Dorset Police ClampDown

[turnout]

I suspect that the course probably costs a bit but not as much as the fine - otherwise there would be no incentive for the person to go on the course.

It can save on insurance, an SP30 could bump the premium depending on the underwriter, Aviva or Co Op for example.

The courses are usually around £80, an SP30 with a £60 fine and 3 points could well work out more expensive.

 

[subaqua]

I used to think the Highway Code was the law but it is not, it is general guidance in the main, you need to look at the actual legislation to see what the law really is.

This website explains it:-
Speed Limits

no i can read. the bold bits in the highway code link to the relevant SIs

hence why i referenced the TSRGD .

your lkink whilst very informative also makes no note of section 36 of the 1988 RTA i.e. obeying the signs. and the RTA states all vehicles must obey the signs if you read carefully.


and to the other poster as multi quote just doesn't work as it should, I am not trying to divert away from motorist , just to say that we need to bear in mind that these are a minor number of incidents by motorists compared to number of motorists , much the same as the cyclist who goes through a red ligt is a minority but we all do it according to motorists.

there is still a cost to society if a cyclist crashesand receives hospital treatment through his own fault. the ambulance, the nurses/doctors xrays etc all cost the same however you injure yourself.

the licence was issued carte blanche till the introduction of the driving test much later so the other parts of your argument don't work.

can you also show that national obesity levels have fallen due to an increase in cycling. is the increase due to the horrendously high cost of running a car.

remember the government wants your money. it won't take long for em to figure out cyclists can be taxed .

although to be honest some people really do need to be fined for the abuse of lycra

 

[subaqua]

It can save on insurance, an SP30 could bump the premium depending on the underwriter, Aviva or Co Op for example.

insurance is a vagary at the best of times.

its cheaper for me to insure if i put my wife on the policyand she has a SP50 - yes she does get stick for the SP50. (85 on motorway )

 

[BSRU]

no i can read. the bold bits in the highway code link to the relevant SIs

hence why i referenced the TSRGD .

your lkink whilst very informative also makes no note of section 36 of the 1988 RTA i.e. obeying the signs. and the RTA states all vehicles must obey the signs if you read carefully.


and to the other poster as multi quote just doesn't work as it should, I am not trying to divert away from motorist , just to say that we need to bear in mind that these are a minor number of incidents by motorists compared to number of motorists , much the same as the cyclist who goes through a red ligt is a minority but we all do it according to motorists.

the licence was issued carte blanche till the introduction of the driving test much later so the other parts of your argument don't work.

can you also show that national obesity levels have fallen due to an increase in cycling. is the increase due to the horrendously high cost of running a car.

remember the government wants your money. it won't take long for em to figure out cyclists can be taxed .

although to be honest some people really do need to be fined for the abuse of lycra

OK, look here for the definitive explanation as to why speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles, section 84.
The Legislation

 

[slugonabike]

I'm afraid that I had to attend 'speed school' last year . From what I can remember, the cost of the course was £70, so just a little more than the fine.

I don't think there is anything wrong in fining wealthy people more, it wouldn't be unfair if the fine was standardised as a % of income.

 

[subaqua]

OK, look here for the definitive explanation as to why speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles, section 84.
The Legislation

I give up . its like talking to a brick wall.

 

[turnout]

can you also show that national obesity levels have fallen due to an increase in cycling. is the increase due to the horrendously high cost of running a car.

The cost of running a car is the same now as twenty years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7496381.stm

The reason for this is the gigantic subsidies private motoring receives.

In the financial year 2006-07 £28.43bn was raised from taxes on fuel and Vehicle Excise Duty (VED).


In the same year around £8.78bn went toward maintenance and £11.91bn new road building, but that is not the whole story.


The cost of policing the roads and the expense incurred by the judicial system has been estimated to be £3bn.

Also, the cost to the NHS of injuries due to road accidents crashes, according to figures from collated by RoSPA, was £9.93bn.

So the total cost to government was £33.62bn, meaning there was a short fall of £5.19bn, which had to be covered from other non-motoring related taxation.


That's not including pollution, subsidies to the car industry, global warming...

 

[subaqua]

figures from RoSPA are skewed - they class any incident on a road - the drunk who falls over into the carriageway.


the policing costs would be there whatever, as contray to public beleif , there is not just a "Get the car driver" section.

what subsidy do private motorists receive ? I struggle to think of one.

 

[turnout]

what subsidy do private motorists receive ? I struggle to think of one.

The above does not cover the whole cost of motoring to the nation as a whole, there are a large raft of hidden costs borne by all UK tax payers, these include -

* Noise pollution: in the form of lowered house prices, spoilt semi-natural areas, ill-health and disturbed sleep, estimated to cost £3.1bn

* Air pollution (not including CO2): estimated to be between £8.5 billion and £20.2 billion a year and this is likely to be an under-estimate! When looking at the costs associated with global warming, the figures are more difficult to pin down, but have the potential to dwarf our entire economic system. Transport contributes about 23% of UK domestic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and road transport is responsible for 93% of this.

* Water pollution: in the form of run-off into rivers and drainage of leaking oil, break fluid, exhaust and soot from vehicles, rubber particulates from tyres and salt used in winter. Again estimated costs are uncertain, but are somewhere between £1bn and £16bn per year.

* Costs to health due to lack of exercise: the British population is one of the fattest in Europe. The direct cost of obesity to the NHS is £0.5bn per year, the indirect health impacts of physical inactivity, estimated to be £10.7 billion per annum, and on top of that the indirect cost to the UK economy is at least £2bn per year.

* Insurance: Car insurance is a competitive business. Figures released by the Association of British Insurers show that the payouts to road users were not covered by their premiums. The average shortfall for the five years from 1988 to 1992 was £626 million per year. In other words, insurance companies are charging more on other kinds of insurance to subsidise motorists.

* The cost of repairing pavements damaged by illegal parking: this has been estimated to cost in the region of £234m a year and that does not include the cost of policing, installing bollards and other devices to stop vehicles parking illegally or the cost of compensation claims for trips and falls caused by this damage.

The simple inconvenient fact is that it is 18% cheaper to run a car now than twenty years ago.

This shows that “the motorist”, far from being unfairly taxed, is being heavily subsidised by the non-motoring tax payers.


So it is motorists that are the free loaders on Britain’s roads, not the long suffering cyclists and pedestrians.

 

[Bruce]

I suggest you read my blog post about this mater.
Why do people get away with driving without insurance? Perhaps because the police don't have a big enough presence and the people that break the laws know that the chances of getting caught are slim.

If we do the following we can make the roads a safer place for everyone to use.

• Increase traffic officer numbers
• Fine people baised on their income
• Use un-marked police cars to catch people unaware.
• Licences expire after an amount of time at which point you can no longer drive and you must re-take a driving test.
• All police cars with ANPR cameras, this will help in catching the banned drivers, uninsured drivers and people skipping MOT.

Laugh all you want, but pulling people over and giving them a telling off or making them go to some class, isn't going to work in the long run.
The police need to be funded some how.

Yes that all sounds like it was written by some one who does think he owns the road

 

[turnout]

Yes that all sounds like it was written by some one who does think he owns the road

i don't think it's arrogant to expect the law to be enforced.

 

[subaqua]

The above does not cover the whole cost of motoring to the nation as a whole, there are a large raft of hidden costs borne by all UK tax payers, these include -

* Noise pollution: in the form of lowered house prices, spoilt semi-natural areas, ill-health and disturbed sleep, estimated to cost £3.1bn

* Air pollution (not including CO2): estimated to be between £8.5 billion and £20.2 billion a year and this is likely to be an under-estimate! When looking at the costs associated with global warming, the figures are more difficult to pin down, but have the potential to dwarf our entire economic system. Transport contributes about 23% of UK domestic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and road transport is responsible for 93% of this.

* Water pollution: in the form of run-off into rivers and drainage of leaking oil, break fluid, exhaust and soot from vehicles, rubber particulates from tyres and salt used in winter. Again estimated costs are uncertain, but are somewhere between £1bn and £16bn per year.

* Costs to health due to lack of exercise: the British population is one of the fattest in Europe. The direct cost of obesity to the NHS is £0.5bn per year, the indirect health impacts of physical inactivity, estimated to be £10.7 billion per annum, and on top of that the indirect cost to the UK economy is at least £2bn per year.

* Insurance: Car insurance is a competitive business. Figures released by the Association of British Insurers show that the payouts to road users were not covered by their premiums. The average shortfall for the five years from 1988 to 1992 was £626 million per year. In other words, insurance companies are charging more on other kinds of insurance to subsidise motorists.

* The cost of repairing pavements damaged by illegal parking: this has been estimated to cost in the region of £234m a year and that does not include the cost of policing, installing bollards and other devices to stop vehicles parking illegally or the cost of compensation claims for trips and falls caused by this damage.

The simple inconvenient fact is that it is 18% cheaper to run a car now than twenty years ago.

This shows that “the motorist”, far from being unfairly taxed, is being heavily subsidised by the non-motoring tax payers.


So it is motorists that are the free loaders on Britain’s roads, not the long suffering cyclists and pedestrians.

nearly all these csts would be there even if private motoring was outlawed. salt would still need to be spread for the extra buses needed to transport people.

pollution may rise due to the extra buses etc. you can use statistics to show anything.

the road network would still be there, and a lot in towns would be cobbles - they are great for cycling on ( Paris Roubaix anyone ) so medical costs could well be higher.

if 1% of cycling accidents are caused by motorists/pedestrians that means 99% are caused by cyclists . that shows that cyclists are therefore more dangerous . and we know this to not be true

or the one that comedians trot out

40% of accidents are caused by drink drivers which means more (60% for the dummies who cant do maths) are caused by thse who are stone cold sober. that stat shows it is safer to drive whilst drunk.

see ,stats are rubbish for proving a point as they are all relevant to the point of observation.


i hae this "war" thing that a minority of cyclists have on motorists , the same as i hate the "war" motorists have with cyclists.
if each "side" all gave each other a litle more respect then roads would be a better place.

zero tolerance by the Police is a good thing IMO, but it needs to be applie to ALL road users EQUALLY . i.e if i go through a red light I should expect the same punishment be it a fine or points on a licence.

 

[turnout]

nearly all these csts would be there even if private motoring was outlawed. salt would still need to be spread for the extra buses needed to transport people.

pollution may rise due to the extra buses etc. you can use statistics to show anything.

the road network would still be there, and a lot in towns would be cobbles - they are great for cycling on ( Paris Roubaix anyone ) so medical costs could well be higher.

if 1% of cycling accidents are caused by motorists/pedestrians that means 99% are caused by cyclists . that shows that cyclists are therefore more dangerous . and we know this to not be true

or the one that comedians trot out

40% of accidents are caused by drink drivers which means more (60% for the dummies who cant do maths) are caused by thse who are stone cold sober. that stat shows it is safer to drive whilst drunk.

see ,stats are rubbish for proving a point as they are all relevant to the point of observation.


i hae this "war" thing that a minority of cyclists have on motorists , the same as i hate the "war" motorists have with cyclists.
if each "side" all gave each other a litle more respect then roads would be a better place.

zero tolerance by the Police is a good thing IMO, but it needs to be applie to ALL road users EQUALLY . i.e if i go through a red light I should expect the same punishment be it a fine or points on a licence.

I hope I haven't given the impression I've declared war on anyone!

The figures that show the cost of driving is 18% lower than twenty years ago are from the RAC Foundation, not an organisation known for an anti-motorist agenda.

The CBI aren't tree-hugging hippies who knit muesli yet their figures show that congestion alone costs society more than the entire tax revenue from all associated motoring taxes.

The road lobby is incredibly powerful and they love nothing better than propogating the "War Against Motorists" myth. It's far from the truth.

headhunter on Bike Radar wrote:


The motoring lobby has very, very successfully managed to negotiated itself into a heavily subsidised position with "road tax" not even coming close to covering the costs of motoring.

Yes there are benefits to motoring and motor transport but only with the world economy as it is currently set up with motoring, motorways and the extensive road network facilitating road haulage on a massive scale with massive logistics centres near motorways etc and the construction of massive out of town shopping centres and supermarkets with acres of parking. If these can be considered benefits. The reason our national economy functions as it does is largely down to cheap fuel and motoring.

If all subsidisation of motoring was removed and motorists were left to free market economics (as rail travel is almost forced to) then the economy would change and most likely become more locally based with food and goods supplied from local producers. Or we would see a return to transport of goods and people to rail and public transport which the government would be forced to adderss properly, rather than pretending to do so as it does now.

This would also massively reduce emmissions, pollution and environmental damage...

On Zero Tolerance being applied equally:

http://www.bikehub.c...re-bike-police/

London gets more bike police
29/09/2010 Bike to Work

Extra officers have joined the Metropolitan Police Service (Cycle Task Force to help improve cycle safety and to crackdown on road users who disobey the rules of the road.

The operation resulted in:

More than 900 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) of up to £60 issued to drivers and motorcyclists;
Over 400 FPNs of up to £60 issued to cyclists;.

There are seven times as many private car journeys in London than bike journeys.

So it looks as though the commuters least likely to kill or injure anyone are the ones disproportionately targetted by the cops.

 

[gaz]

I give up . its like talking to a brick wall.

Yeah it is, because you clearly can't see the below

It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 miles per hour.

Please show us where it says a bicycle is either A. a motor vehicle B. the bicycle is limited by speed.

Your argument that all road users must adhere to road signs is total crap as on 30mph roads there aren't speed limit signs unless you are entering or exiting a zone which allows you to travel higher. I cycle all the way to work without seeing a single speed limit sign.

 

[subaqua]

Yeah it is, because you clearly can't see the below



Please show us where it says a bicycle is either A. a motor vehicle B. the bicycle is limited by speed.

Your argument that all road users must adhere to road signs is total crap as on 30mph roads there aren't speed limit signs unless you are entering or exiting a zone which allows you to travel higher. I cycle all the way to work without seeing a single speed limit sign.

then you will be aware that if the road has street lights and no ( not legally required) repeaters as set down in the TSRGD it will be a 30mph zone . also in section 36 of RTA 1988 if you would like to read it.



and you made me start again GIT