Simon Hobson wrote:
Surely it's better (in the long term) to create drivers with more
appreciation for others ? And surely the way to do that is not to instill
ever deeper a feeling that you can do whatever you like as long as you don't
break one of the miriad of rules ?

That's the problem with automated enforcement - it removes personal
responsibility and encourages an attitude of "blindingly following the
rules". Unfortunately, it's impossible to create a set of rules that will
cover every situation unless you make one very simple one "drive with
consideration for others and responsibility for your actions" !


Lovely idea Simon. That gets my vote every time.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

"Simon Hobson" wrote in message
et...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:45:24 +0100, Brimstone wrote
(in message ):

That depends on the indivual and whilst true for some isn't true for all.
But it's not the speed that's the cause of the crash, it's the failure to
concentrate.

An interesting statement from someone arguing for rigid enforecement of
arbitrary numbers irrespective of conditions !

You misunderstand my stance.

Simon Hobson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:28:55 +0100, ib wrote
(in message ):

There is never any reason to block a box junction

Oh but there are several :

Local driving standards (politeness) have degenerated so much that if you
don't break the rule you will never get across the junction.

You entered the junction when there was a gap, but some other c**t has nipped
into your gap.

You have estimated that given the speed and spacing of the cars ahead, you
will be able to clear the junction, and by going ahead you will help to keep
the traffic flowing - then some ignorant t**t ahead stops for no reason and
blocks your exit. Of course, he's alright because HE isn't involved with
anything, it's just the trail of problems he leaves behind.

The other side of the junction is round a corner, and you CANNOT see if there
is enough space until you are committed - mostly affects long vehicles, but
not exclusively.


I could go on, but a big factor is the drop in driving standards - which is
being very effectively accellerated by automated enforcement. People ARE now
driving to avoid penalties, not to 'good standards'.



But I have to throw in one other - you are driving a slow vehicle, and the
lights have been through several cycles before you get across ! OK, so it's
rare, but it does apply to some outfits.


Oh, you've been to Scarborough have you? Bad luck!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

"Simon Hobson" wrote in message
et...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:35:21 +0100, Ian wrote
(in message ):

I am quite often unable to
proceed due to traffic illegally blocking a box junction, and I welcome
an
increase in the chances of them being caught and prosecuted.

Surely it's better (in the long term) to create drivers with more
appreciation for others ? And surely the way to do that is not to instill
ever deeper a feeling that you can do whatever you like as long as you
don't
break one of the miriad of rules ?

The trouble is that it's a more deep seated attitude than solely in driving.
"Stuff you" is, in varying degrees, a part of human nature.


That's the problem with automated enforcement - it removes personal
responsibility and encourages an attitude of "blindingly following the
rules". Unfortunately, it's impossible to create a set of rules that will
cover every situation unless you make one very simple one "drive with
consideration for others and responsibility for your actions" !

Until all parents start instilling a some consideration for others into
their children there's little hope.

In article . com,
says...
Paul has obviously put a great deal of effort and a considerable amount
of his own money into trying to do something constructive. It doesn't
entirely tally with how I would like things to be, but IMHO his regime
would be a lot better that what we have at present.

Nevertheless, he likes to present himself as the head of a significant
movement.


I've just had a large bowl of chilli (with a good 8 chillies in it), and
feel significant movement in the offing.

Pete.

Knight Of The Road wrote:

"Silk" wrote

How am I able to opt of having to drive at 30mph past a speed camera on a
road good for 60mph?

I wouild dispute that 60mph is a safe speed at which to drive in any
built-up area unless there is physical separation between road and
dwellings.

Do you dispute the fact that there are many 30mph limits which are not in
built-up areas?

Wasn't there one on the A2* at Bexley a few weeks ago?

[* a six-lane expressway with hard-shoulders and full grade-separation - a
motorway in every sense except its classification]

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-


There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.


Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

True - with the "appropriate speed" almost always being some way below the
posted limit on that stretch of road.

Note also that a speed limit is a maximum speed, not a target speed
or a minimum speed. Believe it or not motor vehicles have controls
that allow the operator to proceed at a lower speed than the limit
as well.

Indeed they do. And it is whilst the driver/rider is proceeding at a lower
speed than is allowed by law that most accidents occur.

But you know this already.