From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1jossaml4t4p4$.igdpf6zimsfz.dlg(a)40tude.net...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:34:53 +0100, GT wrote:
>
>>> Is that why women are seen as such poor drivers?
>>
>> There are less women drivers on the roads, so there would be lower
>> numbers,
>> naturally. Also their logic works differently!
>
> the point is they take less pointless risks than some male drivers. If you
> look at the "logic" of some male drivers they think its OK to risk your
> life to overtake a car in less than ideal places to get home a couple of
> minutes early. Women think that's mad, they are correct.

That's not the logic I was referring to. Given that nothing can be done
about the fool at the front of a queue who speeds up on the only good
overtaking part of a road, I was talking about the logic used to support the
installation of a 'safety' camera on that only safe overtaking place on the
road. This decision forced people to either pay a �60 overtaking fee or
overtake in a less than ideal place. A lot of women (and clearly you too)
think this is a good idea. I think they (and you) are wrong - I don't think
being forced to overtake in a less than ideal place is not a good idea - I
think allowing people to overtake in the best safe place is a better idea.


From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ivccutydrso2$.irz4gdmp44hm$.dlg(a)40tude.net...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:39:29 +0100, GT wrote:
>
>>> 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!
>
> speed cameras are not in those sort of orders of magnitude.

I didn't mean to imply that they are, simply that when the fine money was
kept in the system they were self-funding and did not run at a loss.


From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:14n2gvgk1icry.62syjuwksogb.dlg(a)40tude.net...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:42:32 +0100, GT wrote:
>
>> There are very few laws that are enforced by cameras.
>
> because most cannot.

That is what I was getting at - and why I didn't understand his point!


From: GT on
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:12ke2dniefk0g$.a7587xb4mjxu.dlg(a)40tude.net...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:07:03 +0100, GT wrote:
>
>> That's not the logic I was referring to..........A lot of women (and
>> clearly you too)
>
> As we are referring to different things *as you state*, you cannot assume
> I
> agree with a theory I was not commenting on.

Fair enough!


From: Matt B on
On 28/07/2010 15:05, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:02:53 +0100, Matt B wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>
> good enough, why do you think 3 lanes is dangerous?

Not necessarily dangerous, just less safe. There are more places to
watch and more permutations to look out for. With 2 lanes you use lane
2 to overtake, nothing else, and if there's someone else coming up in
it, faster than you from behind, you wait. It works well on the
unlimited German motorways.

--
Matt B