On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:33:08 +0100,
Matt B <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Reading the arguments against cycle helmets so eloquently presented by the
> poster "Just zis Guy, you know?" in the concurrent thread "Helmets -
> again!", I see an uncanny resemblance to the "speed camera" debate.
>
Erm, no! (Unless I've misunderstood what the speed camera debate is
about)
The arguments about compulsory helmets is that it deters cyclists for no
measurable (maybe even negative) safety gain.
Were cycle helmets to become compulsory I would either stop cycling or
wear a helmet (actually a bit of both, I'd probably stop the leisure
cycling but continue with the commute atm because it would still be more
pleasant on a bike than on the tube - in my last job I'd probably have
gone back to taking the car)
Now lets go one step further and assume that the "fine" for not wearing
a cycle helmet was 30GBP and that, on average, I would get stopped twice
per year. Then I would probably not wear the helmet because 60 quid a
year really isn't that much to me.
Now introduce "cycle helmet cameras". Now I'm going to get caught every
day because "they" are going to put one on my route. I _still_ wouldn't
campaign against the cameras but against the stupid law that they were
enforcing.
Now lets get to speed cameras. I will accept that there are _some_
speedlimits that could reasonably be higher. Motorways in particular -
all non motorized traffic is excluded as is low powered motor traffic.
Additionally, most of the crash barriers have now been upgraded -
previously the design spec was to stop a car weighing up to 2 tons with
a centre of gravity 21" above the road travelling at 70mph at an angle
of impact of 20 degrees[1] from crossing over onto the other carriage way.
Many 4x4 can trivially exceed three of these four at the same time.
Now the M25 has it right in part because the speed limit is set by the
conditions (and yes they do go wrong occasionally - I've driven round
that bit once at about 11:30pm when there was hardly any traffic at all
and the signs were alternating between 40mph and NSL)
But if the speed limits are wrong then campaign against the speed
limits, not the cameras. But remember that not all speed limits are set
for safety reasons, especially in built up areas.
===
I wish we would switch to the Italian model of flashing amber lights at
night rather than red/green. Not for safety reasons but for noise. Cars
doing 30->20->30 are pretty quiet (unless you've got a really stupid
driver) 30->0->30 is inevitably more noisy.
(Additionally, as a cyclist, a significant number of lights don't change
so you are forced to go through on red - I know there is no reason for
the lights to behave like this but that is how a lot are set up - and if
I'm approaching a junction at 15mph (where I'm going to have to go
through on red anyway) it's safer to maintain that speed than stop, wait
to see if I've been detected this time, decide no and then pull away
from rest across a junction that is 60-80 feet wide. At 15mph I can
clear the junction in 4 seconds. Assuming an average of 7mph it takes 8
seconds and the idiot in the car doing 55mph towards a green light can
get me from over 1/10 of a mile away - I couldn't even see the car when
I made the decision to go! (actually this particular problem has never
happened to me but I used to have to (effectively) cross the sliproad of
the M1 into Hemel and I have had cars I couldn't even see when I joined
the roundabout blast their horns at me because they can do 800 feet in
the time it takes me from rest, uphill to do 60 (especially if I miss
the clip in) and they couldn't exit the roundabout because I was in the
way. (I know that they have to give way to traffic on the roundabout and
what I did was correct but it doesn't make it a pleasant experience)
Two glasses of wine and one rambling paragraph later, I'm off to make
something to eat
Tim.
--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.
http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
