Fines for red light jumping and other offences
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Ian Jackson on 2 Aug 2010 14:10 In message <9BC5o.5437$Y91.4669(a)hurricane>, Bob <bob.doe715(a)gmail.com> writes > >"Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message >news:8bn8niFlmvU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> 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 > >The video's a good one. Although I do notice a lot of the pedestrians >there are pretty nimble at shifting out of the way or taking an >opportunity to cross. What about people who aren't as mobile or perhaps >blind? I'd still be in favour of retaining lights that are only >activated when a pedestrian wishes to create a clear chance to cross. > >Overall though there is certainly a case for a large reduction in the >number of automated traffic lights. > Not far from me, there's a country lane about a mile long, connecting two villages. Although it's a bit of a rat-run for commuters, it's generally pretty quiet. The local council recently spent (almost certainly) a small fortune refurbishing, to a very high standard, a footpath along the full length of the lane. It took them about six weeks. The work frequently 'required' the use of temporary traffic lights and, at one stage, the complete closure of the road for several days. I hadn't been along the lane for some time, but, when I went that way today, I was surprised to find that, half way along, where the footpath crosses from one side of the lane to the other, they have also installed a pedestrian crossing with traffic lights! -- Ian
From: Nick Finnigan on 3 Aug 2010 12:42 Matt B wrote: > On 01/08/2010 21:12, Bob wrote: >> >> "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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-> Which bit relates to 'eliminated serious casualties'?
From: Matt B on 3 Aug 2010 16:47 On 03/08/2010 17:42, Nick Finnigan wrote: > Matt B wrote: >> On 01/08/2010 21:12, Bob wrote: >>> >>> "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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-> > > Which bit relates to 'eliminated serious casualties'? None of it - sorry, it's one of the few reports that I have bookmarked that don't directly support that - here's a couple of others to make up for that: <http://is.gd/e0TTr> "There have been no serious accidents in Drachten since installation of the new intersection in February 2004, whereas between 1998 and 2002, when it was still an intersection with traffic lights, signs and lanes, eight accidents were registered, five of which involved injuries." <http://is.gd/e0Uyv> "[of Norrköpping]... since the redevelopment there have been no accidents, mean traffic speeds of 16 to 21 kilometres per hour,hour, road users have become quite satisfied and road safety and liveability increased." <http://is.gd/e0VYL> "[of Ashford]... 'There were no notified incidents and accidents and no personal injuries reported.' 'We had a three to four lane one way system that was difficult for people to cross and which we had real problems with speeding.' 'Speeds have more than halved on average. Previously we had an average of well above 40mph. Now it is far less than 25mph.'" -- Matt B
From: Nick Finnigan on 4 Aug 2010 15:09 Matt B wrote: > On 03/08/2010 17:42, Nick Finnigan wrote: >> Which bit relates to 'eliminated serious casualties'? > > None of it - sorry, it's one of the few reports that I have bookmarked > that don't directly support that - here's a couple of others > to make up for that: > > <http://is.gd/e0TTr> > "There have been no serious accidents in Drachten since > installation of the new intersection in February 2004, > whereas between 1998 and 2002, when it was still an > intersection with traffic lights, signs and lanes, > eight accidents were registered, five of which involved > injuries." 18 months of 'no serious' vs 5 years with '5 minor' ? > <http://is.gd/e0Uyv> > "[of Norrköpping]... since the redevelopment there have > been no accidents, mean traffic speeds of 16 to 21 How many before? > <http://is.gd/e0VYL> > "[of Ashford]... 'There were no notified incidents and > accidents and no personal injuries reported.' How many before? (You will appreciate that we have about 20,000 serious casualties a year on 80,000 miles of urban roads, so 'no serious injuries in 4 years at a junction' is not a significant change).
From: Nick Finnigan on 4 Aug 2010 15:10
Matt B wrote: > On 31/07/2010 19:46, Nick Finnigan wrote: >> Matt B wrote: >>> >>> Yes, and thus caution, leading to slower and safer roads. Where do >>> most crashes occur now? >> >> On roads where traffic moves at a slower speed? > > In 2008, 52% of all fatal crashes in built-up areas occurred at a > junction and 70% of _all_ casualty crashes in built-up areas occurred at > a junction. Oh, and that is presumably 'within 20 metres of a junction'. How far apart do you estimate junctions are in built-up areas? |