kford

I Bet This Is Lounged Soon

Budgens' Lighting Is Far Too Bright

Interesting, CWLA; exactly the same thing happened to my work colleague in Lib-Dem Kingston. Must be a proven technique.

Couldn't Afford To Buy Here Now

????, when you find this 'survey', tell me. I live in Hansler, so would be right in the firing line too.

I'm with ???? and LozzyLoz. No CPZ in SE22. And I live just off the busy part of LL. The only parking probs I see are on Saturdays, when the CPZ wouldn't be in operation. And why should the residents pay to solve any perceived weekday parking issues? I smell a ruse to skim money off ED residents. Support this at your peril.

I read with interest that figures released this week suggest that over half the motorists convicted of speed camera offences in London (150000+) simply haven't paid up; I would suggest that these are the people in unregistered, uninsured, untaxed and unMOT'd who cause most accidents. Speed cameras would not stop these people, evidently.

And residents' permits wouldn't be fair - you'd just be paying for a problem caused by others, unless the permits were free for residents of that street, as they are in Australia.

The last - disputable - point is the thrust of their argument, which is a shame because we're vunerable road users too, and, I hope you agree, on stretches like Harleyford Street around the Oval, it's treacherous for us bikers to filter on the inside. I used to do marketing work for TfL; they are very anti-bike, even though the latest generation of full-licence bikers are, by and large, a careful bunch who just want to avoid having to cram onto public transport. This could work in TfL's favour, especially in Tube-lite south London. I fear the administrator's Lounge button...

TfL agrees that bikers can share some bus lanes. We're not all couriers! (I cycle too)

I'm not talking about GATSOs, I'm talking about average speed cameras, set over an entire road. You're dead right with the last point LL.

Torben Pieknik Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If > you don't speed you don't get caught. So don't > speed. Correct, but average speed cameras will trap the safe law-abiding driver who inadvertently strays above the limit while trying to keep their eyes on the road and not on the speedometer. If you drive, you could find yourself one of them.

My bug bear is with average speed cameras, not fixed position ones. If you're caught by a fixed one, I agree, you're a dangerous driver. And his figure about speed being the biggest cause are incorrect. DfT suggests a figure of 5%.

Your figures are just about reducing SPEED, which cameras obviously do. My argument, based on the DfT's own figures, is that the problem lies in areas other than speed, which cameras are incapable of dealing with. On the subject of SafeSpeed.org, here's an article referring to the owner of that website you dismissed as 'for petrolheads' by the editor of the Observer, the last publication you'd expect to be endorsing such a site: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,6903,1530242,00.html The second paragraph is very relevent. I find it incredible that the DfT tells road users to Think!, yet you're proposing a device which encourages us to do exactly the opposite.

lozzyloz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The dangerous bits of Barry Rd are: > > * The junction with Underhill Rd > * The ridiculous angle for turning right into > Forest Hill Rd > * Cars parked too close to the corner opp Etherow > St Which cameras would not make safer. Nor, blinder999, would they stop tailgating. They will just be tailgating with their eyes half on the road, half on the speedo. It's what happens on average speed camera zones on the motorway (and in which accidents have actually RISEN since introduction (TRL595 http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl595.html), but that's another story. Nor would they stop overtaking, because you can still maintain an average speed by slowing down or stopping before the second camera. A visual dialogue between all road users, in a zone clearly marked as such, would solve these problems.

Cllr, the shared surface schemes are great, so good for you for putting up with the flack in getting it through. They go some way to achieving the effects of the Dutch scheme, which, like PeckhamRose, I support fully. As a motorcyclist, cyclist, driver and pedestrian, I can see the benefit from all angles. Cameras would have to be placed on every exit of Barry Road, or they would only catch through motorists, and then only if they average the wrong speed for the the entire length of the route; it wouldn't stop them zooming up to 50, then crawling along behind the number 12 to get an average of 20. Again, too many variables. And if the sight lines are so clear on Barry Road, why the need for a camera-and-fine enforced 20 mph limit? Unless this is about making money?

True, but I was pointing out that disobeying speed limits is (officially) only a small part of the problem, and that other people's lives are being put at risk by other factors, some possibly linked to speed, most not, and that speed cameras are a clumsy and heavy-handed approach to a far more complicated issue. (tu)

And an alert driver in a new, roadworthy car travelling at 30 mph is less likely to hit the child than an uninsured driver on the phone in an unroadworthy car travelling at 20 mph. There are just too many variables. And there's the argument that cameras take the responsiblity of safe driving away from the motorist, along with their concentration. It's the 'I'm doing 18 mph, so I must be safe' mentality. But anyway, why should us law-abiding majority have to spend our journeys with our eyes on our speedos instead of on the road, just to catch out the rogues who will still be speeding?

It's a bit unfair, but if the charity shop gets ?8 for a jacket which is sold onto an unsuspecting American tourist in Camden Market for ?45, there's not much they can do.

I read that the more organised charity shops cream off the good stuff and sell it on ebay or in their 'flagship' W1 stores. The rest is nabbed by vintage clothing sellers and market traders, who'll be tipped off about anything interesting.

Gizzy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Kford, > > Cant really see the point as there is little to > nothing i can tell them other then it must have > happened on Friday or Saturday night. If it > happens again im going to sell the bloody car! > > Giz Giz, a policeman once told me that one should report every crime, however small and however remote the chances of detection. It stops politicians claiming the crime rates are down and means the police can apply for more resources and manpower. (tu)

There are clever ones which flash up your reg. Maybe they should have 'dickhead' added underneath.

There is also evidence, from the DoT (Sept 2006), that speeding is responsible only for 5% of accicents. That means that on Barry Road, for example, 95% of accidents are through other causes, like driver error, using mobile phones, being drunk/high/tired or driving too close to the car in front, driving an unroadworthy car. It would be a better use of resources, would it not, to target and educate drivers who fall into this category rather than the majority of law-abding drivers who may inadvertently stray above a 20 mph limit. Here are two possible solutions: 1. Remove all road markings and signage. The Dutch have experimented with this and found that the eye contact between drivers, cyclist and pedestrians made for safe and calm urban roads. See this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4213221.stm 2. Active road signs. The ones that flash up the limit, or your speed when you pass. There are a few already in Southwark, they work nicely in gently shaming passing speeders.

ED residents, especially those around Barry Road, look forward to your ?60 fines and three points for straying up to 24 mph when you pop to the tip.

These devices don't work on the real speeders, because their cars are not registered at the DVLA. And, according the police and DVLA, this is a growing problem, arguably aggravated by the influx of ANPR based speed and congestion camera systems. Average speed cameras also keep the eyes of us safe drivers fixed on the speedo and not the road, even when we're edging along at less than twenty. Look away for a second at just 20 mph and you've covered 30 feet. Next time you're in a SPECS average speed camera roadworks zone on the motorway, count how many times you look away from the road at your clocks. Plus, don't you think we're being watched enough these days?