Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 08:51 "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > The drink drive limit is a certain number of mg per litre of blood. If > you are over the limit, then you are booked, pointed and fined. Why is > the speed limit considered less rigid? Is it because most people > consider it to be too low? Is it that most people don't notice that they > are speeding? If the speed limit was increased from 30 to 33, then > everyone booked who broke it by even 1mph, would there be an outcry? If > the limit is 30, then why is 32 considered OK? Why have a limit? > Discuss?!! ;-) It is a damn sight easier to unwittingly exceed the speed limit than it is to exceed the drink-drive limit, and strict obedience of the speed limit distracts attention from other - more important - aspects of safe driving.
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 08:52 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> If somebody's driving at 250mph, then is writing to them a week later a >> good way of handling it? > May at 250 wasnt driving carelessly or dangerously, if he did it on a > motorway it would be the *speed* that was the danger So you'd expect him to be on the receiving end of an SP50 if tugged, would you? B'sides, that wasn't actually the question I asked in that post.
From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 08:54 On 29/07/2010 13:30, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:29:17 +0100, Matt B wrote: > >> * Traffic calming takes many forms, not all of them painful or >> environmentally disastrous. Some of the best techniques can be seen in >> such places as Seven Dials, London, New Road, Brighton and Northmoor, >> Manchester. > > you cannot expect to redesign every mile of suburban road. I suspect that it would be more cost effective that attempting to calculate the appropriate speed limit, and enforce it, for every mile of suburban road. -- Matt B
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 08:53 "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> 0 is safe. > My wife witnessed a small (about 3yrs) boy run into the road before the > school holidays started. He ran into the side of a stationary taxi and > was knocked over by the impact. He may have broken his arm! In that > situation the car was doing 0mph and still caused an injury! Did the stationary car _cause_ the collision? Or did the unsupervised 3yo running into the road _cause_ the collision?
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 08:54
Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> I'm trying to make the same point as others have made here - the speed >> limit has nothing to do with safety. > if you drive normally and carefully through a city street (in a way that > would not invite prosecution) and a child runs out from behind a car > right in front of you, or an idiot cyclist jumps the lights, your speed > will determine if he lives or dies. For that reason we have low speed > limits as a *safety* measure in towns. Do you need a number in a ring to tell you that? |