Diane Abbott on the speedophiles.

[Earl Purple]

spindrift wrote:
>
> Excessive speed as a contributory factor to personal injury road
> accidents.

Agree but not necessarily above the posted speed limit. On the occasion
when I lost control of my car by taking a bend too fast on 26 September
1996 I was travelling below the posted speed limit. Way below it. I
think the speed limit was 60mph (NSL) and I slowed down to about 40mph
but that wasn't low enough. Subsequently I slowed down to 30mph for
that bend.

(Fortunately the result was no more than a burst tyre but it could have
been worse).

(I can tell you exactly where it happened- it was on the A329
travelling West towards Ascot just after Virginia Water where there is
a double bend).

> "The term excessive speed can be interpreted
> as meaning either excessive for the conditions / location or exceeding
> the speed limit. It is not possible to differentiate between these two aspects.
> Furthermore, excessive speed is not easy to determine after the event and may be
> implied by other contributory factors such as following too close, aggressive driving,
> behaviour - careless, reckless, thoughtless and behaviour - in a hurry."

I would say that it is likely that in close to 100% of the cases where
excessive speed has caused an accident, it was speed excessive for the
conditions.

It is not necessarily caused by aggressive or reckless behaviour. It
could be a simple misjudgement. I guess in many cases it is. When the
above incident occurred I had simply misjudged my ability to maintain
control on the bend.

Note that my incident was never recorded anywhere. No other vehicle was
involved and I didn't need to claim from my own insurance for a busted
wheel.

> In any case excessive speed is the most cited contributory factor is
> fatal accidents (28%) and 7th most cited in all accidents (12%)


> Some of the other big contributory factors (for fatal accidents) are :
> Behaviour - careless/thoughtless/reckless 21%

Needs addressing. Making the driving experience less stressful might
help. That would mean road improvements.

> Inattention 18%

The longer the journey the more chance of that happening. So the slower
you have people going, I would say the odds are going up of
inattention.

> Lack of judgement of own path 17%

I don't get this one exactly. You don't know where you're going? Unless
it's related to poor positioning thus linking together with the below:

> Failed to judge other person's path or speed 16%

Would be better of you didn't have to make such judgements but there
are too many who don't understand the basics of "mirror signal
manouevre". There also just aren't enough different indicators. Perhaps
new cars that instead of just having some lights, have some kind of
panel at the back with a display that lights up their exact intentions?
Then you can indicate for "pulling in to park", "u-turning" etc. Not
that anyone would bother using them.

> Impairment - alcohol 14%

Something really should be done about this.

> Looked but did not see 14%

Most likely bad junction design.

> Failed to look 10%

Why?

> Behaviour - in a hurry 7%

Although speed cameras might help to some extent, road improvements
might also help. If drivers were not held up in the first place they
might not be in such a hurry.

> Aggressive driving 6%

Best addressed by police. These are the drivers who should be removed
from the roads fastest.

> Impairment - fatigue 4%
Surprised this is so low but many probably think they are not too tired
when really they are.
HGV and bus drivers already have leglislation to restrict their hours.
I would like to see this extended to all other professional drivers:
vans, taxis, mini-cabs etc.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 07 Nov, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Will Cove wrote:
>
> > You really don't get it. Like the government, you are fixated on speed even
> > though excessive speed is responsible for comparitively few accidents.
>
> I'm not saying speed is the only thing.

No, no-one is, but if he actually admitted that his entire argument
disapears, and what's a troll to do then?

Let it drop Peter. Please.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Will Cove]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>> However, one part of policy has caused the reduction of traffic
>> police while another part of policy has caused the increase in speed
>> cameras. Ergo, the net effect of current policy has been to replace
>> proper police with speed cameras.
>
> Like David said, you've confused correlation with causation. There is
> nothing to prevent SCPs proliferating while more is spent on traffic
> police /at the same time/. The cameras are not causing the police to
> disappear.

Unfortunately, that's not what's happening. I would have absolutely no
problem with a balanced approach - but that's not what we have.

We now have masses of effort expended on symptoms only of perhaps 3% of
the problem with almost nothing expended on the rest - and it's getting
worse. You can mince around with semantics all you like but the effect is
the same. The very existence of the cameras lets the authorities reduce
proper policing of our roads because if the cameras didn't exist the
public wouldn't let them get away with it.

I don't want to go into too much detail, but the camera partnerships are
hardly the squeakiest of clean. They are more interested in revenue than
either justice or safety. Their expert witnesses are most definitely not
independent, and the courts that try cases for which a FPN is either
refused or unavailable are themselves partners in the scam. I dare say
that speed limit enforcement would gain more public acceptance were in
not in the hands of these mendacious bodies.

In the end, a properly balanced approach between education and
enforcement as well as across all aspects of road safety would probalby
mean lower revenue for the partnerships. For this reason, I feel that
proper road safety is unlikely while those partnerships continue to be
funded from fine revenue.

 

[Will Cove]

"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The fallacy seems to be that a driver not paying attention (exhibiting
> COAST) at under the speed limit will magically do so if left to their
> own devices.

Who's advocating leaving them to their own devices? We need to re-educate
drivers. We used to have the best in the world, but speedophilia on the
part of the authorities and the dumbing down of road safety has had such a
detrimental effect that it will take years (or even decades) to undo the
damage.

> Personally I'd rather have drivers who aren't paying attention
> travelling slower rather than faster.

Personally, I'd rather have drivers paying attention and policies in place
to improve driver skills as opposed to reduce them by dumbing down the
issue.

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Will Cove wrote:
> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> Personally I'd rather have drivers who aren't paying attention
>> travelling slower rather than faster.
>
> Personally, I'd rather have drivers paying attention and policies in place
> to improve driver skills as opposed to reduce them by dumbing down the
> issue.

I want a pony.

 

[Tony Raven]

Daniel Barlow wrote on 07/11/2006 14:21 +0100:
> Will Cove wrote:
>> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> Personally I'd rather have drivers who aren't paying attention
>>> travelling slower rather than faster.
>> Personally, I'd rather have drivers paying attention and policies in place
>> to improve driver skills as opposed to reduce them by dumbing down the
>> issue.
>
> I want a pony.

£25 won't buy you much ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[spindrift]

BigRab wrote:
> I take it that these figures are colleted by Mr Plod from various
> sources but mainly from the perp himself who probably reckons that
> he'll get off lighter if he acts all contrite and says something along
> the lines of, "Yeah, I wasn't really paying attention" when he may have
> indeed been flying along.
>
> I know that witnesses statements will be taken too but the majotity of
> simple cases will just invole the perp himself.
>
> Robert

The trolls here who support the criminal behaviour advocated by Paul
Smith and Safespeed need to realise that the vast majority of drivers
are not very good, something every cyclist knows. Most people who drive
cars are in fact very bad drivers with absolutely no understanding of
what danger they are creating for both themselves and other people who
want to use the roads.
That is the reason that we need a strongly enforced system of speed
control on our road network.


You notice the speedophiles have no response to the crimes they are
party too, nor can they explain why they are right and every
accredited, peer-reviewed speed camera research is wrong.

They have no answer to TRL421:

Among the TRL reports the ABD does not like to cite is TRL 421, "The
effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents" published
in March 2000. Unlike TRL 323, this study was designed to discover the
speed-crash relationship.

The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations
of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found
that

the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are
(and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average
traffic speed)
the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes
there are
Significantly for the ABDs argument, and for the rest of us, they also
found that:

drivers who choose speeds above the average on some roads tend also to
do so on all roads
higher speed drivers are associated with a significantly greater crash
involvement than are slower drivers
For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers
(those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be
reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general
rule' relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every I mph
reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More
specifically, the crash reduction figure is around

6% for urban roads with low average speeds
4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers
care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?
Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
casualties a year.



The authors of TRL 421 suggest that this target (about a sixth of the
overall speed related casualty figure) is a 'reasonable minimum' to aim
for. More importantly they use it to show "the sensitivity of accident
numbers to a small change in average speed". In other words, speeds
that might not seem excessive.

Speeds that TRL323's methodology wouldn't even record.

Thanks to Stephen Plowden, Rosamund Weatherall and DETR

http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1.html

They cannot explain why Linda Mountain's research for Liverpool
University fully endorsed the use of speed cameras nor why she found
that despite RTTM they offer worth while benefits.

They can't explain why Imperial College's research also flatly
contradicts their claims.

They have no answer to Smith's obscene use of dead people to duck
speeding fines, they exhibit a collective amnesia when confronted with
Smith's perversion of justice nor can they explain Smith's very public
humiliation at the hands of George Monbiot:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/22/paul-smith-and-safe-speed-the-self-exposure-of-a-crank/

Nor can they explain why Smith is a laughing stock among proper road
safety groups;

So-called Safe Speed's Paul Smith is often in the news but internet
chatrooms reveal he has surprising views on disabled parking provision.


Paul Smith, one of the ABD's closest stablemates, has been issuing
legal threats to anyone who repeats his words back at him. He told the
Guardian recently he planned to sue it over the statement: "But Mr
Smith's views have caused controversy - he has also questioned the
logic of disabled parking spaces and he has suggested that on one
straight road near his home in Scotland, it is safe to drive at
150mph."

Even Transport 2000 has been sent a "I shall take great pleasure in
informing my lawyers. I shall leave it to them to decide upon
appropriate action" message. This followed an entry on the Transport
2000 website message board that read: "I recommend anyone who sees
Smith's rubbish printed anywhere to contact the organisation and
question whether Smith has any road safety training and why he makes
light of death threats made against the leader of Brake and claims that
it is safe to drive at 150mph on a road near his house."

But transcripts of Paul Smith's conversations on disabled parking
provision in internet chat rooms make the most interesting reading. Try
these for size:


"Personally I don't see why disabled folk should get special
treatment [for parking]."
"How much has to be wrong with my legs before I get a specially
designated parking space?"
"If it goes on like this we'll just have to cripple everyone to
bring them down to the level of the disabled - it's only fair."
"I know full well it's not 'politically correct' to question
(dubious) 'rights' given to disabled people, but I don't give a
damn about political correctness."

Perhaps someone should publish a special collection of Paul Smithisms
in an illustrated coffee table-style book. He could be well advised to
start planning for the Christmas market now.


http://www.transport2000.org.uk/celebrity/maintainEditorDiary.asp?EditorDiaryID=9


Claim: The ABD and other opponents of speed cameras claim that 'speed
doesn't kill'10 and reject the relationship between speed and the
frequency of road crashes.

Reality: Road safety literature overwhelmingly supports the
relationship between speed and both the frequency and severity of
crashes. Crash investigations have established that excessive or
inappropriate speed is a major contributory factor in at least
one-third of all road crashes, making it the single most important
contributory factor to casualties on our roads11. It is understandable
that road safety professionals should make speed management a priority
in casualty reduction strategies.

Studies based on the crash history of 300 sections of road, 2 million
measurements of speed and the self reported crash history of 10,000
drivers conclusively demonstrated the correlation between speed and
crash frequency12. In a given situation, as speed increases, the risk
that a crash will occur also increases (see Figure 1). The findings
reflect the importance of drivers having time to respond to the
unexpected. At higher speeds there is less time to react appropriately.
Crash frequency is related to average speed, the spread of speeds and
the percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit.

Simple physics dictate that injury severity increases with speed.
Figure 2 shows that even slight decreases in speed are beneficial,
especially for death and serious injury. Research by TRL has indicated
that reducing the speeds of the fastest drivers would yield the
greatest benefits in reducing death and injury on the roads13.



http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/otherarticles/PACTS.html


Maybe the resident speed freaks could tell exactky which roads they
speed on so we can keep the Hell away from them?


Maybe they could say why they support the hideous anti-social nature of
speeding, ranked as one of the biggest concerns for people in the
British Crime Survey? Why they think people who live near roads have no
right to enjoy the quietness that slower traffic speeds brings?

Why poor people who live near roads have a much higher chance of having
children killed by speeding cars like the five year old killed by
someone who thought he was the best judge of his car's speed?

Why vulnerable road users shopuld be intimidated off the roads by
speeding drivers?

 

[Will Cove]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1162916762.839885.193330
@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> You notice the speedophiles have no response to the crimes they are
> party too, nor can they explain why they are right and every
> accredited, peer-reviewed speed camera research is wrong.

Spindrift, you're the speedophile. You're obsessed with speed and speeding.

I'm still waiting for you to give one example of an accident that rigid
obedience of the speed limit could have prevented but driving with COAST
could not.

That's all you have to do. Come on, just one example? Please?

Oh well, thought not.

 

[Earl Purple]

>The trolls here who support the criminal behaviour advocated by Paul
> Smith and Safespeed need to realise that the vast majority of drivers
> are not very good, something every cyclist knows. Most people who drive
> cars are in fact very bad drivers with absolutely no understanding of
> what danger they are creating for both themselves and other people who
> want to use the roads.

I do post at the safespeed site but I don't agree with a lot of the
content there.
I am also not sure you fully understand the "safespeed" policy.

I have pointed out many times there that the reason they use speed
limits is
because it is much easier to get a prosecution. It is easier to prove
that a driver
is going at 43mph in a 30mph area than to prove that he is driving
dangerously,
because the former is an hard fact while the latter is an opinion, and
law has to
be based primarily on fact.

If we could have prosecutions of other offences brought based on fact
rather than
opinion that would be useful too. Tailgating is one - if we apply the
2-second rule,
or at least prosecute on a 1-second rule which is where many tailgaters
position
themselves, then it would be easier to secure convictions. Maybe the
technology
for it isn't there right now but it might be in the future.

> That is the reason that we need a strongly enforced system of speed
> control on our road network.

Any time I use the A406 North Circular, most of which is a trunk road,
there are
a couple of nutters who just go as fast as they like, drive to the
backs of anyone
in the fast lane who gets in their way, will use any lane to overtake
if necessary
and should be off the road. Most of them know exactly where the speed
cameras
are and will break at that point then speed up again to continue their
journey.

That road has plenty of cameras yet it doesn't stop them. It is these
drivers I want
to see getting prosecuted which is why I have stated that the cameras
are just
not good enough. A few police patrolling the road will soon show these
drivers their
place.

> The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations
> of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that

> the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are
> (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average
> traffic speed)

Per what? Motorways and trunk roads with grade-separated junctions are
usually the safest roads.

> the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes
> there are

Not surprising. I expected that. Which means that roads with a mixture
of car, bicycle, bus,
lorry, motorcycle and pedestrian traffic is likely to be the most
hazardous.

> For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers
> (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced.

Alternatively you could speed up the slowest drivers. Before you think
my
idea is stupid, I have suggested that NSL single-carriageway should
have
a limit of 50mph for everyone (where 50mph is safe) including HGVs.

Cyclists might use cycle lanes if they were a proper provision, as they
are
in many other countries. Ideally a network where some roads are
designated as
cycle only. These roads should be well-tarmac'ed and brightly lit just
like roads
for cars are now. They should not be shared with pedestrians (although
pedestrians
may well want to cross them and there may be some signal-controlled
crossings to
allow them to do so).

> The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general
> rule' relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every I mph
> reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More
> specifically, the crash reduction figure is around

> 6% for urban roads with low average speeds
> 4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
> 3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
> To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers
> care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?

To be honest, to be able to actually do 20mph constantly on an urban
road in
London in a motor vehicle is a bit of a luxury.

And I wouldn't say no to having 25mph speed limits in certain
locations. But I
also think there should be some 35mph speed limits. And some that
should
vary at different times of day, appropriate to the road conditions.

That is only necessary because of your first comment - that most
drivers are stupid.
That if you make the speed limit 30mph all the time then they'll drive
at 30mph all the time.
If you make it 35mph all the time, they'll drive at 35mph all the time.
And some of the time
that is too fast for the conditions. So they make it slower.

> Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
> average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
> casualties a year.

I am yet to be convinced though that such can be achieved by speed
limits
and their rigid enforcement.

> They have no answer to Smith's obscene use of dead people to duck
> speeding fines, they exhibit a collective amnesia when confronted with
> Smith's perversion of justice nor can they explain Smith's very public
> humiliation at the hands of George Monbiot:

Even Smith would agree it wouldn't help the driver at all if they were
actually
pulled over at the roadside and asked to produce their driving licence,
which
is what we are all saying is what should happen to those who speed.

It may be the case that an otherwise normally safe driver is having a
mad
moment. Now wouldn't it be best to actually stop them in their moment
of madness
before they do any damage, rather than simply send them a fine 2 weeks
later?

< at this point you have a big rant about Paul Smith which is best
answered by
the man himself if he cares to join the debate >

> Maybe the resident speed freaks could tell exactky which roads they
> speed on so we can keep the Hell away from them?
>
> Maybe they could say why they support the hideous anti-social nature of
> speeding, ranked as one of the biggest concerns for people in the
> British Crime Survey? Why they think people who live near roads have no
> right to enjoy the quietness that slower traffic speeds brings?

You do, you have the choice where you live. If you choose to live on
one
of those houses on the A40 Western Avenue then you have chosen to
live on a main highway and expect fast traffic going past your door. If
you
choose instead to live on a private estate with private roads for
access only,
then you'll have such comfort but will probably pay more for it.

Of course there are other things you will have to contend with instead,
eg
a possible higher burglary rate because burglars are more likely to
choose
areas where there are fewer people about.

> Why poor people who live near roads have a much higher chance of having
> children killed by speeding cars like the five year old killed by
> someone who thought he was the best judge of his car's speed?

Does money save you if you get hit by a car? What does being poor have
to
do with it?

But why is there an outrage by the anti-car green activists if anyone
suggests
building a ring-road around villages so that traffic won't have to pass
through?
Because policy is anti-car not anti-safety.

> Why vulnerable road users shopuld be intimidated off the roads by
> speeding drivers?

Because the road network in the UK is a load of **** and current policy
is so
anti-car and so about "today" rather than the future that they won't
invest any
money into improving it.

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> [...snipped another anti-car rant, and anti-rational-road-safety-measures diatribe...]

Many (perhaps most) drivers are probably not fully aware of the risks
they present to other road users, or even the risks they present to
themselves. The main reason for this is possibly that the risks are
minimised by of the robustness of our road engineering, our education,
our technology, and the care most road users take to manage the risk
when their course intersects the course of other road users. Let me
explain what I mean...

Most of our roads have a strip, dedicated to motor vehicles, delineated
by hard kerbs and/or lines. We are educated from an early age to
respect the priority _given_ to motor vehicles (green cross code etc.).
We read the highway code and generally know the 'rules of the road'.
We know what traffic lights mean, and what the white lines and road
signs mean. We know that if we cross the path of a motor vehicle which
has been given, by the lights or kerbs or lines, priority we are in
serious trouble. We adjust our behaviour to take account of these
risks. We give-way, obey lights and, on the whole survive the system.

The orthodox road safety approach is regulation. The goal is to reduce
and contain these risks by order. We have segregated domains for
pedestrian and vehicular traffic, we have defined priorities at
intersections, we have regulations and laws prescribing behaviour, we
have mechanical requirements for vehicles - brakes, lights, seat belts
etc. We have attempted to pen pedestrians behind barriers, dictate when
and where they can cross the road etc. Now, to some extent, all of this
has given quite impressive results over the last century or so. But...

We still haven't eliminated the unexpected and the unpredictable though.
We haven't discovered a way to legislate against accidents, mistakes,
foolishness, laziness, selfishness, bloody-mindedness, so conflict still
occurs. Where it all goes wrong is if the 'unexpected' actually
happens. A lapse in concentration and we step out in front of a car.
We are impatient at give-ways and pull out in front of a vehicle which
cannot stop in time. An excited or naughty child forgets or ignores
what they have been told - and runs where they shouldn't. We, in a
hurry, cross when it isn't our turn. We suffer a mechanical fault and
there is nothing we can do to control the path and/or speed of our
vehicle, so only stop when we hit something. A thrill-seeker drives,
cycles, or plays selfishly and gets it all wrong. A pedestrian asserts
their right to walk unlit in the dark down the middle of the A1. A cow
forgets its manners and wanders onto the road. They are all rare and
unpredictable events, and thus they fool the current, human, risk
management systems, and the regulations.

Attempts have been made, and are being made to ameliorate the
consequences of such lapses. More lines, lights, speed limits,
regulations, enforcement, penalties, punishments, are being added every
day. The results, as seen in our hospitals, are still the same. Have
we have reached the road safety intervention 'terminal velocity'? Can
roads get no safer? Time, perhaps to stand back, do a bit of 'brain
storming'. Read again some of Edward de Bono's work. Look to see if
someone, somewhere else, is having any success.

We know that the faster something is going when it hits something else
the more the damage will be. SOLUTION! Try even harder to force
everything go slower with more penalties and more detection!!! It isn't
working, forget it.

Hang on though! What if nobody 'expected' automatic right-of-way, and
couldn't reasonably anticipate a clear path, sprinkled with rose petals,
to ease their passage. What if nobody, and nothing had precedence over
anything or anyone else? That's ridiculous, how could that work? Well,
who has right-of-way in the pedestrian precinct or railway station
plaza? Are pedestrians constantly crashing into each other? What is
the secret 'speed limit enforcement technique' used to ensure
pedestrians don't keep crashing?

The clue may well be in the human psyche...

--
Matt B

 

[Earl Purple]

>The trolls here who support the criminal behaviour advocated by Paul
> Smith and Safespeed need to realise that the vast majority of drivers
> are not very good, something every cyclist knows. Most people who drive
> cars are in fact very bad drivers with absolutely no understanding of
> what danger they are creating for both themselves and other people who
> want to use the roads.

I do post at the safespeed site but I don't agree with a lot of the
content there. I am also not sure you fully understand the "safespeed"
policy.

I have pointed out many times there that the reason they use speed
limits is because it is much easier to get a prosecution. It is easier
to prove that a driver is going at 43mph in a 30mph area than to prove
that he is driving dangerously, because the former is an hard fact
while the latter is an opinion, and law has to be based primarily on
fact.

If we could have prosecutions of other offences brought based on fact
rather than opinion that would be useful too. Tailgating is one - if we
apply the 2-second rule, or at least prosecute on a 1-second rule which
is where many tailgaters position themselves, then it would be easier
to secure convictions. Maybe the technology for it isn't there right
now but it might be in the future.

> That is the reason that we need a strongly enforced system of speed
> control on our road network.

Any time I use the A406 North Circular, most of which is a trunk road,
there are a couple of nutters who just go as fast as they like, drive
to the backs of anyone in the fast lane who gets in their way, will use
any lane to overtake if necessary and should be off the road. Most of
them know exactly where the speed cameras are and will break at that
point then speed up again to continue their journey.

That road has plenty of cameras yet it doesn't stop them. It is these
drivers I want to see getting prosecuted which is why I have stated
that the cameras are just not good enough. A few police patrolling the
road will soon show these drivers their place.

> The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations
> of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that
> the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are
> (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average
> traffic speed)

Per what? Motorways and trunk roads with grade-separated junctions are
usually the safest roads.

> the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes
> there are

Not surprising. I expected that. Which means that roads with a mixture
of car, bicycle, bus, lorry, motorcycle and pedestrian traffic is
likely to be the most hazardous.

> For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers
> (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced.

Alternatively you could speed up the slowest drivers. Before you think
my idea is stupid, I have suggested that NSL single-carriageway should
have a limit of 50mph for everyone (where 50mph is safe) including
HGVs.

Cyclists might use cycle lanes if they were a proper provision, as they
are in many other countries. Ideally a network where some roads are
designated as cycle only. These roads should be well-tarmac'ed and
brightly lit just like roads for cars are now. They should not be
shared with pedestrians (although pedestrians may well want to cross
them and there may be some signal-controlled crossings to allow them to
do so).

> The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general
> rule' relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every I mph
> reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More
> specifically, the crash reduction figure is around
> 6% for urban roads with low average speeds
> 4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
> 3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
> To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers
> care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed?

To be honest, to be able to actually do 20mph constantly on an urban
road in London in a motor vehicle is a bit of a luxury.

And I wouldn't say no to having 25mph speed limits in certain
locations. But I also think there should be some 35mph speed limits.
And some that should vary at different times of day, appropriate to the
road conditions.

That is only necessary because of your first comment - that most
drivers are stupid. That if you make the speed limit 30mph all the time
then they'll drive at 30mph all the time. If you make it 35mph all the
time, they'll drive at 35mph all the time. And some of the time that is
too fast for the conditions. So they make it slower.

> Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in
> average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious
> casualties a year.

I am yet to be convinced though that such can be achieved by speed
limits and their rigid enforcement.

> They have no answer to Smith's obscene use of dead people to duck
> speeding fines, they exhibit a collective amnesia when confronted with
> Smith's perversion of justice nor can they explain Smith's very public
> humiliation at the hands of George Monbiot:

Even Smith would agree it wouldn't help the driver at all if they were
actually pulled over at the roadside and asked to produce their driving
licence, which is what we are all saying is what should happen to those
who speed.

It may be the case that an otherwise normally safe driver is having a
mad moment. Now wouldn't it be best to actually stop them in their
moment of madness before they do any damage, rather than simply send
them a fine 2 weeks later?

< at this point you have a big rant about Paul Smith which is best
answered by the man himself if he cares to join the debate >

> Maybe the resident speed freaks could tell exactky which roads they
> speed on so we can keep the Hell away from them?
> Maybe they could say why they support the hideous anti-social nature of
> speeding, ranked as one of the biggest concerns for people in the
> British Crime Survey? Why they think people who live near roads have no
> right to enjoy the quietness that slower traffic speeds brings?

You do, you have the choice where you live. If you choose to live on
one of those houses on the A40 Western Avenue then you have chosen to
live on a main highway and expect fast traffic going past your door. If
you choose instead to live on a private estate with private roads for
access only, then you'll have such comfort but will probably pay more
for it.

Of course there are other things you will have to contend with instead,
eg a possible higher burglary rate because burglars are more likely to
choose areas where there are fewer people about.

> Why poor people who live near roads have a much higher chance of having
> children killed by speeding cars like the five year old killed by
> someone who thought he was the best judge of his car's speed?

Does money save you if you get hit by a car? What does being poor have
to do with it?

But why is there an outrage by the anti-car green activists if anyone
suggests building a ring-road around villages so that traffic won't
have to pass through? Because policy is anti-car not anti-safety.

> Why vulnerable road users shopuld be intimidated off the roads by
> speeding drivers?

Because the road network in the UK is a load of **** and current policy
is so anti-car and so about "today" rather than the future that they
won't invest any money into improving it.

 

[Earl Purple]

Matt B wrote:
>
> We know that the faster something is going when it hits something else
> the more the damage will be. SOLUTION! Try even harder to force
> everything go slower with more penalties and more detection!!! It isn't
> working, forget it.
>
> Hang on though! What if nobody 'expected' automatic right-of-way, and
> couldn't reasonably anticipate a clear path, sprinkled with rose petals,
> to ease their passage. What if nobody, and nothing had precedence over
> anything or anyone else? That's ridiculous, how could that work? Well,
> who has right-of-way in the pedestrian precinct or railway station
> plaza? Are pedestrians constantly crashing into each other? What is
> the secret 'speed limit enforcement technique' used to ensure
> pedestrians don't keep crashing?
>
> The clue may well be in the human psyche...

No, the real solution is removing traffic and replacing it with rolling
roads.

Of course you would step on and off in manageable gradients and there
may be seats plus obviously some wheelchair facilities for the
disabled.

Public transport facilities that took shopping trolleys is another
solution. Imagine that you want to do a big shopping trip so you take
your shopping trolley out, travel around on public transport filling it
up, then return. Nice easy way to carry it all around. Cuts out the
number of trips that have to be made by car because only a car can
carry the items.

 

[Matt B]

Earl Purple wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> We know that the faster something is going when it hits something else
>> the more the damage will be. SOLUTION! Try even harder to force
>> everything go slower with more penalties and more detection!!! It isn't
>> working, forget it.
>>
>> Hang on though! What if nobody 'expected' automatic right-of-way, and
>> couldn't reasonably anticipate a clear path, sprinkled with rose petals,
>> to ease their passage. What if nobody, and nothing had precedence over
>> anything or anyone else? That's ridiculous, how could that work? Well,
>> who has right-of-way in the pedestrian precinct or railway station
>> plaza? Are pedestrians constantly crashing into each other? What is
>> the secret 'speed limit enforcement technique' used to ensure
>> pedestrians don't keep crashing?
>>
>> The clue may well be in the human psyche...
>
> No, the real solution is removing traffic and replacing it with rolling
> roads.

LOL! The ultimate PT utopia!

Joking apart, we, collectively, as a civilised population, no more
deserve to be forced to rely on PT, or 'rolling roads', than we deserve
to be forced to live in public dormitories.

Personal choice for personal transport must be preserved and
facilitated, foot, bike, car or whatever, and all should treated and
respected equally.

--
Matt B

 

[Will Cove]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1162916762.839885.193330
@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> The trolls here who support the criminal behaviour advocated by Paul
> Smith and Safespeed

SafeSpeed does not advocate breaking the law. I certainly object to your
libellous bigotry and I'm still waiting for you to give one example of an
accident that could have been prevented by rigid obedience of speed
limits but that could not have been prevented by COAST, which in essence
is the behaviour advocated by SafeSpeed.

So kindly give some evidence to support your bigotry, or accept that your
speedophilia is misplaced.

> need to realise that the vast majority of drivers
> are not very good, something every cyclist knows. Most people who drive
> cars are in fact very bad drivers with absolutely no understanding of
> what danger they are creating for both themselves and other people who
> want to use the roads.

With this, I agree. However, the reason why the vast majority of drivers
are not very good is because road safety is no longer their primary
concern. Government speedophilia and draconian enforcement has far too
many drivers blindly following rules and even dangerously "enforcing"
their rights under those rules. The primary object should be to complete
each journey in safety. However, too many people have lost sight of that
goal and now treat the rules as an end unto themselves. With the rules
becoming the primary focus, people are more likely to feel indignation
when others break those rules and aggressively defend their right of way,
place in a queue, etc. Government speedophilia is promoting exactly that
behaviour - and that's far more dangerous than an occasional couple of
mph over a limit that almost certainly does not represent the maximum
safe speed at the time.

An example of blind rule following and dangerous "enforcement" is the
closing of gaps to "teach speeding queue-jumpers a lesson". While hanging
out a speeding queue-jumper might seem a good thing at the time, just
stop to consider what that action has actually achieved:
- You've put oncoming conflicting traffic in danger
- You've seriously reduced your front safety zone
- You've seriously increased your own likelihood of an accident
Not so clever, huh? Unfortunately, this is precisely the sort of
behaviour that making the obedience of rules (like speed limits) the
primary objective promotes.

> That is the reason that we need a strongly enforced system of speed
> control on our road network.

That is the reason why we need to get away from speedophilia and adopt a
balanced approach that puts promotes holistic appreciation of all the
factors and brings safety, not blind obedience of rules, to the fore.

Just take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKiej7gAWs8 (which has
been sped up - it's only about half that fast IRL). At first, this might
seem like chaos. There's no rigorously enforced speed limits, no traffic
lights, no give way lines, nothing; yet peds, cyclists, motorbikes, cars,
buses, and lorries share the same road space without incident. There are
no collisions and the traffic is flowing a lot more freely than it would
in our rule-obsessed country. To me, this is space and time-based driving
at its best and I admire the skill of those guys. If we could instill
just some of the awareness shown in that film into our own road users,
our roads would be so much safer - and you and I could ride without the
constant fear that some prat's going to knock us off our bikes.

That said, I suspect the average motorist already has some of that skill
and we just need to change mental attitudes to bring it out. A few months
ago, I was driving in the Cotswolds after a lightning strike had taken
out all the traffic lights. People were far more courteous than on
previous occasions. They seemed to be seeing *each other* rather than
mere vehicles and traffic flowed more smoothly than I'd seen before at
that time of day.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Will Cove wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:1162916762.839885.193330 @h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The trolls here who support the criminal behaviour advocated by Paul
>> Smith and Safespeed
>
> SafeSpeed does not advocate breaking the law. I certainly object to
> your libellous bigotry

Oh, just ********, won't you.

This is tangential at best to recreational cycling.

A wee trawl through safespeed's site leads to this darkly amusing anecdote,
though:

(from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/humpfinal.pdf)
18 September 1939: I set off slowly on the Great North Road. At Ferrybridge,
a cyclist shot out of a sideroad straight across the major road. I swerved
and just managed to miss him by inches. He pedalled on furiously and went
head first into iron railings on the far side verge...

22 September: The old cyclist from Ferrybridge is going to survive...His son
had been killed on that crossroads quite recently and the old man had sworn
never to stop for a car again in his life. (Countess of Ranfurly)

Utterly Irrelevant, of course.

A

 

[Will Cove]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <firstname+'n'@gmail.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Will Cove wrote:
>> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:1162916762.839885.193330 @h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> The trolls here who support the criminal behaviour advocated by Paul
>>> Smith and Safespeed
>>
>> SafeSpeed does not advocate breaking the law. I certainly object to
>> your libellous bigotry
>
> Oh, just ********, won't you.
>
> This is tangential at best to recreational cycling.

I'd say that road safety is pretty essential to me enjoying recreational
cycling. For that, I'd say it's a key issue to anyone who either rides
(or wishes it was safe to ride) on the public highway.

>
> A wee trawl through safespeed's site leads to this darkly amusing
> anecdote, though:
>
> (from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/humpfinal.pdf)
> 18 September 1939: I set off slowly on the Great North Road. At
> Ferrybridge, a cyclist shot out of a sideroad straight across the
> major road. I swerved and just managed to miss him by inches. He
> pedalled on furiously and went head first into iron railings on the
> far side verge...
>
> 22 September: The old cyclist from Ferrybridge is going to
> survive...His son had been killed on that crossroads quite recently
> and the old man had sworn never to stop for a car again in his life.
> (Countess of Ranfurly)
>
> Utterly Irrelevant, of course.

Perhaps not. It does reveal your nefariousness. That you should spout off
without even checking your reference also suggests just how deeply rooted
speedophilia is in you. The date (1939) should have been a massive clue -
how on earth did you miss that! Could you please indicate where and how
your quote, which describes something far in the past, even suggests that
SafeSpeed advocates breaking the law?

For anyone who hasn't got the time to check properly, the bit that
Ambrose quoted was actually inserted as an introduction either by Dr
Mervyn Stone (who wrote the report) or by the BBC (who published it).
Whichever, the quote wasn't written by Paul Smith. Here's the text in
better context:

--------8<-----------
I am therefore left with an acceptance of the hypothetical stance, which
I will complement with the following comment on the DfT program. The
"roll out" of safety cameras by separate Safety Partnerships was
initiated by DoT. Its management was placed in the hands of the private
sector company PA Consulting Group. This "cost recovery" program has
failed except for the HMT requirement that it should be self-financing.
There has been a failure to design the program so that it would provide
the information needed to evaluate alternative ways of getting the
benefits of speed camera enforcement. The emphasis on political
acceptability has led the program down a cul-de-sac in which essential
public trust has been lost. The mistakes already made should be openly
recognised, and the program should be subjected to a root-and-branch
rethink.

THE WIDER FRAMEWORK
18 September 1939: I set off slowly on the Great North Road. At
Ferrybridge, a cyclist shot out of a side road straight across
the major road. I swerved and just managed to miss him by inches.
He pedalled on furiously and went headfirst into iron railings
on the far side verge...

22 September: The old cyclist from Ferrybridge is going to
survive...His son had been killed on that crossroads quite
recently and the old man had sworn never to stop for a car again
in his life. (Countess of Ranfurly)

The present cacophony and confusion about cameras and humps was entirely
predictable, given the record of government activity concerning road
safety over the last twenty years. With no coherent longterm policy free
from day-to-day political interference, we now run the risk that the
issues will be decided by soundbite and snappy editorial. The pity is
that, underneath the obvious discord, there are many good people doing
good work that could be put together to reach a reasonable compromise
between the two Ss of Safety and Speed. Even good people may find
themselves disagreeing strongly, as do Mr Gifford and Mr Smith, but for
sixty million people unevenly distributed on one small island compromise
is surely better than conflict.

There are two ways of writing the recent history of government activity
as it affects England and Wales. The first would be a bland list of
legislative steps and their Green or White Papers. The second would be
an "inside story" - of how the justifications or excuses for these steps
have been made or obtained from a variety of sources. Both ways of
writing the history are necessary, but the latter is the more essential
if we are to understand the context and shape of the current debate.
-----------------8<-------------------
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/humpfinal.pdf, page 8)

When Dr Mervyn Stone published his summary he said, "Turning now to the
written statement of Mr Smith, the reader should know that I have
downloaded most of the files, acquired most of the papers to which he
referred, and gone through them with as much care and attention as I
could summon. In itself, an achievement of sorts - but paling into
insignificance compared with that of Mr Smith himself. He has single-
handedly taken on the road safety establishment. He has brought to the
fore hitherto neglected questions with admirable forensic skill and
logic. He is a gad fly par excellence whose bite must have already
irritated many in the road safety world who prefer a quieter way of
dealing with issues. His piece is a powerful polemic attacking the
interpretation that others have placed on the body of evidence about the
relationship between speed cameras and accidents."

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Will Cove wrote:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <firstname+'n'@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Will Cove wrote:
>>> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:1162916762.839885.193330 @h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> The trolls here who support the criminal behaviour advocated by
>>>> Paul Smith and Safespeed
>>>
>>> SafeSpeed does not advocate breaking the law. I certainly object to
>>> your libellous bigotry
>>
>> Oh, just ********, won't you.
>>
>> This is tangential at best to recreational cycling.
>
> I'd say that road safety is pretty essential to me enjoying
> recreational cycling. For that, I'd say it's a key issue to anyone
> who either rides (or wishes it was safe to ride) on the public
> highway.

Just to make it absolutely clear on this point.

Do you ride a bike?

Do you ride it on the road?

>>
>> A wee trawl through safespeed's site leads to this darkly amusing
>> anecdote, though:
>>
>> (from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/humpfinal.pdf)
>> 18 September 1939: I set off slowly on the Great North Road. At
>> Ferrybridge, a cyclist shot out of a sideroad straight across the
>> major road. I swerved and just managed to miss him by inches. He
>> pedalled on furiously and went head first into iron railings on the
>> far side verge...
>>
>> 22 September: The old cyclist from Ferrybridge is going to
>> survive...His son had been killed on that crossroads quite recently
>> and the old man had sworn never to stop for a car again in his life.
>> (Countess of Ranfurly)
>>
>> Utterly Irrelevant, of course.
>
> Perhaps not. It does reveal your nefariousness. That you should spout
> off without even checking your reference also suggests just how
> deeply rooted speedophilia is in you. The date (1939) should have
> been a massive clue - how on earth did you miss that! Could you
> please indicate where and how your quote, which describes something
> far in the past, even suggests that SafeSpeed advocates breaking the
> law?

Of course it doesn't.

I find your imputing of my motive very interesting.

I was merely mentioning it as something interesting that I'd found when I
was looking at the safespeed website just now, just to remember what species
of bollocks is posted there. I certainly did not intend to imply that it was
the voice of safespeed or somesuchlike, I was merely trying to salvage
something piquant from my visit.

A

 

[Earl Purple]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
> Of course it doesn't.
>
> I find your imputing of my motive very interesting.
>
> I was merely mentioning it as something interesting that I'd found when I
> was looking at the safespeed website just now, just to remember what species
> of bollocks is posted there. I certainly did not intend to imply that it was
> the voice of safespeed or somesuchlike, I was merely trying to salvage
> something piquant from my visit.
>
> A

I don't get that quote myself but obviously there were lycra louts
about back in 1939 too (even if they didn't actually wear lyrca)

 

[Will Cove]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <firstname+'n'@gmail.com> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>> Oh, just ********, won't you.
>>>
>>> This is tangential at best to recreational cycling.
>>
>> I'd say that road safety is pretty essential to me enjoying
>> recreational cycling. For that, I'd say it's a key issue to anyone
>> who either rides (or wishes it was safe to ride) on the public
>> highway.
>
> Just to make it absolutely clear on this point.
>
> Do you ride a bike?

Yes. I have both a modern hybrid and an ancient MTB.

>
> Do you ride it on the road?

Not as often as I would like. I'm far too worried about safety on main
roads, so when I do ride on roads shared with motorised transport it's
often via back streets and other minor roads. Much of my cycling is on
dedicated trails, like the Coast-to-Coast and Camel trails in Cornwall,
and the Tarka Trail in Devon, and I occasionally take the MTB out on the
moors.

>
>>>
>>> A wee trawl through safespeed's site leads to this darkly amusing
>>> anecdote, though:

[something that isn't attributable to SafeSpeed and quoted way out of
context]

>>
>> Perhaps not. It does reveal your nefariousness. That you should spout
>> off without even checking your reference also suggests just how
>> deeply rooted speedophilia is in you. The date (1939) should have
>> been a massive clue - how on earth did you miss that! Could you
>> please indicate where and how your quote, which describes something
>> far in the past, even suggests that SafeSpeed advocates breaking the
>> law?
>
> Of course it doesn't.
>
> I find your imputing of my motive very interesting.

You're wriggling!

> I was merely mentioning it as something interesting that I'd found
> when I was looking at the safespeed website just now, just to remember
> what species of bollocks is posted there.

Then why not quote something typical? I suspect that you went looking for
anything that seemed remotely anti-cycling but inadvertently quoted out
of context something from a work most likely to put Paul Smith in best
light.

> I certainly did not intend
> to imply that it was the voice of safespeed or somesuchlike, I was
> merely trying to salvage something piquant from my visit.

Pull the other one. If you want to post something of interest, why not
post a link to their cycling forum? Cyclists are, after all, road users.
One of the most prolific posters on the SafeSpeed forums is both a keen
cyclist and a highly skilled, senior traffic police officer. Unlike (it
seems) this group, reasoned argument is welcome no matter what the point
of view. However, ad-hominem and other personal attacks are not. Those
very much in favour of cameras, and even partnership staff, regularly
contribute.

Here you go: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=34

 

[Will Cove]

"Earl Purple" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1162999092.036029.325670
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

> I don't get that quote myself but obviously there were lycra louts
> about back in 1939 too (even if they didn't actually wear lyrca)

Ironically, it's the introduction to one of the chapters of the Stone
report!