A familiar refrain

wafflycat said:

Many's the time the point has been made here that motorists should be
made to use the road as a cyclist, to get more realisation of the
problems and needs of vulnerable road users. Article on the BBC news
wibble along the same lines from a motorcyclist

Yes, the same tired old "familiar refrain" from the "road casualty
reduction officer". What enlightened opinions though, from the
unfortunate motorcyclist.

Quoted message said:

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

As I said, tired. Speed limits add nothing, other than an excuse to
enforce them.

Consider the places where casualties /are/ being reduced, and even
eliminated, without the need for speed limits. Consider the roads with
the best safety record, and the worst speed limit compliance record -
the motorways.

Here is a simple experiment, designed to investigate the impact of
'speeding' on collision rates.

Divide the country into two. Reduce all speed limits by 25% in one
half, and increase them by all by 25% in the other half. Do not
publicise these changes - this will eliminate other influences on the
results.

The general effect will be to /increase/ the incidence of speeding in
the half of the country where the limits are reduced, and to /reduce/
the incidence of speeding in the parts where the limits are increased.

If the 'familiar refrain' that collisions are caused by speeding is
true, then we should expect to see an increase in collisions where more
speeding occurs, i.e. where the limits have been reduced, and a decrease
where the limits have been increased, i.e. where there is more speeding.

--
Matt B

wafflycat said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/6190432.stm

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

"Motorcyclists need to wear bright coloured jackets to make them more
visible and drivers need to look further down the road," he said.

.... and "Cornwall's road casualty reduction officer Bob Heayel" needs a
slap. Unless he's also recommending that drivers of dull-coloured cars
need to paint them yellow, this sounds uncommonly like victim blaming

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Daniel Barlow said the following on 30/11/2006 16:06:

Quoted message said:

"Motorcyclists need to wear bright coloured jackets to make them more
visible and drivers need to look further down the road," he said.

... and "Cornwall's road casualty reduction officer Bob Heayel" needs a
slap. Unless he's also recommending that drivers of dull-coloured cars
need to paint them yellow, this sounds uncommonly like victim blaming

Sounds more like plain common sense to me.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>typed

Quoted message said:

Many's the time the point has been made here that motorists should be made
to use the road as a cyclist, to get more realisation of the problems and
needs of vulnerable road users. Article on the BBC news wibble along the
same lines from a motorcyclist

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/6190432.stm

Quoted message said:

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

and

"I think accidents are fate - how do you know?

....

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

Many's the time the point has been made here that motorists should be
made to use the road as a cyclist, to get more realisation of the
problems and needs of vulnerable road users. Article on the BBC news
wibble along the same lines from a motorcyclist

Yes, the same tired old "familiar refrain" from the "road casualty
reduction officer". What enlightened opinions though, from the
unfortunate motorcyclist.

Quoted message said:

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

As I said, tired. Speed limits add nothing, other than an excuse to
enforce them.

Consider the places where casualties /are/ being reduced, and even
eliminated, without the need for speed limits. Consider the roads with
the best safety record, and the worst speed limit compliance record - the
motorways.

Here is a simple experiment, designed to investigate the impact of
'speeding' on collision rates.

Divide the country into two. Reduce all speed limits by 25% in one half,
and increase them by all by 25% in the other half. Do not publicise these
changes - this will eliminate other influences on the results.

The general effect will be to /increase/ the incidence of speeding in the
half of the country where the limits are reduced, and to /reduce/ the
incidence of speeding in the parts where the limits are increased.

If the 'familiar refrain' that collisions are caused by speeding is true,
then we should expect to see an increase in collisions where more speeding
occurs, i.e. where the limits have been reduced, and a decrease where the
limits have been increased, i.e. where there is more speeding.

Do you ride a bike or do you just come here to wind people up? FYI, I ride a
bike and wind people up...

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Many's the time the point has been made here that motorists should be made
to use the road as a cyclist, to get more realisation of the problems and
needs of vulnerable road users. Article on the BBC news wibble along the
same lines from a motorcyclist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/6190432.stm

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

I can't help but think that a lot of motorcyclists die because they ride
like complete twunts.

Quoted message said:

Unless he's also recommending that drivers of dull-coloured cars

Quoted message said:

need to paint them yellow, this sounds uncommonly like victim blaming

Sounds more like plain common sense to me.

So if I ran another road user down it'd be partly their fault for not
wearing fluorescent clothing? <sarcasm>Fairy-nuff - the less attention I'm
expected to pay the better.</sarcasm>

"Doki" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Many's the time the point has been made here that motorists should be
made to use the road as a cyclist, to get more realisation of the
problems and needs of vulnerable road users. Article on the BBC news
wibble along the same lines from a motorcyclist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/6190432.stm

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

I can't help but think that a lot of motorcyclists die because they ride
like complete twunts.

On second thoughts, you see cyclists do things no motorcyclist would ever
dream of doing, because they're aware that it'd be very likely to get them
killed. Put the average urban mountain bike rider on a motorbike and you'll
have a recipe for disaster...

Mark Thompson said the following on 30/11/2006 16:42:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sounds more like plain common sense to me.

So if I ran another road user down it'd be partly their fault for not
wearing fluorescent clothing? <sarcasm>Fairy-nuff - the less attention I'm
expected to pay the better.</sarcasm>

I just had to re-read what I wrote. Nope - I didn't say that at all.

How on earth did you manage to extrapolate "it'd be partly their fault
for not wearing fluorescent clothing" from me saying that it's common
sense to make yourself as visible as possible and for car drivers to
look further ahead?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here is a simple experiment, designed to investigate the impact of
'speeding' on collision rates.

Divide the country into two. Reduce all speed limits by 25% in one half,
and increase them by all by 25% in the other half. Do not publicise these
changes - this will eliminate other influences on the results.

The general effect will be to /increase/ the incidence of speeding in the
half of the country where the limits are reduced, and to /reduce/ the
incidence of speeding in the parts where the limits are increased.

If the 'familiar refrain' that collisions are caused by speeding is true,
then we should expect to see an increase in collisions where more speeding
occurs, i.e. where the limits have been reduced, and a decrease where the
limits have been increased, i.e. where there is more speeding.

Didn't major in logic did you Matt?

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>typed

Quoted message said:

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

and

"I think accidents are fate - how do you know?

Yeah, I read that and thought that he just doesn't understand the problem.
There are very few "accidents". Almost all of them are the result of
someone taking a slightly dodgy decision, which they would get away with
999,999 times out of a million. Rather like a Minister of Transport who
pointed out that accidents didn't happen because a few people took
ridiculous risks, but because millions of people took a small risks
thousands of times a day.

burt said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here is a simple experiment, designed to investigate the impact of
'speeding' on collision rates.

Divide the country into two. Reduce all speed limits by 25% in one half,
and increase them by all by 25% in the other half. Do not publicise these
changes - this will eliminate other influences on the results.

The general effect will be to /increase/ the incidence of speeding in the
half of the country where the limits are reduced, and to /reduce/ the
incidence of speeding in the parts where the limits are increased.

If the 'familiar refrain' that collisions are caused by speeding is true,
then we should expect to see an increase in collisions where more speeding
occurs, i.e. where the limits have been reduced, and a decrease where the
limits have been increased, i.e. where there is more speeding.

Didn't major in logic did you Matt?

No :-( Where have I got it wrong (apart from the second last word
should be "less" not "more"😉?

--
Matt B

Paul Boyd said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sounds more like plain common sense to me.

So if I ran another road user down it'd be partly their fault for not
wearing fluorescent clothing? <sarcasm>Fairy-nuff - the less attention
I'm expected to pay the better.</sarcasm>

I just had to re-read what I wrote. Nope - I didn't say that at all.

How on earth did you manage to extrapolate "it'd be partly their fault
for not wearing fluorescent clothing" from me saying that it's common
sense to make yourself as visible as possible and for car drivers to
look further ahead?

The original quote (not yours) was "Motorcyclists need to wear bright
coloured jackets". Not "it's common sense to wear bright coloured
jackets" or even "it's a good idea to wear bright coloured jackets", but
"motorcyclists need to wear bright coloured jackets"

If some motorcyclist who was not wearing a bright coloured jacket was
SMIDSYed, would it be partly their fault? That is after all what "need"
tends to imply. A defence lawyer would, I am sure, have no compunction
in bringing it up in order to reduce the payout to the victim.

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

"Doki" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

I can't help but think that a lot of motorcyclists die because they ride
like complete twunts.

On second thoughts, you see cyclists do things no motorcyclist would ever
dream of doing, because they're aware that it'd be very likely to get them
killed. Put the average urban mountain bike rider on a motorbike and
you'll have a recipe for disaster...

I wonder if the twunt riding in the cycle lane up the Gloucester Road in
Bristol on a minibike last night doing about 10mph was a mountain biker?
He's probably slightly deaf now, unless helmets prevent damage to your ears
from a cyclist shouting abuse at you!

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:05:04 -0000, "wafflycat"

w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

Many's the time the point has been made here that motorists should be made
to use the road as a cyclist, to get more realisation of the problems and
needs of vulnerable road users. Article on the BBC news wibble along the
same lines from a motorcyclist

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/6190432.stm

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

My favourite line when we are invaded by uk.tosspot.

Matt B said:

wafflycat said:

Many's the time the point has been made here that motorists should be
made to use the road as a cyclist, to get more realisation of the
problems and needs of vulnerable road users. Article on the BBC news
wibble along the same lines from a motorcyclist

Yes, the same tired old "familiar refrain" from the "road casualty
reduction officer". What enlightened opinions though, from the
unfortunate motorcyclist.

Quoted message said:

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

As I said, tired. Speed limits add nothing, other than an excuse to
enforce them.

They're not there to add anything. They're there to limit speed.

Quoted message said:

Consider the places where casualties /are/ being reduced, and even
eliminated, without the need for speed limits. Consider the roads with
the best safety record, and the worst speed limit compliance record -
the motorways.

And why do you suppose they are so safe? Is it because such a low
percentage comply with the limit? Or because the limit is 70, not 60
or 50? Or is it because motorists are caged into the carriageway?

Quoted message said:

Here is a simple experiment, designed to investigate the impact of
'speeding' on collision rates.

Divide the country into two. Reduce all speed limits by 25% in one
half, and increase them by all by 25% in the other half. Do not
publicise these changes - this will eliminate other influences on the
results.

The general effect will be to /increase/ the incidence of speeding in
the half of the country where the limits are reduced, and to /reduce/
the incidence of speeding in the parts where the limits are increased.

I note you fail to mention the effect on accident rates.

Quoted message said:

If the 'familiar refrain' that collisions are caused by speeding is
true, then we should expect to see an increase in collisions where more
speeding occurs, i.e. where the limits have been reduced, and a decrease
where the limits have been increased, i.e. where there is more speeding.

Tom Crispin said:

Matt B said:

wafflycat said:

Many's the time the point has been made here that motorists should be
made to use the road as a cyclist, to get more realisation of the
problems and needs of vulnerable road users. Article on the BBC news
wibble along the same lines from a motorcyclist

Yes, the same tired old "familiar refrain" from the "road casualty
reduction officer". What enlightened opinions though, from the
unfortunate motorcyclist.

Quoted message said:

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and not a
target..."

As I said, tired. Speed limits add nothing, other than an excuse to
enforce them.

They're not there to add anything.

Oh. They're working then ;-)

Quoted message said:

They're there to limit speed.

The original intention was good, I agree. The effect though, especially
with cameras etc. emphasising that up to the limit is acceptable, is to
reduce the responsibility on drivers to drive safely. 30 mph in a 30
mph limit can be disastrous. I guess that the old adage applies:
"better that 100 collisions occur, so long as they happen within the
speed limit, than that one collision occurs above it".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Consider the places where casualties /are/ being reduced, and even
eliminated, without the need for speed limits. Consider the roads with
the best safety record, and the worst speed limit compliance record -
the motorways.

And why do you suppose they are so safe? Is it because such a low
percentage comply with the limit? Or because the limit is 70, not 60
or 50? Or is it because motorists are caged into the carriageway?

Ah, but does it fit with what we are told about speeding. Perhaps there
/is/ more to it then, than just /speeding/.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here is a simple experiment, designed to investigate the impact of
'speeding' on collision rates.

Divide the country into two. Reduce all speed limits by 25% in one
half, and increase them by all by 25% in the other half. Do not
publicise these changes - this will eliminate other influences on the
results.

The general effect will be to /increase/ the incidence of speeding in
the half of the country where the limits are reduced, and to /reduce/
the incidence of speeding in the parts where the limits are increased.

I note you fail to mention the effect on accident rates.

What will the effect be on accident rates?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the 'familiar refrain' that collisions are caused by speeding is
true, then we should expect to see an increase in collisions where more
speeding occurs, i.e. where the limits have been reduced, and a decrease
where the limits have been increased, i.e. where there is [less] speeding.

What would you expect the outcome of this experiment to be?

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

The original intention was good, I agree. The effect though, especially
with cameras etc. emphasising that up to the limit is acceptable, is to
reduce the responsibility on drivers to drive safely. 30 mph in a 30
mph limit can be disastrous.

The phrase used was "limit not a target". That means "an upper bound
on the acceptable speed (which may be even lower due to other
factors, but will not be higher)", not "an acceptable speed".

What you're describing is a situation where people view 30mph as the
target. I'm sure we're all in agreement that this behaviour is
inappropriate, but I don't think you can claim that someone saying
"the limit is _not_ a target" is contributing to this state of
affairs.

Now, see what I meant earlier about arguing just to be contrary?
You've taken a comment that has one of your trigger words and used it
as a jumping off point for your standard rant about safe driving,
without actually stopping to think whether it was relevant in context
anyway.

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

burt said:

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>typed

Quoted message said:

Includes "Speed limits are there for a reason, it is a maximum and
not a target..."

and

"I think accidents are fate - how do you know?

Yeah, I read that and thought that he just doesn't understand the
problem. There are very few "accidents". Almost all of them are the
result of someone taking a slightly dodgy decision,

The same thinking applies to almost all "accidents" not simply road
"accidents" - they occur not by complete random chance but by the action (or
lack of it) by the victim or by some other person.

A "climbing accident"

An "accidental" drowning

An "accidental" fall from a ladder

An "accidental electrocution"

None of these are pure "accident", they are rather "unintended" - and that,
in common parlance, is the meaning of "accident".

Getting all hissy over the term "road accident" seems a bit daft IMHO given
this general use of language.

pk