Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Matt B on 28 Jul 2010 09:24 On 28/07/2010 14:12, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:47:18 +0100, Chelsea Tractor Man > <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:27:16 +0100, GT wrote: >> >>> They do raise money because most people >>> who drive past them too quickly are fined �60. >> >> that is meaningless without comparison to the running costs per ticket. I >> get the impression theres no great "profit" made. > > According to recent news stories the income from fines does not cover > the full cost of infrastructure and operations so no profit appears to > be made. That "news" story assumes that all of the "road safety grant", the grant given to councils to fund their local transport plans, is spent on the provision of speed cameras. We know it isn't. -- Matt B
From: Matt B on 28 Jul 2010 09:26 On 28/07/2010 14:06, Adrian wrote: > Chelsea Tractor Man<mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding > much like they were saying: > >> including the less competant drivers, who shouldn't be forced off the >> road because they are not up to "racing". > > Are you suggesting that every level of competence should be catered for, > rather than a minimum acceptable level of competence drawn? Absolutely! -- Matt B
From: Adrian on 28 Jul 2010 09:30 Matt B <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> including the less competant drivers, who shouldn't be forced off the >>> road because they are not up to "racing". >> Are you suggesting that every level of competence should be catered >> for, rather than a minimum acceptable level of competence drawn? > Absolutely! Now I'm very worried indeed.
From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 09:37 "Matt B" <matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> wrote in message news:8bao0aF6ltU1(a)mid.individual.net... > 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. Theory and reality may differ, but I don't agree with you here. Take things to the extreme to see the maths - a 1 mile stretch of road with cars moving at 1mph and it would take 1 hour to move 1 mile's worth of traffic. Take the same stretch of road with cars moving at 60mph and it would take just 1 minute to move 1 mile's worth of traffic, therefore 60x as many could pass through in the same timeframe. Therefore faster traffic = less queues = lower congestion. The gaps between the cars would in reality reduce the difference slightly, but not much. And delays at junctions is irrelevant as the same obstacles exist regardless of speed.
From: Matt B on 28 Jul 2010 09:40
On 28/07/2010 14:30, Adrian wrote: > Matt B<matt.bourke(a)nospam.london.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>>> including the less competant drivers, who shouldn't be forced off the >>>> road because they are not up to "racing". > >>> Are you suggesting that every level of competence should be catered >>> for, rather than a minimum acceptable level of competence drawn? > >> Absolutely! > > Now I'm very worried indeed. We are talking liberalised shared public streets here (not strategic through roads, which would be a different kettle of fish altogether). We would tolerate all-comers walking and cycling on them, so why not tolerate the less able driving on them? The street design would eliminate the possibility of them doing too much damage, and if they really /were/ dangerous, they could have some sort of banning order served. The default for the use of social spaces should be to _allow_ unless there is a supportable and compelling reason not to. -- Matt B |