Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 31 Jul 2010 07:09 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:9723g21hayv8$.1lujik3ppv2wc$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:53:52 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >>> Because the only way that a driver could make absolutely certain that he >>> never exceeded a speed limit by even 1 mph would be for that driver to >>> consistently drive at several mph *below* the limit. >>> >> Many cars now have speed limiters fitted so staying below a pre-defined >> figure is easy. > > for varying limits? > One can alter the figure at which the limiter cuts in.
From: Brimstone on 31 Jul 2010 07:21 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1cz5ym2v2xht1$.137wio2b39rgd$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:09:46 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >>>> Many cars now have speed limiters fitted so staying below a pre-defined >>>> figure is easy. >>> >>> for varying limits? >>> >> One can alter the figure at which the limiter cuts in. > > not the same thing > Why not? If one wishes to stay below 30 mph one sets the limiter to 30 (or slightly less). Ditto 40, etc.
From: Tony Raven on 31 Jul 2010 07:28 Brimstone wrote: > > If one wishes to stay below 30 mph one sets the limiter to 30 (or > slightly less). > > Ditto 40, etc. > > In Japan cars are fitted by law with a bl**dy annoying ching-ching warning when you exceed the national speed limit. Drives you mad if you go too fast ;-) -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Matt B on 31 Jul 2010 07:39 On 31/07/2010 11:50, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:21:04 +0100, Matt B wrote: > >>> And wasn't it occasioned by alarm at the number >>> of pedestrian road deaths (about 3,500, most of them in built up areas)? >> >> Yes, they didn't realise that, by the use of kerbs and other devices, >> giving motorists (and they were grateful for it) de-facto priority on >> the road, was the real cause of the problem. Motorists were simply >> lulled into assuming that peds would wait for them to pass - and >> especially because peds were told to wait. > > if we are to move about by car at any reasonable rate above the old red > flag pace, we have to have these priorities. No, public roads should be shared by, err, the public; young, old, able-bodied, infirm, on foot, on bikes, and in cars. If we are to move about in/on motor vehicles at any reasonable rate, and we certainly need to, we need to segregate them - we need a through route motorway network. -- Matt B
From: Matt B on 31 Jul 2010 07:56
On 31/07/2010 11:39, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:38:50 +0100, Matt B wrote: > >> What do you think would happen to traffic speeds and casualty rates if >> car drivers didn't assume (and weren't given) right of way over all >> traffic emerging from each and every side road and driveway or over all >> pedestrians and cyclists who wanted to cross as they drove along a road? > > I assume you are only talking about city centres? Villages, towns and other places too where the public road is shared by all types of user. For distributor roads and through routes you need a different approach, yes. -- Matt B |