I really hate this country ....

Rasher, you live in Brighton, which has one the best bus services in the country, not to mention superb rail links. If people in Brighton can't manage to get by without using a car, there really is no hope. The 'carrot' approach only goes so far.

The only real reason to object to speed cameras is becase it stops you breaking the law. If you think the law is wrong by all means argue to get it changed but as things stand you only have yourself to blame if you get caught and fined.

And whilst I do have some sympathy with the argument that sometimes the police are less concerend about safety than revenue collection it is equally my impression that the anti-camera people are more concerned about getting to whereever they are going as quickly as possible than with safety. Both sides could do with dropping the faux-safety concerns and having a more honest debate IMHO.

Obviously I realise that all here are terribly dilligent drivers and that the people who try to knock me off my bike everyday are a completely different set of people. Unfortunately though the latter do exist -- indeed they seem to be a large majority -- and every measure that makes them slow down is a good thing from my perspective.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mekon:
Rasher, you live in Brighton, which has one the best bus services in the country, not to mention superb rail links. If people in Brighton can't manage to get by without using a car, there really is no hope. The 'carrot' approach only goes so far.

---

Yeah, I agree. I'm alright. My sister lives just outside Rye and doesn't drive. Imagine it! Middle of nowhere

quote:

---

The only real reason to object to speed cameras is becase it stops you breaking the law. If you think the law is wrong by all means argue to get it changed but as things stand you only have yourself to blame if you get caught and fined.

---

I have very nearly got caught by a speed camera on the odd occasion when I was actually trying to keep within the speed limit. Limits change often arbitrarily over distance and time, and in the absence of repeater signs you can speed involuntarily.



Regards,

Steve.

IMO speed cameras and the obsession with speed limits and reducing them tends to encourage a lowering of driving standards in general, which makes road use more dangerous for everybody. This is reflected in the increasing casualty rate, although the cause is obviously multi-faceted.

Near me on the A43 there is a dangerous spot purely as a consequence of a camera. It's a dual carriageway, the road curves and descends and there's a plain view camera. Very many drivers brake on seeing the camera. I don't really know why, the limit is 70, people slow down to 60. When they do this they don't look in their mirrors or at their speedos. If their speed had crept over 70 due to the hill then they wouldn't have time to slow down safely, but slow down they do. It's not unusual to end up overtaking on the inside simply because the cars in the right hand lane are braking. Madness and completely unnecessary. I suppose that if nobody dies nothing will be done.

Paul

Matthew

quote:

---

Anyone caught speeding should be gassed

---

makes a good alternative to shooting

laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
Matthew

quote:

---

Anyone caught speeding should be gassed

---

laurie S

---

I was about to say that Matthew was having a Mick Parry 'episode' but then I looked further up the thread and realised Matthew was actually quoting from Mick Parry !

JonR

Paul said "Near me on the A43 there is a dangerous spot purely as a consequence of a camera"

If your local drivers can't cope with the presence of a speed camera without drivingly dangerously how ever do they manage with warning signs, zebra crossings, pedestrians, unexpected actions of other motorists, etc.

Maybe they should slow down and drive within their capabilities?

Matthew

Bit late with this, but actually Dom has a point. We are in a situation where no one collectively is happy, because everyone individually wants to get to their individual destination, in a car, as quickly as possible.

This is classic free-rider problem stuff. And it has nothing to do with 'necessity' or 'invention'. The distinction between motoring (and the same thing goes for the drinking industry BTW) and things like gas, electricity, etc, is that the former have led to unintended consequences that are increasingly blighting everyone's lives, while the latter have led to the (intended) consequence of improving them.

It's only by hanging on to one-dimensional and increasingly dated fig leaves of 'individual liberty' and 'the invisible hand of the market' that the current situation can be defended.

Tim

quote:

---

If your local drivers can't cope with the presence of a speed camera without drivingly dangerously how ever do they manage with warning signs, zebra crossings, pedestrians, unexpected actions of other motorists, etc.

---

The speed camera is like someone stepping into the road. The reaction seems to be unthinking. It's obviously not local drivers who know the camera is there, but this is a very busy major road linking the M40/A34 and M1 so loads of people on their way somewhere.

Talking of warning signs, the current trend seems to be for forests of confusing road furniture, more hazards to hit, more useless information, more danger. There are signs on the way into dangerous corners reporting how many casualties over the last few years. By the time you've read the sign it might be too late...

I think a much deeper look into driver psychology is required, so that roads can be better engineered. The current 'Talivan' and Gatso regime is clearly not working.

Paul

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steven Toy:
I am reminded of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and the reference made to the jackboot stamping on your head for eternity.QUOTE]

I've just noticed this. Steve - your observations are always worth a laugh. Keep up the good work

Tim

"I think a much deeper look into driver psychology is required, so that roads can be better engineered"

The road furniture is intended to make driving more episodic rather than semantic so there is less of an "auto-pilot" effect on which lots of accidents are blamed. It's meant to make it novel so you slow down and take more care,

Again if you can't cope with this sort of thing you should be slowing down anyway I owuld ahve thought.

Matthew

quote:

---

It's meant to make it novel so you slow down and take more care,

---

Continuous novelty?

quote:

---

Again if you can't cope with this sort of thing you should be slowing down anyway I owuld ahve thought.

---

Confusing and overloading drivers into slowing down doesn't seem the most accident effective way.

I recall some experiment some years ago where road markings and signposts were removed from a village and speeds monitored. The lack of information caused a slow down.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:

Crony B.Liar only got rid of Clause IV of Labour's ideology to get in power and for no other reason.

---

An interesting theory but what factual basis does it have?

Those who have read neither the old nor the new Clause IV may claim (along with the BBC, the gutter press, the Tories and the Loony Left) that by updating Clause IV Labour abandoned socialism (or pretended to). However, the wording of Clause IV, before and after, makes it difficult to avoid concluding that by updating Clause IV Labour was making it absolutely clear that it was not communist but was socialist.

The older Clause IV is generally understood to favour not simply the nationalisation of the "commanding heights of industry" but the abolition of private enterprise. As such it is not a socialist ideal but a communist one - an ideal that has not been Labour policy for a century:

quote:

---

To extend democratic power and secure for the people the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof, that may be possible on the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, enabling the people to decide upon the most appropriate means of organising and administering our economic institutions and each industry or service.

---

"Tony Blair's" Clause IV, which has often been described by the BBC and other equally worthy media as an abandonment of socialism, is this:

quote:

---

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

---

This certainly put a stop to the Tories' use of the old Clause IV to misrepresent Labour's values and policies, and as such must have helped Labour win power. But to argue that it was cynical move to gain power seems to require one to believe that Tony Blair and the Labour party [for it was the party that voted for the new Clause IV] have a secret communist agenda. I for one have no fear that Naim will be nationalised in Labour's third term...

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeremyD:
Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

---

Blimey. Did they nationalise grammar and punctuation in my absence? This could explain the inability to use complete sentences.

Davie (in pedant mode)

Nice to see a bit of reasoned analysis of some of the assumptions flying around here. Also nice to see a bit of evidence taking precedence over prejudice and misconception...

Tim

A better [IMO] written and conceived version of Clause IV was proposed - or was, at least, printed in The Times or the Observer, which may not be the same thing. I don't know why it wasn't adopted.

quote:

---

and in the absence of repeater signs you can speed involuntarily.

---

Thats if you don't adhere to the highway code....

andy c!

The new Clause 4 is a piece of crap newspeak. The old one has some resonance. There's nothing like saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. New Labour does neither.

And given that the very definition of Socialism involves common ownership it's obfuscatory. Spin at the heart of the Labour party...

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
The new Clause 4 is a piece of crap newspeak. The old one has some resonance. There's nothing like saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. New Labour does neither.

---

What resonance it may or may not have is irrelevant in view of the fact that it reflects neither the values nor the policies of Labour. If you think it does then (as far as I can see) one can only assume you think Labour has a hidden agenda to abolish all private enterprise. Otherwise you fall into the trap of the forum member who, in a recent thread, accused me of meaning something other than what I had actually said, arguing (in essence) that it was damn convenient that I had "accidentally" said what I meant rather than what he wanted me to have meant.

The new Clause IV may be badly written but is perfectly clear what it means. It is a statement of socialist values.

quote:

---

And given that the very definition of Socialism involves common ownership it's obfuscatory. Spin at the heart of the Labour party...

---

It is almost true to say that there are as many definitions of socialism as there are socialists. what all socialists have in common is a sense of justice and compassion - the ideal being a society in which working for the common good is valued more highly than greed. It is far from true to say that the abolition of private enterprise - or of capitalism - is considered a prerequisite for this by the majority of socialists.

quote:

---

what all socialists have in common is a sense of justice and compassion - the ideal being a society in which working for the common good is valued more highly than greed.

---

The former clearly doesn't imply the latter as an ideal.

Self interest is built into our genes. It can only be over-ridden in the creation of your ideal society by oppressive means.

quote:

---

It is far from true to say that the abolition of private enterprise - or of capitalism - is considered a prerequisite for this by the majority of socialists.

---

Just so long as the private enterprise isn't successful?'

I don't know why you've separated 'private enterprise' from 'capitalism', one implies the other.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexgerrard:
<Dom mode>

If we all lived in caves and hunted boar, this wouldn't be the case!

</Dom mode>

---

That would suit me fine - no taxes and I'd not have to work either.

Sour grapes? Well, maybe, but I can live without a car. Whether that's because I HAVE to or not is no-one else's business for the purpose of this argument; I prove that I can do it, therefore there's no reason to suppose others can't.

You need to get around town? Get a bike.

You need to get a big item from a store? Have it delivered.

You need to take your family somewhere? Hire a car.

Until someone gives me a trully totally convincing argument that you will DIE without personal ownership of a car in this country, I will not change my stance on this.

BTW - the horse and cart thing could work; you'd not have every person in the country owning their own horse, just like you don't have everyone in this country owning their own car. You can use the horse sh** for biogas, and eat the meat when the beast is too old to be efficient Well, it would work if this country wasn't ridiculously overpopulated, just like everywhere else...

I'm still not convinced with the train/1 person per car pollution being even, but I'll give you that one on the busses. I get stuck behind a SteamCoach one at least once in each direction on the route to work (along Topsham Road, Burnthouse Lane, Riff Raff Road, Honiton Road) and they kick out so much crap, it feels like you've smoked 100 B&H at once. Trully disgusting. Someone told me Exeter is now more polluted than London (due to the valley thing and the limited access roads; I'd not be a bit surprised...

BTW - Tony Blair wouldn't use bullets (as mentioned - they cost too much); no, he'd use gas - just like Hitler.

__________________________
Don't wanna be cremated or buried in a grave
Just dump me in a plastic bag and leave me on the pavement
A tribute to your modern world, your great society
I'm just another victim of your highrise fantasy!

Dom,

no taxes and I'd not have to work either.

I don't believe you've thought about this very carefully.

I'm not going to feed you;

and I think that pooling my efforts and results with Matthew R and Alex G (?? why not??) will put us in a stonger position to survive. Obviously you don't want to share in this, or similar enterprises

Cheers

Don

Well, it would work if this country wasn't ridiculously overpopulated, just like everywhere else...

...and your short-term solution to this problem.....

Cheers

Don

Paul Ranson said "Self interest is built into our genes. It can only be over-ridden in the creation of your ideal society by oppressive means"

Of all the glib cliches of the modern argument the genetic imperative is perhaps the silliest. Besides your argument puts us back several million years genetically before our higher primate branch of life evolved higher qualities like alturism, deferred gratification, etc.

Matthew