In message <
[email protected]>, Steve Taylor
<
[email protected]> writes
>hugh wrote:
>
>>> Clip the kerb - driving without due care
>> An innocent elderly couple near us walking along the pavement were
>>squashed like flies by a truck which did little more than that. The
>>driver got off scot free..
>
>Maybe it was an accident. They do happen. People were run over and
>killed by horse and carts.
>
>
Then you can define anything as an accident.
>>> Doing 75 in a 70 - you 'orrible little speeder you
>> Speeding increases the impact of any accident whether at 70 or 30
>>mph
>What's your point ? What are the chances of having an accident at 75mph
>Have they increased 10 fold from 70 mph ? If the road conditions allow,
>75 is a perfectly acceptable speed,it doesn't increase the chances of
>having an accident.
>
>When the speed you drive is not appropriate - like the pillocks who
>tear down the straight road by my sons'school at 40mph - they're
>usually mums by the way, then sure, charge people.
Speed limits are inevitably a blunt instrument. The point I was trying
to make is that he argument is not just does extra speed cause more
accidents but rather that if an accident is to happen the consequences
will be greater at higher speed.
>
>
>
>>> Eating an apple/drinking a drink at the wheel - driving without due care
>>>
>> OK so they thought it was a mobile phone.
>
>...no,they knew it was an apple I believe.
>
>
>>
>>> Lots of behaviour that while victimless is still considered to be
>>>criminal.
>>>
>> It's the potential to create victims that matters. Why should we wait
>>until some poor innocent's life is ruined before taking action.
>
>EVERYthing has the potential to "create victims"- your driving a 4X4
>potentially does so. Your argument is a classic argument for sitting on
>your arse while wrapped in cotton wool.
>
Of course it has. It's a matter of degree. We can't create a risk free
world/ It's a matter of looking at significant risks and trying to
reduce them - e.g. the MOT was introduced because of the high level of
risk from unsafe cars, and mobile phones are banned and radios are not
because of the different degree of risk from the distraction to the
driver that each causes.
>> As a council tax payer who campaigns on behalf of pensioners for its
>>abolition I am all in favour of a bit of revenue raising from cameras.
>>Personally I think they should all be hidden as cunningly as possible.
>>All the alternatives involve more expense which falls on the council
>>tax payer rather than the offender. The innocent become the
>>(financial) victims.
>
>Why not work to getting the councils to cut themselves back to
>something we can all afford, then we can perhaps slip the pensioners a
>bung ?
>
I was specifically referring to the funding of the police and the
conventional argument against cameras is that there should be more
traffic police, which in turn would present a heavier burden on the
council tax payers. With self funding cameras the offenders pay. Cameras
also offer the technology to enforce the more flexible speed limits you
argue for.
Pensioners shouldn't need a "Bung" as you call it. The National
Insurance fund is several billions in surplus - a surplus which has been
built up by the contributions of today's pensioners.
>Why not have a flat rate charge for anyone receiving council services ?
>Like the "flat tax " schemes working so well in Eastern Europe, a "flat
>council tax" scheme would work too.
>
That was the principle of the Poll Tax, slightly modified under great
pressure, but basically taking no account of ability to pay or demand on
services.
>Steve
The council tax and its impact on pensioners is a wider issue, but some
pensioners I now pay a quarter of their monthly income straight back in
council tax. Don't be fooled by all the headlines about rebates and
benefits. The greater part of council tax is spent on education of the
young. Most colleges which provide adult education have seen their
funding progressively cut. Almost any scheme would be better than one
based on the value of a fixed asset especially as the value can continue
to rise whilst your income falls as you pass though middle age. Many
people of course are paying absolutely nothing under the present system
and surely you must agree that is wrong.
I'm not particularly fighting for my own vested interest here. I got
involved because of the sense of injustice and outrage I felt at the way
our pensioners are treated when I investigated one specific case.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
