Interesting article on the culture of speed, and worshipping the car. Which does affect us when we are cycling - so it isn't OT Cheers, helen s http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1161862,00.h- tml "The quick and the dead Anne Karpf Saturday March 6, 2004 The Guardian News isn't supposed to hang around in the air like stinky fish, but here's a piece that simply refuses to go away, no matter how often I command it to. It's last month's story about Heather Thompson, the mother who, boasting that she could get her daughter and friend, both 12 years old, home, 20 miles away, in less than 20 minutes, drove at over 80mph and killed them both. With the industrial quantities of guilt she's for ever doomed to feeling, this surely belongs in a Greek tragedy - how Thompson must have railed against Fate for not doing its business and carting her off, too. By grisly coincidence, a case came to court in Florida last week. Mary Hill, allegedly driving at 70mph, killed her 13-year- old daughter and 14-year-old best friend but, again, survived herself. At first, these stories wind you so strongly because mothers are meant to be protectors, not killers. But then another thought begins to thrum: just as Myra Hindley, and not Ian Brady, became the emblem of evil, so speeding is more heinous when done by a woman. In fact, most reckless driving, we know, is carried out by young men. What's more, they tend to get 10 minutes in jail for the topping of lives, compared with those young female shoplifters sentenced to five years for nicking a cracked Rimmel Peachy Pink lipstick tester. You think this journalistic hyperbole? Last week, just before David Blunkett raised the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from 10 to 14 years, a 30-year-old male driver who'd killed a 17-year-old walked from the court with just six points on his licence and a £500 fine. That's because he was done for the lesser charge of careless driving. If he carelessly totals another teenager, he might get the maximum fine of £2,500, and between three and nine points on his licence. It sounds more like a board game - Automobility? - than real life, or rather its ending. We've got ourselves into an awful mess here: four wheels good, two legs bad. Courts and law-makers seem to believe that killing, when conducted through the intervening instrument of a car, when the murder weapon isn't held in the hand, only controlled by it, is an altogether different affair. It's as if it then becomes a matter of transport rather than crime - the very language, "traffic accident", allowing it to shelter beneath the carapace of accidental death. Overall, it's made to seem as though the car drives the driver, rather than the other way round. Car accidents are crimes almost without agency, without stigma, without a criminal. iconoclasm, balls. We can't sanction glossy ads puffing cars that do 0-350mph in three seconds, and then go and pillory young men for trying to emulate them. Especially as it's behind the wheel that these muddled young males often try to express potency and indifference to social mores - the car may have contributed to anomie, but it's also touted as its antidote. Anyway, we're a culture in love with velocity. We admiringly call amphetamines speed, but don't approvingly name barbiturates slow. When politicians are caught speeding - last year Harriet Harman doing 99mph, three years earlier Jack Straw's official car careering at 103mph - it is indulged as the peccadillo of the hurrying harried, the cojones of the too-busy. For while speed is commonly linked with gender - I've just done it myself - it should more properly be bound with class. It's the privilege of what writer Susan George calls Fast Castes. The radical thinker Ivan Illich showed the zero sum way in which it operates: "Beyond a critical speed, no one can save time without forcing another to lose it." Speed creates places and people that are sped by, passed over. Ask the elderly people trying to cross the road at a traffic blackspot in Thatcham, Berkshire, who had a princely seven seconds of pelican crossing time in which to do it. Timed by the Pedestrians' Association, it actually took them nine to 18 seconds. What are they meant to do - levitate themselves over? Last week's yes-we'll-have-them-no-we-won't on speed cameras simply expresses our ambivalence about speed. "Drivers face hundreds more speed cameras," blared the Sunday papers. "Huge speed camera cuts," trumpeted the Monday ones. This is the revenge of the accelerated. There's even a group called Mad - or Motorists Against Detection - that goes out and sabotages speed cameras. Naturally, they say that they're not in favour of speeding, just against the cameras. Funny, that's just what those waging war on speed humps claim. Both are defending their right to velocity, perhaps the most unequally distributed one in the world. Information technology, it was said, would diminish the need for speed and travel. It hasn't, and slowcoach remains a term of abuse. Driver re-education is the new slogan: speeders can trade docked licence points for speeding workshops. Myself, I think we need to see David Beckham pootering along and Thierry Henry va-va-vooming in low gear. Until then, two contrary facts are undeniable. Speed can intoxicate, or so it seems. But speed simultaneously scorches the universe, ravaging it also for those who'll never be wealthy enough to enjoy its thrills - the speed-poor." --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune h*$el*$$e**- nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
On 06 Mar 2004 12:35:05 GMT, [email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote: >Interesting article on the culture of speed, and >worshipping the car. Which does affect us when we are >cycling - so it isn't OT > >Cheers, helen s > > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,116186- >2,00.html > >"The quick and the dead Was it really necessary to post the entire article and post the link? Why not post the link and a summary or post the article? And in other news people do very high speeds daily without dying, killing anyone or even driving dangerously. I for one topped 150mph several times this morning and now I'm off out cycling. -- "We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us." http://www.bensales.com
> Was it really necessary to post the entire article and > post the link? Why not post the link and a summary or post > the article? No it wasn't necessary, but it's greatly appreciated by people that read offline. Oh, and if it also annoys dickheads that's a bonus too. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti- virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 05/03/2004
BenS wrote: > > Was it really necessary to post the entire article and > post the link? Why not post the link and a summary or post > the article? > Perhaps its because people here requested that links were posted with the article so you didn't have to go to the link to read it. So why keep the link? So you can refer to the original if you want to check or reference it. Personally I find it useful done Helen's way. Next Tony
>Was it really necessary to post the entire article and >post the link? Why not post the link and a summary or post >the article? > If it even slightly annoyed you, then, yes, it was. Next. Cheers, helen s --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune h*$el*$$e**- nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**[email protected]$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Interesting article on the culture of speed, and > worshipping the car. Which > does affect us when we are cycling - so it isn't OT > > Cheers, helen s > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1161862- > ,00.html > > "The quick and the dead > I thought it was a good article, well written, but I still feel that speed is _not_ the main causative factor in most RTA's, even if it is a factor in them. Agreed that above a certain point - and that point may be a point above or below the posted speed limit - speed alone can be the main or only causative factor - but below that point for an accident to occur there has to be some other factor combined with speed to cause it. That is mostly lack of sufficient care and attention to road and traffic conditions, ie failure to exercise basic skills of observation and anticipation, and that I would suggest is the main causative factor of most accidents. If I had the choice to be on the road as a cyclist with other road users travelling at _modest_ speeds above the limit but looking where they are going or with users travelling at or within the limit but not looking, I know which I'd prefer and it's not the latter. The single-minded emphasis on speed as an issue irks me. Rich
"Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > Was it really necessary to post the entire article and > > post the link? Why not post the link and a summary or > > post the article? > > No it wasn't necessary, but it's greatly appreciated by > people that read offline. > > Oh, and if it also annoys dickheads that's a bonus too. Hear hear. I enjoyed Helen's post too and read it from the text she copied. Thanks. -- Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
On 6/3/04 4:42 pm, in article [email protected], "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote: > If I had the choice to be on the road as a cyclist with > other road users travelling at _modest_ speeds above the > limit but looking where they are going or with users > travelling at or within the limit but not looking, I know > which I'd prefer and it's not the latter. You don't have that choice. What you do have is a choice between a bunch of dickheads who may or may not be paying attention just 'creeping' 10-15 mph over the limit or the same bunch of dickheads with the same distractions, radio etc travelling at the speed limit. As a cyclist I know which I prefer. ..d
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:42:46 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote: >I thought it was a good article, well written, but I still >feel that speed is _not_ the main causative factor in most >RTA's, even if it is a factor in them. Agreed that above a >certain point - and that point may be a point above or >below the posted speed limit - speed alone can be the main >or only causative factor - but below that point for an >accident to occur there has to be some other factor >combined with speed to cause it. When you start examining accidents in detail you discover that there is very rarely a single cause. There is nearly always a chain of events that leads up to it. If you break the chain you prevent the accident, or at least lessen its consequences. To argue that speed alone is rarely the single cause of an accident is to miss this vital point. If excessive speed is a factor in an accident then reducing that speed might well have avoided it. -- Dave... Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
On 6/3/04 6:52 pm, in article [email protected], "Doki" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > David Martin wrote: >> On 6/3/04 4:42 pm, in article >> [email protected], "Richard Goodman" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If I had the choice to be on the road as a cyclist with >>> other road users travelling at _modest_ speeds above the >>> limit but looking where they are going or with users >>> travelling at or within the limit but not looking, I >>> know which I'd prefer and it's not the latter. >> >> You don't have that choice. What you do have is a choice >> between a bunch of dickheads who may or may not be paying >> attention just 'creeping' 10-15 mph over the limit or the >> same bunch of dickheads with the same distractions, radio >> etc travelling at the speed limit. As a cyclist I know >> which I prefer. > > Nobody pays attention when they're driving? Really? People only pay attention if they are driving over the speed limit? Really? Read what I wrote. The same bunch of people with the same pressures will be safer driving slower. A moments inattention at a slower speed is less hazardous than the same amount of time at a higher speed. If you can find a point where I said that nobody pays attention then I would be glad for you to point it out. Until then, learn to read. ..d
On 06 Mar 2004 16:27:30 GMT, [email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote: >>Was it really necessary to post the entire article and >>post the link? Why not post the link and a summary or post >>the article? >> > >If it even slightly annoyed you, then, yes, it was. Doesn't remotely annoy me. I just fine it slightly pointless. It's like saying the same thing twice. -- "We take these risks, not to escape from life, but to prevent life escaping from us." http://www.bensales.com
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 18:52:40 -0000, Doki <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Martin wrote: > > > > You don't have that choice. What you do have is a choice > > between a bunch of dickheads who may or may not be > > paying attention just 'creeping' 10-15 mph over the > > limit or the same bunch of dickheads with the same > > distractions, radio etc travelling at the speed limit. > > As a cyclist I know which I prefer. > > Nobody pays attention when they're driving? Really? Eh? How on earth did you get to that? David said "may or may not be paying attentuion", and you imply he said "nobody pays attention when they're driving". Is that really what you meant? If so, can you explain how you get from "may or may not be paying attention" to "nobody pays attention"? If not, can you explain what you did mean? I'm sure you weren't doing anything silly like trying a straw man argument, were you? regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|
"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > When you start examining accidents in detail you discover > that there is very rarely a single cause. There is nearly > always a chain of events that leads up to it. If you break > the chain you prevent the accident, or at least lessen its > consequences. To argue that speed alone is rarely the > single cause of an accident is to miss this vital point. > If excessive speed is a factor in an accident then > reducing that speed might well have avoided it. > .. As might removing any of the other contributory factors, and if you could remove lack of care and attention you would avoid even more accidents than you would by reducing the speed of all traffic to a speed within the limit. To emphasise speed alone is to miss this vital point... Rich
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 16:42:46 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message <[email protected]>: >I thought it was a good article, well written, but I still >feel that speed is _not_ the main causative factor in most >RTA's, even if it is a factor in them. No, it's a principal causative factor in about a third. It is, however, the prime determinant of the severity of outcomes - which is why the likelihood of fatality given a crash is higher on the motorway, although the likelihood of a crash happening in the first place is lower because of the way the motorway is designed. >If I had the choice to be on the road as a cyclist with >other road users travelling at _modest_ speeds above the >limit but looking where they are going or with users >travelling at or within the limit but not looking, I know >which I'd prefer and it's not the latter. The single-minded >emphasis on speed as an issue irks me. The problem here, as others have said, is that there is no either/or. The choice you actually get is inattentive drivers exceeding the limit or inattentive drivers not exceeding the limit (well, actually you don't even get that much choice, as they do all the choosing based on the perceived risk to them). -- Guy === May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
On 6/3/04 7:51 pm, in article [email protected], "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote: > "Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> When you start examining accidents in detail you >> discover that there is very rarely a single cause. There >> is nearly always a chain of events that leads up to it. >> If you break the chain you prevent the accident, or at >> least lessen its consequences. To argue that speed alone >> is rarely the single cause of an accident is to miss >> this vital point. If excessive speed is a factor in an >> accident then reducing that speed might well have >> avoided it. >> > > .. As might removing any of the other contributory > factors, and if you could remove lack of care and > attention you would avoid even more accidents than you > would by reducing the speed of all traffic to a speed > within the limit. To emphasise speed alone is to miss this > vital point... The easiest to police is speed. It is entirely objective as to whether the driver is travelling faster than the legal limit. This gets people travelling slower and used to travelling more slowly. Ideally all drivers would be perfect and be able to perfectly judge not only the action of their car in respect to the road but the impact of their activities on others. This doesn't happen. Speed is targetted so widely because it is so easy to target. The same amount of effort (or more) goes into policing other forms of poor driving but the return on investment is much lower (and harder to bring a subjective case to a successful conclusion). ..d
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 19:51:30 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote: >"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected]... >> If excessive speed is a factor in an accident then >> reducing that speed might well have avoided it. >.. As might removing any of the other contributory factors, >and if you could remove lack of care and attention you >would avoid even more accidents than you would by reducing >the speed of all traffic to a speed within the limit. To >emphasise speed alone is to miss this vital point... Not at all. Removing any of the factors would help. Speed is the easiest, the most easily identifiable, one of the most often present, and one that predictably increases the severity of the outcome. You are of course correct when you state that driving within the speed limit is not enough by itself to avoid all accidents. -- Dave... Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 19:51:30 -0000, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote: >"Dave Kahn" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected]... >> When you start examining accidents in detail you >> discover that there is very rarely a single cause. There >> is nearly always a chain of events that leads up to it. >> If you break the chain you prevent the accident, or at >> least lessen its consequences. To argue that speed alone >> is rarely the single cause of an accident is to miss >> this vital point. If excessive speed is a factor in an >> accident then reducing that speed might well have >> avoided it. >> > >.. As might removing any of the other contributory factors, >and if you could remove lack of care and attention you >would avoid even more accidents than you would by reducing >the speed of all traffic to a speed within the limit. To >emphasise speed alone is to miss this vital point... > Excessive speed is something which can be legislated against, unambiguously measured, and punished if detected. Lack of care and attention can be (and is) legislated against, but is much more difficult to measure and detect. In other words, doing something about speeding is relatively easy; doing something about lack of care and attention is relatively hard. Pete Barrett
BenS wrote: > Doesn't remotely annoy me. I just fine it slightly > pointless. It's like saying the same thing twice. That's just fine (;-)) then. Just be aware that you don't have to actually read it twice, trollboy. Simon
BenS wrote: > On 06 Mar 2004 12:35:05 GMT, [email protected] > (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote: > >> Interesting article on the culture of speed, and >> worshipping the car. Which does affect us when we are >> cycling - so it isn't OT >> >> Cheers, helen s >> >> >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1161862,- >> 00.html >> >> "The quick and the dead > > Was it really necessary to post the entire article and > post the link? Why not post the link and a summary or post > the article? > > And in other news people do very high speeds daily without > dying, killing anyone or even driving dangerously. I for > one topped 150mph several times this morning and now I'm > off out cycling. Give it time mate, give it time -- Andy Morris AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
Richard Goodman wrote: > > I thought it was a good article, well written, but I still > feel that speed is _not_ the main causative factor in most > RTA's, even if it is a factor in them. Agreed that above a > certain point - and that point may be a point above or > below the posted speed limit - speed alone can be the main > or only causative factor - but below that point for an > accident to occur there has to be some other factor > combined with speed to cause it. That is mostly lack of > sufficient care and attention to road and traffic > conditions, ie failure to exercise basic skills of > observation and anticipation, and that I would suggest is > the main causative factor of most accidents. > > If I had the choice to be on the road as a cyclist with > other road users travelling at _modest_ speeds above the > limit but looking where they are going or with users > travelling at or within the limit but not looking, I know > which I'd prefer and it's not the latter. The single- > minded emphasis on speed as an issue irks me. > I don't buy that whole "high speed's OK if your a really skilful driver like me and pay attention, its all those other idiots who aren't as good as me who cause accidents" thing. If you look at insurance premiums and accidents stats, its clear that young men are heavily over represented in accidents stats, as are people with previous speeding convictions. They think they are fast but highly skilled drivers who can get away with high speed because of their high skill and attentiveness. They are wrong, they are addicted to speed and the sport driving fantasy, their self esteem is dependant on their car ownership and their self perception as quick drivers. Society needs to make clear, its condemnation of their behaviour and remove the glamour of high speed or 'sporting' driving on public roads. Twenty years ago the ability to drive with a skinfull was considered by many as a sign of masculinity, now its the sign of a dick-head. Lets hope it doesn't take that long to realize that only dick-heads break speed limits or suffer a red mist when held up by slower traffic, or can't control the adolescent urge to show off on an open road. If you want to race get on a track. You find out that its a lot harder than it looks, it takes a lot more than a flash car and a bit of nerve and you'll be crap at it unless your practice and train a hell of a lot. -- Andy Morris AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
