Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 12:34 Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> If we could make all drivers skilled and responsible >> Easily. All we need to do is to require drivers to retake their test at >> regular intervals, > the driving test tells you nothing about how drivers will behave And the rest of the sentence you snipped said...?
From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 12:36 On 29/07/2010 17:25, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:15:05 +0100, Matt B wrote: > >> According to the DfT speed stats published a few days ago, the average >> speed of cars on a 30 mph road was, yes, 30 mph in 2009 - as it was in >> 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005. No reduction I'm afraid. > > why should it be less than 30? Because it's the average. Unless all cars are travelling at exactly 30, then there must be some travelling above it, of course. > since cameras came in (before the above > years) *speeding* has dropped dramatically No according to the stats. Do you have a reference? -- Matt B
From: Matt B on 29 Jul 2010 12:45 On 29/07/2010 17:26, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:22:00 +0100, Matt B wrote: > >>> so going slower reduced accidents, as long as enforced. >> >> No, going slower reduced accidents. > > so enforced limits work. If the limit is slower than the traffic would otherwise travel, and it is rigidly enforced 24/7, it would work - at a price though. When drivers are treated like idiots (regulated, enforced, punished) they act like idiots. If there is a lapse or a gap in the enforcement, speeds (and accidents) will increase. However, if appropriate speeds are self-sustaining (by road design etc.) and no artificial enforcement is required, drivers will behave more responsibly. -- Matt B
From: JNugent on 29 Jul 2010 14:02 Matt B wrote: > On 29/07/2010 12:11, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:06:58 +0100, Matt B wrote: >> >>>> I think its quite expensive for what you get. >>> >>> 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. IOW, road tax (where charged) is a charge for the use of the roads. Even in the very small number of cases where the rate is �NIL, there is a cost implicit in jumping through the hoops necessary to get the tax disc bearing the NIL rate.
From: Adrian on 29 Jul 2010 14:04
JNugent <jenningsltd(a)fastmail.fm> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Even in the very small number of cases where the rate is £NIL, there is > a cost implicit in jumping through the hoops necessary to get the tax > disc bearing the NIL rate. And what "cost" would you put on the "jumping through hoops" of spending about one minute on a website? |