real shite for ya::
[RANT]
At present if you are photographed speeding you get a NIP, Notice of Inteded Prosecution, within 14 days.
You are asked who was driving the vehicle at that time, you are warned that if you do not provide the name you may be fined £2000.
So, evidence gained under threat of penalty, this in turn breaches Human Rights of your Right to Remain Silent.
In a judgement last friday by the EU it was decided that people that DRIVE any vehicle is DEEMED to have given up the right to silence.
What this means to us drivers is..... I can get a gun / knife and go out and kill someone, when questioned I have the right to remain silent, if however I am speeding in a car then I LOSE my right to silence..
But it has nothing to do with MONEY!! I bleeding hate this crap country.. I really do, cant you send over a NUKE and end it, one in the middle should sink it
[/RANT]
TrOjAn
They now reckon that 80% of UK drivers have points on their licence.
And, heres some real shite for ya::
[RANT]
At present if you are photographed speeding you get a NIP, Notice of Inteded Prosecution, within 14 days.
You are asked who was driving the vehicle at that time, you are warned that if you do not provide the name you may be fined £2000.
So, evidence gained under threat of penalty, this in turn breaches Human Rights of your Right to Remain Silent.
In a judgement last friday by the EU it was decided that people that DRIVE any vehicle is DEEMED to have given up the right to silence.
What this means to us drivers is..... I can get a gun / knife and go out and kill someone, when questioned I have the right to remain silent, if however I am speeding in a car then I LOSE my right to silence..
But it has nothing to do with MONEY!! I bleeding hate this crap country.. I really do, cant you send over a NUKE and end it, one in the middle should sink it
[/RANT]
TrOjAn
#5
TrOjAn
- Big time HA guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 464
- Joined: --
- Location:Essex. UK
- Interests:Life
Posted 14 July 2007 - 12:09 PM
QUOTE (Jay @ Jul 14 2007, 01:33 PM)
Seriously, that appears to border on a police state.
Its the beginning of the end here Im afraid, our government are using the "terrorist" umbrella to bring in loads of so called security measures, including millions of surveilence cameras... we now have roads where there are sets of cameras every 10 meters so you get filmed for miles upon miles.
Im looking into retiring to France, at least they put up a fight... the English just roll over and die... were crap
TrOjAn
#6
Jay
- Supercalifragalisticexpialidocious user
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 11,311
- Joined: --
- Gender:Male
- Location:Kiawah Island
- Interests:Annoying Skibum.
Posted 14 July 2007 - 02:51 PM
There used to be a limit in the UK as to how much money you could take out of the country when you moved abroad. That still apply? If so, you could get a part time job (semi-semi-conductor) on the Metro
#8
Skibum
- Skibumus Lazium Extremum
-
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 7,199
- Joined: --
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canton, Connecticut
- Interests:Waterskiing, Snowskiing, Home Automation, VOIP, Astronomy,
Posted 14 July 2007 - 03:50 PM
Sports cars in Europe may be outlawed...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cutting CO2 or a Sneak Attack on Porsche, Ferrari?: Doron Levin
July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If one of the more extreme responses to global warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might be relegated to history's dustbin.
Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality.
Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is proper to drive? In the U.S. they're members of Congress, which is considering fuel-efficiency standards that will affect vehicle size. In Europe, it's the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union, which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel- consumption standard.
Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as ``boys' toys.''
The proposed ban would take effect in 2013. Davies told the Guardian newspaper that ``cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel-efficient and produce too many emissions.''
His last point is telling, even though there are many reasons why cars are heavier, including safety measures such as air bags and steel-reinforced crumple zones.
Focused on Cars
The idea is to limit CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas blamed for causing the earth's temperature to rise.
But the debate isn't just about how much carbon dioxide to allow into the atmosphere and whether the amount actually matters. It's also about disdain some hold for the size or speed of the cars others drive.
``Automobiles always seem to be the focus, even though they only consume 15 percent or 20 percent of energy,'' said Csaba Csere, editor of Car & Driver magazine. If politicians really cared about the atmosphere they might concentrate first on power plants or factories, he said.
The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, corporate jets, jumbo freezers, yachts, 60-inch flat-screens TVs, overnight-delivery services and other trappings of Western-style wealth and energy use.
Do people demonize these goods because they can't afford them? Or because they think others shouldn't have them? Proposals to limit carbon dioxide often sound like basic opposition to prosperity and rising living standards.
Planet in Peril?
Outside of a handful of command economies, few today would agree that a central authority ought to regulate who owns what. But attacking those who ``waste'' energy achieves the same goal.
Many ardent environmentalists are convinced that the planet is in peril. Why can't they be just a bit cautious, humble or skeptical in their advocacy of reduced energy consumption, which in turn must mean reduced global economic growth?
The main reason I'm wary of Al Gore's call for radical, immediate reduction of worldwide energy consumption is that he's way too sure that the human race is on the cusp of catastrophe. With no credentials of his own, Gore relies on scientists who insist we must hurry because we're approaching a point of no return.
But how about other scientists, ones who aren't sure we're on the brink? Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a leading climatologist, says that even if nothing is done to limit CO2, the world will heat up by 1 degree Celsius, or a couple of degrees Fahrenheit, in the next 50 to 100 years.
Move Inland
We know from everyday experience that weather forecasting is a notoriously inexact. And if the world got a bit warmer there might be more arable land and longer growing seasons in northern latitudes. Is it heresy to suggest that if seas rise, moving back from the shore might be more practical than trying to change the weather?
The polar bear population, supposedly close to being wiped out, is ``not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,'' Mitchell Taylor of the Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, told the Toronto Star last year. One population in the eastern Arctic has grown to 2,100 from 850 since the mid-1980s, he said.
A half-century ago Rachel Carson popularized the modern environmental movement with ``The Silent Spring,'' a book claiming that the pesticide DDT was destroying America's wildlife. The book's impact was reduced use of the pesticide DDT, thereby leading to the unintended consequence of more mosquitoes and more malaria deaths in developing countries.
One Little Bite
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other health agencies noted an alarming rise of malaria in places like South Africa and Peru after DDT was banned in the late 1970s. Since the mid-1990s, when DDT spraying resumed, the incidence of the disease has fallen.
Calls for limits on carbon dioxide ignore a basic point. People are likely to be better judges of the benefits of fast cars, TVs, air conditioners, and jets than government planners.
Besides, the brunt of government limits on energy use may well fall on the world's poorest nations, which need more energy -- thus generating more carbon dioxide -- to provide lighting, refrigeration, harvesting, water purification and transportation.
What right do environmentalists in rich countries have to deny residents of poorer ones the benefits of higher living standards?
I have a hunch that a ban on sports cars won't be enacted soon in Europe, largely because the Italians love their Lamborghinis, the British their Bentleys and the Germans their Porsches. But this won't be the last time that anti-consumption crusaders come disguised as guardians of the Earth.
(Doron Levin is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cutting CO2 or a Sneak Attack on Porsche, Ferrari?: Doron Levin
July 10 (Bloomberg) -- If one of the more extreme responses to global warming comes true, driving a sports car anywhere but on a racetrack might be relegated to history's dustbin.
Fast, powerful cars within a few years may be outlawed in Europe, an idea that has been raised ostensibly because Ferraris and Porsches produce too much carbon dioxide. For those who abhor sports cars as vulgar symbols of affluence (along with vacation homes, furs and fancy jewelry), such a ban could be a two-fer: Saving the planet while cutting economic inequality.
Who are these people anyway who decide on behalf of everyone what car is proper to drive? In the U.S. they're members of Congress, which is considering fuel-efficiency standards that will affect vehicle size. In Europe, it's the ministers and parliamentarians of the European Union, which wants to limit how much CO2 cars can emit as a proxy for a fuel- consumption standard.
Chris Davies, a British member of the European Parliament, is proposing one of the most-extreme measures -- a prohibition on any car that goes faster than 162 kilometers (101 miles) an hour, a speed that everything from the humble Honda Civic on up can exceed. He ridiculed fast cars as ``boys' toys.''
The proposed ban would take effect in 2013. Davies told the Guardian newspaper that ``cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel-efficient and produce too many emissions.''
His last point is telling, even though there are many reasons why cars are heavier, including safety measures such as air bags and steel-reinforced crumple zones.
Focused on Cars
The idea is to limit CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas blamed for causing the earth's temperature to rise.
But the debate isn't just about how much carbon dioxide to allow into the atmosphere and whether the amount actually matters. It's also about disdain some hold for the size or speed of the cars others drive.
``Automobiles always seem to be the focus, even though they only consume 15 percent or 20 percent of energy,'' said Csaba Csere, editor of Car & Driver magazine. If politicians really cared about the atmosphere they might concentrate first on power plants or factories, he said.
The folks against sports cars in Europe and big sport utility vehicles in the U.S. often are same ones who hate McMansion-sized homes, corporate jets, jumbo freezers, yachts, 60-inch flat-screens TVs, overnight-delivery services and other trappings of Western-style wealth and energy use.
Do people demonize these goods because they can't afford them? Or because they think others shouldn't have them? Proposals to limit carbon dioxide often sound like basic opposition to prosperity and rising living standards.
Planet in Peril?
Outside of a handful of command economies, few today would agree that a central authority ought to regulate who owns what. But attacking those who ``waste'' energy achieves the same goal.
Many ardent environmentalists are convinced that the planet is in peril. Why can't they be just a bit cautious, humble or skeptical in their advocacy of reduced energy consumption, which in turn must mean reduced global economic growth?
The main reason I'm wary of Al Gore's call for radical, immediate reduction of worldwide energy consumption is that he's way too sure that the human race is on the cusp of catastrophe. With no credentials of his own, Gore relies on scientists who insist we must hurry because we're approaching a point of no return.
But how about other scientists, ones who aren't sure we're on the brink? Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a leading climatologist, says that even if nothing is done to limit CO2, the world will heat up by 1 degree Celsius, or a couple of degrees Fahrenheit, in the next 50 to 100 years.
Move Inland
We know from everyday experience that weather forecasting is a notoriously inexact. And if the world got a bit warmer there might be more arable land and longer growing seasons in northern latitudes. Is it heresy to suggest that if seas rise, moving back from the shore might be more practical than trying to change the weather?
The polar bear population, supposedly close to being wiped out, is ``not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,'' Mitchell Taylor of the Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, told the Toronto Star last year. One population in the eastern Arctic has grown to 2,100 from 850 since the mid-1980s, he said.
A half-century ago Rachel Carson popularized the modern environmental movement with ``The Silent Spring,'' a book claiming that the pesticide DDT was destroying America's wildlife. The book's impact was reduced use of the pesticide DDT, thereby leading to the unintended consequence of more mosquitoes and more malaria deaths in developing countries.
One Little Bite
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other health agencies noted an alarming rise of malaria in places like South Africa and Peru after DDT was banned in the late 1970s. Since the mid-1990s, when DDT spraying resumed, the incidence of the disease has fallen.
Calls for limits on carbon dioxide ignore a basic point. People are likely to be better judges of the benefits of fast cars, TVs, air conditioners, and jets than government planners.
Besides, the brunt of government limits on energy use may well fall on the world's poorest nations, which need more energy -- thus generating more carbon dioxide -- to provide lighting, refrigeration, harvesting, water purification and transportation.
What right do environmentalists in rich countries have to deny residents of poorer ones the benefits of higher living standards?
I have a hunch that a ban on sports cars won't be enacted soon in Europe, largely because the Italians love their Lamborghinis, the British their Bentleys and the Germans their Porsches. But this won't be the last time that anti-consumption crusaders come disguised as guardians of the Earth.
(Doron Levin is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
#9
Shawn
- Big time HA guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 673
- Joined: 07-February 05
- Location:Paso Robles, Ca.
Posted 14 July 2007 - 06:56 PM
California: Stop Sign Cameras Installed on Canyon Roads
A California park agency will ticket motorists with stop sign cameras July 9. Speed cameras to follow.
The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) has installed the first-ever automated camera in the US designed to ticket drivers who make "boulevard stops" or slow to a crawl at a stop sign without fully ceasing forward motion. The little-known agency will begin issuing $100 fines next Monday, July 9, at Franklin Canyon in the heart of Los Angeles, located off of Mulholland Drive, and another at the top of Topanga.
The stop sign devices are based on red light camera platforms, but they differ greatly in use. The more familiar stoplight cameras typically photograph a vehicle entering an intersection if a signal light changes to red between 0.1 and 0.3 seconds after the car crosses a stop bar line (view recent report). With the new stop sign cameras, a machine will make calculations to determine whether a vehicle did not stop for a long enough period and deserves a fine.
The cameras are being installed as a prelude to the agency's expected installation of speed cameras on popular canyon roads, as first reported by TheNewspaper in April. Australian camera vendor Redflex will operate every aspect of the program in return for a $20 cut from every ticket the company is able to issue (view contract). California law explicitly prohibits both speed cameras and per-ticket photo enforcement contract provisions, but the MRCA believes the law does not apply to them.
"Our Park Rangers are California peace officers and will always have traffic enforcement as part of their duty," MRCA Director of Public Affairs Dash Stolarz said in a June statement.
In 2000, the California legislature banned photo radar with a statute clarifying that although it authorized the use of photo ticketing at traffic signals, the legislature, "does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction." (CVC 21455.6) Another provision specifies that, "A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated." (CVC 21455.5)
A California park agency will ticket motorists with stop sign cameras July 9. Speed cameras to follow.
The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) has installed the first-ever automated camera in the US designed to ticket drivers who make "boulevard stops" or slow to a crawl at a stop sign without fully ceasing forward motion. The little-known agency will begin issuing $100 fines next Monday, July 9, at Franklin Canyon in the heart of Los Angeles, located off of Mulholland Drive, and another at the top of Topanga.
The stop sign devices are based on red light camera platforms, but they differ greatly in use. The more familiar stoplight cameras typically photograph a vehicle entering an intersection if a signal light changes to red between 0.1 and 0.3 seconds after the car crosses a stop bar line (view recent report). With the new stop sign cameras, a machine will make calculations to determine whether a vehicle did not stop for a long enough period and deserves a fine.
The cameras are being installed as a prelude to the agency's expected installation of speed cameras on popular canyon roads, as first reported by TheNewspaper in April. Australian camera vendor Redflex will operate every aspect of the program in return for a $20 cut from every ticket the company is able to issue (view contract). California law explicitly prohibits both speed cameras and per-ticket photo enforcement contract provisions, but the MRCA believes the law does not apply to them.
"Our Park Rangers are California peace officers and will always have traffic enforcement as part of their duty," MRCA Director of Public Affairs Dash Stolarz said in a June statement.
In 2000, the California legislature banned photo radar with a statute clarifying that although it authorized the use of photo ticketing at traffic signals, the legislature, "does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction." (CVC 21455.6) Another provision specifies that, "A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated." (CVC 21455.5)
#10
Jay
- Supercalifragalisticexpialidocious user
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 11,311
- Joined: --
- Gender:Male
- Location:Kiawah Island
- Interests:Annoying Skibum.
Posted 14 July 2007 - 09:29 PM
QUOTE (Skibum @ Jul 14 2007, 04:50 PM)
Sports cars in Europe may be outlawed...
Who cares. Get an Elise from Tesla. Leno speaks. Hmm. How do you guys know Jay? Anyway...
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_...uff&ATTR=teslac
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1
- You cannot start a new topic
- Add Reply