It's for safety!

Ever see speed enforcement being done in such a way that it created an
obvious traffic hazard or danger? Well, in New Zealand, someone was
killed because cops blocked a turn lane with a mobile speed camera.

Of course the cop apparently believes it wasn't his fault... it's just
the fault of the bad driver... never mind the situations they create.
Speed doesn't kill, idiotcy does.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2086.asp

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikato...4336a6579.html
<...>
The 29-year-old woman, who was driving, was attempting to turn right into
the farm properties of Longview Trust, where her partner lived and worked.

But a turning bay on the left-hand side of the road, which the trust paid
Transit about $7000 to build to protect residents and visitors, was
occupied by a police van operating a speed camera.

The woman tried to turn into the property from the centre of the road and
was hit from behind by a car. That propelled her black sedan into the
opposite lane, where it was hit again by an on-coming vehicle.

Mr Frazer, who was the front seat passenger, died at the scene.
<...>

(Brent P) wrote in
:

>
> Ever see speed enforcement being done in such a way that it created an
> obvious traffic hazard or danger? Well, in New Zealand, someone was
> killed because cops blocked a turn lane with a mobile speed camera.
>
> Of course the cop apparently believes it wasn't his fault... it's just
> the fault of the bad driver... never mind the situations they create.
> Speed doesn't kill, idiotcy does.
>

Speed kills and that's a fact. And only an idiot would write "idiotcy".

On Nov 27, 11:54 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS"
> wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote m:
>
>
>
> > Ever see speed enforcement being done in such a way that it created an
> > obvious traffic hazard or danger? Well, in New Zealand, someone was
> > killed because cops blocked a turn lane with a mobile speed camera.
>
> > Of course the cop apparently believes it wasn't his fault... it's just
> > the fault of the bad driver... never mind the situations they create.
> > Speed doesn't kill, idiotcy does.
>
> Speed kills and that's a fact. And only an idiot would write "idiotcy".

Then lets make all speed limits 1mph. Right?

I mean, how could you be in favor of a 55 mph speed limit, when 40 is
better? But how could you be for 40 when 30 is "safer"?

Take your argument to it's final conclusion, and everybody is going
1mph.

On Nov 26, 9:29 am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> Ever see speed enforcement being done in such a way that it created an
> obvious traffic hazard or danger? Well, in New Zealand, someone was
> killed because cops blocked a turn lane with a mobile speed camera.
>
> Of course the cop apparently believes it wasn't his fault... it's just
> the fault of the bad driver... never mind the situations they create.
> Speed doesn't kill, idiotcy does.

A couple of years ago a Michigan Cop was killed on i-75. He pulled
over a guy for speeding and driving drunk. After he did his bookwork,
instead of going to the next exit to turn around, he (the cop),
crossed ALL 3 LANES OF TRAFFIC from the right shoulder, going east-
west on a North-Sound freeway.

The area of the freeway he did this was basically a blindspot, over a
hill. Another car rammed into him, killing the cop and injuring his
suspect.

On Nov 26, 9:29 am, (Brent P)
wrote:
> Ever see speed enforcement being done in such a way that it created an
> obvious traffic hazard or danger? Well, in New Zealand, someone was
> killed because cops blocked a turn lane with a mobile speed camera.
>
> Of course the cop apparently believes it wasn't his fault... it's just
> the fault of the bad driver... never mind the situations they create.
> Speed doesn't kill, idiotcy does.
>
> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2086.asp
>
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikato...4336a6579.html
> The woman tried to turn into the property from the centre of the road and
> was hit from behind by a car. That propelled her black sedan into the
> opposite lane, where it was hit again by an on-coming vehicle.

So, following your brilliant logic, if a cow had been standing there
blocking the lane instead, the crash would be the fault of the cow.

If the lane had been closed for repairs, the crash would be the fault
of the road department.

If the lane had been occupied to capacity by other vehicles waiting to
turn... well... I guess you'd have to run to town to find a cop to
blame it on.
-----

- gpsman

SFB spewed:

> And only an idiot would write "idiotcy".

You just wrote it, idiot.

--
Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS shows us what
an idiot it is yet again:

"Idiot. District attorneys are considered part of the police force."

--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, 7/30/07
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/24a2f5
Msg ID: . net

In article
>,
gpsman > wrote:

> On Nov 26, 9:29 am, (Brent P)
> wrote:
> > Ever see speed enforcement being done in such a way that it created an
> > obvious traffic hazard or danger? Well, in New Zealand, someone was
> > killed because cops blocked a turn lane with a mobile speed camera.
> >
> > Of course the cop apparently believes it wasn't his fault... it's just
> > the fault of the bad driver... never mind the situations they create.
> > Speed doesn't kill, idiotcy does.
> >
> > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2086.asp
> >
> > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikato...4336a6579.html
> > The woman tried to turn into the property from the centre of the road and
> > was hit from behind by a car. That propelled her black sedan into the
> > opposite lane, where it was hit again by an on-coming vehicle.
>
> So, following your brilliant logic, if a cow had been standing there
> blocking the lane instead, the crash would be the fault of the cow.

That would have been an accident and not a deliberate act.

>
> If the lane had been closed for repairs, the crash would be the fault
> of the road department.

If the lane had been closed for repairs, the road department would have
been obligated to post warning signs.

>
> If the lane had been occupied to capacity by other vehicles waiting to
> turn... well... I guess you'd have to run to town to find a cop to
> blame it on.

If the lane had been occupied by vehicles waiting to turn she would have
joined the queue, wouldn't she? What was she supposed to do: wait behind
a van that wasn't going to move forever?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article ]>, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article
>,
> gpsman > wrote:
>
>> On Nov 26, 9:29 am, (Brent P)
>> wrote:
>> > Ever see speed enforcement being done in such a way that it created an
>> > obvious traffic hazard or danger? Well, in New Zealand, someone was
>> > killed because cops blocked a turn lane with a mobile speed camera.
>> >
>> > Of course the cop apparently believes it wasn't his fault... it's just
>> > the fault of the bad driver... never mind the situations they create.
>> > Speed doesn't kill, idiotcy does.
>> >
>> > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2086.asp
>> >
>> > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikato...4336a6579.html
>> > The woman tried to turn into the property from the centre of the road and
>> > was hit from behind by a car. That propelled her black sedan into the
>> > opposite lane, where it was hit again by an on-coming vehicle.
>>
>> So, following your brilliant logic, if a cow had been standing there
>> blocking the lane instead, the crash would be the fault of the cow.
>
> That would have been an accident and not a deliberate act.
>
>>
>> If the lane had been closed for repairs, the crash would be the fault
>> of the road department.
>
> If the lane had been closed for repairs, the road department would have
> been obligated to post warning signs.
>
>>
>> If the lane had been occupied to capacity by other vehicles waiting to
>> turn... well... I guess you'd have to run to town to find a cop to
>> blame it on.
>
> If the lane had been occupied by vehicles waiting to turn she would have
> joined the queue, wouldn't she? What was she supposed to do: wait behind
> a van that wasn't going to move forever?
>

GPStroll is just defending asleep at the wheel truckers who plow into the
back of stopped, turning, and slowing vehicles. (not to mention toll
booths, houses, and other fixed structures)

gpsman:
> On Nov 26, 9:29 am, (Brent P)
> wrote:
> > Ever see speed enforcement being done in such a way that it created an
> > obvious traffic hazard or danger? Well, in New Zealand, someone was
> > killed because cops blocked a turn lane with a mobile speed camera.
> >
> > Of course the cop apparently believes it wasn't his fault... it's just
> > the fault of the bad driver... never mind the situations they create.
> > Speed doesn't kill, idiotcy does.
> >
> > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2086.asp
> >
> > http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikato...4336a6579.html
> > The woman tried to turn into the property from the centre of the road and
> > was hit from behind by a car. That propelled her black sedan into the
> > opposite lane, where it was hit again by an on-coming vehicle.
>
> So, following your brilliant logic, if a cow had been standing there
> blocking the lane instead, the crash would be the fault of the cow.
>
> If the lane had been closed for repairs, the crash would be the fault
> of the road department.
>
> If the lane had been occupied to capacity by other vehicles waiting to
> turn... well... I guess you'd have to run to town to find a cop to
> blame it on.

What the hell are you babbling about? The lane wasn't closed for any of
those reasons. Those reasons above are legitimate reasons for the lane
to be blocked. A rouge police department using the lane to run its armed
robbery operation is not.

--
"Look down on me, you will see a fool.
Look up at me, you will see your lord.
Look straight at me, you will see yourself."
- Charles Manson

On Nov 27, 4:43 pm, Alan Baker > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> gpsman > wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 9:29 am, (Brent P)
> > wrote:
> > > Ever see speed enforcement being done in such a way that it created an
> > > obvious traffic hazard or danger? Well, in New Zealand, someone was
> > > killed because cops blocked a turn lane with a mobile speed camera.
>
> > > Of course the cop apparently believes it wasn't his fault... it's just
> > > the fault of the bad driver... never mind the situations they create.
> > > Speed doesn't kill, idiotcy does.
>
> > >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2086.asp
>
> > >http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikato...4336a6579.html
> > > The woman tried to turn into the property from the centre of the road and
> > > was hit from behind by a car. That propelled her black sedan into the
> > > opposite lane, where it was hit again by an on-coming vehicle.
>
> > So, following your brilliant logic, if a cow had been standing there
> > blocking the lane instead, the crash would be the fault of the cow.
>
> That would have been an accident and not a deliberate act.

But, fault still attributable to the cow, and not the driver who rear-
ended her..?

> > If the lane had been closed for repairs, the crash would be the fault
> > of the road department.
>
> If the lane had been closed for repairs, the road department would have
> been obligated to post warning signs.

Really? Please cite that NZ code. Then, if it's not too much
trouble, provide some evidence than an idiot who would hit someone
from behind would be smart enough to heed them.

> > If the lane had been occupied to capacity by other vehicles waiting to
> > turn... well... I guess you'd have to run to town to find a cop to
> > blame it on.
>
> If the lane had been occupied by vehicles waiting to turn she would have
> joined the queue, wouldn't she?

Duh. Read much? It's a "turning bay". To "join the queue" in such a
bay filled to capacity she would have had to wait in the adjacent
lane.

> What was she supposed to do: wait behind
> a van that wasn't going to move forever?

She was reportedly making a R "from the centre of the road",
whatever"centre" means in that context.

AAR, the driver who struck her was going too fast for conditions. If
she had been waiting where she was struck for a vehicle from the
opposite direction to turn, the driver who hit her would obviously be
to blame.

The fact of this matter is, little factual information is available.
We don't need any more information to conclude the driver who rear-
ended her was at fault.

The problem most of these self-proclaimed r.a.d. driving experts seem
to have is a marked reluctance to blame any crash on driver error that
couldn't be more obvious, and a marked tendency to blame any and/or
everything else.

Presumably because they are stupid and/or ****-poor drivers
themselves, so they want to attribute responsibility for a crash to a
vehicle which was reportedly motionless. Logically, it can't be done,
but that doesn't even slow the conclusion of idiots.
-----

- gpsman