Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 15:55 "Phil W Lee" <phil(a)lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message news:0n9656tk1bkcqkk80226b34tdqm5b91tod(a)4ax.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> considered Fri, 30 Jul 2010 > 09:52:05 +0100 the perfect time to write: > >> >>"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:8bfi1fF5hpU7(a)mid.individual.net... >>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>> they were saying: >>> >>>> 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 >>>> knowledge? >>> >>> Electric bicycles? >> >>Is one. >> > I have a vague recollection, which could be entirely wrong, that there > is some peculiarity of fire engines kept and normally used at an > airport which might give them this exemption. > I know they don't need to have an MOT, which would normally preclude a > VED disc. > But they are allowed on the road under certain circumstances. > > Thinking of which, any vehicle proceeding to a pre-booked MOT test or > returning from one, whether successful or otherwise, is also exempt, > along with vehicles covered by a trade-plate. The triangular piece on the top of a trade plate is a "tax disc", so while the plates are on the vehicle it has a tax disc. (I used to be a trade plate driver.) The other vehicles you mention are, as you say, not authorised for use on the public highway except under certain circumstances and on limited occasions.
From: JNugent on 30 Jul 2010 17:23 Tony Raven wrote: > ... wasn't the 70mph limit first introduced in 1965 because of a series > of massive motorway pileups in foggy weather? No. It was introduced because the Minister, non-driver Barbara Castle, couldn't get her head round the modern world. The famous series of accidents (M6/M1) in fog occurred 1971/1972. Not that most drivers involved were doing 70. Nice try, as Hansen would say.
From: JNugent on 30 Jul 2010 17:25 Tony Raven wrote: > Adrian wrote: >> Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like >> they >> were saying: >> >>> And wasn't the 70mph limit first introduced in 1965 because of a series >>> of massive motorway pileups in foggy weather? >> >> Umm, would you like to think about that one for a moment...? > > Not really. > > The Times: > November 25th 1965 > > 70 M.P.H. Limit For Four Months > From Our Motoring Correspondent > > A temporary speed limit of 30 m.p.h. is to be put on Britain's 350 miles > of motorways during bad weather-fog. ice or snow-and an experimental 70 > m.p.h. limit will be imposed on all unrestricted roads, including > motorways, for four months, starting just before Christmas and ending > after Easter. Announcing the move in the Commons yesterday, Mr. Fraser, > Minister of Transport, said: > > " I am sorry this experiment has been virtually forced on us by the > behaviour of an irresponsible minority of drivers who are a danger both > to themselves and to everyone else. But if it is a life-saver it will be > worthwhile." > > Mr Fraser, at a heated press conference later, conceded that this could > be the beginning of a permanent overall speed limit in Britain. So absolutely nothing there about multiple-vehicle accidents in fog? More to do with a party that just never really agreed with the provision of motorways in the first place.
From: JNugent on 30 Jul 2010 17:26 Tony Raven wrote: > Matt B wrote: >> On 30/07/2010 19:45, Tony Raven wrote: >>> Adrian wrote: >>>> Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>>> they >>>> were saying: >>>> >>>>> And wasn't the 70mph limit first introduced in 1965 because of a >>>>> series >>>>> of massive motorway pileups in foggy weather? >>>> >>>> Umm, would you like to think about that one for a moment...? >>> >>> Not really. >> >> Only a politician would assume that because an accident happened in >> fog, that a good-weather speed limit was required - and that that >> limit should be set at a value that could barely be achieved by most >> cars on the road! >> > > There had been several big motorway pile-ups (some of which I remember > well and one of which my father was involved in) caused by motorists > bowling into think fog banks without slowing down. Hence the 30mph when > foggy limit and the flashing motorway lights to go with it. No. That was later. I remember them well. > The reason for the 70mph limit was probably because it was generally > uncontentious because many drivers couldn't exceed that speed. So what would have been the point (at that time)? > But > those that could were causing the problem with cars clocked up to 150mph > and drivers trying to race the new high speed train along the M1. I > seem to recall unofficial races being held up the M1 to Watford Gap and > back. Envy. Always ugly.
From: Ret. on 30 Jul 2010 18:13
Matt B wrote: > On 30/07/2010 20:20, Tony Raven wrote: >> Matt B wrote: >>> On 30/07/2010 19:45, Tony Raven wrote: >>>> Adrian wrote: >>>>> Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >>>>> like they >>>>> were saying: >>>>> >>>>>> And wasn't the 70mph limit first introduced in 1965 because of a >>>>>> series >>>>>> of massive motorway pileups in foggy weather? >>>>> >>>>> Umm, would you like to think about that one for a moment...? >>>> >>>> Not really. >>> >>> Only a politician would assume that because an accident happened in >>> fog, that a good-weather speed limit was required - and that that >>> limit should be set at a value that could barely be achieved by most >>> cars on the road! >> >> There had been several big motorway pile-ups (some of which I >> remember well and one of which my father was involved in) caused by >> motorists bowling into think fog banks without slowing down. Hence >> the 30mph when foggy limit and the flashing motorway lights to go >> with it. > > Yes, and not that bad an idea. > >> The reason for the 70mph limit was probably because it was generally >> uncontentious because many drivers couldn't exceed that speed. > > Possibly, but not exactly a sound basis for such a restriction. > >> But those >> that could were causing the problem with cars clocked up to 150mph >> and drivers trying to race the new high speed train along the M1. > > "Problems" as in tabloid and populist outrage, yes. And that still > happens today. If the wind is in the right direction, I live within > earshot of such a road, and we frequently hear screaming engines > whooshing along at extreme speeds at night, so that still happens. > >> I seem to >> recall unofficial races being held up the M1 to Watford Gap and back. > > That didn't stop either in 1965. The M25 provided an ideal circuit > for such events after completion in the late 1980s. Wikipedia > suggests that sub-one-hour lap times were achieved - thus average > speeds of over 117 mph. I can remember a time when anyone buying a replacement car would take it onto the nearest motorway to 'see what it could do' - ie drive as fast as the car was capable. I don't think that there are many drivers who would risk doing that today. Although you do see the very occasional 100 mph driver on motorways - my perception is that the vast majority drive at around 80 - 85 (indicated - which is a true 75 - 80). Personally speaking, I think that we are all the safer for that. -- Kev |