From Saturday's Daily Telegraph

Fun? FUN? Lobbying to put a bit of danger back into the nanny state is a
serious business I'll have you know. When middle England finds it takes
three hours to get to Sainsburys they'll turn on the likes of Monbiot
quick enough. Then you'll get your fun dodging burning traffic cars and
Subaru road-ragers, mark my words.

 

replying again, Google has a posting limt? According to google's stats you
have made 116 posts as the mk1 version this month. That's **** all compared
to some of the most prolific posters here, who use google. Are you driving
it properly?

 

It's because they have all been in the last few days. I think the
limit is on the number of posts in 24 hours.

 

The limit is a 24/48 hour one (I forget which), not a monthly one.

However, it's possible to have multiple accounts with Google and still
use the same posting name.

 

Looks okay to me. I assume the government figures are those reported
here:

http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detai...reaID=198&NavigatedFromSearch=True&print=true

What is devious about that? Monbiot said they didn't mention the
correction and I was wondering if they did.

You're shifting your ground.

He was having a go at people for misreporting data. I don't think his
point of view comes into it.

Not really. A transport infrastructure should exist to facilitate
travel and the movement of goods (not the same thing as travel) while
not causing any more damage than it is worth. The limits are those you
mention but also health (lead poisoning and noise exposure for
example) and planning (the effect of transport infrastructure on our
cities).

That `idealistic view' is a political goal and includes a financial
interest: it is not a neutral argument.

With a consequent increase in fuel cost.

Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact that many of the arguments put
forward against are dishonest.

The position of junctions? Wandering livestock?

Zero. We'll never achieve it, but we should try.

 

He may be uncursed by humility but he's not always wrong. He's good on
particular issues but his general plan for world peace is naive, at
best.

 

What we know as "a train".

 

That's why I said we'll never achieve it.

There has to be some reasonable balance. The problem at the moment, I
think, is a combination of crap public transport leading to excessive
traffic (dangerous in its own right), fast roads too close to
residential areas and a culture of tolerating half-witted driving.

The de facto speed limit on motorways is 90mph for most traffic and
that seems to be accepted by the authorities because it does not
really increase risk to other traffic. The de facto speed limit in
residential areas seems to be 35-40mph and that *is* dangerous.

 

On reflection, fair point. However, Monbiot's charge of dishonesty is
too strong, statistics bandied about by both sides are fair game.

I disagree. It's a societal goal, regulated by how much society is
prepared to pay. Government is (should be) the facilitator.

Again, regulated by commercial need, mitigated by technical development,
but not the concern of government.

I disagree. Some arguments are poorly made, but the fundamental message
that current speed camera policy is counter-productive, is valid IMV.

Design detail. Irrelevant in this context. Improvement of the
infrastructure should be the primary goal, not restriction for political
motives.

This I entirely agree with, but I see no-one addressing the issue of
managing peoples expectation of death due to travelling. There seems to
be an assumption that it is possible to approach the target of zero
deaths by regulation. It should be obvious that this is impossible. So
it's all about method.
As most road deaths occur in situations where speeding is apparently not
a factor, this is potentially the most productive target area.

 

No it doesn't: the reasonable balance is how you decide whether or not
measures which *might* lead to zero road deaths are acceptable. For
example, a measure which leads to zero deaths on the road might
increase deaths on the railways, or shift deaths from one place to
another.

 

Societal goals are political goals. Your statement about `how much
society is prepared to pay' is a political statement.

So consumption of natural resources, global warming and effects on
fuel prices are no concern of government?

Not in mine, and I have not seen a solid argument the other way.

So `improvement of infrastructure' turns out to mean exclusively
`faster roads' with no consideration of, say, how people get on and
off them, or how pedestrians cross them.

Regulation is the only way you'll do it: the question is what kind
of regulation.

 

I knew there would be a solution for the gobshitisti.

 

People still die on train tracks.. from many causes.

Even taking the control away from people to an automatic speed-limiter
type system wouldn't stop pedestrian deaths from auto-Darwination.

Phil.

 

No we shouldn't try and it annoys me when people try to play the moral trump
on this.

If we wanted a near-zero fatality rate we would reduce speed limits to 20mph
on motorways, 5mph in residential areas and 10mph everywhere else. All
vehicles would be fitted with limiters to prevent them exceeding 20 and the
punishment for breaking the limit would be a lifetime ban from driving.

This probably wouldn't give us absolutely zero deaths, but it would give us
very near to.

We don't do this for the sake of political expediency, convenience and
commerce.

If you are not proposing that we adopt limit like the ones mentioned above
then you are accepting that some people must die for the general convenience
of the rest of the population, all we're bartering over is how many should
be allowed to die.

So, again, how many road deaths are acceptable?

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Aprilia RSV-1000R, Kawasaki ZX-6R, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

Do you not see this happening? With all the cameras and CCTV, speeding
and or traffic violations will become increasingly difficult to achieve,
rendering the fun of riding or driving obsolete.

Couple this with the function creep of computers on cars etc, radar
controlled cruise-control and lane assistance already a reality, it won't
be long before the computer can do the whole drive for you.

There will be some teething issues, but ultimately they'll get it right,
insurance premiums will come down, and in the end, we'll all be doing it.

Just before they crack matter transfer.

 

It would cause many more deaths, or rather prevent help arriving in time
to save lives in accidents, fires etc. Perhaps we could have your low speed
limits for everyone except government officials.

 

Well, I don't understand some of your responses, but we're in
fundamental disagreement on the method. I think there's plenty of room
for improvement in 'traffic' (in the widest sense, including pedestrian)
separation, driver education, and vehicle routing. Resource consumption
and global warming are outside our control without global population
control (not too likely to happen), so forcing people to 'move slowly
enough to never bump into each other' seems the least creative and most
damaging policy that any society could come up with. Apathy will
doubtless carry the day though.

 

I'm not trying to play any moral trump on this.

We would shift deaths from the roads to somewhere else. The balance of
regulation, if it is done properly, tries to reduce the total number
of deaths.

I'm not accepting that anyone has to die for my convenience. If people
die through their own actions (not wearing a helmet, say), that is
their business. If they kill others (ploughing into a bus queue at
90), it is legitimate to try to reduce the number of deaths to zero.

You're the one who seems to think a number greater than zero is
acceptable.

 

Horror sci-fi.

I'm not so sure. Think how far we've come in the 50 years since they sent
a spinning tennis ball into space that went beep beep.

 

that would be a fine trick, but the world would start getting crowded
pretty quickly.