A Conservative government would end support for local congestion charging schemes and stop funding new fixed speed cameras Theresa Villiers, the party's transport shadow minister, said that councils would be given more ability to introduce innovative schemes: "When local authorities want to innovate and try out new ways to make …
Following up ...
@ AC 8th October 2009 02:32 GMT: Thanks for that - I had to go back and make sure I'd put "... die as a result of ..."! However, point taken - as far as we know, mortality is 100% over a lifetime!
@ Silverfox and others responding to him - I am native to South Yorkshire, lived through the miner's stike and the decimation of the industry here, and was in a profession that dealt with the effects on individuals and families (no, not a social worker - honest!!!). My grandfather was a miner all his working life (from 14 to 65, mostly underground), my father was in the fire-brigade, which covered the steelworks. I know how dangerous, and dirty, they were (we even went down a mine as part of a school trip!), yet I am still in two minds whether what happened was good or not. Yes, the area is cleaner, greener and more beautiful than ever, mining villages that were extremely insular and suspicious of/dangerous to) strangers have gone (though it still isn't wise to admit being a miner in Nottinghamshire at the time of the strike anywhere around here!), and many people have avoided injury or death from mining/steel working incidents. However, at the same time, job security, and therefore life security was also a victim, and not just for the miners and steel workers - Thatcherite "efficiency" has afflicted us all. I often wish Scargill had been struck down by something that made him unable to run the miner's strike, so that it could have been run differently. A simple referendum of the NUM members would have made all the difference, and could have led to a national strike, allowing for another election which could have democratically allowed people to consider their options. Overall, the country is not a better place as a result of the Thatcher administration, especially since it directly led to New Labour. Ah well - we have to live in the world as it is, not how it could have been.
Oh, and AC 8th October 2009 09:09 GMT, your point 3 - are you telling me that locals are actually asked if they want a council piggy bank on their street? If you are, you live in a very different place from me. They are imposed regardless of local views. And your point 1 - I can show you four cameras in my town that are sited where there has not been a road traffic incident involving death or serious injury in the last thirty years, let alone four in the three years previously! That isn't to say that I can't see why three of them are there, but it does raise the question as to how "serious injury" is interpreted by the Traffic Partnership ...
Where pray did you get your figures? out of your hat? http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071
I work in road safety and it not speed but inappropriate speed that is a problem.
Bad driving is the problem. No argument. Someone, who thinks they are a safe driver because they travel everywhere at 40mph is more likely to cause more accidents than someone breaking the speed limit. We need more police on the roads and we need to throw the book at drivers for dangerous driving or when they are the cause of an accident. Cameras do not make safe drivers. If the motoring public saw a marked police car everyday along their route they would pay more attention. Once you know where a camera is located you brake and speed up, just like speed humps. Not paying any attention to anything else.
For example which catches more mobile phone users? a speed camera or a police officer?
Not such good news
Can't help thinking that anything that raises a cheer from car drivers, libertarians and Jeremy Clarkson has got to be bad for road safety. Let's have many more speed cameras - I'm not frightened of them.
Is cruise control (speed control) illegal in the UK? When I drive in the US, if the speed limit is 65, I set my cruise control for 65, and proceed to ignore the speedometer until the speed limit changes. Of course, I also use cruise control at 35 (as low as it will work) and up.
On the other hand, I live and drive predominately in Atlanta, where, if you leave more than a car-length between yourself and the car ahead, someone will slip right in and use it and you'll be back to a 5 foot gap whether you want to or not. Like previous comments have stated, Speed doesn't kill. Sudden (read instant) accelleration (nailing a pedestrian)/ decelleration (nailing an 18-wheeler (lorry for you locals) kills.
Nice, but lawlessness and usurpation continue.
These were unlawful from the start, so it's about time these, and other, unlawful extortion schemes were stopped, including all BS charge centres.
Well while they are apparently paying attention to common sense, like say Common Law, maybe they could look at the unlawful treason of fraudulently handing our sovereignty to the EU, without our informed consent, and not deceitfully chickening out on holding a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and the other unlawful EU treaties!
See here, to see why fixed charges, and lot of other governmental corporate BS, are unlawful:
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft