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?
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.
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
>> 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
> 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?