HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Speed Freak)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Power limits for beginners (was Re: Assholes and Education)
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:41:42 GMT
Organization: large

dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning) writes:

>Simple solution, spend 5 years after passing your test driving a Reliant Robin
>irrespective of age. Sit a test again and if you pass, spend 5 years in a
>1 litre class basic car with restricted power, as happened to mopeds about
>15 years ago when manufacturers started churning out 12 HP 'super mopeds' to
>side step the then new law on 16 year olds ...that's 240BHP/litre !!!
>Now they get 2HP and speed governed to boot.
>Don't see why car drivers should be any different.

I wasn't sure if you were serious or not.  The problem with this is that it
is the driver's attitude that is the problem.  Even a 900cc Fiat can do
nearly 80mph.  Although it can't accelerate very quickly it is still possible
to wind it up to speed and then hold it at high speeds on country roads.
When I passed my test (12 years ago), my friends and I used to own the sort
of low powered cars you talk about - Mini 850s, Escort 1300s, Avengers &c.
Lots of these cars were involved in single vehicle accidents i.e. cornering
too fast.  Excessive power is rarely the cause of an accident of this nature,
except in rear wheel drive cars having fairly high power outputs (150HP+).
Young drivers will have accidents regardless of the type of car that they are
driving.  They just have to live :-) and learn.  If they have enough money to
be able to buy a sporty new car and then lose it on 3rd party insurance, 
let them.  I cannot accept the argument that somebody will drive fast
*because* they are driving a sporty car.  I even knew one person at school
who drove like a lunatic in his parent's VW camper van!

Ian.
-- 
Ian Crocker 					ian@cyborg.bt.co.uk
From: TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:06:45 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
NNTP-Posting-Host: ibm3090.bham.ac.uk

Robert Jackson writes:

>Its a shame that the cost of catching the bus from point A (or rather the nearest
>bus stop) to point B (or some point near it) costs as much as if not more than
>driving from point A to point B.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is.In my experience it is a pretty close thing when you talk about
travelling to work in a city. You obviously use more petrol in rush hour
than a similar journey at other times and the added cost of parking
means a bus pass would be cheaper. I feel the reason most people drive
rather than take public transport into the centre of Birmingham has
nothing to do with the relative prices, how many people even work it out?

==============================================================================
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Power limits for beginners (was Re: Assholes and Education)
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:01:27 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Speed Freak (ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk) wrote:
: I wasn't sure if you were serious or not.  The problem with this is that it
: is the driver's attitude that is the problem.  Even a 900cc Fiat can do
: nearly 80mph.  Although it can't accelerate very quickly it is still possible
: to wind it up to speed and then hold it at high speeds on country roads.

It's a good point... there is considerable incentive to corner too
fast in a car with poor acceleration, because it takes so long to
reach cruising speed again on the next straight
-- 
				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk
From: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Richard T Peat)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Assholes and Education
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:58:21 GMT
Reply-To: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Reading

In article 21166@acorn.co.uk, steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt) writes:
>But where "bad" driving is due to the poor standards accepted by the
>driving test, it is less clear that punishment is effective, since
>presumably the driver does not understand what he is doing wrong.  (Or
>does not understand *why* it is wrong.)  In such cases perhaps
>compulsory attendence at driving school would be a better approach -
>this is done in some states of America.
>-- 
>				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk

Quite, but is the test really to blame? Most people say that you learn to drive
one way for the test, and learn to drive properly afterwards.

Why shouldn't there be regular testing, and anybody who fails to meet the 
standard is automatically banned. This should introduce a similar standard,
and method of driving across all drivers, instead of the current situation
where everybody drives however they want because they haven't been
brought up to a unified standard.

Richard Peat
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 16:55:30 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt) writes:
> I think they have it the wrong way round.  They should improve public
> transport until it is really convenient, and then the car problem will
> automatically reduce.

I think this is not entirely true.  Once you pay the enormous cost of car,
insurance and so on, every journey you can use it for reduces the *apparent*
cost of the car.

For instance, if your car + insurance cost is #1000 per year and you only
plan to make one journey by car, it's a ridiculous proposition.  If you can
find a thousand journeys to make, however, the cost is a more reasonable #1 +
petrol.  Hence there is pressure to find journeys to make, in order to
justify the cost of the car.

Putting it another way, once you have a car, you tend to use it even when
such use is unnecessary or inappropriate.  For example, I yelled at my mother
for getting the car out in order to drive three hundred metres down the road
to the village shop.

These days she walks, and now realises how ridiculous her behaviour was.  But
she hadn't previously even thought about the situation; it was a case of "I
am going somewhere, therefore I will get the car out".  The fact that many
other people living in the same village are demanding car parking spaces
outside the village hall indicates that the "car for all journeys" mindset is
fairly widespread.

Another factor is that people tend to ignore the time taken to find parking
when they calculate their journey time by car.  You may have to wait ten
minutes to get a bus into Cambridge from Chesterton, but you can easily spend
twenty minutes queueing for a parking space on Saturdays.

> I never hear it mooted in transport debates, but it makes an awful lot
> of sense: get rid of the rush hour.  Because 9 to 5 working is so
> strongly ingrained in our culture, it would be necessary to introduce
> legislation, or positive financial incentives, to encourage companies
> to operate staggered hours or flexitime.

If we're doing away with 9-to-5 and letting people go to work at different
times of the day, let's get rid of British Summer Time while we're at it.
I've never worked 9 to 5 anyway.


mathew
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Speed Limits
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:35:13 GMT

In article <21130@acorn.co.uk> steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt) writes:
:
:Take the motorways.  They were designed for higher speeds than 70mph,
:but for a much lower traffic density than we have today.  At night the

How do you know this?

G
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Assholes and Education
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:10:50 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Robert O Jackson (roj@cs.bham.ac.uk) wrote:

: If these massive financial penalties are not enough then why would more education
: help ?

You're can't be serious.  You can penalise someone as much as you like
for being a bad driver, but it won't magically make them a good
driver.  Education is about explaining why some driving habits are
dangerous, i.e. making people *want* to drive well, and providing the
information and experience to enable them to do so.  Financial
penalties do not achieve this.
-- 
				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk
From: martin@praxis.co.uk (Martin Croxford)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Driving v Public Transport
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:33:14 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Praxis, Bath, U.K.


Andy T.:

> The sight of long traffic queues on the main roads in Birmingham annoys the
> hell out of me especially when most of the cars contain the driver only.
> Of course everybody realises that a group of buses is better than the
> equivalent number of cars, in terms of fuel, the environment, accidents,
> travel time etc. Unfortunately the initiative is not going to come from
> the motorists. Birmingham City Council are planning to narrow some of
> the main roads in the south of the city and introduce bus lanes. They hope
> this will make it intolerable for motorists and get them onto the buses.
> Anothe reason is the recognition that residential areas are nothing more than
> hell-holes for a few hours each day when the roads through them choke up with
> traffic, they say they want to improve the environment of these areas by
> reducing traffic, widening pavements and putting the trees back. I hope
> that this works in the long term. In the short term it will slow traffic down
> and cause long queues, this is the idea.

I live in Bradford-on-Avon and commute 6 miles to Bath each day. In the
car it takes 15-20 minutes, half of that sitting in a traffic jam at a
bottleneck with about 100 (?) other one-person cars. On the train it
takes about 15-20 minutes, more if you include waiting for the train. The
reason I drive is that I can leave home when convenient and, more
importantly, leave work when convenient - I regularly work late and don't
wish to wait for up to an hour for the next train home. On top of that, a
season ticket for the train is about 50 quid a month,
pre-recent-fare-increase, compared with the 15-odd quid a month petrol
bill I currently have. Even if I had the car JUST for work and included
all the other costs driving would still be favourable cost-wise.

Driving is cheaper, more convenient and more reliable than public
transport (over my annual mileage). The only way to drive (sic) people
from their cars and onto the buses and trains is to reduce the cost of
public transport, and increase its convenience and reliability. 

It'll be interesting to see if Birmingham's plans work out. I suspect
that it probably will if the bus system is improved in terms of cost and
convenience. When I lived in London and commuted 3 miles from Archway to
Euston I never considered using the car since the parking and traffic was
impossible and the underground and my legs so much quicker.
--
Martin Croxford          Praxis Systems plc, 20 Manvers St, Bath. BA1-1PX. UK.
martin@praxis.co.uk      Tel: +44 (0)225 444700        Fax: +44 (0)225 465205
These are my opinions
From: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Richard T Peat)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Rear end drivers, etc
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:51:59 GMT
Reply-To: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Reading

In article 21165@acorn.co.uk, steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt) writes:

>If you mean morally to blame, there might be some justification for
>this view.  If you mean legally to blame, then you have been
>misinformed.
>-- 
>				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk


I think the general implication of the statement is that you should be aware of what
is coming, and take action accordingly, but of course, as with all things, a general
statement suffers from the fact that it is general, so there will always be 
situations in which, if your car were moving, you were not responsible.

I seem to remember that the context in which I first heard the statement was whilst
talking with a chafeur (apologies for the spelling), who said that the point was fairly
heavily stressed in the training.

Richard.
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Highway code (Wes Re: Motorbikes...)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:55:18 +0000

:In article <1993Jan26.101209.3713@wraxall.inmos.co.uk> des@inmos.co.uk
:(David Shepherd) writes:

:>It's certainly against the highway code for cars/vans/lorries to change
:>lanes in solid slow moving traffic.

:All the Highway Code says on this point is "Overtake only on the right unless
:traffic is moving in queues and the queue on your right is moving more slowly
:than you are. Do not move to a lane on your left to overtake."

How nice to see someone who actually has a copy.  How about a quick straw
poll of when people last bought one.  I'll ante up with three months ago...

Steve, you next...

G
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: isc40041@nusunix1.nus.sg (LOO KOK HOE)
Subject: Driving in UK : help !
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:55:44 GMT

Hi

We intend to rent a car to tour UK for about
2 weeks ...

so far the cheapest we can get is for Ford Fiesta 1.1 / Rover Metro 1.1

we are wondering if a 1100cc car is good enough for UK motorway
or should we get a bigger car ( more $$) ...

any commends?

internet:   isc40041@nusunix1.nus.sg


Thanks !


george from Singapore

Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: T.I.Morley@lut.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Bus vs Car Costs (Was: Re: City Traffic)
Reply-To: T.I.Morley@lut.ac.uk (TI Morley)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 15:00:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.122213.6563@its.bt.co.uk> tjo@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.133858@cs.bham.ac.uk> roj@cs.bham.ac.uk (Robert O Jackson) writes:
>>Its a shame that the cost of catching the bus from point A (or rather the
>>nearest bus stop) to point B (or some point near it) costs as much as if
>>not more than driving from point A to point B.
>
>While the marginal cost of driving is certainly lower, the actual cost
>of driving is usually a good deal higher than catching the bus. I could
>buy a year's bus-pass with just my insurance premiums and still have
>enough left over for a newspaper to read on the bus every day; to say
>nothing about depreciation. The money it takes to run a car buys a lot
>of public transport.
>
Trouble is of course that once you've got a car it is the marginal cost
that matters. I'm in favour of public transport, but I don't intend to
give up my car.

One way of evening things up is to try to decrease the fixed cost of
having a car and increase the marginal cost. The most obvious way of
doing this is to reduce or abolish road tax and increase the tax (duty?)
on fuel to compensate. Can anyone think of anything else that can be
done on these lines?

Tim Morley (T.I.Morley@lut.ac.uk)

Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk (D N Crow)
Subject: Re: Speed limits
Originator: daniel@csgi60
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:53:01 GMT
Distribution: uk
X-Posted-From: csgi60.leeds.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


In article <1993Jan22.170111.8420@praxis.co.uk>, martin@praxis.co.uk (Martin Croxford) writes:
|> > 
|> > So, do you propose having massive limit signs that list all the various
|> > different limits under different coditions. Or maybe change all the limit
|> > signs for changing displays.
|> 
|> I don't propose "having massive limit signs" (tho "changing display"
|> signs are an interesting possibility). I am trying to make the point that the
|> speed limit signs are not necessarily an indication of the safest maximum
|> speed.  

You are quite right, at least in principle, but we all unfortunately have to
live in the real world. It is certainly true that speed limits are not
necessarily (or even often) the maximum safe speed for a given set of road
conditions, but what practical (and that includes reasonably cost effective)
measures could propose to have altering speed limits. Consider:

If speed limits on roads in general varied according to conditions (be they
amount of traffic, time of day, weather, whatever), I would imagine it would
be very difficult to frame effective legislation to prevent *either*:

a) Requiring too much of the police (I doubt they would want to have to make
the day-to-day judegment calls a=on this issue, they have plenty enough to do
already). Ask the police, they tend to prefer to enforce clear-cut laws than
ones they have to make judegments about. Especially on this scale.

*or*

b) Making a defence of "but I thought it was sensible, even if the police
didn't" possible. This would be disasterous (in my opinion) for road saftey.

|> 
|> In an ideal driving world drivers would be penalised for driving with
|> excess speed for the conditions, rather than just "speeding". Cameras
|> will faithfully record evry vehicle that breaks the speed limit - how much
|> better if the camera could faithfully record every vehicle that is
|> travelling with excessive speed.
|> 

This is clearly true, and equally clearly not practical. Even if we could
afford this sort of technology, how could you get agreement on what is a
reasonable speed for a set of conditions. I couldn't imagine being able to
frame it in law to cover all situations (any lawyers care to comment on this?)
and I would imagine that it would lead to far *more* prosecutions for breaking
"limits": evidence seems to suggest many drivers consitently over-estimate
what they can safely do in their vehicle.

|> Training all drivers to the level that police drivers are trained would do
|> more for road safety than rigorous application of the law. 

Almost certainly true. Can't see it happening: imagine the expense, but I
certainly wish it was true.

The other issue in all this is how you factoe road-worthiness of the vehicle
into the equation of what is an appropriate maximum speed. Ouch.

-- 
Dan Crow
daniel@scs.leeds.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: rbodin@bnr.ca (Richard Bodin)
Subject: Transport 2000
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, Maidenhead, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:12:23 GMT

Hi there,

Often on the News I see interviews with a Spokesperson from an
organisation called 'Transport 2000'. Does anyone have the address of
this or any other organisation campaigning for a future in Transport
that won't kill us all.

Thanks for your help.
    ___
    |  \       /      *   Richard Bodin,      GSM Product Test   *
    |__/  _   _|      *   BNR Europe,         rbodin@bnr.ca      *
    |  \ / \ / |      *   Maidenhead,         ESN 590-4402       *
    |__/ \_/ \_/      *   England.            +44 628 794402     *
From: des@inmos.co.uk (David Shepherd)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Bus vs Car Costs (Was: Re: City Traffic)
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:51:09 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Andy Smith (asmith@acorn.co.uk) wrote:
: If I wanted to go into London to a show, I have no choice but to use the
: car. The nearest train station is over 5 miles away, and the last train to
: there from Cambridge is at 9pm leaving Cambridge, which would mean leaving   
: London at 8pm. For two of us, the total journey costs 28 pounds.

Is that price with a Network-Southeast card? I thought you could
get quite cheap offpeak returns from Cambridge with one (my parents
use this a lot to go to concerts, theatre etc in London).

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
david shepherd: des@inmos.co.uk                     tel: 0454-616616 x 625
                inmos ltd, 1000 aztec west, almondsbury, bristol, bs12 4sq
		Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates bad television
						      - Husbands and Wives
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Speed Limits
Date: 20 Jan 93 17:06:15 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Distribution: uk
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1993Jan18.153127.13273@praxis.co.uk> martin@praxis.co.uk (Martin Croxford) writes:

>"You should be nicked" for driving at an inappropriate speed. On
>motorways this could be 100mph in most conditions, 70mph in heavy
>rain/heavy traffic or 25mph in "normal" conditions. Outside a school
>(assuming a 30mph limit) this could be 45mph at 3 in the morning, 35mph
>in most other conditions or 20mph at 3.45pm when the kids are going home.

While I see your point, there is a problem with giving police officers
too much leeway.  Asking a policeman to make a judgement call is
asking for a small minority to abuse their powers.  And it is possible
to honestly disagree about an "appropriate" speed.  I would be very
nervous if I thought I could be booked for speeding because I was
doing 30 and the local bobby thought 20 would be a better idea.

Paul.


-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
From: ianking@nnsgs52 (Ian King)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Speed Limits
Date: 19 Jan 1993 09:25:06 GMT
Organization: Northern Telecom Europe Ltd
Distribution: uk
Reply-To: ianking@lon40.nt.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: nnsgs52.lon40.nt.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Martin Croxford (martin@praxis.co.uk) wrote:

: Ian King (ianking@nnsgs52) wrote:

: > The law says the speed limit is 70mph on motorways/dual-carriageways.
: > It is there for a reason... to stop reckless driving etc. The police
: > allow a lee-way on this but if you are driving faster than 80mph, you
: > should be nicked. 

: "You should be nicked" for driving at an inappropriate speed. On
: motorways this could be 100mph in most conditions, 70mph in heavy
: rain/heavy traffic or 25mph in "normal" conditions. Outside a school
: (assuming a 30mph limit) this could be 45mph at 3 in the morning, 35mph
: in most other conditions or 20mph at 3.45pm when the kids are going home.

70mph is the *law* whether I or you like it or not. If you break the law then
you should be nicked. Yes... maybe you should be nicked for driving at an
inappropriate speed as well. However if a child runs out into the road and
you are doing 20mph you are still going to kill him/her. Food for thought isnt
it?

Regards..
........Ian

--
ADVANCE MICRO COMPUTERS LTD & Wolverton Rail | EMAIL: ianking@amicro.demon.co.uk
 PO Box 362, Olney, Nr. Milton Keynes,       |   or   ianking@lon40.nt.com
  Bucks, MK46 5ES, ENGLAND, UK.              |                ^^^^^^^^^^^^ UK not USA
   TEL: +44 (0)234-711615 FAX: +44 (0)234-240976 MOBILE: +44 (0)831-535618
Newsgroups: uk.transport