Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Nov 26, 2020 07:31

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 06:17 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 13:41
Posts: 514
Location: Thames Valley
Labour's 13-year war on the motorist is over: Tories pledge to halt rise of speed cameras, road pricing and cowboy clampers

Quote:
The war on the motorist is over, the Transport Secretary said yesterday on his first day in the job.

Philip Hammond promised to end the way the country's 33million drivers have been targeted by an array of speed cameras and cowboy clampers.

He also pledged to 'sweat the assets' of the road, rail and aviation infrastructure to get value for money for taxpayers.

The secretary of state pledged to scrap public funding for speed cameras and said he would consult on a plan to curb pump prices when oil prices soar

Mr Hammond promised: 'We will end the war on motorists. Motoring has got to get greener, but the car is not going to go away.'

The Tory Cabinet minister stressed the coalition government would abide by a Tory manifesto promise not to fund any more fixed-position speed cameras.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 07:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
There's a world of difference between "not funding any more fixed speed cameras" and not paying for them by another route....and the specs system is still going to be funded.
Just more talking out of the rear end.
No change.
More taxes: Less freedom.
Change of political colour does not mean change of government.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 11:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
That's interesting:
The Tory Cabinet minister stressed the coalition government would abide by a Tory manifesto promise not to fund any more fixed-position speed cameras.

Councils could fund them if they had the money and could justify their use - but the money raised would go to the Treasury, he said.

So no change there then, that is what we have now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 12:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7361
Location: Highlands
Daily Mail Here
Ray Massey wrote:
Labour's 13-year war on the motorist is over: Tories pledge to halt rise of speed cameras, road pricing and cowboy clampers
By Ray Massey
Last updated at 10:50 AM on 14th May 2010

Philip Hammond arrives at No.10 Downing Street to be given his portfolio
The war on the motorist is over, the Transport Secretary said yesterday on his first day in the job.
Philip Hammond promised to end the way the country's 33million drivers have been targeted by an array of speed cameras and cowboy clampers.
He also pledged to 'sweat the assets' of the road, rail and aviation infrastructure to get value for money for taxpayers.
The secretary of state pledged to scrap public funding for speed cameras and said he would consult on a plan to curb pump prices when oil prices soar
Mr Hammond promised: 'We will end the war on motorists. Motoring has got to get greener, but the car is not going to go away.'
The Tory Cabinet minister stressed the coalition government would abide by a Tory manifesto promise not to fund any more fixed-position speed cameras.
Councils could fund them if they had the money and could justify their use - but the money raised would go to the Treasury, he said.
He ruled out 'pay as you drive' charging for existing roads for the duration of the Parliament.
And there are no plans to charge for the use of the hard shoulder or additional lanes built to existing roads.
But Mr Hammond did back road tolls to pay for new roads - such as has already happened with the M6.
He is also exploring electronic pay-as-you-drive charges for lorries - to ensure that foreign freight firms do not dodge the charges levied on UK companies.
A similar system already operates in Germany: 'We will look at lorry user charging', he said.
He confirmed there would be consultation on a 'fair fuel stabiliser' which could ensure that fuel duty is reduced when world oil prices rise.
But Mr Hammond, who drives a Jaguar, did back road-tolls to pay for brand new additional roads - such as has already happened with the successful M6 Toll: 'New road capacity is a different issue' he said.
Mr Hammond also vowed to scrap Labour's air passenger duty in favour of a green tax which charges by the plane rather than by the passenger.
He added: 'We are going to have to look at new and innovative ways of funding capital expenditure. The era of easy public money is over.'
Philip Hammond has pledged to axe taxpayer funding of speed cameras

Labour too had pledged to scrap APD - but instead retained and then actually increased the controversial duty.
In March Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling confirmed rises in APD which would see the air tax for a family of four travelling long-haul economy soar from £220 to £340.
Individual tax rises from £55 to £85. In 2008 long haul passengers paid a flat-rate £40 tax. A family of four travelling long-haul in premium economy, business or first class will see their tax rise from £440 to £680. Individual tax rises from £110 to £170.

In a bizarre anomaly, British fliers to the Caribbean pay more than people flying to far flung parts of the United States - such as San Francisco or Hawaii - thousands of miles further away from Britain.
Mr Hammond said the Government backed the £16 billion cross-London Crossrail scheme it had to demonstrate 'value for money'.
He did not think it would be difficult to get private funding for the line.
But he stressed: 'Over the coming years we are going to have to learn to do things differently.
'As far as transport in concerned we are going to have to sweat the assets that we have much better.
'We are going to have to look at new and innovative ways of funding capital expenditure. The era of easy public money is over.'
In Opposition Mr Hammond had been shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, but that post has gone to Liberal Democrat David Laws who he said would make an 'excellent' chief secretary.
AA president Edmund King wished Mr Hammond well but said he needed to stay longer in his new post than the 'merry-go-round' 13 predecessors, who averaged only 20 months.
The new coalition government has also ruled out a third runway at Heathrow airport and committed itself to a new high-speed rail line to begin work in 2015.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 13:58 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 13:41
Posts: 514
Location: Thames Valley
GreenShed wrote:
Councils could fund them if they had the money and could justify their use - but the money raised would go to the Treasury, he said.[/i]
So no change there then, that is what we have now.


But it seems unlikely. After all, that's the scenario whereby Swindon council came to get rid of its five speed cameras. Once they were told that the revenues raised would go to the treasury instead of being able to keep it themselves, they decided the cameras were not worth the expense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 18:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 14:47
Posts: 1659
Location: A Dark Desert Highway
lets wait and see shall we, the devil is normally in the detail.

One wonders what they will fix the price of fuel at, 60p :?: That's my bid anyway.

As for speed cameras, I guess they will been to educate the dip sticks that think putting speed camera up out side their house will stop little Johnny that didnot look when he crossed the road from getting knocked down.

I saw a few potential Darwin awardees today. A kamikaze cyclist that went across the A127 at a set of light, against the lights. And on the return leg, a group of 12 year old (estimate) lads, that are old enough to know how to cross the road, pratting about generally while crossing. It would all be the drivers fault though. But it is the attitude that "I will cross here and if anyone hits me it will be their fault" that needs to change. The attitude should be "I will cross here when it is safe, and I will be care full, because someone might be doing something silly or something I don't expect"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 19:12 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 13:41
Posts: 514
Location: Thames Valley
The New Labour years fostered the "it's someone else's fault" and "there's no such thing as an accident" way of thinking, together with the blame culture. All Labour governments since year dot have used the motorist as a milch cow. Nowadays the motorist has a further use - the shoulder to bear all blame, as Adam's post depicts. New Labour also delivered its own opiate to the masses, leading them to believe that "the state will provide", which it did, thanks to Gordon's policy of spend spend spend. My girlfriend is a teacher in Merseyside, where the typical height of ambition amongst her Year 11 female students is 1. Leave school; 2 Get pregnant. After the sperm donor has legged it (two weeks?) the expectant mother will get a flat, paid for by the taxpayer. New Labour has created a whole generation of people with no sense of responsibility, in which freeloading like this has become a way of life.

I'm hopeful that all this might change, if only slowly. High on Cameron's agenda is the need to address the country's attitude to personal responsibility, so that people will once again take responsibility for their own actions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 20:37 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Quote:
The attitude should be "I will cross here when it is safe, and I will be care full"


Which could be paraphrased as "I will only cross the road when I will cause no inconvenience to the motorists. And, if such an opportunity doesn't occur I'll just spend the rest of my life sitting on this pavement".

Get out of your motor occasionally and you will come to appreciate how fucking difficult it can be to cross the road at all, let alone safely.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2010 21:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 14:47
Posts: 1659
Location: A Dark Desert Highway
dcbwhaley wrote:
Quote:
The attitude should be "I will cross here when it is safe, and I will be care full"

Get out of your motor occasionally and you will come to appreciate how ing difficult it can be to cross the road at all, let alone safely.


There were weeks during the winter that I covered more miles running than I did in my car :wink: well nearly. Crossing the road is not difficult, but then I was shown how to do it 30 years ago.

Those young lads that I mentioned up thread just had to wait for their green light, just like the wheeled traffic were doing. Then they could have walked across pretty much in safety. What they choose to do was c*ck about and walk across the front of a queue of traffic just as the lights were changing. NONE of the vehicles moved while they were in front of them, one just sounded his/her horn. Once the traffic queue had moved, the lads then ran across before the lights had changed for them, but instead of walking straight across the road to the pavement, one of them decided to run down the road with his back to the traffic on the wrong side of the fence, which is their to protect him. There is no excuse. This was on the A127 in Romford at 3:30 ish pm where a dual carriage way intersects with another dual carriageway, not some sleepy market town.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 00:21 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
GreenShed wrote:
That's interesting:
The Tory Cabinet minister stressed the coalition government would abide by a Tory manifesto promise not to fund any more fixed-position speed cameras.

Councils could fund them if they had the money and could justify their use - but the money raised would go to the Treasury, he said.

So no change there then, that is what we have now.


Blimey! I never thought I'd see the day I was agreeing with GreenShed on something! :lol:

Yes, with my limited knowledge of the politics, I can't quite see the difference between this and what we have now. Still, at least I suppose we should be grateful that they didn't reverse the policy! I think there's a general feeling that the scamera partnership game is up now. I'm sure anyone with anything about them would have seen that particular gravy train heading for the buffers and got out a while back! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 00:26 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
dcbwhaley wrote:
Quote:
The attitude should be "I will cross here when it is safe, and I will be care full"


Which could be paraphrased as "I will only cross the road when I will cause no inconvenience to the motorists. And, if such an opportunity doesn't occur I'll just spend the rest of my life sitting on this pavement".

Get out of your motor occasionally and you will come to appreciate how fucking difficult it can be to cross the road at all, let alone safely.


That's a bit strong for you DCB! I'm lucky in that I live in the back end of nowhere so crossing the road isn't generally a problem for me. It's not that we don't have cars, it's that speed limit enforcement is rather less obsessive than it is in many more built-up areas so we get a decent spread of travelling speeds. This seems to create natural gaps in the traffic, which are good for pedestrians to cross. I think Ernest noticed something similar in Stavely when they put the cameras up? The traffic became a much more uniform "procession" and opportunities for crossing the road became far fewer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 01:21 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
I too have always lived near a busy main road and have never had any problems crossing it, even when, I was a child and it was a NSL. If anything it's probably harder now that it's 40MPH because of less traffic spread, but most busy roads, at busy points, have crossing facilities anyway.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 08:11 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Mole wrote:
That's a bit strong for you DCB!

Sorry for the explteives :(

Quote:
I'm lucky in that I live in the back end of nowhere so crossing the road isn't generally a problem for me. It's not that we don't have cars, it's that speed limit enforcement is rather less obsessive than it is in many more built-up areas so we get a decent spread of travelling speeds. This seems to create natural gaps in the traffic, which are good for pedestrians to cross.


I do agree that it can be harder to cross the road when the traffic is travelling slowly but that isn't really what I am talking about. There is a de facto assumption amongst most drivers that their progress along the road has priority over the desire of the pedestrian to cross the road - a priority maintained by the fact that the pedestrian will always come of worst in a collision. That assumption makes walking both unpleasant and slow.

When I was working in a small town in British Columbia I was delighted to find that the situation was, by law, reversed. If a pedestrian stood at the kerb the cars stopped to allow him to cross. And, backed up by a presumption of motorist guilt it worked well. It didn't bring the traffic to a standstill and I didn't see a report of an accident in the month I was there.
Obviously such a system would not be appropriate for main routes and rural roads, only for town and city centres

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 08:13 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
graball wrote:
I too have always lived near a busy main road and have never had any problems crossing it, even when, I was a child and it was a NSL. If anything it's probably harder now that it's 40MPH because of less traffic spread, but most busy roads, at busy points, have crossing facilities anyway.


Those two sentences are contradictory. If you never have a problem it can get neither harder or easier

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 09:01 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
dcbwhaley wrote:
Mole wrote:
That's a bit strong for you DCB!

Sorry for the explteives :(

Quote:
I'm lucky in that I live in the back end of nowhere so crossing the road isn't generally a problem for me. It's not that we don't have cars, it's that speed limit enforcement is rather less obsessive than it is in many more built-up areas so we get a decent spread of travelling speeds. This seems to create natural gaps in the traffic, which are good for pedestrians to cross.


I do agree that it can be harder to cross the road when the traffic is travelling slowly but that isn't really what I am talking about. There is a de facto assumption amongst most drivers that their progress along the road has priority over the desire of the pedestrian to cross the road - a priority maintained by the fact that the pedestrian will always come of worst in a collision. That assumption makes walking both unpleasant and slow.

When I was working in a small town in British Columbia I was delighted to find that the situation was, by law, reversed. If a pedestrian stood at the kerb the cars stopped to allow him to cross. And, backed up by a presumption of motorist guilt it worked well. It didn't bring the traffic to a standstill and I didn't see a report of an accident in the month I was there.
Obviously such a system would not be appropriate for main routes and rural roads, only for town and city centres


Was the traffic density comparable to a UK town of similar size? I'm all for EQUALLY shared rights AND responsibilities amongst road users (neither pedestrians or motorists getting more than their fair share). HOWEVER, I do also get slightly miffed at the situation the other way round. I say "slightly" because I accept that it isn't that way in most places yet, but when we strip away all the sensationalist, emotive stuff about the "ton of metal" and all the demonisation of motorists that goes with it, motorists are just people - just like pedestrians. I don't think many (if any) "presume" right of way simply because they know they can kill pedestrians - despite what Brake might have us believe! My gut feeling is that such a scheme here would (especially in big cities) bring traffic to a virtual standstill. I think the only way we can share road space effectively is by having rules such that pedestrians can't just cross the road as and where they please and motorists understand that there are particular places (crossings) where pedestrians DO have right of way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 09:16 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
The pedestrian priority is like that in Italy. Step off the kerb and you are supposedly driven around. I wonder what the relative pedestrian casualty rates are like between the UK, Italy and BC?

Pavements are for pedestrians. Cycle paths are for cyclists. Roads are for motorised traffic. Bridleways are for horses. Having greater separation of traffic types into slow moving and easily squished and fast moving and made of metal seems more sensible than trying to mix all different traffic types close together. Controlling how they mix when they do meet is also something that needs consideration too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 09:44 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Quote:
Those two sentences are contradictory. If you never have a problem it can get neither harder or easier


Not true, I dont have a problem crossing any road, although some roads are more difficult to cross than others, I do not consider crossing roads a problem at all, just as I don't consider driving a problem, although different roads are more "difficult " than others. A problem is what you make it in my mind.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 09:48 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Quote:
When I was working in a small town in British Columbia I was delighted to find that the situation was, by law, reversed. If a pedestrian stood at the kerb the cars stopped to allow him to cross. And, backed up by a presumption of motorist guilt it worked well. It didn't bring the traffic to a standstill and I didn't see a report of an accident in the month I was there.
Obviously such a system would not be appropriate for main routes and rural roads, only for town and city centres



Was it LAW though? I was told when in Banff, that it was just courtesy. Also the traffic levels in places like Banff was so low, that you could walk up the middle of the high street at 9AM or 9PM and hardly worry about seeing a car let alone being hit by one.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 11:44 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
teabelly wrote:
Pavements are for pedestrians. Cycle paths are for cyclists. Roads are for motorised traffic.

So, in your paradigm, if a pedestrian wishes to cross a road he should take a taxi?

Quote:
Bridleways are for horses

No bridleways are for horses, pedestrians, cyclists (Countryside Act 1968, section 30)

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Last edited by dcbwhaley on Sat May 15, 2010 11:56, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 11:53 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Mole wrote:
I don't think many (if any) "presume" right of way simply because they know they can kill pedestrians


Neither do i and I apologize if I gave that impression. But, somewhere along the way, there has come about the presumption that the motorist has a greater right to unimpeded use of the road than does a pedestrian. I rarely, in this country, see a motorist stop to allow a pedestrian cross the road, other than at crossings (and rarely even there) but I do frequently see pedestrians stopping at the kerb to allow cars to pass. As I said in another thread I think that we have this situation because as children we were indoctrinated, in the name of road safety, to give way to cars and that indoctrination stays with us when we become drivers.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.054s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]