Tories and speed cameras
View Full Version : Tories and speed cameras
Under their latest proposals, provided you're rich you can speed as much as you like because you
won't get penalty points any more from speed cameras. It beggars belief, but then these were the
people who gave us the poll tax.
And to prove I'm not biased, over 3 million more cars on the road since 1997 isn't a ringing
endorsement of Labour transport policy. Besides the congestion, those extra cars take up 9,000 miles
of parking spaces every night!
Besides the congestion, those extra cars take up 9,000 miles of parking spaces every night!
But how many of these miles are on public highways?
What Zog said. I have not the words.
Actually, I have. Twats.
--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
"Zog The Undeniable" <ggg@hhh.net> wrote in message
news:bsrct8$1i6$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> And to prove I'm not biased, over 3 million more cars on the road since 1997 isn't a ringing
> endorsement of Labour transport policy. Besides the congestion, those extra cars take up 9,000
> miles of parking spaces every night!
Are you sure that's MORE cars... ie the previous number plus 3 million... or 3 milion 'new' cars
have been registered since 1997, which isn't the same thing at all.
>Actually, I have. Twats.
Can I add a word before the "tw*ts" so it becomes "fu*k*ng tw*ts" which is possibly slightly more
accurate a description?
Cheers, helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Under their latest proposals, provided you're rich you can speed as much as you like because you
> won't get penalty points any more from speed cameras.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3355879.stm
I remember when the Tories liked to claim they were tough on crime. Looks like they've decided
that's no longer a vote winner.
--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
Danny Colyer wrote:
> I remember when the Tories liked to claim they were tough on crime. Looks like they've decided
> that's no longer a vote winner.
Depends on the sort of crime, or possibly not the type as much as who's committing it... c.f.
Aitken, Archer, Hamilton.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
dwb wrote:
> Are you sure that's MORE cars... ie the previous number plus 3 million... or 3 milion 'new' cars
> have been registered since 1997, which isn't the same thing at all.
The former. I can't find the original source, but this is close enough.
3.4 million more vehicles (most of which are cars) registered and on the road between 1996 and
2001, and you can extrapolate at will:
http://www.dvla.gov.uk/public/press_releases/2003/p_release_0303_18Feb03.htm
Probably well over 30 million vehicles by now. Very, very scary.
Oh yeah, and 78% of people think there are too many cars on the road. Do as I say etc.
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:27:22 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <ggg@hhh.net>
wrote:
Emailed Damian Green, copy to my MP (Jane Griffiths):
<http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Damian_Green> (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Damian_Green)
=====================================================================
You said: "The whole debate about speed cameras needs to be based on facts rather than emotion."
I am delighted to hear it.
Fact: the probability of fatality in a crash increases with the fourth power of speed (Joksch).
Fact: the probability of crashing increases with speed (Taylor, Lynam and Baruya; Solomon; West and
Dunn; Cirillo etc.).
Fact: drivers with speeding convictions are more likely to crash (Lynn and Lockwood; Broughton,
Baughan, Pearce, Smith and Buckle).
Fact: speed is a major causative factor in a third of all crashes, and is a prime determinant in the
severity of outcome of any crash (TRL, various authors).
Fact: most drivers overestimate their own level of skill (Lex Automotive Group)
Fact: the risk of fatal injury is currently increasing on those roads least likely to have cameras,
a reversal of previous trends (DfT).
Fact: there is no financial link between the bodies which set speed limits and (non-profit) safety
camera partnerships which manage cameras (PACTS).
Fact: Most people in the UK support speed cameras (MORI).
Fact: exceeding the speed limit is illegal, and has been since before most drivers started
driving (DfT).
Some years ago I decided to stop speeding. Since then I have found that I notice hazards which I
never did before, I rarely have to brake, and I have had very few close calls. The difference to my
journey times is trivially small, the difference to my stress levels is anything but. In debating
this issue I have been told with great confidence that driving at 10mph over the limit is "perfectly
safe" - you will be aware that this commonly-held view is a pernicious falsehood, that any moving
vehicle poses some risk, and that this risk increases with speed.
Fines are no deterrent. Automatic bans dramatically reduced the incidence of drink-driving, where
fines had not. The fact that drivers are complaining about cameras is clear evidence that they work,
that points work, and that speeding drivers are being deterred. There is no down side. Your licence
is at no risk if you drive within the law.
Restricting cameras to areas with "many pedestrians" misses the point. Many drivers speed where they
consider the risk of encountering a pedestrian to be small, for example on rural A roads. Such roads
(which rarely have footways) may be used by horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians.
The speed limit is part of the social contract, it's society's way of telling drivers the maximum
level of risk which we are prepared to tolerate on a certain piece of road, because all the benefit
of speeding accrues to the driver while much of the danger falls on others. Supporting
"speedophiles" in their campaigns against cameras sends a clear message that speeding is perfectly
acceptable, and that the roads of the UK may be legitimately treated as a personal racetrack. It
validates the speeders' feeling that what they are doing is not really wrong and that their
transient personal convenience is the only thing that matters.
A Transport Minister in the 1950s wisely said that "[crashes] are caused not by the taking of large
risks, but by the taking of small risks very large numbers of times." I would suggest that if you
are serious about road safety, and I have no reason to doubt that you are, you would be far better
advised to tackle the culture of impatience and aggression which leads to speeding, rather than
pursue a policy which seems designed to minimise the impression of risk posed by speeding, and which
therefore is likely to increase that very risk through risk compensation.
Guy Chapman
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <wafflycathcs@aol.comcomcom> wrote in
message news:20031230080914.15210.00002256@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >Actually, I have. Twats.
>
> Can I add a word before the "tw*ts" so it becomes "fu*k*ng tw*ts" which is possibly slightly more
> accurate a description?
Well the old Tory party always represented the cream of the England (i.e. the rich, the thick and
the clots).
:~)
"Dave Larrington" <legs_larry@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bsrmcu$n26r$3@ID-120318.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> What Zog said. I have not the words.
>
> Actually, I have. Twats.
If it wasn't so funny it would be funny. And it will win votes from MondeoIpayroadtaxbikesdon't Man
It's not conference season yet is it?
In article <bss3e3$qg11$1@ID-161007.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tony W
<tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote:
> > Can I add a word before the "tw*ts" so it becomes "fu*k*ng tw*ts" which is possibly slightly
> > more accurate a description?
> Well the old Tory party always represented the cream of the England
> (i.e. the rich, the thick and the clots).
I thought that that was the english rugby team :-) - and I am totally p----d off that they are all
getting British Honours at the New Year.
--
A T (Sandy) Morton on the Bicycle Island In the Global Village http://www.sandymillport.fsnet.co.uk (http://www.sandymillport.fsnet.co.uk/)
In article <bsrct8$1i6$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, one of infinite monkeys
at the keyboard of Zog The Undeniable <ggg@hhh.net> wrote:
> Under their latest proposals, provided you're rich you can speed as much as you like because you
> won't get penalty points any more from speed cameras.
More interestingly, even the AA have been reported as expressing unhappiness with that. Seems we may
have identified a difference between the moderate and paramilitary motoring lobbies.
--
Finally, someone takes a stand against Humbug. Three cheers for Austrian shop workers!
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:47:08 -0000, "Tony W"
<tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote:
>Well the old Tory party always represented the cream of the England (i.e. the rich, the thick and
>the clots).
LOL. As this NG's resident Tory Boy, I feel the need to comment. IMO, they've got it all **** about
face. IMO, a ban for 12 points but no fines (maybe) is a better way to go.
On a personal note, Tony, I'm certainly not rich :-)
James
--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.
"Zog The Undeniable" <ggg@hhh.net> wrote in message
news:bsrct8$1i6$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Under their latest proposals, provided you're rich you can speed as much as you like because you
> won't get penalty points any more from speed cameras.
<snip>
Do you think this means I'll be able to make a retrospective claim for loadsa dosh due to my 6
months without a licence and subsequent years of being very heavily penalised insurance wise,
following loss of licence under totting up procedure for speeding offences only ? ;-) Dave. tongue
firmly planted in cheek (at the moment ;-)
Nick Kew wrote:
> More interestingly, even the AA have been reported as expressing unhappiness with that. Seems we
> may have identified a difference between the moderate and paramilitary motoring lobbies.
>
OTOH, the RAC (Ram All Cyclists) spokeswoman on $ky News was almost gushing at the idea.
"James Hodson" <jUNDERSCOREhodson@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:98o3vv40qk4a1t0n01qi0ve94d2ek0pvd4@4ax.com...
>
> On a personal note, Tony, I'm certainly not rich :-)
Obviously not. You ride a bike so you must be too poor to own a car.
T
"James Hodson" <jUNDERSCOREhodson@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:98o3vv40qk4a1t0n01qi0ve94d2ek0pvd4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:47:08 -0000, "Tony W" <tonyREMOVE@chapmore.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Well the old Tory party always represented the cream of the England (i.e. the rich, the thick and
> >the clots).
>
> LOL. As this NG's resident Tory Boy, I feel the need to comment. IMO, they've got it all ****
> about face. IMO, a ban for 12 points but no fines (maybe) is a better way to go.
>
> On a personal note, Tony, I'm certainly not rich :-)
>
> James
>
> --
> "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.
Definitely spot on there James. The ban would give them a chance to discover just how dangerous and
fast traffic feels these days, from a non-cager perspective and the lack of a fine would give them
the opportunity to be able to afford a bike and
Alternately, instead of a fine, FORCE them to buy a bike and cycle...then cut their nadgers
off...no, sorry, lost it there a while.... Well, it worked for me anyway, except I got a fine too
:-(..... Dave.
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:of83vv8nsmn40g0ovs2puidk8scgh34r5b@4ax.com...
>The fact that drivers are complaining about cameras is clear evidence that they work, that points
>work, and that speeding drivers are being deterred. There is no down side. Your licence is at no
>risk if you drive within the law.
The downside is the lowering of actual police officers on duty. A speed camera detects speed. Great.
It does not detect drunk driving, incompetance, tail gating, dangerous driving and a few other
things that a pair of eyes do.
A combination of sensible use of cameras plus use of the revenue to increase real human traffic
enforcement is a good idea. Removing the human element is bad.
>
> Restricting cameras to areas with "many pedestrians" misses the point. Many drivers speed where
> they consider the risk of encountering a pedestrian to be small, for example on rural A roads.
> Such roads (which rarely have footways) may be used by horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians.
Yes, but then 60mph isn't safe is it? Wouldn't 10mph be better? We're back to the "man with a red
flag" thing again.
Slightly laterally, taking a horse on a main A-road to me is rather selfish, aggravating both other
road users and the horse.
>you would be far better advised to tackle the culture of impatience and aggression which leads to
>speeding,
Do you really believe those are the only reasons people speed? I'm not an aggressive person, nor
overly impatient. I am known to speed though, on the aforementioned rural roads, limited by road
conditions, traffic and within the limits of visibility because I find it _fun_.
Your mileage may vary.
dwb wrote:
> Yes, but then 60mph isn't safe is it? Wouldn't 10mph be better? We're back to the "man with a red
> flag" thing again.
Nothing is *SAFE*, but 60 is a fair compromise between safety and utility. Higher speeds make for
more risk from lower reaction times and more energy, so there's more likely to be an accident and
the consequences will usually be worse if there is one. 60 has a track record of working
acceptably well.
> Slightly laterally, taking a horse on a main A-road to me is rather selfish, aggravating both
> other road users and the horse.
If you find a way of teleporting them where they want to go I'm sure they'd be delighted to know
about it, but sometimes an A road is the only way to get where you need to go. c.f. tractors and
combine harvesters.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
