From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> 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.

There are many things in this world where no great profit is made per item.
I heard on the radio this morning that British Gas will make only 20p per
household per day over the next 3 months. This is a tiny, tiny amount of
money, but it will still net them 10s or even 100s of millions of pounds!

From: Brimstone on

"David" <none(a)> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> news:oIydnbgopbpnb9LRnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d(a)
>> The "pavement" is the entire road.
> A road is something vehicles travel on.
> The pavement is something people walk on.

The pavement is the road surface.

Go away and learn something before trying to educate your betters.

From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:37:13 +0100, GT wrote:
>> Speeding is illegal - agreed, but driving fast is not
>> necessarily unsafe.
> innapropriate speed is dangerous, there are thousands of places with good
> sight lines where illegal speed is acceptably safe. There are millions of
> places where even the speed limit isn't safe for the particular
> circumstances in that 10 yards of road.
> If this was taught, it could save lives.

Absolutely agree - problem is that the 'safety' cameras don't do anything
about this problem!

From: Matt B on
On 28/07/2010 14:38, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:19:53 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>>> including the less competant drivers, who shouldn't be forced off the road
>>> because they are not up to "racing".
>> Yes. All public road users should be treated with equal respect and
>> priority.
> that's not what I said

Maybe not, It's what I say though. ;-)

>>>> 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.
>>> I might cycle if that were possible. Its also why I think an 80 or 90 Mway
>>> limit would be fine.
>> I'm not sure that limits would be needed at all in such circumstances.
> the circumstances are there now on motorways.

Not quite. We currently mix trucks and cars, and often have more than 2

Matt B
From: Matt B on
On 28/07/2010 14:41, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:24:37 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>> 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.
> councils get *no* income from speed cameras.

No, the government get it all. The councils get a "road safety grant"
from the government which they use to fund their transport plans - which
generally include the provision of speed cameras.

Matt B