Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Home Office is testing a new type of speed camera that uses satellites to measure average speed over long distances. One of the (apparently secret) test sites is in Southwark.


As far as I can see, this system has no other use except as a sophisticated speed trap.


Isn't this going too far! We already have more CCTV surveillance cameras per capita than any other country in the world - foisted upon us on the pretext of fighting crime but now serving as cash cows for local authorities quick to fine citizens at every opportunity.


Full Telegraph article: New speed cameras trap motorists from space

The 'from space' bit sounds like marketing bumpf. A few cameras + knowledge of their position = same average speed stuff you get on the motorway roadworks. Frankly, anyone that can speed on roads in London for the length of time to warrant average speed checking is probably travelling on roads I don't. Getting over an average 10mph for some trips is a minor success.

Another piece of technology to harvest the motorist with.


They wont adjust the lights to change before you stop thus saving zillions of tons of fuel, plus the wear and tear on the driver and pedestrians, and yet they pursue this stuff, whoever is responsible for this madness should be relegated to the dole queue.

I'm not angry nor do I exceed the prevailing speed limits.


I am concerned about living in an environment in which every move is tracked and recorded by the state - Big Brother style.


As an aside, I started this thread at 08:05PM today. Later, over in the Drawing Room ...


General Election Debates - Announcement

Posted by: The Chair Today, 09:57PM


Questions have now been sent to all four candidates to answer. The questions are:


3) Do you accept that whilst the crime solving benefits of surveillance are considerable, there must surely be a level at which the costs to an individual's privacy and sense of freedom outweigh the potential benefits?


Proof, as if any were needed, of my dastardly psychic powers. So there!

matty wrote:- So...You are angry that you might get caught speeding? Well I hope you do and have your licence taken away ; )


No not at all, I have a cruise control so it's easy to avoid speeding,


most of my fines are for unwittingly trespassing into the congestion zone.


My anger is due to the deliberate negligence of priorities, that could so easily be implemented by reconfiguring the traffic lights to match other world class cities.

Yes Steve, THAT'S why people in this country speed - the phasing of traffic lights. Give me strength. Even if your allegation were true, have you driven in other world class cities lately? One with over 6 million people? Have you seen the traffic problems there?


As for invasions of privacy, these aren't recording your conversations or x-raying through your clothes. You give away more personal information every single day just by using your oyster card, your credit card and carrying around a device which tells to within yards exactly where your location is. And yet I don't read threads from anyone complaining about the SCANDAL of satellite tracking in mobile phones


What is WITH drivers and the constant persecution-complex? Always moaning about being fleeced and yet never use public transport - in part because it's too f**ing expensive. Moaning bunch of beeatches

yes yes yes I know quids. I'm not trying to suggest they don't. But you don't get nearly so much radio phone in angst from the public-transport-using perspective (regardless of how the split between modes breaks down)


Between road tax, petrol, and the other involuntary costs, driving is expensive. Add in the voluntary (ish) costs of numerous speeding and parking fines and it becomes more so


Similarly, public-transport is expensive - involuntary costs of season ticket increases, tracking via oyster etc. Then there are the fines from jumping barriers and risking the bendy bus not being inspected


So however an average person mixes their transport modes up, it costs. I get it. I just don't get why the motoring side bleats so much.

True, but a minor side-point. The point is when people start a thread or ring in to complain about some "money grabbing" scheme an it's to do with transport, it tends to be a motorist, doesn't it?


When petrol prices went up a few years back, it wasn't pedestrians or bus users who blockaded the motorways and petrol-stations, putting lives at risk. It was motorists, wasn't it?


Am I wrong?


I'm not against driving* or motorists, I'm against people crying "victim" when they ain't.



* with the proviso that even disregarding petrol shortages, there isn't enough room on the streets for teh amount of cars now, much less ten years time. That's logic, not a rant at driving

I thought the Blockade was disgraceful and so did many other motorists...it was also mainly the Hauliers too not that many car drivers holding the country to ransom. Personally I think motoring's too cheap and would like to see petrol prices increased to price many motorists off the road and cars over a certain age highly road taxed but that's regressive and elitist. I don't have any problems with speeding restrictions either.


As you know, my only consistent car driving moan is the use of Parking Restrictions in a non-logical, profiteering, revenue driven way by local authorities.

There have been lots of threads started and comments posted recently concerned about the speed of vehicles in ?their? residential street, with posters advocating all kinds of restrictions and enforcement strategies. This seems the perfect system for this but it seems when someone else comes up with a system in ?someone else?s? street there is a problem.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> When petrol prices went up a few years back, it

> wasn't pedestrians or bus users who blockaded the

> motorways and petrol-stations, putting lives at

> risk. It was motorists, wasn't it?

>



Why would they?????

Well Brendan are there too many cars or not? We can't have it all ways can we? I explicitly said my idea was regressive and elitist, as indeed is rhe concept of the congestion charge too. Or let's ban public transport and give everyone a car.


Motoring is too cheap and convenient so if we want to reduce it we need to make it more expensive, persuading people to switch to Public Transport when they have a choice is very very difficult. Last time I looked at the National Travel Survey something like 95% of our travveled miles were done in the car...you could treble real spending on Public Transport and it'd still be p1ssing in the wind.


Er, I'm on record all over this Forum as saying I'm voting for media superstar Nick Clegg* and am deeply unimpressed with the Tories over the last year.


*Ex thingy

Motoring is too cheap and convenient


I disagree that motoring is cheap. Depreciation + car tax + servicing + insurance means that, even before you put petrol in the damn thing you've probably forked out at least a grand. On top of that, many people in London then payout for daily public transport on top of that. On lower wages, that means an incredibly large percentage on take home pay goes to transport.


But people still have them. Lots of them. Why? Because they don't sit down and understand the costs and, even if they did, would probably try and justify them anyway.


It's a bit like smoking. You can keep putting the price up and up, but people will still find the money.

Another fact for you loz is that I am a driver. I tend not to in London and have given up my car, but as I've said many times I'm not anti-motorist. Or is that an inconvenient fact as well?


Hmmm. Your posting record says otherwise. And, as they say, if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...