Transport 2000 reply
Discussion
I wrote to T2000 this morning expressing my complete frustration and inability to understand why they were so anticar. Here is my reply, pretty quick thankfully. What do you think?
Dear Mr Mann
Most of Transport 2000’s work is about trying to improve public transport and make walking and cycling easier and more attractive; we also help employers set up car-share schemes and have promoted car clubs (neighbourhood car-share). Britain is the most car-dependent country in Europe – this does not help motorists or anybody else, we argue that we need to make it easier for people to use their cars less.
We do however think that it is not possible or desirable for everybody to be able to drive where they like, when they like, as fast as they like, with nil taxation or cost. We support speed limits, and their enforcement. The legal action at the High Court was about giving the police and safety camera partnerships the discretion to be able to enforce speed limits at any point across the road network. At the moment these authorities can only use fixed speed cameras which are yellow and sited conspicuously.
We do not necessarily believe that all speed cameras should be hidden, but equally we do not accept that there is no role for covert speed camera enforcement. We worry that drivers will speed up after they have passed a yellow camera knowing they are safe from prosecution.
We think there should be trials in the UK to compare the effectiveness of yellow cameras vs covert cameras and that speed camera policy should be based on these trials. The agreement yesterday allows local speed camera partnerships to apply for permission to use cameras without painting them yellow if they think this will help save lives.
I wish I agreed that we are a powerful lobby – from where we sit now, we think the Government is ignoring us.
Stephen Joseph, Director, Transport 2000
Telephone: 020 7613 0743 x 105
Dear Mr Mann
Most of Transport 2000’s work is about trying to improve public transport and make walking and cycling easier and more attractive; we also help employers set up car-share schemes and have promoted car clubs (neighbourhood car-share). Britain is the most car-dependent country in Europe – this does not help motorists or anybody else, we argue that we need to make it easier for people to use their cars less.
We do however think that it is not possible or desirable for everybody to be able to drive where they like, when they like, as fast as they like, with nil taxation or cost. We support speed limits, and their enforcement. The legal action at the High Court was about giving the police and safety camera partnerships the discretion to be able to enforce speed limits at any point across the road network. At the moment these authorities can only use fixed speed cameras which are yellow and sited conspicuously.
We do not necessarily believe that all speed cameras should be hidden, but equally we do not accept that there is no role for covert speed camera enforcement. We worry that drivers will speed up after they have passed a yellow camera knowing they are safe from prosecution.
We think there should be trials in the UK to compare the effectiveness of yellow cameras vs covert cameras and that speed camera policy should be based on these trials. The agreement yesterday allows local speed camera partnerships to apply for permission to use cameras without painting them yellow if they think this will help save lives.
I wish I agreed that we are a powerful lobby – from where we sit now, we think the Government is ignoring us.
Stephen Joseph, Director, Transport 2000
Telephone: 020 7613 0743 x 105
for that 
Most of Transport 2000’s work is about trying to improve public transport and make walking and cycling easier and more attractive; we also help employers set up car-share schemes and have promoted car clubs (neighbourhood car-share). Britain is the most car-dependent country in Europe – this does not help motorists or anybody else, we argue that we need to make it easier for people to use their cars less.
fine, I'm all for that, get the numpties and non enthusiasts off the roads and leave them for us, but they are doing it back to front by making driving an unpleasant and costly experience with no suitable alternative ffs. The roads are full of people who would sooner use a bus, train or fcuking hot air balloon come to that, why not provide the means to their end, dammit!
Whats his address, I feel a letter coming on
Would anyone would like to project what results any such trial would give?
Take 2 roads 50mph limit, accident blackspot identical in every sense except:
Road A: Yellow cameras everywhere, big signs all over the place beforehand warning drivers of upcoming cameras.
RESULT: No-one speeds at all. There will be a small number of people that will be caught because they will be drunk, dangerous or incompetent or driving a stolen or untraceable car. Very little income. No income from stolen and untraceable cars.
Road B: No signs, cameras are the new stealth variety using Klingon cloak technology they only decloak to flash each car.
RESULT: Given that a good 80% of cars are actually driven above the speed limit all of these cars will be prosecuted. No driver has a detterent to slow down until it is already too late. Note that no driver is warned that they are approaching a blackspot either.
Over time this % will drop due to previously convicted drivers being aware or others who have been warned in advance becoming more aware of the cameras. So the % of speeders will decline slowly over time, but there will always be new victims for the cameras that are not aware or forget that the cameras are there.
Ultimately no immediate reduction of speeds, a slow decline in the number of speeders over time but will never reach zero.
Revenue is maximised.
How is option B the safest??
The only way that T2000 can support road B implementation is if they envisage the cultivation of constant fear that no matter where and when a driver is in the ENTIRE country, a camera may be watching. One slip up and flashflash. This says quite a lot about T2000 half baked thinking. Only by total camera saturation would you acheive what road A has done because people will speed if the chance of detection is low. Unless of course you make the punishment severe such as life imprisonment. Perhaps this is T2000's next idea.
Take 2 roads 50mph limit, accident blackspot identical in every sense except:
Road A: Yellow cameras everywhere, big signs all over the place beforehand warning drivers of upcoming cameras.
RESULT: No-one speeds at all. There will be a small number of people that will be caught because they will be drunk, dangerous or incompetent or driving a stolen or untraceable car. Very little income. No income from stolen and untraceable cars.
Road B: No signs, cameras are the new stealth variety using Klingon cloak technology they only decloak to flash each car.
RESULT: Given that a good 80% of cars are actually driven above the speed limit all of these cars will be prosecuted. No driver has a detterent to slow down until it is already too late. Note that no driver is warned that they are approaching a blackspot either.
Over time this % will drop due to previously convicted drivers being aware or others who have been warned in advance becoming more aware of the cameras. So the % of speeders will decline slowly over time, but there will always be new victims for the cameras that are not aware or forget that the cameras are there.
Ultimately no immediate reduction of speeds, a slow decline in the number of speeders over time but will never reach zero.
Revenue is maximised.
How is option B the safest??
The only way that T2000 can support road B implementation is if they envisage the cultivation of constant fear that no matter where and when a driver is in the ENTIRE country, a camera may be watching. One slip up and flashflash. This says quite a lot about T2000 half baked thinking. Only by total camera saturation would you acheive what road A has done because people will speed if the chance of detection is low. Unless of course you make the punishment severe such as life imprisonment. Perhaps this is T2000's next idea.
funkihamsta said: they envisage the cultivation of constant fear that no matter where and when a driver is in the ENTIRE country, a camera may be watching. One slip up and flashflash. This says quite a lot about T2000 half baked thinking.
From what I understand, thats exactly what they are thinking. I seem to recall a women from T2000 saying it was "her dream" to have every mile of motorway in this country covered by digital cameras.
This is what we are dealing with here!
Her dream huh?
Jeez, what about dreaming of blanket driver and pedestrian education? How's that dream going to stop dangerous driving and unregistered cars, surely the ones most needing this sort of attention?
Is t2000 full of newly-grads starry eye'd with black and white idealistic interpretations of how the world actually operates?
Jeez, what about dreaming of blanket driver and pedestrian education? How's that dream going to stop dangerous driving and unregistered cars, surely the ones most needing this sort of attention?
Is t2000 full of newly-grads starry eye'd with black and white idealistic interpretations of how the world actually operates?
funkihamsta said:
Is t2000 full of newly-grads starry eye'd with black and white idealistic interpretations of how the world actually operates?
Most probably.
Quite how they get to those positions in such organisations I do not know.
Who supports T2000 then? Are they a goverment organisation or what?
I would go on the website but I dont want to give them a "hit" (well, not a web-type one anyway
) 
robp said:
funkihamsta said:
[SNIP]Who supports T2000 then? Are they a goverment organisation or what?
I would go on the website but I dont want to give them a "hit" (well, not a web-type one anyway
I've answered your question on another thread. Check here :
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=&t=32749
John
corozin said:
robp said:
funkihamsta said:
[SNIP]Who supports T2000 then? Are they a goverment organisation or what?
I would go on the website but I dont want to give them a "hit" (well, not a web-type one anyway
I've answered your question on another thread. Check here :
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&h=&t=32749
John
Interesting.
It annoys me that a group called "Transport 2000" seem so obviously biased to certain forms of transport!
Most of Transport 2000’s work is about trying to improve public transport and make walking and cycling easier and more attractive; we also help employers set up car-share schemes and have promoted car clubs (neighbourhood car-share). Britain is the most car-dependent country in Europe – this does not help motorists or anybody else, we argue that we need to make it easier for people to use their cars less.
Fine but lets actually have some public transport that goes where the passengers want to go, and at the time they want to go. Not only that but lets have it running to timetable as well.
We do however think that it is not possible or desirable for everybody to be able to drive where they like, when they like, as fast as they like, with nil taxation or cost.
Partly fair enough. After all every one would I believe agree that some speed limits are appropriate, but not all are. Especially those that have been reduced following or just pre the installation of cameras. Not only that but lets take public transport. The rail companies have to pay to build and create their tracks and other infrastructure. How much to the bus and coach companies pay to build and maintain the roads.
As regards taxation I could have sworn the drivers pay a lot more in tax than is spend on the roads.
We support speed limits, and their enforcement.The legal action at the High Court was about giving the police and safety camera partnerships the discretion to be able to enforce speed limits at any point across the road network. At the moment these authorities can only use fixed speed cameras which are yellow and sited conspicuously.
What? I could have sworn all police authorities could use mobile cameras, which only need to have a sign warning of a cameras possible presence, or of course could use a good old fashioned police officer wuth a speed detecting device.
I am sure one or two people here may have been caught by covert speed traps be they mobile cameras, unmarked police cars etc.
We do not necessarily believe that all speed cameras should be hidden, but equally we do not accept that there is no role for covert speed camera enforcement. We worry that drivers will speed up after they have passed a yellow camera knowing they are safe from prosecution.
Well I for one have seen manual speed traps just beyond fixed cameras. In my opinion speed traps are suppossed to be a deterent, and therefore should be visible so that all drivers whether they are sticking to the speed limit at that point are not are reminded to check their speed, and that if they speed they may get caught. All those that speed know there is a danger we might get caught, however its the enforcment of apparently inappropriate speed limits or ignoring the facts of the case that irritate us so much.
there should be trials in the UK to compare the effectiveness of yellow cameras vs covert cameras and that speed camera policy should be based on these trials. The agreement yesterday allows local speed camera partnerships to apply for permission to use cameras without painting them yellow if they think this will help save lives.
Camera partnerships will want them grey or green as it will increase revenue. We already have extreme doubts about the location of many cameras, and the apparent impact on accident figures, this will not help. I suspect it will lead to more cameras being vandalised.
I wish I agreed that we are a powerful lobby – from where we sit now, we think the Government is ignoring us.
Well if thats ignoring them what are the government doing to the rest of us?
Stephen Joseph, Director, Transport 2000
Telephone: 020 7613 0743 x 105
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff