Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Chris Bartram on 29 Jul 2010 03:47 On 28/07/10 14:40, Matt B wrote: > On 28/07/2010 14:30, Adrian wrote: >> Matt B<matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >> they were saying: >> >>>>> including the less competant drivers, who shouldn't be forced off the >>>>> road because they are not up to "racing". >> >>>> Are you suggesting that every level of competence should be catered >>>> for, rather than a minimum acceptable level of competence drawn? >> >>> Absolutely! >> >> Now I'm very worried indeed. > > We are talking liberalised shared public streets here (not strategic > through roads, which would be a different kettle of fish altogether). > > We would tolerate all-comers walking and cycling on them, so why not > tolerate the less able driving on them? The street design would > eliminate the possibility of them doing too much damage, and if they > really /were/ dangerous, they could have some sort of banning order served. > > The default for the use of social spaces should be to _allow_ unless > there is a supportable and compelling reason not to. > Are you taking some mind-altering substance?
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 04:21 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1r65552a9jcy5.g9ageyxtgm2z.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:32:35 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >> Colloquially, yes. It's also the footway and other dialect terms. But, in >> road construction terms highways are paved or unpaved therefore the whole >> of >> the road surface is a pavement. > > "colloquial" is what we use in everyday speech, it's the dictionary > definition. If specialists use it another way, that's a specialists > definition for internal use by them. > "Colloquial" is also what people use when they're uneducated or too lazy to use correct terminology.
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 04:32 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1qgpkyng2m3px$.kvg1lqiyf92u.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On 28 Jul 2010 21:02:12 GMT, Adrian wrote: > >> Because if that presumption DOESN'T exist, then the only option left is >> to accept that speed limits are, quite simply, totally unrelated to >> safety. > > No, a Veyron at 250 isn't safe on public roads by any reasonable measure. > "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO0PgyPWE3o" In the latest episode, May goes even faster in the latest Veyron. (And the Buggati test driver goes faster still which pisses May off quite nicely. :-) ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00t8qfb/b00t8q63/hd/Top_Gear_Series_15_Episode_5/ > 0 is safe. Only if nothing else is moving. Obviously impractical.
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 04:34 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:dc6k5m9ol00j$.fs97ygasxumg.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:49:24 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >> An unmoving car parked on a bridge is a bit of a giveaway. >>> >> It doesn't have to be a parked car. It could be a copper with a camera >> handheld or on a tripod. > > I often see stationary cars (or people) on bridges. Given the range of the > radar, its pretty hard to concentrate on driving *and* be able to slow > safely without ever being nabbed. Anything much more than a few miles an > hour and its not going to work. Not worth it anymore IMHO. > As always, it depends. If one knows the road then one can be travelling at a legal speed before one comes into view of the the camera site.
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 04:43
Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> No, a Veyron at 250 isn't safe on public roads by any reasonable >>> measure. >> Would "speeding" be the most appropriate charge if somebody did do >> that? > that isn't the point. Umm, yes, it is. The only cases in which the presence or absence of speed limits become an issue are those in which "exceeding the speed limit" is the only possible charge. Not "careless driving". Not "dangerous driving". |