From: Dr Zoidberg on 28 Jul 2010 04:37
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Derek C wrote:
>> Anyone who drives at high speed past a yellow Gatso camera should be
>> done for driving without due care and attention anyway
> indeed. But do you meet 82% of people who approve of them? I don't.
I approve of some cameras - average speed ones through roadworks are a
sensible measure, as are *some* single point cameras when there is a genuine
need to keep speeds down over a short distance.
I don't approve of them being chucked up at random as revenue-raisers or the
knee jerk "lower the limit" reaction to a crash.
I'd expect most people to accept that some cameras are good and others
From: JNugent on 28 Jul 2010 04:41
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Derek C wrote:
>>> Anyone who drives at high speed past a yellow Gatso camera should be
>>> done for driving without due care and attention anyway
>> indeed. But do you meet 82% of people who approve of them? I don't.
> I approve of some cameras - average speed ones through roadworks are a
> sensible measure, as are *some* single point cameras when there is a
> genuine need to keep speeds down over a short distance.
Good perspective. Near a busy school and placed in such a position as to
check speed of vehicles at spots where traffic conflict is likely would be a
75 yards short of a 40 limit becoming NSL on a dual-carriageway is the more
likely spot to find one though.
> I don't approve of them being chucked up at random as revenue-raisers or
> the knee jerk "lower the limit" reaction to a crash.
> I'd expect most people to accept that some cameras are good and others
Exactly. Your average speed example is one that many, perhaps even most,
From: Squashme on 28 Jul 2010 04:45
On 28 July, 09:25, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:17:45 -0700 (PDT), Squashme wrote:
> > But motorists allegedly can control themselves, but do not wish to.
> god, you people are tedious, give it a rest, get a car and go somewhere
> interesting in it and stop whining.
The car would make the place less interesting. I might stop whining if
there was less whining about rljers, pavement cyclists, helmets (for
our own good), wepayroadtax, so don't hold your breath.
> What do you think of "Boris's bikes"? Look clunky to me.
Ditto. No interest in them. Designed to defeat the malevolence of
London vandals - a forlorn hope. Bust or exported. We don't live in
cooperative times. Shame really, especially the way the future looks.
Sponsored by Barclay's! And blue Cycle Superhighways too. Blue!
> Gone Beyond the Ultimate Driving Machine
To Cycling Heaven?
From: Squashme on 28 Jul 2010 04:58
On 28 July, 09:50, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:49:25 -0700 (PDT), Squashme wrote:
> > "Penning might have fallen for another tabloid myth: that speed
> > cameras are unpopular. The most recent poll whose results I can find
> > shows that 82% of British people surveyed approve of them, and that
> > the percentage has been rising."
> The IAM think its falling (from much higher levels than I imagined - it
> would be nice to know the wording of the question - because all I seem to
> hear are moans)
> The UK Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) have collated results from
> polls conducted by NOP for the AA since 1999 about attitudes to speed
> cameras. They report that over the last 10 years there has been a marked
> decline in their popularity.
> Back in 1999, speed cameras had a huge overall approval rating of 92 per
> cent compared with just 75 per cent in 2009.
"Just 75 per cent!" Remind me when a government got that percentage
> According to the data, support from men has fallen quite dramatically from
> 83 per cent in 2002 to 66 per cent in 2009. The research also shows that
> women are more supportive of speed cameras than men. The IAM speculate that
> because women commit fewer traffic offences than men, they may see cameras
> as less of a threat.
Is that why women are seen as such poor drivers?
From: Matt B on 28 Jul 2010 05:01
On 28/07/2010 09:27, bugbear wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>> Squashme wrote:
>>> I am sure that there may be "other ways of enforcing speed limits and
>>> good driving standards", but how will you do for driving without due
>>> care and attention anyone who drives at high speed past a yellow Gatso
>>> camera, if you get rid of these cameras?
>> traffic police out on the road in cars (not bicycles)
> If machines can do it cheaper, in this age of recession,
> why not use machines, leaving humans to do jobs
> that require more flexibility.
What do speed cameras do cheaper, and what benefit does it give?
We all know that the decline in accident rates, that had started in the
1960s, slowed dramatically with the advent of speed cameras, and almost
levelled-off over the "safety camera partnership" years, and that it is
now picking up again quite nicely following their demise in many places.
> It was interested to read that speed cameras
> are a net revenue loser for the government,
Do you believe everything you read? How much of the GBP110 million
"road safety grant", the grant given to councils to fund their local
transport plans, do you think they spend on the provision of speed cameras?
> despite the repeated claim by people
> who want to break the speed limit that
> they're "just" for raising money.
It's nothing to do with those who want to break the speed limit (whoever
they may be). There is much evidence that there are other, sustainable,
and much more effective measures that can be used to reduce traffic to
speeds compatible with safe streets.