How To Discourage Motoring

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:41:33 +0100
Roger Mills wrote:
we are trying to achieve. Do we want to improve road safety or do we
simply want to force everyone to comply with some arbitrary limit -
because the two are by no means equivalent?!

British governments are all about control. Making people comply to stupid
laws is all part of the approach. Turn people in obedient sheep and you
can control them better.

B2003

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:52:24 +0100
Tony Raven wrote:
Actually I cycle in London all the time and its far faster than Tube,
taxi or bus as I have demonstrated to colleagues many times when I leave
a meeting at the same time as them and arrive at the next much earlier.

I suspect once you arrive however your colleagues demonstrate to you the
direction to the showers before you stink the place up with the smell of
sweat and body odour.

Yet you prefer the more dangerous mode of walking.

Since when has walking been dangerous? Am I going to have a collision with
a truck when walking on the pavement? I don't think so.

Never stolen. Its less crap when it rains than standing in the rain
waiting for a non-existent free cab or parking and having to walk to
your destination in the rain.

You've never heard of umbrellas?

Don't you xposting idiots realize your nonsense just makes people hate
cyclists

Envy is it?

Hmm , lets have a look:

Cycling pros:
- Quicker than most transport over short distances through heavy
traffic.
- Free at point of use

Cycling cons:
- Dangerous
- Tiring
- Need a wash afterwards
- Bike easily nicked
- Look like a prat in silly clothes
- Need to change when arriving at work unless you work in a bike shop
- Get cold & wet in the rain, hot in the sun
- Can't carry much

Who the hell would be envious? Most people can ride a bike but the fact that
most people don't commute on them tells you all you need to know about
how envious the majority are of you lot.

B2003

Roger Mills wrote:

I would like to see there being a higher probability of people being
apprehended when driving dangerously - at whatever speed, high or low -
and more recognition that exceeding some arbitrarily imposed limit isn't
actually dangerous under the right conditions.

The evidence is that when motorists are allowed to judge a safe speed
for themselves it is abused. That is how most speed limits came into
being in the first place.

But what objective criteria do you propose to set for judging this
dangerous driving? Or are you proposing the word of a traffic officer?
"I thought he was going a bit fast for the conditions M'lud" "Guilty!
Send him down!"


In certain circumstances - surface conditions, visibility, etc. - it may
well be dangerous to drive at a speed which is just under the posted
limit - but cameras will can't deal with that! It all comes down to what
we are trying to achieve. Do we want to improve road safety or do we
simply want to force everyone to comply with some arbitrary limit -
because the two are by no means equivalent?!

As in many things in life, such judgements are very subjective and
motorists show an alarming ability to get them wrong. That is then dealt
with by codifying it into objective standards of which speed limits are
one. Its a limit not the target many see it to be and you can drive
slower if you think it appropriate, although you will probably incur the
wrath of your fellow motorists if you do.

But what is your proposal. Leave it as a free for all for motorists to
choose their own speed? To impose another limit which is a bit higher
than the current limit and go round in a circular argument until you
remove the limit altogether? Have no limit but police officers stood
exercising their judgment on individual drivers? How exactly do you
plan for this new regime of yours to work?

Tony

On 08/09/2010 06:41, Ian Smith wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 22:23:35 +0100, Roger wrote:


Yes - more police, fewer cameras. I didn't actually say ZERO cameras.

So are you saying you _are_ in favour of relying on dumb machines,
just fewer of them?


It's a question of balance. I don't *like* cameras - but they're
probably a necessary evil in a *few* cases (at genuine accident black
spots, for instance) - but you're not then *relying* on them if you also
have adequate traffic police.

Except that anyone thus detected almost automatically gets a ticket
issued by a pen-pusher employed by the scamera partnership - *not*
by a police officer.

Right. So you agree that actually there is not a reliance on dumb
machines, since you agree that not everyone gets a ticket, and that
the tickets are issued by a person.


You're splitting hairs for the sake of an argument! A camera plus a
pen-pusher add to to what is *effectively* a dumb machine. Unless there
is something obviously defective with the camera image, you will get a
ticket if your speed matches the narrow criteria - with no discretion
for the safety or otherwise of your driving.

If you were objecting to people other than police officers operating
the process, why didn't you say so? That's a different issue
entirely. Why bang on about "reliance on dumb machines" when you know
that is not so?


What I'm objecting to - and have expressed this many times already - is
the lack of discretion.




The police authorities are able to save money by employing fewer
traffic police *only* because they (erroneously) believe that they
can enforce the law as effectively but more cheaply by using
cameras.



Another thing I don't understand - the pro-speeding groups were
forever saying speed cameras were simply a revenue stream raising
money from the poor hard-done-by cash cow motorist. Yet when the
government limits funding for them, they suddenly stop being used.
Why is that? Surely, if it's a revenue stream, in these
belt-tightening times then places will be putting in more cameras, not
fewer?


It probably comes down to who actually gets the fine revenue.

If what you say (that the authorities think speed cameras do the same
job cheaper than police) is true, why are authorities stopping use of
cameras when they are not explicitly funded by central government?

Could it be that people are slowing down for the cameras - thus
depriving them of the revenue - but not driving any more slowly and/or
safely everywhere else? I *did* say that they *erroneously* think that
cameras do the same job as police officers!

Further - if, as you say, use of speed cameras causes fewer traffic
police, then all those places that have decided to do away with
cameras (Swindon, Oxford, etc) will now be employing more traffic
police, won't they. Can you show that that is the case?


Very unlikely! Having got rid of them, they're not going to be able to
re-instate them in the current economic climate. *However* early
indications seem to suggest that getting rid of cameras *doesn't* result
in a higher accident rate - so things won't get worse. Sadly, they won't
get better either.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 08/09/2010 11:11, Tony Raven wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


But what objective criteria do you propose to set for judging this
dangerous driving? Or are you proposing the word of a traffic officer?
"I thought he was going a bit fast for the conditions M'lud" "Guilty!
Send him down!"


Many patrol cars are equipped with cameras enabling them to film the
antics of drivers - which should provide adequate evidence to support a
conviction.



But what is your proposal. Leave it as a free for all for motorists to
choose their own speed? To impose another limit which is a bit higher
than the current limit and go round in a circular argument until you
remove the limit altogether? Have no limit but police officers stood
exercising their judgment on individual drivers? How exactly do you plan
for this new regime of yours to work?


In an ideal world I'd like to see limits abolished - but I accept that
we don't live in an ideal world, so that isn't practical. However, I can
see no reason for the motorway limit being as low as 70, and I can see
no reason for constantly *reducing* the limits on many other roads as is
happening all round the country. Where practical, I would like to see
variable limits - like the ones used on the M25 - which take account of
the prevailing conditions rather than being fixed 24x7. Obviously you
could only do that on motorways/major roads where it is feasible to
provide the appropriate signage.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

d wrote:

I suspect once you arrive however your colleagues demonstrate to you the
direction to the showers before you stink the place up with the smell of
sweat and body odour.

You suspect wrong. Do your colleagues do that to you when you've walked in?


Since when has walking been dangerous? Am I going to have a collision with
a truck when walking on the pavement? I don't think so.

Pedestrian deaths in a vehicle accident per Bn km walked - 42
Cyclist deaths in all accidents per Bn km cycled - 33.
Source: Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2008.


Cycling pros:
- Quicker than most transport over short distances through heavy
traffic? Yes
- Free at point of use? Not quite but close

Cycling cons:
- Dangerous? No
- Tiring? No
- Need a wash afterwards? Not unless you set out to ride fast
- Bike easily nicked? No, get a Brompton
- Look like a prat in silly clothes? No, wear everyday clothes
- Need to change when arriving at work unless you work in a bike shop? No, wear everyday clothes
- Get cold & wet in the rain, hot in the sun? No, wear appropriate clothing
- Can't carry much? Most of the time you can carry enough and save other means for those
exceptional occasions.


Who the hell would be envious? Most people can ride a bike but the fact that
most people don't commute on them tells you all you need to know about
how envious the majority are of you lot.

Most people would like to cycle actually. Its just most don't feel able
to because of the myths you perpetuate above.

Most journeys are a two or three miles and easily done by bike in
everyday clothes at a pace that would not break a sweat and leave you no
more in need of a shower when you arrived than if you had walked.

Tony

In message , at 22:59:24 on Tue, 7
Sep 2010, Rupert Moss-Eccardt remarked:
The police authorities
are able to save money by employing fewer traffic police *only* because
they (erroneously) believe that they can enforce the law as effectively
but more cheaply by using cameras.

Have you any evidence to support the assertion you make in the second
sentence. Which RPUs have reduced in size as a result of safety camera
deployments?

All motorways? Where most of the patrolling is now done by "Highways
Agency" folk, who I presume are a form of PCSO.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roger Mills
writes
On 08/09/2010 11:11, Tony Raven wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:


But what objective criteria do you propose to set for judging this
dangerous driving? Or are you proposing the word of a traffic officer?
"I thought he was going a bit fast for the conditions M'lud" "Guilty!
Send him down!"


Many patrol cars are equipped with cameras enabling them to film the
antics of drivers - which should provide adequate evidence to support a
conviction.



But what is your proposal. Leave it as a free for all for motorists to
choose their own speed? To impose another limit which is a bit higher
than the current limit and go round in a circular argument until you
remove the limit altogether? Have no limit but police officers stood
exercising their judgment on individual drivers? How exactly do you plan
for this new regime of yours to work?


In an ideal world I'd like to see limits abolished - but I accept that
we don't live in an ideal world, so that isn't practical. However, I
can see no reason for the motorway limit being as low as 70

On motorways, the natural maximum speed of most motorists appears to be
around a 'true' 75 to 80mph (probably with their speedometers reading 80
to 90, depending on their accuracy).

I tend to drive a little slower, mainly out of consideration for the
wear and tear on the car, and of fuel consumption. Most of the time, my
speed will be just on the 'right' side of 70.

I probably pass as many as those which pass me, and, as the speed
differentials are usually only 5 to 10mph, nobody gets a sudden shock
when a car comes apparently from nowhere, and shoots past them,
travelling at 100+ (as sometimes happens).

While I feel that the 70 limit could probably be raised to 75 or 80, I
doubt if many would actually drive much faster than they do at the
moment. However, it would reduce the possibility of being done for
harmlessly exceeding the 70 limit by a small margin, although, in
practice, this rarely happens. You usually need to be doing at least 90
before you get done, but at least it might stop queues forming when
people refuse to overtake a police car, even if it is travelling at well
below the 70 limit!

, and I can see no reason for constantly *reducing* the limits on many
other roads as is happening all round the country. Where practical, I
would like to see variable limits - like the ones used on the M25 -
which take account of the prevailing conditions rather than being fixed
24x7. Obviously you could only do that on motorways/major roads where
it is feasible to provide the appropriate signage.

Placing lots of extra signs on motorways is going to be expensive. Maybe
the ones in the centre reservation should be made compulsory. However,
how often do you find that the chosen variable limit seems to have no
relevance to the prevailing conditions (especially the speeds displayed
by the signs in the centre reservation)? I can't help feeling that,
sometimes, someone has simply been playing with the switches in the
control centre - or forgotten to re-set the speed limit (computer
control? - I wonder!).
--
Ian

In article , Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Roger Mills
writes

In an ideal world I'd like to see limits abolished - but I accept that
we don't live in an ideal world, so that isn't practical. However, I
can see no reason for the motorway limit being as low as 70

On motorways, the natural maximum speed of most motorists appears to be
around a 'true' 75 to 80mph (probably with their speedometers reading 80
to 90, depending on their accuracy).

Do you mean on UK motorways? Or "natural" in the sense of "on motorways
(or autobahns) where they choose their maximum speed without a limit
being a consideration"?


Placing lots of extra signs on motorways is going to be expensive. Maybe
the ones in the centre reservation should be made compulsory. However,
how often do you find that the chosen variable limit seems to have no
relevance to the prevailing conditions (especially the speeds displayed
by the signs in the centre reservation)? I can't help feeling that,
sometimes, someone has simply been playing with the switches in the
control centre - or forgotten to re-set the speed limit (computer
control? - I wonder!).

There is that. It's not unusual to see "Fog" warning lights but not see
any actual fog. On the other hand a variable limit with no apparent reason
can _sometimes_ be that slight congestion ahead would have tripped over into
a bottleneck if the speed limit beforehand hadn't been lowered.

On Sep 8, 12:35*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:59:24 on Tue, 7
Sep 2010, Rupert Moss-Eccardt remarked:

[ ]
Have you any evidence to support the assertion you make in the second
sentence. *Which RPUs have reduced in size as a result of safety camera
deployments?

All motorways? Where most of the patrolling is now done by "Highways
Agency" folk, who I presume are a form of PCSO.

Only indirectly. They have certain powers, but these are related to
traffic management only, particularly after 'incidents'. They do not
monitor speed or the behaviour of drivers at other times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway...affic_Officers

TL