What Ediriweera propounds is all well and good - but how does that
relate to "Speed" cameras?
In fact it doesn't.
Peter Morrell syas: "The speed camera is just one more measure
designed to slow traffic down" when, if he cares to do the research, it
was designed by Mr Gatsonides to catch people exceeding an arbitrarily set
speed. It was, in fact, designed as a fine-levying device.
Then he goes on to say:
"Other measures include speed humps, pelican crossings, road
narrowing, one-way streets, blocking off side streets at one end and
diverting traffic out of residential areas. These again are all methods of
controlling traffic, especially the car, rather than letting our lives be
ruined by it in the urban space. Again, what is wrong with that? "
One council local to me has had cause to regret its speed humps - in
its attempt to build them high enough to get a maximum speed of 10mph (in
a 30mph limit), they also achieved a situation where at least five models
of car cannot get over them without body damage - at *any* speed. They've
been forced to pick up the bill for the damage they've caused.
Pelican crossings? Yes, fine - but not placed in stupid positions -
like right beside a pedestrian underpass - a purpose-built tunnel for
folks to use to cross the road in complete safety from traffic, because
they're underneath it. Then the traffic planners decided to put in a
Pelican. Lord knows why - I'm sure I don't. It now sits there, kids coming
out of the tunnel and hitting the button at peak traffic times, causing
immense hold-ups on the major roundabout which the tunnel serves, and
causing crashes at very regular intervals. Very sensible - NOT!
I have nothing against pedestrianisation, and making sensible use of
roadways in heavily urban areas - in fact, cul-de-sacs in residential
areas are a very good idea - but why does Peter think that the car "ruins
our lives"? Iss he giving away his agenda?
And finally, James Woodcock - how sad to see that he resorts to that
epithet - "speedophile" a term coined by activists who delight upon its
audible similarity to "paedophile" - let me just say this - if I see that
word used, I know that whoever has used it will not be worth reading or
listening to.
Rapid Response:
A few responses...
What Ediriweera propounds is all well and good - but how does that relate to "Speed" cameras?
In fact it doesn't.
Peter Morrell syas: "The speed camera is just one more measure designed to slow traffic down" when, if he cares to do the research, it was designed by Mr Gatsonides to catch people exceeding an arbitrarily set speed. It was, in fact, designed as a fine-levying device.
Then he goes on to say:
"Other measures include speed humps, pelican crossings, road narrowing, one-way streets, blocking off side streets at one end and diverting traffic out of residential areas. These again are all methods of controlling traffic, especially the car, rather than letting our lives be ruined by it in the urban space. Again, what is wrong with that? "
One council local to me has had cause to regret its speed humps - in its attempt to build them high enough to get a maximum speed of 10mph (in a 30mph limit), they also achieved a situation where at least five models of car cannot get over them without body damage - at *any* speed. They've been forced to pick up the bill for the damage they've caused.
Pelican crossings? Yes, fine - but not placed in stupid positions - like right beside a pedestrian underpass - a purpose-built tunnel for folks to use to cross the road in complete safety from traffic, because they're underneath it. Then the traffic planners decided to put in a Pelican. Lord knows why - I'm sure I don't. It now sits there, kids coming out of the tunnel and hitting the button at peak traffic times, causing immense hold-ups on the major roundabout which the tunnel serves, and causing crashes at very regular intervals. Very sensible - NOT!
I have nothing against pedestrianisation, and making sensible use of roadways in heavily urban areas - in fact, cul-de-sacs in residential areas are a very good idea - but why does Peter think that the car "ruins our lives"? Iss he giving away his agenda?
And finally, James Woodcock - how sad to see that he resorts to that epithet - "speedophile" a term coined by activists who delight upon its audible similarity to "paedophile" - let me just say this - if I see that word used, I know that whoever has used it will not be worth reading or listening to.
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests