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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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)

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/