Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 28 Jul 2010 12:35 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:xfognubub5sh$.w61mol1j2sp0$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > the modern Lib-dems are probably the most anti car party > we have. > Don't forget we now have a Green Party MP.
From: JNugent on 28 Jul 2010 13:01 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. Which news item was that? The one I heard was that because the running costs fall on OCC, whereas the fine income goes to the Treasury AND the Treasury has reduced their duspursements to OCC for "road safety", OCC no longer see *their bit* of the process as financially justifiable. I heard the OCC portfolio holder interviewed on R4 two days ago. (Predictably) harangued by the BBC's presenter about the terrible consequences of ceasing to operate "safety" cameras, he stuck to his guns. There are, he said, higher priorities for the highways budget in Oxfordhshire. Maybe this is going to spread, and perhaps the recent fad for waging war on drivers has peaked.
From: JNugent on 28 Jul 2010 13:05 David wrote: > "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. > A street is the road, the pavement and it's buildings.. A road and a street are the same thing. Other synonymous terms would include "thouroughfare" and "highway" (though the latter tends only to be used for the more imprtant routes in everyday language, if you are ever booked for a bald-tyre in a back-street cul-de-sac, you will still find erefernce in the summons to your vehicle having been on the highway). The pavement is the hard surface(s) of the street. The part of the pavement for vehicles is the carriageway. The part of the pavement for p[edestrians is the footway. My back-garden, still less my house, is NOT part of the street/highway/road. HTH. You got every bit of that wrong, didn't you?
From: JNugent on 28 Jul 2010 13:46 Brimstone wrote: > > "David" <none(a)selectfire.co.uk> wrote in message > news:i2pjtr$cs8$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:sqKdnaXJVpCxrs3RnZ2dnUVZ8iGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> The pavement is the road surface. >>> >>> Go away and learn something before trying to educate your betters. >>> >> >> I don't know where you come from but in the UK the pavement is the >> path on the side of the road. >> > Colloquially, yes. It's also the footway and other dialect terms. But, > in road construction terms highways are paved or unpaved therefore the > whole of the road surface is a pavement. "Footway" is not colloquial. It is the term used for all official purposes, especially in local government and highway engineering, where accuracy and reduction of the possibility of misunderstanding are paramount.
From: JNugent on 28 Jul 2010 13:47
Brimstone wrote: > > "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:xfognubub5sh$.w61mol1j2sp0$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > >> the modern Lib-dems are probably the most anti car party >> we have. >> > Don't forget we now have a Green Party MP. Old Rentagob? |