From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 05:57
"Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message
> On 30/07/2010 09:41, Adrian wrote:
>> Chelsea Tractor Man<mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily,
>> much like they were saying:
>>> So am I, but we both know and understand what's behind my comment I
>>> think. Injury accidents are mostly the province of the technically
>>> competant, confident male, not the bumbling old lady who takes 15
>>> attempts to pass.
>> Except, of course, the "bumbling old lady" wasn't either bumbling or old
>> when she did pass.
> And indeed if she is /very/ old, she may have got her licence before
> testing was a requirement.
Such a person would now have to be 94 years of age.
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 06:00
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:12:49 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>>> theres nothing in the rest that makes any difference.
>> "Hence we get people pootling along at 35 mph in a 60 limit when the road
>> good for 70+ and other people doing vastly greater speeds on the same
>> section of road." explains why "Because what is, or is not, safe varies
>> person to person. " is a problem.
> nothing in that alters my earlier answer.
Right, so the fact that different people's perceptions of what is safe makes
no difference to road safety. Gotcha.
From: Matt B on 30 Jul 2010 06:02
On 30/07/2010 09:53, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:09:56 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>> If average speeds have dropped, it's unlikely that speed cameras are the
>> reason. Traffic calming covers more of the road network than speed
>> cameras do, so will have had a more significant effect.
> Oh come on. I'm rapidly tiring of the failure of people here to face simple
> facts and logic. The cameras came at the start of the period mentioned in
> the cite and they reduced speeds, Traffic calming could have only effected
> the 30 roads.
Speed cameras as we know them today were introduced in 1992. By 1995
they were a common feature, and in 1999 the so-called "Safety Camera
Partnerships" were introduced. In 2007 the safety partnerships began to
dissolve, and camera began being decommissioned. Let's look at what
happened to the road fatality trend before, during and after that core
Average fatality drops year-on-year...
If camera use strongly correlates with anything it is the loss of
downward trend in road fatalities.
>>> You say accidents fall when people drive at 20.
>> No, I say that appropriate speeds mean less accidents.
> you said the accidents fell when the speeds fell.
They tend to, and the fall is greater if the lower speeds are "naturally
induced" rather than enforced.
> The trouble with
> "appropriate speed" without enforcement is getting people to do it.
My whole point is that naturally induced appropriate speeds don't need
enforcing, they are self-enforcing and therefore sustainable /and/ safe.
Think of a simple traditional traffic-light cross-roads junction in a 30
mph camera enforced zone. When the lights are green for one route (and
red for the other) traffic steams through on the green light at, say,
30.0 mph. What happens if a child runs out into the stream or a
driver/rider erroneously and illegally jumps the red light? It is
likely that there will be carnage. Now think what happens at
traffic-light junctions where the lights are out-of-order, and
regardless of the speed limit and regardless of whether the speed limit
is enforced by cameras. The traffic proceeds very slowly and very
cautiously across the junction with a "filter in turn" type of system
developing. If a child does run out there's a fair chance that the
drivers who are being forced to go slow and to be alert will be able to
avoid hitting them. what about RLJing, well with no red light there is
no such thing.
Places that have removed the traffic lights have seen dramatic speed
drops and casualties virtually eliminated.
Speed limits are irrelevant in such situations.
>>> Combine those two and
>>> there's not much of a defence against enforced speed limits I'm afraid.
>> Enforcing speed limits does not necessarily delover appropriate speeds,
>> it delivers capped speeds - an entirely different thing.
> Yes it does. I would love to be able to drive at "appropriate speed", sadly
> there are two many dickheads who would choose the wrong speed (as there
> were before enforcement increased).
Even dickheads have to drive more cautiously if they cannot assume or
>>> The idea good driver training could make people drive at the correct speed
>>> for the situation is a fantasy not worth arguing about.
>> I tend to agree, I think the road system design should deliver
>> appropriate speeds regardless of driving skills.
> there are thousands of miles of suburban 30s round here, the cost of
> changing the layout so people felt compfotable at 20-30 would be
> considerable, its OK for small city centres.
Removing signs, lines and signals and adding some people cues (flower
pots, coloured designs on road surface, benches etc.) is not expensive
compared to the cost of the current road safety industry.
>> However, there is
>> evidence that those trained to drive at earlier ages become safer and
>> less aggressive drivers, so there is perhaps justification to teach
>> driving to all children before they leave school.
>>> It seems to me some people in this group are persuing warped logic to reach
>>> a position where it would be logical to not have speed limits, its a
>>> fantasy that isn't going to happen..
>> Speed limits are ineffectual. They make no difference to driving
> GATSO enforced speed limits have changed peoples approach, most now drive
> near the speed limit.
With their nose on the speedo and necessarily observing what's coming
from where. Capped speeds don't deliver safe driving.
>> and by effectively removing responsibility from drivers they
>> make driving less safe.
> if accidents had gone up rather than down over the post GATSO period you
> might be able to make a case.
The size of the year-on-year drops reduced, dramatically during the
>> The years during which speed humps, bus lanes, cycle lanes, chicanes and
>> potholes infested the country.
We don't need them either.
From: GT on 30 Jul 2010 06:10
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message
>>>> On 30/07/2010 09:03, Brimstone wrote:
>>>>> "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> On 30/07/2010 07:12, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:02:15 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>> IOW, road tax (where charged) is a charge for the use of the roads.
>>>>>>> no, its a *tax* on those who use powered vehicles on the roads
>>>>>> ITYM, _yes_, it's a *tax* on _some_ of those who use powered vehicles
>>>>>> on _public_ roads.
>>>>> <pedant mode>
>>>>> ITYM it's a tax on all powered vehicles although some are set at a
>>>>> rate at the moment.
>>>>> </pedant mode>
>>>> <pedant strength="maximum">
>>>> Only those that are required to be registered and to display a licence
>>> I can't think of any powered vehicles permitted to use the public
>>> highway which are not required to be registered and to display a VED
>>> disc even if the rate is zero. Perhaps you can fill in the gap in my
>> Old cars don't need a tax disc - is it older than 26 years?
> I suspect you're thinking of vehicles constructed before 1 January 1973.
> They have to display a valid tax disc at zero rate.
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 06:17
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:00:17 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>>>> "Hence we get people pootling along at 35 mph in a 60 limit when the
>>>> good for 70+ and other people doing vastly greater speeds on the same
>>>> section of road." explains why "Because what is, or is not, safe varies
>>>> person to person. " is a problem.
>>> nothing in that alters my earlier answer.
>> Right, so the fact that different people's perceptions of what is safe
>> no difference to road safety. Gotcha.
> Rubbish, of course it does.
So how do you square that view with your previous question sent on the
29/5/2010 at 5.06 pm, "so it varies from person to person. Why is that a