Re: Cyclist rant: back in black

[Steve Walker]

In message <[email protected]>, JLB
<[email protected]> writes
>Steve Walker wrote:
>> In message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
>><[email protected]> writes
>>
>>> Steve Walker wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't really care if people break the 70 limit on the dual
>>>>carriageway. It's not antisocial and it isn't necessarily dangerous.
>>>>The enforcement of 30/40 limits in built-up areas should be their
>>>>priority, and the fact that it isn't makes me suspicious of their motives.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Its one of those tolerance things though isn't it. If you accept
>>>people speeding on motorways, then they develop the habit that speed
>>>limits don't matter and then speeding becomes more prevalent
>>>elsewhere. See for example the experience of zero tolerance policing
>>>in New York.
>> Unfortunately, I think it has the opposite effect, by bringing the
>>law into disrepute. You can see this when you see the government
>>responding to criticism of the speeding enforcement policy by
>>suggesting reducing to two points the penalty for doing 39 in a 30 or
>>50 in a 40. That's just ludicrous, but it's a knee-jerk reaction to
>>enforcement which seems not to be focused on reducing risk.
>>
>Too right it's ludicrous. The government (and the opposition) make
>themselves look like complete idiots by their indulgent attitude to
>criminals caught committing crimes. If there's a speed limit it should
>be enforced if it's right, or, if it's wrong, changed. What is not ever
>right is to set a limit and not enforce it.

I think the core of the problem is that people don't see the sense in
some of the limits. Introducing variable limits on motorways would be a
good step towards rectifying that. The infrastructure to monitor them
already exists, and it wouldn't take a lot of technology to implement
real-time variation in limits. Raise the limit when the road is clear
and the weather good, reduce it when it isn't, and enforce it. Review
the existing limits, and make sure that people know that if a road is a
30 it's for a damn good reason and will be enforced. 30s and 40s are, in
my opinion, by and large either appropriately set or too high, although
I've seen a few exceptions.

--
Steve Walker

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>>> 1. You want cyclists licensed and tested. I say the benefits are
>>> far outweighed by the disbenefits.

>>No, I say there *may* be a benefit, and to dismiss it out of hand is
>>over-simplistic.

> Nobody did dismiss it out of hand. We considered it quite carefully.
> Then dismissed it.

Don't you remember your maths homework? "Show your workings"

 

[Adrian]

Steve Walker ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

> I think the core of the problem is that people don't see the sense in
> some of the limits. Introducing variable limits on motorways would be
> a good step towards rectifying that. The infrastructure to monitor
> them already exists, and it wouldn't take a lot of technology to
> implement real-time variation in limits.

M25.

One small problem...

If it says a reduced limit, there's a 50/50 chance that you're stationary
or the motorway's completely clear and they've not raised the limit yet.

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

>>**Speeding is not inherently unsafe.**

> It does, however, inherently increase both risk and consequences of
> crashing.

No, inattention does that.

Speeding is *sometimes* a symptom of inattention.

How many doctors treat the symptom and ignore the cause?
"You've got lung cancer - I'm prescribing benilyn for your cough"

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Adrian
('[email protected]') wrote:

> David Martin ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>>> **Speeding is not inherently unsafe.**
>
>> Do you have an absolute definition of safety?
>
> As has been pointed out by Guy elsewhere, 100% safety is not
> physically possible. Beyond that point, it's all down to risk
> mitigation.
>
> Doing 80mph on a motorway is far less unsafe than doing 29mph past a
> school at kicking-out time.
>
> One is "speeding", one isn't.

No, they're both speeding. One is breaking the limit, the other isn't.

> "Speeding" (per se) is an absolutely victimless "crime",

On the contrary, as I've pointed out before, speeding (per se) kills
more people in Britain every year than all other crime put together.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This mind intentionally left blank ]

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Adrian
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Richard ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>>> "Speeding" (per se) is an absolutely victimless "crime",
>
>> Wrong. Quite apart from the involvements in crashes
>
> Which aren't "speeding". They're "crashes".

Ah! So shooting rifles at people isn't murder. It's only the bullets
hitting people that's murder. I see now.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 10 Mar 2005 15:27:52 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>One is "speeding", one isn't. Yet "Speed Kills" is what's plastered
>everywhere.

Which statement is perfectly true. All other things being equal, the
faster you go the higher the risk (and consequences) of crashing.

>Motorways are the safest roads in this country and in many
>others.

So they should be, given the small number of junctions, lane
separation, long sight-lines, no cross-turning traffic and so on. In
fact I am constantly surprised that, given the design of them, people
manage to crash at all.

Too and as well, motorway journeys are typically longer than
non-motorway, so the per-journey figure looks worse. And of course
there are no vulnerable road users on motorways. In terms of killed
per hour or killed per mile I think urban B roads might even be
slightly safer, it's hard to tell because the casualty and mileage
figures are presented differently.

But all this means is that motorways are engineered so as to allow a
higher speed to be tolerably safe, it is not speed that makes them
safe, it's the other way round. Our (speed limited) motorways are
safer than the Autobahns. It is still the case that the faster the
traffic moves on a given road the more likely there is to be a crash
and the more likely that crash is to result in injury.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Peter Amey]

Adrian wrote:
> Peter Amey ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
>
>
>>And wasn't it Adrian who said that everyone should concentrate 100%
>>all of the time? So how can going faster increase concentration?
>
>
> Simple. Because people don't do what they should be doing.

Which is precisely why they have to be regulated. Including restricting
the speed at which they drive so that the consequences of them "not
doing what they should be doing" are less serious.

Peter

--

www.amey.org.uk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:38:48 +0000, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>"Speeding" (per se) is an absolutely victimless "crime"

>Again, a view of things from behind a windscreen.

Also the quotes around crime are superfluous. Whatever the militant
cagers might like to think, speeding is covered by criminal law.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Peter Amey]

Adrian wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying :
>
>
>>>**Speeding is not inherently unsafe.**
>
>
>>It does, however, inherently increase both risk and consequences of
>>crashing.
>
>
> No, inattention does that.
>
> Speeding is *sometimes* a symptom of inattention.
>

But given that human beings are fallible, there will always be, despite
our best efforts, a certain degree of inattention about. Limiting speed
limits the consequences of that inattention. Those that are so
inattentive to fail to spot yellow cameras preceded by warning signs
lose their licences; I count that as a bonus.

I am willing to concede that in perfect world where no one is
inattentive; everyone cares as much about others as they do themselves;
everyone drives taking account of what they can see to be clear; that
speed limits might not be needed. Utopia not being on offer, speed
limits are a useful part of the overall safety balance.

Peter

--

www.amey.org.uk

 

[Adrian]

Peter Amey ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

>>>And wasn't it Adrian who said that everyone should concentrate 100%
>>>all of the time? So how can going faster increase concentration?

>> Simple. Because people don't do what they should be doing.

> Which is precisely why they have to be regulated. Including restricting
> the speed at which they drive so that the consequences of them "not
> doing what they should be doing" are less serious.

Personally, I'd far rather have them paying attention than being even more
on autopilot because they're travelling slower. Maybe I'm odd like that.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 10 Mar 2005 16:39:24 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Does a small car doing 80 emit more pollution than a large 4x4 doing 60?

Does a small car doing 80 emit less than a small car doing 60? Oh
yes. Goodbye, Mr Straw, nice meeting you.

>> increased costs of policing

>If they don't crash, how? Exclude "speeding offences" from your answer,
>please. Bear in mind that "safety cameras" <washes mouth out> are a revenue
>creater for most local authorities.

If they don't crash. Which, given that the probability and severity
of crashes rises with traffic speed on any given road type, is a big
"if". Interestingly the types of driver most likely to speed, young
males and middle-aged males in company cars, both have, mileage
adjusted, a significantly higher rate of both crashes and speeding
convictions than average. There's quite a strong correlation between
multiple speeding convictions and crash involvement, according to the
stats.

And local authorities make no money from cameras, the surplus is
returned to central government funds.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:25:30 +0000, Steve Walker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Straw man. The question you should be asking is, does a small car
>>doing 80 pollute more than the same small car doing 60? Does a large
>>4x4 doing 60 pollute more than the same 4x4 doing 40? Etc. (Clue: the
>>answer is "yes").

>And therefore, to reduce emissions, speed should be restricted by law?
>In which other areas of life would you introduce such sanctions? Limits
>on central heating thermostats? Ownership of manufactured goods? Travel
>by public transport? Or just speed?

Funny you should mention that, during the oil crisis when people drove
more slowly to conserve fuel the casualty rate went down quite
markedly. So it sounds like rather a good idea to me.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

> Funny you should mention that, during the oil crisis when people drove
> more slowly to conserve fuel the casualty rate went down quite
> markedly. So it sounds like rather a good idea to me.

Ah, sorry - thought you'd already said that the curve was linear, apart
from a surge when seatbelts came in.

Do you have a URL for this amazing curve that bends to fit all claims?

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:15:10 GMT someone who may be Badger
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>They also set a bad example: Hants scamera partnership (safety camera)
>service van, driven by a non-police employee, speeding along Highlands
>Road Fareham at 40 PLUS mph in a 30, driver brakes to ~30 as he knows
>the scamera is loaded, passes scamera, accelerates again. Two weeks
>later having removed the camera to relocate it in another yellow box on
>a pole previously said van passes scamera at ~40 mph, the driver safe in
>the knowlege its unloaded.

Did you report it?

>Yes some police forces are active with mobile units, hand-held units,
>vascar etc, but in the main actual patrolling traffic policing has
>virtually stopped,

That is not the case in Scotland. I do believe the comment has more
validity in the south.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:19:05 +0000, Steve Walker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I think it has the opposite effect, by bringing the law
>into disrepute.

You think? The strongest pressure for more cameras to be fitted
generally comes from local residents. These days, because of the
militant motoring lobby, this can't be done until people have been
killed or seriously injured. Now that really is bringing the law into
disrepute.

It's funny that there is no such criticism of, for example, clampdowns
on pavement cycling, litter dropping, public drunkenness and a variety
of other low-grade nuisances which are rather less associated with
increased risk of death and injury.

You may be interested to note that I can trace opposition to speed
enforcement back to the first years of the last century. Pretty much
from the dawn of the motor car, in fact.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:56:37 +0000, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:

>No. It doesn't say "I am weak therefore I should not look at all". It
>puts the onus onto the driver as they are the one capable of causing the
>most harm. It's all about emphasis. The greater the risk you pose to
>others, the greater the responsibility you have.

Precisely. We must both look, but you must look harder because the
consequences of your not looking fall entirely on me.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

> Precisely. We must both look, but you must look harder because the
> consequences of your not looking fall entirely on me.

So a cyclist doesn't need to pay as much attention as a driver does?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:54:03 -0000, Mark McNeill
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands have the safest roads in Europe,
>aided by rigid enforcement of drink-drive and seatbelt laws."

Saw that, replied:

I was interested to see you crediting, in part, the compulsory use of
seat belts for our "road safety" record. I thought that fiction had
been nailed by now?

The Department of Transport already knew that seat belt laws do not
save lives before the law was passed, thanks to the work of John
Adams, as confirmed by the Isles Report. The seat belt law did make
one crucial difference, though: a significant and sustained rise in
the number of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities. Belted drivers felt
(and probably were) safer, and they consumed at least part of that
safety as a performance benefit.

A small reduction in overall fatalities can be traced to a significant
decline in the numbers of drivers found to be drunk at the scene of
crashes. For the rest the main effect of the law was to shift even
further the unequal balance of danger on the roads. An unusual slip
for the Guardian, I'm sure George Monbiot will be on to you about
it...

As to whether our roads are really safer, I invite you to walk around
a British town some time. Are we really safer, or have we just scared
the vulnerable off the streets? Certainly our child pedestrian safety
record looks very poor, despite the restrictions we place on
children's independent mobility these days.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Not Responding]

njf>badger< wrote:

> The M27 being a test area for new tech has had ANPR along its length for
> years,
> so now the side roads get all the knowlegeable illegal drivers

I understand that the coverage extends/will extend beyond the m-way.

> Add the ANPR on petrol station forecourts (as up north is trying) and
> slowly big brother will catch up with them, the rest of us will just
> have to be happy BB is constantly watching US for the slightest sign of
> deviant (from their specification) behaviour.

I'm right up there in the fight against ID cards and other big
brotherisms but I'm fairly relaxed when it comes to tracking cars. It's
a transport system that's being monitored, not people. It's such a
lethal system at the moment that more control and monitoring of motor
vehicles within it is long overdue.