Fines for red light jumping and other offences
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Steve Firth on 1 Aug 2010 16:33 Colin McKenzie <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: > Do you have actual evidence of this, <sigh> this isn't a court of law and you don't have "evidence" for the statements that you are making. So no, I don't have a handy couple of notarised witness statements. OTOH I do know damn well what instruction were given to the companies responsible for maintaining traffic systems in central London in advance of the Congestion Zone referendum, and how the changes were reversed after the Kengestion Zone was set in place. What a shame that I didn't think "Oh yes some twonk on usenet will get all aggressive about this matter in a few years time, I'd better break department rules and photocopy the instructions in case I need to put them on the web some day." > For the reason you state: the political climate changes quickly, and what > happened 3 (or any other number of) years ago may not happen now. You are trying, presumably deliberately to confound history, policy and physics. It doesn't matter what the political climate is now, that doesn't change what was done in the past. It doesn't matter what the political climate is now, changing signal phasing to give a longer four way stop doesn't improve journey times for anyone. I'm guessing that you're one of the newbies who had no experience of what a mess Hanger Lane was until a decent traffic engineer from Plessey sat on a stool by the side of the road and worked out how those responsible at the GLC had fouled up the signal phasing. > I am involved in Transport Planning now. In what capacity, where? And I note that you say "transport planning[1]", not "traffic engineering". [1] I'm ignoring the bizarre capitalisation.
From: The Medway Handyman on 1 Aug 2010 17:46 Steve Firth wrote: > Colin McKenzie <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: > >> Do you have actual evidence of this, > > <sigh> this isn't a court of law and you don't have "evidence" for the > statements that you are making. So no, I don't have a handy couple of > notarised witness statements. OTOH I do know damn well what > instruction were given to the companies responsible for maintaining > traffic systems in central London in advance of the Congestion Zone > referendum, and how the changes were reversed after the Kengestion > Zone was set in place. > > What a shame that I didn't think "Oh yes some twonk on usenet will get > all aggressive about this matter in a few years time, I'd better break > department rules and photocopy the instructions in case I need to put > them on the web some day." > >> For the reason you state: the political climate changes quickly, and >> what happened 3 (or any other number of) years ago may not happen >> now. > > You are trying, presumably deliberately to confound history, policy > and physics. It doesn't matter what the political climate is now, that > doesn't change what was done in the past. It doesn't matter what the > political climate is now, changing signal phasing to give a longer > four way stop doesn't improve journey times for anyone. > > I'm guessing that you're one of the newbies who had no experience of > what a mess Hanger Lane was until a decent traffic engineer from > Plessey sat on a stool by the side of the road and worked out how > those responsible at the GLC had fouled up the signal phasing. > >> I am involved in Transport Planning now. > > In what capacity, where? And I note that you say "transport > planning[1]", not "traffic engineering". I think he means he has just got a job as a parking warden.... -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.
From: Matt B on 2 Aug 2010 03:00 On 01/08/2010 21:12, Bob wrote: > > "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: > >>> But in those cases surely there is someone either completely >>> disregarding or with a poor understanding of the priority rules. >> >> Yes. For their efficacy they rely on 100% human infallibility - all of >> the time. > > As would any other system apart from, I'd imagine, an entirely automated > transit system. No rules means no reliance on others observing them. In places where the rules have been removed the roads are safer and flow more freely. > I've seen plenty of incidents of collisions that have > nothing to do with traffic lights - just bad judgment. At the sorts of speeds that a rule-free free-for-all deliver, bad judgement tends be lead to a "whoops, sorry", rather than anything serious. >>> No >>> matter how perfect a rule is if someone doesn't follow it then accidents >>> will happen. >> >> How can a rule that requires the defiance of the laws of human nature >> be "perfect"? > > I'm not saying the rule is perfect. I'm arguing that you can't always > counter ignorance, stupidity or arrogance. Rules or no rules. No, but no rules means that the majority have a safer, less congested and more enjoyable experience. There's no need to jeopardise that with futile attempts to regiment the unregimentable. We see them in all walks of life; most of us simply tolerate their anti-social ways. >>> Will someone who RLJ's suddenly stop driving unsafely if a >>> different rule is introduced? >> >> Apparently, based on the experiences at places where the removal (not >> replacement) of rules has virtually eliminated serious casualties. > > Not familiar with this so can't argue there. What examples do you give > as a matter of interest? Take a look at this article: <http://is.gd/dXO67-> > I'd still say that someone who regularly RLJ's does so through > impatience and probably does likewise in other scenarios where they > perceive it safe to continue. No doubt we've all seen a lot of examples > of this. Yes, they disobey the current rules. Why have rules that cause more danger and more congestion and are ignored my some anyway? > What about pedestrians as well? Surely a large number of traffic lights > are also provide means for safely crossing the road? The rule-free schemes make it easier for peds to cross, and the slower speeds and politer drivers make it much safer anyway. Did you watch the Cassini video? <http://is.gd/dXOMB-> -- Matt B
From: Doug on 2 Aug 2010 03:15 On 1 Aug, 17:16, Matt B <matt.bou...(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: > On 31/07/2010 22:39, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > > > > > A bonus for you: I bet you didn't know that you're many times more > > likely to be killed or injured by a car on the pavement than by a > > bicycle on the pavement. > > Here's one for you: > > The current DfT stats give "vehicle travelling along pavement" as one of > the factors contributing to 9 fatalities for 2008, one of those was > probably attributed to a pedal cycle. > > Motor vehicles were used for 108 times the number of vehicle miles as > pedal cycles that year. > > So, pedal cycles "travelling along pavement" was a factor in _14_times_ > as many pavement fatalities per vehicle mile as motor vehicle > "travelling along pavement" was. > What you have failed to take account of is that miles travelled along pavements is different. Quite possibly the mileage of cyclists on pavements exceeds those of motorists, if you ignore parking on pavements. Of course this mileage business is just another excuse for the fact that motor vehicles are much more dangerous and kill very many more people than cyclists. -- . UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Ian Jackson on 2 Aug 2010 03:16
In message <_Wl5o.34661$2%2.34465(a)hurricane>, The Medway Handyman <davidlang(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> writes >Steve Firth wrote: >> Colin McKenzie <news(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Do you have actual evidence of this, >> >> <sigh> this isn't a court of law and you don't have "evidence" for the >> statements that you are making. So no, I don't have a handy couple of >> notarised witness statements. OTOH I do know damn well what >> instruction were given to the companies responsible for maintaining >> traffic systems in central London in advance of the Congestion Zone >> referendum, and how the changes were reversed after the Kengestion >> Zone was set in place. >> >> What a shame that I didn't think "Oh yes some twonk on usenet will get >> all aggressive about this matter in a few years time, I'd better break >> department rules and photocopy the instructions in case I need to put >> them on the web some day." >> >>> For the reason you state: the political climate changes quickly, and >>> what happened 3 (or any other number of) years ago may not happen >>> now. >> >> You are trying, presumably deliberately to confound history, policy >> and physics. It doesn't matter what the political climate is now, that >> doesn't change what was done in the past. It doesn't matter what the >> political climate is now, changing signal phasing to give a longer >> four way stop doesn't improve journey times for anyone. >> >> I'm guessing that you're one of the newbies who had no experience of >> what a mess Hanger Lane was until a decent traffic engineer from >> Plessey sat on a stool by the side of the road and worked out how >> those responsible at the GLC had fouled up the signal phasing. >> >>> I am involved in Transport Planning now. >> >> In what capacity, where? And I note that you say "transport >> planning[1]", not "traffic engineering". > >I think he means he has just got a job as a parking warden.... > And who doesn't/can't drive.... -- Ian |