Diane Abbott on the speedophiles.

[burt]

"Stevie D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>
>> How will raising limits increase safety?
>
> It will give back ownership of safe driving to the drivers, who will
> in turn take more responsibility for their speed and safety.
>
> We have seen this happen over and over, in this country and abroad,
> yet some people still refuse to believe it.
>
> In East Anglia, there was a determined policy of removing road
> markings and signage from country lanes, and accident rates fell as
> drivers realised that they could not rely on signs and limits but
> instead had to use their own observational skills.
>
> In some parts of Europe (Netherlands?), many urban areas have very
> little in the way of road markings or hazard/restriction signage.
> Drivers have to rely on their own observational skills to determine
> what is safe and sensible, and accident rates have fallen.
>
> On some urban arterial roads (sorry, no idea where. North London?), a
> blatantly unrealistic 30mph limit was raised to 40mph, and average
> traffic speeds fell. Drivers recognised that the speed limit was
> appropriate to the road, and obeyed it - where the limit was clearly
> not appropriate, drivers had no compunction in breaking it.

Nice rantlet Stevie baby, but the more astute of your readers will have
realised that everything you say is second-hand, hearsay, and not
admissable. If you're going to make claims about anything, then on this
group, you'd better have some pretty substantial references to back it up,
otherwise you're just another troll.

 

[Stevie D]

Earl Purple wrote:

> Alternatively have all the motor vehicles programmed in such a way
> that only authorised drivers can use them.

That sounds like an interesting idea. If it was in the slightest way
possible, I'm sure the insurance companies would be clamouring to
implement it now. The fact that they aren't suggests that you're
talking complete fantasy.

> If someone's tax has run out 3 days ago and they haven't got round to
> renewing, then you want to confiscate the car?

Yes. If your car is not taxed, your insurance is likely to be declared
invalid [1]. Driving without insurance has to be an absolute, zero-
tolerance offence.

> Depends on what you call a residential area. Primary A-road
> dual-carriageways usually have houses on them. May be appropriate in
> some housing estates. I would like to see certain through roads have
> barriers in the middle that only residents can operate to stop other
> drivers using them as rat-runs. Actually, it's more NIMBY because I'd
> like it on my own street but wouldn't want it on others. Of course,
> the barriers would only prevent motor vehicles, cyclists would be able
> to get through easily, and emergency services would be able to open
> any barrier.

The "home zone" idea should be implemented in residential areas that
don't carry any significant through traffic. That should be easy to
implement in modern housing developments, which have by-and-large been
built around the idea of distributor roads with little or no
residential access. Older estates and residential areas on main roads
may not be so easy to deal with, as there may be conflicts between the
needs of residents and the need for easy egress of through traffic. It
may be that some thought can be given to prioritising one route
through an estate and blocking others off to create manageable "home
zones".

There are areas, or at least, certain roads in York that can be
accessed by residents only, to prevent rat-running. The problem with
doing this is if you limit access to an area too much, it becomes very
difficult for non-residents, who may have a perfectly legitimate
reason for driving in the area, to get through. But yes, in areas
where rat-running is a problem and where it wouldn't be appropriate to
simply block access for motor vehicles, for one reason or another,
that kind of barrier can be very useful in diverting traffic away from
residential areas and back onto more appropriate thoroughfares.

>> 4a. Ban on-street car parking.
>
> Agree with this totally as an ideal. Probably unworkable though
> without major restructuring. Are you really going to pull down whole
> areas with no off-street parking to rebuild them?

As someone who lives on a street with no off-street parking, I totally
disagree with this! It is an incredibly elitist proposal, that only
people living in large houses with driveways and garages should be
allowed cars, and those living in cheaper housing without the luxury
of off-road parking should be forbidden from owning cars. There are
some towns in the north where such a proposal would effectively ban
more than half the town from owning cars. While the more rabid
car-haters on the group may grin at such a scheme, it would have a
seriously negative effect on the lives of a great many people and
would dramatically increase the social divide in many areas.


[1] I think. No flames if I'm wrong, please. As I always keep my MOT,
tax and insurance up-to-date, I'm not too worried about the details.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Adam Lea wrote:

<snipp-ex>

> How can being in a hurry not be related to speed?

They can overlap, but they don't have to.

Being in a hurry is about being impatient, overtaking where it isn't
safe/prudent, pushing into gaps that aren't there, braking hard and
late, going too fast round corners and through other hazards, and
often jumping amber/red lights and tailgating.

All of that can happen at legal and safe [1] speeds.

[1] With the exception of taking corners/hazards too fast!

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Stevie D]

Jeff York wrote:

> They don't need to tell you how fast you're going... Just that it's
> "too fast"

You're right, I'm getting my variable message signs mixed up!

--
\\\\\ Stevie D
\\\\\\\__. Bringing OLFs to the common hedgehog since 2001
___\\\\\\\'/_______________________________________________________

 

[wafflycat]

"Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>>> How will raising limits increase safety?
>>
>> It will give back ownership of safe driving to the drivers, who will
>> in turn take more responsibility for their speed and safety.
>
> I doubt it. I would hazard a guess that average speeds and KSI rates
> would
> rise. Average speeds may fall in areas subject to more congestion thobut.
>
>> In East Anglia, there was a determined policy of removing road
>> markings and signage from country lanes, and accident rates fell as
>> drivers realised that they could not rely on signs and limits but
>> instead had to use their own observational skills.
>
> From country lanes? Interesting. Do you have any references?
>

Living in East Anglia, one thing that's missing from country lanes are
direction signs at junctions... It's bloody annoying. The lack of speed
limit signs as the lanes are NSL, means that a lot of motorists seem to
think that it's still okay to attempt to zoom along roads that are only a
single vehicle width as fast as they can with absolutely no consideration to
bends meaning poor sight-lines or the potholes in the roads meaning that
they should be travelling somewhat slower... indeed the loacl press has had
articles about how the country lanes are actually more dangerous in terms of
'accidents' than the main roads with more people killed on the lanes than on
the main roads.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Stevie D <[email protected]> wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
<snip>
> *I* want safer roads. *You* want unthinking obedience.

On the basis that the average driver regularly demostrates an inability
to think, and unthinking obedience is preferable to unthinking
disobedience, yes.

> I'm not
> normally one to bandy around conspiracy theories and words like
> "police state", but can you really not see what this irrational
> obsession with speed limits is doing?
>
> > Maybe once they've got that hang of that we can move on to more
> > complicated stuff like traffic lights.
>
> Traffic lights is easy.

IME many people find it rather difficult.

> If it's red, don't go. If it's green, think about going. If it's
> orange, stop if you can.
>
But that's not the way it works here in the real world, where green
means proceed without caution, amber means speed up and red means carry
on if you think you can get away with it.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> > There was a mention on the local news of a system of automated /average
> > speed/ cameras in use on the M6 roadworks - they use a number plate
> > recognition system like the congestion charge cameras, and calculate the
> > average speed between two cameras placed some distance apart. An
> > extension of this sort of system would soon discourage the "brake for
> > the camera then speed up again" mentality.
>
> Hardly. If you change lane the system just ignores you. You then change
> to another lane, and continue to get ignored. You can shuffle lanes
> inbetween the cameras and never get ticketed.
>
You think a computer that can recognise a numberplate isn't smart enough
to look in all three lanes?

 

[Jeff York]

Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>
>> > There was a mention on the local news of a system of automated /average
>> > speed/ cameras in use on the M6 roadworks - they use a number plate
>> > recognition system like the congestion charge cameras, and calculate the
>> > average speed between two cameras placed some distance apart. An
>> > extension of this sort of system would soon discourage the "brake for
>> > the camera then speed up again" mentality.
>>
>> Hardly. If you change lane the system just ignores you. You then change
>> to another lane, and continue to get ignored. You can shuffle lanes
>> inbetween the cameras and never get ticketed.
>>
>You think a computer that can recognise a numberplate isn't smart enough
>to look in all three lanes?

Apparently, it's not... They're only type-approved to cover one lane
at a time...

--
[email protected] (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there..

.... There's pleasure sure in being mad
That none but madmen know...
Dryden

 

[Matt B]

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>
> Stevie D <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> *I* want safer roads. *You* want unthinking obedience.
>
> On the basis that the average driver regularly demostrates an inability
> to think,

We wouldn't know, because there are so many distractions, signs, lights,
lines, encouraging /not/ to think, and indeed barring them from thinking
at all for themselves. Open your eyes.

> and unthinking obedience is preferable to unthinking
> disobedience, yes.

The result, or course, is our unnecessary road carnage. Give the
responsibility back to the drivers and we will reap the benefits. The
current orthodox ways do not work. Full stop.

--
Matt B

 

[Earl Purple]

Stevie D wrote:
> Earl Purple wrote:
>
> > Alternatively have all the motor vehicles programmed in such a way
> > that only authorised drivers can use them.
>
> That sounds like an interesting idea. If it was in the slightest way
> possible, I'm sure the insurance companies would be clamouring to
> implement it now. The fact that they aren't suggests that you're
> talking complete fantasy.

It's not up to insurance companies, it's up to manufacturers of cars.
You
would need a microchip that is an integral part of letting the car
work.

I wouldn't call it complete fantasy. It may be already possible with
today's
technology. If not, it might not be too far down the road.

> > If someone's tax has run out 3 days ago and they haven't got round to
> > renewing, then you want to confiscate the car?
>
> Yes. If your car is not taxed, your insurance is likely to be declared
> invalid [1]. Driving without insurance has to be an absolute, zero-
> tolerance offence.

I would have to check my policy. I did once renew my tax on 1st October
(which expired on 30 September) and I did a car journey prior to having
done so. I assumed I was insured for that journey.

>
> >> 4a. Ban on-street car parking.
> >
> > Agree with this totally as an ideal. Probably unworkable though
> > without major restructuring. Are you really going to pull down whole
> > areas with no off-street parking to rebuild them?
>
> As someone who lives on a street with no off-street parking, I totally
> disagree with this! It is an incredibly elitist proposal, that only
> people living in large houses with driveways and garages should be
> allowed cars, and those living in cheaper housing without the luxury
> of off-road parking should be forbidden from owning cars. There are
> some towns in the north where such a proposal would effectively ban
> more than half the town from owning cars. While the more rabid
> car-haters on the group may grin at such a scheme, it would have a
> seriously negative effect on the lives of a great many people and
> would dramatically increase the social divide in many areas.

I would like to see no parking on many high streets though. Instead
car parks should be built for access, with delivery areas too. This
would
improve traffic flow through busy high streets and would hopefully
improve
safety too as parked cars are obviously a major hazard.

If they brought in the "home zones" you suggested for residential
areas,
there would be no through traffic anyway and off-street parking would
not
be a problem.

 

[Stevie D]

Earl Purple wrote:

> It's not up to insurance companies, it's up to manufacturers of cars.
> You would need a microchip that is an integral part of letting the car
> work.

You think that if there was a way of making cars thief-proof it
wouldn't be in use?

> I wouldn't call it complete fantasy. It may be already possible with
> today's technology. If not, it might not be too far down the road.

What method of authorisation do you have in mind? I can think of many
of methods, none of which would be sufficient for my needs, which
sometimes involve allowing other people to drive my car, and not
necessarily in my presence.

> I would like to see no parking on many high streets though. Instead
> car parks should be built for access, with delivery areas too. This
> would improve traffic flow through busy high streets and would
> hopefully improve safety too as parked cars are obviously a major
> hazard.

In a lot of high streets, that would be totally appropriate. The chaos
that results on our high street from people trying to get in and out
of parking spaces is horrendous. Better to have a narrower
carriageway, parking elsewhere, wider pavements and a more pleasant
environment all round.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

 

[Roger Merriman]

Stevie D <[email protected]> wrote:

snips
>
> There was a thread started here last week entitled "How fast have you
> been..." in which cyclists were bragging about how fast they had
> ridden. I know that cyclists can't be prosecuted for speeding, but
> they can be prosecuted for dangerous or reckless cycling if they are
> going too fast. I don't know whether any of the vMax claims made in
> that thread would fit the bill of "going too fast", but I'm sure there
> are people here who do ride much faster than it is safe, especially
> through busy urban areas.
>
yes, i'm sure but bikes tend to weigh less than a ton and not reach high
speeds. bikes do get riden foolishly as any form of transport, saw one
recently who came howling down a hill on to a roundabout, after rain, a
few 2nds later the van would of been on the rondabout and he would of
been lucky to not of crashed into it. but it is unlikey to have killed
him or van driver, while a car doing that could well do so.

> When we're on two wheels, there is no speed limit, but we're not
> allowed to go faster than is safe. Why can't we have the same rule for
> motorists as well?

becuase we are bloody terrible at estimating risks and for get your
travlling very fast in machine that weighs a ton plus...

it's not just the teens who don't realise the risks like it would seem
localy with 4 teenage girls being killed.

people tail gate on motorways with no chance of even touching the
brakes, drive fast in rain with cars that have nice wide tires...

people do very dumb things with cars. because they do get away with it
if feels safe.

roger

 

[Earl Purple]

Stevie D wrote:
> Earl Purple wrote:
>
> > It's not up to insurance companies, it's up to manufacturers of cars.
> > You would need a microchip that is an integral part of letting the car
> > work.
>
> You think that if there was a way of making cars thief-proof it
> wouldn't be in use?

Yes, if they hadn't developed it yet. That doesn't mean it's
impossible. It would
probably require a design change though and a lot of testing for
regression / safety
checks. Maybe there is someone researching all this now?

> > I wouldn't call it complete fantasy. It may be already possible with
> > today's technology. If not, it might not be too far down the road.
>
> What method of authorisation do you have in mind? I can think of many
> of methods, none of which would be sufficient for my needs, which
> sometimes involve allowing other people to drive my car, and not
> necessarily in my presence.

The same way that you can have multiple users in a computer, each one
having their own login. You can also create a login that "expires"
after a period of time, so if you need to take your car to the garage
and have them repair it, and they need access to getting it running,
they would be granted temporary access.

The police should have a device to be able to disable any car no matter
who is driving it. The disabling would hopefuly issue a 60-second
warning to the driver.

> In a lot of high streets, that would be totally appropriate. The chaos
> that results on our high street from people trying to get in and out
> of parking spaces is horrendous. Better to have a narrower
> carriageway, parking elsewhere, wider pavements and a more pleasant
> environment all round.

If the pavement is already wide enough then the extra space could be
given to buses or trams or cyclists. Any such buses or trams should
have facilities for people pushing trolleys. And anyone who goes
shopping on foot / by bus/tram should get themselves such a trolley.
Thus far more shopping trips could be carried out without a car.

 

[DavidR]

"Stevie D" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Traffic lights is easy. If it's red, don't go. If it's green, think
> about going. If it's orange, stop if you can.

Not always. Many lights are set back or the junction is an angle with no
sightlines into the road being crossed (unless on two wheels). When green
it often necessary to accept it by act of faith.

 

[DavidR]

"Stevie D" <[email protected]> wrote in
>
> On some urban arterial roads (sorry, no idea where. North London?), a
> blatantly unrealistic 30mph limit was raised to 40mph, and average
> traffic speeds fell. Drivers recognised that the speed limit was
> appropriate to the road, and obeyed it - where the limit was clearly
> not appropriate, drivers had no compunction in breaking it.

Chinese whispers? Perhaps someone confused 50 for 30?

On a local residential road near me (streetlamps, pavements, houses on both
sides) an unrealistic 40mph limit was dropped to 30. I don't know the
official figures but my perception is that speed has dropped about 2-3mph
and following distances have not reduced and possibly increased.

The road outside my house has had humps for about 15 years. Recently it was
resurfaced which meant that for a few weeks the humps weren't present.
Although solidly residential, the houses are set back so parts look like a
country lane and monitoring showed many drivers went completely bonkers
during that period.