back to article Anti-TV Licensing petition gets May date for Parliament debate

The BBC TV Licensing fee is set to be debated in Parliament in early May after a public petition passed the 100,000 signature mark. The petition calls for TV Licensing revenues to be deducted from "service providers" instead of being collected directly from households in the UK. At the time of writing it stands at 107,779 …

Page:

  1. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Thumb Up

    Good going cobber

    Impressive stuff - a man in his eighties pressing "Send" 100,000 times.

    1. TRT Silver badge

      Re: Good going cobber

      Man in his 80s doesn't pay a license fee, unless they want to, of course.

      1. TheVogon

        Re: Good going cobber

        "Man in his 80s doesn't pay a license fee, unless they want to, of course."

        Yep, if you have 2 parents over 75, both are entitled to a free TV license at the address of their choice....

    2. Michael B.

      Re: Good going cobber

      No, Rupert Murdoch has people to do that for him.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Good going cobber

        Given the Guardian CiF (Comment is Free) replies to the recent article on £200, 6 Point Mobile Phone use while driving, it seems like there is the equivalent of a paid oppressive right wing 'DM Style' army filling the comment section with conformist 'just accept it' comments, many accounts recently.

        This Government seems to have a skewed agenda for disproportionate fines against those who can least afford to pay it.

        A revenue raising, "Head clipping" agenda taking proportionately more money from the poor, for what often are just genuine mistakes, lapses in concentration without intent.

        Often where self policing, has been deemed at a certain statistical level (i.e. 80mph on the motorway), and by setting the technology to trip slightly below this level, and do this 24/7 'blanket approach' is massively revenue generating.

        There is a equally bad deceitfulness 'grabby attitude' to the revenue raising methods been used, to the crimes being committed.

        1. ZSn

          Re: Good going cobber

          You do know that the speed limit is 70mph and that 5 people a day on UK roads often caused by speeding. Perhaps you could avoid a speeding ticket by sticking to the legal speed limit? Strange idea I know, but it does work. Speed cameras are not there as revenue generation but to stop bad drivers speeding. It seems that bad drivers are unaware of this fact.

          1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

            Re: Good going cobber

            I think you'll find that those accidents are not caused by "speeding", but by inappropriate speed for the conditions.

            1. ZSn

              Re: Good going cobber

              And you'll find that the indicated speed is not just the legal requirement but also quite a good guide to what is safe.

              1. dvd

                Re: Good going cobber

                Nah. They used to be set sensibly, statistically using an 85th percentile. Now they are set for pollution and political reasons. Which leads to ordinary sensible people perceiving the speed limits as being set too low. Which leads to (as even the DoT acknowledges) a general lack of respect for them.

                1. MJI Silver badge

                  Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                  So this means at least 50mph as many cars are most economical around 56mph.

                  And most slushbox autos are more economical around 50 as well, most drivers chase the lock up for economy reasons.

                  1. FlossyThePig

                    Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                    ...as many cars are most economical around 56mph...

                    Where did this myth come from?

                    1. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

                      Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                      @Where did this myth come from?

                      ... watching the trip computer whilst trimming the speed on the Cruise control?

                    2. Dave 15

                      Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                      Probably from a bit of reasoning. One of the figures tested and published is economy under ideal conditions at 56mph, since we know manufacturers want to appear good (to the point of cheating if needed) the conclusion has to be the 56mph figure is probably going to be one which they 'tune to'.

                      BTW a 1.6 petrol Zafira A (also in my interesting stable of vehicles) is good for best part of 50mpg at 50mph, but this is already dropping off by 56 and is noticeably less by 60, by the time you take it on an autobahn 'flat out' (about 100mph) you are down to 15mpg or less.

                      1. Ogi

                        Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                        > BTW a 1.6 petrol Zafira A (also in my interesting stable of vehicles) is good for best part of 50mpg at 50mph, but this is already dropping off by 56 and is noticeably less by 60, by the time you take it on an autobahn 'flat out' (about 100mph) you are down to 15mpg or less.

                        This is an interesting topic. I always believed cars fuel efficiency was based on a combination of gearbox ratios, final drive ratio, engine tuning and engine type. The cars I have driven seem to have engines tuned to be most fuel efficient around the 3000 rpm mark ( except the VW Turbodiesel, around 3000 rpm the turbo would start running and your mpg drops like a rock).

                        Now, what speed you are at varies by which gear you are in. In top gear at 3k rpm one of my cars seems happy around 75 mph, and the other around 85mph. However I wonder if in lower gears this would match up with the 56mph mentioned above.

                        I would like to test this out, however 56mph is a bit of an odd number to reach. It is too slow to go on the motorway (where I can set the cruise control on the car, and see what mpg I get over a period), and too fast to do the same on A roads (with traffic, lights, pedestrians, etc... impacting mpg). What I might do is see if 56mpg corresponds to 3k in a particular gear, but that would not prove it is the most efficient place to drive at for fuel efficiency.

                  2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                    So this means at least 50mph as many cars are most economical around 56mph.

                    Bzzt. Not True Alert!

                    Think about it logically - does it make *any* sense that all cars would average out to that? That a 1L Suziki Swift would have the same sweet spot as my 1.8L VVT Honda? Or as a 2.6 turbo diesel?

                    That stat was massaged into being in the US in the 1960s and 1970s and has no real bearing on reality. The fact is, that each combination of engine, gearbox, fuel type, aero conformation and wheels has their own sweet spot. Some will undoubtedly be 50 (the Morris Minor sort of is - although telling the *actual* speed is awkward because of the need to take an average reading off the wobbling speedo needle) some will be 70, some are rather higher than that.

                    And most slushbox autos are more economical around 50 as well

                    Certainly isn't the case for my FR-V auto - the most economical is about 65.

                    1. myithingwontcharge

                      Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                      "So this means at least 50mph as many cars are most economical around 56mph.Bzzt. Not True Alert!"

                      Well for years European economy figures have been based on a car doing 100kph (56 mph) so manufactures had a massive incentive to make them most economical at this speed. This is mainly done by making the top gear have lowest revs at this speed. You could get better economy by using a lower gear at low revs, but then you'd be doing about 30mph on the motorway, which is even more dangerous than 80 in free-flowing traffic. Not sure if this is still the case, but it certainly was for most of the cars large and small I've had in the past.

                      1. MJI Silver badge

                        Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                        But read the second paragraph about torque converter auto boxes, most I have driven lock up between 45mph and 52mph.

                        One car in particular would get 5mpg improvement by travelling a few mile per hour quicker.

                        Current lump drops quite a few RPM when lockup kicks in.

                        Not everyone drives small boring things.

                      2. Arion

                        Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                        Well for starters 100kph (at just over 62mph) is about 6mph faster then the 56mph speed you mentioned.

                        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                          Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                          "Well for starters 100kph (at just over 62mph) is about 6mph faster then the 56mph speed you mentioned."

                          That's because he had a brain fart and meant to type 90kph. 56mph is the closest whole number to that standard test speed used across most of Europe. It's also the speed limiter setting on lorries. Eu regs say you can't drive a lorry of the classes requiring a limiter at more than 56mph but the UK speed limit is 60 for those same lorries on a motorway.

                      3. commonsense

                        Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                        "Well for years European economy figures have been based on a car doing 100kph (56 mph) so manufactures had a massive incentive to make them most economical at this speed"

                        Yet 100kph is 62mph...

                    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

                      Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                      "Think about it logically - does it make *any* sense that all cars would average out to that?"

                      If that's one of the figures of merit that every other manufacturer (and the authorities) use to compare efficiencies then, yes, it makes *lots* of sense that manufacturers would engineer a sweet spot around that mark.

                    3. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                      The difference between car models and engine sizes doesn't matter as much as you'd think. Wind resistance increases with the cube of speed. At low speeds, there's not much wind resistance, but - assuming you're driving a typical road car, such as a BMW 5 series or a VW Golf or a Mercedes C or a Mazda 3 - by the time you get to about 50 mph, fully 40% of your power is spent overcoming wind resistance, and before you get to 70 it's more like 75%. The only way to reduce that is to design cars more aerodynamically, but realistically there's a limit to how far you can go that way (and remain street-legal), and the above-named models are already pretty close to the optimum.

                      Of course it'll vary in all kinds of ways depending on actual conditions - slope, weather, even other traffic - but all other things being equal, the sweet spot is almost certainly going to be *below* 60 mph.

                  3. James Wilson

                    Re: Good going cobber - Pollution reasons

                    >So this means at least 50mph as many cars are most economical around 56mph.

                    Actually cars are almost always most economical below 40mph, and some considerably less than that.

                2. strum

                  Re: Good going cobber

                  > Which leads to ordinary sensible people perceiving the speed limits as being set too low.

                  <Guffaw>

                  You do know that traffic has other effects, apart from impact-at-speed? Poluttion, yes - but also noise and inaccessible neighbourhoods (at the other side of fast, busy roads)

              2. Cynic_999

                Re: Good going cobber

                "

                And you'll find that the indicated speed is not just the legal requirement but also quite a good guide to what is safe.

                "

                How can that be true when most speed limits are fixed, while the maximum speed that is acceptably safe is variable, dependant on weather, lighting, traffic, aptitude of the driver and the type of vehicle.

            2. Triggerfish

              Re: Good going cobber

              I think you'll find that those accidents are not caused by "speeding", but by inappropriate speed for the conditions.

              Well you could argue if they cannot see a big sodding orange camera and slow down before it tickets them, they were going at an innapropriate speed.

              1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

                Re: Good going cobber

                Given only 3% of traffic accidents are caused by people driving over the limit, I'd say that isn't a particularly useful outcome.

                1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                  Re: Good going cobber

                  It is possible to be found guilty of speeding speeding by doing 30mph in a 40mph zone, but it requires an experienced officer to witness the speed and correctly assess that it is too fast for the conditions (if there's lots of ice/snow about for example, or there are obstacles in the road).

                  The Highway guide provides useful information on how to drive safely because it assumes a lower level than what would be considered average - but if you read Roadcraft and heed the training it will provide you with a better ability to understand and assess risks.

                  IMHO the most common causes of accidents are rooted in the rejection of the most common-sense rule of them all..

                  "If you can't stop your vehicle safely in the distance you can SEE, then you are going too fast."

                  1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

                    Re: Good going cobber

                    but if you read Roadcraft and heed the training it will provide you with a better ability to understand and assess risks.

                    Or ride a powerful (set of) motorbikes for 25+ years without killing yourself. Mind you, I learnt to ride motorbikes (and drive) in London where speed limits were usually ignored in favour of keeping the same speed as the other traffic - doing otherwise would probably result in becoming a small grease-and-organic-goo spot on the tarmac..

                    (Going round Hyde Park Corner on a 12BHP 125cc bike was... educational. And gave me Buttocks Of Iron..)

                    1. Chloe Cresswell Silver badge

                      Re: Good going cobber

                      handy learning for if you need to move a spaceship out the way of a pair of missiles though...

                  2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

                    Re: Good going cobber

                    "If you can't stop your vehicle safely in the distance you can SEE, then you are going too fast."

                    "Only a fool breaks the two-second rule"

                    And if you are on a bike, fool usually equates to "short lived organism".

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Good going cobber

                      IF only those tin box drivers would not tailgate me when out on my bike. Yes, I have 150bhp available but not everyone riding a motorcycle wants to become an organ donor. I've now turned my GoPro around so it points behind me. The videos often show a 2m gap at close to 60mph (national limit speed on a single carriageway) . It if effing [redacted] scary.

                      Sometimes I have to just pull over and stop to let the idiots go on their way. OTher times a quick burst of speed privides some respite but it is amazing how quickly they catch up even when I've gone well over 60 for a bit and then slowed down to just over 60.(within 10% M'Lord).

                      1. Tom Paine

                        Re: Good going cobber

                        Yep, motorbikes are terrifying alright. I'd a colleague who commuted 60 miles to London and back every day -0 took safety very seriously. After his second cuold-easily-have-been-fatal accident caused by someone else, his missus put her foot down and insisted he commute by train from then on. (Turns out that when a bunch of psychopathic scrotes deliberately rams you from behind at 50mph there's not much you can do about it... he reported having a memory of sliding across the opposite carriageway (in the face of oncoming traffic) and the next thing was waking up in a ditch having his clothing cut off by paramedics. No permanent damage fortunately but he was in traction for a couple of months.

                      2. MJI Silver badge

                        Re: Good going cobber

                        I reckon bikes are safer when you go faster as you can't get whacked from behind by a car.

                        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

                          @MJI

                          "I reckon bikes are safer when you go faster as you can't get whacked from behind by a car."

                          Up to a point, yes :) Beyond that point the safety value (quite literally) drops off a cliff!

                          Taking an advanced riding course with an ex-police motorcyclist around the mountains of Wales made my car driving about 10x safer.

                          Scariest bit was when he was curing me of my comfort braking coming up to bends by having me ride down roads on the sides of mountains (with hairpin bends and such) *without* being able to use the brakes (engine braking only).

                          It's also worth noting that the bike has considerably more confidence at lower lean angles than you probably do, so if you feel like you're a bit hot in that corner, lean over a few more degrees. It sounds scary, but nothing like as scary as using the front brake and suddenly losing the ability to corner at all !!!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Good going cobber

            "Speed cameras are not there as revenue generation"

            The behaviour of many local authorities in the UK would suggest otherwise.

            1. James 51

              Re: Good going cobber

              Not just the UK. I know of streches of road in France that have 200m 30Km/H streches of road in a 50Km/H or sometimes even 70Km/H road. Of course it's all for public safety and not revenue rasing.

              1. phil 27

                Re: Good going cobber

                I passed one the other week that went 90->70->30->70->90 in the space of 200m. The camera was hidden behind the old stone bridge forming it. And on the same journey I noted the police radar set up on the closing filter on a dual -> single carriageway stretch , just where a quick burst speed to finish that overtake of that artic before you run out of road might actually be safer. Clearly its about safety as you say.

                1. Triggerfish

                  Re: Good going cobber

                  I passed one the other week that went 90->70->30->70->90 in the space of 200m.

                  I assume its not the UK then because you can't do 90 here can you? Also are you complaining they expected you to slow down whilst crossing an old stone bridge, which had a blind enough spot to hide a large speed camera?

          3. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

            Re: Good going cobber

            Speed cameras are not there as revenue generation but to stop bad drivers speeding.

            Except those monitoring 30mph stretches which have been inserted along dual carriageways for no good reason, and on roads where the speed is inexplicably lower than what it would be presumed to be, and often was.

            1. Just Enough

              Re: Good going cobber

              How do you know they've been inserted there for no good reason?

              These stretches are usually there because they are historically accident black spots, or where pedestrians are particularly encountered. But bad drivers neither know nor care about that. They know better.

              1. Brenda McViking

                Re: Good going cobber

                Oh, we had a dangerous dual carriageway junction with a gap in the central reservation on a blind corner near us, and the speed cameras were put up after the 4th death. Then there was a 5th, and a 6th and they finally did what they should have done in the first place and engineered the solution using a roundabout.

                The speed cameras are naturally still there, as is the 40mph limit. All for a danger that has been eliminated, over 10 years ago, by a properly engineered solution.

                Plus the usual regression to the mean that the siting of speed cameras inevitably produces:

                Have an unusally high number of accidents in 3 years. Place speed camera. Have average number of accidents next 3 years. Conclude speed camera was the reason for the reduction in accident rate. More on that if you want to read it

                I'd have failed my degree statistics module if that was my reasoning.

                1. ZSn

                  Re: Good going cobber

                  The plural of anecdote is not data. There was a an absolutely dreadful stretch, the Haughley bends on the A14 in Suffolk, that I drove every day for three years. They put in speed cameras and the death rate dropped markedly. They're now taking out the bend in its entirety which should reduce the death rate to near zero. The fact that the works weren't done was because it will cost £32 million. However, the speed cameras were cheaper and reduction in speed that they enforced *really* improved it. Shame they left it in when they built it in the 70s.

                  When the French finally brought in speed cameras they caused a drop in the death rate of about 10%, so a few hundred people a year. People think that speed cameras are revenue generators, but every death costs the entire country a few million, not just in the clean up but the support to the family, lost productive life, etc, etc. Bad drivers who don't know how to drive slowly seem to think it's all about them.

                  1. Commswonk
                    Thumb Up

                    Re: Good going cobber

                    The plural of anecdote is not data.

                    Now that is simply brilliant.

                  2. Ben Tasker

                    Re: Good going cobber

                    > There was a an absolutely dreadful stretch, the Haughley bends on the A14 in Suffolk, that I drove every day for three years. They put in speed cameras and the death rate dropped markedly. They're now taking out the bend in its entirety which should reduce the death rate to near zero.

                    Where'd you get your time machine? They took the bends out of the A14 years ago.

                    But yes, I also went up there daily (and still go up the new route now). The speed camera's were a mixed blessing, they reduced deaths, but because they were fixed point (rather than average speed), during congested periods you'd often find the queue in front would suddenly slam their brakes on as the lead driver gave their brakes a jab just to make sure they were definitely doing under 50.

                    It was one of the few locations (there's another near me) in the area that the cameras are/were actually definitively justified by the road layout.

                    The introduction of cameras on the Orwell bridge, on the other hand, seems to be an attempt to ignore the design failures in the surrounding junctions.

                  3. This post has been deleted by its author

                2. Dave 15

                  Re: Good going cobber

                  Roundabout on a dual carriageway is the WRONG solution... a traffic jam and additional pollution from stopping the lorries (and roundabouts are certainly not low accident solutions).

                  What they should have done is a slip road and bridge - the basic flow would not slow

              2. Omgwtfbbqtime
                Facepalm

                These stretches are usually there because they are historically accident black spots...

                Do the words "regression to the mean" mean anything to you?

                One accident does not a black spot make.

                1. David Nash Silver badge

                  Re: These stretches are usually there because they are historically accident black spots...

                  "One accident does not a black spot make"

                  Who on earth said it did?

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: These stretches are usually there because they are historically accident black spots...

                    I'm going to give one example I am aware of that is absolutely revenue generation and no argument can be made that it is not, I can't speak of other councils but this one is a shark.

                    Someone I know came out of the pub drunk and got run over by a taxi. The council put up a speed camera where the accident occurred, however they also put one on the other side of round on a hill just after a bend with lots of tree cover and the big win is it's not bright colours to stop accidents it's the council dark emblem colour.

                    They also have speed camera's in the middle of industrial estates where you least expect them.

                    I'm sorry but speed camera's are for revenue and nothing else, if they wanted to stop accidents they would introduce traffic calming measures but lets be honest there is no money in that.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like