Why are people against CCTV and speed cameras on the roads?

[Norm]

Quite so Norm. I used the phrase 'vary greatly' to suggest the meaning 'vary greatly'.

Ah, right, I'll allow you that then.

 

[srw]

Nice try but you don't need to look beyond the first post on this very thread.

Which doesn't actually correspond to your straw-man argument - in fact it undermines it completely.

(Hint: "panacaea" means "cure-all" not "good at one job".)

 

[Rahul Sapariya]

I've always considered cyclists to be polite when talking to eachother until I read some of the comments on here....if someone has a differing view, immediately people exaggerate that view or ridicule it. How about some nice banter? A nice debate, rather than a petty argument?

My main priority for cycling would be for there to be an advertising campaign that had a ThinkCyclist motto. Something that really explained to drivers that cyclists are on the road and they have the same rights as car drivers. I'm loving that Times cycling hazard map atm. It has been updated so much and I've added like 10 hazards myself. Just like how London has had all this money injected into it, how about the same happens for cycling in different cities? I think tax payers money should have the publics vote or something like that. Like where I live, in Leicester...the council may be thinking about having a boris bike thing but it wouldn't work in Leicester because Leicester isn't big enough. How about putting the money into something better like more cyclepaths or perhaps making the rubbish cyclepaths, that are barely the width of your handlebars, wider? Perhaps more inter-county cyclepaths so you have one dedicated path to Nottingham or soemthing like that? Leicester was going to have a specific straightish route straight to Birmingham but it didn't work out because Birmingham wouldn't put any money into it. It is these decisions which are made without taxpayers money that annoy me.

For me, cycling is about fun and you can't have that with dangerous motorists and cyclists. That's why every spring to autmn, I have a nice 20 mile bike ride each day at like 4am which is very relaxing, the motorists are very polite and you enjoy a nice sunrise. Why can't commuting to work be like that? Why can't we just cycle and not worry about being hit? Because it happens too often and we see it happen to other people or we have close-calls. What about if we reduced cars top-speeds? Would that not stop speeding? But we all know car drivers will be against it because for some reason, they think it should be allowed...but of course they can't use the reason that doing 90 on the motorway is quicker.

I really wish we had an MP in Leicester who was a big cyclist...perhaps me? Vote for Rahul

 

[theclaud]

Safe in part because you can't walk or cycle on them.

Which is, as I'm sure you appreciate, to make a nonsense of the idea that they are "safe". Motorways are spaces so outrageously dangerous that almost all forms of human activity and interaction have to be banished from them, or carnage would certainly ensue. A road you cannot cross is not safe- it is a no-go area. It's relatively safe for a certain class of user, of course. I'm sure downtown Kandahar is "safe", just so long as you are the nastiest mother****er on the block, with a truckload of thugs ready to eliminate anyone who dares to cross your path with an ankle showing, or whilst sporting the wrong kind of beard.

 

[Linford]

I've always considered cyclists to be polite when talking to eachother until I read some of the comments on here....if someone has a differing view, immediately people exaggerate that view or ridicule it. How about some nice banter? A nice debate, rather than a petty argument?

My main priority for cycling would be for there to be an advertising campaign that had a ThinkCyclist motto. Something that really explained to drivers that cyclists are on the road and they have the same rights as car drivers. I'm loving that Times cycling hazard map atm. It has been updated so much and I've added like 10 hazards myself. Just like how London has had all this money injected into it, how about the same happens for cycling in different cities? I think tax payers money should have the publics vote or something like that. Like where I live, in Leicester...the council may be thinking about having a boris bike thing but it wouldn't work in Leicester because Leicester isn't big enough. How about putting the money into something better like more cyclepaths or perhaps making the rubbish cyclepaths, that are barely the width of your handlebars, wider? Perhaps more inter-county cyclepaths so you have one dedicated path to Nottingham or soemthing like that? Leicester was going to have a specific straightish route straight to Birmingham but it didn't work out because Birmingham wouldn't put any money into it. It is these decisions which are made without taxpayers money that annoy me.

For me, cycling is about fun and you can't have that with dangerous motorists and cyclists. That's why every spring to autmn, I have a nice 20 mile bike ride each day at like 4am which is very relaxing, the motorists are very polite and you enjoy a nice sunrise. Why can't commuting to work be like that? Why can't we just cycle and not worry about being hit? Because it happens too often and we see it happen to other people or we have close-calls. What about if we reduced cars top-speeds? Would that not stop speeding? But we all know car drivers will be against it because for some reason, they think it should be allowed...but of course they can't use the reason that doing 90 on the motorway is quicker.

I really wish we had an MP in Leicester who was a big cyclist...perhaps me? Vote for Rahul

Stop the press - cyclist hijacks car thread

 

[Boris Bajic]

Which is, as I'm sure you appreciate, to make a nonsense of the idea that they are "safe". Motorways are spaces so outrageously dangerous that almost all forms of human activity and interaction have to be banished from them, or carnage would certainly ensue. A road you cannot cross is not safe- it is a no-go area. It's relatively safe for a certain class of user, of course. I'm sure downtown Kandahar is "safe", just so long as you are the nastiest mother****er on the block, with a truckload of thugs ready to eliminate anyone who dares to cross your path with an ankle showing, or whilst sporting the wrong kind of beard.

Well... Yes and no.

Children's play areas are safe partly because Motorway traffic is kept off them. Much about what is safe can be qualified in terms of the safety being derived in part from what is excluded.

I know nothing of Kandahar (and am grateful daily for that) but spent much of my early adult life in and around the concatanations of beastliness in the western Balkans. Even in the most upsetting and inhumanly bleak setting one could be 'safe'. Part of that safety was knowing which areas to avoid. You could call them 'No-Go Areas'.

In the same way, I didn't let my children near the sharper knives in the kitchen until they were old enough to use them. The knives themselves are not 'outrageously dangerous', but might be headed that way if mixed with the curiosity and inexperience of toddlers and small children.

Motorways are relatively safe because vehicles that might render them less so are excluded from them. This (up to a point) is the theory behind cycle lanes. I never use them, but I'm told that is the thinking.

Similarly, in primary schools the KS1 pupils are generally shepherded into a playground apart from the KS2 kids. I do take your point, but I'd no more want to walk along the M4 than I'd want to play tennis on a tightrope 40 metres above the streets of London.

 

[Linford]

Which is, as I'm sure you appreciate, to make a nonsense of the idea that they are "safe". Motorways are spaces so outrageously dangerous that almost all forms of human activity and interaction have to be banished from them, or carnage would certainly ensue. A road you cannot cross is not safe- it is a no-go area. It's relatively safe for a certain class of user, of course. I'm sure downtown Kandahar is "safe", just so long as you are the nastiest mother****er on the block, with a truckload of thugs ready to eliminate anyone who dares to cross your path with an ankle showing, or whilst sporting the wrong kind of beard.

A beard the size of a Fist and nothing less

Motorways are the safest roads in the land and that is probably in no small part to the fact that the only ones allowed to use them are those who have been trained to a minimum standard and can integrate with the flows (not try and go against or across them)
innit !

 

[Boris Bajic]

After 17 pages I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that there is not going to be much meeting of minds on this one.

Minds?

You flatter us all.

I forget what my view was on this thread (or even what the thread was about) but you can rest assured that I was right.

If and when one of my statements contradicted another, I was doubly right. By law. So there.

 

[Linford]

After 17 pages I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that there is not going to be much meeting of minds on this one.

Its a speeding thread, it could be an epic one - if people remember their manners.....

 

[ufkacbln]

Speed cameras are very effective, that is why they are unpopular!

The new models like the "ASSET" will (and do) pick up:

Speeding,
Tailgating
Tax discs
Insurance
Mobile phone use
Failure to wear seatbelts

... and it will pick up and deal with far more offenders than a Police Officer on the same road could do.


Then of course the "Motorway Myth" they are (as above) only "safer" because vulnerable groups sre removed. If you remove the stats for these groups from urban roads the figures are similar.

The difference being that you are 5 times more likely to be killed in a motorway accident than in an accident on the urban road

 

[ufkacbln]

The other "myth" that drivers are capable of determining their "safe speed" and that they should be allowed to drive at the speed they see to be appropriate regardless of the speed limit

Max Power was a UK-based magazine, headquartered in Peterborough, which covered the performance-tuning car market, boy racers and softcore pornography.

So we can estimate the average demographic of the magazine. Funnily enough they used to carry out surveys and the results were interesting.

80% of their readers considered themselves above average drivers.

So there you are.....

Next time you see a couple of "Boy Racers" speeding through a residential area be assured that it is safe for them to do so because they are above average drivers and are only driving at a speed that they have judged to be safe.

 

[mickle]

After 17 pages I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that there is not going to be much meeting of minds on this one.

I agree.

 

[theclaud]

Is driving really really fast not considered a human activity? Damned good use of space if you ask me.

Passing over your deliberate omission of the qualifier... Motorway driving isn't actually about driving "really really fast". It's about making extremely dull journeys at a speed fast enough to endanger others but too slow to be genuinely exciting. I can see the fun in various forms of motor racing, but not in hitting Swindon twenty minutes ahead of schedule.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Passing over your deliberate omission of the qualifier... Motorway driving isn't actually about driving "really really fast". It's about making extremely dull journeys at a speed fast enough to endanger others but too slow to be genuinely exciting. I can see the fun in various forms of motor racing, but not in hitting Swindon twenty minutes ahead of schedule.

Indeed. The only fun there would be hitting Swindon twenty minutes late... Awful place.

But Port Talbot twenty minutes ahead of schedule? That's like waking up and finding out that bread&butter pudding with custard has been officially classified as all of my five a day.

Maybe even better...

 

[Crackle]

Passing over your deliberate omission of the qualifier... Motorway driving isn't actually about driving "really really fast". It's about making extremely dull journeys at a speed fast enough to endanger others but too slow to be genuinely exciting. I can see the fun in various forms of motor racing, but not in hitting Swindon twenty minutes ahead of schedule.

Having been a regular visitor to Swindon, the earlier you get there, the quicker you get out.