Another Transport 2000 reply!
Discussion
I am priviliged! (Maybe I woke some people up over there) Anyway here is my second reply from T2000 after my e-mail expressing my frustration over their policies. This one made me a touch more angry than the last response. This comes from Vicky Cann (vickyc@transport2000.org.uk) See what you think:
I'm replying to this email that you sent last week.
Let me set out what we think in a straightforward way.
27% of households do not have access to a car. Meanwhile, our cities are
heavily congested, our rural areas are often no-go areas unless you have
a car, people are walking and cycling less (and getting less fit as a
result) and driving more for especially short journeys more.
What are your solutions to these problems - build more roads? They'll
simply induce more traffic as we've seen with the M25 and others, and
besides how can we build more roads in towns and cities? Or we could
improve public transport to offer an alternative - we support this, but
for buses, there is a limit to how efficient and effective they can be
when the roads are full of other traffic. If you compare how many people
can travel in a bus and then how many people can travel in the
equivalent space by car, you start to get an idea of why buses should be
given more road space via bus lanes in order to speed up journey times,
increase their reliability, provide for those without cars, and start to
offer a real alternative to those with cars. What about the school run -
is it really desirable to have every parent driving their young children
to the school gate, or better if we put in nicer and safer walking
facilities so that this becomes a real option for them.
We cannot have unconditional car use because a. we could never build
enough roads to cater for it (and would we want to ruin our countryside
like this anyway) and b. because there will always be a group of people
who choose not to or who cannot afford to use a car. We must make sure
that there are alternatives on offer. And that's not to mention the
climate change and social exclusion impacts of traffic.
I suspect your email was at least partly prompted by our camera
challenge in the High Court so a few words about that. We agree with you
that cars can be very useful for particular journeys and for particular
people. But we believe that a responsibility comes when you use a car -
a responsibility to yourself and to other road users. This
responsibility includes obeying the speed limit. To be honest, if you
obey the speed limit, whether cameras are yellow or hidden really won't
affect you one way or the other.
I hope this is helpful clarification. We are neither anti-car nor
anti-driver!
Vicky Cann
I'm replying to this email that you sent last week.
Let me set out what we think in a straightforward way.
27% of households do not have access to a car. Meanwhile, our cities are
heavily congested, our rural areas are often no-go areas unless you have
a car, people are walking and cycling less (and getting less fit as a
result) and driving more for especially short journeys more.
What are your solutions to these problems - build more roads? They'll
simply induce more traffic as we've seen with the M25 and others, and
besides how can we build more roads in towns and cities? Or we could
improve public transport to offer an alternative - we support this, but
for buses, there is a limit to how efficient and effective they can be
when the roads are full of other traffic. If you compare how many people
can travel in a bus and then how many people can travel in the
equivalent space by car, you start to get an idea of why buses should be
given more road space via bus lanes in order to speed up journey times,
increase their reliability, provide for those without cars, and start to
offer a real alternative to those with cars. What about the school run -
is it really desirable to have every parent driving their young children
to the school gate, or better if we put in nicer and safer walking
facilities so that this becomes a real option for them.
We cannot have unconditional car use because a. we could never build
enough roads to cater for it (and would we want to ruin our countryside
like this anyway) and b. because there will always be a group of people
who choose not to or who cannot afford to use a car. We must make sure
that there are alternatives on offer. And that's not to mention the
climate change and social exclusion impacts of traffic.
I suspect your email was at least partly prompted by our camera
challenge in the High Court so a few words about that. We agree with you
that cars can be very useful for particular journeys and for particular
people. But we believe that a responsibility comes when you use a car -
a responsibility to yourself and to other road users. This
responsibility includes obeying the speed limit. To be honest, if you
obey the speed limit, whether cameras are yellow or hidden really won't
affect you one way or the other.
I hope this is helpful clarification. We are neither anti-car nor
anti-driver!
Vicky Cann
stedale said:
What are your solutions to these problems - build more roads? They'll
simply induce more traffic as we've seen with the M25 and others
Oh that old gem! Does anyone else have trouble believing this or is it just me?
Not until I learn to drive two cars at the same time...
our camera challenge in the High Court so a few words about that.
And what, exactly, was this challenge done for then? Why bother to ask for cameras to be painted khaki, grey, whatever if you're not anti-car and anti-driver? What could possibly motivate T2000 to bother to do that - if its not aimed at making car use unpleasant...
If you compare how many people can travel in a bus and then how many people can travel in the equivalent space by car, you start to get an idea of why buses should be given more road space via bus lanes
Someone please explain this to me - I was beering it up until 4 last night, so maybe I am just not on the ball today.
Bus - maximum 70 people
Car - maximum 4 (but in commuter land probably 1)
Now if you compare the size of the car, compared to the size of a bus it obviously suggests that the bus is more efficient method if transport. However, assume 1 bus every 10 minutes (outside my house it's one bus an hour) if you give the bus a whole lane, you can't just compare the size of the vehicle, you have to compare the size of the land used. Could you have got more than 70 cars through that lane in 10 minutes. I would suggest that 7 cars/minute is actually quite light traffic. Or am I missing the point?
Deester said:
We are neither anti-car nor
anti-driver!
Vicky Cann
Fcuk off
I quite agree.
Why are these dreadful people SO obsessed with the "27%" of people 'sans car?' And what of the 73% of representing THE MAJORITY who stand to suffer by your malicious little 'do-gooder' hands?
Vicky should try and get a fecking real job and produce something rather than spend all her pigging idle time screwing it all up for me and Don.
Right, Don?
Ok i just checked my email and i too have been priveliged!
The Ruler of planet Earth, the one and only Vicky Cann has spoken...heres why.
Heres the email i sent her, but no answers again....
To: Vicky Cann
Subject: Speed kills, and unseen cameras are good?
Take a few moments to read the following US report on
the REAL facts of speed, and NOT the myths you and the
rest your would be Rulers of planet earth would have
the rest of us believe.
Special Report: Does Speed Kill?
You often hear the expression "speed kills" when
people or government agencies are discussing highway
safety. In a manner of speaking this is true. At least
one vehicle involved in a traffic accident needs to be
moving in order to cause a fatal accident; therefore,
speed does kill, however, there has never been a
documented case of a fatal accident from two vehicles
at rest. The real question is how much speed actually
kills and is speed the real culprit at all?
A recent study by the Federal Highway Administration
revealed some surprising statistics that weren't
generally publicized. The study revealed that the
slowest 5% of all drivers had the highest accident
rates. In addition, the study also showed that the
drivers who had speeds at 10-15 mph above the speed
limit were the safest group of drivers with the lowest
accident rate. The sole reason is that slower drivers
are less attentive than faster drivers. Faster drivers
realize that they are traveling faster than the speed
limit legally allows and therefore they are
significantly more attentive as they watch for any
sign of a potential police car ready to present them
with a speeding ticket. Furthermore, the same study
also found that 70% of all drivers exceed the speed
limit and that most current speed limits are set at
least 10 mph slower than they should be. It should be
noted that this study was before the change in the
national 55 mph speed limit but more on the national
speed limit later.
It is generally considered that the average speed of
traffic, or the flow of traffic, is the speed that the
majority of drivers consider to be prudent and safe
for the existing conditions, regardless of the speed
limit. This is the basis for what is referred to as
the 85th Percentile Rule. This is a system that has
been used by traffic engineers for over fifty years.
Simply stated, the 85th Percentile Rule means that the
safest speed for any particular road is the speed that
85% of all drivers travel at or below, under normal
conditions. Remember that the Federal Highway
Administration tests showed that 70% of the drivers
were exceeding the posted speed limit by 10 mph. These
drivers are the flow of traffic and are the majority
of the drivers who make up the statistic for the 85th
Percentile Rule.
The National Speed Limit was established at 55 mph in
1974 as an answer to the oil shortage. The theory was
that slower speeds used less fuel and as a result,
conserved energy. A noble theory at the time but why
did it take over twenty-years to change this speed
limit when the oil shortage ended only a few years
after the 55 mph limit was established? The answer is
due to the money train that was created for city and
state governments as well as the insurance companies.
Lower speed limits are a golden egg for some small
municipalities.
In some rural areas, traffic ticket fines make up 90%
of a small town government's operating budget for the
entire year.
During the later period of the 55 mph speed limit, the
majority of drivers on major highways usually traveled
between 65-75 mph. As you can see the bottom end of
this is the magic 10 mph that the Federal Highway
Administration test referred to. In fact, the
percentage of drivers traveling 70-75 mph would
suggest that the 55 mph limit is really more like 15
mph lower than it should be. The original speeds on
most of the major highways started at 70-75 mph before
the national speed limit went into effect. These
speeds were set years prior by traffic engineers who
used the 85th percentile rule to determine what the
speed should be for these particular roads.
Now that these speeds have been increased to 65-70
mph, you will still find the majority of drivers
traveling at the 65 -75 mph speed. The speed limit
increased but the driver's speeds did not. The reason
goes back to the principle of the 85th percentile
rule. Most drivers feel that the safe speed is
contingent on several factors, including:
Road conditions - dry, wet, ice, etc.
Vehicle condition - good tires, engine in good shape,
etc.
Driver's ability - do you feel comfortable traveling
at 75 mph
Traffic conditions - is the road relatively clear or
is it bumper to bumper
Visibility - Clear and sunny or rain with fog
Common sense is what the majority of the drivers use.
The same drive who will do 75 mph down the interstate
highway on a clear and dry day, is likely the same
driver who will do 55 mph on a rainy night.
The final verdict is that speed doesn't kill. Speed
generates revenue. A real example of this is the
unmarked police car. If speed is so dangerous, why are
there any unmarked police cars? We all know that
everyone slows down when they see a police car.
Wouldn't it make sense to have all police cars marked
so that more drivers would see them and as a result,
slow down? The unmarked police car is proof positive
the governmental agencies are aware that the speed
limits are too low and people are going to exceed
them. The way to capitalize on these people is the
unmarked car whose sole purpose is to essentially
entrap drivers who are part of the 85th percentile
rule. The governmental agencies aren't the only group
responsible. In the next chapter we'll see how your
auto insurance company is one of the biggest behind
the scene's supporter of the lower speed limits to
keep revenues up.
Essentially here, the FACT is that an unmarked car is
no deterrent to speeding, so the same will apply to an
unmarked speed camera.
And just who the hell do you people think you are,
that you should force motorists to drive around in
fear?
Watch this space.
And heres her reply......
From: "Vicky Cann" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: "x"
To reverse the charge that you make, who do you think you are to force
pedestrians and cyclists to live in fear from speeding drivers or to
force local communities to put up with excessive noise and pollution
and
road danger? Are you denying basic laws of physics which state that the
faster you travel, the longer it takes to stop?
Anyhow, what exactly is wrong with driving a bit slower to improve the
quality of life of others - afterall, we're all residents or
pedestrians
at some point?! If you want to get the 'thrill of speed' in your life,
there are plenty of opportunities to do so, off road, without
endangering others.
Why not check out the Transport Research Laboratory website - you might
learn something.
Vicky Cann
The Ruler of planet Earth, the one and only Vicky Cann has spoken...heres why.
Heres the email i sent her, but no answers again....
To: Vicky Cann
Subject: Speed kills, and unseen cameras are good?
Take a few moments to read the following US report on
the REAL facts of speed, and NOT the myths you and the
rest your would be Rulers of planet earth would have
the rest of us believe.
Special Report: Does Speed Kill?
You often hear the expression "speed kills" when
people or government agencies are discussing highway
safety. In a manner of speaking this is true. At least
one vehicle involved in a traffic accident needs to be
moving in order to cause a fatal accident; therefore,
speed does kill, however, there has never been a
documented case of a fatal accident from two vehicles
at rest. The real question is how much speed actually
kills and is speed the real culprit at all?
A recent study by the Federal Highway Administration
revealed some surprising statistics that weren't
generally publicized. The study revealed that the
slowest 5% of all drivers had the highest accident
rates. In addition, the study also showed that the
drivers who had speeds at 10-15 mph above the speed
limit were the safest group of drivers with the lowest
accident rate. The sole reason is that slower drivers
are less attentive than faster drivers. Faster drivers
realize that they are traveling faster than the speed
limit legally allows and therefore they are
significantly more attentive as they watch for any
sign of a potential police car ready to present them
with a speeding ticket. Furthermore, the same study
also found that 70% of all drivers exceed the speed
limit and that most current speed limits are set at
least 10 mph slower than they should be. It should be
noted that this study was before the change in the
national 55 mph speed limit but more on the national
speed limit later.
It is generally considered that the average speed of
traffic, or the flow of traffic, is the speed that the
majority of drivers consider to be prudent and safe
for the existing conditions, regardless of the speed
limit. This is the basis for what is referred to as
the 85th Percentile Rule. This is a system that has
been used by traffic engineers for over fifty years.
Simply stated, the 85th Percentile Rule means that the
safest speed for any particular road is the speed that
85% of all drivers travel at or below, under normal
conditions. Remember that the Federal Highway
Administration tests showed that 70% of the drivers
were exceeding the posted speed limit by 10 mph. These
drivers are the flow of traffic and are the majority
of the drivers who make up the statistic for the 85th
Percentile Rule.
The National Speed Limit was established at 55 mph in
1974 as an answer to the oil shortage. The theory was
that slower speeds used less fuel and as a result,
conserved energy. A noble theory at the time but why
did it take over twenty-years to change this speed
limit when the oil shortage ended only a few years
after the 55 mph limit was established? The answer is
due to the money train that was created for city and
state governments as well as the insurance companies.
Lower speed limits are a golden egg for some small
municipalities.
In some rural areas, traffic ticket fines make up 90%
of a small town government's operating budget for the
entire year.
During the later period of the 55 mph speed limit, the
majority of drivers on major highways usually traveled
between 65-75 mph. As you can see the bottom end of
this is the magic 10 mph that the Federal Highway
Administration test referred to. In fact, the
percentage of drivers traveling 70-75 mph would
suggest that the 55 mph limit is really more like 15
mph lower than it should be. The original speeds on
most of the major highways started at 70-75 mph before
the national speed limit went into effect. These
speeds were set years prior by traffic engineers who
used the 85th percentile rule to determine what the
speed should be for these particular roads.
Now that these speeds have been increased to 65-70
mph, you will still find the majority of drivers
traveling at the 65 -75 mph speed. The speed limit
increased but the driver's speeds did not. The reason
goes back to the principle of the 85th percentile
rule. Most drivers feel that the safe speed is
contingent on several factors, including:
Road conditions - dry, wet, ice, etc.
Vehicle condition - good tires, engine in good shape,
etc.
Driver's ability - do you feel comfortable traveling
at 75 mph
Traffic conditions - is the road relatively clear or
is it bumper to bumper
Visibility - Clear and sunny or rain with fog
Common sense is what the majority of the drivers use.
The same drive who will do 75 mph down the interstate
highway on a clear and dry day, is likely the same
driver who will do 55 mph on a rainy night.
The final verdict is that speed doesn't kill. Speed
generates revenue. A real example of this is the
unmarked police car. If speed is so dangerous, why are
there any unmarked police cars? We all know that
everyone slows down when they see a police car.
Wouldn't it make sense to have all police cars marked
so that more drivers would see them and as a result,
slow down? The unmarked police car is proof positive
the governmental agencies are aware that the speed
limits are too low and people are going to exceed
them. The way to capitalize on these people is the
unmarked car whose sole purpose is to essentially
entrap drivers who are part of the 85th percentile
rule. The governmental agencies aren't the only group
responsible. In the next chapter we'll see how your
auto insurance company is one of the biggest behind
the scene's supporter of the lower speed limits to
keep revenues up.
Essentially here, the FACT is that an unmarked car is
no deterrent to speeding, so the same will apply to an
unmarked speed camera.
And just who the hell do you people think you are,
that you should force motorists to drive around in
fear?
Watch this space.
And heres her reply......
From: "Vicky Cann"
To: "x"
To reverse the charge that you make, who do you think you are to force
pedestrians and cyclists to live in fear from speeding drivers or to
force local communities to put up with excessive noise and pollution
and
road danger? Are you denying basic laws of physics which state that the
faster you travel, the longer it takes to stop?
Anyhow, what exactly is wrong with driving a bit slower to improve the
quality of life of others - afterall, we're all residents or
pedestrians
at some point?! If you want to get the 'thrill of speed' in your life,
there are plenty of opportunities to do so, off road, without
endangering others.
Why not check out the Transport Research Laboratory website - you might
learn something.
Vicky Cann
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the stupid b1tch FFS!!!
Delta - top notch old boy, bang on bit of research there.
And SO sensible - but just get her response - the monumental excess dogma of the hippy drippy left.
Just ANTI everything...oh God, there's just zero reasoning with retards like her.
Frankly, she's so deluded I'm sure she'd be better employed working with that chap who's the Iraqi Minister of Information.
the stupid b1tch FFS!!! Delta - top notch old boy, bang on bit of research there.
And SO sensible - but just get her response - the monumental excess dogma of the hippy drippy left.
Just ANTI everything...oh God, there's just zero reasoning with retards like her.
Frankly, she's so deluded I'm sure she'd be better employed working with that chap who's the Iraqi Minister of Information.
derestrictor said:
Deester said:
We are neither anti-car nor
anti-driver!
Vicky Cann
Fcuk off
I quite agree.
Why are these dreadful people SO obsessed with the "27%" of people 'sans car?' And what of the 73% of representing THE MAJORITY who stand to suffer by your malicious little 'do-gooder' hands?
Vicky should try and get a fecking real job and produce something rather than spend all her pigging idle time screwing it all up for me and Don.
Right, Don?
Damn fcuking straight, DeR. I can't imagine a more emphatic and accurate summation of my sentiments on this matter than that afforded by our most eloquent Deester.
They can fcuk right off.
Oh and that reply is so asinine that five minutes intellectual effort would utterly destroy it. Can't be bother myself. Because the end result is always the same. They want you out of cars and on buses.
Because they ARE the bus companies. Evil feckers.
They bang on about speeding being 'socially unacceptable'. Yet a recent survey that was mentioned on several radio stations and in papers stated that 99% of those questioned admitted to exceeding limits as a matter of course.
If you sit on a motorway you will observe that the majority of traffic (excluding those vehicles unable to exceed, say, 56mph) will be moving at over 70mph, to a greater or lesser degree dependant upon whether it has a Mercedes, BMW, Audi or 'Baby on Board' badge on it. So if we surmise that of those choosing to use cars, most of them speed: to whom, exactly, is speeding socially unacceptable?
Ian
If you sit on a motorway you will observe that the majority of traffic (excluding those vehicles unable to exceed, say, 56mph) will be moving at over 70mph, to a greater or lesser degree dependant upon whether it has a Mercedes, BMW, Audi or 'Baby on Board' badge on it. So if we surmise that of those choosing to use cars, most of them speed: to whom, exactly, is speeding socially unacceptable?
Ian
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff