Nuxx:61e14a0a-5823-4024-bacc-745e033b0e8c@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <61e14a0a-5823-4024-bacc-745e033b0e8c@d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: OT - How much notice do drivers need? Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 23:15:07 -0700 (PDT) References:  <20090328162614.3319abd8@bluemoon>  Lines: 49 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.147 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1238307307 18526 127.0.0.1 (29 Mar 2009 06:15:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:15:07 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.147; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.7) Gecko/2009021910 Firefox/3.0.7 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3700 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:691971

On Mar 29, 2:37 am, BIG_ONE  wrote: > On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:26:14 +0000, Rob Morley  > wrote: > > >On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:35:47 -0000 > >"Simon Mason"  wrote: > > >> In our local rag every week. > > >>http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zsafety.jpg > > >So do they actually put cameras there, or is it just a wind-up? :-) > > They appear to only have 6 permanent cameras in what amounts to quite > a large area with (at a wild guess) half a million people. Hardly the > revenue generator which we are instructed by the petrol head lobby to > think of them as.

If by "petrol head" you mean anyone who opposes anti-motorist measures (that seems to be the standard definition round here), then I (and many others) never claim that cameras are primarily there to raise revenue. They do however give the government "road safety" for free (or at least a heavy discount), which would be great, except that they don't make the roads safer. The government needs to accept that true road safety costs money.

This desire not to pay for road safety, together with the government's disdain for motorists, are the two main reasons why the government so stubbornly and wretchedly insists on keeping cameras no matter how many people they kill. They have at least stopped the empire building of the "Safety" Camera Partnerships by removing *their* financial incentive to catch as many people speeding as possible, but it's not enough. However at least councils are now starting to get rid of cameras now that they're on an equal footing (in terms of cost) with real road safety measures.

Eventually the infernal cameras will finally go. But you know that even when this happens, there'll be some excuse proffered, and we the roads safer, however obvious the figures are making it to even the simplest of people by then.
 * still* won't get an admission that the sodding things weren't making

We expect lies from the government, but lies regarding road safety, where so many lives are at risk, are particularly despicable. They're probably even worse than the disgraceful refusal to provide life- prolonging drugs on the NHS to patients in certain areas. (Oh sorry, Crapman, that's "off-topic", isn't it? Or do you agree with that assertion?  Because of course if you do, it's permitted after all, isn't it?)