Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 05:57 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> But I can ignore the bridges now! >> Can you? >> >> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/833636-yobs-throw-rocks-from-bridge-on-to- >> m1-vehicles > indeed, but in context YKWIM Does it matter WHY you're scanning the bridges? They are a hazard. End of.
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 06:00 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> For ... 30s it says rather a lot about pedestrian safety. >> Does it? All of them? After all, that's a default limit, too. > not all, its an approximation, as with the intermediate limits. >>> 70 for motorways seems low to many but I doubt many people want >>> Veyrons coming up behind at 250. >> <shrug> If somebody's doing 250mph through traffic, do you really think >> "speeding" is the only appropriate offence? > again, not the point. It's very much the point. You seem to be arguing that speed limits are needed because otherwise people will drive dangerously with no possible legal comeback. Bollocks. There will be the EXACT SAME legal repercussions available - with one exception. That's a very minor exception, too. So minor that insurers ignore it almost entirely. I'd have thought it a good thing if more serious charges were laid more often, where warranted. >>> Not at all. You are trying to relate everything about safety to the >>> speed limit and therefore invalidate it. Its false logic. >> Not when we're solidly bombarded by "Speed KILLS!" and the vast >> majority of roads policing is done by camera, it isn't. It's policy. > its a policy and speed limits relate "approximately" > to safety.
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 06:01 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:12uegggl98djb.8ukzgw2p8yit$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:58:25 +0100, GT wrote: > >> My speed was well below a perfectly safe speed, but I was fined �60 >> by a safety camera partnership. I was not doing anything unsafe > > If this was a rear facing big yellow box on a stick then you should have > seen it. > If it was a scameravan then bad luck. But reconsider if your driving > strategy will keep your licence safe. It was a mobile transit camera thingy. Ahh - safety of licence - best definition of safety yet ;-)
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 06:06 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8bcltnFl9sU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: > >>> 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. > > Would "speeding" be the most appropriate charge if somebody did do that? Doesn't matter - speed cameras don't trigger over about 174 mph* and no police not even helicopter would catch them! however the Veyron's tyres would only last for 37 miles at that speed! * TopGear test a few years back!
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 06:10
"GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> 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. >> Would "speeding" be the most appropriate charge if somebody did do >> that? > Doesn't matter - speed cameras don't trigger over about 174 mph* 'course, that brings a whole 'nuther debate in, doesn't it? If somebody's driving at 250mph, then is writing to them a week later a good way of handling it? |