From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 09:39 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1vghyl915sm44.n8yycfkdl2aw.dlg(a)40tude.net... > 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 28 Jul 2010 09:39 "David" <none(a)selectfire.co.uk> wrote in message news:i2pau6$31s$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:oIydnbgopbpnb9LRnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> The "pavement" is the entire road. >> > > A road is something vehicles travel on. > The pavement is something people walk on. The pavement is the road surface. Go away and learn something before trying to educate your betters.
From: GT on 28 Jul 2010 09:59 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1e3mtwrvft5tw$.1jy5tv1w3y7zt$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > 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 28 Jul 2010 10:02 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 lanes. -- Matt B
From: Matt B on 28 Jul 2010 10:05
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 |