Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 07:42 On 29/07/2010 12:34, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:31:30 +0100, Matt B wrote: > >>>> What /do/ you get for it? The biggest things are provision of: social >>>> protection, the health service, education, defence, and public order and >>>> safety. >>> >>> indeed, its a tax not a charge for using the roads. >> >> It is a tax, but only charged if using the public roads. The same >> vehicle can be kept on private property with no road use tax being charged. > > True, in the same way you can avoid duties on booze and cigarettes, but > none of them are hypothecated to road building, cancer or liver disease > research I never said they were, I itemised it's largest uses. A road use tax remains a road tax though, regardless of the use that the proceeds are put to. After all, the proceeds of the landfill tax aren't used to fill land, or of inheritance tax to provide inheritances. ;-) -- Matt B
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 07:41 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:165wnh07mjh5o$.11eh1ot5ibsvm$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:00:58 +0100, GT wrote: > >> Clearly - we all understand this. Killing the child by hitting them at 45 >> is >> 'not good'. But I don't see how hitting them at 20 (breaking both of >> their >> legs and injuring their spine) can be considered safe? I guess my point >> is >> that I don't think its right to use the word 'safe' to blankly describe a >> certain speed. > > its *relatively* safe, its a compromise between getting about and safety. > No speed is automatically safe but we have speed limits as safety > measures. > > I'm not saying any given speed limit is correct. > I'm not saying driving at a speed limit is safe. > I'm not saying current enforcement and emphasis is correct. > > But speed limits are there as safety measures. > If the speed limit makes no contribution to safety what purpose does it serve?
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 07:54 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:taqdnTHMdMOc9MzRnZ2dnUVZ8kqdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:165wnh07mjh5o$.11eh1ot5ibsvm$.dlg(a)40tude.net... >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:00:58 +0100, GT wrote: >> >>> Clearly - we all understand this. Killing the child by hitting them at >>> 45 is >>> 'not good'. But I don't see how hitting them at 20 (breaking both of >>> their >>> legs and injuring their spine) can be considered safe? I guess my point >>> is >>> that I don't think its right to use the word 'safe' to blankly describe >>> a >>> certain speed. >> >> its *relatively* safe, its a compromise between getting about and safety. >> No speed is automatically safe but we have speed limits as safety >> measures. >> >> I'm not saying any given speed limit is correct. >> I'm not saying driving at a speed limit is safe. >> I'm not saying current enforcement and emphasis is correct. >> >> But speed limits are there as safety measures. >> > If the speed limit makes no contribution to safety what purpose does it > serve? I do actually agree with Chelsea, but my previous post comes across as argumentative and agressive (not intended). I think that enforcing a fixed speed limit does not provide a blanket improvement of safety. I don't think its right to use the word 'safe' to blankly describe a certain speed on any given road. I think society should try to get away from using the word 'safe' to blankly describe a certain speed as a be-all and end-all to road safety, which seems to be the current stance. Perhaps 'relatively safe speed', or 'less lethal speed', or similar phrase would be a more meaningfull expression, but of course it will never happen. On a similar vein, I don't believe that given the majority of speed camera locations, they should be called 'safety' cameras. They should be called 'speed' cameras, but again, this will never happen - the media and politicians have their teeth into it now - am I in the minority here?
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 07:56 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1gje7e3n08msa$.576bn7bskvz6.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:41:51 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >> If the speed limit makes no contribution to safety what purpose does it >> serve? > > It does make a contribution > Your earlier comment ("I'm not saying driving at a speed limit is safe.") suggests otherwise.
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 07:57
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c516bff$0$8924$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:taqdnTHMdMOc9MzRnZ2dnUVZ8kqdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:165wnh07mjh5o$.11eh1ot5ibsvm$.dlg(a)40tude.net... >>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:00:58 +0100, GT wrote: >>> >>>> Clearly - we all understand this. Killing the child by hitting them at >>>> 45 is >>>> 'not good'. But I don't see how hitting them at 20 (breaking both of >>>> their >>>> legs and injuring their spine) can be considered safe? I guess my point >>>> is >>>> that I don't think its right to use the word 'safe' to blankly describe >>>> a >>>> certain speed. >>> >>> its *relatively* safe, its a compromise between getting about and >>> safety. >>> No speed is automatically safe but we have speed limits as safety >>> measures. >>> >>> I'm not saying any given speed limit is correct. >>> I'm not saying driving at a speed limit is safe. >>> I'm not saying current enforcement and emphasis is correct. >>> >>> But speed limits are there as safety measures. >>> >> If the speed limit makes no contribution to safety what purpose does it >> serve? > > I do actually agree with Chelsea, but my previous post comes across as > argumentative and agressive (not intended). I think that enforcing a fixed > speed limit does not provide a blanket improvement of safety. I don't > think its right to use the word 'safe' to blankly describe a certain speed > on any given road. I think society should try to get away from using the > word 'safe' to blankly describe a certain speed as a be-all and end-all to > road safety, which seems to be the current stance. Perhaps 'relatively > safe speed', or 'less lethal speed', or similar phrase would be a more > meaningfull expression, but of course it will never happen. On a similar > vein, I don't believe that given the majority of speed camera locations, > they should be called 'safety' cameras. >They should be called 'speed' cameras, but again, this will never happen - >the media and politicians have their teeth into it now - am I in the >minority here? No. |