Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 08:32 "JNugent" <jenningsltd(a)fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:8ba8peFa0aU1(a)mid.individual.net... > Dr Zoidberg wrote: > >> "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:47:33 -0700 (PDT), Derek C wrote: > >>>> Anyone who drives at high speed past a yellow Gatso camera should be >>>> done for driving without due care and attention anyway > >>> indeed. But do you meet 82% of people who approve of them? I don't. > >> I approve of some cameras - average speed ones through roadworks are a >> sensible measure, as are *some* single point cameras when there is a >> genuine need to keep speeds down over a short distance. > > Good perspective. Near a busy school and placed in such a position as to > check speed of vehicles at spots where traffic conflict is likely would be > a good example. > > 75 yards short of a 40 limit becoming NSL on a dual-carriageway is the > more likely spot to find one though. Or on the only decent straight part on a country road! That is pure money raising - its anti-safety as it forces overtaking on less safe parts!
From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 08:31 "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message news:8ba9sqFgogU1(a)mid.individual.net... > On 28/07/2010 09:27, bugbear wrote: >> Mrcheerful wrote: >>> Squashme wrote: >> >>>> I am sure that there may be "other ways of enforcing speed limits and >>>> good driving standards", but how will you do for driving without due >>>> care and attention anyone who drives at high speed past a yellow Gatso >>>> camera, if you get rid of these cameras? >>> >>> traffic police out on the road in cars (not bicycles) >> >> If machines can do it cheaper, in this age of recession, >> why not use machines, leaving humans to do jobs >> that require more flexibility. > > What do speed cameras do cheaper, and what benefit does it give? > > We all know that the decline in accident rates, that had started in the > 1960s, slowed dramatically with the advent of speed cameras, and almost > levelled-off over the "safety camera partnership" years, and that it is > now picking up again quite nicely following their demise in many places. That is a skewed figure - the accidents dropped in the camera site locations, but increased elsewhere! >> It was interested to read that speed cameras >> are a net revenue loser for the government, > > Do you believe everything you read? How much of the GBP110 million "road > safety grant", the grant given to councils to fund their local transport > plans, do you think they spend on the provision of speed cameras? > >> despite the repeated claim by people >> who want to break the speed limit that >> they're "just" for raising money. > > It's nothing to do with those who want to break the speed limit (whoever > they may be). There is much evidence that there are other, sustainable, > and much more effective measures that can be used to reduce traffic to > speeds compatible with safe streets. Reducing speed doesn't necessarily make a street safer - why does everyone use words safety and speed together - perhaps through housing estates, yes, but on the majority of roads, reducing speed will increase congestion, frustration, risky overtaking, pollution etc etc and do nothing at all about safety!
From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 08:34 "Squashme" <squashme(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0a76bcbd-5daa-48e3-9c00-5c32f41a099b(a)f33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On 28 July, 09:50, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:49:25 -0700 (PDT), Squashme wrote: >> > "Penning might have fallen for another tabloid myth: that speed >> > cameras are unpopular. The most recent poll whose results I can find >> > shows that 82% of British people surveyed approve of them, and that >> > the percentage has been rising." >> >> The IAM think its falling (from much higher levels than I imagined - it >> would be nice to know the wording of the question - because all I seem to >> hear are moans) >> >> The UK Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) have collated results from >> polls conducted by NOP for the AA since 1999 about attitudes to speed >> cameras. They report that over the last 10 years there has been a marked >> decline in their popularity. >> >> Back in 1999, speed cameras had a huge overall approval rating of 92 per >> cent compared with just 75 per cent in 2009. > > "Just 75 per cent!" Remind me when a government got that percentage > support! > >> >> According to the data, support from men has fallen quite dramatically >> from >> 83 per cent in 2002 to 66 per cent in 2009. The research also shows that >> women are more supportive of speed cameras than men. The IAM speculate >> that >> because women commit fewer traffic offences than men, they may see >> cameras >> as less of a threat. > > Is that why women are seen as such poor drivers? There are less women drivers on the roads, so there would be lower numbers, naturally. Also their logic works differently!
From: Squashme on 28 Jul 2010 08:45 On 28 July, 10:15, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:58:55 -0700 (PDT), Squashme wrote: > > "Just 75 per cent!" Remind me when a government got that percentage > > support! > > but its interesting that its falling, and to 60 odd %, not climbing. > > >> According to the data, support from men has fallen quite dramatically from > >> 83 per cent in 2002 to 66 per cent in 2009. The research also shows that > >> women are more supportive of speed cameras than men. The IAM speculate that > >> because women commit fewer traffic offences than men, they may see cameras > >> as less of a threat. > > > Is that why women are seen as such poor drivers? > > I do not see women as poor drivers, only knobheads see women as poor > drivers. Women are (typically) poorer at executing the technical operations > of a car with as much accuracy. Which matters little. > -- What about metrosexuals as drivers then?
From: Matt B on 28 Jul 2010 09:02
On 28/07/2010 13:31, GT wrote: > "Matt B"<matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message > news:8ba9sqFgogU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 28/07/2010 09:27, bugbear wrote: >>> Mrcheerful wrote: >>>> Squashme wrote: >>> >>>>> I am sure that there may be "other ways of enforcing speed limits and >>>>> good driving standards", but how will you do for driving without due >>>>> care and attention anyone who drives at high speed past a yellow Gatso >>>>> camera, if you get rid of these cameras? >>>> >>>> traffic police out on the road in cars (not bicycles) >>> >>> If machines can do it cheaper, in this age of recession, >>> why not use machines, leaving humans to do jobs >>> that require more flexibility. >> >> What do speed cameras do cheaper, and what benefit does it give? >> >> We all know that the decline in accident rates, that had started in the >> 1960s, slowed dramatically with the advent of speed cameras, and almost >> levelled-off over the "safety camera partnership" years, and that it is >> now picking up again quite nicely following their demise in many places. > > That is a skewed figure - the accidents dropped in the camera site > locations, but increased elsewhere! Which would help to explain the phenomenon that I described. >>> It was interested to read that speed cameras >>> are a net revenue loser for the government, >> >> Do you believe everything you read? How much of the GBP110 million "road >> safety grant", the grant given to councils to fund their local transport >> plans, do you think they spend on the provision of speed cameras? >> >>> despite the repeated claim by people >>> who want to break the speed limit that >>> they're "just" for raising money. >> >> It's nothing to do with those who want to break the speed limit (whoever >> they may be). There is much evidence that there are other, sustainable, >> and much more effective measures that can be used to reduce traffic to >> speeds compatible with safe streets. > > Reducing speed doesn't necessarily make a street safer - why does everyone > use words safety and speed together - perhaps through housing estates, yes, In public roads and streets shared by all modes (pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, etc.) and all ages and abilities, speeds need to be compatible with preserving the freedom of the most vulnerable of those other users to also use those streets comfortably. Vehicles should be going slow enough for the driver/rider to be able to communicate via eye contact with the other users and to be able to let them use the roads and streets without undue stress. OTOH, strategic through roads need to have traffic segregated; ideally with a hard separation of heavy vehicles, cars, bicycles and pedestrians - as happens in the Netherlands. > but on the majority of roads, reducing speed will increase congestion, > frustration, risky overtaking, pollution etc etc and do nothing at all about > safety! On the contrary, slower speeds need shorter gaps and less dead time at junctions etc. The road space is used more efficiently, especially if the slower speeds are as a result of traffic signs, lines and controls being removed, and congestion, frustration and pollution will naturally decrease. -- Matt B |