Mad old scarecrow encourages assaults on road users.



Clive George wrote:
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> She was on GMTV this morning with the CTC chap and he tried to put
>>>> it into persective by saying it is a minority and they are in the
>>>> wrong but no more so than car drivers who do the same etc.
>>>

>> <...>
>>> If the account she gave in the house was accurate, the cyclist had it
>>> coming - anyone within reach of a pedestrian on a crossing showing
>>> the green man deserves to be grateful if they get away with just a
>>> swipe of a bag.

>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>>> I must say I do not subscribe to the theory that if they are in the
>>> house of lords they must be intellectually deficient lying
>>> incompetents. The last ten years or so I'd have rather been ruled by
>>> the HoL than the HoC.

>>
>> Hear! hear! Sorry, we agree ;-)

>
> But why did you not point out that if there weren't any traffic lights,
> we'd be in nirvana and this incident wouldn't have happened anyway?


Because I thought it was obvious ;-)

BTW, did you watch Newsnight last night, with the interesting piece by
Martin Cassini, including contributions from the late, great, Hans
Monderman, and followed by a discussion with Martin Cassini and Robert
Gifford of PACTS?

--
Matt B
 
"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> BTW, did you watch Newsnight last night, with the interesting piece by
> Martin Cassini, including contributions from the late, great, Hans
> Monderman, and followed by a discussion with Martin Cassini and Robert
> Gifford of PACTS


I did.

The polemic bit was essentially: Get rid of traffic lights and trust drivers
to modify behavior accordingly.

The rebuttal was: For that to work, you need to design your road system from
scratch, as Holland did after WW2. We are stuck with a 17th, 18th & 18th
century road layout which we are trying to make work in the 21st century.
Lights are necessary.

pk
 
PK wrote:
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> BTW, did you watch Newsnight last night, with the interesting piece by
>> Martin Cassini, including contributions from the late, great, Hans
>> Monderman, and followed by a discussion with Martin Cassini and Robert
>> Gifford of PACTS

>
> I did.
>
> The polemic bit was essentially: Get rid of traffic lights and trust
> drivers to modify behavior accordingly.


Based on observation at out-of-order traffic lights, and from various
schemes deliberately omitting traffic lights, at various places around
the world, including in the UK.

> The rebuttal was: For that to work, you need to design your road system
> from scratch, as Holland did after WW2.


Yes, he thought he was clever, didn't he. He didn't explain why it also
appears to work in other places, such as the UK, and in old street layouts.

> We are stuck with a 17th, 18th &
> 18th century road layout which we are trying to make work in the 21st
> century.


Which is why we need to throw away the early 20th century interventions,
such as giving one road priority over the other at junctions, and go
back to first principles. What we have now is based, not on research
and evidence, but on opinion, "intuition", and "here's a good idea".

> Lights are necessary.


For what? Try telling that to the good people of Pontefract.

--
Matt B
 
PK said the following on 15/01/2008 17:20:

> Lights are necessary.


Not necessarily! I live near a traffic-light "controlled" junction of a
minor road onto a major road. When the traffic lights are working,
there are long queues of stationary traffic idling exhaust fumes into my
house, cars jump the lights, there's hooting and crashes, and peds have
to get across the quite wide main road with no central refuge in between
the last few cars that RLJed and the green man going back to red. As
often happens, these lights break down. The traffic queues all
disappear, therefore there are plenty of gaps for traffic to emerge from
the side road and for pedestrians to cross. It all generally flows much
better and everything is quieter and more pleasant.

Oh, both roads have been around for hundreds of years!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Matt B wrote:
> What we have now is based, not on research
> and evidence, but on opinion, "intuition", and "here's a good idea".


Bit like cycle helmets then :)
 
Andrew May wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> What we have now is based, not on research
>> and evidence, but on opinion, "intuition", and "here's a good idea".

>
> Bit like cycle helmets then :)


Well, at least there /is/ research, and peer reviewed research at that,
looking at the use of those.

See if you can find any which concludes that one road should have
complete priority over another at a cross-roads.

How about some that concludes that the congestion, danger, and
frustration caused by giving one road complete priority over another is
best solved by adding traffic lights. Thus ensuring that for most of
the day, traffic has to wait for a certain length of time on each cycle
for nothing other than the light to change.

How about some that proves the need to have red showing all ways
simultaneously.

--
Matt B
 
Paul Boyd wrote:
> calum said the following on 15/01/2008 12:29:
>
>> It seems to me that suddenly confronted with a threat she lashed out
>> in a reflexive act (fight or flight). She did not lay in wait with
>> premeditation to attack the cyclist, which is what you have proposed
>> for errant car drivers (in jest or otherwise).

>
> That does seem to be the crux of the matter. I've walloped cars whose
> drivers have deliberately or otherwise scared the **** out of me as a
> cyclist or a pedestrian - not as a revenge thing but just as an
> instinctive reaction. Something attacks, you attack back.


I have done that several times as a pedestrian. And only once on my
bike, and that was after the driver had tried to knock me off about
three or four times.
 
On 15 Jan 2008 10:06:04 GMT, Mark T wrote:

>> [6 quoted lines suppressed]

>
> Some idiot nearly runs down an 84 year old lady and gets clobbered for it.
> Good on her!


Hmmm old lady, you mean leech on society. She get up to £48k per year for
doing nothing, given the job for doing nothing.

Steve
 
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:20:34 -0000, "PK" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> BTW, did you watch Newsnight last night, with the interesting piece by
>> Martin Cassini, including contributions from the late, great, Hans
>> Monderman, and followed by a discussion with Martin Cassini and Robert
>> Gifford of PACTS

>
>I did.
>
>The polemic bit was essentially: Get rid of traffic lights and trust drivers
>to modify behavior accordingly.
>
>The rebuttal was: For that to work, you need to design your road system from
>scratch, as Holland did after WW2. We are stuck with a 17th, 18th & 18th
>century road layout which we are trying to make work in the 21st century.
>Lights are necessary.


Why do they put traffic lights on new roads and roundabouts then?

M.
 
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:16:11 +0000, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>spindrift wrote:
>> On 15 Jan, 10:06, Mark T
>> <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>> When a veteran Tory baroness spotted a cyclist jumping a red light and
>>>> almost running her down outside the House of Lords she did not
>>>> hesitate to act.
>>>> In the grand tradition of political handbaggings, Lady Sharples swung
>>>> her bag and delivered the errant rider a sharp blow.
>>> Some idiot nearly runs down an 84 year old lady and gets clobbered for it.
>>> Good on her!

>>
>> "Some idiot nearly runs down an 84 year old lady and gets clobbered
>> for it. "
>>
>> No evidence.

>
>If you are about to be hit by someone, what other evidence do you need?
>
>> No witness.

>
>If you are about to be hit by someone, would you wait for some witnesses
>to assemble before taking defensive action?
>
>> No CCTV.

>
>How is that relevant?
>
>> No charges, no arrests.

>
>Ah, that /proves/ it didn't happen in your view, does it?
>
>> Let's follow Sharple's argument, although the cyclists didn't actually
>> hit her, he scared her enough for her to lash out.

>
>She was obviously quick-witted enough, and managed to defend herself
>from him.
>
>> Now, since KSI rates are plainly a blinkered, narrow-minded way of
>> assessing the impact speeding drivers have

>
>In fact they are /not/ a way of assessing the impact of speeding drivers
>at all. You need first to find a correlation between speeding and
>casualties, /then/ you need to establish that the link is causal. To
>establish speeding as causal you would need to be able to demonstrate
>that the number of collisions would reduce if less speeding occurred,
>and increase if more speeding occurred. The easiest way to reduce
>speeding is to increase the speed limit, and the amount of speeding can
>be increased by reducing the speed limit.


Partly I agree. Excessive speed is a _symptom_ of bad driving & not
the cause. However collisions that happen at higher speeds are likely
to be worse. The real problem is the person behind the wheel. If
he/she is inexperienced then they may be able to improve. If the
driver is overly aggressive there is nothing that can be done and they
should be banned from driving permanently. I see these people every
day when they come up inches behind my rear wheel, revving their
engine, and overtake when it is not safe, leaving much too little room
when passing.

I think one of the problems with speed limits is the way they are
perceived. No longer are they seen as actual speed limits but as
targets to reach. This means that more drivers do not slow down
below the speed limit when it is not safe to travel at that speed.

M.
 
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:41:17 +0000 someone who may be Mark
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>The rebuttal was: For that to work, you need to design your road system from
>>scratch, as Holland did after WW2. We are stuck with a 17th, 18th & 18th
>>century road layout which we are trying to make work in the 21st century.
>>Lights are necessary.

>
>Why do they put traffic lights on new roads and roundabouts then?


Indeed.

Roundabouts work reasonably well, for motorists, provided that there
is not too much traffic and the flows on each arm are reasonably
balanced.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:41:17 +0000 someone who may be Mark
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >>The rebuttal was: For that to work, you need to design your road system from
> >>scratch, as Holland did after WW2. We are stuck with a 17th, 18th & 18th
> >>century road layout which we are trying to make work in the 21st century.
> >>Lights are necessary.

> >
> >Why do they put traffic lights on new roads and roundabouts then?

>
> Indeed.
>
> Roundabouts work reasonably well, for motorists, provided that there
> is not too much traffic and the flows on each arm are reasonably
> balanced.


Agreed. If roundabouts were designed to encourage slower speeds, I
suspect they would work rather better when traffic flows are out of
balance. The speed at which traffic hurtles round the roundabout where I
get on the motorway each morning can be more than just alarming. In
order to join the roundabout one needs to be reasonably confident of
matching the speed of vehicles already on the roundabout quite quickly.
It is one of the few junctions where, as a cyclist, I will only use the
segregated lane.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think one of the problems with speed limits is the way they are
> perceived. No longer are they seen as actual speed limits but as
> targets to reach. This means that more drivers do not slow down
> below the speed limit when it is not safe to travel at that speed.


A few years ago, a friend of mine who was working towards, IIRC, the
IAM's Advanced Driving Test, insisted to me that one must travel at the
speed limit in order not to be a hazard to other traffic. No matter how
many counter-examples I gave (fog, ice, a slick of melted chocolate), he
insisted that his instructor had taught him this and he would fail if he
didn't keep up to the limit. To him it appeared only important that he
keep to the two-second rule. Scarily, he passed.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
In message <1iavl8r.13h5i885h4tmN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.
com>
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

> Scarily, he passed.


Then it's likely he learned what his instructors meant beforehand.
Adk him now?

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC;IAM.
 
Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email protected]>:
>A few years ago, a friend of mine who was working towards, IIRC, the
>IAM's Advanced Driving Test, insisted to me that one must travel at the
>speed limit in order not to be a hazard to other traffic.


You'd almost think the IAM were pushing the standard Toad risk
compensatory line where you improve your skill in order to go faster not
to be less dangerous.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Tuesday, January.
 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In message <1iavl8r.13h5i885h4tmN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.
> com>
> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:
>
> > Scarily, he passed.

>
> Then it's likely he learned what his instructors meant beforehand.
> Adk him now?


I suspect he learnt nothing different as he passed the test within days
of the discussion. Sadly, he's now moved away and we've lost touch.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:51:58 GMT,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I think one of the problems with speed limits is the way they are
>> perceived. No longer are they seen as actual speed limits but as
>> targets to reach. This means that more drivers do not slow down
>> below the speed limit when it is not safe to travel at that speed.

>
>A few years ago, a friend of mine who was working towards, IIRC, the
>IAM's Advanced Driving Test, insisted to me that one must travel at the
>speed limit in order not to be a hazard to other traffic. No matter how
>many counter-examples I gave (fog, ice, a slick of melted chocolate), he
>insisted that his instructor had taught him this and he would fail if he
>didn't keep up to the limit. To him it appeared only important that he
>keep to the two-second rule. Scarily, he passed.


I'm very surprised at this. I've done the RoSPA advanced training (on
a motorbike) and we were encouraged to go up to the speed limit, but
only where it was safe to do so. I would have thought the IAM would
be the same.

If you crawled around slowly everywhere you would fail and the same if
you rode/drove too fast.

M.
 
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:51:58 GMT,
> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:


> >A few years ago, a friend of mine who was working towards, IIRC, the
> >IAM's Advanced Driving Test, insisted to me that one must travel at the
> >speed limit in order not to be a hazard to other traffic. No matter how
> >many counter-examples I gave (fog, ice, a slick of melted chocolate), he
> >insisted that his instructor had taught him this and he would fail if he
> >didn't keep up to the limit. To him it appeared only important that he
> >keep to the two-second rule. Scarily, he passed.

>
> I'm very surprised at this. I've done the RoSPA advanced training (on
> a motorbike) and we were encouraged to go up to the speed limit, but
> only where it was safe to do so. I would have thought the IAM would
> be the same.
>
> If you crawled around slowly everywhere you would fail and the same if
> you rode/drove too fast.


That makes sense to me.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>