'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10755509

"[...] This is another example of this government delivering on its pledge
to end the war on the motorist."

Mike Penning MP, PUSS for road safety amongst other things.

What a load of old sh*te. In the rather apt words of Alan Johnson, it's the
'saloon bar view'. Heck, why don't we just let all the good old boys
propping up the bar at the local Wetherspoon's make government policy from
now on - their inebriated and incoherent 'common sense' is just what the
country needs.

SoS Hammond, reign it in and give yourself some semblance of dignity.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

SoS Hammond, reign it in and give yourself some semblance of dignity.



The word you're searching for, unsuccessfully, is "rein", as in horses
and jockeys.

If you must spray gratuitous non-railway insults around the forum, at
least get your facts right.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Jul 26, 1:21*am, "Mizter T" wrote:
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10755509

"[...] This is another example of this government delivering on its pledge
to end the war on the motorist."

Mike Penning MP, PUSS for road safety amongst other things.

What a load of old sh*te. In the rather apt words of Alan Johnson, it's the
'saloon bar view'. Heck, why don't we just let all the good old boys
propping up the bar at the local Wetherspoon's make government policy from
now on - their inebriated and incoherent 'common sense' is just what the
country needs.

SoS Hammond, reign it in and give yourself some semblance of dignity.


The more I read about Hammond, the more I despair. Roll on the next
General Election, or whatever event it takes to remove him.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Jul 26, 7:19*pm, wrote:

SoS Hammond, reign it in and give yourself some semblance of dignity.

The word you're searching for, unsuccessfully, is "rein", as in horses
and jockeys.

If you must spray gratuitous non-railway insults around the forum, at
least get your facts right.

You mean get my words right? If you hadn't noticed my post was
actually devoid of facts but instead full of (late night) vitriol.

However next time I get myself het up over something I'll try and
remember to include some railway insults (as opposed to non-railway
insults) - though I must admit I'm inexperienced in the flavour of
invective favoured by the industry so perhaps others can provide a few
suggestions...

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Jul 26, 11:19*am, wrote:
SoS Hammond, reign it in and give yourself some semblance of dignity.

The word you're searching for, unsuccessfully, is "rein", as in horses
and jockeys.

If you must spray gratuitous non-railway insults around the forum, at
least get your facts right.

And, if YOU must display you pedantry so gratuitously please remember
this is a usenet news group, NOT a forum. :-)

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

The more I read about Hammond, the more I despair. Roll on the next
General Election, or whatever event it takes to remove him.

Don't hold your breath.

Old Labour fully deserved their long eighteen years in opposition
given the state of the economy they left behind them and their
continuing attempts, following defeat, to turn us into Rumania.

By that benchmark, New Labour deserves even longer.

It’s going to take a long long time for Middle England (who by and
large decide elections) to ever forgive Labour for tolerating Gordon
Brown and allowing him to foist his gross incompetence upon us all.

Just ask any Labour party worker, knocking on doors much south of
Manchester, and they will tell you just how universally hated that man
was and consequently what an electoral liability he was also.

Those same voters are hardly going to take kindly to the likely new
leader (the other Dave) that was part of the problem because he so
woefully failed to act against Brown despite numerous golden
opportunities to do so.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
"Railsigns.co.uk" wrote:

On Jul 26, 1:21*am, "Mizter T" wrote:
From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10755509

[snip]

The more I read about Hammond, the more I despair. Roll on the next
General Election, or whatever event it takes to remove him.

Given the average tenure of that position seems to be somewhat less than 18
months, you probably won't have to wait that long.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Jul 26, 8:36*pm, allantracy wrote:

Don't hold your breath.

snipped Tracy ****e

You still here? Fruitcake, anyone?

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
wrote:

I quite like speed cameras on the basis of the cretins that don’t like
them maybe privatisation could be the solution the way clamping has
been privatised.

Because that would give good results, wouldn't it? Clamping firms
seem to prey on easy targets rather than real offenders, as they're
the most profitable.

(Yes, I know, if there's a sign up you shouldn't park there. But a
properly-trained police officer has discretion, and I prefer that.)

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off, though, perhaps they could also consider cutting
funding to their overzealous programme of slapping blanket 40 and
50mph limits on roads where they're not necessary, while ignoring
other locations where they might actually be sensible?

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

perhaps they could also consider cutting
funding to their overzealous programme of slapping blanket 40 and
50mph limits on roads where they're not necessary,

There’s quite a lot of that sort of thing going on round my way, on
roads that were previously national speed limit.

My neighbourhood policeman tells me it’s because of the more than a
few idiots that seem not to understand that speed limits are a
maximum, rather than a minimum, so need to have it spelt out for
them.

It also makes it easier to book them when they floor it around a
restricted visibility bend and find out the hard way that Farmer
Palmer's tractor only goes 15mph.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:05:30 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
wrote:

My neighbourhood policeman tells me it’s because of the more than a
few idiots that seem not to understand that speed limits are a
maximum, rather than a minimum, so need to have it spelt out for
them.

Notwithstanding the fact that a lot of the roads concerned (not all of
them) *are* in the most part safe at 60mph, I'd rather see more
"neighbourhood policemen" out there booking people who are driving
dangerously for the appropriate offence. A speed camera cannot do
that.

The joys of Milton Keynes...long may the national speed limit prevail.
While 60/70mph is a bit fast for a good part of the grid, it is nice
to be able to drive at your chosen safe speed without having to pay
religious attention to the speedometer in preference to the road. And
you find, generally speaking, that people do not act dangerously
(though the prevailing high speeds are perhaps unsettling to those
unfamiliar with the area) and that because there are few or no
unnecessary lower limits people tend to respect them.

(In case the above puts you in any doubt, I do not generally exceed
the speed limit on any given road, whether I consider it to be
reasonable or not).

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

You still here? Fruitcake, anyone?

Yep, indeed must be a fruitcake to believe all those opinion polls and
the small matter of the election result which basically make Gordon
Brown the most unpopular Labour leader since Hengist Pod and his wife
Senna.

Says it all really, even more unpopular then Worzel and his donkey
jacket.

Still, the more Labour and their supporters remain in complete denial
(they have a long and proud history of this) is even more than fine by
me.

There's just no helping some people.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:53:13 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

The joys of Milton Keynes...long may the national speed limit prevail.
While 60/70mph is a bit fast for a good part of the grid, it is nice
to be able to drive at your chosen safe speed without having to pay
religious attention to the speedometer in preference to the road. And
you find, generally speaking, that people do not act dangerously
(though the prevailing high speeds are perhaps unsettling to those
unfamiliar with the area) and that because there are few or no
unnecessary lower limits people tend to respect them.


The single biggest contribution Milton Keynes could make to reducing
its CO2 emissions would be to impose blanket speed limits within MK of
50 mph on dual carriageways and 40 mph on single carriageway roads,
with lower local limits as they are now. The idea of allowing people
to drive at 60 or 70 mph through the city makes no sense at all - the
roundabouts are so close together that hard acceleration and braking
are the order of the day. This is extremely wasteful of fuel and this
style of driving produces excessive CO2.

An exception could be made for the A5 which is grade separated dual
carriageway throughout between Brickhill in the south and Old
Stratford in the north and could stay at 70 mph.

Given the frequency of roundabouts throughout Milton Keynes, which
reduce average speeds a long way below the posted speed limits, most
of the point-to-point journey timings would be hardly affected.

To those who think this is a case of "do as I say, not as I do", I
would point out that I do not exceed 50 mph on dual carriageways and
40 mph on single carriageway roads when driving through Milton Keynes,
as I very often do.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:36:00 -0700 (PDT), allantracy
wrote:

It's going to take a long long time for Middle England (who by and
large decide elections) to ever forgive Labour for tolerating Gordon
Brown and allowing him to foist his gross incompetence upon us all.

Just ask any Labour party worker, knocking on doors much south of
Manchester, and they will tell you just how universally hated that man
was and consequently what an electoral liability he was also.


Perhaps you should also ask the Tory party workers why they gained so
very few seats north of Manchester?


Those same voters are hardly going to take kindly to the likely new
leader (the other Dave) that was part of the problem because he so
woefully failed to act against Brown despite numerous golden
opportunities to do so.


Had Milliband, D taken over from the Ruined Bruin before the election,
he would have been the new leader who lost that election. That would
have been political suicide. By waiting, he did the right thing.

However, Milliband, D is not guaranteed to win, given that he now has
a strong opponent in the form of young Milliband, E. Apparently
Milliband, E has promised the unions that he will remove all legal
obstacles to secondary industrial action when Labour regains power,
which is why the unions are all recommending that their members vote
for Milliband, E.

For those who cannot tell them apart, Milliband, E is the one who does
*not* brandish a banana while wearing a silly grin. ;-)

http://www.abolishwar.org.uk/userfil...e/miliband.jpg

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:12:29 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:53:13 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

The joys of Milton Keynes...long may the national speed limit prevail.
While 60/70mph is a bit fast for a good part of the grid, it is nice
to be able to drive at your chosen safe speed without having to pay
religious attention to the speedometer in preference to the road. And
you find, generally speaking, that people do not act dangerously
(though the prevailing high speeds are perhaps unsettling to those
unfamiliar with the area) and that because there are few or no
unnecessary lower limits people tend to respect them.


The single biggest contribution Milton Keynes could make to reducing
its CO2 emissions would be to impose blanket speed limits within MK of
50 mph on dual carriageways and 40 mph on single carriageway roads,
with lower local limits as they are now. The idea of allowing people
to drive at 60 or 70 mph through the city

Town!

snip

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On 26 July, 20:48, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT), allantracy

wrote:
I quite like speed cameras on the basis of the cretins that don’t like
them maybe privatisation could be the solution the way clamping has
been privatised.

Because that would give good results, wouldn't it? *Clamping firms
seem to prey on easy targets rather than real offenders, as they're
the most profitable.

(Yes, I know, if there's a sign up you shouldn't park there. *But a
properly-trained police officer has discretion, and I prefer that.)

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. *If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off, though, perhaps they could also consider cutting
funding to their overzealous programme of slapping blanket 40 and
50mph limits on roads where they're not necessary, while ignoring
other locations where they might actually be sensible?

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

A40, Oxford to Witney, 1994. I was involved in the siting of the first
three cameras. Fatalities fell from 16 a year to just 2 in one year
along that stretch after we spent £75,000. We sited the three cameras
at the two sites where the majority of accidents occurred. They also
caught a burglar who looked back to see the camera flash as he sped
away from Eynsham. So to save £600,000 Oxfordshire may now turn them
off. In 2000 it was concluded that each road fatality cost the local
council about £800,000 once all inquest costs were totted up. The
local NHS costs were far more when injuries and fatalities were
factored in. Cameras are not the answer to everything, but they do
provide a level of enforcement and an increase in public safety in
specific cases. This is going to prove a false economy, and prove
tragic for many families if common sense does not prevail.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On 27 July, 03:54, "
wrote:
On 26 July, 20:48, Neil Williams
wrote:



On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT), allantracy

wrote:
I quite like speed cameras on the basis of the cretins that don’t like
them maybe privatisation could be the solution the way clamping has
been privatised.

Because that would give good results, wouldn't it? *Clamping firms
seem to prey on easy targets rather than real offenders, as they're
the most profitable.

(Yes, I know, if there's a sign up you shouldn't park there. *But a
properly-trained police officer has discretion, and I prefer that.)

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. *If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off, though, perhaps they could also consider cutting
funding to their overzealous programme of slapping blanket 40 and
50mph limits on roads where they're not necessary, while ignoring
other locations where they might actually be sensible?

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

A40, Oxford to Witney, 1994. I was involved in the siting of the first
three cameras. Fatalities fell from 16 a year to just 2 in one year
along that stretch after we spent £75,000. We sited the three cameras
at the two sites where the majority of accidents occurred. They also
caught a burglar who looked back to see the camera flash as he sped
away from Eynsham. So to save £600,000 Oxfordshire may now turn them
off. In 2000 it was concluded that each road fatality cost the local
council about £800,000 once all inquest costs were totted up. The
local NHS costs were far more when injuries and fatalities were
factored in. Cameras are not the answer to everything, but they do
provide a level of enforcement and an increase in public safety in
specific cases. This is going to prove a false economy, and prove
tragic for many families if common sense does not prevail.

Another view ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...n-2036236.html

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Jul 27, 2:54*am, "
wrote:
On 26 July, 20:48, Neil Williams
wrote:



On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT), allantracy

wrote:
I quite like speed cameras on the basis of the cretins that don’t like
them maybe privatisation could be the solution the way clamping has
been privatised.

Because that would give good results, wouldn't it? *Clamping firms
seem to prey on easy targets rather than real offenders, as they're
the most profitable.

(Yes, I know, if there's a sign up you shouldn't park there. *But a
properly-trained police officer has discretion, and I prefer that.)

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. *If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off, though, perhaps they could also consider cutting
funding to their overzealous programme of slapping blanket 40 and
50mph limits on roads where they're not necessary, while ignoring
other locations where they might actually be sensible?

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

A40, Oxford to Witney, 1994. I was involved in the siting of the first
three cameras. Fatalities fell from 16 a year to just 2 in one year
along that stretch after we spent £75,000. We sited the three cameras
at the two sites where the majority of accidents occurred. They also
caught a burglar who looked back to see the camera flash as he sped
away from Eynsham. So to save £600,000 Oxfordshire may now turn them
off. In 2000 it was concluded that each road fatality cost the local
council about £800,000 once all inquest costs were totted up. The
local NHS costs were far more when injuries and fatalities were
factored in. Cameras are not the answer to everything, but they do
provide a level of enforcement and an increase in public safety in
specific cases. This is going to prove a false economy, and prove
tragic for many families if common sense does not prevail.

At last some factual information to back up what I and many many
others intuitively think.
And the reminder about the costs of accidents is timely, although I
suppose the speed/freedom proponents would say the hospitals and
justice system would have to be paid for even if they had nothing to
do even though that arguement is false.
Drive within speed limits and your limits and don't bother about
cameras and save money - then there is no need to pay speeding fines.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

Neil Williams wrote:

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all, given
how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising money.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857144.html
("Thames " nameplate on 47 511 at Oxford, Aug 1982)

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all, given
how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of speed
cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. While some may appear to be
effective one has to take into account other changes that were made at the
same time, a factor that is ignored by the so-called safety-camera activists.

A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that anyone
who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

"Graeme" wrote in message

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really)
wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only
seem to cause panic braking. If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so
they'll all be turned off...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all,
given how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising
money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of
speed cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. While some may
appear to be effective one has to take into account other changes
that were made at the same time, a factor that is ignored by the
so-called safety-camera activists.

A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that
anyone who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.

Near where I live, there was a fatal accident a couple of years ago, on
a straight road, approaching a set of traffic lights, in broad daylight,
with clear visibility. An elderly lady motorist in a very ordinary car
managed to run over and kill two other elderly lady pedestrians on the
pavement. Her car was so badly damaged that the roof had to be cut off
and she was helicoptered to hospital.

Why would such an unlikely accident happen (assuming it wasn't some an
ancient vendetta between the ladies in question)? One possible
explanation may be the speed camera she had just driven past, which may
well have distracted her, especially if she had just been flashed.

But I bet this never got recorded as an accident possibly caused by a
speed camera. Certainly, I can't remember there ever having been a fatal
accident on that stretch of road before the camera was installed.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:21:29 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:12:29 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:53:13 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:

The joys of Milton Keynes...long may the national speed limit prevail.
While 60/70mph is a bit fast for a good part of the grid, it is nice
to be able to drive at your chosen safe speed without having to pay
religious attention to the speedometer in preference to the road. And
you find, generally speaking, that people do not act dangerously
(though the prevailing high speeds are perhaps unsettling to those
unfamiliar with the area) and that because there are few or no
unnecessary lower limits people tend to respect them.


The single biggest contribution Milton Keynes could make to reducing
its CO2 emissions would be to impose blanket speed limits within MK of
50 mph on dual carriageways and 40 mph on single carriageway roads,
with lower local limits as they are now. The idea of allowing people
to drive at 60 or 70 mph through the city

Town!


OK, the town that thinks it's a city. ;-)

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all, given
how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

I'm not sure that helps answer the point. Turning the cameras off
because the Treasury won't pay will result in the Treasury not getting
the money in. The only real question is whether the income is more or
less than the funding, whoever actually pays it. If indeed it is a
cost-effective measure, then it can only be because the cameras raise
less money than they cost to install and operate, which blows the
money-raising argument out of the water. If, OTOH, they raise more money
than they cost, then the treasury should continue funding them, because
its money will come back with interest.

Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of speed
cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. While some may appear to be
effective one has to take into account other changes that were made at the
same time, a factor that is ignored by the so-called safety-camera activists.

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits. There are
many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the cause of
some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people have to
respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real difference
that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that anyone
who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.

There are bound to be academic studies on these things. Were they
consulted?
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632846.html
(33 046 at Salisbury, 1985)

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote in
message
Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really)
wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only
seem to cause panic braking. If Oxfordshire are cutting funding
so they'll all be turned off...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all,
given how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising
money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

I'm not sure that helps answer the point. Turning the cameras off
because the Treasury won't pay will result in the Treasury not getting
the money in. The only real question is whether the income is more or
less than the funding, whoever actually pays it. If indeed it is a
cost-effective measure, then it can only be because the cameras raise
less money than they cost to install and operate, which blows the
money-raising argument out of the water. If, OTOH, they raise more
money than they cost, then the treasury should continue funding them,
because its money will come back with interest.

I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
"Recliner" wrote:

"Graeme" wrote in message

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really)
wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only
seem to cause panic braking. If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so
they'll all be turned off...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all,
given how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising
money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of
speed cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. While some may
appear to be effective one has to take into account other changes
that were made at the same time, a factor that is ignored by the
so-called safety-camera activists.

A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that
anyone who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.

Near where I live, there was a fatal accident a couple of years ago, on
a straight road, approaching a set of traffic lights, in broad daylight,
with clear visibility. An elderly lady motorist in a very ordinary car
managed to run over and kill two other elderly lady pedestrians on the
pavement. Her car was so badly damaged that the roof had to be cut off
and she was helicoptered to hospital.

Why would such an unlikely accident happen (assuming it wasn't some an
ancient vendetta between the ladies in question)?

Was it an automatic? I've covered two major accidents that were caused by an
elderly driver getting confused by auomatic controls. The first was a Rolls
Royce in Romsey that destroyed about 5 cars and half demolished a shop-front
because the driver hit the kickdown accidentally. Fortunately no one was
hurt in that one.

The second was more tragic, an elderly woman mowed down a bus queue in New
Milton, killing at least 6 people. Again it was thought she may have hit the
kickdown by accident.

: One possible explanation may be the speed camera she had just driven
past, which may well have distracted her, especially if she had just been
flashed.

It's a possibilty.

My own encounter with inappropriately sited speed cameras was joining the A40
one evening at Hangar Lane. There was a camera by the side of the slip road
but aimed at the main carriageway. As I passed it it was triggered by a car
on the main road and the flash went off right beside me and reflected off the
inside of my windscreen momentarily blinding me just as I was trying to join
a fast moving and fairly heavy traffic stream.


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On 27 Jul., 13:35, "Recliner" wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Neil Williams wrote:

As for cameras, they have their place - though I am far more in
support of SPECS cameras than "point" GATSOs, as the latter only seem
to cause panic braking. If Oxfordshire are cutting funding so they'll
all be turned off...

What I don't get about this is why they need any funding at all, given
how much people whine about them doing nothing but raising money.

Because the money goes direct to the treasury, not the county.

I'm not sure that helps answer the point. Turning the cameras off
because the Treasury won't pay will result in the Treasury not getting
the money in.

That is of little interest to the County which has the cost of maintaining
the cameras but gets no revenue. With councils facing cuts in funding and
ratecapping it's an obvious area to cyt.

The only real question is whether the income is more or less than the
funding, whoever actually pays it. If indeed it is a cost-effective
measure, then it can only be because the cameras raise less money than they
cost to install and operate, which blows the money-raising argument out of
the water. If, OTOH, they raise more money than they cost, then the
treasury should continue funding them, because its money will come back
with interest.

That's the Government's problem not the council's.


Jon Porter's assertions aside, the evidence of the effectiveness of speed
cameras in general is somewhat equivocal. While some may appear to be
effective one has to take into account other changes that were made at
the same time, a factor that is ignored by the so-called safety-camera
activists.

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

There are many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the
cause of some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people have
to respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real difference
that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference between 30
and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras do you see in
30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise enough revenue. It is
that level of cynicism that has brought them into disrepute.


A colleague of mine tried to do a documentary on the effectiveness or
otherwise of speed cameras and speed limits in general and found that
anyone who didn't toe the party line was effectively gagged.

There are bound to be academic studies on these things. Were they
consulted?

Yes, they wouldn't talk.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:49:03 -0700 (PDT), amogles
wrote:

On 27 Jul., 13:35, "Recliner" wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.


It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Local government therefore adopted a missionary zeal to get as many
cameras as possible installed at no cost to themselves while raking in
the fines which could be used for almost any purpose they wanted, as
ring-fencing isn't what it used to be, if indeed it ever was. ;-)

So yes, calling it a stealth tax was probably quite accurate; cameras
were paid for out of general taxation, only for the fines to be used
as a means of raising money locally. A double whammy.

What was noticeable is that when the fines started to be clawed back
by the Treasury, rather than retained by the councils, all the
councils' so-called "good intentions" regarding "road safety" were
suddenly consigned to the dustbin. What humbug!

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:53:41 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference between 30
and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras do you see in
30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise enough revenue. It is
that level of cynicism that has brought them into disrepute.

Do you have numbers to back up that claim? A quick scan of my GPS
speed camera data lists 2715 fixed cameras in 30MPH zones out of a
total of 3507. I'm not claiming perfect accuracy but it certainly
implies more than your "very few" observation.

In the part of Lancashire where I live many villages have 30MPH
cameras to slow cars coming off faster country roads.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
amogles wrote:

On 27 Jul., 13:35, "Recliner" wrote:


I believe that they make a small net loss (ie, raise less than they
cost), but that's probably not the real reason for withdrawing funding
for them.

If this is the case, then I wonder why so many people have got away
with claiming that speed cameras were just a stealth tax, and more
importantly, why these claims were never challenged by those who new
better. I've never heard of a tax that costs more to collect than it's
actually worth.

Dog Licence for a start.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
Ivor The Engine wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:53:41 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference
between 30 and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras
do you see in 30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise
enough revenue. It is that level of cynicism that has brought them into
disrepute.

Do you have numbers to back up that claim? A quick scan of my GPS
speed camera data lists 2715 fixed cameras in 30MPH zones out of a
total of 3507. I'm not claiming perfect accuracy but it certainly
implies more than your "very few" observation.

How many of those are on dual carriageways that are only technically urban
areas?

As an example in Southampton the only ones I can think of are all on dual
carriageways.

Mind you in Southampton the major problem is not speeding so much as jumping
red lights, I'm all in favour of traffic light cameras.


In the part of Lancashire where I live many villages have 30MPH
cameras to slow cars coming off faster country roads.

Locally the preference seems to be for the speed measuring electronic signs
which have supplanted former fixed cameras so it may be a regional thing.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

There are many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the
cause of some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people have
to respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real difference
that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference between 30
and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras do you see in
30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise enough revenue. It is
that level of cynicism that has brought them into disrepute.

I reckon that I encounter more speed cameras in 30 limits than any other
limits. Cheshire police often set up a mobile camera a couple of miles
from where I live, to protect a 30 limit on the A54. The nearest fixed
cameras to where I live protect 40 limits. T'other day I went to
Stalybridge and the cameras I encountered (as far as I can recall them)
were protecting limits of 60, 50, 30, 30, 30, 30, 50, 50, 60
respectively. Cheshire's not so bad for them, but there seem to be a
superfluity in Staffs.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683756.html
(142 093 at Cardiff Central, 30 Jun 1999)

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

It is still a simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted the
perception of what is safe. As far as the cameras are concerned an idiot
driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving all over the
road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady 60mph on a road designed
for 70+ but somebody has decided to designated as a 50 limit for no logical
reason is defined as driving dangerously.


There are many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the
cause of some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people
have to respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real
difference that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference
between 30 and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras
do you see in 30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise
enough revenue. It is that level of cynicism that has brought them into
disrepute.

I reckon that I encounter more speed cameras in 30 limits than any other
limits. Cheshire police often set up a mobile camera a couple of miles from
where I live, to protect a 30 limit on the A54. The nearest fixed cameras
to where I live protect 40 limits. T'other day I went to Stalybridge and
the cameras I encountered (as far as I can recall them) were protecting
limits of 60, 50, 30, 30, 30, 30, 50, 50, 60 respectively.

How many of those 30mph limits were genuine urban areas with
houses/shops/schools and pedestrians in close proximity and how many were on
through routes that just happened to be in the appropriate urban sanitary
district?

Cheshire's not so bad for them, but there seem to be a superfluity in
Staffs.


Different areas do things differently it seems.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

You need to get that message across to the so-called Taxpayers' Alliance,
who have been suggesting that speed cameras have increased the number of
casualties:


I suspect the Taxpayer’s Alliance primary objection to speed cameras
is more down to the revenue raising aspects rather than perceptions on
safety.

Anyway, that argument could easily be challenged if more authorities
(as my local authority does) were to take a more lenient line over
minor first offences by offering the option for the driver to attend a
speed awareness course and thus avoid any points or fines.

I have seen at first hand how a local dual carriageway has been
transformed from death valley (the local paramedics term of choice)
into a civilised 50 mph highway thanks entirely to speed cameras.

There can be no denying that for the unsafe roads that now have them
there has been a quite dramatic fall in body count.

However, overall road deaths and injuries statistics do remain
stubbornly high and therefore should raise questions about the
effectiveness of speed cameras that quite possibly, rather like
burglar alarms, could be just moving the problem on elsewhere.

As a driver of many years, I don’t know how other drivers feel but in
recent years, parallel with the spread of the cameras, my perception,
for what it’s worth, has been that driving standards and common
courtesy have gone completely out of the window.

Perhaps it’s just my age but, away from the cameras, never before have
I experienced so much arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous
driving of a sort that routinely passes for being called a motorist
nowadays.

The average stressed out motorists out there seem to behave nowadays
in a way that betrays a great need of (or soon to be in great need of)
of a regular dose of beta-blockers.

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In article
,
allantracy wrote:

As a driver of many years, I don¹t know how other drivers feel but in
recent years, parallel with the spread of the cameras, my perception,
for what it¹s worth, has been that driving standards and common
courtesy have gone completely out of the window.

Perhaps it¹s just my age but, away from the cameras, never before have
I experienced so much arrogant, selfish and downright dangerous
driving of a sort that routinely passes for being called a motorist
nowadays.

I think part of it (and I also think I've said this here before) is that
the installation of speed cameras and the reduction in traffic police
out on the road has given the message to some people that speed limits
only matter where there's a camera.

Sam

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On 27/07/2010 13:53, Graeme wrote:

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference between 30
and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras do you see in
30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise enough revenue. It is
that level of cynicism that has brought them into disrepute.

On the contrary, there are a number in Bradford metropolitan area that
specifically force people to do 30 mph on roads where their speed would
naturally drift upwards to the detriment of road safety.

For instance, on the B6144 Whetley Hill, there's a camera at the steep
point on the hill where if you leave the car in 3rd gear without braking
the speed tends to drift up to about 37 mph or so. So putting a camera
there forces people to slow down to 30 mph at a point where there are
always a lot of pedestrians around (because it's a densely-populated
residential area with a number of shops at the bottom of the hill).

To me the logic of this camera is impeccable in road safety terms.

Another example in Bradford is on the A657 Leeds Road coming into
Shipley from the east. Here, there is a long downhill stretch where
your speed would naturally tend to drift upwards if you don't brake or
change down. A succession of cameras forces motorists to watch their speed.

Again, I can't fault the logic in road safety terms of locating those
cameras there.

There are other examples in the Bradford area where a camera enforces a
speed limit of 40 or 50 mph, and again at each location the logic in
road safety terms is excellent.

And Bradford also uses illuminating speed limit signs at points where
people might naturally drive a bit quicker than the speed limit, but
where there is a less severe road safety issue.

So they're using "horses for courses", enforcement cameras at the more
dangerous points and illuminating speed limit signs in less dangerous
locations. They wouldn't do this if they were aiming to generate
revenue, rather than enhance road safety.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

It is still a simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

I'm not arguing for anything. Cameras are devices to take pictures.
These particular cameras only do so if they detect speeding vehicles.
What more need be said? What questions do you think need be asked?

The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted the
perception of what is safe. As far as the cameras are concerned an idiot
driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving all over the
road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady 60mph on a road designed
for 70+ but somebody has decided to designated as a 50 limit for no logical
reason is defined as driving dangerously.

Cameras do not pass judgments about what is safe. They are not
intelligent entities.

There are many other factors in accidents. Speed may be a factor in the
cause of some accidents, simply because it cuts down the time people
have to respond to a contingency, but I would have said that the real
difference that speed makes is in the severity of the consequences.

That normally applies far more to urban areas where the difference
between 30 and 40 can be literally life or death. How many speed cameras
do you see in 30mph limit areas? Very few because they won't raise
enough revenue. It is that level of cynicism that has brought them into
disrepute.

I reckon that I encounter more speed cameras in 30 limits than any other
limits. Cheshire police often set up a mobile camera a couple of miles from
where I live, to protect a 30 limit on the A54. The nearest fixed cameras
to where I live protect 40 limits. T'other day I went to Stalybridge and
the cameras I encountered (as far as I can recall them) were protecting
limits of 60, 50, 30, 30, 30, 30, 50, 50, 60 respectively.

How many of those 30mph limits were genuine urban areas with
houses/shops/schools and pedestrians in close proximity and how many were on
through routes that just happened to be in the appropriate urban sanitary
district?

They were all urban, in Ashton-under-Lyne and Stalybridge. Without
retracing my steps, I couldn't say how many of them were next to
pavements that had railings, but they were all next to pavements, with
all sorts of buildings next to them.

But your question is an irrelevant one. It's not up to me to speculate
about the motives of the people who set the limits and/or positioned the
cameras, and life's too short to do so. It's up to me to drive with due
care and attention, with consideration for other road users and to
observe the speed limits and other instructions that are signalled by
signs, road markings and lights.

Cheshire's not so bad for them, but there seem to be a superfluity in
Staffs.

Different areas do things differently it seems.

Yes, the vicinity of Stoke on Trent is not for inattentive drivers.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309765.html
(37 109 at Warrington Bank Quay, Jun 1985)

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Graeme wrote:

In message
Chris Tolley (ukonline really) wrote:

Quite. But in my logical way of looking at things, all a speed camera
can do is penalise those who don't stick to the speed limits.

A somewhat simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

It's not a simplistic argument. It's unarguable really. It's a simple
statement of fact. Cameras record people in the act of exceeding the
limit. It's all they do. In any other circumstances, they are merely
road furniture. They may induce people to check their speedos and slow
down, but then so may any other roadside sign that mentions a speed
limit.

It is still a simplistic arguement that begs a lot of questions.

I'm not arguing for anything. Cameras are devices to take pictures.
These particular cameras only do so if they detect speeding vehicles.
What more need be said? What questions do you think need be asked?

Did you not read the next para?

The reliance on speed cameras to police our road system has distorted the
perception of what is safe. As far as the cameras are concerned an idiot
driving 1 metre behind the car in front at 70mph and weaving all over the
road is perfectly safe, someone driving at a steady 60mph on a road
designed for 70+ but somebody has decided to designated as a 50 limit for
no logical reason is defined as driving dangerously.

Cameras do not pass judgments about what is safe. They are not
intelligent entities.

I never said they were.


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

On Jul 27, 6:59*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:
[snip]
But your question is an irrelevant one. It's not up to me to speculate
about the motives of the people who set the limits and/or positioned the
cameras, and life's too short to do so. [...]

Is it for anyone else to do so, or are they also barred from pondering
on such things?

'Ending' "the war on the motorist"
 

Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 27, 6:59*pm, Chris Tolley (ukonline
really) wrote:
[snip]
But your question is an irrelevant one. It's not up to me to speculate
about the motives of the people who set the limits and/or positioned the
cameras, and life's too short to do so. [...]

Is it for anyone else to do so,

If anyone asked me for advice, I would suggest it's not for them to do
while they are attempting to steer their vehicle through our
traffic-filled road system, only to do that long list of things that you
snipped.

or are they also barred from pondering on such things?

I don't know where you got the word "barred" from. I certainly didn't
use it.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9628985.html
(ARC shunter 3101 at Loughborough in 1980 - as she always seemed to be)